For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
July 19, 2004
Press Briefing by Scott McClellan
The James S. Brady Briefing Room
1:52 P.M. EDT
MR. McCLELLAN: I have one announcement to update on the
President's schedule today. At 2:30 p.m.
today, the President will
meet with a group of Iraqi women and wounded American soldiers. The
Iraqi women were scheduled to meet with a group of senior
administration officials. These women asked that they be able to thank
some American troops for all that they have done for the people of
Iraq. So Secretary Wolfowitz will be bringing a group of wounded
service personnel to the White House. The President looks forward to
meeting with them in the Oval Office. This will be open to stills at
the bottom, and we would ask that all the stills gather in the drive at
2:15 p.m., so that you don't interrupt the briefing here. And I also
expect that some of the Iraqi women will be going to the stakeout.
And then I have one other announcement to make on the President's
schedule. The President will welcome Prime Minister Nastase of Romania
to the White House on July 21st. Romania is a stalwart NATO ally of
the United States and a key contributor to the international effort to
help the people of Iraq. The President looks forward to discussing
with Prime Minister Nastase the war on terrorism, Afghanistan and Iraq,
NATO's agenda following the Istanbul summit, and international efforts
to support reform in the broader Middle East.
The President looks forward to discussing United Nations issues
with the Prime Minister, given Romania's presidency of the United
Nations Security Council this month. The two leaders, I expect, will
also review Romania's continuing political and economic reforms.
And that's all I've got. I'll be glad to go to your questions.
John, go ahead.
Q Scott, does the President believe that a single über
intelligence czar with a Cabinet-level appointment -- does he believe
that that person would be able to effectively oversee the myriad
intelligence agencies of the U.S. government? And does he believe that
the creation of such a Cabinet position would ignite a turf battle over
budget?
MR. McCLELLAN: Let me make a couple of comments and then come to
your specific question there. The President greatly appreciates the
hard work of the 9/11 Commission. And he looks forward to seeing the
recommendations that they'll be making later this week. The President
is very much open to ideas that build upon the reforms we are already
implementing. The President has taken a number of steps to improve our
intelligence-gathering and our intelligence capabilities. We worked to
create the Terrorist Threat Integration Center. We worked to pass the
Patriot Act, to knock down the wall between law enforcement and
intelligence. And we also are continuing to work to transform the FBI,
so that its primary mission is counterterrorism now.
But the President looks forward to seeing what the recommendations
are. I know there are a lot of press reports about that, and certainly
we want to look at all the issues that the 9/11 Commission has looked
at to come to the conclusion that they will make certain
recommendations. One area that you want to look at is that you want to
make sure that the intelligence continues to be something that is
independent, and you want to strengthen its independence. So that's
one area you want to keep in mind, as well, when you're looking at
ideas to build upon the reforms that we're implementing.
The intelligence community has always maintained a sense of
independence, and it's important to maintain that or strengthen that as
we move forward on reforms, as well.
Q But I take it that your reforms are not based solely on this
9/11 Commission report. And this idea of a Cabinet-level secretary
with jurisdiction over all of the intelligence agencies has certainly
come up in the past, it's been discussed here --
MR. McCLELLAN: I think you heard from the President earlier today,
he said that he was reserving judgment. He wanted to take a look at
what the 9/11 Commission recommends. There have been other
recommendations put forward by some congressional committees. There is
a commission that the President appointed to look at our intelligence
capabilities, regarding weapons of mass destruction in the 21st
century. And the President's number one priority is to protect the
American people, and he's made it very clear if there are additional
ideas out there that can improve our intelligence-gathering and help us
better protect the American people, he is very much in favor of moving
forward on those ideas.
Q But this is something that's been discussed many times in the
past, this administration in meetings, other administrations, as well.
Does the President believe it's time to create a Cabinet-level position
to oversee intelligence? Or does he believe that the way the system is
set up now works just fine?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think you want to look at all these issues and
give them careful consideration. But you want to look at all the
issues as the 9/11 Commission has looked at them, as well, and see what
the benefits may be, or what the issues may be related to doing a
specific proposal, one way or the other. I'm not going to get into
discussing a specific proposal, but the President has made it very
clear earlier today that he is open to ideas that build upon the
reforms that we're already implementing.
We have taken significant steps to improve our
intelligence-gathering and our intelligence capabilities, and there are
additional reforms that we need to continue to pursue to make sure that
the President and the White House are getting the best possible
intelligence, so that we are in the best position to protect the
American people.
Q Scott, just to button that part of it up. The Acting DCI
made comments over the weekend that he was opposed to the creation of a
Cabinet-level position of an intelligence chief. As was asked of you
before, was he speaking for the administration?
MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, I indicated that earlier. I already answered
that question earlier today. But you have to look at what he said, as
well. He said, you have to look at all these ideas and consider the
pros and cons. And certainly the 9/11 Commission report will be coming
out later this week, and you want to weigh all the issues related to
taking certain steps.
Q Yes, but he's not reserving judgment, and the President is.
So, I mean --
MR. McCLELLAN: That's what I said. I said, earlier today --
Q Was the Acting Director speaking for the President?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, I think he was expressing his view. The
President is very much open to ideas that build upon the reforms that
we're already implementing. But the Acting Director also pointed out
that you have to carefully look at these issues when you're talking
about intelligence reform.
Q I just have one other question about Iran and 9/11. The
President said earlier that the government is still investigating
whether there is a connection we don't know about between Iran and
9/11. I just want to -- related to that, how you would respond to
criticism that will likely come from Democrats and others, who say that
your very aggressive posture toward Iraq may have been misplaced, and
that given the -- if there was an actual connection, there may have
even been influences or a role on the margins of 9/11 by Iran that this
administration's posture toward Iraq was, frankly, misdirected in the
war on terror?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think what the President said was, he
repeated what the Acting Director said yesterday on one of the Sunday
shows, when he said that there's no evidence that there was any
official involvement between Iran and the September 11th attacks. And
the commission will be coming out with their report later this week.
Apparently they addressed this issue in the report. We want to see
what they know about that issue; apparently it's something that's
evolved over time.
The President, though, has made it very clear that he has been
pursuing the issues we have with Iran from very early on in this
administration. If you'll go back and recall that September 11th, as
the President said, changed the equation, it taught us that we must
confront threats, we can't wait for them to build and fully
materialize. That's something that we learned from September the
11th.
And there are different ways to confront different threats. We've
been confronting the threat from Iran. We've spoken out about the need
for Iran to stop harboring and supporting terrorists, namely
Hezbollah. We've spoken out that Iran will be held responsible for the
actions that they take. And we've also talked about the importance of
Iran ending its pursuit of nuclear weapons. We are pursuing that in a
multilateral way. We've made some progress on that. But we're
continuing to keep the pressure on Iran and to persuade them that that
is the wrong course for them to take. And we're also -- we've also
made it very clear that we stand with the Iranian people and their
aspirations for greater freedoms. And the unelected few in Iran should
listen to the aspirations of those many in Iran who want greater
freedoms.
Q I asked you, Scott, whether the President spent too much
time, money, effort, political capital confronting Saddam Hussein in
Iraq and not enough confronting Iran?
MR. McCLELLAN: Remember, Iraq was a unique situation. We talked
about that from early on. Iraq was a country that had invaded its
neighbors, had used weapons of mass destruction, had a 12-year history
of defying the international community. It was a threat, I think
everybody recognized that it was a threat, and we have removed that
threat.
There are also concerns that we have about Iran, and we've been
pursuing those concerns. I would remind you that the President, in
January 2002, in his State of the Union address, brought up some of
those very concerns that we have with Iran. So what this President is
doing is pursuing the threats that we face and confronting those
threats before they have a chance to fully materialize, whether it's
Iran, Iraq, North Korea or elsewhere.
Q Scott, what's the thinking about how productive it would be
to try to undertake some sort of major reorganization of the
intelligence community in an election year?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the President will never hesitate when it
comes to taking steps that can better protect the American people. So
if there are ideas that are worthy of pursuing, this President will
pursue them. As I said, we are already pursuing many reforms and
implementing those reforms. And we will never hesitate to take steps
that can better protect the American people, whether it's an election
year or not.
Q But there is a lot of thinking that this is something that
requires a lot of time, a lot of hearings, a lot of discussion on the
Hill with members of both Houses; that it's not the kind of thing you
can do in the heat of two conventions and the final two month --
MR. McCLELLAN: I disagree. The President's highest priority is to
protect the American people, and we have made significant steps since
September 11th to make the world a safer place and to make America more
secure. This President is pursuing an approach that is making the
world safer and making America safer. It is a broad war on terrorism
that we are waging and we need to make sure that we have the best
possible intelligence as we wage that broad war on terrorism.
Q So if he sees ideas he thinks are good, he will move on them
quickly. By the same logic, then, if he doesn't move on them quickly,
then he doesn't think they're good ideas.
MR. McCLELLAN: No, Jim, I wouldn't look at it that way. I think
that's too simplistic to characterize it that way. I wouldn't
necessarily look at it that way.
Go ahead, Helen.
Q I liked it.
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not saying you're simplistic. (Laughter.)
Q Prime Minister Blair took full personal responsibility for
taking his nation into war under falsehoods -- under reasons that have
been determined now to be false. Is President Bush also willing to
take full, personal responsibility --
MR. McCLELLAN: I think Prime Minister Blair said that it was the
right thing to do; that Saddam Hussein's regime was a threat.
Q Those were not the reasons he took his country into war. It
turned out to be untrue, and the same is true for us. Does the
President take full, personal responsibility for this war?
MR. McCLELLAN: The issue here is what do you to with a threat in a
post-September 11th world? Either you live with a threat, or you
confront the threat.
Q There was no threat.
MR. McCLELLAN: The President made the decision to confront the
threat.
Q Saddam Hussein did not threaten this country.
MR. McCLELLAN: The world -- the world, the Congress and the
administration all disagree. They all recognized that there was a
threat posed by Saddam Hussein. When it came to September 11th, that
changed the equation. It taught us, as I said --
Q The Intelligence Committee said there was no threat.
MR. McCLELLAN: As I said, it taught us that we must confront
threats before it's too late.
Q So the President doesn't take full responsibility?
MR. McCLELLAN: The President already talked about the
responsibility for the decisions he's made. He talked about that with
Prime Minister Blair.
Q Personal responsibility?
MR. McCLELLAN: Terry, go ahead.
Q Two things. First, you do sound a little cool to this idea
of the 9/11 Commission, that there should be new
Cabinet-level
intelligence.
MR. McCLELLAN: Like I said, I'm not going to get into discussing
any specific proposals right now. We're going to reserve judgment
because we want to see what the 9/11 Commission outlines and their
reasons for coming to those conclusions, on their recommendations.
So the President is very much open to ideas that help us build upon
the progress we are making to reform out intelligence capabilities.
Q Okay. And then on a similar subject that Helen was raising.
On the 28th of January, 2003, in the State of the Union address, the
President said, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein
recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Several months later, White House officials -- yourself, included --
said the President shouldn't have spoken those words because the
intelligence process that led to that statement being included in the
State of the Union was unreliable.
Now you have the Senate Intelligence Committee independently
reviewing the evidence, saying there's some evidence still there that
Saddam may have been looking for uranium, and Lord Butler's independent
review in Britain saying the President's statement was "well-founded."
So does the President now believe that Saddam Hussein sought
significant quantities of uranium from Africa?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, as you're aware, two reports have come out.
You cited them. As I said last week, I think those reports really
speak for themselves on this issue. There is additional information
that they have looked into, and I think the reports speak for
themselves. That's the way I would describe it.
Q First -- to try to follow up -- what does the President now
believe? He said to the country and to the world, in the January 2003
State of the Union address, that he believed Saddam Hussein sought
uranium from Africa. Does he now believe that?
MR. McCLELLAN: As I said last week, we went through this issue at
length about a year ago at this time, over a few days, and I think I
would leave it where it is with the reports. The reports speak for
themselves on this issue.
Q Well, do you feel vindicated at all, Scott?
MR. McCLELLAN: Steve, I don't look at it that way. I think you
have to look at the reports and see what they have to say.
Q Why didn't you stand behind --
MR. McCLELLAN: This was an issue that was covered at length.
These reports address the issue, and you can look at those reports
yourself.
Q Do you now regret disavowing a year ago what you --
MR. McCLELLAN: Steve, we don't look at it that way. We're a
forward-looking administration.
Go ahead.
Q To clarify one thing on Iran. The President referenced
McLaughlin's statement that Tehran, the government wasn't officially,
perhaps, behind, or notified about the fact that hijackers passed
through, or that they were behind the 9/11 plot. But then the
President said that they're still digging into the facts. Does that
mean that he's leaving open, or the administration is leaving open the
possibility that the Iranian government was either very much aware of
the fact that they went through and what they were doing?
MR. McCLELLAN: I wouldn't look at it that way, Dana. I would look
at it as what the President said and what the Director -- the Acting
Director of the CIA said yesterday was, that there is no evidence to
suggest there was any official involvement between Iran and the
September 11th attacks. Of course, we want to see what the September
11th Commission has to say on this issue. They'll be coming out with
their report. Apparently, it's an issue that has evolved over time, so
we want to take a look at that. But, again, there's no evidence to
suggest anything there.
Q Okay. The President, today on Iran, talked about a link
between Iran and al Qaeda. We now know that there was a connection, at
least, between Iran and the 9/11 hijackers. He talked about the fact
that they have -- that we think they have weapons of mass destruction,
nuclear material. So that sounds eerily similar to Iraq. So why --
can you explain --
MR. McCLELLAN: What was the connection? What was the
relationship?
Q Which one?
MR. McCLELLAN: Between Iran and al Qaeda.
Q That they passed through.
MR. McCLELLAN: And there were ties between Iraq and al Qaeda,
where they had contacts going back over the last decade.
Q So my question is, many people are asking, why is it that the
President did focus on Iraq, and perhaps -- the way he did, and perhaps
not on Iran?
MR. McCLELLAN: That wouldn't be an accurate way, I think, to
describe it, because he has focused on Iran. It has been a high
priority for this administration from very early on. As I said, you
confront different threats in different ways. There are different
strategies for confronting different threats. But what this President
is doing is confronting those threats. We're not letting them build
and fully materialize. September 11th taught us that we had to
confront those threats before that happens. That's why he's been
working with the international community to get Iran to end its pursuit
of nuclear weapons and to abide by the international obligations Iran
agreed to. That's why we are pressing Iran to turn over those al Qaeda
members in their country to their country of origin. That's why we are
continuing to urge the unelected few in Iran to heed the aspirations of
the Iranian people.
Q Ten days ago there was a growing consensus in this room, in
the press, that Congressman Porter Goss would be named as the permanent
DCI, Director of the CIA. And over the weekend the reports came out
that Senator Rockefeller considered him too important, and that the
administration had decided not to --
MR. McCLELLAN: Too important?
Q Too partisan.
MR. McCLELLAN: Senator Rockefeller said that?
Q Yes, he did.
MR. McCLELLAN: That's interesting. (Laughter.)
Q My question -- and that the administration would wait until
after November to name a permanent director. My question is this:
What is the reaction to the criticism that Congressman Goss was too
partisan? And is the administration going to leave Acting Director
McLaughlin in --
MR. McCLELLAN: First of all, the report over this weekend that
speculated that we may wait until after the weekend just has no basis
in fact; let me make that very clear. You heard from the President
earlier today when he was asked about a CIA Director. We certainly
have a very capable and strong leader in the Acting Director, Director
McLaughlin. And he is someone who is very capable and is doing a good
job at the CIA.
At the same time, I'm not -- as has been my practice, I don't get
into speculating about personnel matters like this, particularly ones
of this importance. The President will make an announcement on a
decision when he is ready, and I'm not going to speculate about the
timing or who may or may not be under consideration. I don't think
that serves the process very well.
Q -- about the criticisms that it was too partisan a choice,
and that there was going to be hostility from Democrats in Congress.
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, you're asking me to get into
speculation about certain people that may or may not be under
consideration. I'm going to avoid doing that. But I did find it
interesting that the remark apparently came from Senator Rockefeller.
Q I just want to clarify, Scott, then, the item that appeared
over the weekend about the White House going to delay a decision until
after November -- that's incorrect, and that we should expect some
nomination at some point before the November election?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I'm not speculating on the timing one way or
the other. I have no idea where that report came from, but that kind
of speculation has no basis in fact. The people who are suggesting
that or talking about that clearly don't have an understanding of where
things are in the process.
Welcome back.
Q Thank you. First of all, I bring the best wishes from
135-year-old spiritual leader for President Bush.
MR. McCLELLAN: Hang on, hang on. Let's stop the cross talk here.
Q I met 135-year-old spiritual leader, after three days, and he
died. And before he died, he told me best wishes for President Bush,
and he said that India and the United States would work for global
peace.
MR. McCLELLAN: Thank you, we appreciate that.
Q And he said that to end terrorism is a must for permanent
peace and lasting peace. And my question is here: Governing the
India-Pakistan (inaudible) Delhi, there was something good going on
this time, progress between the two countries. And now this week,
also, when I was there, the day I left, the (inaudible) was arriving
Delhi. What sort of things going on, as where President Bush is
concerned, as far as India-Pakistan is (inaudible) and peace between
two countries?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, there has been some progress made. There is
a dialogue that has been ongoing between India and Pakistan. And
that's positive. It's important that they have --continue to have a
dialogue to continue reducing tensions in the region. And we work very
closely with those countries and stay in contact with them on those
issues.
Q And what sort of work President Bush is planning now with the
new government in Delhi?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we're working closely with the new
government. The President congratulated the new government on the
election, and we are continuing to work closely with them on this issue
that you brought up, as well as other issues of common interest.
Go ahead, Les.
Q And, finally --
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm going to keep going. Les, go ahead. I've got
to keep going. Let's go, Les.
Q The Governor of California has refused demands that he
retract his description of Democratic legislative budgetary
obstructionists as, in his words, "girlie men." And my first
question: The President continues -- fully supportive of Republican
National Convention principal speaker Schwarzenegger, doesn't he?
MR. McCLELLAN: Les, I think that the Republican National Committee
can talk to you more about who the speakers are at the convention --
Q I want to know about the President. Does he support
Schwarzenegger, or not?
MR. McCLELLAN: Does he support him? Yes, he supports Governor
Schwarzenegger.
Q Good. Then my second question --
Q Are they girlie men? (Laughter.)
Q Congresswoman Corrine Brown has joined 10 other Democrats in
asking the U.N. to monitor our elections on November the 2nd. When
this was described by Congressman Steve Buyer of Indiana as "foolish
nonsense and silly," Ms. Brown denounced Republicans, saying, you stole
the election, for which she was ruled out of order by a vote of 219 to
187, while 243 to 161 approved Buyer's amendment barring any funds
being used by the U.N. to monitor our elections, even in South Dakota.
And my question: The President is grateful for this strong bipartisan
vote against U.N. intervention and this reprimand of Ms. Brown, isn't
he?
MR. McCLELLAN: It sounds like Congress has taken care of this
issue and they addressed it, Les.
Q So you're thoroughly supportive --
MR. McCLELLAN: I think Congress has already addressed this issue
and it's been put behind us.
Q -- and you think it's good?
MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead.
Q Scott, do you have any observations on the growing violence
in Gaza? And does the administration still back Prime Minister
Sharon's plan to pull Israeli settlers and soldiers out of Gaza at this
point?
MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, on the plan. We think it's a bold step that
can get the parties moving forward again on the road map, which will
lead to the two-state vision that the President outlined. As you're
aware, the President has outlined a two-state vision of Palestine and
Israel living side-by-side in peace and security. All parties have
responsibilities when it comes to moving forward on the road map, which
is the way to get there.
In terms of the recent things that are going on in Gaza and among
the Palestinian people and the leadership there, I think it's important
that the Palestinian leadership -- or that there is a Palestinian
leadership that is committed to fighting terrorism and creating a
unified security structure to improve the security situation in the
region. It's also important that you have a Palestinian leadership
committed to building the institutions that are necessary for a
democratic state to emerge. And I think the Palestinian people yearn
for leadership that is not tainted by corruption and that is committed
to building the institutions necessary for a democratic state to
emerge. And the Palestinian leaders have an obligation to the
Palestinian people.
And so that's what we will continue to speak out about. When you
have the institutions in place, it's bigger than any one person. The
leaders will emerge and be able to proceed forward on the vision that
the President has outlined.
Q So the United States backs the Qureia, or representative
leadership, even though he's kind of resigned, does not back the Arafat
--
MR. McCLELLAN: What we back is a Palestinian leader -- cabinet
that will be committed to cracking down on terrorism and committed to
building a unified security structure, and committed to putting the
institutions in place necessary for a Palestinian state to emerge.
That's what we -- and we'll be continuing to closely watch the
situation there as it unfolds.
Go ahead Sarah.
Q Thank you. Scott, in its editorial today, The Washington
Post says the $100 million in new aid to Haiti isn't enough. And if
the United States doesn't do more to help, another crisis in Haiti will
occur. Will the President do more, and if so, what?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, there's a donors conference that, I think,
actually gets underway today, but will be really going on tomorrow here
in Washington, D.C., to look at these issues. We made some significant
commitments to Haiti, both in terms of helping address the security
situation there early on and providing humanitarian assistance.
The President and President Lagos had a good discussion about Haiti
earlier today. Chile has certainly provided strong support to the
Haitian people. And so these issues will be discussed at the donors
conference, and we hope everybody will step forward and meet their
commitments to help the Haitian people build a brighter future.
Go ahead, Bob.
Q Scott, in a conference call sponsored by the Democratic
National Committee earlier this morning, Senator Max Cleland, former
Senator Max Cleland, who has been a campaign surrogate for Kerry, is
saying the he and Senator Kerry were "flat out lied to about the war in
Iraq." Let me quote again also what he theorized about the war. The
President went to war "because he concluded that his daddy was a failed
President, and one of the ways he failed was that he did not take out
Saddam Hussein, so he would be Mr. Macho Man." What is your reaction
to all that?
MR. McCLELLAN: My reaction is that all they can offer is more
political attacks. The world, the Congress, the administration, all
shared the same intelligence and all looked at
the same intelligence,
and concluded that there was a threat. And that threat needed to be
addressed. The United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein one
final opportunity to comply.
It's been shown, since we went into Iraq, that he was still in
serious violation of Security Council Resolution 1441. But I would
remind you that the President's opponent looked at that same
intelligence and made the same decision to support the use of force to
remove that regime from power. I know he's been all over the map since
that time frame, trying to justify his positions, and giving some
tortured responses with regard to that position, particularly with his
lack of support for the troops in voting against the $87 billion.
Q Regarding the September 11th Commission recommendations,
you've said several times today that you are open to building on ideas
that you
are already implementing. Members of the commission have indicated
to me that their recommendations will be wide-ranging. Suppose their
recommendations are quite different from those you're already
implementing. Are you also open to those ideas?
MR. McCLELLAN: We've been working very closely and cooperatively
with the September 11th Commission, because their work is very
important. And their recommendations will be very important, and we
will take them very seriously. That's what I'm talking about, when I'm
saying -- when I say that the President is open to ideas that build
upon the reforms that we're already implementing.
Q That's why I'm asking about ideas that you're not
implementing, or if the recommendations --
MR. McCLELLAN: That's why I said, if there are additional ideas
that can help us build upon the reforms we're already implementing, we
want to see those ideas. And if they will help us do a better job of
protecting the American people, I can assure you this President will
move forward on them.
Q On the Sergeant Jenkins issue, is the administration
considering a type of plea bargain with him, as Ambassador Baker --
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?
Q -- as Ambassador Baker, to Japan.
MR. McCLELLAN: Oh, on Mr. Jenkins, is that what you're asking
about? I know Ambassador Baker did meet with some Japanese foreign
ministry officials, I believe over the weekend. And Mr. Jenkins is now
in Japan and we continue to state what our views are. And we will
present, at the appropriate time, a request for custody of Mr.
Jenkins. He was someone that was a deserter, and so that's where
things stand at this point.
Q I wonder if there is a possibility of a plea bargain with
him.
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?
Q I wonder if there is a possibility --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, there have been discussions with the Japanese
government. Like I said, at the appropriate time, we will present a
request for custody of Mr. Jenkins.
Q Thank you.
MR. McCLELLAN: Thank you.
END 2:22 P.M. EDT
|