For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
July 22, 2003
Press Briefing by Scott McClellan
The James S. Brady Briefing Room
12:58 P.M. EDT
MR. McCLELLAN: Good afternoon. I'd like to go back over and
highlight a couple of meetings the President participated in today.
One, the President was pleased to receive an update from his Corporate
Fraud Task Force that was created by executive order just over a year
ago. This was an update on their first year's activities. During its
first year, the President's Corporate Task Force has compiled a strong
record in combatting corporate fraud and punishing corporate
wrongdoers. Coordination by federal authorities has been significantly
enhanced. By drawing on the expertise of the task force's membership
and by aggressively investigating and prosecuting fraud, the task force
has helped to restore investor confidence.
Through fair, swift and decisive actions, the task force is helping
to remove suspicion, doubt, and uncertainty that pervaded the
marketplace one year ago. And the actions are successfully working to
restore confidence in the marketplace, provide, fair and accurate
information to the investing public, reward shareholder and employee
trust, and protect jobs and savings of hardworking Americans.
The task force has worked in unparalleled coordination, and as of
May 31st, the task force has obtained over 250 corporate fraud
convictions or guilty pleas, charged 354 defendants with some type of
corporate fraud crime, investigated over 320 potential corporate fraud
matters, and obtained restitution fines and forfeiture in excess of $85
million since its inception.
So the President is pleased -- was pleased to receive that update
today, and is pleased by the work they are doing in just one year.
The President also met with his National Infrastructure Assurance
Council. This is an advisory council that works closely with the
Department of Homeland Security and is an example of the public sector
and private sector working together in partnership to better secure
America and to enhance cyber security. The President was pleased to
receive an update on their activities, as well as provide them with an
update on the war on terrorism.
And with that, I will be glad to open it up to questions.
Campbell.
Q Can you confirm that Saddam's sons were among those who we're
killed in this morning's raid --
MR. McCLELLAN: I am aware of the reports, Campbell. I'm not in
position at this time to confirm anything. There was a military
operation earlier today, and I think that any additional updates or
information about that particular raid will come from the Department of
Defense. So I think you should stay in touch with them.
Q When was the President informed?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the President has been in touch with the
Secretary of Defense today, earlier today. They have talked more than
once. And he will be kept apprised of any updates as they become
available.
Q What did Secretary Rumsfeld tell the President, and what was
the President's reaction?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, I'm not in position right now to
confirm anything at this point, so -- and nor have we received
confirmation of anything. As I came out here, this is a breaking news
story. We are aware of the military operation, and as we get more
information we'll try to update you at that point.
Q But just to clarify, Rumsfeld said, we think we got him,
we're not sure, we're going to try to verify and then let you know?
MR. McCLELLAN: I would not characterize the confirmation --
characterize the conversation at this point. Again, I'm just not in
position -- I'm just not in position to confirm things. But the
President is aware of the reports, and is aware of the military
operation that took place earlier today. And for now, I think I will
leave it at that. And again, if there's any additional updates or
information, I expect that will come from the Department of Defense.
Q Scott, a U.S. official said just a few minutes ago, "We
probably got him." Is that a fair characterization --
MR. McCLELLAN: I understand, John, and this is a breaking news
story, and so I'm not going to get into position of characterizing
anything at this point until we receive further updates.
Q Well, let me ask you this question. If, in fact, it turns
out be Uday and Qusay, does this take a lot of the pressure off of the
White House from some critics who have spoken out quite loudly against
your inability to find the top Iraqi --
MR. McCLELLAN: No, again, I think that this is a breaking news
story. That's getting into speculation about our "what ifs." Let's
let the Department of Defense provide any additional updates, and then
we will go from there.
Q Scott, how high a priority is the capture of Saddam Hussein,
in the sense -- capture or killing -- for the President in postwar
Iraq? How important is that to him?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, Terry, let me put it this way. The former
regime in Iraq is gone. They are out of power. And we continue to
make significant progress in moving towards a free and democratic
Iraq. The governing council, some of the representatives from the
Iraqi governing council were at the U.N. earlier today and there's been
a meeting going on. Again, I want to resist getting into a specific
discussion about these reports. This is a breaking news story.
Q Just as Commander-in-Chief, where does he rank in postwar
Iraq the importance of getting rid of the Saddam Hussein family?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think that I would leave it at
characterizing it that we're making important progress in Iraq. We're
making important progress in stabilizing the country. We're making
important progress in going after the remnants of the former regime, in
going after foreign terrorists who are in the country -- those who are
enemies of peace, those who are enemies of a free and democratic Iraq,
those who are enemies of the Iraqi people. We're making some important
progress. We continue to carry out military operations seeking
individuals that are part of what I just described, and we will
continue to do so.
Q Just one more on this. Has he expressed any anxiety,
displeasure? Has he wanted to get after this problem, the fact that
these top leaders of that regime were still at large? Has he wanted --
MR. McCLELLAN: Has who?
Q As Saddam's sons, has Saddam Hussein, himself -- has he
expressed an urgency about that problem?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, ridding Iraq of people that remain
loyal to the former regime, people that are foreign terrorists who are
trying to disrupt our efforts to help the Iraqi people have a better
future, those remain priorities in our military efforts and part of our
efforts to secure and stabilize Iraq.
Q What's your best intelligence on the role of the sons and the
assaults on Americans over there?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, this is going back to a breaking news
event. I want to avoid getting into specifics here until we receive
further updates from the --
Q -- wanted dead or alive --
MR. McCLELLAN: -- until we receive further updates from the
Department of Defense. I'm not -- I think that's a question for the
Pentagon or Central Command to address, in terms of military operations
or the specifics that are happening in Iraq.
Q I'd like to ask about Liberia, too. Oxfam, the relief
agency, is pleading with the administration to, "show its hand and end
this waiting game that's costing lives in Liberia." You've said the
President is monitoring the situation in Liberia. What exactly will,
at this point, will his decision hinge on?
MR. McCLELLAN: He's not only monitoring events closely, because it
is a dynamic situation over in Liberia right now, it's also remaining
actively engaged with the United Nations, actively engaged with the
Economic Community of West African States, so that we can get back to a
cease-fire, so that we can make sure that that cease-fire takes hold.
And that's what we are doing. The United States strongly condemns the
latest round of violence and we strongly condemn the escalation that
has taken place. We continue to call on all parties to immediately
cease any military activity and focus on the peace talks.
Q What will the President's decision turn on at this point, on
sending the military?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the discussions remain ongoing. What we want
to do is make sure, as the President noted as recently as yesterday,
and has talked about over the recent couple of weeks, is enable ECOWAS,
the Economic Community of West African States, to get in there and make
sure a cease-fire takes hold. And we are looking at ways that we can
provide that help. But I would not speculate on any decision at this
point that hasn't been reached.
Q What's the hold-up on that, Scott? Why hasn't this thing --
they're talking about several days and we're talking about several
days. Things are clearly deteriorating there at a much faster pace
than anyone anticipated. What do you see as the possible date for
ECOWAS to get involved? What's slowing this whole process --
MR. McCLELLAN: Jim, I would not try to put a time line on this.
What I would try to emphasize to you is our active engagement with the
United Nations and our active engagement with the Economic Community of
West African States. It's an important priority that we continue
working with them, so that they can get in there and make sure that a
cease-fire -- we get back to a cease-fire, one, and that a cease-fire
takes hold.
Q The President has indicated he is willing to help get them in
there. Does that mean that they're going to fly in this group once
they're ready to go? And where do things stand? I mean, are they
telling that they need several more days to get the force together --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think once a decision is made, we can
update you at that point and provide more information. But until then
--
Q The President said yesterday, I have promised to help get
them in there. Does that mean flying them in? What is he talking
about?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, and he's talked about whether it's training
-- training ECOWAS or other steps. So let's let the decision be made
and then we can update you at that point.
Q Just one more. Is the administration seeking -- what is the
administration doing to seek broader participation, as the President
indicated yesterday, to get more people into Iraq, in terms of forces?
The President said yesterday, the more people, the better off we are.
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, there already are a number of countries that
are participating and helping. He had a great visit with Prime
Minister Berlusconi yesterday. Prime Minister Berlusconi has committed
troops, so they will be providing vital help in securing and
stabilizing Iraq. There are 19-some countries that are helping right
now. There are a number of other countries that we are in talks with.
Obviously, each country has to make their own decision.
But it's important to put aside any past differences and recognize
that this is about a better future for the Iraqi people. This is about
a free and democratic Iraq and helping them -- helping the Iraqi people
to realize a better way of life.
So we will continue to have conversations. We look forward and
appreciate -- we greatly appreciate help that other countries can
provide. And we will continue to have those conversations. Fourteen
eighty-three, Resolution 1483 under the U.N. calls for countries to
help. And we believe that it provides them sufficient authority to get
in there and help us with the situation in Iraq.
Q In lieu of the recent developments, does the White House,
does the President stand by all of the briefings that Congress got
preliminary to going into -- where they gave him resolution to go into
Iraq? Do you stand by the credibility of everything they were told?
Or are you making some amendments to that? And I have a follow-up.
MR. McCLELLAN: There was a mountain of evidence about the threat
posed by Saddam Hussein. The threat was real and it became even more
real as we --
Q -- directly --
MR. McCLELLAN: -- let me finish -- as we looked at it through the
lens of September 11th. It was a grave and gathering threat, as the
President pointed out, and it was important that we provide leadership
and confront that threat. The United Nations Security Council provided
a resolution that gave Saddam Hussein one last opportunity to comply.
Remember, he defied the United Nations and the international community
for 12 years. He was an individual that possessed chemical and
biological weapons, and sought to reconstitute his nuclear weapons
program. He was an individual that had used chemical weapons on his
own people in the past. So Iraq was a very unique situation, and it
was a part -- it was part of our broader effort to win the war on
terrorism.
Q A direct and imminent threat to the United States. That's
what sold Congress.
MR. McCLELLAN: It was a grave and gathering threat, and the
President is --
Q He's satisfied with that?
MR. McCLELLAN: The President's highest priority is protecting the
American people. And the President will not wait for something to
happen. He will confront threats. He will not ignore threats --
Q Where are the weapons?
MR. McCLELLAN: -- and we had a great coalition that helped us
address this threat, and that threat is no more.
Q My one other question on part of this is would the United
States be willing to give some power, some authority back to the U.N.
if they -- the major powers contributed troops to Iraq,
reconstruction?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the U.N. has a representative there, Sergio
de Mello, and he is back at the U.N. today providing an update and
working -- he is working very closely with Ambassador Bremer as we move
forward. And we very much appreciate his help and appreciate their
involvement --
Q -- give some power back to the U.N.?
MR. McCLELLAN: -- but this is being carried out by the United
States and working closely with a number of our coalition countries,
and other countries that are providing help.
Q Try one more on this breaking story, and then ask you a
question about North Korea. You're not disputing accounts from other
officials in the government, are you, that Secretary Rumsfeld told the
President that the initial reports from the scene were that it was
quite likely the two sons were in the building?
MR. McCLELLAN: As I said, the President has been in touch with the
Secretary of Defense. I think I should leave it at that at this point,
because otherwise it's getting into speculation. When I walked out
here, we had not received a confirmation of anything at this point.
I've seen the reports, but we have not received any confirmation of
that.
Q Can you -- there's a report today suggesting that the
administration is at least considering offering North Korea some formal
guarantee that it would not attack in exchange for North Korea agreeing
to dismantle its nuclear program. Can you flatly rule out that the
administration, under any circumstances, would agree to do that as part
of a deal?
MR. McCLELLAN: A couple of things. We continue to seek a
peaceful, diplomatic solution, working with our friends and allies,
particularly those countries in the neighborhood -- China, South Korea,
Japan. They have all been involved in this, and it's important that
they continue to be involved in this. North Korea needs to understand
that it can realize the benefits of the international community and it
can realize help from the international community if it ends its
pursuit of nuclear weapons and its nuclear weapons program, and do so
in an irreversible way, once and for all.
The President has been very clear that while we seek a diplomatic
solution, we never take options off the table. But again, I would
emphasize to you, we continue to work with those countries I mentioned,
to seek a diplomatic and peaceful solution to the situation in North
Korea.
Q So it's a question of sequencing, then. You seem to be
saying that if North Korea disavowed its nuclear program in a
verifiable way, then perhaps there could be conversations --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I'm talking about that they're ready to
receive assistance from the international community to help the Korean
-- help the North Korean people. That's what I'm referring to. But
this report -- and as I pointed out earlier to you today -- I did not
-- I disagree with that characterization. That is not something that
has happened.
Q Back on Iraq, was the President informed in advance, and did
he give explicit authority in advance of this attack in Mosul, or
was this an attack that took place in the normal course of operations,
and later turned out that there may have been high-value targets in
it?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think that there are military operations
that are carried out on a daily basis. I think the Department of
Defense and Central Command are in the best position to characterize
those operations. What I can confirm for you at this point is that the
President has been in touch with the Secretary of Defense. He is aware
of the military operation that was carried out. But I don't want to
characterize it before that.
Q -- did he know in advance --
MR. McCLELLAN: I don't know the specific answer to that question.
I do know that the President delegates that to his military commanders
in the field, that they make the decisions and move on that. If
there's any additional information I find out, I will try to let you
know.
Q But, Scott, in the past he's been informed about these
attacks on high-value targets.
MR. McCLELLAN: I understand. I said if there's any additional
information I find out, I'll try to let you know at the appropriate
time.
Q Scott, some in the Bush administration have said to be elated
over this breaking news story. But how does that play with questions
of credibility from those 16 words?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry, I didn't connect the two.
Q There is a connection. Some people are concerned that
there's no legitimate reason for the war, especially after the 16 words
from the State of the Union. And now, these two may be dead. How do
you mesh these two --
MR. McCLELLAN: I think the American people recognize that they are
safer because of the action that we took. I think the American people
recognize that this was integral to winning our war on terrorism, that
the action that we took in Iraq was an important part of winning the
war on terrorism.
And I think you should go back to the President's remarks most
recently with Prime Minister Blair, where -- I think he also addressed
it some with Prime Minister Berlusconi. But let me point out a couple
of things, and this is what the President said last Thursday. "A free
Iraq will be an example to the entire Middle East, and the advance of
liberty in the Middle East will undermine the ideologies of terror and
hatred. It will help strengthen the security of America, and Britain,
and many other nations." That's what the President said last week.
It's very important to understand that a free and democratic Iraq will
help bring about peace and stability in that region, which is very
important to undermining terrorism.
Q To follow up to that, so basically what you're saying,
today's military action was justified in light of questions of the
credibility going into this war?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think that the way I would describe is we had a
mountain of evidence that outlined a clear and compelling case for the
decision the President made to confront this threat. The President
will not ignore threats. The President will not put lives of the
American people at risk by ignoring grave and gathering threats. He
will confront them. This was an important and essential part of our
efforts to win the war on terrorism.
Q First on Liberia, you seemed to imply before that the first
order of business there is getting a cease-fire that holds, that there
won't be any peacekeeping operation until that takes place. But there
was a cease-fire that was holding for three weeks or so, that seems to
have broken down only because neither ECOWAS, nor the United States
seem to be making any particular effort to get in there quickly. Isn't
the lack of a decision by the President about what to do here creating
a vacuum that is leading to more violence?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, I think that, again, this is something that we
are working closely with the U.N. on, we're working closely with ECOWAS
on, to address. It's important to realize that we have a dynamic
situation over there. We have a complicated situation over there. The
President takes his decisions very seriously and makes them in a
deliberate manner, but in continuing to do so, working closely with the
United Nations, and working with the Economic Community of West African
States, so that we can make sure that a cease-fire takes hold, that we
get back to a cease-fire and that a cease-fire takes hold. And this is
an important priority that our assessment team has been looking at, and
that the President is actively engaged in with the people I just
mentioned.
Q On a different topic, going back to the uranium question.
The background briefing that we got here last week suggested that the
White House's version is that there had been no changes made to the
State of the Union address, other than those that were made internally,
not changes that were made at the behest of the CIA based on any qualms
the CIA had.
MR. McCLELLAN: You're talking about changes in the speech?
Changes in the actual text of the speech?
Q Correct. Yet, George Tenet's statement about this, on the
previous Friday, very specifically referred to a back-and-forth between
the White House and the CIA that led to changes in the text of the
State of the Union address. Can you tell us why there is that
contradiction, and explain it?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, one, I stand by what the senior
administration briefed you all on Friday about. I think that this
continues to go back over -- well, let me put it this way. That one
statement in the State of the Union we've already said should not have
been in there. And it was not the reason that we acted to confront the
threat posed by Saddam Hussein. And I recognize that you all want to
continue to go down that road. What I want to continue to do is focus
on what's most important, and that's protecting the American people;
that's the safety and security of the American people; that's winning
the war on terrorism. And I think it's important to remind people that
this was one piece of one part of a mountain of evidence that laid out
a very clear and compelling case. And that threat has been removed,
and America is safer for it.
Q Fair enough. But why, then, did the White House and the CIA
have such different recollections of what happened --
MR. McCLELLAN: I think that we have a lot of professionals that
work very hard and do a great job throughout the government -- at the
White House, at the CIA. And we appreciate all that they do. But I'm
not -- I already stated that we stand by the way it was described
Friday by the senior administration official when he briefed you. And
we continue to stand by that. But what's most important is to focus on
what we're doing to win the war on terrorism and what we have done to
remove a threat and make America safer and make the American people
safer.
Q -- on the military actions, do you know when the President
was briefed by the Secretary of Defense, what time?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think he's talked to him more than once
today.
Q There's been a series of conversations --
MR. McCLELLAN: More than one conversation.
Q Do you know when he was first notified?
MR. McCLELLAN: I don't know the exact time, but he's been in touch
with him this morning.
Q On the child credit, there's been -- the White House was very
strong in June about the need to approve the Senate legislation that
expanded the credit to low-income families that did not benefit from
the original bill. But that effort has been slowed now, it's lost
momentum on the Hill. I'm wondering if this is still a priority for
the President.
MR. McCLELLAN: Absolutely.
Q And what do you envision the timing should be on the --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we continue to urge, publicly and privately,
Congress to act and resolve those differences and move forward on
expanding it. So that remains a priority. Hold on, do you have a
follow-up on it, Greg?
Q No.
MR. McCLELLAN: Jacobo.
Q You said the President spoke on a number of occasions today
with the Secretary of Defense. The Pentagon is getting ready to
announce rotation of troops, an issue that has become very important --
MR. McCLELLAN: We're pleased that they're taking steps to bring
some of those troops home that have been there the longest.
Q My question is, you say the President does not necessarily
get involved in combat operations -- lets the commanders make some of
those decisions. Does the President -- is the President involved in
the decision of the units that are going to be rotated and the number
of soldiers that will remain behind?
MR. McCLELLAN: He's briefed and he's aware of those decisions. I
think that those are steps that the Department of Defense has taken,
and decisions that they make, but the President is very aware of the
decisions that they make and he's pleased that they're moving forward
to bring some of those troops home that have been there the longest.
Q The Robert Novak column last week identified the wife of
Ambassador Joseph Wilson as a CIA operative who was working on WMD
issues. Novak said that identification is based on information given
to him by two administration sources. That column has now given rise
to accusations that the administration deliberatively blew the cover of
an undercover CIA operative, and in so doing, violated a federal law
that prohibits revealing the identity of undercover CIA operatives.
Can you respond to that?
MR. McCLELLAN: Thank you for bringing that up. That is not the
way this President or this White House operates. And there is
absolutely no information that has come to my attention or that I have
seen that suggests that there is any truth to that suggestion. And,
certainly, no one in this White House would have given authority to
take such a step.
Q So you're saying --
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm saying that that is not the way that this
President or this White House operates, and I've seen no evidence to
suggest there's any truth to it.
Q Are you saying Novak was wrong in saying that it was two
administration sources who were the source for --
MR. McCLELLAN: I have no idea who "anonymous" is. I often wish --
Q It's not anonymous. He says senior administration
officials.
MR. McCLELLAN: That would be anonymous.
Q Well, that would be senior administration --
Q Like the guy who briefed us last week?
MR. McCLELLAN: Whether it's anonymous senior administration
officials or just anonymous sources, it's still anonymous.
Q Is Novak lying? Do you think he's making it up?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm telling you our position. I'll let the
columnist speak for himself.
Q You're saying, flatly, it did not happen, nobody --
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm telling you, flatly, that that is not the way
this White House operates. I've seen no evidence to suggest that
there's any truth to that.
Q That's different from saying it didn't happen. Are you
saying, absolutely, it did not happen?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm saying no one was certainly given any authority
to do anything of that nature. And I've seen no evidence to suggest
there's any truth to it. I want to make it very clear, that is simply
not the way this White House operates.
Q If it turns out that somebody in the administration did do
that --
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not even going to speculate about it, because I
have no knowledge of any truth to that report.
Q What's the extent of your knowledge? Don't you want to get
some more facts? I mean, how do you know that no one in the
administration -- Robert Novak has been around for a long --
MR. McCLELLAN: If I could go find "anonymous," Terry, I would.
Q Does the President support a criminal investigation --
MR. McCLELLAN: Did you have something?
Q Can I follow on that?
MR. McCLELLAN: Oh, Richard.
Q I'm not following.
MR. McCLELLAN: You answer his question and -- (laughter.)
Q On Iraq, if I may. Do we have any evidence that Uday and
Qusay actually had a role in the post-Saddam operations, the so-called,
as some Pentagon officials have called it, the guerrilla warfare that's
going on?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think that that's best addressed to our military
on the ground there in Iraq, any questions related to that.
Q And do you think that when you capture or even kill an enemy
of this kind of stature, what role do you think that potentially plays
in trying to damper down some of the violence that we've seen over
there?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think we've made statements on this. But you're
asking me now to assume that something has been confirmed. And I want
to --
Q So there's no connection?
MR. McCLELLAN: -- wait until there are any updates or any
additional information that we receive.
Q First a real quick question. The President is meeting with
the Argentinean President tomorrow, correct?
MR. McCLELLAN: Correct.
Q Is there any -- should we take that as any sort of an
indication that the U.S. is satisfied with the way Argentina has turned
it around since the last couple of years? I think the meeting has been
moved up.
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think we need to let the meeting take
place. We did put out a statement in terms of what they would be
discussing. I'd refer you back to that statement. Let's let the
meeting take place, and then if there's a readout from that, we will be
-- we will be glad to provide you an update at that point. But we did
say that they would discuss the bilateral partnership between the
United States and Argentina and ways to work together to advance
economic growth and prosperity, as well as promoting peace, stability
and freedom.
Q Second question. Several times you've said -- you used the
phrase, mountain of evidence, today. At least one of the things that
came out of the briefing on Friday is some of that evidence was
conflicted, at least in terms of what the various intelligence agencies
here were saying, and that the President has not -- had not read some
of the dissent, most notably with respect to those 16 words that the
State Department thought to be highly dubious.
My question -- I don't know if you've addressed this in the past,
but is the President at all concerned in all of this talk about
intelligence that some of his supporters and some of the people in this
country may feel misled at all about the imminence of Saddam Hussein's
threat or -- as opposed to whether or not the threat could be
contained? Because that was really the debate, whether or not Saddam
Hussein could be contained or whether he was an imminent threat. Some
of the things that you're talking about go straight to the argument
about imminence. So does the President feel or is he concerned that
Americans might feel misled?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, the President was very clear when he outlined
the grave and gathering threat posed by Saddam Hussein and his regime.
The reason we acted was because it was real and because of the new
threats that we faced in a post-September 11 world, the potential nexus
between outlaw regimes and terrorists or terrorist organizations, where
the damage would be far greater and far more tragic and horrific than
anything we've imagined before, if that came to bear.
Q -- extend to North Korea?
MR. McCLELLAN: We are also addressing that issue in North Korea.
That remains a serious matter. Different regions require different
strategies. The situation in Iraq, as the President made very clear,
was unique. You had a dictator who headed a brutal and oppressive
regime. You had a dictator who possessed chemical and biological
weapons and was seeking -- had a long history of seeking nuclear
weapons. More importantly, you had a dictator who had invaded his
neighbors, who had used chemical weapons in the past. You had a
dictator who went through 17 Security Council resolutions and failed to
comply with them, who continued to defy the United Nations. So this
was a unique situation in Iraq. And you deal with different situations
-- you use different strategies with different situations.
Q This is a follow-up to a couple of questions on Saddam
Hussein's sons, Uday and Qusay. They have been --reportedly been
killed. My question is, does the President believe this, if true, will
lower attacks on U.S. troops? And how much will it aid in the
peacemaking process?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, I think I've been through this earlier
with everybody in the first couple of rows, so I think that we've
already been through this and I would leave it at what I said.
Q Scott, there's a letter that's going to go out tomorrow by a
group of pro-Social Security reform advocates, which states that "it's
time for this Congress and this President to solve the problem plaguing
Social Security; inaction is no longer an option." There are reports
that the White House is unhappy with that language. Is that true --
MR. McCLELLAN: Could you repeat the language again? I'm sorry.
Q "It is time for this Congress and this President to solve the
problems plaguing Social Security." "This Congress" meaning before the
election of 2004. Does the White House agree with that language?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the President is strongly committed to
modernizing Social Security and enhancing its fiscal sustainability,
particularly giving younger workers the ability to use a small portion
of their Social Security funds to invest in personal retirement
accounts, personal security accounts. That's an important national
priority; it's an important priority for the America people.
We commend Republican and Democrats who are willing to put aside
partisan differences and work together to get something done, and work
together to save Social Security for today's seniors and strengthen it
for tomorrow's retirees.
So he appreciates members who want to put aside political
differences and focus on what's best for the American people, and steps
that will move us closer to bipartisan legislation that will accomplish
what I just outlined, and that's saving and strengthening Social
Security.
Q Why not just commit to doing it before the election? A lot
of people thinks he wants to preserve it, doesn't want to stir the pot
during --
MR. McCLELLAN: It's important to have a national dialogue. It's
important to work closely with members of Congress. And it's an
important priority that we remain committed to addressing and working
in a bipartisan way to get done.
Q Scott, Senator Lieberman, in his apologizing for being late
to the NAACP Convention, which the President declined to attend, he
told that convention, we need Kweisi Mfume on the Supreme Court. My
question, does the President agree that anyone with no legal training
is qualified, and that Senator Lieberman's expressed need is at all
sensible? And I have one follow-up.
MR. McCLELLAN: The President has stated his position on the types
of people and individuals that he would appoint if there was a
vacancy. There is no vacancy at this point, so I'm not going to get
into speculating about it. But he's made very clear his views about
appointing individuals that would interpret the law and not try to make
law from the bench.
Q Patrick Guerrero, the Executive Director of the Log Cabin
Republicans, is quoted as saying, "I'm not sure that there's been a
week that I've been on the job where we haven't been called to the
White House or asked to attend a meeting with the Republican
leadership". And my question: Why is this extensive amount of White
House and other Republican calling of the Log Cabiners so much greater
than in the first Bush and Reagan administrations?
MR. McCLELLAN: I don't know about the characterization within your
question, but I will say that -- I will say that the President is an
inclusive leader that reaches out to people across the political
spectrum from -- reaches out to people from all walks of life to focus
on areas where we can work together. Whether there are disagreements
on other issues, there are a number of issues that are important for us
to work together to address. There are some common priorities that the
President looks to work together with people on to achieve and to
accomplish.
Q Scott, I just want to quick ask a follow-up to Greg's
question on the child care tax credit. The Speaker, basically, over
the weekend said that he wasn't going to do it. Surely the President
must be disappointed that there's such strong opposition when he said
that directly. And secondly, today on the day we were highlighting the
roughly one-year anniversary of the Corporate Task Force, is the
President at all concerned about the image it sends when his top
economic official, the Treasury Secretary, is going to Wall Street to
meet with a bunch of economists and hedge fund -- investment fund
managers in private -- which if he were a corporate official would not
be allowed under the law, even though I understand he's allowed to do
that? Is he worried at all about --
MR. MCCLELLAN: I think you can address that to the Department of
the Treasury. But I don't know his schedule, but I'll be glad to look
at it. But let me make it very clear. The President wants Congress to
act and resolve the issue regarding the child tax credit. It's
important and we have made it clear that we want Congress to act and
resolve their differences and get it done.
Q Scott, can we go back --
MR. MCCLELLAN: And with what -- well, okay, one last one, and then
--
Q Can you come back to the Ambassador Wilson issue for a
second. As Ken suggested, it appears as though a federal crime may
have been committed. Would the President support an investigation into
the blowing of the cover of an undercover CIA operative?
MR. MCCLELLAN: John, I think that's suggesting that there might be
some truth to the matter you're bringing up. I have seen nothing -- I
have seen nothing to suggest that there is any truth to it. And
certainly I want to make very clear --
Q Somebody told --
MR. MCCLELLAN: -- that no one, no one in this White House would be
authorized to take such a step.
Q Right. But somebody blew her cover. And would the White
House support an investigation into that?
MR. MCCLELLAN: Well, I'd have to look into the specifics about
whether or not that characterization is accurate when you're talking
about someone's cover. But let me make it very clear, that's just not
the way this White House operates.
Q Could you look into it?
MR. MCCLELLAN: I'm sorry. I'll be available later.
END 1:35 P.M. EDT
|