For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
February 4, 2004
Press Briefing by Scott McClellan
The James S. Brady Briefing Room
12:56 P.M. EST
MR. McCLELLAN: Good morning. I want to begin with some opening remarks -- good afternoon. Sorry.
Recently the commission looking into the September 11th attacks
expressed an interest in extending the timetable for the commission
from May 27th of this year to July 26th of this year, and reducing the
time period for wrapping up their work from 60 days to 30 days. On
January 27th, the Chairman and Vice Chairman publicly stated that a
60-day extension would provide the commission the time it needed to do
its job, and provide the American people with a "strong and credible
report."
The White House has been working very closely and cooperatively
with the commission so that they have all the information they need to
do a thorough job and complete their work in a timely manner. We
welcomed the opportunity to discuss this recent request for an
extension with the commission. The President is pleased to support the
commission's request, and we urge Congress to act quickly to extend the
timetable for an additional 60 days for the commission to complete its
work.
I will continue to reiterate that if the commission has information
that can help prevent another catastrophic terrorist attack on American
soil, we need to have that information as soon as possible. We are
pleased to support their request for an extension, and we urge Congress
to act quickly to extend that timetable.
Q Has the President agreed to talk with this commission, in
terms of testifying?
MR. McCLELLAN: John, as you are well aware, there have been a
number of -- in fact, one of the things that the commission cited as a
reason for needing this additional extension was that they wanted to
further review, analyze and report on the more than 900 interviews it
has conducted, and the more than 2.3 million pages of documents it has
received from the Executive Branch to date.
We have been providing unprecedented cooperation. We are committed
to making sure that the commission has the information that they need
to do their job. There's a lot of ways to provide them with that
information. We will continue to work with them in a spirit of
cooperation, and that includes making officials available to address
their questions that they have. There have already been a number of
interviews and briefings with administration officials, and we'll
continue to work with them in a spirit of cooperation.
In regard to your specific question, we'll continue to have
discussions with the commission about issues that they would like to
pursue.
Q So that's a no for now?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, I'm saying that all those discussions and all
these issues that you're bringing up are discussions that we work with
the commission on in a spirit of cooperation. And it's better for us
to work with the commission to address these issues than for you and I
to try to work these issues out here from this podium.
Q What about Dr. Rice, Scott? There's reports that she will
meet with the commission on Saturday. Is that correct?
MR. McCLELLAN: I expect she would be treated just like any other
White House official. Like I said, we've been making administration
officials available so that the commission has the information they
need to do their job. We are working with them in a cooperative way.
And that's how I would address it.
Q Can you say if White House officials, including Dr. Rice, are
providing information under oath?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?
Q Under oath?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, Terry, what I am saying is that we are
committed to making sure that the commission has all the information
they need to do their job, and do a thorough job, and complete that
work -- complete their work in a timely manner. We have provided them
unprecedented cooperation. We have made administration officials --
let me just go down kind of a list of a few things here. There have
been more than 100 briefings, including the head-of-agency-level
officials briefing the commission. There have been some 500-plus
interviews. We've provided more then 2.3 million pages of documents to
the commission, as I cited a minute ago. And we are continuing to make
sure they have all the information they need to do their job.
Q But does the White House have a flat policy of not wanting
officials to provide information under oath?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think that there are lots of ways to provide the
commission with information, and these are issues that we discuss with
the commission and work with them to make sure that they have that
information. So that's the way that I would --
Q So you're open to providing --
MR. McCLELLAN: No, I wouldn't -- I would state it the way I did.
We're working with the --
Q Could I get an answer to the question, which is --
MR. McCLELLAN: We're working with the commission on all those
issues and we're making sure that they have all the information they
need to do their job.
Q So that is a yes or a no?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, those are issues that we discuss with
the commission. And we work to make sure they have the information
they need to do their job.
Q Scott, why the change? The administration had been cool
toward any extension, saying that you wanted to see this commission
wrap up its work. Why now are you saying that you support the idea of
an extension?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think I've always said that we want to see the
commission move forward as quickly as possible. There was a previously
agreed to timetable. We were working with the commission to make sure
that they could meet that timetable by providing them all the
information that I just cited a minute ago. And the commission came to
us, said that they believe that they need some additional time here to
do the job that they want to do. And we were glad to discuss that with
the commission.
But again, we continue to believe they should move forward as
quickly as possible to do a thorough job and get their work done in a
timely manner. The initial timetable that was set out by Congress and
agreed to by everyone was 18 months. And we now have made it clear
that we support -- we support their extension for 60 days.
Q Why did they change?
MR. McCLELLAN: For the reasons I just stated, Helen. They felt
that they needed some additional time to review and analyze and report
--
Q They have been saying that, and you said, no.
MR. McCLELLAN: -- on the hundreds of interviews that they've had
and the more than 2.3 million documents that this administration has
provided them to get their job done.
Q So are you -- speaking of commissions, are you going to
announce today the commission -- the intelligence commission --
MR. McCLELLAN: No, I don't expect that to be today. I still
expect that we will move forward on that announcement this week.
Q Scott, aren't there some in this White House who believe that
the work being done by the 9/11 Commission is driven by a political
agenda?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think that we believe -- we appreciate the work
that the commission is doing. I can't speak for every individual
member of the commission, nor do I speak for the commission, itself.
But we have worked very cooperatively and closely with the Chairman and
Vice Chairman and others on the commission to help them move forward
quickly to get this job done. It's very important work. The President
strongly supports the work of the commission. And we want to make sure
that it has all the information they need to complete their work.
Q Are you supporting this request for an extension to inoculate
yourself against criticism that you're pushing the intelligence
commission's work, the new one you're setting up, past the election?
MR. McCLELLAN: I don't see the parallel there, David. The work
here by this commission --
Q You don't? Could you say, well, look, it took the 9/11
Commission --
MR. McCLELLAN: I guess you could, but I wouldn't say that.
Q I'm asking -- you could make the argument that it's taken the
9/11 Commission extra time; therefore, you need extra time for this
intelligence commission.
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, one, the independent commission that you're
referring to has not been announced at this point. And like the 9/11
Commission, we believe that they should do a thorough job and complete
their work in a timely manner. The 9/11 Commission, the timetable that
was set out for the 9/11 Commission, I would remind you, was an
18-month period. This is an additional 60 days to complete their
report, and then an additional 30 days to really wrap up their work --
Q Just one more on this. Do you believe -- does the President
believe that British Prime Minister Blair's investigation will be a
thorough investigation?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think that Prime Minister Blair has
addressed that matter. There's already been, I would remind you, some
investigation -- some investigative work that has been done in Great
Britain. And I think Prime Minister Blair shares the President's
commitment to learning all the facts. We want to know the facts. And
the Prime Minister wants to know those facts, as well, so that we can
compare what was done before and what was -- what was done before.
I would remind you that what we are -- well, one -- a few things on
that. Congress already has committees that are looking into the
pre-war intelligence. The CIA has been working on it for quite some
time, as well, to look at the pre-war intelligence. The independent
commission that we are setting up will take a broad look at our global
intelligence challenges in this day and age as we face new and
dangerous threats from weapons of mass destruction. And so this will
be a broad assessment. One of the issues we will look at will be the
work that is ongoing by the Iraq Survey Group.
Q Scott, can I ask you a couple of unrelated questions?
MR. McCLELLAN: Can I keep moving now? I'll try to come back to
you in a minute, so I can keep moving around here. Go ahead, Dana.
Q The families of 9/11 victims and Senator McCain and Senator
Lieberman want this extended past the election, until January 2005.
Why did you decide to do 60 days and not -- as you say about the other
commission that you guys are planning -- take the politics out of
this?
MR. McCLELLAN: For the very reasons that I stated. These were
discussions that we had with the commission. We worked very closely
and cooperatively with the commission in their efforts. We have been
from the very beginning. And this was something that they brought to
our attention, saying, we would like some additional time to complete
our work.
The commission felt that they could complete their work within --
do all that they want to do with an additional 60-day extension. And
so this was discussions we had with the commission and we were pleased
to support their request for an extension, and look forward to
receiving their information.
Again, I would emphasize to you that if they have information that
can help us prevent something like September 11th from ever happening
again, we want to have that information as soon as possible. And
that's why we're working very closely with them to help them get their
work done on the timetable that they have set up.
Q Just to be specific, so Senator McCain, Senator Lieberman,
their legislation to extend this to 2005, you will oppose that?
MR. McCLELLAN: We support the commission's request. This was a
request by --
Q I know, but they have legislation --
MR. McCLELLAN: Let me tell you what we're for. We support the
commission's request for an additional 60-day extension for them to
complete their work. They have said that is what they need, the
additional time they need to complete their work. And we're pleased to
support their request. This was a request by the commission.
Q So they said to you, 60 days is all we need and we'll be all
done?
MR. McCLELLAN: That's what was expressed to us, as I cited at the
beginning of the briefing.
Q And if for some reason they decided that wasn't enough, it
sounds like you would be supportive of any request --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, I think that they are the ones who
have said this additional 60-day period will give them the time they
need to come up with what they referred to as a "strong and credible
report." And they've been working on this for 18 months -- or they've
had an initial 18-month period, and we're pleased to support their
request for an additional 60 days.
And I think that, obviously, discussions have been going on with
members of Congress, and I think there will be more discussions with
members of Congress. But this was a decision the commission took to
request this extension.
Q Did the commission raise with the White House any concerns or
objections it had about the way information was flowing to it from the
administration?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think they have publicly talked about the
unprecedented cooperation that we are providing to the commission. You
can go back and look at the comments from the Chairman and the Vice
Chairman. And if there are issues that come to their attention that
need to be resolved, we're more than happy to visit with them and work
in a spirit of cooperation to make sure they have the information they
need.
Q Did they bring to you any such concerns?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, we are in discussions with them all
the time, as I pointed out. Issues that come to their attention that
they want to address we talk to them about. And we work in a spirit of
cooperation.
Q Did they --
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not getting into all the individual issues that
we discuss, but we do continue to work in a spirit of cooperation with
the commission -- because their work is very important, for the reasons
I stated. We want to know if there is information that can help us
prevent something like September 11th from ever happening again.
Q Scott, I just want to make clear, are you saying that there
are really no major impediments between you and the commission, there
are no major disagreements about how information is being shared?
MR. McCLELLAN: I wouldn't try to speak for the commission, but I
would point out some of their public comments that they've made about
the cooperation that is going on between the White House and the
commission, itself.
Q Scott, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling --
MR. McCLELLAN: Are we off 9/11?
Q -- about you.
MR. McCLELLAN: You said other issues. (Laughter.)
Q The Supreme Court of Massachusetts ruled that only full
rights for married couples were -- for married gay couples were
acceptable under that state's Constitution. Does that mean now that
Bush believes it is necessary to move ahead with a U.S. constitutional
amendment?
MR. McCLELLAN: The President has always believed that marriage is
a sacred institution between a man and a woman. He firmly -- he is
firmly committed to protecting and defending the sanctity of marriage.
Today's court ruling is deeply troubling.
Q Go on, go on. And? And?
Q Will he now support moving forward with a constitutional
amendment?
MR. McCLELLAN: It is a deeply troubling ruling. We will be
reviewing the decision. Activist judges continue to seek to redefine
marriage by court order without regard for the will of the people. The
President made it very clear in the State of the Union address that
it's important that we respect individuals, but that this is a
principled stand for one of our most fundamental, enduring
institutions. And that is the sacred institution of marriage.
And the President reiterated his strong support for the Defense of
Marriage Act. And he talked about activist judges beginning to
redefine marriage without regard for the will of the people. And he
believes it's an issue of great consequence. And that's why he said
that the people's voice must be heard, that this is an important debate
and the people should have a voice in this debate. And he said at that
time, and I will continue to reiterate what he said at that time, that
if judges continue to force their arbitrary will upon the people, that
the only alternative to the people would be a constitutional process.
And that remains his view.
Q So is this --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, I said that this --
Q -- is this the tipping point?
MR. McCLELLAN: -- this ruling is deeply troubling. The President
is firmly committed to protecting and defending the sanctity of
marriage. He strongly believes that marriage is a sacred institution
between a man and a woman. We are going to be reviewing this
decision. It just came out earlier today, but it is deeply troubling.
Q Would the issue be joined before some gay couple married in
Massachusetts goes to another state and asks them to recognize it? Do
you wait for that kind of thing and let it --
MR. McCLELLAN: I can't speculate on all the different scenarios,
Jim. But the President made it very clear that it's important for the
people's voice to be heard in a debate of such great consequence.
Q Does the White House feel like it needs to intervene before
that issue is confronted? I mean, you're not challenging the
Massachusetts --
MR. McCLELLAN: I know you're asking me to speculate a little bit
about some of the timing of matters --
Q No, no --
MR. McCLELLAN: The President, when he outlined his State of the
Union, he said that this is an important debate, and activist judges
should not be redefining marriage by court order and without regard for
the will of the people. And he wants the voice of the people to be
heard in this important debate.
Q You're saying, it's deeply troubling. I'm trying to figure
out if you're just going to stew in those troubles, or if there's
actually something you feel needs to be done now, or if it should just
wait until it becomes an issue between two states.
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm reiterating what the President has said, and
what his views are. And we are going to be reviewing today's court
decision. Obviously, we haven't had a chance to do that at this
point. But I can tell you right now that it is a deeply troubling
ruling.
Q Scott, your phrasing still leaves open the possibility of
state voters or -- of states deciding by themselves to recognize
same-sex civil unions, maybe even marriages. Where does the President
stand on that?
MR. McCLELLAN: The President is committed to protecting and
defending the sanctity of marriage. And he has previously -- he said
during the campaign, the previous campaign -- go all the way back to
four years ago -- he said that as governor of Texas he would not have
supported it for the state of Texas. But he has always said, too, that
states, obviously, have the rights to determine their own legal,
contractual arrangements. And he said that I think, as Terry is
nodding, on his network, more recently.
Q Would he overturn the Vermont law?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think I just addressed that by what I said, in
terms of the contractual arrangements by states.
Q The question that I had was, in November of last year, at an
off-site mail-sorting facility, a letter containing a low grade, very
crude form of ricin poison was discovered. It was addressed to the
White House. It was deemed through testing to not pose a public health
threat because of the low concentrations of -- the low potency of the
ricin. But it was believed to have come from the same person that
mailed ricin to a post office in Greenville, South Carolina. And
because it was connected with a criminal act in which a $100,000 reward
has been offered, why didn't the White House tell us about this?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm glad you brought that question up, John. Let
me try to help you out and walk you through this matter. First of all,
I'm not agreeing with everything you said in your opening remarks to
your question. (Laughter.) And law enforcement is currently
investigating --
Q Was it wrong, or you're just not agreeing?
MR. McCLELLAN: -- a matter that you referred to. Well, there
have been some incorrect assumptions that I have seen and some wrong
impressions in the media. First of all, what you're referring to was a
letter received at an off-site facility where White House mail is
sent. The letter contained a suspicious substance. Law enforcement,
again, is doing an ongoing investigation into this whole incident. But
-- and I would remind you that the off-site facility sorts through a
very large volume of mail on a daily basis. Appropriate precautions
and procedures are in place to sort through that mail. We often
receive letters containing a substance, and most times, they are not a
public health risk.
However, let me go back, because I went and collected some of this
information to help walk you through this. Late on November 12th, the
White House was informed that the Secret Service had identified and
intercepted a suspicious substance at the off-site White House mail
facility. At that time, White House Homeland Security officials -- or,
I should say, early in the early hours of November 13th, White House
Homeland Security officials convened an interagency conference call to
make sure appropriate law enforcement and public health officials were
informed and to determine the next steps. That call included the FBI;
it included the CDC; it included the Postal Service, and other
officials, as well. At that time, additional exhaustive testing was
conducted by the CDC, which, on November 14th, determined that the
substance did not pose a public health risk.
We obviously take public health risk very seriously. And if
there's information that needs to be shared, we share it
appropriately. I think you see that by what we have done to act on
other threats that we face. There are a number of threats that we face
in this day and age. They are from criminal acts to terrorist acts.
And we confront those threats and we share information that we have in
an appropriate manner. If there is a public health threat, we share
that information. The letter was deemed, by public health officials,
not to be a public health threat.
Q So --
MR. McCLELLAN: Now -- hold on. The matter --
Q I was just wondering what my assumptions you're challenging,
because it just basically reiterated everything I said, only you took
five minutes to do it.
MR. McCLELLAN: No, I didn't -- I don't think I did. Again, the
matter -- let me tell you again -- the matter continues to be under
investigation by law enforcement. It is an ongoing investigation. It
is best for me, from this podium, not to get into discussing specifics
relating to the ongoing investigation because it could compromise it.
And I think you can appreciate that, a matter of this importance.
Q So to get to my question, why weren't we informed that you
received a letter that contained ricin, even a low grade?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again -- and I'm not accepting everything that
you're saying in your statements -- I would point out to you that, for
the reasons I just walked you through, it was determined that it was
not a public health risk. There is an ongoing investigation at this
time.
Q So are you confirming that it was ricin, or that it wasn't
ricin?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, that's getting into specific questions
relating to an ongoing investigation. And I want to help this
investigation --
Q So is that the part of what John said that you're not
agreeing with?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I want to help this investigation move
forward, and that's the spirit in which I'm working. So if you have
specific questions relating to an investigation, you might want to
address that to law enforcement. But again, this was not something
that was a public health risk.
Q It could have still been ricin?
Q Just on the other matter of whether or not the White House
and the Secret Service shared this information with law enforcement who
was looking at the broader cases, as John raised, you're telling us
that early on November 13th, the White House did share this information
with the FBI?
MR. McCLELLAN: Correct. CDC, Postal Service, and other officials
were involved in that -- were involved in that interagency conference
call. That's what I -- and typically, that's what would happen -- when
we're notified, the Homeland Security officials here at the White House
would convene an interagency process, and begin that process.
Q It sounds as if somebody didn't connect the dots once again,
though, between the White House incident and the other incident that
was already under investigation.
MR. McCLELLAN: And nor am I, from this podium, getting into those
questions. I have not seen law enforcement go out and publicly talk
about either of these investigations that are going on right now. They
are ongoing and it's important that those investigations succeed.
Q If it was not ricin it's one thing. But if it was ricin,
wouldn't it behoove the White House to inform other agencies, since
someone was clearly targeting a federal agency with a poison?
MR. McCLELLAN: We did. I just pointed out to you --
Q I mean Capitol Hill --
MR. McCLELLAN: -- I just pointed out to you, and other officials
were informed, as well. But this was deemed not to be a public health
risk. Obviously, we are also -- have an interagency process going on
on Capitol Hill. The Capitol Hill incident was deemed to be a public
health risk. We have an interagency team that is working with Capitol
Hill police, the FBI and others to look into the matter on the Hill, as
well. The FBI is investigating that matter, as well. We have health
officials that are working with those on the Hill to address the health
concerns.
Q Was Capitol Hill informed in this case of the November letter
--
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I informed you of what I know, what I've
been able to gather. There are certainly -- I can try to go back and
get you additional information. But what I know in terms of the timing
and who was informed is what I just told you a few minutes ago.
Remember, this was at an off-site White House facility. There is an
ongoing investigation into that matter at this point.*
Q Just one more -- is the President fully satisfied with the
way this was handled, that the proper people were informed, and that if
Capitol Hill was not informed, that's fine? Is he satisfied that this
was handled correctly?
MR. McCLELLAN: We do expect the appropriate people to be informed
in situations like this. And it is our understanding that they were.
And I just noted to you what we did when we learned of this
information.
Q Was there a warning on the envelope that it contained
dangerous material? Was it addressed to the President, and what does
the letter say?
MR. McCLELLAN: Terry, this is -- I appreciate you asking that
question, but I reiterate to you, that's getting into specific matters
relating to an ongoing investigation. We need to let law enforcement
do their work. And it's best for me, from this podium, not to get into
the specifics of an ongoing investigation because it could compromise
that investigation.
Q Was the President told?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?
Q Was the President told?
MR. McCLELLAN: I said earlier today that I don't believe so. I
talked to him earlier today. He certainly is notified if there is a
public health risk. In this case there was not one.
Q You said you expected the --
Q But he was -- but he was notified, though?
MR. McCLELLAN: He asked -- I think you're asking, at the time of
the incident?
Q Yes.
MR. McCLELLAN: And I said I don't believe so. I checked on that
earlier. And I said that I, myself, I don't recall ever being informed
about it.
Q So the President first heard of it yesterday?
Q Why won't he tell anything about recognizing it? What about
-- shouldn't the public know to be on the lookout in their own mail?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, Helen, again, this letter -- and I said we
receive lots of letters at the White House mail facility, which is an
off-site facility, and there are a lot of letters that contain
substance that come across that facility. And when we have a
suspicious substance, we act on that. There are certainly precautions
that are in place at the facility, and procedures in place to look into
suspicious substances. That's what was done in this incident. It was
deemed that it was not a public health risk.
At the same time, it was something that raised concern among law
enforcement officials. And that's why law enforcement is investigating
this matter and trying to continue to move forward on the
investigation.
Q Scott, if there are a lot of substances that go there, is
there anything else besides this one ricin incident?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?
Q Is there anything else that got there that we should know
about?
MR. McCLELLAN: Like I said, if there is something that comes to
our attention that is a public health threat or a risk, we share that
information appropriately. I think if you go back and look at other
threats that we have worked to address, you know that we share that
information appropriately.
I would refer you to what we did over the holidays when the threat
level was elevated to high because we had concerns about a possible
terrorist attack on the United States. And it was specifically more
related to our aviation security. We had information; we shared that
information appropriately. And we worked to make sure some flight were
canceled, because the number one priority of this administration is the
safety and security of the American people. And when information comes
to our attention that poses a potential threat, we share that
information appropriately. And we act on that information.
Q You said in November that you expected the appropriate people
would be informed. Is the FBI charged with passing that information on
to Capitol Hill Police, or to the leadership in Congress? How do you
expect them to be informed?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, Jim, I'm working to try to get you all some
additional information, that's getting beyond the information that I
have at this point.
Q Scott, what was the name of the person that made the decision
that it wasn't a public health risk?
MR. McCLELLAN: Roger, the officials that looked at this were from
CDC. They're the ones that -- as I said, pointed out -- did the
additional exhaustive testing to confirm that it was not a public
health risk.
Q So it was a person at CDC that made the decision --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the public health officials -- again, I don't
know every single person that was involved, but CDC was involved in
doing the additional exhaustive testing. And they determined on
November 14th that the substance did not pose a public health risk.
Anything else on this matter?
Q I do --
MR. McCLELLAN: Oh, you do? Okay, go ahead, Richard.
Q In addition to substances that come in there, obviously, you
get letters from people who either make threats, and you get phone
calls that make threats. How do you determine which ones you want to
investigate, which ones you don't want to investigate --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think those determinations are made by the
appropriate authorities. And the Secret Service is the one that would
be responsible for making those determinations. But we take
information.
Q -- (inaudible) --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, like I said, Richard, unfortunately, there
are some people in this world that are seeking to either carry out
pranks or make some serious threats. And we appreciate the work of the
Secret Service that they do to address each and every one of these
matters. They take every one of them seriously. The Secret Service
looks into those matters, and then they act appropriately on those.
But it's not my position from this podium to get into every single
piece of mail that comes across our White House off site-mail
facility. But when there is information that's important to share, we
do so.
Q Is there information that you could provide that gives us an
idea of how many cases actually have to be investigated each year, that
are fully investigated?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sure you can probably place calls to the
appropriate officials. But like I said, on this particular one, I'm
working to get you additional information that I can. But I think I've
outlined for you a good time line of what happened and the actions that
we took.
Anything else on this?
Q Let's walk to the Oval Office. Yesterday's meeting between
President Bush and United Nations General Secretary Kofi Annan -- can
you give a little more about, as far as India and Pakistan
discussions? And also, who brought the issue up for discussion on
India and Pakistan, and whether they discussed about Kashmir, and if
President had asked the Secretary General to play any role, or United
Nations role in --
MR. McCLELLAN: They had a good general discussion. Ultimately,
resolving those tensions that exist in the region requires dialogue
between the two countries, as I pointed out yesterday. I don't recall
specifically who was the first to mention relationships between India
and Pakistan and the dialogue that is ongoing at this point. But they
both expressed their support for these high-level dialogues between the
two countries that will help reduce tensions in the region.
Q Did the President ask any role the U.N. will play?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, it was a general discussion, and they talked
about the importance of everybody supporting the efforts of Pakistan
and India to reduce tensions in the region.
Q How is the President going to counter Democratic challenges
that he got preferential treatment while serving in the National Guard
during Vietnam?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think we went through this issue four years ago
and I went through this issue yesterday. And I will leave it where I
left it yesterday.
Q I want to go back to the intelligence investigation. You
spoke about it being a broad investigation. Well, how deep is it going
to go? What I'm asking is, at the end of this exercise, will the
American people be fully aware of what happened to our intelligence
agencies over the last decade, and who has been responsible for
slashing funding for these intelligence agencies? Intelligence
failures didn't start on January 20th, 2001.
MR. McCLELLAN: The President will appoint highly-qualified
individuals to this commission, people that will have the independence
they need to do their job. The executive order will spell out the fact
that they have the independence to do the job they need to do. And
this will look at our intelligence capabilities, do a broad assessment
of our intelligence capabilities, as we're now in the 21st century and
addressing new and dangerous threats that we haven't had to face in the
same ways before.
These threats -- I mean, you correctly point out that these threats
didn't happen overnight. But this administration is committed to
confronting these threats. And because of the actions that we are
taking, in a number of different ways, we're achieving some important
successes to make the world more safe and to make the world a better
place, in a number of different ways. But this commission will make
the decisions in terms of all those issues that you're bringing up.
They will have the independence they need to do their job and do so
thoroughly.
Q We can look back at the 20th century to determine how we got
to the position --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, those are decisions that the commission
members will be able to make. And certainly if you're doing a broad
assessment of your intelligence capabilities, you want to make sure you
look at where we've been and where we're headed. If there are ways
that we can improve our intelligence capabilities, we want to know,
particularly in this day and age where we face so many dangerous
threats that we must address before it's too late.
Q Can you tell us about the South Carolina trip, and why the
President, in particular, wants to talk about the war on terror there?
Is it purely coincidence that it's two days after a Democratic primary,
once again?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, there are primaries happening all over the
place these days, Mark, and I guess we could stay here in Washington,
D.C. and not go anywhere. But those primaries are happening all over
the place.
The President will talk about what we are doing to protect the
American people here at home and better secure our homeland. But as
you pointed out, the war -- he will also talk about the broader war on
terrorism. The President will spend a good portion of his remarks
focusing on that war and how the best way to win the war on terrorism
is by taking the fight to the enemy. We must stay on the offense. He
will talk about the choices we have made and how this is a time of
testing. There is more work to be done to win this war on terrorism.
And this war on terrorism will be won on the offensive.
The President is firmly committed to seeing it through and making
the world a safer and better place in which to live. And I expect he
will talk about the importance of a free and peaceful Iraq to the war
on terrorism. A free and peaceful Iraq will help advance freedom and
democracy in a dangerous part of the world that has been a breeding
ground for terrorism. So that's what I expect he will talk about in
his remarks tomorrow.
Q On Iraq, there were, in the last 24 hours, there have been
some indications that the June 30th deadline for a handover may slip,
and that the U.S. government is recognizing that. Do you have any
update --
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not sure of the exact indications, but we
remain firmly committed to working with the -- working with Iraqi
leaders and the Iraqi people to meet the timetable that the Governing
Council worked on and agreed to. We want to move forward as quickly as
possible to transfer -- and in a timely manner, but in an orderly
fashion -- to transfer sovereignty to the Iraqi people.
We believe it's important that we all work together to meet that
timetable. This was a decision that was worked on by the Governing
Council and agreed to with the Coalition Provisional Authority. And
we've always said that we're open to refinements within that framework,
refinements or clarifications. And we welcome the efforts by Secretary
General Annan, who is sending a team into Iraq to assess the
feasibility of elections within that timetable.
Q Scott, in the last few days, the President has said he wants
to get all the facts on what -- the issue of stockpiles of weapons of
mass destruction in Iraq. But the commission that you outlined this
morning has a broader mandate to look at intelligence in general. When
this commission wraps up its work, will the answers that the President
wants on Iraq be forthcoming?
MR. McCLELLAN: I would point out several things. One, the Iraq
Survey Group is working to complete their work. So there is more
information that we will learn from the Iraq Survey Group once they
complete their work. It's important that they complete their work. We
already know that -- from their initial progress report, that Saddam
Hussein was in clear violation of his international obligations, and
continued to pose a gathering danger to the world. And congressional
committees, as I pointed out earlier in this briefing, are also looking
into the pre-war intelligence. The CIA is looking into pre-war
intelligence. And this commission will look at Iraq, as well, as part
of a broad assessment of our intelligence capabilities.
It's very important in this day and age that we take a close look
at our global intelligence challenges, so that we have -- if there are
ways to improve our ability to meet the security threats of the 21st
century, we want to know about that.
Q The President said he wants to know all the facts. The
commission clearly would be a vehicle to do that, and that's why I'm --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the Iraq Survey Group is gathering a lot of
facts on the ground, so we can compare that with what we knew before.
I fully expect that the commission will look at the work that they are
in the process of completing.
Q Thank you.
MR. McCLELLAN: Thank you.
END 1:36 P.M. EST
* On November 19, 2003, the FBI sent an Intelligence Bulletin to
law enforcement authorities. The Bulletin alerted authorities to the
fact that ricin had been discovered in a mail distribution facility and
that it continued to pose a threat. It also outlined facts about
ricin, symptoms of ricin exposure, and general recommended responses if
the presence of ricin is suspected.
|