[D] WILSON SCANDAL, JTF-GTMO ARRESTS, 2002/08/01 TO DATE ================================================================================ June 10, 2004 - Savannah, Georgia PRESIDENT BUSH HOLDS PRESS CONFERENCE FOLLOWING THE G8 SUMMIT 3:27 P.M. EDT (...) Q: Mr. President, the Justice Department issued an advisory opinion last year declaring that as Commander-in-Chief you have the authority to order any kind of interrogation techniques that are necessary to pursue the war on terror. Were you aware of this advisory opinion? Do you agree with it? And did you issue any such authorization at any time? THE PRESIDENT: No, the authorization I issued, David, was that anything we did would conform to U.S. law and would be consistent with international treaty obligations. That's the message I gave our people. Q: Have you seen the memos? THE PRESIDENT: I can't remember if I've seen the memo or not, but I gave those instructions. (...) Q: Returning to the question of torture, if you knew a person was in U.S. custody and had specific information about an imminent terrorist attack that could kill hundreds or even thousands of Americans, would you authorize the use of any means necessary to get that information and to save those lives? THE PRESIDENT: Jonathan, what I've authorized is that we stay within U.S. law. (...) Q: Given -- given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President Cheney's discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent's name? THE PRESIDENT: That's up to -- Q: And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so? THE PRESIDENT: Yes. And that's up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts. Q: My final point would be -- or question would be, has Vice President Cheney assured you -- THE PRESIDENT: It's up to the -- Q: -- subsequent to his conversations with them, that nobody -- THE PRESIDENT: I haven't talked to the Vice President about this matter, and I suggest -- recently -- and I suggest you talk to the U.S. Attorney about that. (...) Q: Mr. President, I wanted to return to the question of torture. What we've learned from these memos this week is that the Department of Justice lawyers and the Pentagon lawyers have essentially worked out a way that U.S. officials can torture detainees without running afoul of the law. So when you say that you want the U.S. to adhere to international and U.S. laws, that's not very comforting. This is a moral question: Is torture ever justified? THE PRESIDENT: Look, I'm going to say it one more time. If I -- maybe -- maybe I can be more clear. The instructions went out to our people to adhere to law. That ought to comfort you. We're a nation of law. We adhere to laws. We have laws on the books. You might look at those laws, and that might provide comfort for you. And those were the instructions out of -- from me to the government. (...) * * * December 18, 2003 PRESS BRIEFING BY SCOTT MCCLELLAN (...) Q: An appeals court has said the President does not -- any President does not have the power to detain an American citizen seized on U.S. soil as an enemy combatant. McCLELLAN: What I would say is that the President's most solemn obligation is protecting the American people. We believe the 2nd Circuit ruling is troubling and flawed, and the President has directed the Justice Department to seek a stay and further judicial review. This is a case in which an individual was involved with terrorist organization activity and was actively engaged in an effort to do harm to the American people. Q: Why couldn't that be adjudicated in some way by going through the regular court system, instead of making him an enemy combatant? McCLELLAN: Well, first of all, let's remember what we're talking about. We're talking about an individual who was involved in seeking to do harm to the American people. And the President has repeatedly said that his most solemn obligation and responsibility is to protect the American people. And the 2nd Circuit's ruling is really inconsistent with the clear constitutional authority of the President and his responsibility that I just mentioned, and with previous circuit and Supreme Court rulings. The 4th Circuit previously ruled on a similar matter, and it upheld the authority of the President to designate enemy combatants. So let's keep all that in mind. The President is going to continue aggressively pursuing the war on terror and do everything he can to prevent an attack from happening in this country. Q: So what's the next step? McCLELLAN: Well, the President directed the Justice Department to seek a stay and further judicial review. So that's the next step. Q: -- to seek a stay from the same court -- or do you go to the Supreme Court, what do you do? McCLELLAN: Well, I'll let the lawyers determine the best course forward. But the President has made his views very well-known. Q: Is the stay meant to study whether to appeal? McCLELLAN: Well, I said, and further judicial review. So we will continue to -- Q: -- might take it to the Supreme Court? McCLELLAN: Well, if that's necessary. Q: What happens if Pedilla's court asks the Pentagon to release Pedilla from military custody? McCLELLAN: I don't think that that's the case, if you're suggesting that, that that would be the case. That's why, one, we're seeking a stay; and two, seeking further judicial review. Q: I'm asking whether Pedilla would be released per this court's order. McCLELLAN: It's my understanding that would not be the case at this point. Q: He will not be released pending this review? McCLELLAN: It's my understanding that would not be the case. Q: Does the ruling in this case and the ruling in the Moussoui case lead the President to believe that he's being well represented by the Justice Department in these court matters? McCLELLAN: We believe the Justice Department is doing a great job. (...) * * * November 20, 2003 PRESIDENT BUSH, PRIME MINISTER HOLD JOINT PRESS CONFERENCE Foreign and Commonwealth Offices, London, England http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031120-3.html (...) Q: What do you say to those people, both those who support what your two governments have done since September 11th, and those who oppose it, that, in fact, the treatment of the captives in Guantanamo Bay actually belies all your talk of freedom, justice and tolerance? And on a specific point, in view of the comments from the Secretary of State and from Charles Kennedy and Michael Howard, is there on the minority of British nationals held captive an explicit offer from the United States to repatriate them? And, if that depends on a request from you, Prime Minister, are you prepared to make it now? PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: First of all, let me just deal with the very specific issue of the British nationals over in Guantanamo Bay. We are in discussion about this. I've already said in the House of Commons it will be resolved in one of two ways. Either they will be tried by the military commission out there; or, alternatively, they'll be brought back here. Now, we're in discussion at the moment -- Q: How -- PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: It will be resolved at some point or other. It's not going to be resolved today, but it will be resolved at some point soon. Let me just say this to you, however, about Guantanamo Bay, indeed, the people that are there. Again, let's just remember, this arose out of the battle in Afghanistan, that arose out of September the 11th and the attack there. And the very fact that we are in discussion about making sure there are fair procedures for trial -- or, alternatively, it's up to us, as the President very fairly has said, these people come back here -- is an indication that we actually treat people differently. So, even though this arose out of this appalling, brutal attack on America on September the 11th, nonetheless, we make sure that justice is done for people. PRESIDENT BUSH: These are -- justice is being done. These are illegal, noncombatants, picked up off of a battlefield. And they are being treated in a humane fashion. And we are sorting through them on a case-by-case basis. There is a court procedure in place that will allow them to be tried in fair fashion. As to the issue of the British citizens, we're working with the British government. * * * October 10, 2003 - 12:16 P.M. EDT PRESS BRIEFING BY SCOTT MCCLELLAN Q: Second question. The International Red Cross typically does not issue public criticism of governments, When they have problems with something that a government is doing they try to resolve it privately. Today they publicly criticized the detainment of people in Guantanamo and, in particular, said that what they feel the United States needs to do is present those prisoners with some sort of specific time horizon whereby their cases might be resolved or either be charged or released -- know what's going on. Could you respond to this? McCLELLAN: First of all, let's remember these individuals are enemy combatants. These individuals are terrorists or supporters of terrorism, and we are war on terrorism. And the reasons for detaining enemy combatants in the first place, during a war, is to gather intelligence and make sure that these enemy combatants don't return to help our enemies plot attacks or carry out attacks on the United States. I think for specific questions about the report, those are best addressed to the Department of Defense. But keep in mind that we're talking about enemy combatants, people that are enemies of the United States, that have assisted or provided support to attacks against the United States. Q: So the administration's feeling is that it's simply not safe to let these people go, that they need to be held there more or less indefinitely -- McCLELLAN: This is about protecting the American people. We are at war on terrorism, that war continues. And we are going to make sure we do everything we can to protect America in this war on terrorism. And part of that is detaining these enemy combatants, gathering intelligence, seeking to prevent future attacks that may be being plotted, that may be being planned against the United States. Q: The essence of the Red Cross's charge today seemed to be that there doesn't seem to be much being done to separate out the legitimate security threats from the people who may present no threat at all. McCLELLAN: Well, I disagree with that. There are some -- some of those individuals have been released and returned back to their country. And these individuals are being treated well, they're being treated in accordance with the standards of the Geneva Convention. But, again, we're talking about enemy combatants during a time of war, and the President of the United States is committed to doing everything we can to protect the American people from future attacks, and part of that is the information we're obtaining from these enemy combatants. (...) * * * October 2, 2003 - 12:47 P.M. EDT PRESS BRIEFING BY SCOTT MCCLELLAN (...) With that, I will go right to questions. Terry. Q: Scott, has the White House received any subpoenas for documents in the leaks case? McCLELLAN: No. Q: Are you aware of any individuals who have received any? And will you tell us if the White House is subpoenaed or if individuals are? McCLELLAN: Yes, that question came up earlier. I expect that we will discuss that matter with the career Justice Department officials who are looking into this. And if they are okay with me notifying you of that information, I will certainly do so. My intention is to share with you the information you need to do your job, as long as that's consistent with preserving the integrity of the investigation. Q: I was just going to say there is a precedent for revealing this. We had this in a previous administration, and it has come up. Is that being taken into consideration as you look at this? McCLELLAN: Yes, that's why I said, what we want to do is discuss that matter with the Department of Justice. And if they are okay with us notifying you of that information, then we will do so. Q: I gather you're asking about subpoenas for things, information, or records -- I'm asking if that applies, as well -- have any White House officials been interviewed yet by the FBI? McCLELLAN: Not to my knowledge. But again, the Justice Department officials may decide they want to talk to people individually. So I wouldn't necessarily know. And I should say not to the White House's knowledge, when I say that, when I'm saying me, not to the White House's knowledge. Q: So would that mean that there's -- McCLELLAN: At this point, we've received -- Q: No senior staff has been interviewed then? McCLELLAN: Not to our knowledge. Q: How about the CIA? McCLELLAN: I'm sorry? Q: Are you aware of anybody at the -- McCLELLAN: You'd have to ask the CIA that question, or the Justice Department that question. Q: Can I ask a follow-on point I just wanted to -- why does the White House feel that it's appropriate to coordinate an attack on Joseph Wilson in coordination with the RNC and Republicans in Congress, to attack him on his partisanship and his record as a partisan? Why does the White House feel that that's appropriate and relevant here? McCLELLAN: What we are focused on is getting to the bottom of this investigation. That's what the President wants to happen. He wants the -- he wants the Justice Department to get to the bottom of this, the sooner the better. So our focus is on this investigation and getting to the bottom of it. That's what we are doing. Obviously, there are -- that's what the subject of this investigation is about, and that's why it's important to -- Q: But my question is -- McCLELLAN: -- keep the focus on the investigation. Q: Right, but my question still hasn't been answered. I mean, you're not denying that there are challenges and attacks on Joseph Wilson's character because he's a partisan, and the partisan nature that the White House believes is irrelevant here -- I'm asking you, why that's relevant in all of this and why the White House feels it's appropriate when there's an investigation going on to coordinate such attacks with the Republican National Committee and with Republicans on the Hill -- McCLELLAN: David, I have said from this podium that it is not my place to question someone's motives. That is something that is part of your reporting that you do in your profession. So that's -- Q: But it is the place of others who are working at the White House. McCLELLAN: I have made it very clear on that matter that it is just simply not my position to get into questioning someone's motives. Q: Right, but you're speaking for the White House, and the White House is coordinating with Republicans on the Hill and with its arm, which is the political arm, which is the RNC, to go after this guy. So why is that appropriate? Why is it relevant? McCLELLAN: Again, the President wants everybody to focus on getting to the bottom of this investigation, and that's what we are doing. We are working -- Q: Well, why won't you answer this question? McCLELLAN: -- to cooperate with the Department of Justice. And I have answered that -- I answered that question yesterday. Q: Scott, between the time period of mid-July when this story first broke, and late September when it became much more public, what, if anything, did White House officials -- the President, National Security Advisor, Chief of Staff, others, general for the Counsel's Office -- do to address the leak problem that emerged in July? McCLELLAN: I'll tell you what we were doing in that period. We were focusing on the priorities of the American people. We were focusing on moving forward on the legislation to strengthen and improve Medicare for America's seniors. We were focused on strengthening the economy that's growing faster now, but we want more action done. We were focusing on the energy legislation and focusing on addressing some of the problems there. That's where our focus was. Now, there was -- there were articles which happen all too often in this town, of allegations that were made -- unsubstantiated allegations citing, I believe, senior administration officials, not even specifically White House at that point. And we didn't have -- we had no information beyond these unsubstantiated allegations in media reports to suggest there was any White House involvement in the matter you are raising. But the process that is in place for that is for the CIA to look at those issues, and, if they feel a need to, to report information to the Department of Justice. They did that. Q: I did not mean to suggest that the President and his staff had no other focus or no other responsibilities; obviously, tremendous responsibilities. But this was one thing that had happened which the CIA's General Counsel has now determined a crime that hurt national security. Did the CIA -- Director Tenet or anyone else -- during the time period, mid-July, late September, communicate to the President or his staff that this was very serious, that it looked like it was heading towards a criminal investigation, that they wanted some cooperation from the White House? McCLELLAN: No, I'm not aware of any such conversation. Q: Senator Schumer is calling on John Ashcroft to recuse himself from this case, Scott. Do you see any need for the General to do that? McCLELLAN: Well, I think that the Department of Justice will make decisions of that nature. They -- the Department of Justice has publicly stated that all legal options are on the table. That's where it stands. But I would remind you that the career Justice Department officials are the ones who are leading this investigation. These are individuals with vast experience and are in the best position to get to the bottom of this. The Justice Department wants to get to the bottom of this. The President wants to get to the bottom of this. The American people want us to get to the bottom of this. So that's a shared goal, and that's a -- that's what we are -- that's why we are working cooperatively with the Department of Justice to get to the bottom of this. And, as I said, the sooner the better. And if anyone, anyone inside or outside the administration has information that is relevant to this investigation, they should report that information to the Department of Justice so we can get to the bottom of this. Q: How does the President feel about so many of his friends possibly profiteering business-wise from his invasion of Iraq? McCLELLAN: Who are you suggesting? Q: Groups, Allbaugh for one is forming a group for -- McCLELLAN: I think those individuals can address those matters. If they -- you're talking about former administration officials? I think that those individuals, you have to ask those questions. I don't have any specific information about what individuals are seeking to do outside of the administration. Q: But they seem to be using their name and part of this -- former part of this administration to make inroads into business in Iraq. McCLELLAN: You're asking me about people outside the administration. Q: Yes, I am. McCLELLAN: You need to talk to the people outside the administration. I don't have specific information on what they're doing. Q: I asked the President's opinion on that. McCLELLAN: Opinion on people outside the administration seeking business in Iraq. Q: His cronies, his friends, yes. McCLELLAN: I don't have any specific information about what these individuals are doing. If you do, you can ask those individuals about it. Q: You've been reading the papers, haven't you? McCLELLAN: These are people outside the administration that do not work in the administration? Q: Scott, Steve mentioned Senator Schumer, but it's not just him. Senator Specter, a fellow Republican, also said today that he believes that Ashcroft should recuse himself in order to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest because of his relationships with Karl Rove. What do you think of that? Is that something that you think might make sense, considering the fact that you do want this to stay at the Justice Department in the hands of career officials? McCLELLAN: I think that's a matter for the Department of Justice to decide. Q: But in terms of the perception of this, when you have Republicans now saying that perhaps John Ashcroft should recuse himself in order to let the career -- McCLELLAN: We talked about this yesterday, the President spoke about it the other day. The President believes that the career Justice Department officials at the Department of Justice, the ones who have a vast amount of experience in these issues, are in the best position to get to the bottom of this. And that's exactly what he wants those officials to do. And that's exactly what those officials want to do. Q: But what Senator Specter is saying is that they report to John Ashcroft, who might have a conflict because of his past work with Karl Rove. McCLELLAN: And the Department of Justice has said that all legal options are on the table. They will make those decisions. Q: Scott, on Tuesday when you shared with us the second memo by Judge Gonzales to the staff, it named three reporters. And it said pursuant to the Justice Department request, please preserve records of contacts with these three reporters. Was Judge Gonzales singling out those three reporters, or did the Justice Department single them out? McCLELLAN: No. Actually, if you look back at the letter, the language in that letter that we shared publicly with you was verbatim from the Justice Department. That was the request that they sent us the other day. Q: So there was -- that was the entire text -- McCLELLAN: And those names were -- those names were verbatim from the text of that letter. Q: Scott, in addition to the controversy surrounding Ambassador Wilson's wife, we've seen open, public dissension in the State Department; the EPA Inspector General has made claims that the White House doctored air quality reports, and Senator Clinton is using this to hold up the nomination of Governor Leavitt for the EPA post. Still, others leave the administration, write an op-ed criticizing the administration, and then join a Democratic presidential nominee's campaign. My question is: Is the President or anyone else in this administration concerned that the Clinton holdovers are undermining the administration? McCLELLAN: In a certain department? Q: Yes, in these various departments. McCLELLAN: I think that the President has assembled a team that is working together to implement his priorities. We have a strong team that is in place that is trying to implement what the President's focus is. Q: But time and time again you'll see one holdover from various departments criticizing the administration and -- McCLELLAN: People have the right to express their views. Q: Scott, in the midst of this "leakgate" situation, has the White House unofficially or officially told the Press Office or senior administration officials how they should deal with the press in reference to sourcing information, giving us information on any new situation -- not just this, but anything? Has anything changed in reference to this in how the White House relates with us? McCLELLAN: Has anything changed in reference -- Q: How the White House deals with the press, in giving information, ever since this "leakgate" situation has happened? McCLELLAN: I don't know what you're referring to specifically. Q: I'm referring to, like, we will be able to email you, or some other White House staffers, talk to them on the phone. Has anything been put in place, in motion, to kind of curtail -- has the White House maybe tapped -- McCLELLAN: Try to curtail? Q: Has the White House maybe tapped phone lines, looking through emails -- no, I mean, I'm not trying to be funny with this, I'm being very serious. Is there some kind of thing to prevent this kind of "leakgate" from happening again? McCLELLAN: I appreciate what you're saying. At this point, what we have done is sent the letter -- sent the text of the letter from the Department of Justice to White House staff. We have shared that letter, the text of that letter with you, as well, because we released that memo for you. Q: But has anything changed in the way White House officials are dealing with the press to prevent -- McCLELLAN: No. To prevent? Q: To prevent this kind of situation, Justice Department probe -- into giving confidential information that could ultimately result in someone's -- affect someone's life. McCLELLAN: Well, you're suggesting that that happened in the White House. Q: I am not suggesting that happened -- McCLELLAN: Well, by that question -- Q: -- but there is a probe that is going on because there are allegations. McCLELLAN: What we're trying to do is get to the bottom of this investigation, and work cooperatively with the Justice Department to do that. But, no other -- we have sent the memo out with the text of the letter in it to White House employees to make sure that they understand that it is the request of the Department of Justice that they preserve and maintain all information that could be related to their request. And the President has directed the White House to cooperate fully. And that's what we expect staff members to do. That's what we've done. Q: On the reconstruction aid to Iraq, it looks like Senate Republicans now are saying that they'd like to see some of it in the form of loans, rather than grants. I'm wondering if the White House is still 100 percent committed to doing this is in grants? Or would you be willing to listen to a loan package? McCLELLAN: We went through a little bit of this yesterday. Our position remains the same. This is an $87-billion package. And we view it as one package. It is a wartime supplemental that will help us prevail in the central front in the war on terrorism, which is Iraq now, and it is in the form of grants. The people of Iraq have been saddled with a debt from a brutal regime that went through 30 years of neglect and was more interested in building palaces than building the infrastructure for the Iraqi people. Q: So does that mean you're opposed to what Senate Republicans are proposing? McCLELLAN: Well, we put forward a wartime supplemental and we are urging Congress to pass that wartime supplemental as it is. Q: But then again, I'm still not clear, does that mean you oppose what the Senate Republicans -- McCLELLAN: It means we support what we've put forward and that we want that package passed as it is. That's what it means. And we're working with Congress to get that done; the sooner, the better. Q: Scott, I'd like to take another crack, if I may, at Steve's question. You keep using the phrase "career Justice Department investigators leading the investigation." But really what Senator Schumer is concerned about is the fact that the Attorney General, a political appointee, in some cases has to sign off on subpoenas. And is the White House concerned that there just may be an appearance here that there's foot-dragging. We're this far into it, we haven't heard any subpoenas have been served or investigators have come on. Is there just any concern on the part of the White House that because the Attorney General is a political appointee and he does have a hands-on role in this, is Senator Schumer right to say that the best thing for the White House would be to call for a recusal? McCLELLAN: Again, I've addressed this question. The Justice Department has addressed that question. In response to that very question you're bringing up, the Justice Department said that all legal options remain on the table. But I think it's important to keep in mind that the criminal division that is investigating this matter at the Department of Justice is headed by career Justice Department officials who have a lot of experience in these matters. And that's why they're in the best position to get to the bottom of this. And it's important to keep in mind that the Justice Department wants to get to the bottom of this, too. If someone in the administration, anywhere in the administration, leaked classified information, we want to know who it is. The President has always made it clear that the leaking of classified information is a very serious matter. And I think the Justice Department shares the White House's concern about the leaking of classified information. So we're working toward the same goal here. And we're working cooperatively with them to get to the bottom of this matter. Q: Can I follow up, Scott? Just quickly? McCLELLAN: Well, we've -- I mean, we've been through this before. Q: Can I just -- just very quickly. You talk about the fact that all legal options are on the table. But this isn't a question of legal options, this is a question of a potential conflict of interest, a perception of that, with John Ashcroft. And that is why the two senators are calling for him to recuse himself. McCLELLAN: And those are decisions for the Department of Justice to make. Q: What's the President's view of the comment that got Rush Limbaugh in trouble? McCLELLAN: I think that Rush Limbaugh addressed the matter. Q: You know, Scott, when you click onto the White House website and you enter the word, "bigotry," the President has addressed this issue 136 times. Why would not -- why wouldn't you, on his behalf, want to address it in this instance, where someone has associated the selection of athletes on the basis of their race for certain positions on the field? McCLELLAN: I did answer the question, and I think that he addressed the matter -- I think that Rush Limbaugh addressed the matter. Q: Is it because Limbaugh is a political ally and often someone who supports administration causes and so forth that you don't want to address this yourself? McCLELLAN: You've asked the question, and I've responded to it. Q: Thank you. Two -- first on Korea, any comments on their statement that they are developing atomic weapons? McCLELLAN: Well, we've seen them make those statements previously -- don't have anything to confirm what they're saying. But what needs to happen is North Korea needs to recognize that all that they are doing with these kinds of threats and bluster is isolating themselves. The international community has made it clear that escalation by North Korea will only lead to further isolation. I think many countries -- the United States at the forefront -- have expressed concern about the reprocessing of spent-fuel rods. There is no legitimate use for plutonium harvested during this procedure. And it's a clear indication -- it would be a clear indication that they are intent on enlarging their nuclear arsenal, despite the call from the international community for North Korea to change its behavior. North Korea -- we've been talking about these issues in the six-party talks. And North Korea has received the message from all these nations that they need to end the nuclear weapons program in a verifiable and irreversible way, once and for all. Q: And on Korea, on the extension of the security fence in Korea -- I'm sorry, Israel -- are you concerned about that? Have you communicated -- McCLELLAN: The President has expressed his concern about the fence. We've been talking with the Israelis about that matter and we are continuing to discuss it with the Israelis. Q: That was my question, but I have another one. Scott, there are indications the economy is improving. But many major U.S. companies, such as Levi Strauss are still fleeing the country to take advantage of cheap labor overseas. This is putting hundreds, if not thousands of Americans out of work. What is the President doing to stop this loss of American jobs? McCLELLAN: The President is acting to get our economy growing stronger, and he wants to -- he's emphasized the importance of acting on additional fronts, in addition to what we've already done. If we strengthen our economy and make sure that we have a level playing field in trade matters, those are important steps that we can take to improve the economic situation here at home. It's already -- the economy is moving in the right direction, but there's more to do. That's where his focus is. Q: Scott, just a quick follow-up on that. A number of news organizations in recent days have got polls showing that the American public is increasingly disapproving of the way he's handling the economy. I understand that you say the economy is improving, that there's still more to do. But I'm wondering, how concerned is he about this perception that he's not up to the task? McCLELLAN: I think, one, I reject the way you phrased that. I reject that premise. But the President -- the American people want a President who leads and acts. This President is acting to strengthen our economy. That is -- one of his highest priorities is to get the economy growing even faster. That's why we took the action that we did. The President -- we inherited a recession; the President acted to get us out of the recession. It was a very shallow one because of the actions that we took. We obviously went through a difficult period where -- the September 11th attacks, the corporate scandals, the march to war that the President refers to. But the President is not satisfied because there are people who are still looking for work who cannot find a job. That's why he's urging action on additional fronts, as well. That includes expanding trade; that includes reforming -- lawsuit reform; that includes making the tax cuts permanent so people can have certainty for their planning purposes; that includes passing a comprehensive energy plan. So there are a number of other things we can do to strengthen our economy even more. Q: You're rejecting the premise, you're basically saying the opinion polls are inaccurate? McCLELLAN: It think the American people recognize that the President is a strong and decisive leader who is acting on a number of fronts to address the important priorities for the American people. Q: Scott, back on the Wilson matter for a second. Metaphorically speaking, there is one holdover from the Clinton administration that seems to be in play here, and that's the notion that every time controversy comes up, the two political parties do snipe at each other about it. And in spite of what you said earlier regarding the parties, does the President realize that this is the sort of thing that can hurt him politically? McCLELLAN: The investigation? Q: The investigation, the -- McCLELLAN: If we get to the bottom of this -- the President has been the one out -- speaking out front of this that we need to get to the bottom of this investigation. Look, we recognize that, certainly, there are people who have made some unsubstantiated accusations of the White House leaking classified information. More recently they have been forced to back away from those unsubstantiated accusations. Now you see what happens here in Washington, D.C. Some have, all of a sudden, decided to move the goalpost and sensationalize this issue for a political -- for partisan political gain. We recognize -- Q: It's been that way for a while. McCLELLAN: We recognize that this is what happens in Washington, D.C. It's unfortunate, and I think it can -- it's a real -- not only does it take away from the subject of this investigation, it's a disservice to the American people. There are a number of important challenges facing this country that we need to be working together on to address. The President is someone who does everything he can to bring people together to get things done. And that's what he's going to continue to do. He's focused -- we're going about our business. We're focused on the priorities for the American people. And we will continue to remain focused on the priorities for the American people. Q: Who is moving the goalposts? McCLELLAN: I think we all know. The subject of this investigation is whether someone leaked classified information. Yesterday some of the questions began to move the goalpost and focus on other issues that are not the subject of this investigation. And we all know who these people are. Q: Who are they? Q: We'd like to know -- McCLELLAN: Well, if you watch TV, you will see who they are. Q: Who are they? Who are they? Q: What did Democrats -- are you referring to Democrats on the Hill who, by calling for a special counsel -- do you think that that is somehow changing the subject of what the investigation is about for political gain? Is that what you're referring to? McCLELLAN: There are -- the leaking of classified information is a very serious allegation. And the President has made it very clear that he wants to get to the bottom of this. Unfortunately, there are some that are looking through the lens of political opportunism. There are some that are seeking partisan political advantage. I don't need to go into names. We all know who they are. Goyal. Q: Can I follow on that? McCLELLAN: You can go to that, then I'm going to come to Goyal. Q: If the President wants people to stop trying to get partisan political gain from this, why doesn't he tell Ed Gillespie, the Chairman of the RNC, to stop questioning Joe Wilson's motives? McCLELLAN: Again, there are some people that are making unsubstantiated allegations and unsubstantiated rumors about the White House leaking classified information. And some of those people have been forced to back away from that, and then all of a sudden they move the goalpost and focus on another issue that's not the subject of the investigation. Q: Are you talking about Joe Wilson now? McCLELLAN: No, we all know who these people are. If you look at yesterday's questions in the briefing, I think you know exactly what I am talking about. Q: Does the President think Ed Gillespie, who is, after all, his political arm, ought to stop being involved in this issue then? McCLELLAN: I've already answered that question earlier. Q: This moving the goalpost question, are you saying that the President condemns and believes it's wrong for any members of his staff to leak classified information, but that he has no opinion, or that it's okay if once leaked some members of his staff peddle that story in order to do down Ambassador Wilson or his wife -- McCLELLAN: One, I addressed that matter yesterday. So I've already addressed that matter. Q: Remind me. McCLELLAN: What's your question? Are you getting to are people talking about what's in the news? Q: Yes, that is precisely what I'm getting at. McCLELLAN: People always talk about -- you all talk about what's in the news, I talk about what's in the news, people always talk about what's in the news. Q: So it's okay with the President if people said, hey, did you see that Bob Novak column, you know, Wilson's wife got him the job and that's why you shouldn't believe what he says? That's okay -- leaking it is wrong; peddling it is okay? McCLELLAN: No, I'm saying that it's a serious allegation when it's suggested that someone leaked classified information. We want to get to the bottom of that. There are some that are looking at this as an opportunity for partisan political advantage, in talking about other issues that are not the subject of the investigation. Q: I'm talking about an issue that is not the subject of the investigation. I'm talking about changing the tone, about the ethics -- McCLELLAN: That's what -- I made very clear that the President expects members of his administration to adhere to the highest ethical standards. Q: Scott, two quick questions. One, how serious is the Washington Post story today that there is fundamentalism growing in this country? And it seems to include a story that we are living among terrorists. And if President is aware of this, that what he's doing about it? The FBI is investigating the -- McCLELLAN: The Washington Post story that -- Q: On the Saudi charities and fundamentalism growing in this country. It seemed to me, from the story, that we are living among terrorists. How serious is the matter, is the President -- get rid of this, and what he doing, and this under investigation by the FBI? And number two, if you can update me on the Prime Minister of Pakistan's yesterday meeting with President Bush. McCLELLAN: Yes, one, I think we talked about that last part of that question yesterday. But the highest priority for the President is winning the war on terrorism abroad and at home. And we are working on a number of different fronts: the law enforcement front, the terrorist financing front, we are working to crack down on terrorist financing at home and abroad. We are working on law enforcement matters. There are some things that the public may not see in this war on terrorism, but the war continues. And we will continue to wage this war until we have eliminated the threat of terrorism. Q: Scott, could you go back to the subject of Korea -- North Korea for a moment, and this claim that they've made that they have extracted plutonium from spent nuclear fuel rods? Does the U.S. government know whether they are telling the truth about that, whether there's any truth to those statements? McCLELLAN: No, I just said we have not confirmed that statement. But they've made that statement before. Q: And what effect does it have on the potential for another round of talks, which was thought to be this fall? McCLELLAN: Well, that's what I said. That's why I said that they will continue isolating themselves by those kind of comments. It's important that we continue to send the message that we have from the international community, from the five nations that have said to North Korea that if they will end their nuclear weapons program once and for all, then they will be in position to realize the benefits of the international -- being part of the international community. But they first must act to end their nuclear weapons program in a verifiable and irreversible way. Q: Scott, there's a third individual now being questioned in connection with the handling of sensitive information gathered at the U.S. base in Guantanamo Bay. What can you tell us about what the President has been briefed on about these incidents, and how -- what's the level of his satisfaction with the security of sensitive information? McCLELLAN: Those questions you need to direct to the appropriate authorities who have -- who are looking into that. I think that I would leave those questions, because there have been charges filed against individuals. And you need to ask those questions of either the FBI officials or Pentagon officials that are involved in that matter. Q: Is it safe to say that -- McCLELLAN: Absolutely, absolutely. It's a serious matter. Q: Can I follow through real quick? In addition to the statements that the North Koreans made about reprocessing plutonium, which they've said before, they also said that they do not plan to export any nuclear materials. That's something they have not said before. Does the administration see that pledge not to export as a possible step forward by the North Koreans? McCLELLAN: They say a lot of things all the time. We don't -- and then later say something else that contradicts what they said previously. So -- but proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is a very serious matter, and all the nations in that region have also made that clear, as well. And that's why the President is moving forward on that front with his proliferation security initiative, and working with the international community to pull together to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Q: David Kaye is briefing both the House and Senate Intelligence Committees and the House Appropriations Committee, I believe. I assume the White House is going to get some sort of similar briefing. McCLELLAN: We're aware of what he is discussing with members of Congress today. I think he will be providing members of Congress with -- or he is in the process of providing members of Congress with a detailed briefing on the progress the Iraq survey group is making in its efforts to uncover the truth about Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction programs. Q: Any comment on his report? Q: And you have gotten similarly detailed briefings? McCLELLAN: We are aware of what he's discussing with members of Congress. Q: What's your reaction? Q: But how would you generally characterize the nature of what he's saying today? We're going to an unclassified version later, but -- McCLELLAN: Right, right. There is an intention by the CIA to provide you a summary of his testimony to Congress. But I think Dr. Kaye will be speaking about this later. And after he's had a chance to speak about it, then we probably will have more to stay at that point. Q: Could you give us some sort of general characterization now because that will be very late and probably -- McCLELLAN: Well, this is a progress report. Keep that -- keep it in perspective. They continue to do their work, the Iraq survey group. There's some 19,000 members of the Iraq survey group who are going through a massive amount of documents, interviewing a number of people in Iraq -- Iraqis and scientists -- who have knowledge of Saddam Hussein's history of weapons of mass destruction. And so that -- they continue to pull together a complete picture of his history of weapons of mass destruction and weapons of mass destruction programs. Q: Now, one of the things that was revealed today, if the article is correct, is that the administration is seeking an additional $600 million to fund the Iraq survey group, to keep it going and to provide resources for its continued efforts. Is that accurate? McCLELLAN: There -- as with normal, or other budget appropriations, there are classified sections within those appropriations. This is a wartime supplemental. It does have a classified section, and it would not be appropriate for me to discuss those classified sections. Q: Scott, now that the leak investigation has begun by the Justice Department, has the White House given any special instructions to White House staff as to how to deal with reporters who call in or approach them with questions about this thing? McCLELLAN: Not that I'm aware of. Q: -- no instructions -- McCLELLAN: Not that I'm aware of. Q: Scott, going back to Iraq for a moment. Given what David Kaye has and hasn't found, does the President think it's possible that Saddam Hussein bluffed the U.N., the U.S. and the world, and didn't have the kind of capability that a lot of people assumed he had? McCLELLAN: One, the President believes that -- well, the international community knew that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and weapons of mass destruction programs. And the international community knows that he used weapons of mass destruction, used chemical weapons. So he had a history there. That's indisputable. The President directed Dr. Kaye to uncover the truth and pull together a complete picture, and that's what he's in the process of doing. So today he will -- he's talking about the progress that they are making. And it's a detailed briefing about the progress the Iraq survey group is making. Q: But is there any change in your position that they will find actual weapons of mass destruction -- McCLELLAN: The President believes he had weapons of mass destruction and weapons of mass destruction programs, and that the truth will come out. Q: Follow-up to Jim's question. Why is the amount of money the administration is seeking for the Iraq survey group classified? What's the rationale for that? McCLELLAN: There are classified sections in it. One, I can't get into the classified section of budget appropriations. This is a wartime supplemental, and so I can't -- it's not appropriate for me to discuss it -- the classified section further. You're asking me to get into confirming or denying certain parts of that matter. But the Iraq survey group, as I've noted over here, continues to do its job. Keep in mind that Saddam Hussein had a sophisticated concealment strategy that was well-known, trying to deceive the international community, trying to conceal -- and they were caught by the weapons inspectors in the past for what they were concealing. So the Iraq survey group has a massive amount of documents, miles of documents to go through to uncover the full truth of his weapons of mass destruction programs. And that work continues. And it's important work. Q: I'm not asking you to discuss what's in that classified section. I'm asking you what is -- as a matter of policy, why does that amount of money have -- McCLELLAN: That would be asking me to talk about classified sections of the report. Q: No, just the policy rationale for keeping this -- why is that -- why does that have to be secret? McCLELLAN: That's making assumptions about what's in the classified section of the report. It's a classified section that you're asking me to discuss. Q: Did any members of the White House staff hire outside counsel to represent them in connection with the criminal investigation? McCLELLAN: Not to my knowledge. Q: Second question, you have said there's no evidence implicating current White House staff. Do you know of any evidence implicating former White House staff? McCLELLAN: No. Q: Third, Karl Rove used to work for Attorney General Ashcroft. Attorney General Ashcroft is investigating the White House, why doesn't that represent a conflict of interest? McCLELLAN: Career Justice Department officials are investigating the allegation that there is a leak of classified information. And I've already answered that question. Yes, go ahead. Q: This may sound trivial, but before you said the President believes that the weapons of mass destruction will be found. In previous statements it's always that weapons of mass destruction will be found, that we know that they were there. Is there less -- McCLELLAN: Same thing. Same thing. Q: To follow up on that, the Associated Press is reporting that Kuwaiti security authorities have foiled an attempt to smuggle chemical weapons and biological warheads from Iraq to some unspecified European country. Can you confirm that something like this has happened? And do the Kuwaitis possess those weapons? McCLELLAN: I have not seen that report. I'll have to look into it. I haven't seen the report. Thank you. Q: Thank you. END 1:26 P.M. EDT * * * October 1, 2003 PRESS BRIEFING BY SCOTT MCCLELLAN 12:44 P.M. EDT McCLELLAN: Good afternoon. This afternoon here shortly the President looks forward to going to the Department of Homeland Security, where he will receive a briefing and then sign the Homeland Security Appropriations Act. The President believes the best way to defeat terrorists is to take the fight to them, and we are making significant progress in the global war on terrorism. We are also making great progress here at home in securing the homeland, and making sure that we are as prepared as possible when it comes to responding to any attack that may come. We have taken unprecedented steps to secure our borders, strengthen aviation security, improve our detection capabilities, protect our critical infrastructure and give our first responders the resources they need. So the President looks forward to signing this legislation today. One other statement I'd like to make. After five days of debate, the Senate has now set aside consideration of the D.C. appropriations bill, which includeds $40 million for improving D.C. public and charter schools, as well as scholarships for a School Choice program here in Washington, D.C. D.C. School Choice will give parents more options to determine what is the best school to meet their children's needs by providing scholarships for low income children. The silent filibuster launched by a few Senate Democrats to prevent a vote is wrong. The measure has the bipartisan support necessary to win passage and it deserves a vote. We will continue to work with Congress to secure passage of this important legislation, and we hope the Senate will move forward quickly to pass this legislation. And with that I will just go right into questions. Terry. Q: Scott, when did the President first find out that someone in his administration had outed an undercover CIA official? What was his reaction? What did he do about it? McCLELLAN: Well, one, there's an allegation that that has happened, at this point. Q: It was an undercover official who has now been exposed; that's fact, right? McCLELLAN: Oh, I'm sorry -- an allegation that a senior administration official did that, that's what I'm referring to. Terry, there is a process in place that was followed. The CIA has a process to look at classified information if it is leaked, and they followed a process and that process has moved forward. And the Department of Justice is looking into it. I don't know the specific time period, but the process was followed, and the President expects the process to be followed, and that process was followed, and that what the President expects, because leaking classified information is a very serious matter. Q: That's what I'm asking about. He said that -- I want to know what he's done about it. This story broke in July. Did he know in July that an undercover CIA official had been outed and that the person who outed that undercover CIA official attributed it to senior administration officials? McCLELLAN: I think there -- no, I understand what you're saying. But I think there are certain assumptions you're still making in your remarks. The Department of Justice is looking into this to determine what you're saying about the potential leak of classified information concerning an undercover CIA agent. And there have been some news reports that I saw back to that period, some that have been cited recently, talking about how some of this information may have been well-known within the D.C. community. Q: Fair enough. But when did the President know it? McCLELLAN: But, see, that's what I just told you, Terry. The process is in place, and it followed that process. I don't know, in answer to your first part of your question. But the President expects the process to be followed for something like this, and it was. The CIA followed the process and information has been provided to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice is looking into it. But, remember, back in July, when this issue came up and I was asked about it, it was an anonymous source in the newspaper. There are plenty of anonymous sources in news reports on a daily basis, and we could spend all our time trying to track down the information from those anonymous sources. But we want to be able to focus on the people's business -- Q: Right. But you were asked about it in July -- McCLELLAN: And I made it very clear back there in July, too, that there was no information beyond the media reports with anonymous sources to suggest any White House involvement. But the process was followed, and that's what's important. The President believes it's important that the process was followed, because the President believes the leak of -- the leaking of classified information is a very serious matter. Q: Fair enough. If you get a chance, if you could establish for us when it came to the President's -- McCLELLAN: Terry, that was back in July and I -- Q: Is that not knowable? That's knowable, right? It's checkable? McCLELLAN: -- just don't know. I looked into it and I just don't know. Q: Do you know if anyone has yet come forward to offer any information to the Department of Justice about this? McCLELLAN: I think you need to talk to the Department of Justice about that. They're the ones who are doing this investigation and they would be the appropriate ones to ask that question. Q: Would you know? Would you know? Are you trying to stay away from it? McCLELLAN: I don't have any reason -- I don't have any reason to. That's the Department of Justice, that's their role, and the criminal division over there. Q: Scott, in the past, the Justice Department has used polygraph examinations in sensitive leak investigations. The President has said he expects full cooperation. If I work at the White House and down the road in this investigation the Justice Department came to me and said, we want you to submit to a polygraph investigation, the President would expect the answer to be? McCLELLAN: I appreciate the hypothetical, but that is a hypothetical and that is not where the process is. The process is that the Justice Department has asked the White House to preserve any and all material related to the specific information they put in their letter. And that's -- Q: Well, let's set that specific hypothetical aside. If an FBI agent or the Justice -- somebody on the Justice Department team made a request of a White House official that is consistent with past practices in a similar investigation, would the President expect someone on his staff to comply with that request? McCLELLAN: The President has directed the White House to cooperate fully, that message was sent as soon as he learned of the investigation. He made it clear to White House Counsel, and White House Counsel made it clear to senior staff the other day -- that was the President -- at the President's direction. We will cooperate fully with the investigation and make sure that we preserve the integrity of the investigation. So that's where things are right now. Q: Ambassador Wilson says that he was told by a reporter that Karl Rove said, "Wilson's wife is fair game." I know you've spoken with Karl, does he deny that? McCLELLAN: I'm sorry? Q: Does he deny that he ever used those words, "Wilson's wife is fair game"? McCLELLAN: Look, the issue here, and this came up earlier, the issue here is whether or not someone leaked classified information. That is a serious matter and it should be pursued to the fullest. I have seen comments from Mr. Wilson. And I have seen him back away from those comments later. It seems to be, he said one thing previously about Karl Rove, and then he backed away from it. And now he's saying other things. There's a changing of the issue here all of a sudden. The issue here is did someone leak classified information, and, if so, who was that person, and then the appropriate action should be taken. Q: You have said previously from the podium that these types of accusations against Karl are "ridiculous." McCLELLAN: Yes. Q: On the very line that Ambassador Wilson says that Karl used, "Wilson's wife is fair game," is that wrong? McCLELLAN: I've just said, he has said a lot of things and then backed away from what -- Q: Scott, I want to know -- McCLELLAN: -- and then backed away from what he said. So I think part of your role is to do some further questioning there. Q: I'm asking you, that's why we're asking, to make sure -- I mean, we don't want to continue to report something that's inaccurate. McCLELLAN: If Mr. Wilson -- well, he made some comments earlier and then he backed away from them, and those comments were reported previously. Q: Does Karl deny that he said that? McCLELLAN: What were the words again? Q: "Wilson's wife is fair game." McCLELLAN: And who did he say it to? Q: To a reporter that then repeated it to Wilson. McCLELLAN: Again, this is -- the issue here -- what is the issue here? Did someone leak classified information? Is that the issue? Q: It could be about changing the tone, too. McCLELLAN: All of a sudden now, we're trying to change the topic in this room. Q: There's a legal issue, there's an ethical issue, too. Going after a man's wife is unethical. McCLELLAN: Let me make it very clear. As I said previously, he was not involved, and that allegation is not true in terms of leaking classified information, nor would he condone it. So let me be very clear. But I'm not going to -- we're not going to go down every single allegation that someone makes. That's just -- we can do that all day long. Let's stay focused on what the issue is here. Q: You said the issue here was whether someone leaked classified information. As I understand the applicable laws here, isn't the real issue whether someone knowingly leaked classified information? McCLELLAN: Well, yes, you may -- I may stand corrected on that, you'll have to look at the law. I'm not going to play a lawyer from here. But the leaking of -- I'll go back to what I have said and what the President has said, and what he has always said, that the leaking of classified information is a serious matter and it should be pursued to the fullest extent. And the Department of Justice is doing that now. Q: But I mean, isn't one of the questions here whether or not people knew that she was undercover and went ahead and disclosed that to a journalist, or whether they were -- McCLELLAN: I think that is part of the investigation and part of the issue that the career Justice Department officials will look at as they move forward on this investigation. Q: Now, the other side of this, of course, is that the conversation -- senior administration officials, not White House -- suggested that they were trying to belittle Joe Wilson's credentials by saying, he didn't get the job because he deserved it, he got it because his wife works at the CIA. Is there a concern about that side of the issue, regardless of whether or not classified information -- McCLELLAN: Repeat the last part -- the last part of your question? Q: Is there concern about the fact that some senior administration official somewhere suggested that he only got the job because his wife worked at the CIA -- which is apart from the classified aspect. McCLELLAN: Again, I think the issue before us is the classified aspect of things. Your specific question is, was there concern that news reports said that he may have -- or suggested that he may have gotten the job because his wife worked at the CIA? Is that what you're asking? Q: Yes. I'm asking if there's any concern now about that -- an effort that appears to be, if it was not an intentional leak of classified information, it was, one could argue, an attempt to belittle his credentials by saying he got the job because of his wife. And I'm just saying, is there a concern about that, as well as the classified? McCLELLAN: The President doesn't condone any such activity and, you know, I have not seen any information brought to our attention to suggest that. Q: Scott, with agents possibly hours or days from either showing up at the White House or making phone calls, has the White House developed any rules of engagement between staffers and contacts with agents? Do the staffers have to report contacts first to the legal Counsel's Office, or do they just start answering questions? What are the rules here? McCLELLAN: Ed, what has been asked of us at this point is simply to preserve information. And that's exactly what White House staff has been directed to do and we expect all White House staff to do. That's the issue here. The Justice Department hasn't asked us anything beyond that, at this point. Q: I understand. McCLELLAN: I am sure that we will receive additional requests from them and we will cooperate fully at that point -- Q: -- think that somebody here is thinking about the next day or the next -- McCLELLAN: -- when we do. Q: -- this afternoon or tomorrow? McCLELLAN: Well, making sure that information is preserved. I mean, the White House already is required to preserve and maintain a great deal of information. A lot of our information is already retained. I mean, the phone calls that you make to my office, that information is retained. Q: On that point, could I quickly follow up? This is in no way to suggest any responsibility -- McCLELLAN: On a piece of paper, Terry. (Laughter.) The message. Q: -- trying to get a sense of how widespread certain information might have been within the White House, if -- the possibility. In going back through your records and anyone else you've come in contact with, have you come upon any documents that are covered by the "relevance" that either mention the Ambassador, mention his wife and her role at the CIA? McCLELLAN: Are you asking if I, personally, have? Q: Yes, if you've come across anything in your email or anything that's come across -- McCLELLAN: I was traveling most of yesterday, so -- got back about 10:00 p.m. last night. Q: Did anyone come to you and say they found -- here's this document that came through their email? McCLELLAN: Come to me? Well, first of all, if they have questions, the Counsel's Office is ready to answer the questions. If they have information related to the investigation, we made it very clear that we want that information reported to the Department of Justice. I'm sure that staffers are -- that feel they need to are going back and making sure that those records are maintained. That's what we expect. Q: I'm just trying to get a sense if anybody, any sense of the scope. Just news clips about Joe Wilson's -- that might have been emailed around the White House -- McCLELLAN: No, but at this point, staff has been directed to preserve the information and make sure they maintain that information. They haven't been asked to do anything. Like, they haven't been asked to give it to anybody or anything beyond what the President has made clear, that if they have information relevant to the investigation, anybody -- not only in the administration, but outside the administration -- should report that information to the Department of Justice, particularly people who are citing White House officials as being involved in news reports -- if they have relevant information, they should report that to the Department of Justice. Q: Does "preserve it" mean just do not delete it? Or does "preserve it" mean actually, proactively, go back and look to see if you have anything that's relevant? McCLELLAN: It means preserve it and maintain it, make sure you do not get rid of that information if it's relevant to the Department of Justice request. Q: Scott, the President used the words, "come forward," yesterday. Does he not want anybody to 'fess up to him or to Andy Card or somebody -- McCLELLAN: To the Department of Justice. To the Department of Justice. Q: He doesn't want to know -- McCLELLAN: The Department of Justice is investigating this, they're the appropriate agency. As I have said earlier in the week, that is where information should be reported. Q: First, have any investigators yet contacted any members of the White House staff? McCLELLAN: Any members -- all they've asked us to do at this point is what's in the letter. Q: No investigators have come, there haven't been any specific -- McCLELLAN: Well, you might ask the Department of Justice if they tried -- I'm not aware of any such contacts, beyond contacts they've had with the Counsel's Office to say, we're going to be sending this letter, this is under investigation, and then the letter sent -- follow-up letter sent yesterday afternoon. Q: Okay. To follow up on what Terry was asking about earlier, what changed between July 14th and yesterday that accounts for the President not having spoken out then, where he is speaking out on this now? McCLELLAN: Well, for the very reason I've already said, and the very reason I said back in July, is that there was an anonymous source making allegations -- I'm not even sure when it was specifically -- an allegation was specifically made that it was a White House person involved in this. But the process was followed. There is a process for if -- Q: But that remains the case now. McCLELLAN: Well, and there is discussion -- again, I think there was a news report several days later, after the initial article, suggesting that classified information had been leaked and citing senior administration officials. Again, the appropriate way for this to be handled is the way it was. The CIA looked at this, made some determinations, sent some information to the Department of Justice. And that's what the President expects to happen. Q: But isn't the underlying question -- McCLELLAN: And as soon as the Justice Department contacted us and said that an investigation is underway, and then the President was informed, he made it very clear that he expects the White House to cooperate fully. Q: But the question remains, if he feels so strongly about this, why was there nothing earlier? Why was there nothing in July and August? McCLELLAN: Because there was no information -- there was no information brought to our attention beyond an anonymous source in media reports to suggest that there was White House involvement, that's why. Q: There's also been some suggestion that White House aides may have pointed reporters toward that story after it was published, toward the name -- McCLELLAN: Yes, here we go. I mean, this is -- I understand that this is the way Washington, D.C. operates, and all of the sudden -- Q: Well, let me -- McCLELLAN: -- the first allegation, well, maybe it was shaky, and then they go to the next allegation and then the next allegation -- Q: But that's the real issue. McCLELLAN: -- and that's not -- Q: You want to knock it down, clearly, but that's the real issue. McCLELLAN: -- the real issue here is that this President -- Q: Did the President think there was anything wrong with that? McCLELLAN: The real issue here is that this President thinks the leaking of classified information is a very serious matter and it should be pursued to the fullest. And the President does not condone the kind of activity you talked about. Q: He does not condone the -- people pointing reporters toward classified information that's been released; he would not condone that either? Is that what you're saying? McCLELLAN: The President doesn't condone the activity that you're suggesting, absolutely he does not. Q: Scott, long-term intelligence experts, former CIA employees who have now become a talking head class, if you will, say beyond the problem with the leak, itself, is the contacts that Mr. Wilson's wife may have had. Can you tell us what type of investigation is underway to look into either protecting those kind of contacts, or actually an investigation into whether or not any of her contacts may have been compromised because of this leak? McCLELLAN: Well, you might want to direct those questions to the CIA. Q: Are you aware of any investigation along those lines? Are you confident -- McCLELLAN: You mean of the CIA looking back and seeing if anything -- Q: -- presumably someone here -- McCLELLAN: You need to talk to the CIA. Q: Presumably someone here in the White House would have asked someone at the CIA to say, hey, are your people okay by this? Are you aware of that happening? McCLELLAN: I think you need to talk to the CIA about those questions, if they've gone back and made those determinations. Q: And if I can follow. Is there any need for Attorney General Ashcroft, given his relationship with Karl Rove and others, to recuse himself in this investigation at this point? McCLELLAN: Well, as I said earlier, those are determinations that the Department of Justice will make. The Department of Justice publicly said that they had not ruled anything out. I mean, remember, this investigation has just gotten underway and there are career Justice Department officials and FBI officials who are looking into this, who are part of the investigation. It's being addressed by the career professionals at the Department of Justice and FBI. And the President responded to that issue yesterday, as well. Q: Ambassador Wilson is meeting today on the Hill with congressional Democrats. Does the White House consider him an honest broker in this? Q: That was canceled. McCLELLAN: I did see those reports. You know, I think that I will leave it to you to raise those issues and to look at that. That's part of the job of you all in the media, to look at and make determinations about -- or to at least present it to the public in the way that you determine best. Q: Scott, the Republican Party has launched an offensive, impugning Mr. Wilson's credibility. Does the President condone that? McCLELLAN: The President is focused on getting to the bottom of this. We need to get to the bottom of this. There is a lot of back and forth that goes on here in Washington, D.C. The President is most interested in determining what happened and getting to the bottom of this investigation. There have been some serious allegations made and we need to get to the bottom of it. Ken. Q: And given that they're so serious -- McCLELLAN: I may come back to you later, because we've already -- I'm going to try to keep going through everybody. Q: According to the chronology you outlined yesterday, there was this, approximately an 11-hour time lag between the time the Counsel's Office was notified by Justice on Monday night and the memo and messages went out to staffers to be -- some Democrats, such as Senator Schumer, have jumped on that time lag and been very critical of it. McCLELLAN: And what do they say? Q: He said that this illustrates -- this illustrates the need for a special prosecutor, that a special prosecutor would never have allowed that. I understand what you said yesterday, that you were prepared to move immediately -- "you," the Counsel's Office was prepared to move immediately and you were told by Justice, no, tomorrow morning is okay. But Schumer and other people are saying that a special prosecutor never would have allowed that. Who in the Counsel's Office got the call Monday night? And who did they then notify? McCLELLAN: I think I'll leave it that the Counsel's Office was contacted by the Department of Justice -- I'm not getting into all the names -- at approximately 8:30 p.m. on Monday evening. I mean, the White House staff was not notified at that point because they said, it's fine to notify them tomorrow morning. So I don't think -- you know, it wasn't known amongst the White House staff that there was an investigation underway until the next morning. Q: Who was notified? Did the person in the Counsel's Office who got the call, call Mr. Gonzales -- McCLELLAN: I think you can expect that the Chief of Staff would have been notified. Q: The Chief of Staff was notified. And did he -- did he then send the information to anyone else? McCLELLAN: No, it was -- the President was informed of the investigation the next morning. Q: So nobody else -- it went from the Counsel's Office to the Chief of Staff on Monday night, and -- McCLELLAN: That's what I know. What I just told you is what I know. I don't know beyond that. But I know that the White House staff was not contacted. It went to Counsel's Office and I think Counsel, appropriately so, would inform the Chief of Staff at that point. Q: Scott, two quick questions, if I may, to a less serious one -- McCLELLAN: Well, do we want to stay on this subject? Does anybody have some -- Q: Yes. Q: Yes, could you just lay out -- McCLELLAN: All right. Let me stay on this subject so we can go through some more hypotheticals. (Laughter.) Q: To get away from hypotheticals, would you lay out the details of what Counsel Gonzales has now told White House staff they must preserve? I mean, it's a rather detailed -- McCLELLAN: You have it all in the memos. You have it in the memo -- we released those two memos. I didn't bring them with me to read through that. But it was very specific information that was sent to us yesterday afternoon from the Department of Justice. All right, who has a hypothetical? (Laughter.) No, you've already had one. We'll come back -- we'll try to get back to people later. Q: Thank you. McCLELLAN: You have a hypothetical? (Laughter.) I asked for a hypothetical. No, no. (Laughter.) Q: I'm no Bob Novak, but my feelings are really hurt that nobody leaked anything to me. (Laughter.) Has the White House asked George Tenet or anyone else at the CIA why they would send a partisan, like Ambassador Wilson, on this mission? And because he is so partisan -- McCLELLAN: Has who asked? Has who asked anybody? Q: Has the White House asked George Tenet or anyone at the CIA why they would send a partisan like Ambassador Wilson on this mission? He's proven himself to be partisan, and does that cast doubt on the report that he filed in this matter? McCLELLAN: Yes, I think we've kind of been through this issue already. I don't know of any such conversations. Certainly, I don't think it's my position to get into speculating about someone's motives. I think that is a role for you in the media to determine how to follow. Q: Isn't the White House the least bit curious -- McCLELLAN: And how to -- and how to present it to the public. Q: -- about how the process was, that Ambassador Wilson was chosen to go on this very important mission? McCLELLAN: I've seen the news coverage, just like you have. I've seen the issues that have been raised, and, again, I think that that's best left for you in the media to determine, not me from this podium. Q: Scott, this is not hypothetical at all. You say the issue is leaking classified information. So my question is did Karl Rove or any others in the White House talk with reporters, not leak classified information, but talk with reporters about Mr. Wilson's wife and her CIA status after the initial report by Robert Novak? McCLELLAN: After his initial report? Again, you're -- now the issue is changing. The issue was -- Q: No -- McCLELLAN: The issue is, did someone leak classified information. That's a serious matter. Q: Right. But if someone -- McCLELLAN: That's being investigated. Do people talk about what's in the news? That's a whole a different -- that's on a different -- Q: There is talk about a woman who's still undercover. McCLELLAN: And I just made clear -- Q: I believe -- McCLELLAN: I just made clear that -- well, was it reported that, one, was that what was reported in the article? Q: I'm just asking, did -- McCLELLAN: Was that what was reported in the article? Q: She was an undercover operative. McCLELLAN: In the original article? Q: Yes. Q: Yes. McCLELLAN: I think it was reported "operative" in the Novak column. Q: Operative by definition -- McCLELLAN: I think it was reported -- and he said, you shouldn't use the word "operative." I think the word was "operative." So, I don't know that it said -- I don't -- Q: My question is pretty straightforward. Did Karl Rove or others have conversations with reporters about Mrs. Wilson? McCLELLAN: In what way? Q: And her CIA status. McCLELLAN: There's an investigation going on in asking everybody to preserve any information they would have related to some of the issues you bring up. I'm not -- there's been no information brought to our attention to suggest that anyone leaked classified information, and the President certainly doesn't condone the leaking, or the tactics you're suggesting. Q: You seem to be suggesting that perhaps they had conversations, but weren't leaking classified information. McCLELLAN: Well, there's an investigation going on to pull together all the information. But the issue is, did someone leak classified information? That's a serious issue. And I just made it -- I made it clear early, you brought up Karl's name. Let's be very clear. I thought -- I said it was a ridiculous suggestion, I said it's simply not true that he was involved in leaking classified information, and -- nor, did he condone that kind of activity. This has been answered, and now we're trying to get in a whole bunch of issues, separate and apart from that. Q: Did your conversation with Rove include whether or not he had tried to highlight that story for reporters? McCLELLAN: I'm sorry? Q: Did your conversation with Rove include asking him whether or not he had tried to highlight that story for reporters, the Novak story? McCLELLAN: I made it very clear -- I have spoken with him. I have spoken with him. I made it very clear that it's not true that he was involved in the leaking of classified information or that he condoned some of what you're suggesting. Q: No, but did he -- did he participate in that? Because then it would make sense that he said, she's fair game now, if it was after the fact. Did you ask him whether or not he participated in that -- McCLELLAN: I think the individual who said that has already backed away from other previous comments. Q: I'm asking what you asked Rove. McCLELLAN: And I made it very clear that the issue was regarding the leaking of classified information. And the issue was -- and someone asked about condoning that information. I made it very clear that he didn't condone that kind of activity and was not involved in that kind of activity. Q: Just to be clear, whether Rove condoned it or not, he did -- he also did not participate in that type of activity, as far as you're aware? Is that correct? McCLELLAN: There is an investigation going on to pull together all that information. I've answered this question. And you can ask it a million different ways, but my response is still going to be the same. Q: Are you saying that it's okay to discuss some -- a leak -- McCLELLAN: I'm going to try to keep going around to other people, but go ahead. Q: Are you saying that after the fact, after such a -- McCLELLAN: Well, now we're getting into -- well, let me put it in perspective. Now we're getting into issues such as, did anyone talk about what was in the news, what was reported in the paper, things of that nature. That can go down a whole lot of different roads. And that's why I think it's important to let the investigation take place. And the investigation is specifically about potential leak of classified information. And you're asking me to try to determine information that's going to be pulled together by the Department of Justice. They -- Q: I'm just asking -- McCLELLAN: I think the request, or the information that we've been asked to preserve and maintain was spelled out in the letter from the Department of Justice, and that's the information that could be related to those topics and those areas. And so we expect all White House staff to follow the directive from the President to cooperate fully in preserving and maintaining that information. Q: What I'm asking very specifically is, is it okay, in the President's view, to discuss -- for a staffer to discuss, after the fact, classified information -- McCLELLAN: That is such a broad question, about is it okay to discuss news articles. I mean, news articles are discussed all the time. Q: A news article that contains a piece of classified information that is leaked -- is it okay to discuss after the fact that kind of -- McCLELLAN: A news article that reported information? Q: Classified information. McCLELLAN: I'm not -- and again, I'll have to go back and check, but I'm not sure that the article, the original article said anything about classified information or said specifically, "undercover." I may be wrong -- I think it did say "operative." Q: It didn't say -- McCLELLAN: And the columnist made it clear he probably shouldn't use that word, because his understanding was that she was, indeed, an analyst. So those are the facts. Now, you're asking me to go back and try to talk to everybody throughout the White House, did anybody talk about this article? I'm just not in a position to be able to do that. I think that's the position for -- that those issues will be addressed by the Department of Justice in the investigation. Q: I'm not asking you that. I'm just asking, as a matter of policy, does the President draw a distinction between a leak of classified information -- McCLELLAN: And talking about news articles? Q: -- which includes -- McCLELLAN: That's why I want to be clear what you're asking. In talking about news articles? Q: Peddling them. Q: A specific news article that contained a piece of classified information. Is that okay in the President's view? McCLELLAN: Was it known that that information was classified? Q: Well, as a matter of policy -- McCLELLAN: I think that's an important question. Was it known that information was classified information? Q: The article certainly identified Valerie Plame as a CIA operative. That fact presumably was not known -- McCLELLAN: And the columnist said that it was his understanding that that individual was an analyst. Q: -- we don't know what he -- McCLELLAN: But did the article say, "classified information," though? I mean, there are all sorts of "ifs" and "buts" in that question that would be difficult for me to answer from this podium. I think that's for -- the Department of Justice is looking at all this. Q: Scott, you said that the first the White House Counsel's Office was notified of the investigation was Monday night. Attorney General Ashcroft said yesterday that the investigation was launched Friday, and that prior to that, there was a certain amount of legal activity that went -- involved before they decided to launch the investigation. What contacts were there between the White House Counsel's Office during that period of time and after the Sunday report -- McCLELLAN: Well, keep in mind that our Counsel's Office on a lot of issues is in contact with the Department of Justice. What I said, that the first contact about the investigation -- as far as I know, and I've checked on this -- was when the Counsel's Office was contacted by the Department of Justice Monday evening. Q: So during this period of time, this sort of 48 hours between when The Washington Post reported that an investigation was under consideration and that Monday night, there was no contact between the White House Counsel's Office and the Department of Justice concerning the scope or whether there was going to be an investigation on it? McCLELLAN: To the best of my knowledge. To the best of my knowledge, that's correct. Q: I have another issue. Are we still -- do you want to stay on this? Q: I have a -- McCLELLAN: On another issue? The same issue, anybody? Bill. Hypothetical? Q: No, no hypothetical. Does this investigation extend to former administration officials, as well, people who worked in the White House who might not work here now? McCLELLAN: You might direct that to the Department of Justice. What they've asked us to -- all White House staffers to maintain their information. There are records that are maintained from former White House staffers that were here. So, I mean, there's a lot of information that we have to maintain anyway. Some of this goes above and beyond that, but those records that we have to maintain are always maintained. So if that's the question you're asking, I think -- Q: Scott? McCLELLAN: This issue? Q: This issue. McCLELLAN: Paula, not this issue? Paula, John, and -- well, I'll come back to you if I can at the end, John. Paula, go ahead. Q: The President has been going around the country in his speeches talking about the corporate accountability issue and how important it is to be held accountable from the top down. And I still -- I still don't understand why, when this information came out and it was made public in mid-July, why the President didn't feel it was his responsibility to ask his staff if they were involved in this? His inner-circle staff, who would have had access to the information. McCLELLAN: Let me see if I can try to help you understand. First of all, back in July when this issue came up, I was asked about it. I pointed out that it was an anonymous source that was being cited in news reports, that there was no information beyond the media reports to suggest that the White House was involved in any way in what was -- the questions that were raised at that time. There is a process that the administration has in place to address the leak of classified information. Make no mistake about it, the President has always held the view that the leaking of classified information is a very serious matter. And the process was followed. And the CIA reported information to the Department of Justice. That's what the President expects to happen. It did happen. Now there's an investigation going on to determine whether or not classified information was leaked. Q: But prior to that process, the President didn't believe that he had any personal obligation to ask the staff -- McCLELLAN: The President expects the leaking of classified information to be taken seriously. We did not have any information beyond an anonymous source in media reports to suggest White House involvement. We could go through the paper, probably on a daily basis, look at anonymous sources, look at allegations that are made against the administration and try to track down that information. But we would be doing a severe disservice to the American people, because we are staying focused on their business and the highest priorities that are going on in here. I know there is a -- there sometimes is the media frenzy that happens around an issue like this. We are going to do everything we can, at the direction of the President, to cooperate fully with this investigation. But we are also remembering that we are here to serve the American people, and there are important priorities that need to be addressed and we're going to continue focusing on those important priorities. Q: I want to set aside the issue of classified information, or leaking classified information for a minute -- a lawyer might call this a state of mind question. Back when Joe Wilson's op-ed came out in The New York Times criticizing the administration, and when he went public and started giving TV interviews, saying that he thought that you were exaggerating the intelligence and twisting the intelligence -- you have communications strategy meetings all the time, in part to decide proactively what you want to say about the President's agenda, but in part, to decide how to respond to people who are criticizing you. Do you recall ever being part of a meeting or meetings in which you said, this guy is getting in our face, we need to rebut him, or we need to find our friends to rebut him? Sometimes you do it from the podium. Sometimes you seek friends and allies in Congress. Sometimes, say the Republican National Committee -- McCLELLAN: John, like anybody else in the White House, I'll go back through all my records -- I'm making sure that I maintain them, too, and see if there's any information that's related to this investigation. If I find any -- Q: I'm not asking -- McCLELLAN: I know. But if I -- but if there's information that was requested of -- or requested, that we maintain relating to Mr. Wilson's trip. One, we addressed the issue of when we became aware of that, of the trip, which was this summer when it was reported. But, you know, like anybody else in this -- hopefully, like anybody else in this White House, I'm going to do exactly what has been requested that we do and directed by the President of the United States. Q: That's a Justice Department issue. I'm asking you, as someone who sits in this room everyday, was there ever a conversation or meetings where this -- you know, there was a big political debate going on then, as you well know -- that this guy's kicking us, and we need to respond and rebut? McCLELLAN: What I remember is addressing the issue of the trip, and when we learned about that. That's what I remember. But I'm going to go back through my records like everybody else and see if there's anything else that may be indirectly or directly relevant to what the Justice Department has asked. Other issues? Goyal, I started with you, and we'll go back to you. Q: Yes, sir, thank you. Two quick questions. One, talking about the tape in Pakistan that was delivered by the number two man of Osama bin Laden to the al Jazeera, and tape was coming from the Pakistani government of Pakistan. That tape has been criticized now inside Pakistan and outside, that this may be creation of General Musharraf to gain more sympathy from the United States because of opposition back home. Any comments about the tape? How serious -- McCLELLAN: I've heard nothing of the such. You're the first -- first place I've heard that is from you. Pakistan is someone that is working closely with us in the war on terrorism. We appreciate their cooperation and we're continuing to work with them on the war on terrorism and other issues, as well, other bilateral issues, as well. Q: Number two, ongoing meeting now with Prime Minister of Pakistan with the President was in the Oval Office and over luncheon. What are the major issues here they are going to discuss, as far as the terrorism is going is concerned, and Afghanistan problem? McCLELLAN: Yes, I know, I expected -- I could be at that lunch right now, but I thought it would be more fun to come out and answer all these hypotheticals. (Laughter.) Actually, I didn't want to make you wait too long -- I didn't want to make you wait too long, and I guess he's probably through with that lunch by now and on his way to the Department of Homeland Security. So I'll try to get you more information about the meeting and lunch. But, as I said earlier today, that I -- I fully expected that they would talk about our cooperation in the war on terrorism. And they would talk about some of the regional issues, such as Kashmir. The President made it clear last week to leaders of India and Pakistan that it's important to have dialogue to help reduce the tensions in the region. And so I'm sure that that topic came up, as well, and other issues. Q: Thank you. Scott, the AP is reporting that perhaps Saddam Hussein was bluffing, that he had no weapons of mass destruction. AP says the man looking for such weapons, David Kaye, plans to tell the Congress this week that Saddam may have been bluffing. Any comment? McCLELLAN: One, not seeing the progress report -- we have not seen the progress report that Dr. Kaye has been working on. He will be testifying -- I believe tomorrow -- but we haven't seen the progress report, so I can't tell you what the progress report is going to say or what he's going to say. He'll have those remarks. But keep in mind, it's a progress report, that the President directed him to pull together a full and complete picture of Saddam Hussein's history of weapons of mass destruction. We know he had weapons of mass destruction and we know he used weapons of mass destruction. Those are facts that are indisputable. So we expect him to complete his work and the truth will come out. But at this point, what we're talking about is just a progress report. And the CIA has commented specifically about what that will likely -- I mean, generally speaking, what the focus of or the scope of that progress report is. Q: On the $87 billion, is the administration concerned at all about the direction the debate is taking about it on Capitol Hill? And why is it that the administration is so opposed to a $20 billion loan to Iraq, as opposed to a $20 billion grant, and then using the oil reserves as collateral? McCLELLAN: Well, let's keep in mind a few things. One, this package, we view it as one package. Some are trying to separate out reconstruction from what our troops need. They go hand in hand, they go together. This is about -- Iraq has become the central front in the war on terrorism. And this package is about helping us prevail in the central front in the war on terrorism. This package will help make sure our troops have all the resources they need to carry out their objectives, to accomplish their task. But part of helping them accomplish their tasks is bringing about a civil, orderly society, a society that is functioning. And there are really three different parts to that reconstruction package, so I think it's important to point those out: providing the people of Iraq with the tools and resources they need for their security, and this is in the form of resources for an Iraqi army, for border security, for prosecutions and criminal -- investigating criminal activity. There's also resources in there for establishing basic living standards. They were under a brutal regime that neglected the country. So it's addressing things such as building a children's hospital, improving the sanitation, building minimal standard housing. All this helps to bring about a more secure environment, and that means our troops will be able to accomplish their tasks better and sooner. And then it's also about creating an environment for investment and economic independence. And those are kind of the three parts of the reconstruction efforts. But going back specifically to your question, Iraq was saddled with debt from the previous regime. It was the result of Saddam Hussein and his brutal, oppressive regime. We are trying to work as quickly as possible to transition to a free, sovereign and democratic Iraq so that the Iraqi people can have responsibility over their future. This is about helping the Iraqi people build a better future. We think that the best approach is to proceed forward with the grants and that is exactly what we will continue to push for. And we're appreciative of members of Congress who are working with us to do that and get it passed as quickly as possible. Q: Are you concerned, however, about the way the debate is being staged, that there seems to be a lot pressure? And some Republicans, including Arlen Specter, are expressing interest in the loan as opposed to a grant program. McCLELLAN: That's why I walked back through some of this. Keep in mind, we didn't walk away from Germany and Japan after World War II. A free, sovereign and democratic Iraq is essential to our national interest and important to our national security because this is about -- when we get there, we will have dealt a significant blow to the enemies in the war on terrorism by helping bring about more stability in a very volatile regime. Q: Thank you. McCLELLAN: Thanks. END 1:30 P.M. EDT * * * September 29, 2003 PRESS BRIEFING BY SCOTT MCCLELLAN (...) Q: Scott, has anyone -- has the President tried to find out who outed the CIA agent? And has he fired anyone in the White House yet? McCLELLAN: Well, Helen, that's assuming a lot of things. First of all, that is not the way this White House operates. The President expects everyone in his administration to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. No one would be authorized to do such a thing. Secondly, there -- I've seen the anonymous media reports, and if I could find out who "anonymous" was, it would make my life a whole lot easier. But -- Q: Does he think it didn't come from here? McCLELLAN: But we've made it very clear that anyone -- anyone -- who has information relating to this should report that information to the Department of Justice. Q: Does he doubt it came from the White House? McCLELLAN: I'm sorry? Q: Does he doubt? McCLELLAN: Well, there's been no information that has been brought to our attention, beyond what we've seen in the media reports, to suggest White House involvement. Q: Will the President move aggressively to see if such a transgression has occurred in the White House? Will he ask top White House officials to sign statements saying that they did not give the information? McCLELLAN: Bill, if someone leaked classified information of this nature, the appropriate agency to look into it would be the Department of Justice. So the Department of Justice is the one that would look in matters like this. Q: You're saying the White House won't take a proactive role? McCLELLAN: Do you have any specific information to bring to my attention suggesting White House involvement? Q: If you would -- McCLELLAN: I haven't seen any. Q: Would you not want to know whether someone had leaked information of this kind? McCLELLAN: The President has been -- I spoke for him earlier today -- the President believes leaking classified information is a very serious matter. And it should be -- Q: So why doesn't he want -- McCLELLAN: -- pursued to the fullest extent -- Q: Right, so why -- McCLELLAN: -- by the appropriate agency. And the appropriate agency is the Department of Justice. Q: Why wouldn't he proactively do that, ask people on the staff to say that they had not leaked anything? McCLELLAN: Do you have specific information to suggest White House involvement? I saw a media report that said "senior administration officials." That's an anonymous source that could include a lot of people. I've seen a lot of "senior administration officials" in media stories. Q: Would they know -- to the White House? Q: Scott, when you say that it should be pursued by the Justice Department -- Justice has not said whether it actually is conducting an investigation. Does the President want the Justice Department to investigate this matter? McCLELLAN: If someone leaked classified information of the nature that has been reported, absolutely, the President would want it to be looked into. And the Justice Department would be the appropriate agency to do so. Q: And do you know that they are doing this? McCLELLAN: That's a question you need to ask the Department of Justice. My understanding is that if something like this happened and it was referred to the Department of Justice, then the Department of Justice would look to see whether or not there is enough information to pursue it further. But those are questions you need to ask the Department of Justice. Q: But, Scott, something like this did happen, right? Bob Novak had information he should not have had, that he was not authorized to have. So something -- McCLELLAN: Terry, all I can tell you is what I've seen in the media reports. And I've seen different statements in the media reports from, the CIA hasn't confirmed or denied that this was a covert agent for the CIA; I've seen media reports to suggest that it was referred to the Department of Justice, and that -- and comments the Department of Justice would look into it. Q: So the President of the United States doesn't know whether or not this classified information was divulged, and he is only getting his information by reading the media? McCLELLAN: I'm sorry? Q: He does not know whether or not the classified information was divulged here, and he's only getting his information from the media? McCLELLAN: No, we don't know -- we don't have any information that's been brought to our attention beyond what we've seen in the media reports. I've made that clear. Q: All right. Let me just follow up. You said this morning, "The President knows" that Karl Rove wasn't involved. How does he know that? McCLELLAN: Well, I've made it very clear that it was a ridiculous suggestion in the first place. I saw some comments this morning from the person who made that suggestion, backing away from that. And I said it is simply not true. So, I mean, it's public knowledge. I've said that it's not true. And I have spoken with Karl Rove -- Q: But how does -- McCLELLAN: I'm not going to get into conversations that the President has with advisors or staff or anything of that nature; that's not my practice. Q: But the President has a factual basis for knowing that Karl Rove -- McCLELLAN: I said it publicly. I said that -- Q: But I'm not asking what you said, I'm asking if the President has a factual basis for saying -- for your statement that he knows Karl Rove -- McCLELLAN: He's aware of what I've said, that there is simply no truth to that suggestion. And I have spoken with Karl about it. Q: Does he know whether or not the Vice President's Chief of Staff, Lewis Libby -- McCLELLAN: If you have any specific information to bring to my attention -- like I said, there has been nothing that's been brought to our attention. You asked me earlier if we were looking into it, there is nothing that's been brought to our attention beyond the media reports. But if someone did something like this, it needs to be looked at by the Department of Justice, they're the appropriate agency charged with looking into matters like this -- Q: Well, you do know that they are looking at it, don't you? McCLELLAN: -- and so they're the ones that should do that. Q: They're telling reporters that they're looking at it; haven't they told you that they're looking at it? McCLELLAN: Well, there you have it. There you have it. Q: Haven't they told you? Haven't you asked? McCLELLAN: We've seen the media reports. There has been no requests made of us at this time. Q: But, Scott, it gets to the question if you know, if the President knows that Karl Rove was not involved, then maybe you can tell us more about what the President specifically is doing to get to the bottom of this, or what has he ordered to be done within the White House to get to the bottom of this? McCLELLAN: The President wants anyone, anyone who has information relating to this to report that information to the appropriate agency, the Department of Justice. That's what the President wants, and I've been very clear about that. Q: Is the President convinced that there was no White House involvement in this? McCLELLAN: Well, if I could get "anonymous" to 'fess up, that would make my life a whole lot easier. Q: That's not the question. That's not the question. McCLELLAN: But there has been nothing -- there has been absolutely -- Q: Does the President -- McCLELLAN: I'm answering that. Q: Scott, does he know -- is he convinced that no one in the White House was involved with this? McCLELLAN: There has been absolutely nothing brought to our attention to suggest any White House involvement. All we've seen is what is in the media reports. The media reports cite "senior administration official," or "senior administration officials." Q: But they're wrong, as far as you're concerned? McCLELLAN: But I haven't seen anything before that. That's why it's appropriate for the Department of Justice, if something like this happened, to look into it. Q: Those media reports are wrong, as far as the White House is concerned? McCLELLAN: Well, we have nothing beyond those media reports to suggest there is White House involvement. Q: And the President is pretty passive on this, right? McCLELLAN: There's been no specific information brought to my attention to suggest -- Q: He's not doing anything proactive? Q: Let me just -- let me follow up on one of the -- McCLELLAN: He's making it clear that this is a serious -- through his spokesman, me -- that this is a serious matter, and if someone did this, it should be looked into and it should be pursued to the fullest extent. Q: But has he ordered an investigation inside the White House? If he thinks it's that serious, wouldn't you do that? McCLELLAN: Do you have specific information, Helen, to bring to my attention? Q: No. Are you -- McCLELLAN: If you have specific information, bring it to my attention. Q: Scott, you are answering questions out there for a few days on media reports. I just wonder, isn't there an internal investigation going on to find out what's happened? McCLELLAN: The Justice Department would be the appropriate agency to look into this. And if something like this happened, the President believes it should be pursued to the fullest extent. Q: Why wouldn't this be the -- Q: Can I follow -- McCLELLAN: Ed. I'll come back to you in a minute. Q: Scott, this is clearly a serious matter, with possible penalties being going to jail. It's not going to go away. Why -- and as you said earlier, there probably is a limited number of people with access to this information. It doesn't take much for the President to ask for a senior official working for him to just lay the question out for a few people, and end this controversy today. McCLELLAN: Well, again, Ed, do you have specific information to bring to our attention? Q: No. But it's not -- McCLELLAN: But are we supposed to chase down -- Q: -- for me a big story -- McCLELLAN: Let me finish. Are we supposed to chase down every anonymous report in the newspaper? We'd spend all our time doing that. That's what -- I think you need to -- Q: The anonymous reports, though, allege criminal activity. McCLELLAN: You need to keep in mind that there has been no specific information, there has been no information that has come to our attention to suggest White House involvement, beyond what has been reported in the newspapers. Q: The implication you're leaving us with, I'm afraid, is that nothing is being done here at the White House to even look into this matter -- McCLELLAN: Wait a second, I made it very clear that if something like this happened, the President believes the Department of Justice should look into it and pursue it to the fullest extent. Leaking classified information, particularly of this nature, is a very serious matter. Q: Do you see any need to appoint a special counsel for this case, as some Democrats are demanding? McCLELLAN: At this point, I think the Department of Justice would be the appropriate one to look into a matter like this. Q: Can I follow up on that? Does that mean that you would say to the Attorney General, whose responsibility it is to determine whether a special or outside counsel is necessary, that you believe it is not necessary at this point? McCLELLAN: There are a lot of career professionals at the Department of Justice that address matters like this. I have made it clear that they're the ones, that if something like this happened, should look into it. You need to direct that question to the Department of Justice. It would be a Justice Department matter; it wouldn't be our place to get involved in that. Q: But wouldn't you like to see all questions about the independence of any investigation taken care of by putting it in the hands of somebody who has no formal statements out there? McCLELLAN: Well, but I think we're assuming certain things have happened. That's why I said you need to direct a question like that to the Department of Justice, to find out what has happened here, or to get a response to that. Q: Well, clearly, there is, at least on a preliminary basis, an investigation going forward. McCLELLAN: Well, again, keep in mind what I said earlier, that it's my understanding that in a situation like this, that if information was forwarded to the Department of Justice, the first step would be to look at it to determine whether or not it warrants looking into further. So that's where -- that's what I understand the process is on something like this. Q: Scott, what do you say to people out there who are watching this, perhaps, and saying, you know, I voted for George Bush because he promised to change the way things work in Washington. And, yet, his spokesman -- McCLELLAN: And he has. Q: -- and, yet, his spokesman is saying that there's no internal, even, questioning of whether or not people were involved in this and he's just letting that be handled at the Justice Department, and letting it be more of a criminal investigation, as opposed to almost an ethical -- McCLELLAN: Dana, I mean, think about what you're asking. If you have specific information to bring to our attention -- Q: No, but you say that -- McCLELLAN: -- that suggests White House involvement. There are anonymous reports all the time in the media. The President has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration. Q: Scott, the Independent Counsel Act, as you know, is no more. Prior to that act, what would normally be done in an instance like this, I believe, would be -- as you say, if there's enough evidence that warrants it, the Attorney General would appoint a special prosecutor. Do you think that -- McCLELLAN: You need to talk to the Department of Justice about what they do, or what their intentions are. Q: And, also, the Executive Office the President is the only agency or entity in the federal government that does not have an inspector general's office to do its own internal investigations. Do you think, because of what is allegedly arising here today, the White House should revisit the idea of establishing an office of inspector general within the White House? McCLELLAN: I'm sorry, I mean, you know, you're assuming that certain things happened within the White House, so I'm not going to get into that kind of speculation in the current environment that we're asking that question. Q: Scott, a quote coming out of this controversy is that the real story is why Ambassador Wilson was chosen for this mission. Has the White House asked the CIA why they've sent somebody who was so vehemently opposed to the administration's position on Iraq? McCLELLAN: Not that I'm aware of. We made it clear that we weren't aware of his trip before we saw it in the media reports, and that still stands. Q: Scott, since the President takes it so seriously, and since the revelation was made two-and-a-half months ago, why does the President only now, since others have called for a Department of Justice inquiry, support that action? McCLELLAN: Do you recall what I said a couple of months ago, as well? Because I made it very clear then what I'm making clear now, that there was no information that has come to our attention to suggest any White House involvement. So that's where things stood. But I made it very clear that that is not the way this White House operates, that the President expects people to adhere to the highest standards of conduct and the highest ethics -- and that he has made that very clear from day one of this administration. But I answered this question a couple of months ago. I'm glad you brought that up, because we're answering some of the same questions today. Q: Did George Tenet -- did George Tenet bring this matter to the President's attention prior to the weekend? McCLELLAN: I'm not aware that anything was brought to our attention before information was apparently forwarded to the Department of Justice. Q: We do know one thing that did happen, and that is that a name was leaked of a CIA operative. Whoever did it, does the President want some type of Justice Department investigation into just that? McCLELLAN: Well, like I said, one, I've only -- I've seen the media reports and in one report I saw that the CIA had neither confirmed or denied that this individual was a covert operative for the CIA. Q: Why don't they deny it, if it's -- McCLELLAN: But, yes, if something like this happened, a leak of highly classified information of this nature, the President would want it looked into and pursued to the fullest extent by the Department of Justice. Q: Are you saying the President is not even aware whether or not this actually was a CIA operative who was identified? I mean, you're not even saying that that is a given in this matter? McCLELLAN: What I just said is what I've seen in the media reports, was the CIA has neither confirmed or denied that. I don't know. But -- Q: But that's always their policy. They never confirm. Q: They never do. McCLELLAN: No, I understand that. And I'm saying, if someone leaked classified information of that nature, then it should be looked into by the Department of Justice. Now you need to ask the Department of Justice what their procedures are and what they would do. Q: And if the President thinks the Department of Justice should look into it, what kind of cooperation would the White House provide? In the past, there have been some concerns about records and that sort of thing -- McCLELLAN: Of course, we always cooperate with the Department of Justice in matters like this. And you could expect we would in this matter, as well. Q: Like phone records and that sort of thing? McCLELLAN: Well, I'm not aware of any requests that have been made. I mean, we can go down a whole list, but as far as I know, at this moment no request has been made. And I've checked on that -- Q: They can't get on the phone with the CIA? McCLELLAN: -- but of course, of course, we will always cooperate with the Department of Justice in a matter of this nature. Q: Okay. Now, in terms of your efforts to -- and in terms of the issue of whether or not to contact senior administration officials, are you saying it is inappropriate to contact them on behalf of the President, or that it's too difficult? McCLELLAN: I'm sorry, contact them in the sense of asking whether or not there is any involvement? Q: Well, obviously, someone contacted Karl Rove. There was some effort to knock down a specific allegation here. So I'm wondering, why not contact others? Were others contacted in the -- among the President's senior advisors? McCLELLAN: Well, there was a specific allegation leveled -- I saw it has now since been backed away from -- about Karl Rove. And that's why I responded to that question. But I think we could go down the White House directory of every single staff member and play that game. I'm not going to do that. What I've made clear is that if anybody has information relating to this, they need to report it to the Department of Justice, and the Department of Justice should pursue it to the fullest. It is a serious matter. But I'm not going to go down a list of every single staffer in the White House, when there's not specific information that has been brought to my attention to suggest -- Q: No, I understand your argument there. But there are a limited number of people who would be aware of this information. Is it -- McCLELLAN: That's right, I would think so. Q: -- is it inappropriate in your view? Or is it just too diffuse, it's too difficult? I don't understand exactly what the reason is that you wouldn't expand the effort from Karl Rove to, perhaps, another dozen or so people who might have been knowledgeable. McCLELLAN: Well, we've got important work to do here in Washington, D.C. for the people of this nation. And the President will continue to focus on the priorities we are pursuing: the war on terrorism, strengthening the economy. There are a number of important priorities we are focused on. There are a lot of anonymous media reports that happen all the time. And it's not our practice to go and try to chase down anonymous sources every time there's a report in the media. If there's specific information that comes to our attention, that's another matter. But there has not been any information beyond what we've seen in just anonymous media reporting to suggest that there was White House involvement. Q: So you're telling -- McCLELLAN: Well, are we supposed to go through every anonymous source? Q: No, no, no. But the President -- McCLELLAN: No, no, no, let's make that clear. Q: All the President has to do is pick up the phone and call a meeting here and find out. And if they all say, we didn't do it, he also can call the CIA. What is the big barrier? McCLELLAN: Because the Justice Department is the appropriate agency to look into a matter like this. There's nothing specific to suggest -- there's no information that's been brought -- Q: I'm not saying that. McCLELLAN: Hold on, let me finish. There's been no information brought to our attention to suggest that there was White House involvement, beyond what we've seen in the media reports. And those are anonymous media reports, at that. Q: You're challenging anyone who has information about this -- McCLELLAN: Absolutely. Q: -- to step forward -- McCLELLAN: Absolutely. Q: -- and contact the Department of Justice? McCLELLAN: Absolutely. And if there's a senior administration official -- I saw quoted in one article -- that senior administration official, if they have specific information, they should go provide it to the Department of Justice, absolutely, you bet, because this is a serious matter. Q: On pre-war intelligence, Scott, on pre-war intelligence, has the White House seen this letter from the House Intelligence -- McCLELLAN: Wait, let me finish with -- are we finished with -- let me finish this topic, and I promise I'll come back to you. Q: You said that the President knows that Karl Rove was not involved, and you specifically have spoken to Karl Rove and gotten those assurances. By those statements, you've implied that the President has not talked to Karl Rove specifically about this. McCLELLAN: No, I said that -- Q: Is that a correct inference, or did we -- McCLELLAN: I've already answered this question, when Terry asked it earlier, and I said that it's not my habit to get into conversations the President has with staff or with advisors. I'm not going to get into those conversations. Q: So he has -- McCLELLAN: I've made it clear that it simply is not true, and I'm speaking on behalf of the White House when I say that. Q: Scott? McCLELLAN: Yes. Are we on the subject? We're going to stay on the same topic. I want to stay on the same topic, and then we'll get on to -- go ahead. Q: I have a different subject. McCLELLAN: Okay, we'll come back to that. Q: Can you explain why the President, who ran to say that he would, himself, restore, honesty and integrity to the Oval Office, that he would do it, is now saying he has to do nothing proactively on this front and will leave it to the Justice Department, when it's his own staff who's been accused of committing a very, very serious federal crime? McCLELLAN: And I think I've asked and answered that. Q: No, but why is he not doing anything proactively? McCLELLAN: I've been asked and answered that question. I had that asked up here. I mean, I'll go back through it. Q: You haven't said why -- you haven't said what his thinking is and why he doesn't -- McCLELLAN: Because there has been no information that's come to our attention, or been brought to our attention, beyond what we've seen in the media reports. Q: -- classified -- McCLELLAN: Let me finish, and then you can ask your question. I've seen the anonymous media reports. But like I said, there are anonymous media reports all the time. Are we supposed to go chasing down every single anonymous report? Q: No, no -- Q: There are serious consequences -- McCLELLAN: If there's -- no, no, there are anonymous reports all the time making accusations about the White House. Q: There are not anonymous reports all the time about serious leaks. The White House in the past has called for investigations based on leaks, based on anonymous sources up in Congress. McCLELLAN: And what -- what have I said? Q: So why not do the same in this case? McCLELLAN: And what have I said? The President believes that if someone leaked classified information of this nature, that it should be looked into. The Department of Justice should look into it, they should pursue it to the fullest extent possible. So we very much are saying -- we very much are saying what you're asking. Yes, sir, Bob -- oh, sorry. I'll go to Kate next. Q: Has the White House Counsel Office issued any kind of paper to staffers -- McCLELLAN: No -- Q: -- regarding the President's, you know, desire to cooperate with any probe or anything like that? McCLELLAN: No. Again, I've said that nothing has been brought to our attention. There have been no requests made of the White House and nothing has been brought to -- Q: -- step forward. You said people should step forward -- McCLELLAN: They should. Q: -- if they have information. Is there going to be anything circulated telling -- Q: -- could put it in writing -- McCLELLAN: I've made it very clear -- well, there's no specific information being brought to our attention to suggest White House involvement. I think I've been through that. Q: -- then you're not saying you're going to tell people that? McCLELLAN: That's why I'm saying, because there's no specific information, or there's no information, period, that has been brought to our attention beyond what is in the media reports. But if someone has information, they should report it to the Department of Justice. We've made it very clear that if the Department of Justice looks into something like this, of course, we always cooperate with them in that. Q: Scott, you keep saying: if there was a leak. But Ambassador Joe Wilson has been all over the place, on ABC this morning, in other media outlets saying, himself, that his wife was outed, that she was -- he has confirmed it, that she was a CIA operative and that her identity has been revealed. So if that's the case, why wouldn't the President be proactive about this in trying to find out where that leak came from? McCLELLAN: Okay, so if it's a "senior administration official" we should go to every single agency? I think that's -- the Department of Justice can do that, and that's what they're charged with doing. So they will look into it. If there is specific information relating to the White House, someone is welcome to bring it to our attention. But I have not seen any information, beyond what is in the media reports, to suggest White House involvement. Q: But isn't the President concerned when there is a leak of this magnitude, that could threaten someone's very life? McCLELLAN: I think I addressed that earlier. Absolutely, the President believes that this is a serious matter when you're talking about the leak of classified information. The leak of classified information, yes, you're absolutely right, can compromise sources and methods. That's why the President takes it very seriously, and we've always taken it very seriously. And if it happened in this case, it's a particularly serious matter and it should be looked into by the Department of Justice. But if you have specific questions about where it -- who is looking into it and what is happening, talk to the Department of Justice. Q: You're still saying "if" -- McCLELLAN: Well, talk to the Department of Justice and they'll get you more information. Terry. Q: Scott -- McCLELLAN: No, we're on ABC right now. Q: Thank you. In the Enron -- tag-teaming -- in the Enron matter, the White House Counsel's Office issued a request to all personnel to save their emails and phone logs and that kind of thing. That was proactive. Has that been done here? And, if not, why not? McCLELLAN: There had been some information there that we were pursuing to find out more about what contacts there had been. Again, there has been no information brought to our attention, beyond what is in the media reports, to suggest White House involvement. Q: So at this point there has been no request from the Chief of Staff's Office, from the President, for White House personnel to save emails, to save phone logs, to recall and account meetings and -- McCLELLAN: Again, if the Justice Department made a request of us, of course we would always cooperate. It is the appropriate place for the Department of Justice to look into this. I believe we did receive some request previously on that matter. Q: Do your words also speak for Vice President Cheney? And can you categorically say that he was not involved in this? McCLELLAN: I've made it clear that there's been nothing, absolutely nothing, brought to our attention to suggest any White House involvement, and that includes the Vice President's office, as well. When I'm talking about the White House, I'm talking about the Vice President's office as well. Ken, did you have a question? Q: Yes. Your answer to Dick's question about a special prosecutor was to point to the career prosecutors at Justice who are going to be handling this. But those career prosecutors ultimately report to political appointees -- ultimately, of course, to the Attorney General. Why is that not precisely the kind of conflict of interest that the special prosecutor law envisages, and why, therefore, should there not be a special prosecutor? McCLELLAN: I think we went over this earlier, Ken. And, again, you need to talk to the Department of Justice. That's assuming certain people may be involved in something of this matter. I have not seen anything to suggest that anyone -- suggest who is or who is not involved in looking into this. Q: The Justice Department is run by the Attorney General. He's a political appointee. McCLELLAN: Right. Q: Ultimately, it's his call as to whether or not there is grounds for a criminal investigation. McCLELLAN: And have you asked the Department of Justice if he's involved in looking into something of this nature? Q: Are you saying he's refused -- McCLELLAN: I have no idea. I don't know where the Department of Justice stands and whether or not they're even pursuing this further, if there's a need to. Q: Should the political appointees at the Justice Department, in the White House's view, recuse themselves from dealing with this? McCLELLAN: Again, the Department of Justice, they have a lot of professionals over there and we believe that they are the appropriate ones to look into this, and that they can do an independent job of doing so. Q: Scott, just a couple quick clarifications. Weeks ago, when you were first asked whether Mr. Rove had the conversation with Robert Novak that produced the column, you dismissed it as ridiculous. And I wanted just to make sure, at that time, had you talked to Karl? McCLELLAN: I've made it very clear, from the beginning, that it is totally ridiculous. I've known Karl for a long time, and I didn't even need to go ask Karl, because I know the kind of person that he is, and he is someone that is committed to the highest standards of conduct. Q: Have you read any book about him lately? Q: -- have a subsequent conversation with Mr. Rove in order to say that you had this conversation -- McCLELLAN: I have spoken with Karl about this matter and I've already addressed it. Q: When did you talk to him? Weeks ago, or this weekend? McCLELLAN: What I said then still applies today, and that's what I've made clear. Q: I have one other follow up. Can you say for the record whether Mr. Rove possessed the information about Mr. Wilson's wife, but merely did not talk to anybody about it? Do you know whether for a fact he knew -- McCLELLAN: I don't know whether or not -- I mean, I'm sure he probably saw the same media reports everybody else in this room has. Q: When you talked to Mr. Rove, did you discuss, did you ever have this information, could you have talked to him? McCLELLAN: We're going down a lot of different roads here. I've made it very clear that he was not involved, that there's no truth to the suggestion that he was. Q: Well, I'm trying to ask how -- McCLELLAN: And, again, I said I didn't -- it is not something I needed to ask him, but I like to, like you do, verify things and make sure that it is completely accurate. But I knew that Karl would not be involved in something like this. Q: And that conversation that you had with Karl was this weekend? Or when was it? McCLELLAN: I'm sorry? No, I've had conversations with him previously. I'm going to leave it at that. Q: -- on the record? Q: Has the President spoken to the Attorney General today, or over the weekend, on this subject? Or directed any aides to speak to the Attorney General? McCLELLAN: I'm not aware of any contact. And, no, that -- we would not do that, talk to the -- I'm not aware of any contact the Attorney General has had with anyone in this administration about that. Q: What about intelligence letters? Does the White House -- McCLELLAN: Wait, are we through with this subject? Q: No. Q: No. McCLELLAN: Because I'm going to move on. I'm going to go quickly. Paula, you've already one, so I'm going to go to April, and then we're going to move on to another subject. Q: You continue to talk about the severity of this and if anyone has any information they should go forward to the Justice Department. But can you tell us, since it's so severe, would someone or a group of persons, lose their job in the White House -- McCLELLAN: At a minimum. Q: At a minimum? McCLELLAN: At a minimum. Q: Scott, can I ask you something from earlier, it was part of a -- I'm sorry, were you done, April? Q: No, I wasn't, but go ahead. McCLELLAN: No, finish, then we'll go to Bill, then we'll go to Ken. Q: All right. But you also -- you are also saying -- McCLELLAN: Then David and then Sarah. Q: You are also saying that, you know, for your knowledge, including the Vice President' Office, no one divulged this kind of information. But with this assuredness, why do you think the husband came out and pointed fingers and said this? McCLELLAN: I'm sorry, why what? Q: Why do you think the husband came out and pointed fingers saying that this was actually leaked? McCLELLAN: I can't speak to why people say certain things. But I did notice that there was some backtracking from some of the earlier comments today. Q: Are you doubting that the leak came from the White House directly? I mean, you seem to have been casting doubt throughout this whole conversation. I mean, you talked about -- McCLELLAN: I'm telling you the facts. The fact is that we don't have any information beyond what we've seen in the media reports to suggest White House involvement. Q: It seems like the White House -- you're sort of operating on an honor system, almost a do not -- look, don't ask, don't tell system, when it comes to this. McCLELLAN: Well, if there is specific information that you have to bring to our attention, please do so. But -- Q: That's the core question. You keep on saying, you keep pointing the finger at us to step forward with information. I mean, you're asking us to come forward and reveal things, but you haven't asked the White House staff to -- McCLELLAN: You're a reporter and you recognize that there are stories written all the time, with all sorts of accusations and all sorts of allegations, a lot of times from anonymous sources. If we spent all our time going through all those stories and trying to track down information, we couldn't keep our focus where it needs to be, which is on the people's business. Q: But this is a different level of story. I mean, you're talking about all other stories -- maybe the economy, maybe some policy -- but you're talking about a potential -- almost a potential national security breach, which is a step above, sort of, the daily story of the day. So wouldn't that -- wouldn't that inspire somebody in the White House to talk to a staffer and say, hey, look, this happened, do you know anything about this, do you know anything about this? McCLELLAN: The Department of Justice is the appropriate place to look into this. Where does it stop? I mean, the anonymous source quoted -- was quoted as a senior administration official. That doesn't say "White House" in and of itself. Q: Scott, you, yourself, said there's a limited number of people who could be involved in this -- McCLELLAN: Paula, I've got to -- I'm going to try to keep moving so we can get to David's question. Q: Just to clarify something earlier that came out of a question. Has this White House, this White House specifically, in the past conducted an internal investigation into media leaks? McCLELLAN: Into media leaks? Q: Yes, has this White House ever looked into media leaks? McCLELLAN: I'd have to check. If you have a specific one you want me to check in. There have been some requests of us from others at times that have been looking into matters. And we've always cooperated, just like we would in this one, as well. Q: Right. And just to follow up, in the 70's we had a very similar situation where a CIA operative was outed. That actually ended up -- resulted in a loss of life. McCLELLAN: Yes, it's a very serious matter. Q: At that time, we had FBI, CIA, Interpol, many agencies around the world looking into it. Why would we not, at this point, want to go to the full extreme and have as many different eyes looking for this as possible? McCLELLAN: Make no mistake about it, something like this happened, someone leaked classified information of this nature, the President wants it pursued to the fullest extent. And that's what should happen. Do we have any more on this topic? Yes, go ahead. Q: How is it that the Justice Department, and I know you -- this has been asked before, but I didn't get a clear answer -- the Justice Department, headed by a man that the President, himself, appointed, how can that Department credibly investigate a claim that could be very embarrassing, could be -- could result in criminal prosecution for someone in the White House? How can that be fairly -- McCLELLAN: There are some -- there are some outstanding career employees at the Department of Justice that do an outstanding job, and they look into matters like this. And we expect that they would treat this just like they should and that they would treat this just like any other matter of this nature. Q: Certainly, the minute the Justice Department came out with something that exonerated anyone -- McCLELLAN: You can obviously try to suggest that about anything in the administration that went to the Department of Justice. Q: I don't see how a Justice Department that's headed by a man -- McCLELLAN: The Department of Justice is charged with independently looking into matters like this, as well as other law enforcement matters. And that's fully what we would expect them to do in a matter like this. Anymore on this topic? No more? One more? Q: Has the White House seen or been told about the CIA letter? McCLELLAN: I'm sorry? Q: Has the White House seen or been told about the CIA letter to Justice? McCLELLAN: What may have been sent to the Department of Justice? Not that I'm aware of. You're talking about "seen it"? Q: Have you seen it or -- McCLELLAN: I mean, we read the media reports about what has happened. Q: Yes, I understand that. But I mean outside the media reports. Have you seen a copy of the letter or been told about it by anybody at the CIA? McCLELLAN: A copy? No, I've not been told about a specific letter or a copy of that. Q: I'm talking about Mr. Gonzales or anybody else? McCLELLAN: Not that I'm aware of. We've seen the media reports. Q: Scott, on another letter -- McCLELLAN: I'm going to Russ, and then we're going to go to you. We've got to keep moving. Q: Even though the independent counsel statute has lapsed, there is a provision where the Attorney General can appoint a special prosecutor. Why wouldn't the President support -- McCLELLAN: I've been asked this question earlier and I answered it. So I'm going to move on. I've already been asked that question and I answered it earlier. And now -- Q: Scott, the statement you gave about why there shouldn't be a special prosecutor was almost word for word what the Clinton people said in 1994 about why there shouldn't be a special prosecutor in Whitewater. Why should it stand now if it didn't stand then? McCLELLAN: Ken, I just reject that comparison. Q: You can reject it, but it is the same issue. Why is -- McCLELLAN: Do you have specific information to suggest White House involvement? Q: No, but why -- McCLELLAN: Do you have any information to suggest White House involvement? Q: My issue -- the issue is the credibility -- McCLELLAN: Well, bring it to my attention if you have information. But there's no information we have beyond the media reports to suggest White House involvement. Q: But Novak -- McCLELLAN: Well, but I think the media has obligations, too. If they are aware of something that has happened, of the leaking of classified information, like anyone else they should report it to the appropriate authorities. In this case, it would be the Department of Justice. And with that, I'm going to move on to a new topic. I know we could go through this all day. I'm going to David -- David first, then Sarah, then Goyal. Q: Is the White House aware of the House Intelligence letter to the CIA on prewar intelligence, and what's the reaction to it? And does the President think that he was given bad or incomplete information that ultimately led to his decision to war? McCLELLAN: One, if you look at the statement put out by the CIA, they said that the intelligence community stands -- and this is a quote -- "The intelligence community stands fully behind its findings and judgments as stated in the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs." And that is the part of the judgment -- that is the judgment of the intelligence community. We looked at that, as well. But let's go back when we're talking about Iraq and look back at everything here. Let's look at what we knew. We knew, just like the United Nations Security Council and intelligence agencies across the world and previous administrations, that Saddam Hussein had possessed and used weapons of mass destruction, that he had used chemical weapons, that he had a history of doing that. We knew that Saddam Hussein had large, unaccounted for stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons. We knew that he had -- and everybody knew -- that he had invaded his neighbors. So this was a very unique situation. Saddam Hussein and his regime defied the United Nations over 12 years and some 17 resolutions -- they were in defiance of the international community. They went to great lengths to conceal their program. We know that he had -- that Saddam Hussein's regime had ties to terrorist organizations. We know that it was a brutal and oppressive regime. We've seen that from the torture chambers and the mass graves. So we knew all these facts. Then came September 11th, the attacks of September 11th. September 11th taught us that we must confront the new, dangerous threats of the 21st century, that we can no longer wait for threats to gather and come to our shores before it's too late. The nexus between outlaw regimes with weapons of mass destruction and terrorist organizations is the most dangerous threat of our times. And we must confront those threats before it's too late. Q: Given that 180 members of Congress cited the nuclear threat, as reported to them by the President of the United States, as a primary reason to support a war authorization resolution, and the fact that no weapons of mass destruction have been found to date in Iraq, why shouldn't the American people believe that this President overstated the predicate for war? McCLELLAN: I think I answered that with some of what I just went threw. But Chairman Goss, who is also one of the signatures on this letter, stated that he believes that what our -- at least sources in his office have stated that he believes that this was accurate information presented by the intelligence community. He was certainly -- he was concerned about one area, about the human intelligence. And you look at the letter and it talks about this is a preliminary assessment, that they want to get some comment, they're still looking at this, they're still looking at the findings. So that's where things -- Q: -- the White House been sent the letter? McCLELLAN: That's where that stands. Q: Has the White House been sent the letter? McCLELLAN: I've seen a copy of it. Q: You have? McCLELLAN: Yes. Q: But, Scott, you said -- Q: Can I follow on that? Q: -- you just said a moment ago that: we knew there were large unaccountable -- unaccounted stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. In 2001, in March or February, Colin Powell said there weren't, as we learned of two days ago -- McCLELLAN: Secretary Powell went before the United Nations and said, there were. Q: No, no, listen to this. No, no, he said, at that point, there weren't. The DIA produced a classified -- McCLELLAN: That's not what he said. Q: -- assessment in October 2002 which said: we don't have any hard or reliable information about stockpiles. And the U.N. inspectors, themselves, said they had no hard information about stockpiles. So where are you getting your information from? McCLELLAN: Again, I think you're mischaracterizing Secretary Powell's comments. Secretary Powell went before -- and he said, that I never said that he was not a threat. He went before -- Q: -- looking for WMD. McCLELLAN: Let me finish. Secretary Powell went before the United Nations and presented that very case to the world and made it very clear what was unaccounted for. Secretary Powell went through an exhaustive process to back up everything that he said, talking directly with members of the intelligence community -- Q: -- to what he said in early 2001. You said, before 9/11 we knew there were accounted stockpiles. He said, there weren't. McCLELLAN: Before 9/11 -- I'm glad you pointed that out, because September -- and, no, that is not what he said. September 11th taught us -- Q: He said that in -- McCLELLAN: It was well documented by the United Nations Security Council that there were undocumented stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. Q: That's not true. Talk to Ekeus, the Chairman. He has said that that's not the case, that you are mischaracterizing U.N. reports. McCLELLAN: We're going to move on. I think I've answered this question. I think September 11th, again, changed the way we look at threats. I want to make that point very clear, and that it became even more real after September 11th, the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and his regime. Let me make very clear -- Q: (Inaudible.) McCLELLAN: -- no let me make very clear the results of the action that we took. America is safer, the world is better, the world is safer because Saddam Hussein and his brutal regime have been removed from power. Saddam Hussein will no longer be able to oppress the people of Iraq. He will no longer be able to carry out the brutality that he did in the past. His regime is gone, it is removed from power, and it is not coming back. And it's very clear that America is more secure because of the action that we took. Q: Can I follow up? When the Secretary of State says, as he did yesterday, that the administration believes Iran is trying to pursue nuclear weapons and that there is no legitimate justification for any of its nuclear programs, does the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and what seems to be the gulf between pre-war claims and post-war reality, does that hurt the credibility of the country, in making it -- McCLELLAN: Again, I think, one, Dr. Kaye continues to do his job. I think the CIA, in their statement, put out -- let me go back to this part of their statement that they put out about the NIE and the letter from the congressional leaders: "David Kaye has, for only two-and-a-half months, been attempting to unravel Iraq's WMD programs. His effort, which has only just begun, will be important in our process of continuing self-evaluation." There are miles of documents that Dr. Kaye is still going through in his Iraq survey group. There are interviews that he is still conducting with Iraqis, themselves, who are providing more information. So that process needs to continue. We'll know the truth. He'll pull together the full extent and full picture of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and weapons of mass destruction program. But I, again -- look at the results that we've achieved. Look at the opportunity that is presented to us in Iraq. The stakes are very high in Iraq. The world has a stake in seeing a free, sovereign and prosperous Iraq. It's the central front in the war on terrorism. And foreign terrorists and remnants of the former regime are desperate, because they know we are making significant progress. And when we prevail in this front in Iraq, then we will have dealt a significant blow to the terrorists, and we would have made a significant -- we will make significant progress in the war on terrorism. And we will see it through. Q: I have two questions. An audiotape claims to be from the number two leader in the al Qaeda, says the U.S. war on terrorism is really a war against Islam. Any comment from the White House? McCLELLAN: The President -- first of all, people who carry out attacks in the name of a religion are not committed to that religion. The President has made it very clear that Islam is a faith that teaches peace. And the enemies of peace are those who carry out brutal terrorist attacks in the name of a religion like that. Let me keep going. Goyal. Q: Scott, two quick questions. Just came back from the United Nations. There were -- the President saw the demonstrations against many countries and dictators, including demonstrations against the U.S., India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Burma and also China. Is President so busy in other issues like Iraq and also -- that he didn't care or doesn't have time for the (inaudible) of information that are being committed against the people of minorities in Bangladesh and also people of -- religious persecution in China and also against the people of Burma? McCLELLAN: Absolutely not. In fact, we're pursuing all those areas you just talked about. Human rights abuses cannot be allowed to stand, and we speak out against them, we pursue action to be taken to reverse that trend, and we will continue to do so. Q: Thank you. McCLELLAN: Thank you. Oh, wait, wait, I'm sorry -- go ahead. Last one. Q: The Vice President continues to suggest that there is a direct link between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. And the President a few days ago said there is not any link. So what does the Vice President know that -- McCLELLAN: No, I think we're saying the same thing -- that there has been no evidence that's come to our attention to suggest a link. Now, again, it goes back to what I said before --- 9/11 taught us that we have to confront these kind of dangerous new threats we face. Saddam Hussein and his regime certainly had ties to terrorist organizations. That is well documented and not in dispute. And he publicly supported terrorist organizations. Thank you very much. END 1:03 P.M. EDT # # # # # # # # #