If Scooter Is Guilty, So
Are Rove & Cheney
July 27, 1992
BUSH ADMINISTRATION HAD
ACUTE KNOWLEDGE OF IRAQ'S MILITARY INDUSTRIALIZATION PLANS
Congressional Record
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1992/h920727g.htm
"Today I will show that
the highest levels of the Bush administration, including the President
himself, had specific knowledge of Iraq's military industrialization plans,
and despite that knowledge, the President mandated the policy of coddling
Saddam Hussein as spelled out in National Security Directive 26 (NSD-26)
issued in October 1989. This policy was not changed until after the Iraqi
invasion of Kuwait, by which time the Bush administration had sent Saddam
Hussein billions of dollars in United States financial assistance, technology
and useful military intelligence information."
For the Short Attention Span
Challenged
"I don't know of anybody
in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did
leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate
action." - GWB, 09 September 2003
Whitey House Press Conference
12:18 P.M. EDT - 29 September 2003
MR. McCLELLAN: Good afternoon. This afternoon the President
will welcome and congratulate the 2003 Stanley Cup Champion New Jersey Devils
to the White House. Later this afternoon, the President looks forward to
meeting with congregational rabbis. This is the Jewish high holy days, and
it is a time for prayer and reflection in the Jewish community. Today's meeting
is part of the President's ongoing commitment to reaching out to faith-based
leaders who make our nation stronger. So the President looks forward to that
meeting.
And then, following that meeting, the President looks forward
to signing the Do Not Call legislation, which affirms the FTC's authority
to maintain the Do Not Call Registry. This action, combined with the FCC's
announcement earlier today that they will enforce the Do Not Call rules,
is a victory for the millions of Americans who have registered some 50 million
phone numbers on the registry. Americans have the right to reduce the number
of unwanted solicitations they receive. The Do Not Call Registry is a valuable
way for them to stop the nuisance of annoying calls.
And with that, I will be glad to jump right into questions.
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?
MR. 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?
MR. 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?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?
Q Does he doubt?
MR. 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.
We've
Got A Secret
http://www.flyingsnail.com/Dahbud/rovesecret.html
Press Conference Continued
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?
MR. 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?
MR. McCLELLAN: Do you have any specific information to
bring to my attention suggesting White House involvement?
Q If you would --
MR. McCLELLAN: I haven't seen any.
Q Would you not want to know whether someone had leaked
information of this kind?
MR. 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 --
MR. McCLELLAN: -- pursued to the fullest extent --
Q Right, so why --
MR. 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?
MR. 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?
MR. 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?
MR. 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 --
MR. 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?
MR. 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?
MR. 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?
MR. 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 --
MR. 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 --
MR. 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
--
MR. 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 --
MR. 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?
MR. 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?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, there you have it. There you have
it.
Q Haven't they told you? Haven't you asked?
MR. 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?
MR. 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?
MR. 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.
MR. McCLELLAN: But there has been nothing -- there has
been absolutely --
Q Does the President --
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm answering that.
Q Scott, does he know -- is he convinced that no one in
the White House was involved with this?
MR. 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?
MR. 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?
MR. 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?
MR. 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 --
MR. 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?
MR. McCLELLAN: Do you have specific information, Helen,
to bring to my attention?
Q No. Are you --
MR. 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?
MR. 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 --
MR. 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.
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, Ed, do you have specific information
to bring to our attention?
Q No. But it's not --
MR. McCLELLAN: But are we supposed to chase down --
Q -- for me a big story --
MR. 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.
MR. 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 --
MR. 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?
MR. 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?
MR. 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?
MR. 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.
MR. 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 --
MR. 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 --
MR. 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 --
MR. 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 --
MR. 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?
MR. 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?
MR. 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?
MR. 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?
MR. 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?
MR. 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 --
MR. 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?
MR. 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.
MR. 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 --
MR. 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?
MR. 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?
MR. 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?
MR. 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?
MR. 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 --
MR. 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.
MR. 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 --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, are we supposed to go through every
anonymous source?
Q No, no, no. But the President --
MR. 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?
MR. 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.
MR. 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
--
MR. McCLELLAN: Absolutely.
Q -- to step forward --
MR. McCLELLAN: Absolutely.
Q -- and contact the Department of Justice?
MR. 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 --
MR. 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.
MR. McCLELLAN: No, I said that --
Q Is that a correct inference, or did we --
MR. 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 --
MR. 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?
MR. 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.
MR. 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?
MR. McCLELLAN: And I think I've asked and answered that.
Q No, but why is he not doing anything proactively?
MR. 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 --
MR. 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 --
MR. 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 --
MR. 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.
MR. McCLELLAN: And what -- what have I said?
Q So why not do the same in this case?
MR. 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 --
MR. McCLELLAN: No --
Q -- regarding the President's, you know, desire to cooperate
with any probe or anything like that?
MR. 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
--
MR. McCLELLAN: They should.
Q -- if they have information. Is there going to be anything
circulated telling --
Q -- could put it in writing --
MR. 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?
MR. 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?
MR. 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?
MR. 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" --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, talk to the Department of Justice
and they'll get you more information.
Terry.
Q Scott --
MR. 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?
MR. 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 --
MR. 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?
MR. 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?
MR. 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.
MR. McCLELLAN: Right.
Q Ultimately, it's his call as to whether or not there
is grounds for a criminal investigation.
MR. 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 --
MR. 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?
MR. 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?
MR. 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 --
MR. 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?
MR. 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
--
MR. 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?
MR. 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 --
MR. 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?
MR. 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?
MR. 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
--
MR. McCLELLAN: Wait, are we through with this subject?
Q No.
Q No.
MR. 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 --
MR. McCLELLAN: At a minimum.
Q At a minimum?
MR. 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.
MR. 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 --
MR. 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?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry, why what?
Q Why do you think the husband came out and pointed fingers
saying that this was actually leaked?
MR. 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 --
MR. 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.
MR. 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 --
MR. 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?
MR. 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 --
MR. 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?
MR. McCLELLAN: Into media leaks?
Q Yes, has this White House ever looked into media leaks?
MR. 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.
MR. 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?
MR. 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 --
MR. 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 --
MR. 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 --
MR. 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?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?
Q Has the White House seen or been told about the CIA letter
to Justice?
MR. 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 --
MR. 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?
MR. 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?
MR. McCLELLAN: Not that I'm aware of. We've seen the media
reports.
Q Scott, on another letter --
MR. 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 --
MR. 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?
MR. McCLELLAN: Ken, I just reject that comparison.
Q You can reject it, but it is the same issue. Why is --
MR. McCLELLAN: Do you have specific information to suggest
White House involvement?
Q No, but why --
MR. McCLELLAN: Do you have any information to suggest White
House involvement?
Q My issue -- the issue is the credibility --
MR. 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 --
MR. 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?
MR. 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?
MR. 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?
MR. McCLELLAN: That's where that stands.
Q Has the White House been sent the letter?
MR. McCLELLAN: I've seen a copy of it.
Q You have?
MR. 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 --
MR. 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 --
MR. 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?
MR. 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.
MR. 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.
MR. 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 --
MR. 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.
MR. 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.)
MR. 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 --
MR. 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?
MR. 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?
MR. 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.
MR. 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 --
MR. 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
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030929-7.html
Q: "Do you stand by your
pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?"
BUSH: "Yes. And that's up to the U.S. Attorney
to find the facts."
06 October 2004
Corporate Media, Tool
of Evil
General
Electric, A Skilled Killing Machine
General Electric is one
of the largest exporters of weapons of mass destruction on the planet
Earth.
Corporations who profit
from War should NOT
be allowed to own Corporate Media.
Columbia Journalism Review - Who
Owns What
General Electric is one of the largest exporters of weapons
of mass destruction on the planet, has
problems with honesty, profits from war, and should not be allowed to
own 'any' public media.
Click HERE to
see what General Electric Owns
Click HERE to
view General Electric's Corporate Timeline
Click HERE to
view (PDF) of how General Electric stole Nikola Tesla's Patent Rights
1985 General Electric [profits
from war and exports WMD] buys NBC
1995 Westinghouse Electric [profits
from war and exports WMD] buys CBS
1996 CBS buys Infinity
radio broadcasting
1997 CBS buys American
Radio Systems
1999 NBC takes 32%
of Paxson Communications
Corporation
1999 CBS buys King
World Productions
1999 Infinity [GE/NBC] buys Outdoor
Systems billboard group
1999 Viacom ["holding
the public
airwaves hostage"] buys CBS
Spectacular Greenpeace Pictures
The Greenpeace ship Esperanza returns to the Southern Ocean
as part of the activist organization’s global campaign to bring an
end to whaling in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary.
http://usaphoto.greenpeace.org/us2007whaling/index.html
Daily
Wrap and Flow
