Text 2207, 851 rader
Skriven 2006-02-27 23:33:20 av Whitehouse Press (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Press Release (0602271) for Mon, 2006 Feb 27
====================================================
===========================================================================
Press Briefing by Scott McClellan
===========================================================================

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
February 27, 2006

Press Briefing by Scott McClellan
James S. Brady Briefing Room


  þ Colombia
  þ Belarus
  þ Dubai Ports World
      þ Reference B
      þ Reference C
  þ India
      þ Reference B
  þ Terror surveillance program
      þ Reference B
  þ India/Pakistan
  þ Venezuela
  þ Opinion polls
  þ Jill Carroll
  þ Iran
  þ Taiwan

1:27 P.M. EST

MR. McCLELLAN: Good afternoon, everyone. Let me begin with a couple of
issues, one, a world leader call, and then, two, a meeting the President
had earlier today.

First of all, President Uribe of Colombia called the President this morning
to express his appreciation for the cooperation between the United States
and Colombia in concluding free trade negotiations this past weekend. The
President commended President Uribe for his leadership. Both leaders
expressed that they were pleased with the outcome. You have a statement
that the USTR put out earlier today, but let me just kind of sum up this
agreement.

This comprehensive agreement will enhance economic growth and prosperity
between the United States and Colombia and will generate export
opportunities for our agricultural products, manufacturing and service
providers. Since many products from Colombia already enter the United
States market duty-free, this agreement will help level the playing field
for U.S. manufacturers, farmers and ranchers.

Secondly, our National Security Advisor, Steve Hadley, hosted a meeting
with two widows of individuals who disappeared in Belarus. One was a
pro-democracy businessman; the other was an independent journalist. Several
international investigations have concluded that their husbands were
murdered by authorities in Belarus because of their political activities,
and the United States government shares that view. Their bodies have not
been found.

The President expressed his condolences to the widows over the loss of
their husbands. The President underscored his personal support for their
efforts to seek justice for the disappeared and for all those who seek to
return freedom to Belarus. The meeting took place 20 days before the
presidential election in Belarus. It highlights our concern about the
conduct of the government in Belarus leading up to the election, harassment
of civil society and the political opposition, and the failure to seriously
investigate the cases of the disappeared. The United States stands with the
people of Belarus in their effort to chart their own future.

And with that, I'll be glad to go to questions. Steve.

Q Is it your understanding that this -- that the election is Belarus is
illegitimate? Or what's your feeling about this?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we have a lot of concerns about the current government
in place, and I think we've expressed those previously. What we want to do
is everything we can to help advance freedom and democracy in Belarus. And
that's why we stand with these widows and we stand with the people of
Belarus.

Helen, go ahead.

Q Did the German intelligence give the U.S. Saddam Hussein's military
plans, defense plans, war plans?

MR. McCLELLAN: The President was asked about that at a news conference with
Chancellor Merkel, when she was here visiting and he didn't have any -- he
didn't know anything about it, nor did I. I don't have anything else on it.

Go ahead, David.

Q Scott, let me ask you about this new deal -- or rather, not the new deal,
but the --

MR. McCLELLAN: Compromise.

Q -- investigation, the 45-day. Can you explain a little bit how that came
to pass, what the White House view on this was? Because the White House
said the President did not support any further review. So how did this come
to be? Did the White House express -- put any pressure on the company to do
this? And do you think it's enough to sort of quell the storm in Congress
here?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, a couple of things. Let me start by saying that our
interest over the last several days has been in making sure that Congress
has a better understanding of the transaction and the facts involved. And
so the additional time and investigation at the request of the company, we
believe will help provide Congress with a better understanding. And once
they have that better understanding, we believe they'll be more comfortable
with the transaction moving forward.

There have been a number of conversations going on between the companies
and congressional leaders like Senator Frist, Speaker Hastert, I think, and
others have been involved in discussions with members of Congress, as well.
We've been involved in discussions. The Treasury Department, as Chair of
the Committee on Foreign Investment, has been involved in those
discussions, as well. And we think that a reasonable middle ground has been
reached. And we support and welcome the decision by the company to file a
new notification with the Committee on Foreign Investment for the reasons
that I just stated.

Q But one follow-up to this. Congressman King has said repeatedly that what
CFIUS failed to do was really an adequate national security investigation;
that it was really much more of a pre-9/11 review with respect to a
financial transaction, and didn't really break much new ground beyond
examining what was on file with the intelligence community, with regard to
this company and with the UAE.

So does the President think that in this 45-day review that anything
different should be done than was done through the CFIUS process?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, since they asked for this 45-day investigation, there
are inherently, within that process, some things that are done differently.

But let me back up and emphasize a couple of things. First of all, this is
a congressionally-mandated process. Congress put this process in place when
it comes to foreign transactions. And the Committee on Foreign Investment
thoroughly reviewed this transaction initially. And there was an
intelligence assessment that was done early on. I think they were looking
at this for about a three-month period, is what Deputy Secretary of
Treasury Kimmitt indicated to members of Congress last week in one of the
hearings. And there are safeguards that are put in place, it was closely
scrutinized. The President believes it should be allowed to move forward.

At the same time, we recognize Congress would like additional time to look
at this transaction and have the facts, and that's important, too. So we
welcome the middle ground that was reached here with congressional leaders.
And Congressman King, Senator Frist, Senator Warner, and I know others have
expressed their appreciation for the compromise that was reached here. And
they say they want to wait and see how this review and investigation moves
forward before determining what to do next.

Go ahead, Terry.

Q Scott, India's Prime Minister says that the country's fast breeder
program would not be included in inspections by the IAEA under this deal
that's being worked out. Is that okay with the United States?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I'm not going to try to negotiate from this podium.
That's a nice try, to try to draw me into these negotiations. Let me just
say a couple of things. First of all, our relationship with India is much
broader than the civilian nuclear program that we are talking about. There
has been some progress that has been made in those negotiations. Whether or
not it gets done during the trip -- before the trip or during the trip, we
will have to see. But we believe it will get done. It's an important
agreement. But these are complex issues that we are dealing with here, and
they have been ongoing for some time, these negotiations. And we'll see
where they lead.

Q Are you trying to lower expectations that it will get done?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think I'm trying to put it in perspective that we
have a very broad relationship with India. It's one that the President has
been strongly committed to from day one. And we have worked to strengthen
that relationship. India is a strategic partner, and we work together on a
number of issues across the board, whether it's the war on terrorism or
expanding economic opportunity and prosperity, or other issues. We have a
strong relationship. And the President has talked about that in some of the
interviews.

Q Let's move back a couple controversies to the NSA matter. A group of
Democratic congressmen have called on the President to order a special
prosecutor to investigate. What's your response?

MR. McCLELLAN: Sure, a couple of things. First of all, the President talked
about the importance of the terrorist surveillance program earlier with the
governors. The President's number one priority is to protect the American
people, and this terrorist surveillance program is a critical tool in our
efforts to prevent attacks. And the President has spoken about how it is a
hot pursuit effort aimed at detection and prevention of attacks before they
occur. And it's one tool that we are using. This is a comprehensive war on
terrorism that we're engaged in and this tool helps us to connect the dots
and save lives. And that's why it's so important.

It was carefully tailored. It is focused solely on international
communications that involve a known al Qaeda or suspected al Qaeda
terrorist or affiliated al Qaeda terrorist. And it went through a careful
review process. There were a lot of legal officials that were involved in
this at the National Security Agency, at the White House, at the Department
of Justice.

And I think that where these Democrats who are calling for this ought to
spend their time is on what was the source of the unauthorized disclosure
of this vital and critical program in the war on terrorism, because what it
has done is signal to the enemy some of what we're doing to try to save
lives. And I really don't think there's any basis for a special counsel,
and I think the Attorney General has spoken about that, as well. But the
fact that this information was disclosed about the existence of this
program has given the enemy some of our play book, and that is very
dangerous in the war on terrorism.

Q Scott, what are your comments to the unexpected support from Julian Bond
in reference to the President's port deal issue?

MR. McCLELLAN: I actually haven't seen his specific comments. I think
someone had reported that to me earlier. But I think that we've spelled out
the reasons why we believe this transaction should move forward.

Now, with that said, we have also been supportive of the discussions going
on with Congress. We've been involved in those discussions and so we
welcome the middle ground that was reached to help Congress have a better
understanding of the facts involved in this transaction. And as I said, we
believe they're going to be more comfortable with the transaction moving
forward once they have a better understanding of those facts.

Now, keep in mind what the President said. The President believes very
strongly that we shouldn't be holding a company from an Arab country to a
different standard than a company from Great Britain. So it's a principle
that is involved here.

It's also something that we have to look at in the broader context of our
foreign policy and the war on terrorism that we're engaged in. The United
Arab Emirates is a strong and good partner in the war on terrorism. General
Pace spoke about the military-to-military cooperation that goes on with the
United Arab Emirates. It is superb, he said. He said that the United Arab
Emirates has proven to be a very, very solid partner in the war on
terrorism.

It is a country where our aircraft carriers use their seaports. It is a
country that has given us access to their air space and their airfields for
our Air Force. And so it is a critical partner in the war on terrorism. And
remember this is a global threat that we are engaged in, and it requires a
global response. We need to be building strong partnerships in order to
prevail in the war on terrorism. And so you have to look at this in the
broader context of our foreign policy, as well, and the impact it could
have when we say to allies that you're going to be held to a different
standard than others.

Q But, Scott, again, as I asked you last week, the broader context some are
saying is racism or bigotry. And now we have Julian Bond supporting the
President's efforts with the ports. Are you willing now to say there could
be hints of bigotry, racism or discrimination in this?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I think you have to ask the individuals why they might
be reluctant to support this transaction moving forward. I'm not going to
try to speak for others.

Go ahead, David.

Q Scott, two questions, one on the ports and one on India. On the ports,
under the 45-day review that you're now going to start, the way the law is
written, it's up to the President to be the final arbiter of this, the
committee then reports to him. Since the President has already expressed
his views on this deal -- and you've just reiterated those today -- can he
be a neutral judge on this issue? Should he recuse himself from this, since
he's already expressed his opinion, much the way a judge might --

MR. McCLELLAN: This is a congressionally mandated process; they put this
law in place. And the company voluntarily asked for a 45-day investigation,
so this is at the request of the company. And it will go to the committee
--

Q You see my point, you're in the odd position of the President has already
declared his view on something he's supposed to judge at the end of the
investigative process.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, but it's going to go through the Committee on Foreign
Investment -- because this is a new transaction that they are notifying the
committee about. And the committee will review it, and at the request of
the company, go through the investigation. That will involve additional
people. And then, as you point out, I expect it ultimately would go to the
President, as called for under the law. This is the way -- the law has been
in place for some time.

Q So he's got to keep an open mind that maybe the committee will find
something different than --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, he stated his views. The views that he has previously
stated remain the same. But we will see, as it goes through the Committee
on Foreign Investment, where this goes.

Q And on India, the President, in his speech February, I guess, '04, on
nuclear proliferation said that he wanted no country that is currently not
producing enriched uranium or reprocessed plutonium to move forward with
that. Instead, he wants to be supplying them from international suppliers.
In the President's view, is India a country that should be banned from
producing new nuclear fuel under that rule? Or are they considered to be
grandfathered in as an existing producer?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think we need to let the discussions continue. I
don't think anything has changed in terms of what we said previously, in
terms of the joint statement that was issued after President Singh came
here and visited. That remains the same. The President believes this is a
practical way to address a couple of issues.

One is the issue of energy and the need for that energy. And so expanding
our nuclear cooperation on civilian programs with India is important to
addressing that important need. But it will also help bring India into a
better situation when it comes to any concerns about proliferation issues.
And I don't know that I can add anything to what we've already said at this
point.

Q I think you're making the question more complex than it is. The question
is what category, in the President's mind, does India fit into: an existing
producer, one that he would like to block or --

MR. McCLELLAN: I think it fits into the category we've previously
expressed. I'll see if there's anything additional to add to it.

Go ahead, Goyal.

Q Scott, as we get ready to -- a special and historical trip to India and
Pakistan tomorrow, as far as Pakistan trip is concerned, it will be more on
Kashmir, as far as Pakistan's ambassador, that I have spoken to him, and
also General Musharraf has said, and last time the U.N. -- what he said
really, Kashmir is the main focal point between India and Pakistan. My
question is that in the past, President and Dr. Rice, they have been saying
that this issue has to be decided between India and Pakistan only, and U.S.
is not the party, unless it is asked by the two countries. But now
President, other day he clarified after the Asia Society speech, that it is
now India, Pakistan and the people of Kashmir --

MR. McCLELLAN: That's been our view.

Q Isn't it policy change now, a U.S. policy change?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, that's been our view, and -- that the dialogue ought to
be occurring between India and Pakistan. There's been some improvement in
that dialogue, and we want a solution that represents the interests of all
sides, is what the President emphasized in his interviews the other day.

Q How is it -- beyond this issue in India and Pakistan?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?

Q How President's role will be in India and Pakistan?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think it's the way he expressed it last week, both in the
speech, and then later in interviews.

Go ahead, Carl.

Q Back to NSA for just a minute. What is the administration's view of
Senator Specter's remark that would bring the NSA surveillance program
under the auspices of FISA and the court, and require the FISA court to
essentially take part in a 45-day review of the ongoing program?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, a couple of things. One, as I said, the terrorist
surveillance program is a critical tool in our efforts to win the war on
terrorism and prevent attacks from happening here in America. It was
carefully tailored to focus on detention and prevention. FISA was created
for longer-term monitoring. It was created for a different purpose.

Now, in terms of the nature of this program, it is limited to international
communications involving al Qaeda or al Qaeda affiliated terrorists. The
President has both the constitutional and statutory authority to carry out
this important program that helps save lives. We have committed to working
with Congress on legislation that would codify that authority into law. We
are committed to working on the legislation that meets that shared
objective of some leaders in Congress, and we've said that we're open to
ideas from members of Congress, but what we will resist is any attempt that
would compromise this vital program or undermine the President's authority.

I don't want to get into to trying to rule things in, or ruling things out,
other than reiterating what we had previously said, and I think that gives
you a sense of where we are.

Q And a second question, also on legislation on the Hill. What if Senator
Schumer gets the Republican leadership to go along with the measure that
would essentially say that Congress has to approve this port deal?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think that you've heard from a number of
congressional leaders already. Senator Frist has said that he will ask the
Senate to hold off on legislation relating to this transaction until this
review and investigation is complete. I think they -- I think there are a
number of leaders that recognize that this was a reasonable middle ground
that has been reached. And we want to make sure that that review and
investigation has the opportunity to proceed forward.

Q Does the administration think congressional oversight is unnecessary this
type of a transactional review?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, are you talking about future ideas --

Q Future ideas.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- for looking at the Committee on Foreign Investment? We'll
continue to talk with Congress in the future and look at these issues.
Congress is the one who created this process and mandated it into law.

Go ahead.

Q Thank you. Scott, Venezuela is again threatening to cut off oil shipments
to the United States. The Venezuelan Petroleum Minister accuses the U.S. of
meddling in Venezuela's internal affairs. And he also threatens to close
Venezuelan oil refineries in this country. What would that loss -- about 10
percent of our total oil imports -- do to the President's energy program?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not sure -- I appreciate the opportunity to try to
engage on this, but I'm not going to try to speculate about comments that
were made by the official you quoted. We've made very clear what our view
is when it comes to the hemisphere, and we're looking at this hemisphere in
terms of the broader strategic vision. And there are many nations that
share our view that the hemisphere should continue to move in the direction
of democracy and freedom and rule of law. And those are the nations that
we'll continue to work with as we move forward.

Go ahead, Jim.

Q Scott, the President is heading off on his trip with some record low
approval ratings. And I'm wondering, given the events of the last couple of
weeks -- the ports deal, and the outbreak of violence in Iraq, and the
handling of the Vice President's shooting -- is there any thought to
changing the way the administration is doing business?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, if you're talking about with Congress, we will
continue to work closely with Congress on our shared priorities. I think if
you look at the record, we have been able to move forward and achieve a lot
of important things for the American people. And we will continue to do
that.

That's where our focus is. Our focus is on the important priorities of the
American people, and I think that's where Congress' focus is, as well. This
week Congress is looking at moving forward on renewing the Patriot Act.
That is another vital tool in the global war on terrorism. The President
just came from a discussion with our nation's governors -- Republicans and
Democrats alike -- and he talked about the importance of working together
on our shared goals. These goals are not Republican or Democratic goals.
These are goals that we can all support and work together on.

And that's what the President is going to continue to do. We'll let others
get into all the political analysis of those things.

Q Do you have any idea why the dip?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?

Q Do you have any idea why the dip?

MR. McCLELLAN: We don't get caught up in the weekly snapshots in time that
you're referring to. We are focused on getting things done for the American
people, and we have a record of results. We're focused on moving forward
and winning the war on terrorism. We're focused on doing everything we can
within our authority to prevent attacks from happening and saving lives.
We're focused on keeping the economy growing, and we're going to continue
to talk about what the facts are, because if you look at the facts, this is
a President that has achieved meaningful results for the American people:
an economy that is humming along, having created nearly 4.8 million jobs
since the summer of 2003; and an unemployment rate that is at 4.9 percent,
below the averages of the '70s, '80s, and '90s.

And we're going to continue focusing on ways we can work together as
Republicans and Democrats in Congress to achieve important priorities that
build upon that economic security. The President has called for an Advanced
Energy Initiative to help reduce our dependence on foreign sources of
energy and build upon the comprehensive plan we passed last summer. So look
at the record and look at the results, and look at the facts.

Go ahead.

Q Scott, is there any update from the White House on Jill Carroll?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I don't have any additional update to provide you.
Obviously, as I have said before, any time you have an American hostage, he
or she is a priority for this administration. So all Americans who are held
hostage at this time are a priority for this administration, including Ms.
Carroll. And their safe return is something that we remain focused on and
it remains a top priority. And that's what we are working to do for all
hostages.

Q Back to DPW. Prior to finding this, what you call "middle ground" --

MR. McCLELLAN: Didn't you already have a question? (Laughter.)

Q Yes, I did.

MR. McCLELLAN: You're jumping in on some of the others. Let me come back to
you.

Q Go ahead.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, that's okay. I forgot. Nice try. (Laughter.) Go ahead,
Connie.

Q Two questions, one on port and one on Iran. First of all, a variation of
one the spokesman gave before. Do American firms have first chance to bid
on these port contracts, or are they likely to in the future?

MR. McCLELLAN: This is a private transaction. And you had this company,
Dubai Ports World, enter into a transaction with the British P_

Q But do you think American firms should have the first chance to bid?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, there are already some foreign companies that manage
terminals in different parts of the United States, and Dubai Ports World is
a company that manages terminals all across the world, in several
countries. I read out some of what those countries are. But certainly
American companies are welcome to enter into these transactions, and there
are terminals that -- the Port of Baltimore, I think, is an example -- at
least one of those terminals is managed by an American company. But some of
the other terminals are managed by foreign companies. Yet, the Port of
Baltimore remains in control -- the Port Authority of Baltimore remains in
control of that port.

Q And on Iran and the IAEA, a new report says Iran is still not fully
cooperating. ElBaradei called this regrettable and a matter of concern.
What next? Will U.N. sanction --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we haven't seen the report. I know that the
International Atomic Energy Agency was scheduled to be meeting next week,
and they will be receiving a report from Director General ElBaradei. And so
we look forward to seeing what the International Atomic Energy Agency says.

But the international community remains concerned about the regime's
behavior, and about their intentions when it comes to their nuclear
program. That's why the matter has been reported to the United Nations
Security Council. We've said that during this time the regime in Iran has
an opportunity to change their ways and change their behavior when it comes
to the nuclear program.

The International Atomic Energy Agency board spelled out what the regime
needs to do, that the regime needs to abide by the Paris Agreement, suspend
all enrichment and enrichment-related activities, they need to cooperate
fully with the International Atomic Energy Agency, and they need to
negotiate in good faith with the Europeans. And that's what it spells out
in that resolution that was passed at the last -- the special emergency
meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Q Just jumping back and forth once again. Senator Clinton and
Representative Menendez are planning legislation that would essentially
prohibit any foreign-owned company from taking over port operations in the
United States. What message does that send, and what do you think of the --

MR. McCLELLAN: Carl, you can ask them about what they're proposing. Where
our focus is, is on making sure that Congress has a greater understanding
of the transaction and the facts. This was a transaction that was closely
scrutinized by national security experts who are involved in these
decisions and by our intelligence community. The intelligence community
provided an assessment.

The Department of Homeland Security also worked to make sure any national
security concerns were addressed, by entering into an agreement with the
company and requiring some additional security assurances before it moved
forward. But this was a consensus of all the relevant departments and
agencies -- there are some 12 altogether -- that are part of that Committee
on Foreign Investment.

Now in this process, for this transaction, the committee also reached out
to the Department of Transportation and Department of Energy to get their
expertise and their views on national security issues, as well. In spite of
that, though, we recognized that members of Congress would like more
information, and that's why this additional time and the investigation at
the request of the company will be helpful.

Q In that regard --

Q -- beyond that, to other foreign countries, in general.

MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead, which one.

Q This legislation proposed by Ms. Clinton and Mr. Menendez would ban
foreign-owned countries [sic] from taking part in ports, period. That's
happening all over --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think the President has expressed his view on this
transaction. And as you well know, there are ports around the United States
that are managed -- terminals that are managed by foreign companies.

Q Well, the President's view --

Q I asked you if you had a reaction to the specific legislation on the
Hill, insofar as the President has said that it's important to watch the
message that's sent from here.

MR. McCLELLAN: That's right.

Q You're not concerned about legislation that's going to be moving ahead
and --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I told you where our focus is. There are others that
are discussing other issues relating to this. And going forward from this
transaction, we'll continue to work with Congress, but I think the
President has made his views very clear and they remain unchanged.

Q Well, in that regard --

MR. McCLELLAN: We're trying to work with Congress to make sure they have a
clear understanding of the transaction. And that's where our focus will
remain.

Q Well, in that regard, before finding what you call the "middle ground,"
there was a veto threat out there and threats of legislation the
administration and the President obviously found objectionable. Now you
have a 45-day hiatus in effect. What occurs at the end of the 45 days if
congressional anxieties are not resolved?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we believe they will. We believe that Congress will be
more comfortable and will not object to this transaction moving forward
once this review and investigation have come to a conclusion. I think
that's what we've expressed previously. What this does is have more -- give
more time for Congress to get additional information about the transaction
and to hear from the company, as well.

Now, in terms of the Committee on Foreign Investment, the way the law was
structured by Congress, the committee is limited in terms of what
information it can provide publicly because of proprietary concerns and
other issues. But the company has been providing additional information
publicly and to members of Congress because they are confident in the
issues relating to this transaction. And I would expect that they'll
continue to be helpful in making sure Congress has the information they
need.

Q But is that veto threat still operative?

MR. McCLELLAN: The President's position remains the same, Bob. But we're --
again, we're focused on what we're for. And what we're for is the
compromise that was reached between the company and congressional leaders
and letting that process work, and letting Congress come to a greater
understanding about the transaction.

Go ahead, Les.

Q Since I've got to be away for about two weeks, I just wondered on this
one occasion I could ask three, like so often in the front row?

MR. McCLELLAN: Let's go quickly.

Q Yes.

MR. McCLELLAN: People have to go home and pack.

Q I understand. The state legislature of South Dakota has just passed a new
law which allows abortion in case of threat to the mother's life, but
denies it to all ages in cases of rape and incest. My first question: Does
the President believe that rape and incest victims should be denied the
right to an abortion?

MR. McCLELLAN: The President believes we ought to be working to build a
culture of life in America. And we have taken practical, common-sense steps
to help reduce the number of abortions in America. It is a strong record
that is based on building a culture of life, and the President has made
very clear that he is pro-life with three exceptions.

Q All right. The New York Times this morning has a photograph of you above
a five-column headline, "Another White House Briefing, Another Day of
Mutual Mistrust," while on the bulletin board behind us, posted by one of
those on the front row, is the cover of National Review Magazine with the
headline, "The Gang That Won't Shoot Straight and the Madness of the White
House Press Corps." And my question: As the Bush administration's person
who most frequently deals with the White House press corps, will you be
fair enough to admit that some in this press corps were not involved in
such madness? (Laughter.)

MR. McCLELLAN: Les, I have a lot of respect for the people in this room and
the job that they do. You all in this room work very hard to report
important information to the American people, and do so in a fair way. And
I appreciate it when you do.

Q All right, wait a minute, wait a minute.

Q We're all in it together. (Laughter.)

Q The Washington Times this morning noted --

MR. McCLELLAN: We've been talking about how we can work together, remember
-- (laughter.)

Q The Washington Times notes this morning that as recently as last year,
Hamas couriers were dispatched to the West Bank or Gaza with United Arab
Emirate cash, while the Department of State's country reports and human
rights practices reports that the UAE does not allow any elections and
restricts freedom of speech and the press. And my question: Why should any
control of our ports be given to a company owned by such a dictatorship
that refuses to recognize Israel?

MR. McCLELLAN: Les, a couple of things. One, I think you missed what I said
about the broader foreign policy implications if we are going to hold a
company from an Arab country that is a good and solid ally in the war on
terrorism to a different standard from a company from Great Britain. And
the President has talked about that. It can have a real negative impact on
our relationships. And partnerships and relationships are key to winning
the war on terrorism because this is a global threat that we face.

Now, in terms of United Arab Emirates, let me point out, again, what
General Pace and what General Franks said, too, in terms of the cooperation
that the United Arab Emirates is providing when it comes to our military.
Again, our aircraft carriers use the seaports in the United Arab Emirates,
I think more than any other seaports outside of the United States. So I
think you need to keep that in mind. Our airplanes use their air space, our
Air Force planes and jets. This was a country that -- back in 2000, or the
late 1990s or 2000, where we provided a number of fighter jets to that
company [sic] -- the previous administration did. It is a country that has
been a good partner in cracking down on terrorist financing.

The world changed after 9/11, and people made choices. Countries like the
United Arab Emirates made a decision to be a good partner in the war on
terrorism. And they are working with us, providing us important
intelligence to prevent attacks and save lives. They're working with us to
crack down on terrorist financing.

Pakistan is another country that made an important choice and is working in
partnership with us in the global war on terrorism.

Q Thank you for the three, I appreciate it.

Q Scott, a follow-up on Dave Sanger's question earlier on the ports. How
can the new second study or investigation be considered objective when the
President has already reached a conclusion and Cabinet Secretaries have
already said that it poses no risk? How do you --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, we went through a very thorough review when the
initial notification was made. This is a new notification being made by the
company. And because of the request by the company to do a 45-day
investigation, I expect that that will bring in additional people into this
process.

Now, remember, previously no one raised an objection at the end of that
process. No one said -- no one had any national security concerns that
weren't unresolved by the end of that review process, and that's why it
went forward. It's a consensus judgment of all those different departments
and agencies that have expertise in national security matters in various
areas. And so that's the way the congressional process was set up.

But this will likely bring in deputies and principals that maybe had not
been involved in that initial review period. And then, as I said,
ultimately, it will go to the President and we'll be looking very closely
at what the review and the investigation says.

Q But getting back to what David said --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, you asked me to speculate about a review and
investigation that has not been done with the new notification.

Q No, we're asking if there is a conflict of interest because the judge has
already --

Q The judge has already judged it.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I would reject that wholeheartedly.

Q Scott, let me ask one additional thing. What will Congress know at the
end of this 45 days that it does not now know?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I expect that the there will be more information that
Congress will have at the end of this review and investigation. I can't try
to prejudge the new review and new investigation that will take place, and
I'm not going to do that. Some of you, I know, in this room want me to do
that. I'm just not going to do that. It will -- these are people whose
responsibilities are looking at these national security issues, and it
involves experts in these areas for addressing national security concerns,
just like it did the first time.

Q Scott, are you saying if this port deal goes south we are going to lose
the United Arab Emirates as an ally in the war against terrorism? And if
so, so what? We've got aircraft carriers in other nations, Saudi Arabia --
is it that important to us?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I don't know why you could say "so what." I mean,
partnerships are critical in the war on terrorism, and certainly
partnerships from Middle Eastern countries like the United Arab Emirates
are important in the broader war on terrorism and meeting our important
foreign policy objectives.

Q Is it directly tied to this port deal? If this deal goes south --

MR. McCLELLAN: No, no. I'm just pointing out that you also have to look at
it in the broader foreign policy context. The President believes it's the
right principle and the right policy, and that's what he's expressed
previously. But we also understand that Congress would like more
information about this and like to have a better understanding. And that's
why we supported the agreement that was reached, or the compromise that was
reached here with congressional leaders. And we were very involved in those
discussions.

Now, let's keep in mind, this is not about port security. The Coast Guard
and the Customs and border protection will continue to be in charge of port
security. That does not change. They will continue to do their job when it
comes to -- and port security is international in nature. I mean, we are
checking containers overseas. We are looking at what's in -- we are getting
lists before the ships come into harbor and unload. And as this company
pointed out, the management and personnel structure won't be changing while
it is going through this review and investigation period. So let's look at
the broader issues here. I mean, some have tried to leave an impression
that this would impact our port security. It won't change port security one
iota, whether or not this transaction goes forward.

Q On Taiwan, despite the United States warning, Taiwan authority on Monday
officially scrapped the National Unification Council. I wonder if the
President has been briefed --

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry, Taiwan what?

Q Taiwan authority has officially scrapped the National Unification
Council, which is a signal to (inaudible) unite with mainland China. I
wonder whether you conceded this move by Chen Shui-bian to be a violation
of his previous promise to the United States.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, let me emphasize a couple things. One, our policy is
clear and consistent when it comes to cross-strait relations. Our one China
policy remains, based on the three communiques, the Taiwan Relations Act,
and our belief that there should be no unilateral change in the status quo
by either side. We welcome President Chen's reaffirmation of his
administration's commitment to cross-strait peace and stability, and
Taiwan's commitment to the pledges that President Chen made in his
inaugural address to unilaterally alter -- to not unilaterally alter the
status quo on the Taiwan Strait.

The United States continues to also stress the need for Beijing to open a
meaningful dialogue with the duly elected leadership in Taiwan that leads
to a peaceful resolution of their differences.

Q Earlier we heard that President was upset about Chen Shui-bian's plan to
try to unilaterally change the status quo.

MR. McCLELLAN: That's why I talked about the reaffirmation that he has
made. It did not abolish the National Unification Council. Today he
reaffirmed commitments made during the 2000 and 2004 inaugural addresses.
And the United States attaches great importance to those commitments.

Q My question is that Taiwan leader Chen Shui-bian has been trying to push
the envelope and trying to change the status quo as defined by the United
States government over past few years. So causing a lot -- by doing so,
causing a lot of concerns and attention in Taipei, in Beijing, and in
Washington, D.C. So my question is, should the U.S. national security and
the foreign policy and also the important U.S.-China relations should be
dictated and challenged by Chen Shui-bian's inconsistency and by his
personal, selfish political agenda?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I don't think it changes what I just said. We do not
believe that there should be any unilateral change in the status quo by
either side. And our policy remains the same. It has not changed.

Q Thank you.

MR. McCLELLAN: Thank you.

END 2:09 P.M. EST

===========================================================================
Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/02/20060227-1.html

 * Origin: (1:3634/12)