Text 487, 603 rader
Skriven 2005-02-15 23:33:32 av Whitehouse Press (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Press Release (0502154) for Tue, 2005 Feb 15
====================================================
===========================================================================
Press Briefing by Scott McClellan
===========================================================================

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
February 15, 2005

Press Briefing by Scott McClellan
The James S. Brady Briefing Room

Press Briefing
"); //--> view


  þ Visit of the King and Queen of Norway
  þ Syria
      þ Reference B
      þ Reference C
  þ North Korea
      þ Reference B
  þ Pakistan
  þ Lebanon
  þ Kyoto treaty
  þ CIA leak
      þ Reference B
  þ Faith-based Office

12:46 P.M. EST

MR. McCLELLAN: Good afternoon. I have one announcement to begin with. The
President and Mrs. Bush will host the King and Queen of Norway for a lunch
at the White House on March 7, 2005. The United States and Norway share a
long history of friendship and a strong commitment to freedom. Norway is
contributing to democracy and stability in Afghanistan, the Balkans and
Iraq, and working with us to resolve conflicts and provide assistance in
Sudan, Sri Lanka and elsewhere around the world. The visits of their
Majesties King Harald and Queen Sonja will mark 100 years of U.S.-Norwegian
diplomatic relations.

And with that, I will be glad to go to your questions.

Q The fact that the U.S. has recalled Ambassador Scobey from Syria, is that
an indication that you believe that Syria was involved in yesterday's
attack in Beirut?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, Ambassador Scobey met with Syrian officials, I
believe, yesterday, and delivered a very clear message about what our
concerns are. Secretary Rice has decided to recall Ambassador Scobey for
consultations and that's what will be taking place. She will be leaving
Syria and coming back for consultations here.

Yesterday's attack was a disturbing development and we've made it clear to
Syria that we expect Syria to act in accordance with the United Nations
Security Council resolution calling for the withdrawal of all foreign
troops and the disbanding of militias. We also have made it very clear to
Syria that we want them to use their influence to prevent the kind of
terrorist attack that took place yesterday from happening.

Q But, sorry, again, just to pursue this a little further -- you don't
recall an ambassador unless you're showing displeasure with the country in
which that ambassador is stationed. So what sort of displeasure are you
demonstrating here with Syria by recalling Ambassador Scobey?

MR. McCLELLAN: We've had a number of serious concerns about Syria's
behavior. We want to see Syria change its behavior and play a constructive
role in the region. And we want to see Syria take steps to use their
influence to prevent terrorist attacks from happening in the first place.
That's what we've made clear -- Syria and their troop presence in Lebanon
is a destabilizing force in the region.

Q So are you suggesting that they didn't take steps to prevent this car
bombing and this assassination, or that they may have had some involvement?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, in terms of the terrorist attack that took place
yesterday on former Prime Minister Hariri, that is a matter that's being
discussed at the United Nations Security Council; they're having
discussions about it. We are very much a part of those discussions; we've
been working very closely with our French counterparts at the United
Nations to discuss this matter with the rest of the Security Council. I
think that's going on as we speak. They're talking about what measures may
need to be taken, and we'll let that meeting take place first.

In terms of the investigation, I don't have any update in terms of the
investigation of who was responsible for carrying out this horrible
terrorist attack on former Prime Minister Hariri. What I do want to make
clear is that Syria's troop presence in Lebanon is a destabilizing force.
The people of Lebanon should be allowed to control their future free from
outside interference and free from terrorism.

Terry, go ahead.

Q How long do you think these consultations will take? And are any other
diplomatic personnel being brought home?

MR. McCLELLAN: Any other diplomatic personnel in Syria? You can talk to the
State Department about that. The Ambassador is being recalled, that's what
I know.

Q And how long will these consultations take? Do we expect this is going to
be a long absence, or just a week or --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the State Department is briefing right now, and
they're probably the best ones to address those questions to about the
timing of those consultations.

Q And to be clear, are you bringing the Ambassador home for consultations,
or to send a clear message?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, she has delivered a clear message to Syria. She did
that yesterday, as I said, I believe. You can double check that with the
Department of State. We've made very clear what our concerns are regarding
Syria and we've made it very clear that we want to see Syria change its
behavior and play a constructive role in the region. They are not playing a
helpful role in the region right now by some of their continued activity.

And in terms of the consultations, again, those would be best directed to
the Department of State, and they're briefing, I think, right about now, as
well.

Q How can you on the one hand say you don't know who is responsible, and at
the same time, be pulling the ambassador back and moving forward with the
Security Council, talking about punishing those responsible? Why tiptoe
around the issue?

MR. McCLELLAN: Norah, I think we've made our views very clear when it comes
to Syria. We've expressed our concerns. Our concerns are not just with
their presence in Lebanon. That is one of the concerns, and the terrorist
attack that took place yesterday on former Prime Minister Hariri
underscored the importance of Syria taking steps to change its behavior, by
withdrawing its forces and helping to use its influence to prevent attacks
from happening in the first place. We've expressed our concerns about
Syria's continued support for terrorism, we've expressed our concerns about
Syria's behavior with regards to Iraq, and we've expressed our concerns on
other issues, as well.

Q But, Scott, can you just clarify this, because I'm still not clear. Is
this a temporary withdrawal of the ambassador? I mean, is this a sign of
the relationship between the United States and Syria changing?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, in terms of the ambassador being recalled for
consultations, those are questions you ought to direct to the Department of
State. They can fill you in on possibly more specifics about how long that
may be. I think you should not look beyond it, other than the fact that
she's coming back for consultations to talk about these concerns and to
talk about where we go from here with regards to Syria.

Q So it's not necessarily the administration's position that Syria is not
listening to the United States, they're not willing to talk, or that
diplomatic means isn't working?

MR. McCLELLAN: That diplomatic means isn't working; is that your question?
We have, in terms of our ways for addressing our concerns with Syria, we
have a Syria Accountability Act in place. We've taken some steps under the
Syria Accountability Act, because of Syria's continued behavior that plays
a counterproductive role in the region. The President made very clear some
of his views with regards to Syria in his State of the Union address. He
stated them very clearly. And there are always diplomatic options that are
available there to us when it comes to Syria. And in terms of anything
beyond that, I would look at exactly what we said yesterday, and exactly
what we've said today. I wouldn't go beyond that.

Q Have you received any information that directly links Syria to the
attack?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I have no update on the investigation, itself, in terms
of the terrorist attack that took place yesterday. I think I've made that
clear.

Q Because on one hand, you're making the link between these steps that
you're taking against Syria to the fact that the attack happened. But on
the other hand, you're not linking Syria to the attack. I mean, how do you
mesh the two?

MR. McCLELLAN: This was a brutal terrorist attack that took place yesterday
in Lebanon on someone who had long fought for Lebanon's freedom and
sovereignty and independence from outside influence and outside
interference. And the Security Council resolution that was passed last
September was very clear in terms of what the expectations are with regards
to Lebanon. It stated very clearly that foreign troops need to be withdrawn
from Lebanon. It stated very clearly that militias need to be disbanded and
disarmed. And it stated very clearly that control over Lebanon ought to be
by the government of Lebanon.

And as I stated again, Syria's continued presence in Lebanon is a
destabilizing force in the region, and a destabilizing force in Lebanon.
Syria's continued support for terrorism is a problem. It's a concern that
we've expressed directly to the government of Syria. Syria needs to change
its behavior and use its influence in a constructive way to do what it can
to prevent attacks like this from happening in the first place.

Q Do you suspect that Syria is behind this attack?

MR. McCLELLAN: Terry, I would express what I have already expressed, and
that's what I -- that's what I know at this point. In terms of who is
behind this attack, that's a matter that obviously is being investigated at
this time. I think it's still premature to know who was the one responsible
for the attack, itself. But Syria's military presence there is not playing
a helpful role. It is playing a destabilizing role.

Q Scott, what kind of action does the President want to see out of the
United Nations Security Council, if any?

MR. McCLELLAN: As I said yesterday, that we would be consulting with
members of the Security Council about these issues. Those discussions are
going on now. I'm going to let those discussions take place. The French are
very involved in that -- we appreciate their efforts, we've been working
very closely with the French. And let's let those discussions take place.

Go ahead.

Q Scott, I'd like to pursue a question we started earlier this morning,
which is, speaking of diplomatic clarity, have we sent a clear message to
the North Koreans about whether or not they should go ahead and conduct a
nuclear test? And if not, would -- do you think there was any risk that
they don't understand where America's red lines are here?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, North Korea has previously stated that they are
committed to a nuclear free peninsula. They've made those comments
themselves. And what our focus is on is the same focus of the other
countries in the region. All countries in the region have said they want to
see a nuclear free peninsula. All countries in the region are saying to
North Korea that they need to come back to the six-party talks to talk
about how to move forward on resolving this in a peaceful, diplomatic
manner. North Korea needs to come to a strategic decision to dismantle and
eliminate its nuclear weapons program. That's where our focus is, that's
where the focus of all parties in the region is. And we're continuing to
consult with people in the region about that.

Q Understanding that goal, Scott, they did declare last week that they have
nuclear weapons. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. The question is, have we
sent a clear message to them about the risks or the punishments that would
follow if they followed that up by conducting a nuclear test?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, first of all, in terms of why they made that
statement, I'm not going to try to get into --

Q Right, nor will I.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- assessing that or trying to determine what they meant by
what they were saying and why they said it. North Korea has frequently used
that kind of rhetoric in the past; you're very well aware of that.

North Korea knows what our views are when it comes to their nuclear weapons
program. They are views shared by the rest of the countries in the region.
We want to see North Korea abandon its nuclear ambitions and eliminate its
nuclear weapons program. That's a way for North Korea to realize better
relations with the outside world. If they continue down that path, they are
only further isolating themselves from the rest of the world.

Q But we have not sent a specific message about testing?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think I've addressed this matter and what our views are.
I'm not going to get into "what-ifs" or anything of that nature.

Q Scott, as far as fighting against terrorism is concerned, President Bush
is very famous in India. After extensive interviews in India and across the
country here, India Globe decided that he deserved to be man of the year.

As far as my question is concerned, more money for Pakistan -- the
opposition leaders in Pakistan, and also in London -- what they are saying
is really two things. One, of course President Bush and General Musharraf
fighting against terrorism. But as far as -- there is no push towards
democracy, and also Pakistan has not delivered Osama bin Laden. So where do
we stand now, further fighting against terrorism?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, Pakistan is a strong partner with us in the global war
on terrorism. We appreciate all their efforts they're taking to go after
those who seek to do harm to Americans, to the civilized world. They've
made significant progress, and they've made sacrifices, and we appreciate
that. They're one of a number of countries around the world that are
working closely with us to win the war on terrorism.

In terms of the President's views on freedom and democracy, they're very
clear, and he's made it very clear to Pakistan, as well. They've taken some
steps and we want to continue to encourage them to take -- build upon those
steps and take additional steps.

John, go ahead.

Q All right, no questions about funding Social Security reform today. Two
quick questions on the tragedy that's happened to President [sic] Hariri.
One, all of the things that you said this morning and that the President
put in his statement -- the demand of the troop withdrawal, the disbanding
of the militias -- was all part of the Taif Accord of 1989 that was
supposed to end all of the trouble in Lebanon. What will be different now
that would enforce the rules of the Taif Accord that hasn't been the case
for the last 15 years?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, they have acted inconsistent with the Accord. As I
pointed out yesterday, Syria has, and there was a resolution passed last
fall at the Security Council at the United Nations calling for an end to
the foreign occupation in Lebanon. It stated very clearly what needs to
happen. And we want to see Syria act in accordance with that resolution. We
want to see Syria withdraw its forces, we want to see Syria stop playing a
role that is not helpful and that is destabilizing. And that's what we're
saying.

Q The follow up question I had is, this is the highest level assassination
in Lebanon since the bombing that killed President-elect Bashir Gemayel, 21
years ago. And I note with interest that his brother was at the Hariri home
yesterday and expressed feelings about it. The Phalange and the Maronite
Christian element have not been close to the United States since the death
of President Gemayel a long time ago. Does this mean that we'll work a
little bit closer with them to achieve the goal of a free Lebanon?

MR. McCLELLAN: We're going to continue to stand with the international
community and the Lebanese people as they work to achieve the freedoms that
are theirs, and to have more control over their own lives, their own
future, and to have a sovereign and independent state free from outside
interference, free from intimidation and free from terrorism. Our views are
very clear in terms of Lebanon, and we will continue to make those views
known and we will continue to support the Lebanese people as they move
forward.

Carl, go ahead.

Q This morning, Secretary General Kofi Annan said that he would be
expecting there to be some progress toward the implementation of 1559
before he reports back to the Security Council in April. Is the
administration satisfied with that timetable?

MR. McCLELLAN: I didn't see exactly what he said.

Q In essence, that they were looking for progress towards the
implementation of 1559 by the time the Secretary General --

MR. McCLELLAN: There are discussions going on right now at the Security
Council. I want to let those discussions take place, and then maybe we can
have more to say after that.

Q As a secondary question, Scott, is the administration satisfied with not
participating in the investigation of the assassination of Hariri and
leaving it up to parties there? Or would the U.S. government like to take a
more active role in the investigation?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, that would be something that would have to be
requested of us. That has not been requested at this point in time. And we
want to see the matter investigated fully and find out who was responsible.
And then it's important that steps are taken to punish those who were
responsible for this brutal attack on Mr. Hariri.

Q So wait for an invitation rather than suggest U.S. involvement is a
necessity now?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, I think that's exactly what I said.

Peter, go ahead.

Q Scott, what message would the President like the rest of the world to
take from the U.S. non-participation in the provisions of the Kyoto treaty
that kick in tomorrow?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think our views are very well known; they've been
known for quite some time. In terms of the issue of climate change, let me
step back and talk about that, because the United States has been a leader
in advancing the science of climate change.

Under this administration we have made an unprecedented commitment to
reduce the growth of greenhouse gas emissions in a way that continues to
grow our economy. And you have to factor those things into consideration
when you're looking at these issues. There's a lot that we are still
learning about the science of climate change, but this administration is
working to advance that science and to learn more about climate change,
itself, and its effect on the world. And we're working very closely with
our international partners on these issues, as well. We've made some
unprecedented commitments to furthering the research.

Q What, if anything, would it take for the President to revisit being part
of this?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think the United States Senate spoke very clearly
several years ago when it came to the Kyoto protocol and voted 95-0 to
reject that approach, for some very good reasons. But we are continuing to
move forward in an aggressive way to address climate change. It is a
serious matter; it's a matter that this administration takes very
seriously.

And you should look at the initiatives we're pursuing. There are a number
of hydrogen initiatives we're pursuing. We've invested $3.6 billion in tax
incentives for renewable energy efficient technologies over the next five
years. We're increasing fuel economy standards. In terms of hydrogen, the
President is working to make hydrogen fuel cell vehicles commercially
available by 2020. And then, of course, the zero emissions coal-fired power
plan that the President announced, as well. So there are a number of
initiatives we're pursuing.

Q And just one more on this, if I may. Former Vice President Gore today
suggested that financial interests of the President's supporters play a big
role in the President's stand on this. To what extent do they play a role?

MR. McCLELLAN: The President is making decisions based on what is in the
best interests of the American people, and that's what he will continue to
do.

Q Scott, the South Korean government has given away about $260 million
worth of various form of economic aid to North Korea. Does the U.S.
government have any plan to request South Korean government to cut off --

MR. McCLELLAN: To do what with the South Korean government?

Q To cut off any economic aid --

MR. McCLELLAN: We work very closely with the South Korean government. And
we're working together with South Korea and the other countries in the
region to move forward on the six-party framework that we've been pursuing
when it comes to North Korea and their pursuit of nuclear weapons. That's
what we will continue to do. I don't have any update beyond that.

Q Scott, on the CIA leak situation, a judge has ruled that the two
reporters have to testify before the grand jury. Does the White House agree
with this, or have any thoughts on it? And can you tell us, do you know
whether Robert Novak has been divulging the source of the person who leaked
the name originally?

MR. McCLELLAN: First of all, on the first part of your question, that's a
matter that's before the courts. I don't know the facts surrounding that
matter, so I think we'll leave it to the courts to address that matter.

Q Anything on Robert Novak?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I don't.

Q So the President thinks that they should testify or go to jail?

MR. McCLELLAN: The President has made it very clear that when it comes to
this matter that anybody who has information ought to come forward and
present that information so that the people investigating this can get to
the bottom of it. That's what the President's views are. I don't know the
facts about these individual reporters and what they may or may not know
that would be helpful. That's a matter that the courts are working to
address. But the President has made it clear that he wants to get to the
bottom of this matter, and that anyone who has information that relates to
this that can help the prosecutors move forward and get to the bottom of it
should provide that information to the prosecutors.

Q But just to be clear -- because you're suggesting that the President
believes there's no First Amendment privilege, is that what he believes?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, that's not what I said. I said I don't know the facts
regarding the circumstances of these two reporters. That's a matter before
the courts. I don't know the facts regarding it, that's not what I'm saying
at all.

Go ahead, Greg.

Q Scott, a former White House staffer in the faith-based office said the
President's compassion agenda hasn't lived up to its potential partly
because of minimal effort on the part of senior White House staffers. Any
merit to those claims?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, the President has made his faith-based and community
initiative one of his highest priorities. It was something that he talked
about at the very beginning of his administration, and then we've worked to
put that initiative into action. And the President has signed two executive
orders relating to the faith-based and community initiative. Those
executive orders help level the playing field so that faith-based
organizations at the local level that have a proven record of helping those
who are in need and those who are suffering can compete with other
organizations on an equal footing.

And the President is going to continue to push forward on his faith-based
initiative in the second term. He talked about some of the initiatives
we're working on this term, in the State of the Union address, that build
upon our efforts that we've already undertaken. This is a high priority for
this administration. The President has participated in White House
conferences on the faith-based and community initiative. There have been
conferences all across the United States to highlight this initiative and
to reach out to the armies of compassion that exist all across America to
enlist their help in our efforts to help people in need.

Q Your answer goes to the heart of the President's commitment. The
criticism was really aimed at senior White House-level officials who are
working with members of Congress, in terms of putting muscle behind --

MR. McCLELLAN: And those officials are helping the President implement his
agenda. And his agenda includes rallying the armies of compassion to help
those in need. And that's exactly what we have done, and that's exactly
what we will continue to do. You should look at the results. The results
are very clear in terms of the money that is now going out to faith-based
groups to help more people that are in need.

Q Can I follow up on that? Rallying the armies of compassion and that kind
of leadership is one thing. This former special assistant points to the
resources dedicated and makes the claim that originally there was a
proposal for roughly $8 billion annually in tax incentives and direct
funding for faith-based programs, and that the actual results has been far,
far lower than that because other priorities have taken precedence.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, Congress has to act, as well, on these efforts. We've
made clear what our views are, we've called on Congress to act on those.
We've continued to make a significant commitment to providing incentives
for charitable giving in our '06 budget. And we will continue to urge
Congress to act on those initiatives.

Q Scott, back on the leak-gate situation. What has changed here at the
White House as it relates to your office and other offices here as it
relates to us? How has -- how have things changed?

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't know of any changes. I hope that our relationship
has continued to improve.

Q I mean, is there any more kind of a filing system, of sorts, of emails?
Is there a filing system of phone calls? What has changed since leak-gate?

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't know of any changes that have occurred in recent
months.

Q All right, well, and a follow-up question on this. Some are saying that
it's curious that the White House, all the documentation that is out there
now in the hands of the courts, that there is no information as to who gave
the reporter the information. What do you say to that?

MR. McCLELLAN: What do I say to that? The same thing that the President has
said previously and what I said to Norah earlier.

Sarah, go ahead.

Q Thank you. Scott --

Q What did the President say earlier? Can you reiterate that?

MR. McCLELLAN: I did. I addressed it to Norah in response to her question.
No one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the President of the
United States, and that's why he's urged anyone who has information that
can help prosecutors get to the bottom of it to provide that information to
those officials.

Q So the paper trail has ended here at the White House --

MR. McCLELLAN: Sarah, go ahead.

Q Thank you. Scott, Colombian President Uribe and Venezuelan President
Chavez are meeting today, a meeting arranged by Fidel Castro. Is the
President going to use his personal diplomacy to try and heal the rift
between these two countries?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think the State Department has spoken to some of our views
with regard to Venezuela and the relationship that they have with Colombia.
President Uribe is someone we have worked very closely with, and I think
you should look at what the State Department has said over recent days on
that very matter.

Q The President has spoken repeatedly about an "axis of evil." With Syria's
suspected increased involvement in terrorist activities, are we now looking
at a "quadrangle of evil"?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think you're looking at exactly what I said yesterday and
exactly what I said today. And I think that's how you should look at it. I
know there's an interest in this room sometimes of trying to interpret
things beyond what is said, but I would encourage you to look at exactly
what was said and report what was said.

Q A follow-up to that. You've got Zarqawi out of Syria involved in Iraq;
now we have suspected involvement with the possibility of Syrians in
Lebanon. One cannot help but connect the dots to say that Syria is --

MR. McCLELLAN: Involvement of Syrians in Lebanon? I mean, that's --

Q Well, we're not sure.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, there are Syrians in Lebanon. There are troops in
Lebanon.

Q So are we more concerned -- is Syria more now -- could be part of an
"axis of evil" and a "quadrangle of evil"?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think I just addressed that. Go ahead.

Q -- issue of reforms and political prisoners in Egypt raised last night in
the meeting between the Vice President and Egyptian foreign minister?

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't have any readout from that. You might check with the
Vice President's office. I haven't checked on that.

Q Scott, you say that Syria hasn't played a very helpful role in a number
of areas in the Middle East. Will you be a bit more specific in terms of
what Syria has done that has not been helpful, in terms of Palestinian
opposition groups, such as Islamic Jihad, Hamas and others? Are they
funding the terrorism? Are they training the terrorists in Southern
Lebanon?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think we've expressed our views previously, in terms of
Syria's support for terrorism. That has been a concern of ours. We've
talked about their support for groups like Hezbollah, and we've talked
about the role that they're playing in the Middle East. And we want to see
people play a constructive role in the Middle East --

Q Spoiler role?

MR. McCLELLAN: -- not a destabilizing role.

Q Thank you.

MR. McCLELLAN: Thank you.

END 1:15 P.M. EST

===========================================================================
Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/02/20050215-4.html

 * Origin: (1:3634/12)