Text 875, 608 rader
Skriven 2005-05-02 23:33:26 av Whitehouse Press (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Press Release (0505022) for Mon, 2005 May 2
===================================================
===========================================================================
Press Briefing by Scott McClellan
===========================================================================

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
May 2, 2005

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

Press Briefing
"); //--> view


  þ Central American _
  þ Nonproliferation Treaty/WMD
      þ Reference B
  þ Social Security
      þ Reference B
      þ Reference C
  þ North Korea
      þ Reference B
  þ Bolton nomination

12:16 P.M. EDT

MR. McCLELLAN: Good afternoon, everybody. I want to begin with one
announcement to the President's schedule. The President will welcome
President Pacheco of Costa Rica, President Fernandez, of the Dominican
Republic, President Saca, of El Salvador, President Berger, of Guatemala,
President Maduro, of Honduras, and President Bolanos, of Nicaragua to the
White House for a meeting on May 12th. The President looks forward to
discussing with his colleagues the Central American and Dominican Republic
Free Trade Agreement, as well as efforts to advance our common goal of a
more democratic and prosperous western hemisphere.

And that is all I have to begin with, so I'll be glad to go to your
questions.

Q What approach is the President going to take at this start of the
nonproliferation meeting? Is he going to play hardball or is he going to
listen to the complaints or --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, our Assistant Secretary of State Rademacher is going
to be leading the delegation. He is at the United Nations, he will be
making some remarks this afternoon. And I think he will talk about the
important contributions that the treaty has made to global security and
he'll talk about the progress that has been made over the last 35 years.
And I think that one other area he'll hit on is that the vast majority of
those who are party to the treaty are meeting their obligations, but there
are some that are not. And I expect he will talk about one of the serious
challenges that the treaty faces is noncompliance.

So I expect that he will touch on North Korea and Iran and their
noncompliance. And he will also point to some of the examples of parties
that have returned to the Nonproliferation Treaty, returned to compliance
with the Nonproliferation Treaty, like Libya. Libya is serving as an
example that states can realize better relations with the international
community if they renounce their weapons of mass destruction programs and
they get rid of them, and Libya made that commitment and that was some
important progress.

But I think that's kind of the areas he'll touch on. I think he'll also
talk about the action plan that the President put forward in February of
2004. He outlined seven steps that we need to take to stop the spread of
weapons of mass destruction. That is a very serious threat that we face in
this day and age, and it's been a high priority for this administration.
The Nonproliferation Treaty is an important tool in our efforts to combat
the spread of weapons of mass destruction. But there is also one area where
the President has called for closing a loophole in the treaty that allows
for countries to provide -- or to pursue civilian nuclear program -- pursue
nuclear weapons under the guise of a civilian nuclear program and that is a
concern of ours, particularly with a country like Iran.

Q He's going to ask for a closing of that?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?

Q A closing of any development of nuclear facilities?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, we've called for closing a loophole within the
Nonproliferation Treaty, and that's one area that the President focused on
in the seven steps that he outlined.

Q Is he going to put pressure on India -- his friends, India, Pakistan and
Israel to shutdown their nuclear arsenals?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think one thing that will be reemphasized or reiterated in
his remarks will be that we believe in universal adherence to the
Nonproliferation Treaty.

Q Here's a loophole. One of the goals when the President decided to invade
Iraq was to send a message to countries that would seek to obtain or
develop weapons of mass destruction, that that would not be tolerated and
you don't mess with the United States. Well, since that's happened, and on
this President's watch, the North Koreans have developed, built, and are
now testing nuclear weapons on the order of maybe six; the Iranians are
certainly not backing down from their program. So what has gone wrong? If
the idea was to send a message by invading Iraq, the message has not been
heard, and the strategy apparently is backfiring.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, first of all, these threats aren't something that
develops overnight, David. So I think I would like to correct you in your
question there.

Q I understand that, but there was supposed to be a kind of chilling effect
that the Iraq war would have, and the opposite is true.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I don't necessarily agree with that. First of all, we
believe that multilateral organizations ought to mean what they say, and
that's something the President has made very clear. And that's important to
making sure that those organizations are effective. But in terms of North
Korea and Iran, Iran for some 20 years was pursuing a clandestine nuclear
weapons program. They were hiding their activities from the international
community.

We made a decision to support the efforts of our European friends to
resolve this through diplomatic means. They are continuing to have
discussions with Iran; we support the efforts of the European 3 as they
move forward. And our views I think are very clear in terms of what needs
to happen. We have a shared goal with the Europeans.

In terms of North Korea, let's keep in mind -- I think the latest public
assessment that was released by our intelligence community was that they
may have -- that we believe they may have one or two. That was the latest
public assessment that was made available. And in terms of North Korea,
nuclear weapons aren't something that are developed overnight. We know that
in the 1990s that they came to an agreement and immediately turned around
and violated that agreement. That's why the President felt it was so
important to bring all parties in the region together in a multilateral,
six-party talk process to get North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons.

Q You're making a different argument here. I mean, what is the point of
going in and taking down a guy who you thought had -- who had weapons of
mass destruction and did not, while at the same time, other countries have
developed theirs and are not taking any message from the invasion of Iraq.
I mean, if the whole point of this foreign policy of this President is to
prevent terrorists or rogue nations from getting really bad weapons that
could do grave damage to the United States or our allies, we went into Iraq
where he didn't have any. And now you've got these two countries who are --

MR. McCLELLAN: That was a choice that the regime --

Q -- thumbing their nose at the U.S. and are only more dangerous.

MR. McCLELLAN: That was a choice that the regime in Iraq made. And it is
the decision of the regimes in these countries that they need to make a
strategic decision to abandon their nuclear weapons programs. They have a
strategic choice to make. And the international community is speaking very
clearly to both nations and saying, you're only going to further isolate
yourself if you take steps that run contrary to what the international
community expects. And you will realize better relations if you pursue a
course like Libya, and abandon your nuclear weapons programs.

Q Scott, I'm confused by something the President said in his press
conference the other night where he's talking about Social Security and he
says that it spends the money on current retirees and with the money left
over, it funds other government programs, and all that's left behind is
file cabinets full of IOUs. Those IOUs are U.S. Treasury obligation, and
it's the sovereign debt of the United States. Is he saying something about
something the U.S. possibly defaulting on those IOUs? Isn't that
guaranteed?

MR. McCLELLAN: Actually, I think that the President, if you'll recall, went
to West Virginia and stood in front of the file cabinet to point out to
people what the trust fund really is. I mean, most people when they think
of a trust fund, I think you would agree, believe that money is being set
aside in account, and that it's their money and that they're going to
receive that money back. Well, that's not the case. In terms of the
so-called Social Security trust fund, it is a file cabinet of paper IOUs.
And that's what it is.

Q Well, it is the case to the extent that the United States guarantees that
it will repay on that. If the United States government, if the President or
if any President decides he wasn't going to repay that debt, then, of
course, they argue it --

MR. McCLELLAN: What is happening now under the current Social Security
system, as the President has talked about, is a pay-as-you-go system. Money
is being paid in to support today's retirees. So that money is not being
set aside, it's being spent by the government. And the President, one thing
he has talked about, is the importance of personal accounts.

Maybe someone is trying to help you with a follow-up there. (Laughter.)

Q I've got a follow-up all ready. (Laughter.)

MR. McCLELLAN: And that's why the President believes personal accounts are
an important part of a comprehensive solution for making Social Security
permanently sound. Personal accounts will be something that is your money,
it's being set aside, it's real savings. It's not phantom savings. And that
money will be there for you when you retire, and it will accrue a better
rate of return than under the current system. And it's something that
Washington can never touch, it is yours. And I think that's one of the
points the President was making in the press conference.

Q Just to follow up, Scott. But even if you have your money in dollar
bills, if the United States decides that they aren't going to guarantee
that dollar bill, that money is worthless, too -- the same way with U.S.
Treasury obligations. People buy them. They used to buy them for 30 years,
because they were confident that the U.S. was not going to default on them.
And what the President seems to be indicating is that that possibility does
exist. What does he mean by that?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, it's the difference between real savings and phantom
savings. It's what I just explained. Would you agree that a trust fund is
where you set aside someone's money, and it's their money, and that they
get it back?

Q It's no good unless the person issuing the money --

MR. McCLELLAN: That's not what's happening under the current system.

Q -- is going to --

Q Scott, should North Korea look at Iraq for a lesson on the consequences
of not getting right with the international community?

MR. McCLELLAN: Ken, I think that you have to keep in mind we're pursuing a
diplomatic solution right now with North Korea. That remains what we are
committed to. We are working closely with our partners in the region --
China, South Korea, Japan, Russia -- to get North Korea back to the
six-party talks. Some of the steps and actions that North Korea continues
to take only further isolate it from the international community. And --

Q But if you pursue the same diplomatic solutions with Iraq, is this what
happens at the end of those if it doesn't succeed?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, we've always said, as we move forward, we will
continue to consult with our partners in the six-party process on next
steps to take if North Korea doesn't come back to the talks. But I think
all of us are sending the same message to North Korea: You need to come
back to the talks; it's the only viable path for you to pursue a solution.

Q What's the range of those possible next steps?

MR. McCLELLAN: All countries -- we're pursuing a diplomatic solution
through the six-party talks. I don't think there's a need to go through
"what-ifs" at this point. We've made it clear that we'll consult with --
continue to consult with our partners in the region about how to move
forward. We continue to urge North Korea to come back to the six-party
talks. We have a proposal on the table. All parties in the region are in
agreement that that is the only viable path for North Korea to pursue; and
that North Korea, like I said, has a strategic decision that it needs to
make -- it needs to make a decision to abandon its nuclear weapons program.
Then it can start to become part of the international community.

Q When does it need to make this decision by?

MR. McCLELLAN: We haven't set a timetable, Ken. We continue to talk with
our partners in the region.

Q Scott, has the President or the Secretary of State made any calls today
to allies on this?

MR. McCLELLAN: No. The Secretary of State -- you'd have to check with the
Department of State on that, I don't keep track of her phone calls. But we
have an envoy that's been out in the region talking with our partners, and
we stay in close contact with them on this and many other issues.

Q Scott, what do you say to those who say that, you know, the President has
really done nothing more than provoke North Korea and Kim Jong-il, first of
all, in his comments specifically about him, his personal comments; and
then just generally in the approach that he's taken, which really hasn't
gotten anywhere, these six-party talks -- has not gotten anywhere near
where they need to get? Meanwhile, North Korea is --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I disagree. We have made progress and that's why we
put forward a proposal at the last round of talks. North Korea said that it
was committed to coming back to the talks; now it seems to have changed its
mind. We want to see it live up to its commitment to work through the
six-party talks. But this is about North Korea and North Korea's behavior.
North Korea is the one that is isolating itself from the international
community through its own actions. And the President spoke very clearly
about what needs to happen. And he also emphasized the importance of coming
to a diplomatic solution through the six-party talks.

Q They're the one that has to -- they have to act. But so far, they
haven't, and they're also the ones with potentially, I guess -- is believed
to have nuclear material, even nuclear weapons, and last week we heard even
the potential to put it on a long-range missile and hit the United States.
So it might be in their court, but isn't it the responsibility of the U.S.
--

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, that's why the President talked about we don't know if
they have the capability to do that or not, but that that's all the more
reason why we need to take steps under the assumption that they can,
because of the regime that is in power there. And that's why he talked
about the importance of moving forward on the missile defense system.
That's one important deterrent that we continue to pursue.

Q Can I follow on that?

MR. McCLELLAN: Sure.

Q Scott, so given the fact that North Korea's nuclear program has advanced
in the last four-and-a-half years, why shouldn't the current approach not
be seen as a failure, and not working?

MR. McCLELLAN: The agreed framework, I would point out to you, is what
North Korea was violating at the very time that they had agreed to it.
North Korea continued its nuclear weapons activities in violation of the
agreed framework. And remember, the agreed framework was simply a freeze on
plutonium activity. It didn't address the uranium enrichment and
reprocessing activities. And so that's why we put forward a very practical
proposal at the last round of talks that we think addressed the concerns of
all parties and was the way forward to -- is the way forward to resolving
this issue.

What we're doing is working with our partners in the region, emphasizing
that North Korea needs to come back to the talks so that we can talk about
how to move forward on that proposal. That proposal was a significant step
in the progress we've made over the last few years, but this is something
that has been going on for a number of years, back to the last decade. And
nuclear weapons are not something that are developed overnight. It takes
time to develop a nuclear weapon. But it is something that is of concern to
all parties in the region. And that's why the President felt it was
important to bring those parties into this process. All of us have a shared
goal of a nuclear-free peninsula.

Q But, Scott, you talk about North Korea and Iran's noncompliance. Why not
talk about the U.N.'s enforcement or lack thereof? The administration was
pretty clear that it thought that the U.N. failed during the run-up to the
Iraq war. Is there a risk that this conference comes up with nothing, or
does not move forward with an appropriate enforcement action, and
ultimately becomes further, sort of, criticism of the U.N. as a toothless
tiger?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the conference is just getting started. I mean, it's
going to be going on over the course of the next few weeks. Let's let the
conference proceed, then maybe we can talk about it more at that point. But
we have made some significant achievements over the last 35 years and
believe it's an important treaty. But there are some issues and challenges
that we need to address. And that's what our representative, who is heading
the delegation, will talk about this afternoon.

Q Back to Social Security. After the press conference, I was still confused
as to whether President Bush will accept the plan that does not include
personal accounts. I sense -- my reading seems to be that he will not
accept a plan that does not have personal accounts. Am I right?

MR. McCLELLAN: The President believes very strongly that personal accounts
must be part of any solution. We need to make sure that Social Security is
permanently sound. It is on an unsustainable course. And the facts are very
clear that if we don't act, the only alternative is massive benefit cuts or
massive tax increases.

In just three years, the baby boomers retire and start to place great
strain on the system. That's why the President believes we need to make it
permanently sound. He also believes that as we do, we need to make it
better for our children and grandchildren. Nothing is going to change for
today's retirees or those near retirement.

But personal accounts give younger workers the opportunity, if they choose,
to realize a greater rate of return on their own retirement savings. The
conservative estimates by the Social Security experts are that younger
workers will realize a rate of return of at least 4.6 percent on personal
accounts. It's a voluntary option and it will help younger workers really
grow and build a nest egg of their own that the government can't touch --
Washington can't touch it, Washington can't take it away. And that's why he
believes so strongly that personal accounts need to be part of any
solution. And he's going to continue to make that point.

Now, he welcomes others coming to the table with ideas. So far, Democratic
leaders have taken the do-nothing approach. The do-nothing approach means
massive benefit cuts for all Social Security beneficiaries, at all levels.
And I noticed that there were some editorials in some of the major papers
this weekend and today, including The Washington Post, talking about it's
time for the Democrats to come forward with ideas. We agree -- it is time
for the Democrats to come forward with ideas and work with us to solve this
problem for our children and grandchildren.

Q But, you know, Senator Grassley says, no bill will pass unless it's
bipartisan. The Democrats say, we will not accept personal accounts. So
then we -- the next step is, there will not be a Social Security reform
this year.

MR. McCLELLAN: All the Democratic leaders are offering right now is a big
"no." They need to offer ideas for solving this problem in a bipartisan
way. The President has made it very clear that the door is open. He
welcomes all ideas; come to the table and let's talk about how we can move
forward in a bipartisan way. So far, the Democrats have refused.

Q Scott, are you -- are you deliberately leaving the door open -- I just
want to finish up on this point -- on the idea that without personal
accounts he might still accept something? I realize you don't want to
negotiate in public, but you've been asked a couple of times, this
question.

MR. McCLELLAN: But you'll ask me anyway. (Laughter.)

Q Well, this question has come up. I mean, will you say the way it was
posed, which is that the President will not accept a reform plan that does
not include private accounts?

MR. McCLELLAN: The President believes personal accounts -- voluntary
personal accounts, under the current Social Security system, are an
important part of the solution. And that's the argument he's going to
continue to make.

Q Are you trying to leave a door open there, or --

MR. McCLELLAN: But he's made it clear: come to the table with your ideas,
and let's advance a bipartisan solution.

Q So the door is open, right? I mean, that's a fair reading?

MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead.

Q Scott, page one, plus follow-up stories in both The Washington Post and
The Baltimore Sun have detailed such NAACP documents as two female
employees getting into a fistfight over the attentions of President Kweisi
Mfume, who has admitted dating female employees. And my first question,
will the President ask Republican Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele of
Maryland to run against the sexually-troubled Mr. Mfume?

MR. McCLELLAN: Les, I'm sure at the appropriate time we can talk about the
2006 Senate races. I think it's a little premature for that at this point.

Q Well, let me -- just one follow-up. Does the President believe that all
of this may provide an explanation for the NAACP resisting an IRS audit?

MR. McCLELLAN: Les, those are questions that you need to direct to other
people. In terms of the IRS --

Q Other people -- I want to know what the President --

MR. McCLELLAN: In terms of the IRS, you need to direct those questions to
the IRS

Go ahead.

Q Evasion.

Q Scott, in terms of the First Lady's stellar performance Saturday night,
would the President support his wife running for President or -- (laughter)
-- I'm not finished -- and have they discussed the possibility --

MR. McCLELLAN: I think she's already answered that question. I know that
once his time is up, the two of them look forward to returning to Texas.
And he does think she did a spectacular job Saturday night. I think
everybody there enjoyed it, as well as people across America who were able
to see it on C-SPAN.

Q Has she heard from Don Corleone yet, Scott?

MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead. Let me go here.

Q Ukrainian officials have said that the long-range missiles delivered to
Iran were, in fact, stolen. If that is the case, and these missiles can be
fitted with nuclear warheads, why is there not an international outrage
that Iran should be forced to return these missiles to the Ukraine, given
the gravity of what these missiles can do, immediately?

MR. McCLELLAN: First of all, I'll be glad to look into this. I don't have
an update from when you brought this question up last time. I'll be glad to
take a look into it to see if there is more. But as I pointed out, one of
our highest priorities is stopping the spread of weapons of mass
destruction. The greatest threat we face is weapons of mass destruction
getting in the hands of terrorists. And that's why the President is acting
on a number of different fronts to stop the spread of weapons of mass
destruction and to go after terrorist networks.

Q Let me follow up. Is it feasible that North Korea could deliver a warhead
now to Iran that could be fitted on a missile and then be fired, which only
increases the need to address the problem immediately?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think one of our concerns with North Korea, without
necessarily going into that specific issue, is that they were in violation
of their safeguards obligations and their nonproliferation obligations even
before they withdrew from the Nonproliferation Treaty in 2003. So
proliferation is a concern when it comes to North Korea. That's one reason
why we initiated the proliferation security initiative, and you have some
60 nations now working together to stop the spread of weapons of mass
destruction and to interdict shipments of -- that could -- shipments of
equipment or material that could be used to develop weapons of mass
destruction. And we've had some successes on that front.

Q On North Korea, North Korea seems to have an intention to stage a nuclear
test sooner or later or next month, June -- whatever they say. What is the
United States countermeasure against a nuclear test?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, that would only further isolate North Korea
from the rest of the international community if they took such a step.
That's why we're working, through the six-party process, to get North Korea
back to the talks. That's the only viable path that they have for moving
forward to resolving this issue. And that's what all parties in the talks
are making clear to North Korea.

Q Scott, Senator George Voinovich pretty much put a stop to Bolton's
nomination. He said he wanted to meet personally with him face-to-face. Has
any meeting between Mr. Bolton and the Senator taken place?

MR. McCLELLAN: Let me check to see if there's an update. The State
Department might be able to give you an update. I know that we, along with
the State Department, have worked to make sure that his questions are
addressed. And we continue to urge the Senate to move forward quickly on
his nomination when they return. As you know, the Senate is out this week.
I think Senator Voinovich is traveling overseas, as a matter of fact. But
let me check to see if there's any update there.

Q Okay, and just as a follow-up, just if I may, my understanding is that
Rob Portman was brought around the Hill after the formal introductions
between the White House staff and the people that would need to approve
him, that outside government lobbyists had also walked around the Hill to
make sure any concerns about Portman's nomination were addressed. Has
anything like that happened with John Bolton?

MR. McCLELLAN: We've stayed in close contact with members of the Senate
committee that is moving forward on his nomination. And we will continue to
do so. I don't know what specifically you're asking.

Q I mean, have you employed, like, an outside -- an outside-the-White House
lobbying firm --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the State Department has provided some updates. I've
provided some updates recently. Secretary Card noted yesterday that he had
been in touch with Senator Voinovich. We will remain in contact with the
senators as needed, to address any outstanding issues that may be on their
minds. But the bottom line is, I think, that John Bolton has addressed
these issues through his testimony and through his written responses. And
it's time to move forward on his nomination so that he can get in place and
go about the important work of reform at the United Nations. And that's
what we continue to emphasize.

Q This is a follow-up on Connie's question, and I assure you there was no
collusion. A little bit of a prelude before I get to my question. As you,
undoubtedly, have heard, there has been speculation inside the Beltway that
if Hillary Rodham Clinton decides to run in 2008 she could possibly choose
as a running mate her husband, former President Bill Clinton. And,
obviously, after the great boffo performance by the First Lady Saturday
night, there is now speculation that she could run, and possibly choose the
President to be her running mate.

Now, under the 22nd amendment to the Constitution, no President can serve
more than two terms. But I think under the 25th, if a President is for any
reason incapacitated, the Vice President moves up. Has anybody here
addressed this possible conflict --

MR. McCLELLAN: That's quite a scenario you just spun there. But as I said,
I think it's too early to talk about the 2006 race, and it's certainly too
early to talk about 2008. We've got a lot of important work to do on behalf
of the American people, and that's where the President's focus remains.

Q Let me ask about the President's trip tomorrow, and ask just the outline
of why the President is going to a Nissan trip. But I guess I also want to
ask about the 60-day blitz now being over with. You've spoken of the new
phase that the whole Social Security thing is entering. Does it look any
different, from the President's perspective, than the previous 60 days?

MR. McCLELLAN: Sure. The initial phase of our outreach effort to the
American people has been a great success. The American people recognize, in
overwhelming numbers, that there are serious challenges facing Social
Security, and that Congress needs to act. I think younger workers, in
particular, recognize that if Congress doesn't act, that Social Security
won't be there for them when they retire. And all you have to do is look at
some of the surveys to see that the overwhelming number of Americans --
some 70, 80 percent -- recognize there are serious problems. And there was
one recent survey that showed over 60 percent said it's time for Congress
to act. That's why it's important to act this year.

And tomorrow the President looks forward to going to Mississippi, and he'll
be at the plant, the Nissan plant there in Mississippi. We were invited to
come there. We go to a lot of different locations. The reason he's going
there is to talk to the workers there, who will be part of the
conversation, as well as in attendance, and to talk about the importance of
fixing the hole in the safety net. It's time to make Social Security
permanently sound, and make it better by giving younger workers the option
to set aside money in personal retirement accounts so that they can realize
a much greater rate of return on their own savings. And that's where the
President's focus will be tomorrow in his remarks.

Q This new phase, is he basically going to the same kinds of places and
saying the same things as he already was in the first 60 days?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, no, because we put forward some new proposals just
last week in the press conference that the President believes ought to be
part of any comprehensive solution. Congress is now moving forward on the
legislative front. Chairman Thomas and Senator Grassley are beginning
hearings, in both the House and Senate respectfully [sic], and we want to
do everything we can to help advance a bipartisan solution. And so the
President is spending his time focusing on how we advance a bipartisan
solution that makes it permanently sound and that allows younger workers to
realize a greater rate of return on their savings through voluntary
personal accounts. And that's what he's going to continue to emphasize.

This is an issue that affects all Americans. He's going to continue
reaching out to the American people, traveling across the United States,
and making sure that they're involved as Congress moves forward, because
this is about making it better for future generations. And I think,
particularly, seniors are now realizing that nothing is going to change
when it comes to them, but they want that Social Security that they've
benefited from to be there for their children and grandchildren. And I
think they are starting to recognize the need to really strengthen it for
our children and grandchildren, too.

Q Thank you.

MR. McCLELLAN: Thank you.

END 12:45 P.M. EDT

===========================================================================
Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/05/20050502-2.html

 * Origin: (1:3634/12)