Press Gaggle by Scott McClellan and Steve Hadley, National Security Advisor (Text Only)

Press Gaggle by Scott McClellan and Steve Hadley, National Security Advisor
Aboard Air Force One
En Route Kastrup, Denmark

MR. McCLELLAN: We'll begin with Steve, kind of give you a little preview of tomorrow, and then when he's finished, and you're finished asking him questions, then I'll talk to you a little bit more about other topics that I'm sure are on your mind.

MR. HADLEY: Tomorrow is a Denmark day. The President will have an opportunity to meet with Her Majesty. We'll also be meeting with Prime Minister Rasmussen. The Danes have been a good ally. They have been with us on the ground with troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan. In Iraq, they maintained public acceptance; it's been controversial for the Iraq deployment. It's been renewed through February of 2006, so they'll be there through after the elections.

They've been strong allies with us within NATO. They've been a strong participant in sort of our counter-proliferation efforts. They've been part of the Proliferation Security Initiative. There's actually an experts' meeting going on while we're in Denmark on that issue. So Rasmussen has been a strong friend of the United States and a good friend of the President. And it will be -- I think the fact that the President is going to Denmark is just a testament to that, and an opportunity for him to recognize strong support they've given, and to say thank you.

Q Moving ahead to the Gleneagles summit, how is the global climate -- the language going in the communiqu that's being written?

MR. HADLEY: Those discussions are ongoing. And, you know, one of the things that I think is emerging is that global climate is one of sort of three or four related problems. There is a problem of adequate energy, particularly for the developing world, which is critical if you're going to be able to reduce poverty, and you want safe, reliable, affordable energy, but, obviously, in a way that solves pollution risks and contributes to the issue of climate change.

We think through a sort of growth-based and technology-based approach you can do all of those things. And that's a position that Faryar and his colleagues have been pushing; it is the President's position. He's talked about it publicly. And we're hopeful that people will recognize that they really are interrelated problems, and that solving those problems are critical for countries that want to develop, because there are -- 2 billion people do not have access to energy. You can't develop your country if you don't have access to safe, reliable, affordable sources of energy.

So for countries that want to develop, there's got to be a way where they don't have to do environment at the expense of development, but can be able to develop, but develop in an environmentally responsible way. We think there are ways of doing that, through technology and the like, and we think that the G8 provides an opportunity to showcase some of those things. And I think you'll see some of that coming out.

MR. HADLEY: Well, it's still in the drafting session. I think one of the things that will be clear, though, is there will be some focus on an action plan. And we're hopeful that the action plan will address ways in which we could cooperate in -- particularly in some of these technology-based approaches that the President has talked about, which offer the prospect for both reliable energy source in a way that is environmentally responsible. Civil nuclear power is one of those, clean coal technology is one of them. There are a lot of them that -- the hydrogen technology.

There are a lot of them we've talked about, and we think there are -- it is not just the United States, but other countries are paying attention to these technologies. They're very important to the developing world, and we hope we can have a plan of action that can begin to focus on some of these things. But, again, still being negotiated.

MR. HADLEY: You know, look, the Kyoto issue is -- what we're trying to do is really move beyond Kyoto, towards an approach that can get not only support within the developed world, but also the developing world, that has this tradeoff between environment and growth.

Q In the communiqu , should there be a recognition that humans are responsible for global warming?

MR. HADLEY: Well, you know, there's a lot of discussion about science. I think the President has said, and said it last week, that it's a significant problem, and that there is a -- obviously, a human component through fossil fuels and the burning of fossil fuels. So, look, everybody knows that there's a human component about that. The question is, what are we going to do about these things, and do it in a way that sort of reconciles the four things I mentioned, and that's what we're trying to focus on.

Q So is it fair to say, then, that there's a difference in the understanding of the science and how urgent the situation is based on that understanding between the United States and the other nations? The other nations see the science as telling us that the problem is more urgent that we do.

MR. HADLEY: Well, there's an issue about the science. Of course there's a lot that we don't know. I think what we've been trying to say is, let's focus on this interrelated set of problems: pollution, climate change, poverty alleviation, development and reliable, affordable, secure energy. Those are all interrelated problems. You've got to sort of treat them as a set. And those are problems we need to get after. They're important problems, they're -- the development need, in particular, is something we need to make some progress on promptly. And we think that we can identify a set of measures that allow all of us to get a purchase on these interrelated problems. We've got a problem of framing the debate right, and that's what we've been trying to do.

Q But if we disagree on the science, isn't it harder to get agreement on the policy?

MR. HADLEY: I don't think so, because we can all agree we've got four interrelated problems, and we need to be doing things about them. And the interesting thing is, there is a program in action which we think will come out of this G8 summit, in which we can all agree as to what we're going to do about it. That is, of course, in the end of the day, where the rubber hits the road. You can have all the discussion you want about the science, the question is, do you have a set of policies and programs you can pursue that balance these four interrelated things. We think we can come up with it.

MR. SHIRZAD: I think that's right. I mean, one point that's worth emphasizing is that what we're trying to do is to find the common ground between our approach of the climate issue and the approach that the other G8 have taken. Their approach has largely been driven by working through the Kyoto protocol; ours has been one based on trying to advance the science and the technology in this area, so that we provide a longer-term solution.

And so what we're trying to do at this G8 is not to have either side walk away from their fundamental approach to the climate issue, but to try to define where the common ground is, and use this G8 as an opportunity to bring unity on an issue that's been a source of division.

Q Can the administration accept language that says human activity is the main cause of global warming?

MR. HADLEY: Look, if you look at what the President has said -- I mean, he said it again last week, this is not new news, that there is a human element in this, and that it's a significant issue that has to be addressed, but needs to be addressed in the context of which I've described it. We can accept language like that.

MR. McCLELLAN: Look back to the report he commissioned by the National Academies of Science in 2001, which stated that, and stated that surface temperatures are rising, and that's in part to human activity.

MR. HADLEY: I think you're going to see that the debate is moving beyond some of these discussions we've had in the past, and focusing on the issue of, what are we going to do about solving this interrelated set of problems. And, obviously, technology is going to be a critical part if countries are going to be able to both develop and do it in a way that protects their environment. That's what we think ought to happen.

Q How can the U.S. bring up China and India? They both have burgeoning economies, but they also have millions upon millions of people. How is the U.S. brining up that factor?

MR. HADLEY: Of course they will be there, among five invited countries, and they, of course, are very eloquent spokesmen for the proposition that, yes, environment is important, but so is development and so is ending poverty, so is secure energy sources. So in a way, their presence will enrich the discussion, because we think it will help frame the fact that these four interrelated objectives, that don't need to be competing if you can find the right set of solutions. And, again, technology is going to be important to that.

Q Is this the groundwork for a possible alternative to Kyoto, or the next step beyond Kyoto, because they're there?

MR. HADLEY: Well, and let me put it this way -- it's a good way of a reminder that it is a broader debate than just climate change; that there are these competing objectives, and in the end of the day these countries need to be comfortable with an approach that both allows them to pursue development and the environment. That's where we need to be going, so that not just some of the developed countries, but developed countries and developing countries can develop, over time, a common approach to this issue. And that's what we're trying to achieve.

And we think G8 can make a contribution to that. It's not going to be the end of the discussion, but we think it can make a contribution.

Q The Chinese issued a very strong statement about the measures in Congress trying to block the purchase of Unocal. What's your position on that?

MR. HADLEY: Well, look, as you know, there are -- when a foreign-owned company, particularly a government-owned company seeks to acquire a U.S. company, there are a series of administrative and legal processes that get triggered. You know, it's this CFIUS process, and should the offer become finalized in some way, and that process triggered, then there's, of course, a standard process in law and regulation that we would have to pursue. And, obviously, that statue and those procedures are in place because foreign ownership, particularly government-ownership of key companies raises a concern for folks. And that's why we have those procedures. So if it becomes a formal proposal, then those procedures will have to be invoked, and we'll have to take a look at it.

Q So the administration has no formal statement, no formal position on the proposed takeover?

MR. HADLEY: Well, look, the position is going to come out of that CFIUS process. But, obviously, when a foreign-government owned country [sic] requires a U.S. company, it raises some questions. That's why we have that CFIUS process. So it's obviously something we're going to have to look at.

Q Is there going to be any -- do you anticipate any kind of an EU statement on Iran?

MR. HADLEY: An EU statement on Iran? I don't think there will be an EU statement. There probably will be -- I'm sure there will be -- there's a long list of statements --

MR. HADLEY: No, I don't think there will be an EU3 statement. There may be a G8 statement on proliferation, and that may address the Iran issue, but I don't think that the G8 is going to advance the Iran issue. The next step really, is of course for the EU3 to re-engage with Iran. So I think you'll see Iran talked about in the context of our broader proliferation effort, and the shared concern we all have that Iran not have a nuclear weapon, and the important that the EU3 negotiations with Iran succeed, so that we can be clear that Iran is not going to have a path to a nuclear weapon. But I don't think you're going to see any new ground broken on that issue.

Q Steve, on the missing American soldiers in Afghanistan, I don't know if there's anything you can tell us about that. And then beyond that, there's some talk that this is evidence of kind of backsliding in Afghanistan. There's been some reporting that the Taliban are growing stronger, that the government has less control over the area. What's your sense of the state of play there right now?

MR. HADLEY: We're, of course, doing everything we can to find the last of the four SEALs. And it's a real priority, and something the President asked to get briefed on this morning

Look, it's pretty clear we know that after the election -- the presidential election in Afghanistan, it was a blow to the Taliban and to al Qaeda. And they, basically, had to make a decision about what they were going to do in response to that. There have been some offers to broaden the political dialogue, some offers to bring some of the Taliban who did not have blood on their hands and wanted to be part of the new Afghanistan -- those offers have been made.

It's pretty clear that the Taliban and al Qaeda have decided to try and make another shot, and to try to derail these elections in September. And I think we just have to be realistic that they are going to try to derail the elections. There are going to be parliamentary and local elections. It's going to be an important event in the emergence of democracy in Afghanistan. And like Zarqawi in Iraq, Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan view the coming of democracy and the institutionalization of democracy in Afghanistan as a real threat to them. And they're right, it is.

So I think you're going to see them making a real effort to derail these elections. We're aware of it, there is a security plan that's being developed associated with the elections. It's a problem; we're going to have to deal with it. And I think you're going to see some violence between now and September. The question will be how those elections go, how the Afghan people respond to those elections, and then what is the calculation that the Taliban and others make after those elections have been held.

The preparations are pretty good for the elections. We're cautiously optimistic about it, because we think the Afghans -- Afghanistan people want it, and will show once again that they're committed not to the vision of Afghanistan of the Taliban, but to the prospect that's open before them of a democratic country that they run themselves.

Q The attack on Arab diplomats in Iraq in the past couple of days -- the kidnapping of the Egyptian ambassador, the shooting of the Bahraini diplomat -how worrisome is this situation to the U.S.?

MR. HADLEY: Well, it's pretty clear what they're trying to do, I mean, in the wake, particularly, of the U.S.-EU meeting on Iraq. If you looked at Kofi Annan's op/ed of two weeks ago, the U.N. participation in the constitution drafting process and supporting the electoral process, the international community is re-engaging with Iraq, and understands that it's in everybody's interest for the Iraq situation to succeed, and that Iraq is able to establish their own democracy and able to provide for their own security.

And so you see the international community really stepping -- beginning to step up and reengage with Iraq. And of course, again, the terrorists, those who support them, that's the last thing they want. So I think you can see a situation that they're going to try and do to sort of break people's will, and to try and see if they can head off this reengagement by the international community. And I think the two incidents that you showed -- you cited are an example of that. Again, it's just one of those things we're going to have to deal with. We're troubled by it, we hope that the Egyptian diplomat is released, but, obviously, we need to go forward and we hope the international community will not be deterred, but will, in fact, be motivated now to really throw in and help the Iraqi people.

Q Since it might be considered inappropriate for U.S. forces to be protecting foreign diplomats in Iraq, is this an impetus, in the U.S.' view, for more foreign troop involvement, especially from the countries that are trying to establish diplomatic relations in Iraq?

MR. HADLEY: Well, they'll have to look at their own security arrangements. And that's certainly right, but, you know, again, on forces, if you talk to Iraqis, they want more forces in Iraq, but they want Iraqi forces in Iraq. And that's, of course, what we're trying to do with the training programs. So I think that's really how they will see it.

MR. HADLEY: Well, I think we're making a lot of progress. Again, one of the things I think people are beginning to understand is that this President had done an awful lot for Africa, in tripling the development assistance, and AGOA trade arrangements, the HIV/AIDS program, his presidential initiative in the global fund, the Millennium Challenge Account. I mean, in some sense, we're glad there's a focus on Africa, because we've been there for a while, and we think if we can galvanize other countries to get into this process, that's a good thing.

You've seen some things -- debt relief, obviously, is something people have been calling for, and that is pretty much in hand. There's been a call for additional aid, and of course you saw the President's initiatives with respect to malaria and with respect to some women's issues. You saw also the proposal he and the British Prime Minister made with respect to attacking hunger, and responding to humanitarian needs, and calling on the international community to join us in that effort.

So I think there has been some good progress, and I think you'll see that consolidated. So in terms of the issues that have been addressed about debt relief, about aid, I think you'll see some things coming out that are positive. I think the other thing people need to recognize, of course, is that if we're going to succeed, the basic partnership concept needs to be embraced. That is to say, sure, we can provide aid, but two things have to be said about that: One, African countries with enlightened governments, committed to good governance, anti-corruption, investing in their people -- in terms of education and elsewhere -- being open to private investment and to trade, those are the kinds of countries that are going to be able to take the aid and turn it into what we all really want, which is rising living standard and reduction of poverty.

You know, we're too input-oriented. Everyone is focusing on dollars. We need to be output-oriented. We need to be asking, can we measure progress in these societies for lifting people out of poverty, and enhancing their incomes. That's what we want to do. If that's going to be accomplished, you need, really, a partnership. And it's important that African governments pursue the right policies if this is going to succeed.

The other thing people need to focus on, of course, is that traditional development assistance is a small piece. Trade is much more significant for these countries, in terms of giving people livelihoods and incomes. And it dwarfs, it dwarfs by an order of magnitude the impact on development. That's not to say development assistance isn't important, but we need to use the other levers that are available. Trade is certainly an important one. Investment, both local investment and international investment, is also terribly important to create jobs and to create livelihoods for people. Private charitable giving is very significant. It's something that the United States does a lot of, it's something that European and some of the G8 countries don't do that much of. It's terribly important. And also payments that are made from people from Africa living in the United States, sending it back home, remittances, another huge factor in this.

So one of the things we need to do is -- we need to do two things: one, take a broader look at the various financial tools that are available to help Africa develop, and then, secondly, emphasize that it's not money inputs, it's going to be the output in terms of rising standards of living and declining poverty. And that's going to require a partnership with African governments making the right decisions. And that's probably more important than anything else. And, again, we hope that the Africa discussion at the G8 will showcase some of these issues, so people can really understand in a better sense the challenges we face here.

Let me walk back through the President's day, and then I'm sure you all will have some more questions for me. The President had his intelligence briefing on board the plane. That was kind of the first thing he did upon departure. Following that, the President spent a good couple of hours looking over materials about potential nominees to the Supreme Court. This was information that was compiled by Harriet Miers and our Counsel's Office for the President to review. It really includes background information on the potential nominee's professional career, it includes information on key rulings made by that individual nominee.

So it's comprehensive materials on individual nominee -- potential nominees. It gives the President the opportunity to have a thorough look at individuals that he is considering to nominate to the Supreme Court.

MR. McCLELLAN: In his office aboard Air Force One. And then following that, he got in a little exercise on his bicycle, and then had a bite to eat and was just spending some more time in his office. And he's going to be -- here shortly he'll be having a briefing with staff on the trip.

Q Does he go back with any questions after reading this information? Could you talk about that a little bit?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes. I mean, I'm not going to say -- obviously, at this point I don't think I'm going to go into too much detail. But, I mean, he is talking with senior White House staff and his key advisors. He and Andy -- Andy Card have certainly had some conversations about it, and they've talked about the process for moving forward on a potential nominee.

MR. McCLELLAN: Senior staff is also -- White House staff has also been reaching out to members of the Senate, as part of the consultations. And as the President indicated, when he gets back next week, he wants to sit down and visit with key senators to listen to their views about the Supreme Court.

Q How many names is he looking at? What's the list? I mean, can you narrow it at all?

MR. McCLELLAN: More than a half dozen. Well, the President has indicated, and I think if you look back at his record, you will see that the President has a record of nominating individuals from all walks of life. I mean, the President is going to look at a diverse group of individuals that meet the criteria that he outlined. He wants someone of high intellect, great legal ability, a person of integrity, and someone who will faithfully interpret our Constitution and laws. And that's what he's looking for in a Supreme Court nominee.

MR. McCLELLAN: He has said that he will appoint -- he will nominate someone that the nation can be proud of, and he hopes that this will be a dignified process as we move forward. But, yes, he will look at people from all walks of life.

Q Does he anticipate making a list that maybe has two or three people, ranking them in order, or is he going to go through this process if there are multiple resignations this year?

Q Well, let's just say Rehnquist decided that he was going to resign - or retire next fall?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we're looking to fill one vacancy here. There's only one vacancy that exists, and the President is looking to fill that vacancy at this point and -

Q Is this just going to carry on for - or would you start again, for instance, if another Justice resigned?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we can talk about it if another Justice does resign, but at this point I'm not aware of any other vacancy other than one, so that's kind of asking us to speculate about a vacancy that does not exist. I'm not going to do that.

Q The President told USA Today it would be weeks before he makes a decision. Is he waiting to see if he gets another resignation?

MR. McCLELLAN: He said that he would hone in over the next few weeks on a handful of nominees. And then he would look forward to sitting down with those potential nominees at that point

MR. McCLELLAN: I said he would hone in over the next few weeks on a handful of potential nominees.

MR. McCLELLAN: Oh, I'm not going to speculate about timing. You heard the President say last week in his remarks on the day that Justice O'Connor announced her resignation that he would move forward in a way to get this nominee in place by the time the Court reconvenes - and that's in October, so -

MR. McCLELLAN: We will be - you know, obviously, he's in the process now of moving forward on a nominee and we will be consulting with Senate leaders to talk about how we move forward on the confirmation hearings for that nominee and the timing of that.

MR. McCLELLAN: We want to have the individual in place by the time the Court reconvenes.

Q Some conservative groups are saying that it might be politically smart for the administration to run the clock out a little bit, to wait toward, you know, the end of August before he announces it, so that there wouldn't be this nominee, you know, being battered around while he's down at the ranch and while Congress is out of session. Do you want to respond to that?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I mean, you're asking me speculate about the timing. I think I just indicated that - and the President indicated in his interview with USA Today that he's going to hone in on a handful of potential nominees over the next few weeks and -

MR. McCLELLAN: He's going to move forward in a timely manner, that's what he said.

Q The question we have is, is he stalling to let the other side have less time to target his nominee?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I wouldn't look at it the way at all, Terry. He's moving forward now and he is committed to moving forward in a timely manner.

Q What about the political pressure from some in the conservative wing of the Republican Party basically suggesting the President owes them this nomination?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think the President has indicated the type of individual that he's looking for, and that's the type of individual that he will nominate. You know, you look back at the President's record of - when it comes to nominating people to the bench.

Q How upset has he been, personally, about the criticism over Gonzales? I mean, he expressed that to USA Today. Can you characterize that for us?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, he indicated that General Gonzales is a great friend of his; he knows him very well. So he doesn't like it, obviously, to see when a good friend such as General Gonzales is attacked. In terms of speculating about any nominees, I'm not going to get into doing that about any potential nominees.

General Gonzales is doing a great job as Attorney General and the President greatly appreciates the job he is doing. He's someone he knows very well.

MR. McCLELLAN: You're asking me speculate about possible nominees, and I'm just not going to do that.

Q Has he met personally, face-to-face, interviewing, himself, with any potential nominees?

MR. McCLELLAN: As you're aware, the Attorney General is part of our nomination process, he's involved in that process.

MR. McCLELLAN: The President was just given his materials this morning, to begin really looking over potential nominees and their backgrounds and rulings that they have made.

Q What do you think about these battle lines being drawn on both sides, guaranteeing a fight no matter who's picked?

MR. McCLELLAN: You know, the President believes we should all work to elevate the discourse. This is a time when we need to tone down the rhetoric. This is a nomination for the highest court and it should be a dignified process. And that's what the President is urging everybody to follow. He wants to see a process that is fair, where his nominee receives a fair up or down vote on the floor of the Senate.

Q How much does the fact of his legacy affect the President's thinking as he's going through these materials and preparing to interview potential candidates?

MR. McCLELLAN: That's for you all to analyze. That's something you can do the analysis on.

Q In the past, particularly when Thomas was nominated by Bush's father, a group of outside people who were very well respected in Washington and in the Senate were brought into help, like Duberstein and others. Do you anticipate that this time?

Q The kind of thing that happened with other controversial nominees, such as with Clarence Thomas -

MR. McCLELLAN: Wait a second, you're saying "controversial nominees." What are you talking about?

Q Well, obviously, when you have a lot of groups lining up, no matter what happens - but what I'm getting at is will you have an outside effort to help this through the Senate, the sort of these well-respected -

MR. McCLELLAN: You know, it's a process to - a process in place to oversee the confirmation process, if that's what you're asking.

Q -- the kind of thing that his father did, was bringing in people who were well familiar with all the obstacles in the Senate. Is it just going to be an in-house --

MR. McCLELLAN: We'll keep you posted on how we're going to move forward on the confirmation process.

MR. McCLELLAN: That the President will appoint someone that we can all be proud of, and he urges the Senate to work together and elevate the discourse and move forward on a dignified process.

Q Who is he relying on most in just talking about - is it Rove, is it Card, is it who?

MR. McCLELLAN: I indicated to you that he met with key advisors last week; I went through some of those names, and that includes, obviously, Andy is very involved in this process and someone the President has been talking with. The President, I know, was speaking with him over the weekend from Camp David; he's continued to speak with him since that time. Harriet Miers is very involved and has been overseeing the compiling of materials on potential nominees. Karl, as Deputy Chief of Staff, is very involved. Dan, as Counsel to the President, is very involved. The Attorney General is very involved in this process. So there are a number of key advisors who the President is going to continue talking to as we move forward on this process.

Q The President is not a lawyer; in fact, he makes fun of lawyers and prides himself, it seems, that he's not a lawyer. So is he reading the actual opinions? Is he - what kind of legal materials is he going over?

MR. McCLELLAN: As I indicated, he does have information on key rulings by some of the potential nominees.

MR. McCLELLAN: It's summaries, obviously, of the rulings that these individuals have been involved in.

MR. McCLELLAN: And the information that was pulled together is pretty thorough on each of the potential nominees.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I'm not - I expect that material will continue to be provided to him as we move forward.

MR. McCLELLAN: I would describe it the way I did, that it includes background on their professional career and it includes information on key rulings.

Q If nobody has anything else, do you have anything on the birthday, anything at all?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, he had a celebration - yes, they had some friends over to watch the fireworks and they had a birthday cake -

MR. McCLELLAN: I will see if there's any more to provide you. I think he might have taken a low-key approach to this birthday.

Q Did he see any of Live 8 concert? Did he see his friend, Bono, in the Live 8 concert at all?

Issues

News

News by Date

Appointments

Federal Facts

West Wing