McClellan Gets Peppered On Iran, Libby, et al.

Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

In this morning’s White House press ‘gaggle’, Helen Thomas got things started with a simple question. “Is the U.S. going to attack Iran?” Full transcript below …

QUESTION: Is the U.S. going to attack Iran?

SCOTT McCLELLAN: It is now your turn.

QUESTION: Is the U.S. going to attack Iran?

SCOTT McCLELLAN: Helen, we’re pursing a diplomatic solution by working with the international community. I assume you’re referring to some of the media reports. Some of the media reports I’ve seen, which are based on anonymous outside advisors and former officials, appear to me to be based on people that do not know the administration’s thinking. I think it is a lot of wild speculation. We are working with the international community, particularly the EU-3, to pursue a diplomatic solution to a serious and growing concern.

QUESTION: Does the President think that the American people would accept any kind of an attack on Iran?

SCOTT McCLELLAN: Now you’re engaging in the wild speculation I just talked about. Look, those who are seeking to draw broad conclusions based on normal military contingency planning are misinformed or not knowledgeable about the administration’s thinking. The international community is united in its concern about the regime obtaining a nuclear weapons capability, and that’s why we are working with the international community to prevent that from happening. And we are seeking to resolve this in a diplomatic way.

QUESTION: Would the President consult with Congress before —

SCOTT McCLELLAN: Helen, I’m not going to engage in all this wild speculation. No President takes options off the table, but our focus is on working with the international community to find a diplomatic solution.

QUESTION: Scott, what does that mean, “normal military contingency planning”?

SCOTT McCLELLAN: Well, if you want to talk to the Pentagon, you can talk to them about it further. I’m not going to get into discussing it further.

QUESTION: So you’re basically just not denying that there’s military planning relating to Iran?

SCOTT McCLELLAN: This is hyped up reporting based on anonymous sources and a lot of wild speculation.

QUESTION: Well, why is it so wild —

SCOTT McCLELLAN: Our focus is very clear. We are working with the international community to find a diplomatic solution.

QUESTION: But you also have left open the other possibility of military action.

SCOTT McCLELLAN: I told you where our focus is, and I told you —

QUESTION: I know where your focus is.

SCOTT McCLELLAN: — that no President takes options off the table. But our focus is on finding a diplomatic solution.

QUESTION: But why would you even attack Iran?

SCOTT McCLELLAN: How many more times I can tell you I’m not going to engage in all that wild speculation, Helen.

QUESTION: Exactly when does it start? (Laughter.)

SCOTT McCLELLAN: We’ve said multiple times — we’ve said multiple times that Iran is not Iraq.

QUESTION: Do you have a reaction to Senator Specter’s request that the President and Vice President speak more fully about their role in declassifying the NIE prior to July 18th?

SCOTT McCLELLAN: Well, there is an ongoing legal proceeding and investigation. We want to make sure that we don’t do anything to jeopardize due process and a fair hearing. And that is why we have had a policy in place, going back to, I believe, the October time period of 2003, saying that we are not going to comment on it while it is ongoing.

QUESTION: There are anonymous sources that have confirmed the President did declassify prior to July 18th. Can you go on the record to confirm that?

SCOTT McCLELLAN: I assume you’re referring to articles like The New York Times article today. I’ve made it clear I cannot get into commenting on an ongoing legal proceeding. I read that article, like you all did, with interest. I think it talked about how a significant portion of the National Intelligence Estimate was declassified on July 18th, 2003, and how it went through a declassification process. But I know it referenced a separate effort. I can’t get into commenting on that issue because you can’t separate that from the ongoing legal proceeding. I made clear the other day that the President has the authority to declassify information as he chooses, and I would reiterate that.

QUESTION: Is there something the President can say —

SCOTT McCLELLAN: And by the way, I did look back further, not only on my comments from July 18th, but I looked back at additional information over the last couple of days, and I will leave it where it was on July 18th, 2003. What I told you then was based on what I knew at the time. But I would discourage you from assuming that it has to be an either-or situation. I know some of the reports did make that assumption. In this article, one example kind of dispels people from looking at it in that way.

QUESTION: Is there something more the President could say that would not be dealing with the Libby matter, but the war is certainly much bigger than the fate of Lewis Libby — is there something more that he could say that might answer some of the concerns people have about what he declassified or did not declassify?

SCOTT McCLELLAN: Well, I talked about it. I mean, I talked about the declassification of the National Intelligence Estimate and how that was in the public interest. Because if you remember at the time, there were a lot of questions being raised about the intelligence, and the President felt it was important for the American people to see what the executive branch was basing our public statements on before the war. The National Intelligence Estimate is the collective judgment of the intelligence community. It served as the underlying basis for how we viewed the regime’s weapons program.

Now, an independent commission looked at all these issues and found out that the intelligence was wrong, and that’s why we’ve taken steps to implement a bunch of reform. But at the time there were those who were making these wild accusations that we were misusing, or misrepresenting the intelligence. That’s why it was in the public interest to declassify that information, because it provided important historical information. There is nothing in that National Intelligence Estimate that would compromise national security, that was released — there’s nothing in there that was released that would. And that’s why it went through the declassification process and it was — and a significant portion of that National Intelligence Estimate was made available to the public through you all.

QUESTION: It did say it was dubious, what you were putting out.

SCOTT McCLELLAN: I’d go back and look at the National Intelligence Estimate. Helen, what we’re talking about — what we’re talking about is the underlying intelligence. You’re talking about one specific part, and that’s why we put it all out there for the public to look at. So let’s remember what the issue here — is here. That’s not what the issue was.

QUESTION: Does the President support the immigration compromise that is taking shape in the Senate?

SCOTT McCLELLAN: Immigration compromise that was taking — I thought we talked about that last week. I talked about it on Friday. Where were you?

QUESTION: Not here.

SCOTT McCLELLAN: The President talked about it in the radio address, too.

QUESTION: Right. He blamed Harry Reid for the failure —

SCOTT McCLELLAN: — what he did. The Minority Leader did block comprehensive immigration reform from moving forward. He used blocking tactics.

QUESTION: Right, so does he think that the Republicans have no role in stopping this legislation that they supported?

SCOTT McCLELLAN: It was the Minority Leader who used blocking tactics to stop it from moving forward. I think that’s very clear to everyone. There was a bipartisan agreement to move forward on comprehensive immigration reform. We supported the efforts of Senator Frist, Senator Hagel, Senator Martinez and other senators — Senator McCain, Senator Kennedy, others — who came together in a bipartisan way to find a way to move comprehensive immigration reform forward, and we strongly supported those efforts.

I know there are a lot of demonstrations going on today calling for comprehensive immigration reform. They might want to focus their efforts on the Senate Minority Leader. He is the one who is standing in the way of comprehensive immigration reform moving forward. And I talked about it Friday, so I would encourage you to look back at what I said. He prevented voices from being heard and amendments from being considered. That is at the foundation of the Senate.

QUESTION: What’s your take on these demonstrations? Do you think these demonstrations are helpful, or do you find them —

SCOTT McCLELLAN: I think it’s one of the remarkable things about our country, that people can peacefully demonstrate and express their views.

QUESTION: Scott, while stressing diplomacy in Iran, you do have a National Security Strategy which calls Iran the greatest threat that the United States faces.

SCOTT McCLELLAN: I think it says, one of the greatest challenges.

QUESTION: Right. In that context, isn’t it natural —

SCOTT McCLELLAN: There are a number of threats that we’re dealing with.

QUESTION: In that context, isn’t it natural, or doesn’t the President expect there to be the normal military contingency planning that you’re talking about? I mean, don’t you expect that kind of —

SCOTT McCLELLAN: I think I referenced normal military contingency planning in my comments. But this is about the regime’s behavior. And the international community is working together, in a united way, to prevent the regime from developing a nuclear weapons capability. That’s where the focus is, and we are doing it in a diplomatic way.

QUESTION: But don’t you also expect the Defense Department to be — the kind of attacks that would be necessary for an —

SCOTT McCLELLAN: You’re trying to get me to jump into all this wild speculation from some of the stories that came over the weekend.

QUESTION: It isn’t wild.

SCOTT McCLELLAN: Sure it is. It’s not based on knowledge of the administration’s thinking. That’s why it’s wild speculation. It’s based — I saw one story that had numerous anonymous former officials and outside advisors being quoted in the story. How they possibly could understand what the administration’s thinking is, is beyond me.

QUESTION: You might talk to people in the Pentagon.

QUESTION: Scott, you’re familiar with what the administration is thinking —

SCOTT McCLELLAN: Absolutely. The administration is thinking that’s important to work with the international community to find a diplomatic solution.

QUESTION: But are nuclear strikes on the table? You’re familiar with the —

SCOTT McCLELLAN: I answered that — I answered that in my remarks.

QUESTION: Yes or no?

SCOTT McCLELLAN: I answered that in my remarks. I won’t — I’m not going to comment further about it. It’s just engaging in kind of wild speculation to get into commenting further about it.

QUESTION: Two questions. In his comments today, is the President planning — in his global war on terror comments — to address even broadly his power to declassify the NIE?

SCOTT McCLELLAN: I think that his remarks are going to remain focused on Iraq.

QUESTION: Is there any plan for him to address this issue in any way, however broadly —

SCOTT McCLELLAN: He’s taking questions. I don’t know — I don’t know if he’ll be asked about it, so I don’t want to rule things out.

QUESTION: Okay. Secondly, you said that the immigration —

SCOTT McCLELLAN: He has — I mean, he has addressed it through me on Friday, too, and again this morning.

QUESTION: But there have been calls for him to address it through himself. (Laughter.)

SCOTT McCLELLAN: Wait you’re talking about two different things. You’re talking about the National Intelligence Estimate — that’s one thing, and the declassification of it. The legal proceeding is a different issue, so —

QUESTION: He won’t comment on the legal proceeding, so —

SCOTT McCLELLAN: I’ve expressed our policy and view on that.

QUESTION: Right. Okay, question number two, you said that the immigration rallies are a beautiful sign of America’s ability to protest and speak up.

QUESTION: “Remarkable.”

QUESTION: “Remarkable,” thank you. I wasn’t — it was a rough

SCOTT McCLELLAN: If you want to use “beautiful,” I won’t dispute it. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Is the President at all concerned that the show of force further undermines the possibility of some sort of compromise when the Hill comes back —

SCOTT McCLELLAN: I’m sorry, the show of force?

QUESTION: The outpouring by — at these rallies.

SCOTT McCLELLAN: It’s a peaceful demonstration. I don’t know what — show of force.

QUESTION: The demos.

QUESTION: The demonstrations — the size and the passion that’s demonstrated there is further making the compromise difficult on the Hill?

SCOTT McCLELLAN: Well, I think that there are a lot of members on both sides of the aisle that want to find a way to move forward on comprehensive reform. It begins with securing our borders. And that’s why we need to continue to take steps to strengthen our borders. But it’s also important to have a temporary worker program as a part of that, because that helps to strengthen our borders, as the President has talked about repeatedly.

The President believes to fix our immigration system, you have to do it in a rational and comprehensive way. And there are many members in Congress that share that view. And so we want to continue working with them to move it forward. I think there’s still a strong commitment by leaders in the Senate to move forward. They’re on recess right now, so they’re out for the next two weeks. Unfortunately, you have the leader of the Democrats in the Senate standing in the way of comprehensive reform moving forward.

QUESTION: Well, are you encouraging these demonstrations?

SCOTT McCLELLAN: I think people have the right to peacefully express their views. What we’re focused on is moving ahead with Congress on compressive immigration reform. It is an important issue, and it is a high priority.

QUESTION: Let me ask you one more thing. The Post here says that you’ve settled on the idea of sending up several hundred NATO advisors to help the AU —

SCOTT McCLELLAN: I don’t think there’s anything to add to what the President has said recently on that issue. If there is, I’ll come back to it later. But I don’t think there’s anything to add beyond what the President has already said. He’s talked about this very subject on a number of occasions — on a number of occasions, and I’m not going to jump ahead of where it is in the process in terms of discussions.

Bill. Let me go to Bill. John, you’ve already — have you had one?

QUESTION: No, I haven’t.

SCOTT McCLELLAN: Okay, John. Then Bill. Then I’ve got to go.

QUESTION: Thank you, Scott. The week before Pearl Harbor, the Chicago Tribune reported that the U.S. had a plan to send an expeditionary force to Europe, even though we weren’t at war. Plans about the U.S. sending troops overseas as a contingency are very old and have been out there. Are you going to release any of the background on the plan and just point out that this is a contingency plan?

SCOTT McCLELLAN: Military — I don’t tend to get into talking about military plans. I’ll leave that to the Pentagon.

Go ahead, Bill.

QUESTION: Two-parter. What about the notion that the failure of the immigration bill would allow Democrats to associate Republicans with the House bill that only talks about stronger enforcement of the borders and, therefore, that would hurt them in the midterms?

SCOTT McCLELLAN: I’ll leave the political analysis to others. The President is strongly committed to comprehensive immigration reform and continuing to work with those that want to move forward on it. And that’s what — that’s where our focus is.

QUESTION: Well, let me try you one more time on political analysis. My second question is, all the talk of impeachment and censure, does that hurt Democrats and Republicans —

SCOTT McCLELLAN: We talked about that recently. I’ll be glad to talk to you about it further if you want. I need to go right now, but I’ll be glad to talk to you about it further if you want.

Latest Muckraker
Comments
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Associate Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: