http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/07/20050728-3.htmlQ Scott, the U.S. has now had three lengthy bilateral meetings in China with the North Koreans. Are you now having direct talks with the North Koreans?
MR. McCLELLAN: I wouldn't say "now." Let me back up and remind you that we have met with the North Korean delegation and other delegations within the context of the six-party talks. It is something we have done in each of the round of talks. So I would disagree with you saying "now." North Korea's nuclear weapons program is a concern of all nations in the region. That is why the President pursued a multilateral diplomatic approach. And in terms of the bilateral discussions that are going on, those are discussions that relate to the modalities of the talks, and it's a way for us, also, to understand North Korea's position and for us to explain our views, as well. But we have had, previously, bilateral discussions with other delegations within the context of the six-party talks --
Q Oh, come on.
MR. McCLELLAN: -- and this is happening within the context of the six-party talks.
What I think it's important to keep in mind, and this might be what Helen is grumbling about, is that -- (laughter.)
Q You have rejected time and time again.
MR. McCLELLAN: We have -- we have no intention of negotiating any bilateral agreement with North Korea. That approach was tried and it failed. North Korea, I will remind you, violated the '94 agreed framework.
Q What do you see in this joint statement that the two sides, or the six sides are working on?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think I'll let the Assistant Secretary Chris Hill talk about it. We want to see progress made toward the goal of a denuclearized peninsula. He's been talking about it. This is something that is going to be a deliberative, methodical process. It's going to take time, as Chris Hill said earlier today. There's a lot of work to do. But we are committed to making progress, and we think the other parties are committed to making progress in this round of talks. And we'll just have to see as the talks continue. But they continue at this point.
Q Since the first time, now, you've had three separate meetings where the North Koreans and Americans have met together alone, in private.
MR. McCLELLAN: We've had meetings with all the delegations.
Q It's the first -- pardon?
MR. McCLELLAN: We've had meetings with all of the delegations.
Q I know, but this is not -- it's not comparable. North Korea is the issue, and we have met privately with them. But we've always said we weren't going to. Why do you keep rejecting the whole idea that there's a possibility for rapprochement? There are negotiations going on, obviously. We have heard their side now, and we are telling them what we think, and so forth.
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the place to negotiate is in the context of the six-party talks and with all parties at the table. All parties that are involved in this share the concern. All of us want to see a nuclear-free peninsula, and that's why the President --
Q I'm asking you a specific question. The two sides are getting together privately. Why don't you admit that?
MR. McCLELLAN: I just said it.
Q No, you only say it within -- you're so afraid --
MR. McCLELLAN: Did I not just say that? I think I did.
Q There's always a -- you're afraid to say there's been a change --
MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead, David. Have a question?
Q -- that's what you're afraid to say.
MR. McCLELLAN: There has been change. We're pursuing this in a multilateral format with all six parties in it, but not in terms of negotiations.
Q They just go together -- (laughter.)
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not going to get the last word in here. Go ahead, David.
Q Helen's got a good point. I don't want to steal the floor from her. On the Bolton nomination, is the President prepared to recess appoint him?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, there's nothing that's changed, in terms of what we previously said.
Q Well, which is what? You're not going to get an up or down vote, near as we can tell. The President said his priority --
MR. McCLELLAN: It's what we've said. We've always felt that he deserves an up or down vote.
Q Right, and you're not getting one.
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm just telling you there's nothing that's changed, nothing else to --
Q So you won't rule out a recess appointment?
MR. McCLELLAN: -- nothing else to discuss at this point.
Q How soon will you be able to discuss it?
MR. McCLELLAN: Do you have something else?
Q I do. Just to button that up, you're not ruling that out, that a recess appointment --
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm saying that nothing has changed, and I'll leave it there. (Laughter.)
Q I wonder if you can help me understand something from earlier this week. When Alberto Gonzales went on the Sunday shows and was asked about the leak investigation and said that he told Andy Card 12 hours before the rest of the staff was told, we asked you about that, being an ongoing investigation, you told us that he wasn't saying anything new that hadn't been said on the podium in October 2003. And yet, when we've asked you about statements that you made in the podium in 2003, rather than affirming those statements, something that it seems like Gonzales might have done, you've just said that you can't comment on an ongoing investigation. So there seems to be a difference here. He's willing to restate something that happened, or that he said, but you're not.
MR. McCLELLAN: We already addressed this the other day. There's nothing else to add to it.
Q Scott, last night on the Tonight Show, Jay Leno, who apparently is subbing for Johnnie, displayed a video of the President at the Capitol yesterday. In that video, the President walking away from the press lifts his hand and raises a finger. Mr. Leno interpreted it as, shall we say, a finger of hostility. Each of our fingers has a special purpose and meaning in life. (Laughter.) Can you tell us what finger it was he held up?
MR. McCLELLAN: Ken, I'm not even going to dignify that with much of a response. But if someone is misportraying something, that's unfortunate.
Q Well, it was not a finger of hostility?
MR. McCLELLAN: Ken, I was there with him, and I'm just not going to -- I'm not going to dignify that with a response. I mean, I haven't seen the video that you're talking about, but I know the way the President acts. And if someone is misportraying it, that's unfortunate.
Q One quick question more about Roberts, Scott. Yesterday, Chuck Schumer at the Press Club said that he thought the battle had been won by those who believed that the confirmation process --
MR. McCLELLAN: And I would point out, too, that -- hang on -- that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. They continue to be on our state sponsor of terrorism --
Q I'm just wondering if you considered that particular incident --
MR. McCLELLAN: No, I know, I heard your question.
Q -- to be an act of terrorism, because --
MR. McCLELLAN: I added one thing to it.
Q -- because then it opens up the question of what is Ahmadinejad's status under the Bush Doctrine?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, that's why I was pointing out that Iran --
Q That's why you were avoiding answering it.
MR. McCLELLAN: -- that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. We haven't had that discussion, John, and I'd like to make -- give you informed responses when I respond.
Q Could you check on that question?
MR. McCLELLAN: But Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism, and the administrations at those -- at that time, addressed those issues. And we will all always remember that time period.
Q Well, if you could check on how you view it and get back to us, that would be great.
MR. McCLELLAN: Carl, go ahead. John, you've had your questions. Carl, it is your turn.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
