I searched and couldn't find anything, but he's back.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/11/20051130-10.htmlFor example:
Q How is the Secretary of State going to explain the cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of some of our combatants -- enemies, so-called.
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, first of all, we disagree with the premise of your question, because we are a nation that --
Q There is an uproar in Europe.
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we are nation that is engaged in a global war on terrorism. And there are many partners in that global war on terrorism. But as we carry out the war on terrorism, we act in a way that is consistent with our laws and consistent with our values and consistent with our international obligations. And the Secretary talked about that in an interview the other day.
As I understand, they have received a letter from Secretary Straw, from the United Kingdom -- or Foreign Minister Straw, I should say, from the United Kingdom -- and they will be responding to that letter in due course.
Q Well, my question is, how is -- are you -- does the threat from this administration to veto the military spending bill if there is not an exemption on the ban of such treatment?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think that Steve Hadley talked about this at his recent briefing here in this room, just a couple of weeks ago. And he talked about the difficult issues that we have to address. And he talked about how we're working very closely with congressional leaders to address those issues.
Q I asked a simple question, Scott. Is the President going to veto military spending if there is no exemption on the ban?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think the statement of administration policy that we put out was that if such a step were taken that would weaken our position in the global war on terrorism, and the ability of the President to effectively carry out that war on terrorism, then his advisors would recommend a veto. I think that is what our statement of administration policy said. ....
<massive clipping to get to this good part>
Q Two more Middle East-related questions. I know you've been asked before about the so-called al Jazzier memo, but Europeans are making quite a big deal about it. Can you assure them that even if the President did say when he was elected said he was doing that in jest?
MR. McCLELLAN: Can I assure them what?
Q That if the President really did make those comments, he was doing so in jest?
MR. McCLELLAN: Make what comments?
Q About allegedly bombing al Jazeera --
MR. McCLELLAN: Any such notion that we would engage in that kind of activity is just absurd.
Q Well, do you know if the comments were made?
MR. McCLELLAN: I don't know what comments you're referring to. I haven't seen any comments quoted.
Q Somebody said that they had a memo, or that they took notes during --
MR. McCLELLAN: Let me just repeat for you, Connie. Any such notion that America would do something like that is absurd.
Q They bomb them in Afghanistan then -- their office.
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry? Whose offices? The terrorist offices.
Q We bombed their office in Afghanistan, and killed their -- some of their people in --
MR. McCLELLAN: And the military talked about that. What are you suggesting? I hope you're not suggesting that they're targeting civilians, because that's just flat-out wrong.
Go ahead.
Q On the al Zarqawi family members who have banded against him, do you know if the United States is helping them now try to locate and find and capture their relatives?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not going to get into talking about any intelligence activities if that's what -- if you're asking questions relating to that.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
