|
|
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
October 9, 2001
Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
The James S. Brady Briefing Room
12:10 P.M. EDT
MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. The President this morning called President
Wade of Senegal. President Wade expressed his solidarity and support for the
global antiterrorism campaign that is launched by President Bush. The President
-- President Bush thanked President Wade for his support in this effort. And
President Wade expressed his powerful thought to the President about the
importance of bringing peace to the region. He said to the President that Islam
is a peaceful religion and that all democracies have a common cause in
eradicating terrorism.
The President, earlier this morning, convened a meeting of his National Security
Council, and he will meet with German Chancellor Schroeder at 3:00 p.m. in the
Oval Office.
A couple other updates for you for the day. State Department Spokesman Richard
Boucher will brief at 12:30 p.m. today. Secretary Rumsfeld of the Department of
Defense will brief at 1:00 p.m. today. And at 1:30 p.m. today, Dr. Condoleezza
Rice and Governor Ridge will announce additional efforts to coordinate our
American government's response and actions in the war on terrorism.
One final announcement. President Bush will welcome NATO Secretary General Lord
Robertson for a meeting tomorrow, October 10th, in the Oval Office.
And with that, I'm more than happy to take your questions.
Q Ari, should the American people be prepared next to see ground troops in
Afghanistan?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm just not going to discuss any of the operational aspects of
the campaign.
Q You're not ruling out the use of U.S. ground troops?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not discussing it. Obviously on that type of question, if
that were to be the case, that's information that those people who are fighting
us in Afghanistan would love to know. And I'm not going to provide it.
Q Can you tell us why the President decided to issue the memo to the key Cabinet
officials on secrecy? What prompted it, what individual leak, if you will?
MR. FLEISCHER: Let me read to you from the memo in question, which is a memo
that the President has sent to his members of the Cabinet who would routinely
brief Capitol Hill about matters relating to the military or relating to
intelligence. And reading from that memo directly it states that, this
administration will continue to work to inform the leadership of the Congress
about the course of and important developments in our military, intelligence and
law enforcement operations. At the same time, we have an obligation to protect
military operational security, intelligence sources and methods, and sensitive
law enforcement investigations.
And I think that says it all about the memo. It's an effort to make certain that
Congress has the information that it needs, while making certain that nobody is
put in a position where they inadvertently could give any information that could
harm anybody's life, as a very sensitive military campaign is underway.
Q Can you tell us what prompted the memo?
MR. FLEISCHER: It's an overall concern to make certain that information is
protected, to save lives, and not put anybody in danger.
Q Was there -- in general, but was there not a specific incident?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, rather than focus on any specific incident, it's a
reflection of the President's ongoing concern to make certain that nothing
classified is released inadvertently that could put anybody's life in danger.
Really, what's changed here since routine notification would go up to Capitol
Hill, are we are at war. And the price of an error is now too high. And the
President wants to make certain that all people in government are protected, so
that nobody can make any mistakes and put anybody else's life in danger.
Q Well, let me just follow up one more time. Was there not at least one incident
where the President was upset by what was said by a member of the Congress who
had received a classified briefing?
MR. FLEISCHER: Rather than harken back to any, if there was, one event, I think
it's best just to leave it as the President's overall concern. This is something
you've heard the Secretary of Defense talk about very publicly as well. It's an
ongoing concern from the administration to make certain that nothing classified
is inadvertently released that could put somebody's life in danger.
Q Has the administration opened an inquiry?
Q Does the President believe that Congress --
MR. FLEISCHER: No, the answer on that is no.
Q What was her question?
Q There's no inquiry on any leaks that might have already occurred?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct.
Q Does the President believe that Congress in particular is at risk for leaking
classified information?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, as you know, these warnings have gone out to everybody.
This is what we in the White House staff have been instructed, by the President,
this is information Secretary Rumsfeld has discussed it about his employees and
others in government. This applies to anybody who could possibly have classified
information.
The memo itself, of course, is directed at Congress. But you've heard this in
other ways about other government agencies, including our own White House.
Q So, does he believe that the Congress is not being well managed when it comes
to maintaining the secrecy of classified information?
MR. FLEISCHER: It's a reflection of the fact that our nation is now at war, and
the rules have changed. It's a reflection of the reality that disclosure of
information in a time of war is far different from an inadvertent disclosure at
a time of peace. It could literally mean the loss of lives of people who are
embarking on missions.
Q But, Ari, the last paragraph of that memo says the President notified the
leaders of the Congress of that decision. Those conversations have been
described as angry, animated, and that the President did cite a specific thing
he was very upset about. Do you dispute that?
MR. FLEISCHER: As I indicated, rather than focus on any one event that may or
may not have taken place, the President's concern is broad. That doesn't mean it
wasn't specific, but his concern is also broad.
Q Ari, does the release of information that there is certainty within
intelligence communities of another terrorist attack, does that constitute
putting people's lives in danger, or is that public information?
MR. FLEISCHER: You know, I'm not going to go down any potential line of things
that may or may not be classified, if that's what you're asking me to do. But I
think again, the memo speaks for itself.
Q Is that the kind of information you think should be classified?
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't discuss classifications. I don't make the decisions about
what information gets classified.
Q Ari, can I ask you about the anthrax? What is the latest the White House knows
about the investigation going on in Florida?
MR. FLEISCHER: The investigation in Florida is continuing through the FBI's
efforts, in coordination with Florida State Department Health officials, as well
as Centers for Disease Control.
The last information I have on this is that there has been no changes in the
state of Florida in terms of any additional information. So what is known right
now is there is one person who was diagnosed as having anthrax who died last
week. There is a second person who they have found -- I think the word is -- no,
it's the spores -- let me get you the precise word on what it is they have found
in one nostril for the second patient in Florida -- exposure. And it's an
important distinction, and that's why I wanted to make sure I go the precise
word out. I think the precise information is most helpful, suggesting exposure.
There was a report this morning which turned out apparently erroneous in
Northern Virginia. So what I think you're seeing is, as Secretary Thompson said
last Thursday, you're seeing a heightened sense of awareness, you're seeing
government officials do everything in the government's ability to get
information to the people on the ground, to answer all questions, and I think
also at a time like this, you're going to see increasing reports, because people
are becoming more sensitive, more aware, even if those reports deal with the flu
or with other symptoms.
Q Can I ask you a follow-up. Since so far the area seems to be circumscribed to
a certain country or a certain city in the state of Florida, are precautions
being taken that there is enough medicine around in case other people need to
start taking antibiotics, or --
MR. FLEISCHER: Secretary Thompson addressed that on Thursday last week, and he
said that there are sufficient supplies across the country that are positioned,
if necessary.
Q Nothing has come to anybody's attention that would indicate that it's
necessary?
Q NATO aircraft are patrolling on the East Coast or about to be;
radar planes. Is this the first time we've ever called on NATO to protect us
here at home? And why is this necessary? Is it a sign that the U.S. military is
overextended?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, one, it's a sign of cooperation with NATO. When NATO
invoked Article V, saying an attack one nation is an attack on all nations, it
means we're going to work together in whatever manner that the military in this
case thinks is the most effective manner to secure our national defenses, along
with our NATO allies.
DOD can give you more specific information about had it been done before and
exactly how it's going to work. The reports are -- I confirm the report is
accurate, but DOD can give you the more detailed information on it.
Q But is it because we are overextended, that we needed them to come here to
patrol our --
MR. FLEISCHER: I think DOD can give you the best answer about why they take the
steps they take in terms of the effectiveness.
Q Ari, can I go back to the other topic? The congressional leaders who are
allowed to be briefed, are they being instructed not to share information with
their colleagues on the Hill?
MR. FLEISCHER: They've been clearly told about the importance of keeping
information that is sensitive, treating it in a manner so it is not released.
Q So that he's not sharing it with other members of Congress? Are they
specifically being told that? Is it being limited to --
MR. FLEISCHER: Keith, I haven't heard every conversation that's been had with
every leader, so I can't answer that fully.
Q So, Ari, what is the response from some members of Congress who feel that
they're not being fully consulted, that they're being left out of the loop by
this?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, as the memo makes very plain, it still is important to
share information with the Congress, to discuss matters with the Congress, and
that still will be done. The question is, discussion of any information that is
of such a classified nature or is classified, that it would not be germane to
members who are not listed as the Speaker, the Minority Leader, the Majority
Leader or the chair of the ranking members of the Intelligence Committee.
Q So this memo does have the effect of dramatically limiting the number of eyes,
if you will, on Capitol Hill that can see this information?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct.
Q What I was getting at really is that you're not -- just to follow on that,
you're really not briefing Congress, you're basically just briefing about five
or six select members of Congress.
MR. FLEISCHER: It's quite clear, it's briefing the leaders of Congress.
Q Ari, there are other members of Congress, certainly, who are cleared to
receive classified information: the Chairman of the Foreign Relations and
International Affairs Committee --
MR. FLEISCHER: It's not a question of cleared to receive information, this is a
question about how the administration is going to work with Congress in the
dissemination of information that's classified.
Q Why wouldn't, for example, the leader -- the Chairman of the Foreign Relations
Committee, ranking member -- Armed Services ranking member -- why wouldn't they
be able to receive this information? Is there some --
MR. FLEISCHER: Because the President has made the determination that at a time
of war like this, he wants to make certain that every step is taken so that
there cannot be a loss of life as a result of an inadvertent release of
information. And therefore, the President has decided that he wants to make
certain that the agencies that report to him provide information in a fashion
that is a smaller circle to members of Congress.
Q Just to follow up, how can those committees and those committee chairmen do
their proper oversight if they don't get the information?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think they are able to do so, and that's why the information is
shared with the Intelligence Committee, as well as the leadership.
Q But Armed Services and Foreign Relations are directly responsible for
oversight of armed services and foreign relations. How can they be of help if
they don't have the information?
MR. FLEISCHER: Because not every aspect of their job deals with having immediate
information that of classified nature about what may be happening on a military
operation on an operational sense.
Q But Ari, connect the dots. A larger circle was being briefed initially. And
now you've restricted it to the four leaders plus the chairmen and ranking
members of the Intelligence Committee.
MR. FLEISCHER: Correct. Exactly right.
Q Was the assessment made that in the case of the Foreign Relations or the
International Relations Committee and the Armed Services Committee that the
chairmen and the ranking members or the other members could not be trusted?
MR. FLEISCHER: John, it's not a question of people not being trusted, as you put
it.
Q Then why pull back?
MR. FLEISCHER: It's a question of the determination made by the President that
in a time of war, the usual rules do not apply, and that the President is going
to err on the side of protecting lives, so that inadvertent information --
inadvertent release of information cannot occur.
Q I understand that point completely, but they were being briefed at the
beginning.
MR. FLEISCHER: And that requires necessarily a tightening of the circle about
who has access to all this information that I described. It does not mean that
members of Congress will not continue to receive information; they will continue
to receive information. And the President makes that perfectly plain in his memo
to the agencies when he said that we will continue to inform the leadership in
our critical military intelligence law enforcement operations.
But I remind you, even in peacetime, not every member of Congress had access to
every bit of classified information.
Q Yes, but you did pull back; that was John's point.
Q Because the President was not happy --
MR. FLEISCHER: Absolutely. I acknowledge it. It's plain as the memo reads --
Q You pulled back because the President was not happy?
MR. FLEISCHER: -- that the circle has been diminished, because the President is
going to make certain that every step is taken to protect lives from the
inadvertent release of information. That's correct.
Q And the upshot of it is that the conduct of the war policy and its oversight
is now being done by the Executive Branch and six members of Congress?
MR. FLEISCHER: The information-sharing on the matters that are described in this
memo will be available to six members of Congress -- actually, it's eight.
Q Sorry -- the congressional role of its contribution to the war policy and its
oversight is now going to have to fall into the hands of those eight people?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think the President is very satisfied with the sharing of
information and the decision he's made.
Q Does this cover information about the possibility of threats of attacks on
American soil, or is it just about overseas military?
MR. FLEISCHER: It's information that is classified in nature. I can read it to
you again, if you want -- consistent with --
Q Any classified information?
MR. FLEISCHER: Let me read -- I think you have copies of the memo, so you can
take a look and read it for yourself. But the memo makes clear it's classified
information.
Q It seems to be any classified information. So that's anything that the White
House decides should be classified and they don't want to share with Congress.
MR. FLEISCHER: The classification decisions are made by the appropriate
intelligence officials. And, again, the President is going to make certain that
this information is provided to the Congress so the people who need to know it
will have full ability to have it, and he wants to make certain that the circle
is diminished, so that nothing inadvertent can happen.
Q Isn't it a huge shift of power to the Executive Branch?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct -- that's what the President has decided.
Q Ari, is there any precedent -- did the White House Counsel's Office -- is
there any precedent for limiting the circle in wartime to this small, in terms
of briefing Congress?
MR. FLEISCHER: I would have to check with some historians. I can't tell you of
the top of my head.
Q Gulf War, World War II -- any time when so few members of the elected
leadership of this representative government have been informed of the
operations of the Executive Branch?
MR. FLEISCHER: I very much appreciate your desire to have a large group as
possible of people who have this information, but I've said about all I'm going
to say on this topic. The President has done this for a reason, the President
stands by it, and it's the right thing to do, in the President's opinion. And
that's why he's done it. He is aware of the types of questions you're going to
ask about this, but the President has done it deliberately, because this is a
time of war and in his judgment, this is the best way to save lives and protect
lives of the people that he is putting in harm's way in the course of this war.
Yes, this is a determined decision by the President.
Q It's very hard to argue with the idea of saving lives, but there's another
principle at work here as well, as you're well aware. And that is the oversight
that is usually provided by Congress.
MR. FLEISCHER: I think we have exhausted this topic. This is about a half an
hour briefing. We can spend all half hour on it if you like. I'll be here for
that.
Q Pakistan's president has said he expects the military action of bombing runs
to be brief. Is he speaking from knowledge? Is he voicing his hopes? Is he
trying to tamp down dissent within his country?
MR. FLEISCHER: Wendell, I can't give you my analysis of his reasons. I don't
speak for the President of Pakistan. Suffice it to say, anything dealing with
operational issues like that, I'm not going to indicate how long something may
or may not last.
Q Ari, you mentioned at the gaggle, for the record, can you tell us -- Vice
President Cheney, he's still not at the White House? Is there a time he may
return? How is he being kept abreast of what's happening here?
MR. FLEISCHER: The Vice President remains at a secure location where he is fully
and completely informed of all events and is participating. And we will try to
keep you informed on a daily basis.
Q Participating -- he participates in the meetings that are taking place here
through special --
MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct.
Q Ari, is this part of an ongoing pro forma precaution, or there some specific
credible threat that is keeping --
MR. FLEISCHER: It's ongoing as general. As you can notice just by walking around
the White House, security is tight, and this is a time of war. I know that every
day, everybody in this room and all of us, too, who work here come in and
there's a certain normalcy to the routine, even in war time. But it's very
important for everybody in this room and for all people to remember it remains a
time of war.
And threats remain -- and the tragedy about what took place on September 11th,
beyond the loss of lives and the disruptions to so many of us, is that with one
exception, on December 7th, 1941, this is the first time our nation has been hit
by action of this nature in 150 years or so. And it has changed things. And that
is why these steps have been taken. And this is a time of war, and it is a time
to take all proper precautions.
Q Are other continuation of war protocols --
Q Vice President's traveling --
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm sorry?
Q Can you rule out that the Vice President is traveling on any kind of mission
out of the country?
MR. FLEISCHER: I can rule that out.
Q You use the phrase so often, this is a time of war. Has there been a formal
declaration of war? Is it necessary? How much further would American society
change if there was a formal declaration?
MR. FLEISCHER: There has not been, and I can't speculate about how much further
it would change.
Q Could I return you to the general subject of anthrax for a second? Separate
and apart from the Florida case, whether or not this may be terrorism or
something else, during the Gulf War, you'll recall, there was a very specific
warning given to Saddam Hussein that if he used chemical, biological weapons,
the response may also with a weapon of mass destruction or some kind of
proportionate response. It was meant as a dis-incentive. Is there any plan afoot
to issue any kind of similar warning to al Qaeda on that issue?
MR. FLEISCHER: David, I'm not going to discuss anything involving our
operational details. The President has said he will give the military the tools
they need to get their job done, and he will.
Q Ari, would you help those of us with deadlines prior to this 1:30 p.m. event,
by telling us what Richard Clarke's mandate is, and how what he'll be doing is
different than what he's doing now?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think you already have that in writing. We, I believe,
distributed that already. And there will be an announcement made by Governor
Ridge and Dr. Condoleezza Rice about additional steps to protect America's
homeland defense and take action in the war on terrorism. General Wayne Downing
will be announced as a National Director and Deputy National Security Advisor
for combatting terrorism, and Richard Clarke will be announced as a Special
Advisor for -- to the President for Cyberspace Security.
Q Ari, what does that job entail? What will he be doing?
MR. FLEISCHER: Cyberspace security involves coordinating efforts to restore and
prevent disruptions to critical information systems. And you'll have plenty of
information on that forthcoming in about half an hour or so, a little more than
that.
Q One of the major grievances of our British allies against the Taliban is over
drug smuggling. The British have said that the majority of the heroin that finds
its way onto British streets comes from Afghanistan. Is that a particular target
of what we're doing? Are we trying to do things that are aimed at curbing or
perhaps even eliminating the drugs emanating from Afghanistan?
MR. FLEISCHER: At this stage, the only way I can answer that question is,
anything dealing with targets you need to talk to DOD about.
Q Well, I'm talking about policy though. I'm not asking about specific targets.
As a matter of policy, are we trying to deal with this British grievance by
doing things that --
MR. FLEISCHER: The American government's position, longstanding, about the
importance of diminishing supply of drugs remains unchanged. That is always a
concern, even in time of war.
Q Are we trying to do things --
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, there you have to talk to DOD.
Q Ari, do you have an update on how much in financial assets have been seized
from the al Qaeda organization?
MR. FLEISCHER: I do not. That will be from Treasury.
Q I believe this morning you said you would check on how casualties are being
tracked here. Do you have any new information about that?
MR. FLEISCHER: I do not have any information about that. I think that, again,
will be something from DOD.
Q There are other continuation of government protocols, in addition to keeping
the Vice President away -- like keeping the members of the Cabinet out of
Washington at all times, a member of the congressional leadership out of
Washington at all times. Are those still in effect, as well?
MR. FLEISCHER: Not that I'm aware of. I have not gotten any information on that.
Cabinet members often do travel, but I have not heard anything about that, John.
And Congress is coming back this week, but that's a question to them; I don't
know.
Q One of the things the President and other administration officials, including
the Attorney General, have said is that it's time for Americans to be vigilant.
About what? What should they look for?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, this is a question that I've been asked repeatedly, and the
answer remains the same. When the President says that and the Attorney General
says that, it's a message to not only individuals, but also the law enforcement
community, broadly writ. And that means local police officers, local fire
officials -- there are all kinds of jurisdictions in this country where that can
be a very helpful statement, where they can be the eyes and ears of the
communities locally to make certain that if they see anything that they
recognize as a suspicious activity in their community, that they can be vigilant
to make certain that all protections are taken.
And that's another reflection of what the President means when he says that this
is a different kind of war, a war on terrorism. Again, it's not as if our worry
is going to be that a foreign nation is going to launch a fleet that's heading
toward our shores. This is much more insidious. This can be individuals, this
can be small numbers of people. And that's what makes it terrorism. And that's
why law enforcement plays a very important role in it.
Q For people getting back to their lives -- going to the mall, going to ball
games, things like that -- what should they be looking for? What constitutes a
suspicious activity?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think you really need to have the Department of Justice get
into that. They are the ones who are in charge of law enforcement. From the
President's point of view, it's a reminder to the law enforcement community,
which is already on alert, to maintain that sense of vigilance. And I think
people take a sense of comfort from knowing that, you can see it in the streets
around many cities as the National Guard is out. Again, it's just another
reminder that the previous wars, they were wars that we fought abroad, and this
time it's a war that could have implications back at home.
Q Ari, this is the third day of attacks. Has the President given each day the
order of attack? Or has he given a blank agreement to his generals to conduct --
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, if you remember in the speech to the nation on Sunday, the
President said that he has ordered targeted actions to disrupt the use of
Afghanistan as a base of terrorist operations, and to attack the military
capability of the Taliban regime and to destroy the terrorist training camps.
The President has given the military its mission. And that is its mission in
this case. And they are carrying it out and, as they carry it out, the
President, of course, as I mention every morning, he has a National Security
Council meeting -- it's discussed with the President. So he concurs in the
actions that are taken, full knowledge of the actions that are taken.
But if you're asking me, is the President micro-managing what's going on,
clearly, he's not. The military has its mission.
Q Ari, how will we know when those goals that you mentioned -- harming the
Taliban military and disrupting the use of the terrorism that emanates from
there -- how will we know when those goals are met, specifically?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think that's one of the reasons that the Secretary of Defense
is out briefing every day. He will be in a position to keep you apprised of the
status of the military campaign.
Q I don't want the status of the campaign. I'm wondering how we'll know when
specific goals that are outlined are met? These goals seem rather nebulous to me
that you've outlined, and I really don't understand how we're going to know when
we're supposed to stop bombing the Taliban.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, for example when I said the destruction of the terrorist
training camps, that's something that you're going to be able to hear from
Secretary Rumsfeld as events develop. When I talked about what the President
said, part of the mission is to attack the military capacity of the Taliban
regime, I noted some stories on the wires already suggesting that there have
been defections in the ranks of the Taliban. So I think there are going to be
continual signs of success, and you will see them.
Q But signs, but we could attack -- we could, I suppose there will probably be a
few guns that are left after a couple months. I mean, when we do we stop
specifically attacking the Taliban military? When is it enough? I don't hear a
clearly defined goal here. I hear a goal, but I don't hear one that's clearly
defined where we know when it's over.
MR. FLEISCHER: Keith, this is likely to last for a long time. And throughout the
process, the Secretary of Defense, officials at the White House, the President,
the Vice President, others, will continue to talk to the American people, to
share their reflections on the status of the campaign.
Q On that, Ari, then President Musharraf is wrong?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm sorry?
Q On that Pakistani President Musharraf is wrong.
MR. FLEISCHER: Your question to me was specifically about a statement made by
President Musharraf dealing with air operations.
Q Yesterday, you said that Osama bin Laden is but one man. And we now also have
a letter to the UN which clearly implies that we're on the verge of a much
broader campaign. How much more quickly are we going to get into that campaign?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, the letter to the U.N., as I think was reported yesterday, is
in accordance with the United States' obligations under Article 51, which grants
the United States and other nations the right to self defense, in accordance
with the UN Charter. And that's the purpose of the letter. And the letter of
course said that the United States will reserve the right to act in self
defense, as we see fit. And that could or could not involve other nations. But
that's not an unusual letter. That's been -- a letter of a similar nature has
been sent by many nations when they invoke their Article 51 rights.
Q If I can just return to Wendell's point here. You have just told us this is
going to be long, including with the Taliban, we have every reason to believe.
If I go back to the wording of General Musharraf yesterday, he said that he had
received, "definite assurances that the military strikes would be short targeted
and without major civilian casualties." Do you know who could have provided him
with those assurances?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm reiterating to you what the President has said on numerous
occasions, what you've heard from the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense
about the duration of the campaign.
Q My question, Ari, is did anybody give -- anybody to your knowledge, senior
officials of the United States, give any such assurances to General Musharraf?
MR. FLEISCHER: Not to my knowledge. but again, I think the question as it was
originally put to me was, why did General Musharraf say this, and I think you
have to address that to General Musharraf.
Q Would you just take as a question and go back so you can figure out for us if
somebody, in the course of communicating with him, might have left him with this
impression or misimpression? He has already said what he believes --
MR. FLEISCHER: I am not going to get into operational details about the lengths
of various individual missions of that nature. I'm more than happy to discuss
with you the overall objectives of it as the President has enunciated them.
Q I'm not asking you to tell us lengths; we're asking you to find out if a
senior American official or the President gave an assurance to General Musharraf.
MR. FLEISCHER: David, that's another way of trying to ascertain an operational
detail.
Q But, Ari, if I could follow on that, I gave you a couple of options.
(Laughter.) Clearly, he could be speaking to these people. There are
sensitivities there that he wants to deal with and it would be understandable if
you were speaking to his people. It would also be understandable if you were
reluctant to tell us military operations, the duration of such.
MR. FLEISCHER: So you're asking me to tell you the duration of the military
operation? (Laughter.)
Q No, I'm not asking you the duration of any military operations. I'm asking you
to tell us, is Musharraf speaking to his people? Is he trying to deal with the
reaction within Pakistan?
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't speak for any foreign leaders.
Q Is the President going to do anything this week to get is economic stimulus
package through Congress?
MR. FLEISCHER: Congress comes back today and it is going to be an ongoing topic
of conversation with the congressional leaders. The President does still
strongly believe that it's very important to take action to help our economy so
that it can grow and recover from the current economic conditions.
So the answer is, yes, and we'll see, as a result of the efforts made with the
congressional leaders, how quickly it can move.
Q When does he expect to meet with them next?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm sorry?
Q Is he having breakfast with the leadership again?
MR. FLEISCHER: We'll have something out as soon as there is something final.
But, yes, you can anticipate another meeting with the congressional leaders
likely this week. But, again, once it's final, I'll let you know.
Q Going back to this letter. Apparently, a lot of these congressional leaders,
or the congressional persons, were given this information because many people in
the White House and in the Cabinet felt that they had some kind of critical
input. Now that the circle has been closed, the input has been stifled somewhat.
Do you think that it could hurt the mission that you're trying to accomplish
right now by closing the circle?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President does not think that.
Q But I know you say it's going to -- this inadvertent information that's going
out and you want to prevent the loss of life, but those congress persons that
were told in the beginning, they were told for a reason, for their critical
input.
MR. FLEISCHER: And they're still being told. The leadership is still being told.
Q But it was other than those eight, prior to.
MR. FLEISCHER: You know, I'm not aware of exactly how widespread briefings were
prior to it. But the President's memo speaks for itself on this topic and I
think we've covered it extensively at the beginning of the briefing.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
END
12:40 P.M. EDT