| The White House President George W. Bush |
Print this document |
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
October 5, 2001
Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
The James S. Brady Briefing Room
12:15 P.M. EDT
MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. I want to give you a rundown on the
President's events for the day. The President this morning spoke with Prime
Minister Meles of Ethiopia. The President thanked the Prime Minister for his
letter of condolences, and his offer to cooperate in the campaign against
terrorism. President Bush discussed his doctrine to take action against
terrorists and their sanctuaries. He proposed further talks on concrete actions
and cooperation between the United States and Ethiopia.
Prime Minister Meles assured President Bush of Ethiopia's support over the long
haul of the campaign. He said he understood the President's strategy, and
confirmed Ethiopia was ready to play its role.
The President also, this morning, spoke with President Moi of Kenya. President Moi offered his condolences to President Bush and to the American people, and
expressed his understanding of the cost of terrorist acts, having dealt with the
1998 attack on the United States Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya.
President Bush thanked the President for his understanding and his offer to work
closely with the United States to win this battle against terrorism. President
Bush emphasized the need for cooperation on many fronts -- financial,
intelligence, diplomatic and military. He suggested further talks between the
United States and Kenya on how to meet these challenges ahead.
President Bush also recognized that Kenya lives in a tough neighborhood with
others that harbor terrorists, and he acknowledged that President Moi's
leadership on the Sudan, and told President Moi that he should soon expect a
visit from Sudan's Special Envoy, Senator Danforth, a man respected across the
United States who is acting on the President's behalf.
Following his phone calls, the President convened a meeting of the National
Security Council earlier this morning. And he will meet shortly, this afternoon,
with President Shevardnadze of Georgia to discuss bilateral relations and other
regional issues. And he will depart for Camp David in the midafternoon, and he
will be at Camp David for the weekend. There will be other events, and I'll have
a week ahead at the conclusion of this briefing.
Q Ari, would you tell us what the President's reaction was to Prime Minister
Sharon's comments yesterday?
MR. FLEISCHER: Yesterday, Prime Minister Sharon issued a statement in which he
said that the United States should not repeat the mistakes of the West in 1938,
and appease the Arabs at Israeli expense. He said, "Do not try to appease the
Arabs at our expense," warning that Israel, "will not be Czechoslovakia." And
the President believes that these remarks are unacceptable.
Israel can have no better or stronger friend than the United States, and better
friend than President Bush. President Bush is an especially close ally of
Israel. The United States has been and will continue to work very hard to
support peace in the Middle East, to press the parties to end the violence and
return to a political dialogue. And that will continue to be the goals and the
policies of the United States.
Q Can I follow up on that? First of all, how is -- it's pretty -- to call that
unacceptable is a pretty strong response from you publicly and from the
President. How is that sentiment being communicated to Prime Minister Sharon?
Will the President -- or has he called him? And what more, then, do you think
needs to be done now by the President, by this administration, to work with
Israel or communicate the goals and bring Israel a little bit closer into this
effort?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President's message was conveyed in three ways. It was
conveyed through the embassy in Israel, it was conveyed through the National
Security Council, and it was conveyed through the State Department. Secretary
Powell has spoken with the Prime Minister.
But in terms -- you ask basically what comes next. What comes next is, the
President hopes, a rededication of all the parties to achieving peace in the
Middle East. I repeat, Israel has no better friend than the United States.
Israel will continue to have no better friend than the United States.
Q But my question was, evidently Prime Minister Sharon may not feel that way or
the moment, or is feeling something that leads him to make comments that he did.
So what does the President have to do or the administration have to do to bring
Israel on board in this coalition, perhaps in a way that has been done before?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, this is a statement in regard to the Middle East peace
process. This is not part of the broader coalition exercise involving terrorism
and the events of September 11th. The statement, though, David, speaks for
itself. The President has conveyed his message. He's conveyed it privately, he
conveyed it publicly. The statement speaks for itself, and what comes next is
the importance of reaffirming the peace process in Israel so that violence can
be diminished.
Q Has the President talked to the Prime Minister? If not, why not? And what did
the Secretary of State say in his conversation?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President has not. As always, anytime calls are made, I will
try to give you information. But the Secretary spoke to the Prime Minister about
the importance of returning to the peace process, and made clear the reaction of
the President to the statements the Prime Minister had made.
Q Why didn't the President make that call himself?
MR. FLEISCHER: This was the appropriate manner in which to get the message
across.
Q You said that the premise of the statement was unacceptable. What's the
President's opinion of the particular historical reference that Sharon picked?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think it speaks for itself, John, in reference to appeasement.
Israel has no better friend than the United States, and will continue to have no
better friend than the United States.
Q Does the President believe that terrorists around the world get support,
succor, funding, in part because of Israeli policies of occupation, settlement
and reprisal and U.S. support for those policies? And as part of the campaign
against terrorism, does the President believe those policies and U.S. support
for them must change?
MR. FLEISCHER: You know, terrorism exists in the world in all kinds of shapes,
forms, and I think it's sad to say, but if a beautiful and perfect lasting peace
were brought to the Middle East today, terrorism would still exist in this
world. And the President is committed in the wake of the attacks on our country
on September 11th to take this campaign against those terrorists and against
those who continue to harbor terrorists.
Q But in understanding the phenomenon of terrorism in order to combat it, are
Israel's policies part of the problem?
MR. FLEISCHER: Terry, peace in the Middle East is intrinsically good, in its own
merits, on its own, regardless of anything else that is happening in the world.
And that's why the President feels so strongly that in the wake of this attack,
it's important for people in the region to seize this opportunity and recommit
themselves to the peace process.
Q One more on this. Have the events of September 11th brought more urgency or
changed the U.S. -- the administration's approach to the peace process in the
Middle East?
MR. FLEISCHER: No. The American policy toward peace in the Middle East is just
as strongly committed to the peace process and is identical to the policies
established prior to September 11th as it is today. Those events have not
changed American policy.
Q Are you seeking an apology from Prime Minister Sharon or some sort of a public
statement from him explaining what he meant?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, Steve, I think the statement speaks for itself. The message
has been conveyed, both privately and publicly.
Q Ari, can you tell us what message the Prime Minister communicated to Secretary
of State --
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I don't speak for foreign leaders.
Q Can I just follow up, too? An aide to the Prime Minister is saying today that
the Prime Minister did not imply in any way that America and its leaders were
dealing in a dishonorable way; what the Prime Minister intended was to make a
warning to everyone, including ourselves, but especially to the leaders of the
free world that appeasement never works. Your response to that clarification?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, the President's statement speaks for itself.
Q Ari, President Bush will be meeting shortly with the President of Georgia Eduard Shevardnadze, who was the foreign minister of the Soviet Union and I
believe a strong supporter of pulling Russian troops out of Afghanistan. Is this
something that will be discussed, Afghanistan, in great detail?
MR. FLEISCHER: The meeting will begin in just about an hour, and I'll be there
and I'll try to let you know after the meeting is over.
Q Ari, is it the administration's understanding that these remarks by Sharon
were prompted by the talk of an eventual Palestinian state? Or is it something
aimed at our efforts to build a coalition among Arab states, even some who were
previously supporters of terrorism?
MR. FLEISCHER: Jim, I can't divine the reasons that foreign leaders say what
they say; it's not my place to do so. But I do note that what the President said
about the end of a negotiated settlement, the vision has always included, of
course, the Palestinian state, so long as the right of Israel to exist in peace
and security is also recognized. That's very similar to what Prime Minister
Sharon himself said on September 24th.
So the Prime Minister himself said, Israel wants to give the Palestinians what
no one else has given them, the possibility of establishing a state. So their
remarks on that question are similar, actually.
Q That's what makes me wonder if it is related to something other than those
remarks. Did the Israeli government, in any way, convey the meaning of what he
said in public to the United States?
MR. FLEISCHER: There is no other information I have on it. The remarks were as
you've heard them from the Prime Minister.
Q Ari, to also follow up, is the administration saying at this point it would be
better for Israel to reduce the size or close down some of the settlements,
which many Israelis approve of, and also to retreat to some sort of fortress
Israel?
MR. FLEISCHER: That is all part of the Mitchell Accords. And the Mitchell
Accords discuss the eventual other items that come with political talks, but it
begins with security. And it's hard to get to that point until the cease-fire
can be enforced in the Middle East, and that the parties agree to pursue peace.
But the American position is unchanged that the settlement policy is unhelpful.
Q But some Israelis even believe that the settlements detract from the security
of Israel, of Israel proper.
MR. FLEISCHER: I just enunciated what American policy is on it.
Q Ari, congressional intelligence committees have been told by intelligence
sources that there is a 100 percent likelihood of a retaliatory strike against
the United States by terrorists should we go into Afghanistan. This
administration has sent out some mixed messages of the possibility of an attack
in the past week saying that it was likely, dialing back from that. Do you agree
that there is a 100 percent likelihood of attack if we go into Afghanistan?
MR. FLEISCHER: What John is referring to is a statement that was made at a
classified briefing, as was explained in one of the newspapers this morning.
And, obviously, any time something is a part of a classified briefing, I think
people don't know everything else that was discussed in the briefing; they don't
have the full context of what was discussed. Obviously, one item of a classified
briefing was provided.
Suffice it to say, the threat remains, and that's what the President has always
said. There is a threat in the United States. I can't quantify that threat, but
the President has made clear and has spoken forthrightly with the American
people. In the wake of an attack that none of us saw specific information
related to, it is important to note that threats remain.
That's also why the President is so determined to pursue the course that the
United States and so many other nations are on, which is to take action against
the terrorists and against those who continue to harbor the terrorists, because
that is the best way to protect and prevent further attacks to the American
people. That's also a reminder of the importance in the Congress of passing
legislation that gives the law enforcement community more tools that it needs,
so they can prevent any such attacks.
Q Since this particular piece of intelligence is out there in the open now, can
you say that the President was given those same indications?
MR. FLEISCHER: John, I don't discuss any intelligence information provided to
the President.
Q Do you have any comments -- a letter from the Prime Minister of India to
President Bush over the suicide car bombing in India? Over 35 people died. What
the Prime Minister said to President Bush in letter that this is the same group
which is based in Pakistan, and they have claimed responsibility and they are --
to Osama bin Laden and they have said that they are the --
MR. FLEISCHER: The bombing you're referencing? Say it again? The Kashmir
bombing, right.
Q And, also, when Foreign Minster was here this week, he also said at the State
Department that Afghanistan and Pakistan are the principal exporters of
terrorism, and they have the groups based in Pakistan, and they claimed all the
responsibility. They are opposed to Osama bin Laden and Taliban.
And same thing on Capitol Hill last week when I went for a prayer service
sponsored by the Senators and Congressmen, a group of Pakistanis here also said
that they are the freedom fighters. How can the terrorists can be freedom
fighters?
MR. FLEISCHER: When the President met with Foreign Minister Singh of India
earlier this week, the President directly condemned the terrorist attack in
Kashmir. And the President has said, terrorism must end everywhere, and that
includes in Kashmir. So the President made that very clear, directly himself, to
the Indian Foreign Minister.
Q Ari, as we know, there are many countries of the Middle East that are
reluctant partners to any possible military action by the United States against
terrorism. On his recent trip -- just concluding now, obviously -- the President
has spoken with Secretary Rumsfeld. Is the President satisfied that, one, Saudi
Arabia is now fully backing the United States and its ability to launch strikes
on one of its air bases or more and, also, if it can use its big command and
control facility?
And, two, in Uzbekistan, is the President satisfied that the President of
Uzbekistan is giving the support that the United States would like?
MR. FLEISCHER: The answer is yes on both fronts. The President, from the first
day, has been very satisfied with the actions of the Saudi government and the
Saudi people. And on the question of Uzbekistan, again, throughout the world,
the cooperation and the help that the United States has been getting on a whole
series of actions -- some that involve political action, some that involve
diplomatic action, some that involve information or intelligence-sharing, others
that involve things military -- the President has been very encouraged by the
reactions around the world, including those two nations.
Q Were you confirming, then, his question, including is Saudi Arabia letting us
use the command and control center and their bases?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I said the President is satisfied with all actions. I'm not
going to go down list by list, operation by operation. As you know, I don't
discuss any of those matters.
Q Ari, there are people on the Hill who want to give Governor Ridge -- if he's
still governor -- more authority by making the position a confirmable position.
Why would the White House oppose something like that?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President just doesn't see the need for it. It's just not
necessary. The office can get up and running, and will be, on Monday, without
needing to take that step. Now, Governor Ridge will be a member of the Cabinet
and will play a very valuable role in coordinating the various agencies that
have been involved in the fight against terrorism. And it's just not necessary.
Similar to the National Security Council. Dr. Rice has done a very good job, of
course, for this country. She's not Senate-confirmed. It is not a necessary
prerequisite for a government official to do a good job on behalf of the
President and on behalf of the war against terrorism. There is no need for it.
Q If I can just follow on that, specifically, should Governor Ridge have the
power to have control over the spending on terrorism in other agencies' budgets,
there's also -- that's part of the proposal on the Hill.
MR. FLEISCHER: At the time that the office is formally put in place next week --
and I'll get to this in the week ahead -- you will receive information about the
office and you'll hear more at that time next week. So that will be addressed in
time.
Q Can I follow on that, Ari? The President has to issue some type of executive
order though, right, setting up the office and outlining Ridge's
responsibilities?
MR. FLEISCHER: As I indicated, there will be additional information forthcoming
at the time that the office begins next week.
Q So when will that executive order -- if it starts Monday, it has to come
before Monday.
MR. FLEISCHER: Or on Monday.
Q Ari, could I return to something you discussed yesterday at some length, which
was the release by Prime Minister Blair of the document? You said to us a few
times during the past few weeks that you were concerned that there was no way to
release a sanitized version of a white paper or whatever you'd like to call it,
without revealing sources and methods. Prime Minister Blair released a paper, we
all learned some new facts from it. From your review of that, have you concluded
that the British government revealed American sources and methods or anybody's
sources and methods?
MR. FLEISCHER: You know, the government, as any government of the United Kingdom
or any another nation, is free to do as it sees fit. And that's -- we talked to
the government of Britain about that prior to the release of their document. And
their document speaks for itself.
Q That wasn't the question. I didn't ask for -- the question was, having
reviewed the document that came out, have you now concluded that they
jeopardized sources and methods in what they delineated in the document?
MR. FLEISCHER: The manner in which that document was released provides no
difficulties for the United States.
Q So if it was possible then to turn out a document that did not reveal sources
and methods, why couldn't the United States have done that?
MR. FLEISCHER: As I indicated, different governments do different things for
different reasons. And we're pleased to see what they've done.
Q Just to make sure I understand what you're saying here, in the end, then, it
was a question of desire, not a question of whether or not you could have done
it without revealing sources and methods?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think as you take a careful look at the document that was
released, much of it pertains to events in the past, not directly related to the
events of September 11th. And it's a very constructive document in all regards.
Q Ari, yesterday you wouldn't say whether there was any consultation between the
White House and the Blair administration about that document --
MR. FLEISCHER: No, what I indicated yesterday was I had to look into it and find
out.
Q And so was that confirmation, what you said just now, that there was, in fact,
consultation --
MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct.
Q -- over the language?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's what State Department indicated yesterday, and that's
exactly what I just said.
Q Consultation over the language?
MR. FLEISCHER: Consultation over the preparation of the document. We talk all
the time and share information all the time with foreign nations. But the
document was prepared by the United Kingdom. We were consulted in the process.
Q Can I just follow on one point of that? You say that different governments to
different things for different reasons. What were Britain's reasons? And do they
differ at all from the United States' intentions here? I mean, aren't we kindred
spirits here?
MR. FLEISCHER: The United States -- it's harder to imagine being any more
shoulder-to-shoulder than the United States and Britain have been and continue
to be.
Q Okay. So what different reason would there be --
MR. FLEISCHER: I think that's a way of saying you need to check with foreign
governments for them to explain what they do. I appreciate the opportunity to be
the spokesman for several different nations this morning --
Q Be a spokesman for our government, then. Tell me why our government let
Britain release this information and, more importantly, why didn't our
government release this information to --
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, first of all, you suggest we let Britain do that. That's
not the case. Governments are sovereign and governments take actions as they see
fit and appropriate. And as I indicated, this reading of the document here is
it's a constructive document. But as I indicated, different governments to
different things, different nations in the coalition will do different things in
the course of the coalition efforts.
Q Why did we not object to Britain releasing this information, and why did this
government not tell -- give Americans the same information? Why did it have to
come from Britain, why not the White House?
MR. FLEISCHER: Because different nations do different things for different
reasons, just as I indicated.
Q Yes, but speak for this country and tell me why this country decided not to --
MR. FLEISCHER: Because I think the document that the people in this room are
looking for -- which I must point out, I'm not sure that there's a clamor from
the American people; the American people seemed very satisfied with the evidence
that has been discussed in front of the American people. So, too, our allies. So
to isolate it, I think the issue is for people in this room that if you were to
see such a document produced by the American government, you would quickly say,
how do you know this. And the only answer to those questions are to get into
sources and methods. And that's just something that we are not going to do.
Q Ari, as has been stated in The Washington Post and also from the podium and
the President, threats still exist about possible terrorist activity. Well, one
of the issues that's been discussed in Congress is airport security. There seems
to be a gap between what Senate Leader Tom Daschle is saying and Senate Minority
Leader Trent Lott is saying. And I wonder if the President feels the difference
can be bridged, or does he side with Senator Lott?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President does believe that differences can be bridged. And
the President also recognizes that in all matters domestic, there are going to
be, inevitably, disputes. There are going to be differences between Democrats
and Republicans, sometimes Democrats and Democrats, other times Republicans and
Republicans. And so on the domestic agenda, the President will continue to push
for a package of aviation security steps.
He already, as you know, has taken a series of actions to increase the number of
air marshals, to strengthen cockpit doors, to have the National Guard deployed
at various airports. So a series of actions have already been taken on aviation
safety. There are additional actions that Congress can take, and the President
is going to continue to work with Congress on that.
Q Senator Lott has said he wants no riders, he wants like a straight bill. At
this stage it seems Senator Daschle has his own point of view and his Democratic
colleague. And now the project has been pushed until next week, and it may even
be delayed. Is the President willing to try to get sides together?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President shares the concern about attaching extraneous items
to a bill that should focus on aviation security; so the President shares that
concern.
Q In the wake of the Pan Am 103 disaster, I believe it was, the U.S. government
put into effect a policy of no double standard as far as terrorist threats go --
whatever some people in the government are told, the entire general public
should be warned about it at the same time. Is that policy still in effect, and
can you explain why the executive branch would feel it's appropriate to tell
members of Congress that there is 100 percent threat of -- 100 percent
likelihood of future terrorist action here and not to give the same warning to
the American people?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, again, I think I addressed that topic earlier when I told
you that, obviously, one item has purported to have been released from a
classified briefing. Other items took place in a classified setting that can put
context around information. So my answer to that is exactly as I answered some
15 minutes ago.
Q But aren't the American people entitled -- you're saying the American people
are not entitled to the same information about the overall level of threat that
is being given to the members of Congress in classified briefings?
MR. FLEISCHER: If you're asking me, do people who don't have classified
briefings have the ability to receive classified information -- as you know, the
government has classified information that is shared with the Intelligence
Committee. And I think that's another very, very clever way of saying, will I
release classified information; I will not.
Q Well, no, -- the level of threat cannot be a classified fact. I don't see how
that could be classified. Does it reveal sources or methods to say what the
level of threat is?
MR. FLEISCHER: Yesterday's briefing, in its entirety, was a classified briefing.
Q Wait a second. I mean, that doesn't make any sense to me. You're saying the
level of threat, to tell the American people what threat they're under right now
would revel classified information?
MR. FLEISCHER: I've discussed the level of threat. I have said as forthrightly
as is possible and you've heard it from the President, you've heard it from
everybody in the administration, that a threat remains. If you're asking me to
quantify that threat, I'm not able to do that. And that's what you're asking me
to do. You're asking me to put a number on a threat, and I'm not in a position
to do that.
Q Why aren't you in a position? If they did it for Congress, why can't you do it
here for the American people?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, you're presuming that from the story this morning. I'm not
going to discuss anything that may or may not have taken place in a classified
session.
Q But, Ari, isn't it a responsibility of the President to, if he is going to
lead this nation against terrorism, he needs to be square with the American
people and say, when we attack, we expect a reasonable probability that we are
going to be attacked, ourselves, so we have to prepare for that as Americans?
MR. FLEISCHER: John, I don't think the President can be any more forthright than
he has been. He has said to the American people from the beginning that this is
going to be a different type of war and that the American people have to be
prepared that the threat remains.
The President has also said that this will not be as antiseptic as previous
wars, that the American people have to prepare for casualties in this war. The
President had said that in his address to the Congress. So there have been a
series of things where the President has said, and the administration standard
will continue to be forthright release of information, filling the American
people in. And that's exactly what has been done.
But the line that you're trying to draw is trying to get me to discuss anything
that may or may not be classified, and I'm not going to do that. I don't know
any other way to say it, that the threats remain.
Q No, I'm not trying to get you to discuss something that's classified. I'm just
saying, does the President not have a responsibility to sit down and tell the
American people it's very likely we're going to be attacked when we begin
hostilities?
MR. FLEISCHER: John, the American people have heard that message from the
President, that threats remain.
Q Not that directly, though.
Q Not like this.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, you're asking if there's anything specific or credible. And
the President will, whenever there is a way to share information with the public
that is helpful to the public, he will continue to provide it.
Q I'm not asking if there is anything specific and credible -- that case has
already been made to the intelligence committee, is that there is something
specific and credible. I'm saying, as the President, does he not need to tell
that to the American people?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President will continue to share information with the
American people.
Q Ari, twice now the President has said -- once I believe at FEMA and once
yesterday -- that 150 members of the al Qaeda organization have been rounded up.
Is he talking about domestic arrests or international arrests?
MR. FLEISCHER: Let me find out about that Terry. He said at FEMA -- he talked
about 150 terrorists, and then he paused and said people associated with the al
Qaeda organization. Let me try to find out if he means domestic
or --
Q Yes, and he reiterated that yesterday.
MR. FLEISCHER: Right, that's correct. He said that same figure at FEMA as he
said -- I believe it was yesterday at the State Department.
Q And I'm just wondering what the basis for that is?
MR. FLEISCHER: We'll find out.
Q Well, he did though -- I just want to follow that. He did -- in FEMA, he
talked about 150 terrorists or those supporting terrorists. He never mentioned
specifically al Qaeda, I believe. Yesterday is when he said 150 terrorists
associated with the al Qaeda organization, which is a big difference.
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, he said just as I put it. He said, "150 terrorists, people
associated with the al Qaeda organization."
Q So the position is?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'll take the question and get back to you.
Q Ari, the Ways and Means Chairman rescheduled a vote on trade promotion
authority today. I'm wondering, does the White House think that the House should
move more slowly on that legislation, maybe in the interests of not creating
divisiveness over that?
MR. FLEISCHER: The White House believes that trade promotion authority should be
moved through the House and through the Senate. And it has to be done in a
bipartisan fashion. And it should be done in a time and in a way so that it can
be agreed to and signed into law.
And as you know, Ambassador Zoellick and Secretary Evans issued a statement
praising Chairman Thomas' leadership on moving a TPA through the Congress. And
by definition, the only way to get trade promotion authority through the
Congress is for it to be bipartisan.
Q So the White House isn't disappointed it was delayed?
MR. FLEISCHER: The timing is a matter for Congress to decide. the important
thing is that the legislation proceed and get passed by the Congress, so the
President can sign it into law.
Q The Russian airliner that went down in the Black Sea, does our government have
any new information about the cause of the crash?
MR. FLEISCHER: All I can say is, at this time we continue to see nothing that
would support any theory that this was terrorist. But beyond that, there's
nothing more I can offer you on it.
Q Sir, I want to follow up on the visit of President Vicente Fox yesterday. I
want to know if the White House -- the White House impression on it, if the
timing was good, if it was on time, if the support offered by the Mexican
government was sufficient and useful?
MR. FLEISCHER: In the meeting in the Oval Office, the President thanked
President Fox for all that Mexico has done, for all their help to the United
States at this time of need. As you know, President Bush and President Fox have
a very strong relationship. And I think the President was encouraged to receive
President Fox yesterday.
Q There's a British report that the President might change his position on
Kyoto. Anything on that?
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, I noted that report. There's nothing to it.
Q Reaction to the death of Mike Mansfield?
MR. FLEISCHER: I anticipate a statement from the President will be coming out a
little later this afternoon.
Q There are some reports that the government of Finland released some
information by accident, the names of 370 members of the al Qaeda organization.
Do you believe -- do you have any information about those reports?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's the first I've heard of the report. So I've got nothing to
offer on something I just heard.
Q Week ahead?
MR. FLEISCHER: Let me give the week ahead.
Q Can I have one more on the mid-East, though? Do you mind? Don't answer that.
(Laughter.)
MR. FLEISCHER: Kelly, you may have your ninth question.
Q Okay. What can account for some feeling on the part of the Israelis, Israeli
government, that the U.S. might be changing its emphasis, that it might not be
putting as much pressure on the Palestinians right now in the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, I cannot presume to speak for motives of other people and
other nations who speak as they do. I would just reiterate the United States
will continue to be Israel's best friend. Israel has no better friend than the
United States and that will continue.
The President will depart for Camp David this afternoon. Tomorrow, he will have
a meeting of his National Security Council via video teleconference. On Sunday,
the President and Mrs. Bush will attend the National Fire Fighters Memorial
Service in Emmittsburg, Maryland, before they return to the White House that
afternoon.
On Monday, the President will attend the swearing-in of Governor Tom Ridge in
the East Room as Director of the Office of Homeland Security. Later that day,
the President will be joined by Liza Minelli for the signing of the Columbus Day
proclamation.
On Wednesday, the President will meet with NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson
in the Oval Office. And on Friday, the President and Mrs. Bush will host a
reception in honor of Hispanic Heritage Month.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
END
12:45 P.M. EDT