|
|
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
November 1, 2001
Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
2:47 P.M. EST
MR. FLEISCHER: The President this morning began his day with a call to the
Emir of Qatar. They discussed cooperation in the war on terrorism, as well
as discussing the upcoming conference of the World Trade Organization. The
President expressed his hopes that will lead to another round of trade
negotiations around the world to promote free trade.
The President had his usual round of intelligence briefings and FBI briefings,
and then he convened a meeting of the Homeland Security Council to
discuss any late developments or latest developments on the home front.
The President had a meeting earlier today with members of Congress who
will vote shortly on aviation security, urging them to pass a strong aviation
security measure that will provide protections for the traveling public, and
expressed his strong desire to have a bill passed that he will be able to sign
into law.
The President has met with the Chancellor of Austria, and the President
will be meeting shortly for another meeting to discuss the upcoming World Trade
Organization meetings.
Two announcements, and then I'll be happy to take questions. President Bush will
welcome French President Jacques Chirac for a meeting and working lunch on
November 6th next week. And President Bush will welcome British Prime Minister
Tony Blair for a meeting and working dinner on November 7th next week.
And with that, I'm happy to take questions.
Q Since your briefing yesterday, have there been any new cases of suspected
anthrax or anthrax on people or places?
MR. FLEISCHER: Ron, the update I have has no new information on any people with
confirmed anthrax. Some of the suspicious cases that I mentioned to you the
other day, results have not come in that would lend anybody to a conclusion
about those cases. And that's what I know about the people involved.
I think you asked about places. I think you are all familiar with the report
about anthrax at FDA mail rooms. That report is accurate. There has been
preliminary tests indicating a positive at four FDA mail rooms, as well as a
facility used by the Postal Service to process stamps that appears to have a
small level of anthrax as a result of what appears to be cross-contamination in
Kansas City. Both of those I believe -- both of those have been publicly
reported.
Q Ari, we're in the middle of a major public relations blitz by the White House.
You've got this new war room that's being set up with satellites in London and
Pakistan, and now we've got Condoleezza Rice telling us about a series of major
speeches next week.
Is there a feeling that the administration, that the President is losing a
propaganda war here?
MR. FLEISCHER: Absolutely not. There is a reflection, though, on the importance
of talking to people around the world about the importance of this cause. There
is also a recognition that in dealing with an enemy like the Taliban, we are
dealing with a regime that has lied not only to its own people, but to its
neighbors and to the people of the United States, to the people of Pakistan and
around the world.
The Taliban have made false claims about shooting down a helicopter, for
example, when they never did, downing aircraft when they didn't. They've made a
series of allegations that are just not true, including gross exaggerations
about civilian casualties in the war in Afghanistan.
And so there is recognition about the fact, particularly with a 24-hour news
cycle, people waking up on the other side of the world, they may first get their
information from the Taliban, before they are able to get the facts from anybody
in a position of responsibility, that we will put together a capacity to
respond, and to have a message going out.
And as a result, the coalition of allies has created a central communication
center in Washington that is linked to satellite centers in London and in
Pakistan, to provide accurate and timely information on the war against
terrorism to the international community.
Q One follow-up on the allies. We have Chirac and Blair coming next week, the
speech to Central European nations next week about the war effort. Does the
President feel like some, particularly European allies, are going wobbly on him
here at an important time?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, it's exactly as I indicated. There will always be a need to
reach out and talk to allies, to talk to neighbors, to talk to other countries
in the world who are monitoring the events. I think that's part and parcel of
diplomacy.
It's no secret, through the State Department, there is a very active public
diplomacy organization. And this is not new. This is something, frankly, that
was done with success during the war in Kosovo. At the time, the British had a
lot to do with putting that together. This is an instance in which the
Americans, working with our friends, are putting something together.
Q The President's address to the nation next week, can you tell us what day
that's going to be, and him coming out and talking about homeland security, is
that an indication that he doesn't believe that the people who have been out
there already talking about it have been doing a good enough job, that he's got
to take up that mantle and do it himself?
MR. FLEISCHER: No. I mean, just because the President does something is not an
indication that somebody else isn't doing something. The President believes, as
always, right from the first day -- on September 11th, for example, the
President addressed the nation three times in one day, with the speech in the
Oval Office that night. The President, since this began on September 11th, has
been very forthright in his discussions with the American people about the
events, whether they're abroad or domestically.
So Dr. Rice came out earlier to brief and to take your questions; also shared
with you some preliminary information about events next week. I just gave you
some specifics on the meetings with France and with Britain.
Q Can you tell us -- have you got the date, the date for the home security
address?
Q And the forum, the venue?
MR. FLEISCHER: We will have more details on that. Not today.
Q This is not a prime time address?
Q Ari, to get back to the allies, it is a fact that surveys of public opinion in
Britain, France, Germany and elsewhere show that support for military action in
Afghanistan is waning, substantially and markedly. The President has said this
is going to be a long campaign, hard, slogging. Is the President willing to
continue military operations in Afghanistan in the face of declining support in
Europe?
MR. FLEISCHER: Let me answer that one. I'm going to jump over to what David just
asked about, too, because I want to make sure nobody has any misperceptions. The
exact mechanism for the President's remarks to the nation next week has still
yet to be determined in finality, so don't leap to any conclusions that there is
going to be, you know, an address of one type or another; it could be in a
variety of different forums. Just so you're aware of that.
Q Right, but other people in the administration are saying, no, it's not going
to be any kind of prime time address. You're saying that's under consideration?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, you said his address to the nation. I assumed you were
asking about a prime time address to the nation. What I wanted you to do is make
no judgments about the forum in which it will take until we announce it. It can
come in a variety of different forums. That's all.
Q Have you ruled out a prime time address?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, we've ruled out nothing. But I just don't want people leaping
to conclusions, even though we're not today telling you exactly what mechanism
it will be. I just want to make sure -- I know the press has never leapt to a
conclusion before. So, Terry --
Q With the lack of information, we have to fill in some of the blanks --
Q Is he willing to pursue military operations in the face of waning support?
MR. FLEISCHER: -- on your question about waging wars by polls, the President
does not think that anybody should take a military action because the polls say
people are for it or against it. The United States will take a military action
to defend our country, because our country has been attacked. And the President
is resolute and determined to continue in that campaign.
He is very grateful to have such overwhelming support from the American people
for this effort -- support for the government, support for the military. You
said, I think, that polls in Britain are waning. While this is being done
because it is the right thing to be done, that poll that you cite also shows
very strong support of the people of Britain for the war. So that's the second
side of that poll number.
Q Just to follow up, does the United States need a victory of some kind right
now -- the capture of major al Qaeda leaders, or the capture of a town by the
Northern Alliance, at least to give a shot in the arm to the effort right now?
MR. FLEISCHER: Let me remind you of what the President has said, which is a
message I think the American people have received very well. The President has
announced to the American people that he will pursue this war for as long as it
takes to bring justice to those who attacked our country.
When he addressed the Congress, even before the first shot was fired by the
United States in self defense, he said it may take years. The President is not
putting a timetable on it, because the President will pursue this until its
justified end, which is the elimination of the Taliban as an entity that harbors
terrorists, the al Qaeda organization, and of those who harbor terrorists. That
is the goal the President has announced for this endeavor, and he will continue
at that. And he is very pleased with the support he's received for it.
Q Ari, could you give us a readout on the meeting with House Republicans on
airline security, how that went?
MR. FLEISCHER: This was the third meeting the President has had with members of
the Congress to discuss the upcoming vote, which I believe is this evening, in
the House of Representatives, on aviation security. He met earlier with one
group of Democrats, one group of Republicans, and this was another group of
Republicans.
The President was able to make his case about why he thought it was important to
pass a bill that provided for stronger cockpit doors, for increased federal
marshals, that provided for stringent and tough federal standards for background
checks and screening standards, and why it's important to learn the lessons of
Europe and Israel, and not respond to this crisis by putting every screener on
the federal payroll.
Q Were these fence-sitters?
MR. FLEISCHER: They were when they went into the meeting.
Q What were they when they came out, in your view? (Laughter.)
MR. FLEISCHER: We'll know when they vote tonight.
Q Along the lines of what we were discussing before, I imagine there will be a
preview briefing, probably next week, but could you give us some kind of preview
of what the President feels he needs to say to the United Nations next week?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think it's a little early for that. That speech is some nine
days away, and so I think you'll hear more about that next week. But next week
the President will have a lot to say about a lot of these issues,
internationally, homeland, just as he has for the last several weeks. You've
heard a regular, consistent message from the President, a message that I think
the country has responded to very well. And you're going to just hear more of
that from the President, along with these meetings.
Q Ari, on airline security, can you tell us what more the President's doing
behind the scenes today? Has he been on the phone? We understand he made some --
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, he's been making a couple phone calls to Democrats and
Republicans.
Q Do you know how many calls he might have made, or --
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't know if I have a hard number, but he's made a couple, is
what I've been told.
Q Is part of his message also -- we heard from maybe one lawmaker -- that he
puts this together with the campaign against terrorism, and as a President, sort
of fighting this campaign against terrorism, he needs their support. So is he
framing the message in that way at all?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I've sat in on two of the three meetings, and I don't think
the President has quite framed it in that way. The President has framed it in
the direction of making certain that we take the right steps to pass a bill that
protects the traveling public, and in a way that the President can sign into
law, and he's made it clear that he wants to sign it into law.
Q Are you confident --
MR. FLEISCHER: About the vote?
Q I know you hate to --
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I worked there long enough to know that you should never be
confident before a vote, until the vote is done, and then you can be confident
if you win it. I think it's likely to be a close vote.
Q Ari, the President has been telling us for some time now that one of the ways
to stimulate the economy is to go out and spend. So, today, the consumer
spending in September was down 1.8 percent, the lowest in 14 years. Does this
make the President fight harder for a stimulus package? Was he still willing to
let Congress work its way?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think there's no question in the President's mind, the latest
release of economic statistics today is another reason for Congress to take
action to pass an economic stimulus bill to help the economy. Yesterday's
release of information, today's release of information indicate weakness in the
economy. And the solution is not for Congress to do nothing. The solution is for
Congress to pass an economic stimulus bill, and that way consumers can have more
money to spend to stimulate the economy.
Much of what you saw in those data released today is a reflection of the attack
in September, and the way the entire nation basically paused or stopped in the
wake of September 11th for a considerable period of time. So it is important to
have an economic stimulus package in place.
Q This coalition information service that is coming, can you tell us a little
nuts and bolts? Where is it going to be located, how is it actually going to
operate? Will we have any contact with it, or is it totally aimed at foreign
news organizations?
MR. FLEISCHER: It's really -- well, first of all it's located in the Old
Executive Office Building here in Washington. It is also located in London, and
there will be people representing the effort as well in Pakistan. And their
purpose is to work to counter the misinformation of the al Qaeda terrorist
network. There are regular conference calls that are chaired by Counselor to the
President Karen Hughes. And I think their focus is really outward. If you're
asking if you can stop calling the press office, I hope you won't do that.
Q But I mean, will -- for example, if we wanted to hear those conference calls,
could we?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, those are internal White House conference calls.
Q Well --
Q They don't brief us, Ari.
MR. FLEISCHER: Wendell?
Q They don't brief us. Who's your target audience here? Unless you're going to
brief in Pakistan, you're still going to be behind the time curve as you chase
the 24-hour news cycle. You're still going to be behind reports from the Taliban
by a number of hours, unless you brief us. Do you intend to do that, or is this
--
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the purpose of this is to have people in Pakistan, to have
people in Europe -- as I indicated, they have an operation in London that is
working the news cycle in London on European time. Similarly, that will be done
in Pakistan. Today, of course, you were briefed by Dr. Rice. This week you have
had two briefings by Governor Ridge. So you're being briefed as well.
Q Ari, about the speech next week, there have been a number of daily
developments -- whether it was anthrax, the war abroad, the state of the
economy, homeland security -- what is going on that the President decided that
now is the time, next week he wants to speak about this, rather than days
before? Is there something specific that he said that now is the time?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think it was just a good opportunity for Dr. Rice to take
your questions and to give you -- you know, I usually do the week ahead on
Fridays. She provided you with a preview of it today on Thursday. There's
nothing unusual in announcing to you the outlines of events a week ahead.
Q No, I'm wondering about the President. Was there something specific that
happened that he said, you know, I want to talk about this next week, it's time
for me to do it? He's spoken to us before, but to do a speech?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, you just have a very good confluence of events coming
together next week, where you have the satellite speech the President is looking
forward to in Poland, which is a rather unusual gathering of nations that used
to be aligned against the United States as part of an alliance, that are now
aligned with the United States in an alliance.
You also have the arrival in town next week of something that you have been used
to the last three or four weeks, which is a regular stream of visitors to the
Oval Office from foreign countries. As I mentioned, Austria is here today. So
what you're seeing is the usual things you see. Condi shared it with you one day
ahead of time.
Q It's been about a month since the first anthrax attacks. And we seem to have
made -- even with all the resources we are devoting to the investigation -- very
little progress in identifying the source of these attacks. Is the President
getting frustrated at this lack of progress, and is there any talk about change
in strategy and how we go about this?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, you know, I was asked the same question yesterday. And no,
the President has a lot of faith in the investigators, both at the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, at the Centers for Disease Control, the people who are
working this in the communities and on the ground in the various states, the New
York City Department of Health, for example. And he is confident that their work
will end in catching the people or the person who was responsible for this. This
is an investigation, and I think the American people understand that these
things can often be complicated, and this one is.
Q And he sees no need for a change in strategy at all?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President -- I've heard him say this numerous times, in
private meetings, and I think you've heard the President say this publicly, the
President knows that the actions taken by the government have saved lives. There
is somebody out there who is responsible for this, who is trying to murder
Americans by sending anthrax in the mail.
Make no mistake: they are the people, or this person is the person responsible
for the anthrax outbreak in America. And the President knows it is the agencies
of the federal government, working with the local governments, that are
responsible for saving the lives of people in the face of these attacks.
Q So are you talking about specific cases that he knows of that have been
avoided? And if you're talking about specific cases, can you share any of those
with us?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think it's self-evident that in the case taken in the
media organizations in New York, as soon as it was reported that they received
anthrax, the Department of Health arrived, the Centers for Disease Control
arrived, they prescribed the proper medication for the patients. The patients
went on that medication.
There have been four fatalities, and the President regrets that. And no one can
make up for those losses. But that doesn't indicate that lives have been saved
as a result of putting people on treatment by a medical community that has
responded very quickly to each of these instances.
Q Ari, follow on that. The fact that officials in New York say it looks like
this Nguyen woman did not contract the anthrax bacteria through the mail. Does
that create new concern here at the White House that there's another method of
inoculations?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, as I said yesterday, it did. Yesterday, when we discussed
this, I said this was a matter of concern, because we do not know how she
contracted the fatal case of inhalation anthrax. And that is something that the
investigators are poring into, trying to identify. I spoke to the FBI this
morning. They told me that they have already been to her apartment in the Bronx,
and have interviewed her neighbors, which shows the diligence of the instant
response to it.
But yes, as I said yesterday, it is a cause of concern.
Q But I mean, is there a sense here that if not the mail, then what?
MR. FLEISCHER: There's a sense that we need to find out how this happened, what
took place. These are investigative matters, and there's not a sense of then
what, it's a sense of, let's proceed with these investigations, let's interview
the neighbors, let's check the air ducts. The air ducts came back as a negative
in the apartment. So they've been doing all the proper diligence that they
should be doing.
But I just want to remind anybody in this room who may be impatient, that
investigations can take time, and investigations need to be done right, and need
to be done in a methodological way, and in a through way.
Q Is it safe to say at this point you have no idea how she contracted it?
MR. FLEISCHER: No conclusions have been reached.
Q Back on the coalition information centers, can you tell us who did the
briefings and interviews in Pakistan and London today, what the message was, and
what the message from the Taliban that you were trying to rebut was today?
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, this morning I released some information about some of the
interviews that American officials were doing. And I indicated some of the
stations in the Middle East, for example, that were carrying these interviews.
That's the only information I have at this point about that.
Q Those interviews on television --
MR. FLEISCHER: And also, this is also a way, if you can imagine, in London,
there's a similar group of reporters who ask the briefers there questions. And
the information that is gathered is shared with our coalition allies. And so
they're in a similar position to answer their questions locally.
Q Is there -- in Islamabad, there's a similar scene, where there's an American
briefing?
MR. FLEISCHER: I indicated that there will be. There will be an office set up in
Pakistan for the purpose of providing information to the Pakistan press.
Q And so will that be an American, or a Pakistani?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think we're working with Britain on the exact people. And if I
have a name to provide, I'll provide it. There's none to provide at this time.
Q -- other briefings, or in other words, is it just operational, or is it -- I
mean, what is the nature of these briefings, in terms of who will be giving
them?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, it's a person available to answer questions to the press in
that country. So, for example, if the Taliban allege that they have shot down an
American airplane, the person on the ground in Pakistan will be able to get
information quickly, and that way they can distribute that to the Pakistani
press, so that people in Pakistan don't have to wait for the news to be made in
the United States, which can often be many, many hours later.
Q To give you a chance to counter some of the Taliban propaganda in this news
cycle, do you have any reaction to the alleged statement by Osama bin Laden
calling on Muslims to embark on an anti-Christian -- and presumably anti-Jewish
-- jihad?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I just think it's just more of the same propaganda that
people have been hearing, and I dismiss it as such.
Q Can we verify that they are his statements? They were faxed, I think --
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I'm not aware that anything is verified at this time.
Q Ari, is there any change in the administration's position since this morning
with this executive order on the presidential records? And also, what do you
plan to do, if anything, to counter what seems to be, if you listen to talk
radio, anyway, a relatively quick response from some folks who seem to think
that you have something to hide by doing this?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President will soon be issuing an executive order, which is a
recognition of a new law that has just gone into effect this year for the first
time, that changes the way presidential papers are provided to the public and to
historians, to academicians, and of course to the press.
Under the existing procedures, existing law, a former President has the right to
withhold anything for any reason, if they don't want to make it public. So if a
historian were to ask somebody at a presidential library to provide a certain
document, they could if they wanted to; they didn't have to if they didn't want
to.
As a result of the new law that is now going into effect, and thanks to the
executive order that the President will soon issue, more information will be
forthcoming. And it will be available through a much more orderly process. The
executive order will lay out the terms of that process, and it will help people
to get information.
There will be a 90-day time line put on it, so that academicians or whoever can
get that information on request to the Archivist of the United States. The
Archivist will then get in touch with the former President, with this
administration. And unless an objection to releasing the information is raised,
on the basis of those objections that are allowable under the law, the
information will then become released.
Q Is there any provision, or will there be a provision, for conflicts of
interest? I mean, it's pretty easy to imagine that a current administration
might have some employees from a former administration now on board. And is
there anything to deal with records involving those people who are now in this
administration?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, there's actually a lengthy body of law that governs what
can be subject to a restriction on release. And the law that Congress passed
that is now coming into effect for the first time, while it provides for release
of more information than the previous system, is explicitly clear. In fact, if
you go to the law itself, not to the executive order, but the law itself, the
law has a section, 2204, that's entitled restrictions on access to presidential
records. So those who passed the law have clearly created an allowance for
instances in which it would be necessary for papers not to be released.
So the criteria you raise would not likely match what the law prescribes. And
anybody taking that case to a court would likely lose. What the law does allow
for are exceptions on the basis of such things as a national security concern.
But the purpose of this is to provide for an orderly process, so that
information can be shared, releasing the records of former presidents to
historians, to the public, and to the press.
Q So is the administration then going to continue to block the release of about
70,000 pages of conversations between President Reagan and his top advisors
under this executive order?
MR. FLEISCHER: Once the executive order is signed, it will immediately go into
effect. And as a result, it will allow for, in accordance with the executive
order, release of any information. So it really is just the opposite. It begins
the process under the executive order of releasing information, as requested, so
long as it comes into the terms of the executive order and the law.
Q So this White House is not objecting, if the Reagan Library, National Archives
wants that information to be released?
MR. FLEISCHER: What I said is, the process would then immediately go into
effect. And as I just walked you through, the process would be, if you wanted to
request, for example, a Reagan paper, you would make a request to the National
Archives.
The National Archives would then inform the Reagan Library and this White House,
that Kelly Wallace of CNN has made a request. Unless an objection was raised by
either the Reagan Library or this White House, on the grounds already provided
in the law, and the grounds already protected in the Constitution, the
information would be released. If there are no cause -- if there are no grounds
for it to be withheld, it would logically be provided.
So I think what you're going to see is an orderly process that results in the
release of the information, except in those rare instances in which there is an
already recognized exception in the law.
Q Ari, if I could follow up on that. You've mentioned the national security
reasons as being a reason to withhold the information. I don't think anybody
would dispute that in a bona fide case. However, some of the other exceptions
include such things as deliberative process. Isn't the whole purpose of a
presidential library to release information about the deliberative process? And
if that's going to be a category to withhold information, isn't that a loophole
so large that virtually everything could be withheld?
MR. FLEISCHER: I would draw your attention to the law. You've cited the law of
the land. And the law of the land, separate and apart from the executive order,
contains a class of activities which, by definition, as passed into law, can
legitimately be withheld. And there is a series of those. But that is the case
whether there is or is not an executive order. That wouldn't matter whether this
executive order was or was not issued.
Q You're not broadening that at all? You're broadening those categories in any
way? And if I could also just follow up.
MR. FLEISCHER: No. Those are granted under the Constitution and under the law,
and cannot be changed by an executive order.
Q And also, there's a discussion in here about people having to demonstrate
their need for the information. Do you foresee a system where someone going to a
presidential library would need to tell the archivist why they need that
information? Because that's not currently the way things are done.
MR. FLEISCHER: What you, I think, are referring to, is that in the event that
somebody requested a document, and either the former president or the incumbent
administration -- and when I say incumbent, that means any incumbent
administration. This executive order of course would apply to all future
administrations, unless they put a different procedure in place.
So if the administration or a previous President said that is a matter of
security, for example, and should not be shared, and you were to take that
person to court, and say I disagree, give me that document, as I understand the
law, the government would have to compel -- show a compelling need to not
release it, as defined in the law. But that's a matter for the lawyers.
And again, those criteria are clearly written, not as part of the executive
order, but as existing law of the land. So it doesn't matter if there is or is
not an executive order; the former President, for example, could exert his
rights under the law not to withhold.
Q Ari, this executive order, in the draft, creates another impediment to the
getting of information from past presidents by setting up this President, or any
incumbent president, as another gatekeeper -- not envisioned in the original
executive order, which this one would rescind. That certainly creates the
perception, it seems to me, that you are trying to withhold rather than release.
And it gives you an out to screen information which could be embarrassing or
otherwise simply unpleasant.
MR. FLEISCHER: I think you are making judgments about events that you have not
yet seen. And I think you will see a flow of information to the public in
accordance with the spirit of the law that was passed. And that law also does
include, as we have discussed, exceptions and exemptions.
I will give you a for-example on why there is a system now for a previous
president and the incumbent, and the national security need is a classic case in
point. There very will may be a decision by an administration that has been out
of office for 12 years to release certain documents. Those documents could still
have national security implications. A previous administration that is not
currently in power would not be as aware as a current administration of ongoing
national security issues. So that provides for an ability of a current
administration to review it.
But as Judge Gonzales has made very clear, except in very compelling cases, if a
former president were to say that should go out, this administration would say
it should go out. So you're making guesses and judgments, all of which would
indicate malfeasance or withholding of information by this administration. And I
just can't accept that; that's not the case.
Q So you are saying, trust us, it'll all be fine?
MR. FLEISCHER: You are saying, we don't trust you.
Q Ari, both The Washington Post and The Washington Times this morning reported
that ABC News President David Westin, after he was nationally exposed by Matt
Drudge and The New York Post on-line, apologized for telling Columbia journalism
students that he had no opinion on whether it was right or wrong to blow up the
Pentagon with a plane.
In the event that you haven't talked to the President about this, as his chief
spokesman, you are surely glad that Mr. Westin finally felt obliged to
apologize, aren't you, Ari?
MR. FLEISCHER: It sounded to me from reading those articles this morning that
the issue was addressed and the case was closed.
Q Right. And the Media Research Center reported that ABC's Dan Harris admitted
that he accepted an invitation from the Taliban to see and film what the Taliban
claims are rising civilian casualties, which he admitted was, in his words, "an
enormous public relations boon to them." Since the Media Research Center notes
the Taliban couldn't have picked a network more eager to showcase supposed
victims and willing to relay --
MR. FLEISCHER: Is there a question here?
Q -- Taliban propaganda, my question is: do you disagree, or -- and if so, why
do you disagree?
MR. FLEISCHER: Your question was so long, I forgot the premise.
Q Oh, now, Ari, now, you know you disagree, don't you?
Q Ari, early in this briefing you were asked about whether we were losing or not
in this war on public diplomacy, and you said we weren't. Last week, the
Secretary of State --
MR. FLEISCHER: Richard, can you speak a little louder? You said earlier I was
asked about public diplomacy?
Q You were asked whether we were losing the propaganda war, and you said
absolutely not. Last week, the Secretary of State said on the Hill that we were
definitely asleep at the switch on public diplomacy. How does that square with
what you just said?
MR. FLEISCHER: I was asked what the President's perceptions are about the
international effort, and I shared with you the President's reflections. I don't
think that's anything inconsistent with a President who is also setting up a
program. As I have acknowledged, we can do better in many different areas. The
President is always pushing everybody in the government to constantly look for
ways to improve.
Q Can you set up a little bit the meeting tomorrow with the Nigerian President?
And how much of this is an effort to get African nations to help the U.S. reach
out to the Muslim world?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President has had a series of phone calls and meetings
with various leaders throughout the world, including in Africa. And Africa is an
important region to the United States, and there are many nations who are
playing helpful roles in the war on terrorism. And the meeting should be seen in
that context.
Q Ari, could you give us a sense, please, of how carefully the President has
been following the Microsoft investigations, and what his opinion is of this new
settlement?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President understands that that's a matter for the Department
of Justice to determine.
Q Is he going to have to sign off on --
Q Yes, a real quick one on anthrax. Looking back on my notes, on several
occasions when you were talking about the hunt for whoever was responsible, you
said "this person," "the person responsible." Has it been narrowed down to one
person?
MR. FLEISCHER: No. I said this person or the persons.
Q Let me follow up on the Microsoft question. Are you saying the President has
washed his hands of this case and is not going to sign off or approve, or --
MR. FLEISCHER: These determinations are made by the Department of Justice, is
the answer.
Q What is the President's role in it?
MR. FLEISCHER: Those determinations are made by the Department of Justice.
Q The President has no role in --
MR. FLEISCHER: Settlement decisions are made by the Department of Justice.
Q And not the President?
MR. FLEISCHER: They are -- that's the answer.
Q Well, no -- is it yes or no? Does the President have a role to -- on the --
MR. FLEISCHER: The President has a role in appointing a Department of Justice
that he has faith in, that they will make good decisions that serve the national
interest.
Q Ari, on the stimulus package, since the package is outside the bounds of the
budget resolution, it will require 60 votes to get out of the Senate. Since your
goal seems to be to get it to conference, would it be appropriate for nine or
ten Republicans to vote in favor of whatever that package is, in order to get it
to conference to be negotiated?
MR. FLEISCHER: You know, I can't comment on the final outcome of what is going
to take place in the Senate. There are going to continue to be meetings to
discuss it with Senators, and the President is hopeful that the Senate will
realize the importance of this moment to protect the economy at this time of
weakness, and get that bill to the conference.
Q Ari, apparently the anti-terrorism package that the President signed into law
this week contained a provision that could require foreigners to carry ID cards.
Would the President like to see that implemented?
MR. FLEISCHER: Let me take that question and get back to you on that. That's on
one of the specifics of a bill that I want to take a deeper look at.
Q Ari, the President's -- I mean, Governor Ridge said on Monday, I believe, that
he would come out and brief at least three times a week. Since Monday and
Tuesday, does that mean we will get a briefing tomorrow?
MR. FLEISCHER: That would be what the math would indicate to me, yes.
Q Thank you.
MR. FLEISCHER: Thank you.
END 3:22 P.M. EST
