|
|
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
February 26, 2002
Press Briefing by By Ari Fleischer
The James S. Brady Briefing Room
Listen to the President's Remarks
12:10 P.M. EST
MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. The President
this morning began his day by calling Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi
Arabia. The President praised the Crown Prince's ideas
regarding full Arab-Israeli normalization once a comprehensive peace
agreement can be achieved. The President also conveyed the
United States desire to continue to work closely with the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia in the pursuit of Middle East peace. Both
leaders reiterated their commitment to the important U.S.-Saudi
relationship.
The President also this morning, spoke with Prime Minister Chretien
of Canada. The President discussed his recent trip to Asia,
and the Prime Minister discussed with the President his recent trip to
Russia and Germany. The President reiterated the United
States commitment to ongoing consultation with allies in the war
against terrorism, and they also discussed some trade issues between
the United States and Canada.
After that, the President convened a meeting of -- or received
briefings from the Central Intelligence Agency and the
FBI. And then, this afternoon the President will depart the
White House to give a speech at St. Luke's Catholic Church here in
Washington, D.C. to announce a new welfare reform
initiative. The President's remarks will focus on the
importance of requiring work, strengthening families and improving the
lives of children, of providing flexibility to the states so they can
encourage innovation in helping families who are on welfare, as well as
announcing a reversal of policy from the previous welfare reform
whereby legal immigrants who arrive in America who need to go on food
stamps after being here for five years would now be permitted to.
The President will return to the White House where, this afternoon,
he will meet with the Presidents of Botswana, Mozambique and Angola to
discuss conflict resolution in the region, particularly Angola, as well
as economic issues, trade issues, and development issues in Sub-Saharan
Africa.
Finally, the President will enjoy a movie tonight in the White
House theater. He will welcome Mel Gibson and others to the
White House for the screening of the movie, "We Were
Soldiers." And with that, I'm happy to take your questions.
Q Ari, does the President believe that the
time is near that he should sit down with Yasser Arafat, one-on-one,
and try to drive this peace process forward, himself?
MR. FLEISCHER: No.
Q Was there any decision to follow up on
Crown Prince Abdullah's proposal after their
conversation? And the President initiated the call, didn't
he?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President initiated the
call. Well, there's always follow-up, I think it's fair to
say, through the State Department and through their contacts in the
region. The State Department, Secretary Powell is often on
the phone looking for openings, looking for ways that the process can
move forward. There have not been many of late, although in
the last week or so there have been the beginnings of security meetings
between Israeli and Palestinian officials.
Q Does the President consider this proposal
valid as a starter?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President believes it's just as I
described it. I'll refer you exactly back to what I said, in that he
praised the Crown Prince for his ideas.
Here's I think what you may want to just take a look at with this.
You know, there have just been so many negative notes coming out of the
Middle East recently, and at least in this statement by the Crown
Prince, it was a note of hope. Now, it doesn't, in and of
itself, change anything on the ground in the Middle
East. The situation remains a very complicated situation,
and a very violent one. And nothing has changed the
President's fundamental belief that the Mitchell Accords are the best
path, best process to achieve a comprehensive peace agreement that is
agreed to by the two parties in the Middle East. And the
President continues --
Q There's nothing to bring the two parties
together.
MR. FLEISCHER: -- to believe that Chairman Arafat has to
do more to stop the violence. That is the President's view.
Q But the involvement of the leader of Saudi
Arabia willing to engage with Israel on a resolution of this conflict
doesn't change the facts of what's happening in the Middle
East? Is this a breakthrough? Does the President see this
as--
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I've not heard the President use that
word. And you said to deal with Israel. That's
not quite what the statement is. It's that they would recognize Israel
after a comprehensive peace is achieved. The President has
called this-- has praised the idea that has come from the Crown
Prince.
Q And praising the idea, once again, is not
endorsing it?
MR. FLEISCHER: He's praised the idea. It's a
hopeful note.
Q Ari, where is the administration on its
deliberations on sending General Zinni back to the
region? There are some security talks going on between the
Israelis and the Palestinians. Does it now appear to be a
good time to put him back on the ground?
MR. FLEISCHER: I have not heard any new developments
involving General Zinni returning to the region. You might
want to check with the State Department to see if they have additional
updates. Nothing has crossed my radar screen in the last 24
hours on that.
Q Getting back to Helen's question and
Terry's question. This is probably the first major
initiative Saudi Arabia has ever launched, with a definite
proposal. Doesn't this mean a breakthrough?
MR. FLEISCHER: I can only characterize it as the
President has. You asked me what the President's reaction
is. I can only tell you what the President
said. He said it directly on the phone to the Crown Prince.
That's the President's reaction.
Q Ari, now that the civil war is heating up
again in Colombia, is the President going to lean on the Congress to
pony up the money for that new Colombia brigade? And is the
United States planning to send more than the 300 or so troops that we
have now have in Colombia to aid that government in its fight with the
FARC rebels?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, since President Pastrana began the
peace process, some three years ago, the United States has repeatedly
stated our support for his efforts, and sought to work with the
international community to find a negotiated solution to Colombia's
internal conflicts. Regrettably, the goodwill of the Pastrana
government and of the Colombian people has not been reciprocated by the
FARC. FARC terrorist actions, including the attacks that
have taken place on civilians, the hijacking of airplanes, the
kidnapping of a state senator, their use of the DMZ in Colombia for
drug trafficking, all are a real affront to people who seek peace in
Colombia.
The most recent event, the kidnapping of the airplane, clearly
shows that the FARC is interested in continuing to pursue
terror. And that is why the United States has said, and I
refer you to the statement made by the State Department last week, that
the United States supports President Pastrana's actions and
determination now to change the calculation in Colombia, and he has our
support.
We're consulting with the government of Colombia in that process to
determine where we can be helpful, how we can be helpful. We
are mindful of the legal constraints that are imposed on us and any
actions we'll take will be in accordance with those constraints.
Q Can we go back, just try to close the loop
on the conversation with Crown Prince Abdullah? Two quick
points. Did the President and the Crown Prince discuss at
any point the Crown Prince traveling to Israel to begin to put his idea
forward?
MR. FLEISCHER: No.
Q And, secondly, did the two of them in the
course of their conversation return to this question of what Saudi
Arabia may be doing to deal with the extremists in their own midst, the
15 hijackers --
MR. FLEISCHER: No, that was not a topic of their
conversation.
Q So they talked, but the terrorism subject
never came up?
MR. FLEISCHER: What you just asked was not part of their
conversation.
Q On the Colombia issue, and actually, on
two leaders issue, Ingrid Betancourt was the senator who was taken from
the airplane. Is anything being done specifically to try --
is the American government trying to do anything to get her back, or to
help the Colombians with that?
MR. FLEISCHER: I would just refer you again to what I
said; that's what the United States is doing, we are trying to explore
what options we have to be helpful. I'm not aware of
anything beyond that.
Q And, secondly, I asked you last week about
Prime Minister Bhuto and Pakistan and what the President's position was
about her perhaps returning there and not being arrested, to run for
election.
MR. FLEISCHER: Nobody got back to you on
that? Okay, we'll continue to pursue that.
Q Two questions on Colombia were, are you
urging Congress to increase money to the country? And is
there a possibility of sending more U.S. troops? Do you have
the answer to either one of those?
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't have anything on that.
Q Can you check on that for us?
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes. Ron, do you have anything
further?
Q Well, Terry is saying you are ruling out
more troops -- that's not quite what you're doing?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I said I would follow up on your
question.
Q Ari, is there a meeting today about
Colombia? We heard that there is. Is there one
today?
MR. FLEISCHER: There are various meetings of the foreign
policy community here, the National Security Council principals and
others. And as a matter of White House practice, I don't
cite what those meetings are.
Q But, generally, Ari, can you address the
state of play in Colombia right now? It would appear to even
the average, non-educated observer very perilous there. Is
the United States government, at its highest levels, at a higher level
of concern about what's happening with the Pastrana government, about
what's going on on the ground? And are you treating with any
greater sense of urgency what the U.S. government can do on the ground
to assist Colombia?
MR. FLEISCHER: Major, I think it's been perilous there
for quite a while. And that's why the State Department has
listed FARC as a terrorist organization. And that's why the
United States has worked so closely with President Pastrana and his
Plan Colombia.
Despite the best and most peaceful intentions of the Colombian
people and of President Pastrana, the FARC have decided to pursue an
alternative means, and that led to last week's hijacking, last weeks
kidnaping. And the FARC has not accepted the goodwill and
the good intentions of President Pastrana. And the United
States supports what President Pastrana is now doing.
Q It's no more perilous in Colombia this
week than it was, say, four weeks ago? Even though the FARC
is now destroying dams and electricity-generating complexes?
MR. FLEISCHER: I said it's always been perilous in
Colombia. I don't know that, when you live in a region like
that, that you characterize one week as being any more or less perilous
than the previous region-- week. When you live in an area in which
terrorists are doing the things that you just said, I don't think the
people living there make gradations; they just want it to stop.
Q Does the administration consider FARC a
terrorist organization of global reach?
MR. FLEISCHER: The administration considers FARC a
listed terrorist organization by the State Department.
Q Ari, can I add something? The
plane, though, that was kidnaped had a Senator
aboard. Ingrid Betancourt is a presidential candidate.
There are two different things that have happened -- first was the
kidnaping of the Senator and a few days later a kidnaping of a
presidential candidate. I just wanted to bring that up
because it seems that--
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, I'm aware of that.
Q Ari, can you shed any light on this
incident in Salt Lake City with the Vice President where, apparently,
Secret Service agents lost the play book on protecting
him? Is that accurate?
MR. FLEISCHER: I saw the wire story. I have
not talked to the Secret Service, so I have no more information about
it other than what I read on the wire.
Q It hasn't come up besides that?
MR. FLEISCHER: I have not had any information provided
to me on that.
Q You're not confirming or denying; you just
don't know?
MR. FLEISCHER: I've seen the wire story. I
think this is something you should really just address directly to the
Secret Service.
Q The wire story points out that Secret
Service is not commenting. Can you try to get us an explanation of
what happened?
MR. FLEISCHER: Let me see if there's anything on that I
can find out.
Q Do you have an update on the discussions
by the U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan on the extradition of the main
suspect in the Pearl case?
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, Ambassador Chamberlain has met again
with President Musharraf and made our point clear again about the
United States desire to have Omar Sheik sent to the United
States. It is being worked through the Pakistani
process. The Pakistanis, as a sovereign nation, have
thoughts, too, about how to bring justice to Omar Sheik, and that's
where the matter stands. So there are continued
conversations and I anticipate there will be continued conversations
for some period of time now about this.
Q Ari, while you said in response to an
earlier question that the idea of Abdullah traveling to Israel did not
come up in the conversation, does the administration think it would be
helpful for face-to-face talks, for Israelis to travel to Saudi Arabia
if that's conceivable, or if it's conceivable for Saudis to travel to
Israel to further this process?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President believes that any contacts
between the parties in the Middle East that are mutually agreed upon
would be beneficial. And that's a step that would need to be
taken by the parties, themselves, of course, and the United States
would support that if that was something the parties, themselves,
agreed to.
Q Is the administration directly encouraging
either side to take that step at this point?
MR. FLEISCHER: Throughout the process, the United States
has made it clear to all parties concerned the importance of finding
solutions to the vexing problems of violence in the Middle East that
have been present for decades. And I think it's not a
surprise to either Israel or her Arab neighbors that the United States
hopes the parties are able to get together and talk. That's
a common approach.
Q What beyond the statement you've given
today is the administration doing to encourage this Saudi track?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, I refer you to the State
Department. I said that they're always in contact at the
State Department with the various governments in the region and
conveying the messages from the President and from the State Department
-- Secretary Powell, himself, is often on the phone with the parties.
Q Did the Crown Prince ask the President to
get more involved, to do something else?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, the Crown Prince -- I won't speak for
him, but I think he appreciated very much the President's message.
Q Ari, my sense is that you see the Saudi
plan as sort of phase two, after you get through some of the initial
confidence-building measures, and so forth. Is that an
accurate description? I mean, you can't really get to the
peace agreement until you've ended the hostilities or at least reduced
them to some extent.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, what I've indicated previously is
the Saudi statement, which the President welcomes, is a statement about
the final result; that Saudi Arabia would recognize Israel at the end
of the day when there's a comprehensive peace process or peaceful
solution agreed to. That is a result. To get to
that result it requires a process. What the President has
said is the best process to arrive at that result is the Mitchell
agreement, the Mitchell Accords, which begins with security talks
between Israel and the Palestinians, that would then proceed into talks
of a more politics nature about negotiations in the region to achieve a
more meaningful lasting peace, discussions ultimately about the
settlement policy, and then, hopefully, a comprehensive peace.
That's the outline of what the Mitchell process agrees
to. To have Arab nations weighing in now, with additional
thoughts that are reflective of the will of the region to create peace
is a helpful part of the process.
Q And do the Saudis embrace essentially the
same sequence?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think there's no question that the
Mitchell Accords were welcomed by all parties at the time that they
were announced last year. So, again, there is an agreement
on what the process should be. This just proved to be very difficult,
given the violence. And when it comes to the violence, the
President's message remains the same, that Chairman Arafat still needs
to do more to stop the violence.
Q Coming back to the Pearl situation, you
said that this is now being worked out through the Pakistani legal
process. Does that mean that eventually the United States
will have a chance to try Saeed? And if not, how much
pressure is the U.S. willing to put on Pakistan, given his internal
political concerns?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, it means the process is
ongoing. And as you can imagine, this is -- Pakistan is a
sovereign state, they have their own laws. A crime, a murder
was committed in their country and they have their own ways and laws of
dealing with it. It's not atypical at a time like that, when
another nation makes a request, for that request to be considered, and
it takes time.
Yesterday I discussed that if there had been, God forbid, reverse
the situation, a murder in the United States, where an American citizen
was held for the murder of a foreign visitor to the United States, I
don't think it would surprise anybody if the United States said, we
have our courts, we have our laws, we have our ways of dealing with
this, as we worked cooperatively with any other nation that was making
a request.
And that's the process. And it's not something that
necessarily lends itself to instant resolution. And the
United States will continue to make its case to
Pakistan. Pakistan has received the case well, but it is
part of a process. They are a sovereign government, and
we'll continue to talk.
Q The Pentagon said this morning that
apparently out of 494 detainees, apparently not one appears to qualify
for the military tribunal. What are the President's thoughts about
that at this point?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not aware of the Pentagon's
statement, so I can't characterize it.
Q The distinct impression you're leaving
today, which is different from yesterday, is that the United States
would be open to seeing Omar Sheik and others prosecuted under
Pakistani procedures. And then, after that has achieved a
resolution, there could be a movement of the suspects to the United
States -- elaborate discussion of their judicial --
MR. FLEISCHER: No, the United States continues to want
to have Omar Sheik sent to the United States. There's no
change in our policy from yesterday. I've used the same
words as I used yesterday in describing int.
Q But you've been more descriptive about a
deference to Pakistani judicial proceedings, more so than you were
yesterday, more elaborative describing them.
MR. FLEISCHER: I think I said basically the same thing
yesterday as I did today. There's no change --
Q -- open to the fact --
MR. FLEISCHER: There's no change in what we're seeking.
Q But is it open to the idea that Pakistan
would prosecute them their own way first, and then leave it to the
United States to handle the case thereafter?
MR. FLEISCHER: We're open to continuing to have a
conversation with Pakistan. Yesterday I said the same thing,
that Pakistan is a sovereign government that has its own courts and
procedures.
Q Given the way those courts have treated
this man in the past, is the administration confident that justice
could be done in this case by the Pakistani justice system?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President has said publicly that he
has confidence in President Musharraf and has been grateful to the
President for his reactions and his comments in this
matter. So I'm not going to speculate about any
hypotheticals, but that's what the President has said.
Q But isn't it implicit in what we want to
do that we may have some mistrust of the Pakistani judicial
system? Isn't almost implicit?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President has not said that, no.
Q Ari, on another note, President Bush has a
nominee, Gerald Reynolds, for the Education Department Civil Rights
Office, and this man is being opposed by at least two dozen groups,
including the NAACP, and he's set for a hearing
today. What's the White House's thoughts about Gerald
Reynolds and the opposition from many of these civil rights groups?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President respectfully
disagrees. The President, obviously, made the nomination
based on his qualifications and will continue to support him.
Q Ari, in your criticism yesterday of Pat
Robertson's disagreement with the President's claim that Islam is a
peaceful religion, since Islamic youth are being told by Islamic
parents and teachers that they can become Islamic martyrs as suicide
bombers and go straight to Islamic paradise, my question is, can you
name even one Islamic religious leader in the Eastern Hemisphere who
has spoken out publicly against this suicide bombing of non-Muslim
civilians?
MR. FLEISCHER: Lester, I think many Arab nations have
spoken out and have said--
Q I mean, religious
leaders. Muslim. Can you name one?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think that in many cases, you're
talking about one in the same. Certainly, many of these
nations are Islamic republics, and--
Q Can you just name one?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think, again, I would say to you that
many of the political leaders in those areas have spoken out and have
decried the violence and the martyrdom, and have talked about the need
to work with the United States, because they know what we know, that
Islam is a religion of peace.
Q Are you and is the President prepared to
contend that in the Koran there are no passages calling for death to
infidels such as Christians and Jews and no jihads, as well, for people
like Salman Rushdie?
MR. FLEISCHER: Les, I've said what I've said on the
topic. I think you should--
Q Do you think that's peaceful, when they--
MR. FLEISCHER: -- I think you should address your
question to people who study Koran or the Bible or things of that
nature, and you'll find all the theology you'd like to find.
Q You're very studied, Ari. I
mean--
MR. FLEISCHER: Mr. Holland.
Q Ari, what about the Pickering
nomination? It seems to be in trouble up on the
Hill. Do you still stand by it? Are you thinking
about withdrawing him?
MR. FLEISCHER: No. If you recall, the last
briefing I gave when the Senate recessed as the President was preparing
to depart for Asia, I said at that time that the President believes in
Judge Pickering and will fight for Judge Pickering, and that is exactly
what he intends to do. The President has utmost confidence
in Judge Pickering. And I think what you're seeing is an
unfortunate part of the politization of the way judges, circuit court
judges are picked in this country.
Judge Pickering received a well-qualified rating from the American
Bar Association, and that is something the Democrats, who like to
follow the judgments of the American Bar Association, have said
previously was a gold standard, that they would review -- that they
would use in reviewing judicial nominations.
So the President continues to have every bit of confidence in Judge
Pickering, and will continue to support him and urge his passage.
Q What does the fight for Pickering
mean? What does that fight mean? Is the President
going to pick up the phone and call people and say, look, this is my
choice, stand by him?
MR. FLEISCHER: April, I think he'll just make an
assessment at the appropriate time about what that means, or what level
of activity he will personally engage in. He'll just make
that call as it gets closer.
Q I want to quote the President directly
yesterday, when he was talking about the environment. He
said, "And you cannot sue your way to clean air and clean water and
clean land." And I'd just like to contrast that with an
Alabama jury's decision on Friday of just last week, against Monsanto,
dealing with a case in Anniston, Alabama, where residents there for
decades were exposed to PCBs, and legal remedies will now not only
compensate them, but see that that PCB-laden ground will be
clean. That is a legal pursuit of clean land and
compensating victims of pollution. Does the President
consider that something that's not appropriate?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President's statement is --
Q -- proof that what he said yesterday isn't
accurate, that you cannot sue yourself to clean land?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President's statement yesterday was
addressed to the broad issue of the Superfund, which has failed to
clean up as many sites as it was originally intended to clean up,
because it's become a haven for lawyers. It's a way for
lawyers to end up in court, and not as a way for pollution sites to get
cleaned up. That's been the unfortunate history of
Superfund. Superfund was enacted with very good intentions,
but it really has become more of a bonanza for trial lawyers than it is
a way to clean up the environment. And that's what the
President was referring to.
I cited yesterday some of the successful precedents involving
brownfields legislation, which Congress agreed to on a bipartisan basis
with the President, as a way to go to address legal concerns, because
there are legal aspects, there will be suits involving
cleanup. But if these suits become just a forum for lawyers
to get themselves into court, without cleaning up the land, they won't
be productive. And that's why the brownfields precedent is a
very helpful one for Superfund.
Q If I could ask you a question about
welfare reform. I know we had a briefing this morning, but
I'd just ask you a couple things here on camera, if I
may. Does the White House have any second thoughts at all
about a sharp increase in work requirements at a time when many of the
states have fiscal problems and you also have a relatively soft job
market?
MR. FLEISCHER: The interesting history about welfare
reform is that even in previous recoveries, previous economic booms,
the welfare rolls still went up. Only after concurrent with
the welfare reforms that went into effect in 1996 did the welfare rolls
drop as much as they did. And even now, with the recession
that began last March, the welfare rolls have not dropped the way
people thought they would, or actually the number of people on welfare
has not increased.
So let me try to put it a little more succinctly for
you. The President is confident that one of the reasons
welfare reforms works is because in good times and in bad times it
tells people that the aid they get under welfare will only be temporary
and that people can find work, they should be able to find work, and
the government has programs set up to help them find
work. And that's the success of the welfare program in good
times and bad. And that has fundamentally led to
improvements in the lives of low-income Americans, by taking away the
trap that the old welfare state used to be, and replacing it instead
with a focus on work and self-sufficiency.
Q Governors, both Republican and Democrats,
have asked for additional money, either-- and an "inflation adjustment"
or additional money to do these various things, including additional
money to help cover the costs of child care for all of these people
that the President would like to now see working more. Is
the administration sympathetic in any way to those requests?
MR. FLEISCHER: You are correct, the governors have asked
for additional money. And, at the same time, there are many
members of Congress who are suggesting that the amount of the TANF, or
the Temporary Aid to Needy Families block grant be
reduced. So you have governors asking for more, you have
members of Congress, particularly on the Republican side, asking for
less, and the reason they say that is because the number of people who
are on welfare has dropped so dramatically from 1996, while the amount
of money available for everybody on welfare has remained the same.
And so there has been a tremendous per capita increase in the
amount of money available to help welfare, the families that remain on
welfare. That extra money now has been used for child care, for
transportation, to help people get cars so they can go to jobs on the
other side of town, if that's necessary.
So the President's view is that the right answer is to leave the
block grant exactly as it is. It should not be cut, even
though the welfare rolls have dropped dramatically. But
neither does he think it needs to be increased. The
President thinks the amount is just right.
Q Ari, several thousand steelworkers are
going to be at the White House, or in front of the White House on
Thursday. Is the President considering letting a few of them
in to hear their views on Thursday?
MR. FLEISCHER: The people has heard the views of many
people on this topic, and I think he will continue to. He's
heard the views of the steelworkers. And, as you know, he
has until March 6th to make his decision about steel and steel
imports. He has not made any decision yet.
Q That's a no?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm sorry?
Q That's a no, basically?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'll take a look at the Thursday schedule
on Thursday. But as I said, the President is sensitive to their--
sensitive to their concerns and he hears their voices.
Q -- that decision will be on March 6th, or
the President will make --
MR. FLEISCHER: There's no indication yet on what time it
will be.
Q Thank you.
MR. FLEISCHER: Thank you.
END 12:37 P.M. EST
#141-02/26
Return to this article at:
/news/releases/2002/02/20020226-5.html