| The White House President George W. Bush |
Print this document |
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
February 7, 2002
Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
1:00 P.M. EST
MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. Let me give
you a report on the President's day, and then I have a travel
announcement I'd like to make. The President this morning had his
usual round of intelligence, FBI briefings, with the Homeland Security
Council, as well. Then he participated in the National
Prayer Breakfast.
This afternoon, the President will meet with Senator Lieberman and
Senator Santorum to discuss the great progress that the Senate is
making in an agreement that's been reached in the Senate on the
President's armies of compassion initiative, to bring help to people
who are in poverty, or have difficulties in life that can be solved
through some of the faith-based solutions and compassion solutions that
the President has proposed to the Hill. They also include
increased charitable giving.
Later today, the President will also meet with the Prime Minister
of Israel to discuss efforts to obtain -- achieve peace in the Middle
East.
Travel -- the President will travel to Lima, Peru on March 23rd,
and San Salvador, El Salvador on March 24th. This is
following his visit to Monterrey, Mexico. Peruvians over the
last year have reaffirmed strongly their commitment to democratic
principles and have shown leadership in promoting these principles
throughout the Interamerican region. In Peru, the President
will meet with President Toledo to discuss our mutual efforts to
strengthen hemisphere democracy, free trade and the rule of
law. They will also discuss our common fight against
narcotics trafficking and terrorism.
In El Salvador, the President will discuss with President Flores
the proposed initiative on a Central American free trade
agreement. The two leaders will also discuss U.S. support
for El Salvador's ongoing efforts to strengthen democratic institutions
and to modernize its economy. They'll also review U.S.
assistance programs for earthquake reconstruction.
With that, I'm happy to take questions.
Q Can you tell us about the President's
decision on the detainees in Guantanamo Bay?
MR. FLEISCHER: Ron, at this moment, I have nothing to
report on that topic. When we have something to share we
will get it out and --
Q What was the question?
MR. FLEISCHER: Mr. Fournier, would you like to ask your
question louder?
Q Can you tell us about the President's
decision on Guantanamo Bay?
MR. FLEISCHER: Were you able to hear
that? The question was, will you tell us about the
President's decision on Guantanamo Bay. And the answer is
that there is nothing to report at this moment. When we have
something to report, we will, of course, provide it in its
entirety. But there's nothing to report right now.
Q Can you confirm the report that's out
there?
Q Can you tell us why the President has
decided that the Geneva Convention applies to the conflict, itself, and
the Taliban fighters, but not al Qaeda and other terrorists?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, there's nothing to report at this
moment. And whenever we have something, you will get it and
you will have it in full fashion.
Q Are you denying that he's made a decision
on it?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, as you know, John, there are times
when decisions are made, but there are some notifications, et
cetera. And so, until everything is notified, I'm not going
to get into this topic in any great length. But you will
have information provided to you in its entirety as soon as all is
available.
Q You're not knocking down the
story. You're not saying what's out there in the wires right
now is incorrect?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm saying that when the White House has
something to report to you, we will report it. You will have
it in a full fashion.
Q Will the President make an announcement,
or will it be on paper?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President is going to be having
an event tonight. As you know, it is a press pool event, so
you are certainly free to ask the President anything on your minds.
Q Is that expected today?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm sorry, Jim?
Q Do you think something today on this
matter?
MR. FLEISCHER: I hesitate to make predictions as to
timing. As soon as all timing is taken care of, it will be
released in its entirety.
Q Ari, when the House Speaker comes this
afternoon, if he asks the President to pick up the phone and call House
Republicans and to help Speaker Hastert defeat the campaign finance
Shays-Meehan bill in the House, will the President do
that? Will he actively lobby against that bill and help the
Speaker who said yesterday he wants to kill that bill?
MR. FLEISCHER: First of all, I'm not going to deal with
any hypotheticals for a meeting that has not taken place
yet. But the President is prepared and willing to support
legislation that will improve the current campaign finance
system. The President believes that there is too much soft
money in the system. He wants to abolish union soft money,
he wants to abolish corporate soft money. He believes we
need to have greater disclosure so the American people can know where
the money that enters our campaigns comes from, so they can take that
into account in their decisions as to how they want to vote.
There are a series of reforms the President
supports. Those reforms that the President supports as
principles are partially reflected in several of the bills that are
moving on the Hill. And the President will continue to work
with the Congress so the current system can be improved.
Q Yes, but Hastert has said that this bill
is a life-or-death issue for the Republican Party. Does the
President agree with that? And if he agrees with it to any
extent, why won't he work against the bill?
MR. FLEISCHER: There have been many strong feelings
expressed on both sides of this issue. And I can assure you,
all those strong feelings have been brought to the President's
attention directly and indirectly. And the signal that the
President clearly sends, has sent, and continues to send, is that he
wants to sign legislation that will improve the current system.
What I think is so different about campaign finance reform in the
year 2002 is, for the first time in about 10 years or more, this debate
is real, because they know there's a President who's prepared to sign
something if it improves the system. In the past many years,
with divided government particularly, Democrats in Congress when
President Bush was there always pushed for something they knew former
President Bush would never sign. President Clinton always pushed for
something he knew Congress would never go along with.
This year, it's real. This year is
meaningful. And the President hopes that Congress will send
him something that he can sign, because he wants to get the job done
and reform the law.
Q Does he think this improves the
system? Does he think Shays-Meehan improves the system, or
not?
MR. FLEISCHER: As I indicated, the Shays-Meehan bill and
many other bills partially reflect the President's
principles. That doesn't entirely reflect the President's
principles. But there are some things in there that
do. There are some things in there that clearly do not.
Q So he wouldn't sign it then?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, again, it hasn't even made its way
through the House yet. And so the exact process is
undetermined. There may be amendments in the House.
Q Isn't it easy for you to stand up here and
say the President would love to sign something that improves the
system, when you know full well that he doesn't support this, and
wouldn't support this?
MR. FLEISCHER: David, it's never easy for me to stand up
here and say anything.
Q I know, but let's answer the
question. (Laughter.) Can you answer the
question?
MR. FLEISCHER: What's your question?
Q It's easy to say that he would sign
something that improves the system, when you know and he knows that he
doesn't support this. He doesn't think it improves the
system.
MR. FLEISCHER: As I indicated, there are many bills that
partially reflect the President's principles. Shays-Meehan,
for example, differs with the President's principles in that the
President thinks individuals should be allowed to contribute soft money
to campaigns, because that is money that they give on their own
volition. It's not coerced, it's not forced, it's not
removed from their paychecks the way money is taken from union workers,
for example, and put into a political cause.
The President believes that corporate soft money should be banned,
because it is taken against the will of people in
companies. They have no say in how that money is
spent. The same thing applies to union soft
money. There's a difference on individuals. So on
two of those three, the President's principles are met. On
one of those three, it's not.
In the end, the President will take a look at the product that the
Congress settles on. This could go to
conference. It's not clear what exact process will take
place between the House and the Senate. So, as is typical
when legislation is at its beginning stage on the House, it's
impossible to say with any definition or definity, how the President
will ultimately come down. He'll let the process continue to
work.
Q But, Ari, John's underlying question was,
is the President going to get involved in the lobbying on this
legislation.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President has been
involved. There have been meetings that I've been in where
the President has made crystal clear to Republicans who oppose campaign
finance reform that he wants to sign a bill and that they cannot count
on him to veto legislation.
Q Will he call any members this week, while
the debate is going on?
MR. FLEISCHER: Not this week, certainly. The
debate hasn't taken place. Next week -- ask me next week and
I'll try to keep you informed.
Q Will he lobby against this bill, yes or
no? Do you know?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President has made it clear that he
wants to sign something that will improve the system. Now,
again, John's question was presuming that the Speaker will ask the
President, and I don't want to go down that road --
Q I'm not asking that question --
Q I'm asking something different, just
generally --
MR. FLEISCHER: Ron, Ron.
Q I'm not asking about Hastert, I'm asking
specifically, will the President lobby against the Shays-Meehan bill?
MR. FLEISCHER: As I indicated, the President believes
that there are elements in the Shays-Meehan bill that partially meet
his principles. And the President will continue to work with
Congress. I think you can anticipate in many of the meetings
the President has with members of Congress, he'll talk about campaign
finance reform and the principles that he supports, and urge the
Congress to pass something that matches those principles.
Q Will he lobby against the Shays-Meehan
bill?
MR. FLEISCHER: Ask me that next week and we'll see what
decision is made. But again, the Shays-Meehan bill partially
represents what the President believes is right. There are
elements of it that do not.
Q Why would the decision be different next
week? Why would it be different next week? You
know what it is now. Hasn't he decided whether he's for it
or against it now?
MR. FLEISCHER: This is the beginning of the process in
the House of Representatives. The legislation is coming to
the floor. You don't know what ultimate outcome Shays-Meehan
will have once it hits the floor. Depending on the rule, right now it
looks like it's amendable. The discharge petition under
which Shays-Meehan is going to be considered on the floor allowed for
10 amendments by the majority, 5 for the minority. So when you
describe Shays-Meehan, are you describing Shays-Meehan as it is today
in its pre-vote fashion, or are you describing it as it will exist in
its ultimate outcome?
- 17 -
MORE
- 6 -
Q Will he lobby for amendment?
Q Let me ask the question this
way. The Speaker has pulled a few rabbits out of the hat for
the President, whether the issue be tax cuts, trade promotion
authority, some other tough issues in the House of
Representatives. If the Speaker came to the President and
just on a purely political sense, and said, Mr. President, you've
called me and said I need you on this one, Denny; Mr. President, this
time Denny needs you -- would the President feel a debt to the Speaker
to get involved?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President will always work closely
with the Speaker, and the President will also honor the principles that
he ran on. And he ran on a series of principles to improve the current
system. And the President has been in meetings with members
of Congress and Republicans where he has indicated to them that he
wants to sign a bill that improves the system.
And I think, John, that is what has made this debate so real this
year. It used to be an empty exercise in Washington, D.C.
when it came to campaign finance reform. This year, it's
real, it's significant, and it has a chance to be signed into law and
that's why the President laid out his principles.
Q But did you indicate just a second ago
that a decision has basically not been made about whether or not he
would lobby against this?
MR. FLEISCHER: No. I indicated that the
President views this bill as partially reflecting his principles.
Q But he may end up lobbying against it, is
that correct?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, when you say "this," you're
defining something before it can possibly be
understood. It's amendable, changes can be made.
Q You could lobby against this
bill. It doesn't have to be on the floor for the President
to start lobbying against the bill. I mean, he could start
today, if he wanted to.
MR. FLEISCHER: And, obviously, he has not.
Q He has not. And could there be
a decision to lobby against Shays-Meehan before it comes to the
floor? Is that under consideration?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President has made it clear that he
is going to work with Congress to sign something that improves the
system. Shays-Meehan partially improves the system. It's
inconsistent with several of the President's principles but it's
consistent with others. So we'll just see what the ultimate
outcome is.
Q I have two questions. One has
to do with this trip you just announced, Ari. When President
Clinton went to Central America after Hurricane Mitch, he went to
Honduras, El Salvador, and then he went to Guatemala and met with all
the Central American Presidents. You've announced that he
will be in Lima on the 23rd and in El Salvador on the
24th. Does he contemplate meeting all the Central American
leaders in El Salvador, after the official visit to El Salvador, to
push the Common Market?
MR. FLEISCHER: There will be a more robust announcement
later about all the people that the President will be meeting with
during these travels. So there will be other meetings with
other leaders. Stay tuned for more robust announcements.
Q May I follow up with my second
question? The meeting today with Prime Minister Sharon, it
will be the fourth meeting President Bush has held with Mr.
Sharon. No meetings with Chairman Arafat. What
has changed as far as -- it seems in the Middle East, terrorism
continues. We just had an event lately. What does
the President expect can be worked out with Mr. Sharon, given that
terrorism still exists in the Middle East and it doesn't seem to be
abating?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, violence is not new to the Middle
East, and throughout the history of the Middle East, the United States
President has met with the Prime Minister of Israel to discuss efforts
to reduce the violence, and this is part of the longstanding American
commitment to Israel and to meetings with Israel's Prime Ministers.
The President and Prime Minister Sharon are going to discuss this
evening the campaign against terror and other developments in the
Middle East. The President believes Chairman Arafat knows
what he needs to do to crack down on the terrorist activities in the
Middle East and that the United States is looking to Chairman Arafat to
do more to demonstrate his opposition to terrorism and the concrete
steps he'll take.
The President will also express to Prime Minister Sharon this
evening the President's deep concern about the plight of the
Palestinian people, and he will discuss what steps might be taken to
ease the situation for the people.
Q Could I come back to the prisoner issue
for a second here? If you can't tell us about an actual
decision, since this is the only time we're going to get public comment
from you today, can you at least tell us about the deliberative process
involved and the decision making process in giving certain status to
Taliban members as opposed to al Qaeda members? If you can just talk
about the concerns and the deliberative process?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President has held a series of
meetings with this National Security Council, and has discussed the
various legal issues involved in the applicability of the Geneva
Convention. In all cases, the President will reflect a
policy that is a given with America's traditions of treating military
detainees well, treating them humanely, giving them full rations of
food, three meals a day, medical treatment. All of that will
be a given, no matter what decisions the President makes, because
that's a reflection of the values of the United States and the way our
military treats people.
The legal issues that are involved, in terms of the applicability
of the Geneva Convention, particularly given any distinctions that may
or may not be made between the al Qaeda and the Taliban are issues that
have been a subject of discussion with the National Security
Council. That's something that you will hear from -- at the
appropriate time.
Q What role did international pressure play
in the deliberations?
MR. FLEISCHER: This has really been a discussion that
was centered around the thoughts of the national security
team. And the national security team, as you know, has
always said that these detainees should not be treated as prisoners of
war, because they don't conform to the requirements of Article 4 of the
Geneva Convention, which detailed what type of treatment would be given
to people in accordance with POW standards. That's a very
easily understood legal doctrine of Article 4.
For example, the detainees in Guantanamo did not wear uniforms.
They're not visibly identifiable. They don't belong to a
military hierarchy. All of those are prerequisites under
Article 4 of the Geneva Convention, which will be required in order to
determine somebody is a POW.
There's a broader issue about the important principles of the
Geneva Convention, and the President's belief in the Geneva Convention
as an important governing doctrine. And you will hear more
about it.
Q Just one more, if I could. What
do you lose if Taliban fighters are declared eligible under the full
provisions of Article 4 of the Geneva Convention, versus the status
that they enjoy right now?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, that's not an issue under
discussion, John, because the determination has already been made that
neither the Taliban nor the al Qaeda are prisoners of
war. We've heard that repeatedly from Department of Defense,
from this podium. So that's not under discussion.
Q Why is the President sending the Vice
President to the Middle East?
MR. FLEISCHER: The Vice President is going to travel to
the Middle East and to other nations from March 10th to March 20th, at
the President's request. He'll visit U.S. forces, as well as
he'll have meetings with heads of states and governments and foreign
ministers in Kuwait, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, the United
Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Turkey, Oman, Jordan and
Israel.
The Vice President knows this region very well. He knows
the leaders of the region very well. He has many
longstanding relationships with senior officials of these
countries. The Vice President will hold wide-ranging
discussions on matters of mutual interest, including our ongoing
campaign against terrorism and other regional security
issues. The trip builds on earlier visits, for example, that
the President directed the Secretary of State to make and the Secretary
of Defense to make. It's one of the things that Vice
Presidents do at the President's requests.
Q Is there a reason for the timing right
now? Is there some shift going on, or some particular reason
why he would go at this particular time?
MR. FLEISCHER: Just as Secretary Powell has visited the
region, Secretary Rumsfeld has visited the region, it's appropriate for
the Vice President to visit the region. There is a timing
issue involved in the fact that the President will be out of the
country for a period of time in February. There is also the
importance of scheduling the event -- be respectful of the
Hadj. And so there are a series of reasons that the trip is
the week it is taken, reflected with the President's schedule and other
regional important matters.
Q How about security concerns?
Q Going back to Arafat and terrorists, the
Wall Street Journal reporter is still held against his will in
Pakistan. The troubling thing is that his captives are
asking that F-16s should be released to Pakistan and also Pakistanis
are held in Cuba also should be released. Now, what I'm
asking you, what is the President doing for his release, using his
power to get his release? And also if General Musharraf
comes next week here, if he's going to bring him with on his plane?
MR. FLEISCHER: Obviously, this is an issue that is very
troubling to all Americans and to the President. The
President is very concerned about what has happened with the kidnapping
of Mr. Pearl. It is the longstanding policy of the United
States government, and that remains in place, that the United States
government does not and will not negotiate. But the United
States has worked very productively with Pakistan.
Pakistani authorities are doing all they possibly can to obtain the
release of Mr. Pearl. The United States is fully satisfied
with the actions of the Pakistani government. And if there's
any one thing that the kidnappers need to know is that they should
release Mr. Pearl unconditionally and immediately.
Q Does the President believe that or he
agree that terrorism is still there in Pakistan, whether they're al
Qaeda or whether they're Taliban backers or whoever they are, they are
still in Pakistan, despite the border security --
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, clearly, the President has
designated two entities in Pakistan as terrorist organizations and has
frozen their assets, and has found good cooperation from President
Musharraf in taking action against these groups.
Q On the Geneva Convention, one
clarification. A decision to apply the Geneva Convention to
Afghanistan and to Taliban fighters would not, I believe you were
saying, would not have any effect on the decision to declare them as
non-POWs?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, that's a settled matter, and it's
been settled for weeks.
Q Could I ask you, on the meeting today with
Santorum and Lieberman, what is the import of what the President is
doing here? Does he hope -- is he embracing this compromise
as the bill he believes the entire Congress should pass?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President attaches great import to
today's event. The House of Representatives has already passed one of
the President's major campaign pledges to the American people to have
faith-based solutions to help people who are in poverty who otherwise
have been falling through the cracks in our society, even throughout
the '90s when we had unparalleled growth. We still had
millions of Americans who were left behind. Very often these
people were people who no government program, even the most
well-intentioned, could ever reach.
Faith-based solutions very often have been a way to find ways to
help people. And by that, the President refers to tearing
down barriers that prohibit the federal government from working with
groups that may be faith-based, so those faith-based groups can turn
their resources into the communities in which they live to help lift
people up.
The House of Representatives passed legislation, much along the
lines of what the President proposed, by more than 40
votes. A nice bipartisan vote. The significance
of today is now it looks like the Senate is moving in the same
direction, bipartisanship, to create a new way of bringing help to
people who have been left behind. And the new way the Senate
has agreed to focuses on allowing some 84 million Americans who
currently are not allowed to deduct money for charitable giving, for
the first time since 1986, receive a deduction for their charitable
giving.
It also breaks down barriers where the federal government
previously did not provide help to community or faith-based groups that
were doing good works in their neighborhoods. So this is an
important bipartisan moment where the United States Senate now looks
like it will make progress on helping people who are mired still in
poverty or have been left behind.
Q This bill takes a slightly different
approach to the question of discrimination of those who work for
religious charities. Does the President embrace the Senate
version over the House version? Is he taking a stance here
on how the discrimination issue should be addressed?
MR. FLEISCHER: You correctly point out that the Senate
arrives at the same good conclusion by achieving a different
method. The House had what was known as charitable choice
provisions. The Senate provision would bar the federal
government from discriminating on religious grounds, including
religious iconography, governance, and experience with government
contracts.
It's a different way to get to the same good result. And
the President, as always, will work with the House and the Senate and
hope to have a good agreement that the two reach together so that the
barriers the federal government has put in the way of these faith-based
and community action-oriented groups can be taken down to bring help to
people.
Q What are the President's expectations for
the Olympics? Does he have any security concerns, and how
much can you tell us about his participation?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, his participation will be limited
to speaking. He will not be
competing. (Laughter.) The President looks
forward to going to Utah tomorrow. It's one of the real
honors of the presidency to be able to participate in something as
momentous and glorious as the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games,
which only come every, of course, four years. He's a
sportsman, so I think he'll have particular interest in meeting the
athletes and visiting with them.
But as for the security, this is a very large undertaking, and the
President and Homeland Security Director Ridge and all the officials of
the government are working very hard with Utah officials and Olympic
officials to provide for the safety of the area. They are
satisfied that every precaution has been taken. And the
President looks forward to heading out to the games.
Q Ari, as the President meets with the
religious leaders, is he going to be talking -- obviously, his welfare
proposals -- in particular this idea of trying to --
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm sorry, you said with the religious
leaders?
Q Yes, with the leaders this afternoon.
MR. FLEISCHER: Two senators.
Q Okay, I'm
sorry. (Laughter.) My mistake. But
anyway, is he going to be talking up this proposal about promoting
marriage in the welfare proposals?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'd be surprised --
Q How can the government promote marriage,
and is there an example of a state that has had some kind of program
that has really worked?
MR. FLEISCHER: One, I'd be surprised if that issue comes
up. It's a separate topic. The goal is the same,
which is to help people who have been left behind. This is a
different way to do it. You're talking about the
reauthorization of the 1996 welfare law, which is up for this
year. I don't think that's going to come up this afternoon.
But the authors of that law, which passed with huge, overwhelming
bipartisan votes in 1996 and was signed into law by President Clinton,
of course, were concerned about promoting stable families and less
reliance on welfare through increases --
through marriage. The tax act, interestingly, that the
President signed in June of this year, adjusted the income brackets for
the earned income tax credit program, recognizing that low-income
Americans suffered a marriage penalty, and that anything that
discourages marriage -- whether it's through the tax code or through
other social aspects of welfare laws -- needs to be addressed to give
people encouragement to come together, not be driven apart.
Q Ari, I have a couple more questions about
this decision that you have yet to announce, whether or not you have
anything to announce. Should the Taliban prisoners, however
you want to characterize them, unlawful combatants, whatever, be given
full provision under the Geneva Convention, what changes for
them? Do they get stipends for cigarettes? Do
they only have to give name, rank and serial number? Will
they be released when cessation of hostilities is officially
declared? What changes if you fully apply the Geneva
Convention to them?
MR. FLEISCHER: One of the interesting issues of Article
4 of the Geneva Convention deals with if you were to deem somebody as a
prisoner of war, the United States government would be obligated to pay
them a monthly stipend. The United States government would
be obligated to give the al Qaeda or the Taliban detainees, the al
Qaeda terrorists in Guantanamo musical instruments. Those
would be obligations imposed upon a government under the prisoner of
war aspect of Article 4 of the Geneva Convention.
And that, as I mentioned, is a settled issue. There is
no dispute about it. They are not, will not be considered
prisoners of war, neither the al Qaeda or the
Taliban. That's an example.
Q So you don't change their classification,
but if you decide to fully apply the Geneva Convention to them, even
though you don't declare them prisoners of war, what changes for them?
MR. FLEISCHER: Let me -- once the decision is released,
you will be informed of it fully. I just -- I have to leave
it at that.
Q Ari, can we go back to the Middle East for
just one second? This morning you said the United States
would continue to remain engaged with the Palestinian
Authority. By using that phrase, Palestinian Authority,
rather than explicitly saying Chairman Arafat, were you trying to
suggest that the United States may reach out to other officials there,
or is it still the position now that the United States will keep
engaged with Arafat himself?
MR. FLEISCHER: Keep in mind, of course, I also indicated
this morning
that Secretary Powell has talked with Chairman
Arafat. And so it remains at the same level that it's been.
Q Tom Daschle has written a letter to the
President asking his help in getting the House to pass the 13-week
unemployment insurance extension that the Senate has just
passed. Daschle is saying that there are problems in the
House. How does the President feel about
that? Would he lend a hand?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, of course, the House has already
passed a stimulus that includes the 13-week unemployment
extension. So the fastest way for Senator Daschle to have
gotten a 13-week extension would have been to agree to what the House
passed. Of course, he has put the Senate on a different
path, which is complicating matters. But in all cases, the
President will continue to work with both the House and the Senate, so
that people who are unemployed can be given help.
But the President thinks that the Senate has missed a golden
opportunity to help people so they can keep their jobs -- not only to
help people who have lost their jobs, but what about helping people
keep their jobs? It's important not to turn your back on
those people. And the President was disappointed that the
Senate failed to take action more broadly.
Q Ari, Ankara's Turkish Daily News, and
other Turkish newspapers, as well as Germany's -- have reported numbers
of al Qaeda have arrived in the Gaza Strip and made contact with the
Palestinian Authority. And the President -- my question is,
the President's State of the Union promised, we must pursue them
wherever they are. He makes no exception for the Gaza Strip,
does he?
MR. FLEISCHER: Les, as you know, the President has
indicated that this is a war against terrorism wherever it
is. The United States will continue to work with various
entities around the world to fight terrorism.
Q Good. (Laughter.) The
New York Times has editorially --
MR. FLEISCHER: Can we stop at the good?
Q No, no, I just want to say, I think that's
wonderful. The New York Times has editorially denounced
Governor Jeb Bush because he supported the President at the University
of South Florida for firing a professor who called for death to Israel,
and who brought Islamic Jihad leaders on the campus. Does
the President support his brother's decision?
MR. FLEISCHER: I have not followed that issue, Les, and
so I really couldn't answer the question.
Q Since it has been two weeks, could I --
just one last one?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, you cannot. You only get
two today. It's a strict policy.
Q Can I go to my second one?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, that would be three for you, and then
I'd be in trouble with Les.
Q My second one.
MR. FLEISCHER: You had two.
Q He had two. If he has three,
you'll be generous.
MR. FLEISCHER: Has anybody not had one?
Q On Arafat, the United States position on
Arafat will always be relevant, not irrelevant, as the Israelis say, as
long as he holds the title he now has?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, if you're asking about "always," I
can't answer any question that begins with a premise about
"always." But the President's position is clear, and that is
that the burden remains squarely upon Chairman Arafat to do more,
because the President thinks he can do more. And the
President views this as a matter of importance, not only to help and
protect innocents in Israel who are losing their lives, but also to
protect the Palestinian people, who don't gain from the constant
fighting, and who need leadership that concerns -- is concerned with
protecting them, as well. And this is where some new
thinking is required by Chairman Arafat, so we can take action against
those terrorists, who, after all, also present a real threat to his
authority.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
MR. FLEISCHER: Thank you.
END 1:28
P.M. EST
Return to this article at:
/news/releases/2002/02/text/20020207-6.html
Print this document