President
|
Vice President
|
First Lady
|
Mrs. Cheney
|
News & Policies
History & Tours
|
Kids
|
Your Government
|
Appointments
|
Jobs
|
Contact
|
Graphic version
Email Updates | Español | Accessibility | Search | Privacy Policy | Help
|
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
February 28, 2002
Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
The James S. Brady Briefing Room
1:06 P.M. EST
MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. The President,
this morning, spoke with King Mohamed VI of Morocco. The two
discussed a number of regional issues, including the
Israeli-Palestinian situation and the U.N.-led effort to find a
solution to the Western Sahara dispute. President Bush
reiterated the high value that the United States places on its deep and
friendly relationships with Morocco.
After that, the President received his usual round of morning
briefings, and then he convened a meeting of the Homeland Security
Council. He's having his regular weekly lunch with the Vice President
today. And then the President will depart from the White
House to make a speech at the 2002 National Summit on Retirement
Savings, where the President is going to discuss what in his opinion is
a vital issue for all Americans as they get ready to retire or as they
are retired, and that is affording them the best nest eggs, the biggest
nest eggs possible so they can retire in happiness and comfort.
The President will focus on the pension changes that were already
enacted into law as a result of the Tax Act of 2001. He will
talk about his plans for pension protections as a result of the
collapse of Enron, as well as his belief that the best way to protect
retirement savings for younger workers is to allow them voluntary
options of personal retirement accounts.
Following that, the President will meet back here at the White
House with a bipartisan group of members of Congress to discuss issues
involving steel. And a couple other announcements, and I'll
be happy to take questions.
The President will welcome Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean Claude
Juncker for a working visit on March 6, next week. And the
President and Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern will meet at the White
House on March 13th. With that, I'm more than happy to take
your questions.
Q Ari, can you explain the President's
policy? Do we plan to send troops and money to every country
that has -- says it has terrorists? What is this
Yemen move, for one thing -- Georgia and so
forth? And where is the money coming from? And
does he feel that he has a mandate to go anywhere in the
world -- the President?
MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, in the wake of the attack on
September 11th, one of the things I think you've seen around the world
is how the world has stood in solidarity with the United States, and
has faced now the fact that terrorism does represent a threat to people
throughout the world, in various regions of the world, people from all
types of governments, whether they are democracies or whether they are
kingdoms, and different types of regions.
And the President views it as a healthy and welcome sign of the
multilateralism that is present in a way that people want to take this
threat seriously and look to the United States for leadership, for
strength and for help. And the President is pleased to help
provide it.
So the United States will work very productively and closely with
the various nations throughout the world, as they turn internally to
deal with their terrorism, with the problems they have in their
borders.
Specifically in Georgia, the United States will continue our
helpful efforts to recognize and respect and strengthen the sovereignty
of Georgia. The United States has previously provided helicopters to
Georgia, as was previously announced.
Q That isn't a civil war there?
MR. FLEISCHER: In
Georgia? Georgia -- in the Pankisi
Gorge, there are clear threats to the Georgian
government. It's a rather lawless area that is a sovereign
part of the Georgia Republic, and the Georgia government faces threats
there. The United States will provide training and equipment
to help Georgia deal with that.
In Yemen --
Q Threats from terrorists?
MR. FLEISCHER: There are threats there, as a result of
terrorist activities and --
Q Well, is this an intervention into a civil
war?
MR. FLEISCHER: This is an attempt to help Georgia to
train and equip the Georgians, as they deal with internal problems in
an area of Georgia that is known for its terrorist influence.
In Yemen, President Salih has responded very positively since
September 11th especially, in helping to fight
terrorism. That is a serious issue in Yemen. And
the Vice President will be traveling to Yemen next month, as you
know. And the United States wants to work closely with the
Yemenese government. President Salih has shown real
leadership on this measure.
So the long answer to your question, Helen, is, yes, the United
States will work directly and closely with nations around the world as
they combat terrorism. Properly and proudly so.
Q Leader Daschle has had
some -- are you done?
Q No, I want to follow up. There
is a U.N. organization, and if there's truly a collective problem, why
are we taking it on alone, and where do we get the money and the
troops?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, in the case of Georgia, for
example, this is a training exercise. It's equipment and
training that's carried out by the United States
military. And I don't think you're going to see members of
Congress --
Q Like Vietnam, you mean, when we started in
there?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I'm aware that even in Afghanistan,
Helen, there are some people who make that analogy to Vietnam, but not
many. And the President doesn't agree with it, and I think
most Americans don't either.
Q I just want to follow up,
quickly. What are the criteria for
intervention? You say that there's a threat to the Georgian
government in the Pankisi Gorge. There's a threat to the
Colombian government in parts of that country, to the Nigerian
government in parts of that country, to the Thai government in parts of
that country, to the Indonesian government in parts of that
country. What's the criteria for this intervention?
MR. FLEISCHER: Terry, it's been the longstanding policy
of the United States government to work productively with other
nations. And that involves military-to-military cooperation;
it involves diplomatic cooperation; it involves a whole series of
exercises that are collaborative and cooperational.
The criteria in fighting the war on terrorism is going to be to
continue to listen to the needs and the requests of nations throughout
the world as they deal with these issues. Terrorism
represents a serious threat not only to the sovereign nations of the
world, but to the international community. And it's a
healthy sign that since September 11th, nations have stepped up in
their efforts to rout out the terrorists where they are. And
the President welcomes that, is pleased with this sign of people
looking to the United States to provide strength, help and leadership,
and he intends to provide it.
Q Just to button it down, so if a government
comes to the United States and says, this problem within our borders we
can show you is connected to world terrorism in some sense, the United
States is willing to get involved?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the United States has been involved
for years. It's not as if it's a new development. But what
is helpful and productive is the number of nations who now take it even
more seriously and want to do more because they recognize, in the wake
of September 11th, just how far these extremists and terrorists are
prepared to go.
Q There has been a lot of political fire
today in the realm of foreign policy, and I would like to start by
getting the President's reaction to Leader Daschle's uncomplimentary
comments about the war effort, saying that the continued success of
this effort is still somewhat in doubt. And he talked about
if -- we've got to find bin Laden and other key
leaders of al Qaeda; if we don't then we will have
failed. And he said, "But we're not safe until we have
broken the back of al Qaeda and we haven't done that
yet." Can you respond, sir?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think the President would remind
anybody who would be critical that this is about much more than any one
person. This is about much more than Osama bin
Laden. This is about an entire terrorist
network. And the President has been very proud of the
bipartisan cooperation that he's gotten from Capitol Hill on
this. He'll continue to call for members of Congress to
engage in that bipartisan spirit.
Q Do you think that the Leader stepped over
the line here in his comments?
MR. FLEISCHER: I won't make any characterization of it
other than the President has said repeatedly this is about much more
than any one man, Osama bin Laden. This is about the war on
terrorism more broadly. That's where the President is
focused. Individuals are free to focus on any one person if
they think that's the best conduct of foreign policy. That's
a different approach than the President has.
Q Is the continued success of this war in
doubt, as the Leader suggests?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President has no
doubts. The President believes the United States has been
and will continue to be successful, thanks in good part to the
bipartisan support he's had from members of Congress.
Q Well, let me just follow up on a different
point. Can you amplify in your comments today that you
believe that President Clinton may have actually unleashed, through his
summitry, the wave of violence at the end of 2000?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's a mischaracterization of what I
said. In fact, I don't even think I ever used the words
"President Clinton" when I talked this morning. I never
did. So that's --
Q But you meant to leave the impression that
his summitry resulted in nothing, and may have stepped up the next
round of violence, didn't you?
MR. FLEISCHER: Actually, let
me -- let's review this morning. I was
asked a question that had said, "It seems that the violence was quelled
a lot when former President Clinton had both at the
table" -- meaning Arafat and
Sharon -- "had both parties at the
table" -- or Barak -- "had both
parties at the table. And now that Bush is leaving Arafat
out" -- was the question put to
me -- "hasn't that led to the violence?"
I would simply cite the press for a response to
that. And that amplifies on what I said. All you
need to do is look back, as I indicated this morning, that the violence
began in late 2000 and escalated through 2001. That's a
fact. And all you need to do is take a look at the press at
the time.
For example, The Washington Post, on November 12th, reported,
"Since the violence erupted September 29th, 209 people have been
killed." You can keep going if you want. The Los
Angeles Times on November 14th reported, "Four Israelis were killed and
eight wounded Monday." The violence clearly began late last
year. So what I wanted to do was set correct the premise of
the question that was put to me, which implied that the violence began
only when President Bush took office. What you really see
happening here --
Q But you didn't use any of those press
accounts in your comments earlier. I mean, you stand by the
comment that, in fact, the Clinton administration tried to "shoot the
moon" but ended up with nothing and more violence
resulted. I mean, that's what you said.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, obviously, the violence started on
September 29th. And so what you can see here, clearly, as
I've said, the violence began in late 2000, accelerated in
2001. Is that --
Q But the line, "shoot the
moon" --
MR. FLEISCHER: -- is that the problem that
all Presidents have faced in the Middle East, over decades, which is
something I've said repeatedly, not limited to any
administration. But for decades, there's been a problem of
violence in the Middle East. I corrected an impression that
was left that there was no violence in the Middle East when the parties
were at the table.
Q You think President Clinton overreached?
MR. FLEISCHER: The question was, wasn't there no
violence or little violence when the parties were at the
table. That's an incorrect characterization and I corrected
that this morning. The point --
Q What does it mean that the Clinton
administration shot the moon and ended up with nothing?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, there's no question the violence
really began on September 29th after the Camp David Accords broke
down. That's an historical point. The President's
approach is to learn the lessons of all previous Presidents, and that's
something I think that all previous Presidents, including President
Clinton, tried valiantly to achieve peace in the Middle
East. No United States President is to blame for violence in
the Middle East. The only people who are to blame are the
terrorists who carry out the violence.
President Bush is intent to learn the lessons of all previous
Presidents and focus on what he thinks can be successful, which is an
incremental approach based on the Mitchell Accords, and not an attempt
to have an immediate comprehensive solution, because he thinks that
will raise expectations too high and, therefore, meet with unmet
expectations and, therefore, create more trouble.
Q So, in hindsight, it is the view of this
administration that President Clinton made a mistake, a tactical error,
in bringing the parties together for a summit at Camp David, absent 99
percent of a deal? That you raised expectations, and in your
words, "violence resulted" when those expectations were not
met? That it was a mistake to try to bring the parties
together when they didn't really already have a deal?
MR. FLEISCHER: The point I'm making, John, is that the
President thinks it's important to learn lessons of all previous
Presidents, who have worked very hard --
Q Well, what's the lesson of Camp David?
MR. FLEISCHER: -- who have worked very hard
to bring peace to the Middle East. And President Clinton did
work very hard to bring peace to the Middle East. But
President Bush's focus is to learn from all these lessons from previous
administrations, and try to bring the parties together on something
that the parties themselves can agree to. And that's why the
Mitchell Accords are so helpful and important, because the Mitchell
Accords begin with a process that focuses really on what the parties
agree.
Now, President Bush, when he was a candidate, said repeatedly
throughout the campaign that it's important not to proceed beyond what
the parties agree to.
Q Ari, so after the question this morning,
when you made the statement, "shoot for the moon and come up with
nothing," the Clinton administration did perceive that as passing the
buck. So you're saying that was a mischaracterization of a
question that was asked this morning, saying that violence was quelled
"a bit" in the Middle East, and now -- when both parties
were brought together -- and now that Yasser
Arafat is not brought to the table, there is fighting, it's
escalated. That was the context of the question that I asked
this morning.
MR. FLEISCHER: Here's the question. The
transcript reads, "But, Ari, on the Middle East, it
seems" --
Q I asked the question. I
know. I know.
MR. FLEISCHER: Right. It says, "Ari, it seems
that the violence was quelled a lot when President Clinton had both at
the table." And then that --
Q But that doesn't mean it was
ended. It was quelled a lot.
MR. FLEISCHER: I understand. But then the
implication was, shouldn't President Bush bring the parties to the
table, because that seems to make the violence go away? And
I was noting that despite best efforts, the violence began late in
2000, accelerated in 2001. There's no doubt about
that. Everybody acknowledges that's what took
place. What's important is what can be done now to achieve
peace in the Middle East. And in that regard, the President
is going to continue to focus on the Mitchell Accords. But
there's no question that there are lessons to be learned from previous
efforts to bring about peace in the Middle East, not only from
President Clinton but from all Presidents.
Q Was one of the lessons to never receive
the Palestinians?
Q So are you trying
to -- in a way, it sounds like you're
back-pedaling from that statement this morning, "shooting for the moon
and coming up with nothing", because the Clinton administration is
saying that that sounds like passing the buck.
MR. FLEISCHER: No, there's no question that the
President's focus is on making an agreement that the parties themselves
can agree to, and not pushing beyond that.
Q Can I try one more? Can I try
once more? The Clinton administration's approach rejects
what you just said. Their approach was -- and
they learned their own lessons; at least, they would say they learned
their own lessons at Oslo and the follow-ups here at the White
House -- that the incremental approach was not
getting them anywhere. That they wanted to bring the parties to Camp
David and shoot for the moon, to get the comprehensive agreement,
because every time they got an incremental agreement, on the way to the
next incremental agreement there was backsliding. You say
the lesson of Camp David is that that's wrong?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President has clearly said, and he
said throughout the campaign, that the best way to achieve a
comprehensive agreement is through the series that Senator Mitchell, a
Democrat, has recommended, of interim steps that begin with security
talks, that lead to political discussions about borders and boundaries,
et cetera, finally getting to settlement issues. And that's
how you build confidence to achieve a comprehensive solution.
It is a different approach. But the point is that for
decades American Presidents have wrestled with how to bring peace to
the Middle East. President Clinton tried valiantly to do
so. Nobody should be surprised if President Bush has a
different approach. What is important to correct is an
impression left by a question this morning that President Bush's
different approach has been what led to more violence, because that's
not an appropriate --
Q Can I just clarify a couple of things,
going back just slightly? On Daschle, do
you -- does the administration disagree with
Daschle's assessment that the administration or the anti-terrorism
campaign has not yet broken the back of the al Qaeda network?
MR. FLEISCHER: You've heard the President repeatedly say
himself that the al Qaeda network is far less capable of carrying out
any of the operations they were previously capable of carrying
out. That has been severely disrupted and severely
hampered. It does not mean that the threat has gone away
entirely, because there does remain a threat, as al Qaeda tries to
reassemble in other nations. That's why the President is
still so determined to pursue this war. He believes it's
been successful and continues to be successful. It is not
over yet.
Q Do you feel as
though -- does this administration feel they have
broken the back of the al Qaeda network?
MR. FLEISCHER: I would characterize it exactly as I just
did in the President's words. I don't use any other words
than the President's.
Q One other thing. When we go
to -- with the action in Georgia and Yemen and
other countries, is there any concern in the administration about
spreading itself too thin? While I understand the desire to
respond to those countries who are trying to respond to the President's
call to go after terrorism, there still is a question of not only what
is the criteria for picking and choosing where you do go, but at what
level is the administration concerned about spreading itself too thin,
as well?
MR. FLEISCHER: No. The President believes
that when it comes to fighting the war against terrorism, and winning
the war against terrorism, it requires the nation to be prepared to do
whatever it takes. That's one of the reasons the President
has made his budget request to the Congress for an increase in defense
spending, and he hopes that the members of the Congress, Democrats and
Republicans alike, will not under-fund defense, as some have indicated
they might want to do. It is important in the President's
opinion to do whatever it takes to win this war, because the threats to
our country are of that nature.
Q I wanted to ask you again, getting back to
what you said this morning -- one of your
statements says, first of all, at least the impression we got, that the
parties have been pushed beyond what they were ready to
give. You also said, they should proceed at a pace that is
doable and not raise the expectations too high. The
impression we got was that you were criticizing the way that the
Clinton administration handled the negotiations.
MR. FLEISCHER: No, it was that question, just raised
differently, that John King just asked. And what I said is,
it should not surprise anybody that President Bush has a different
approach for how to bring about peace in the Middle
East. And it's patterned after a recommendation from the
former Democrat Majority Leader George Mitchell, and that is the
process I just outlined, which is an incremental way to build
confidence to lead up to a comprehensive solution, as opposed to a
one-shot deal to try to lead to a comprehensive solution.
Q Can I follow up?
MR. FLEISCHER: Go ahead.
Q Please. You also mentioned this
morning that the President was willing to look at requests from all
nations, as far as how to fight terrorism.
MR. FLEISCHER: Correct.
Q Well, in the case of Colombia, Colombia is
getting aid already from the United States, but the aid is strictly
limited by Congress for certain objectives only. And I
understand Colombia has asked the U.S. government to see if they can
use some of those funds to help fight the guerrillas, FARC, now that
negotiations have broken down and there have been Colombian troops into
the zone of dissension. And my question is -- I
think the President answered he has to abide by the laws. My
question is, is the President willing to try to convince Congress to
allow some of those funds to be used the way the Colombian government
wants to use it?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President is aware that there are
different members of Congress who have different ideas about the
statute that is in place. The President will, of course,
continue to, one, support the Pastrana government, and do so strongly;
two, abide by the statute that is in place.
The administration is prepared to listen to the ideas from members
of Congress. But I remind you, this is also one of the
reasons, because of the FARC and the threat that it poses to the people
of Colombia and the government of Colombia, that the President's budget
requests in 2003, $98 million of additional money to help train the
Colombian military to defend critical infrastructure, with an
additional focus on the oil pipelines in that country from the
terrorist attacks that have taken place.
So we are already engaged with Congress in an attempt to do more to
help the Pastrana government. And you are correct, the
United States has provided a very robust package of aid for
Colombia. I think it was $1.3 billion of support for
Colombia in their anti-narcotics efforts, as well as additional money
through what's called the Andean Regional Initiative.
Q Ari, let me ask a specific question, and
maybe get a specific answer instead of your general on the Middle
East. What U.S. administrations were you referring to when
you said they shot the moon and got nothing? Who were you
referring to?
MR. FLEISCHER: And we're back to John King's question,
and I'd really rephrase it the same way I did when John asked
it. The President's approach is going to be based on the
Mitchell Accords, to have a more incremental approach.
Q My question was in the context of the
Clinton administration, though. So you're saying the Clinton
administration --
Q I'm asking you what administrations shot
the moon and got nothing?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President believes it's important to
learn the lessons from all previous administrations in how to deal with
the Middle East, and I'd leave it at that.
Q No, no, the question is --
MR. FLEISCHER: I leave it at that.
Q The question is, what administration shot
the moon and got nothing, and what administration pushed too far,
pushed the parties farther than they want to go?
MR. FLEISCHER: There's no question that the President's
approach to how to bring about peace in the Middle East focuses on the
approach recommended by Senator Mitchell, which creates a comprehensive
settlement, which is what the previous administration sought to
do. But over the Mitchell -- in
accordance with the Mitchell recommendations, it seeks a comprehensive
settlement at the end of a series of confidence-building measures, as
opposed to any one summit.
Q Why won't you tell us who you're referring
to when you say "shot the moon and got nothing", and "pushed the
parties further than they wanted to go"?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think I phrased it exactly as I intend
to.
Q Are you backing off on what you said?
MR. FLEISCHER: Not at all.
Wendell?
Q Ari, back on Daschle?
MR. FLEISCHER: Wendell?
Q Two questions. Did we
misunderstand, then, this morning when you said "failure to reach that
level" -- the level of
expectations -- did we misunderstand that the
failure to reach that level was, in your opinion, one of the
contributors to the violence?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President believes that whatever
solution can be arrived at has got to be set at such a level that the
parties can agree to it. Failure to do that can lead to a
situation where expectations are set too high. And if
expectations are risen to a level where then people are disappointed,
people can act on their disappointment.
Q I'm sorry, I have a second question.
MR. FLEISCHER: Go ahead.
Q The other question is, the President,
early on in this war on terrorism, used to confine his target, or
define his target, as terrorists of "a global reach." Is it
no longer the case that terrorist organizations need have a global
reach for countries to petition the U.S. for aid and support, and be
given that?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President never limited the amount of
assistance the United States would give to other nations who were
dealing with terrorist threats to only those nations that deal with
terrorist threats of a global reach. It's been a
longstanding policy of the United States to help other nations in their
wars on terrorism.
And Georgia is a case in point. Prior to September 11th,
the United States provided helicopters to Georgia. The issue
of Georgian sovereignty is an important issue, and part of America's
foreign policy. So it's not limited to just that group.
Your question? Go right ahead.
Q Back on Senator
Daschle. Between his comments and those of Senator Byrd, is
this a sign to you that the Democrats are seeking to politicize this
issue, and maybe put it on the table for midterm 2002?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, it's never easy to guess what the
motives are of the loyal opposition on Capitol
Hill. Obviously, people feel heartfelt about various
issues. Obviously there's going to be politics involved.
Some people may want to run for President one day. But the
President is going to continue to always work productively and
bipartisan with members of the Congress.
Q Bobby Byrd for
President? (Laughter.)
Q Were you surprised, given that until now
this had sort of been an off-limits issue -- did
it surprise you that these comments came today?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, there's a bottom line, and the
President always understands that members of Congress are going to
speak out as freely as they should. But when it comes to the
defense of the nation, the President surely hopes that nobody will vote
to under-fund our nation's defense needs, because the needs are
serious, there is a was underway.
The President has made a serious proposal to the
Congress. It's Congress' right and prerogative to ask tough
questions about it. At the end of the day it will come to a
vote, and the President hopes that the Congress will continue its
bipartisan spirit and support the defense budget he sent up there.
Q Ari, just to go back one more time to this
morning and the Mideast, just wondering, do you still stand by what you
said this morning? Or, in retrospect, do you wish, perhaps, you had
either qualified or tempered your --
MR. FLEISCHER: No, of course, I stand by
it. I think that it was important to address what the
question suggested, which was that there the violence had been quelled
a lot when the parties were at the table. That was a
misrepresentation, and that's why I said this
morning -- I said it again today and brought some
newspaper articles to show it -- that the
violence historically began in late 2000, accelerated into
2001. The premise of the question was, the violence had
really subsided a lot, so long as the parties were at the
table. That's an important impression to correct.
Q Well, you went further than
that. You went beyond that and said --
Q -- Senator Daschle and Senator
Byrd's comments were damaging to unity on the war?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think members of Congress have
every right to speak out as they see fit.
Q Ari, the
President -- Wendell asked about the global
reach, whether that was a continuing standard. When the
President first launched -- he also said that the
administration had to be careful to differentiate between real
terrorists and people internally in a country, in a dispute that are
exercising their own political voices. Now, what's unclear
to us, and hopefully you can clarify it, is what the criteria is
now. How is the administration being sure that a country
calls up and says, these people, we think they're connected with al
Qaeda, so can you come and help us? The case in Georgia is
an example of that. What steps is the administration
taking? What criteria is the administration proposing to
make sure that the standards the President originally set are, in fact,
met as these requests come in from other nations.
MR. FLEISCHER: The standard, broadly, is the national
interest. And let me walk through the specifics.
Georgia: There is the Pankisi Gorge, which by all
estimates is a lawless area. It's an area in which the
borders are hard to seal and are unsealed, in which people freely go
back and forth between Chechnya and Georgia into the Pankisi
Gorge. And this was the case prior to September 11th, as I
indicated. And that's why the United States provided, and
you received notice, helicopters were sent to the Georgian Republic to
assist them in their dealings, to maintain their sovereignty over an
area that has been hard to control as a result of the terrorist
infiltration and the problems in Georgia.
In Colombia, the FARC is a listed terrorist
organization. It traffics in narcotics, it attacks
pipelines, it hijacks airplanes, it kidnaps presidential candidates and
state senators. I think there's no question that the
American people want to help the government of Colombia put an end to
that type of violence.
In Yemen: Yemen is a country that is an area that also
is very hard to patrol and to control, in the northern reaches of
Yemen. And the administration is very pleased that President
Salih is helping the United States.
I think what's interesting here is one of the accusations that was
previously launched against the President is why won't he work
cooperatively with other countries. Here what you have is
these other countries coming to the United States and seeking our
support and the President is pleased to provide it.
Q Are you asking -- is
the administration asking those countries to bring evidence that these
people are true terrorists in the form that the United States wants to
commit itself to battle, versus political dissidents?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, in the three issues I cited,
there's no question about that there are terrorist issues in those
countries.
Q What does the White House, or what does
the President think about this idea of sending out certificates to
Social Security recipients to guarantee
their -- pretend, at least, to guarantee their
benefits in perpetuity?
MR. FLEISCHER: Let me take a look at that, because I'm
not aware of what the White House position is on that at this time.
Q -- comment back and forth on
the Hill about this today.
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, I know, specifically on that
topic. You'll hear a lot from the President any minute now
on what the President's approach is, broadly, to retirement savings.
Q In the administration's view, how serious
is the danger of coordinated efforts between foreign terrorist groups
and domestic terrorist groups? And are you taking new steps
to combat this danger?
MR. FLEISCHER: When you talk about domestic terror, do
you mean domestic to the United States?
Q Yes, white supremists, black militants,
and so forth.
MR. FLEISCHER: That's really something you would need to
address more specifically to the FBI, which has a lot more experience
directly in domestic terrorist groups. If you want to talk
about any specific links, that's really the place for that.
Q You said that the release of the 7,000
documents from Energy is unrelated to the GAO suit against the Cheney
task force.
MR. FLEISCHER: Correct.
Q Are you saying that in all of that 7,500
pages, there's none of the material that others have been asking for
from the Cheney task force?
| Printer-Friendly Version |
| Email this page to a friend |