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
March 25, 2002
Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
The James S. Brady Briefing Room
12:34 P.M. EST
MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. Let me give
you a report on the President's day. The President this
morning began his day with a briefing by the Central Intelligence
Agency, followed by a briefing from the FBI to go over all the latest
developments on the war against terrorism. He convened a
meeting of the National Security Council. And then the
President has a very warm and friendly meeting with the Prime Minister
of Denmark.
The two leaders discussed their common efforts in the war on
terrorism. President Bush thanked Denmark, a strong NATO
ally, for its contribution in Operation Enduring Freedom, and expressed
sorrow for the loss of Danish soldiers there. The two
leaders covered their common transatlantic agenda, which included
preparations for the upcoming NATO summit this fall, NATO enlargement,
as well as their intention to develop a strong new NATO-Russia
relationship.
The two leaders also had a good discussion about the situation in
the Middle East, U.S.-European trade issues, and the common efforts to
advance global economic development, especially through open and free
trade, economic reforms and good governance with developing
nations. As I said, it was a very warm meeting.
Following that, the President signed a proclamation with a group of
Lubavitcher rabbis in the Oval Office, in honor of Rabbi Menachem
Schneerson's 100th birthday, that focused on education. And
then, later this afternoon, the President will make remarks concerning
Greek Independence Day at a ceremony in the Old Executive Office
Building.
With that, I'm happy to take questions. Helen.
Q Does the President believe that Sharon has
the right to hold Arafat hostage and to tell him whether he can go out
of the country, or not?
MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, without accepting the premise of
the way that question is phrased, let me tell you what the President
thinks.
Q -- is he a prisoner, or not,
in his own compound?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President does believe that in regard
to the upcoming summit of the Arab leaders in Beirut that the Israeli
government, Prime Minister Sharon should give serious consideration to
having -- allowing Chairman Arafat to travel
there. That's something the Vice President said on the shows
yesterday, the Vice President indicating, of course, that we do think
that would be constructive for him to go. And that way, the
summit can focus on the broader issue, which is how to bring peace to
the region. So the message from the United States is very
clear on that point.
Q Ari, how optimistic are you, though, based
on the updates you've been getting from General Zinni at this point,
today? How optimistic are you that Arafat will be able
to --
MR. FLEISCHER: Campbell, it's hard to
say. There will be another trilateral meeting this evening,
involving General Zinni in his efforts with the Palestinians and the
Israelis and, of course, the United States as a third party in those
talks. There was a meeting yesterday, so the talks
continue. But in all cases, the message that the President
has given, the Secretary of State has given, the Vice President had
given, remains unchanged; we do think that it would be constructive for
Chairman Arafat to attend the Arab summit.
And the reason for that is the President thinks that the summit
should devote its energies to focusing on how to bring peace to the
region, and not discuss who is in or who is not in attendance.
Q Has the President talked directly with
General Zinni at all today --
MR. FLEISCHER: I couldn't tell you if he's talked
directly with the General. He's, obviously, talked with the
Secretary of State and others this morning in a couple different
sessions.
Q Ari, the conditions for Arafat to attend a
meeting with Cheney and to attend the Beirut summit were the
same. How is it the United States can say he hasn't done
enough to meet with the Vice President, but that --
MR. FLEISCHER: No, the conditions are not the
same. One is a meeting with the Vice President of the United
States, and as the Vice President said when he traveled through the
region, that he would meet with Chairman Arafat if Chairman Arafat took
the necessary steps, if and when he performed as far as reducing the
violence. Those were the terms the United States had
discussed for a meeting with the United States. It's a
different matter for a meeting of the Arab League
summit. And the Vice President addressed that on the show
yesterday.
Q But Prime Minister Sharon, standing right
next to the Vice President, said the condition was the same for Arafat
to travel, that they had to have a cease-fire. Are you
saying now that if there is no cease-fire in place, the Israeli
government should still give serious condition to letting him
travel --
MR. FLEISCHER: You've accurately said --
Q -- or should Prime Minister
Sharon stick to his condition of no cease-fire, no travel?
MR. FLEISCHER: The American position has been clear and
consistent -- and the Vice President expressed it when he
traveled through the region; it was expressed by the Secretary of
State, and then the Vice President again yesterday, as well as the
President -- and that is, as far as a meeting
with the Vice President is concerned, that meeting will take place if
and when Chairman Arafat preforms, in terms of reducing the level of
violence. And then the Vice President will be happy to
travel to the region to meet with him. Separate issue from
the upcoming Arab League summit in Beirut. It's a different
matter, and the United States position is different on
that. And it's been shared repeatedly.
Q Separate issue to you, but to the Israeli
government it is that no cease-fire, no lifting the travel
restrictions. Are you -- is the
administration specifically asking Prime Minister Sharon to change his
condition?
MR. FLEISCHER: The United States position has been made
clear to Prime Minister Sharon. And I don't speak for the
government of Israel. That, of course, is a sovereign nation that will
enact the policies and carry them out as they see fit.
Q How does the President think they can
pursue peace in Beirut without Palestinian participation?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President believes that the best way
to pursue peace, as far as the Arab summit, would be for Chairman
Arafat to travel there.
Q The President talked about giving foreign
aid and having transparency and democratic government. Yet
we give about $3 billion a year, more or less, to the
Egyptians. They've had a President for 22 years who has not
seen a lot of democracy. Is the President thinking about
using the same rules for Egypt?
MR. FLEISCHER: The point the President makes is
universal. And the United States has never said that every
nation needs to be an exact replica of the United
States. That is not what the United States believes is the
best foreign policy around the world. That's often
impractical and not realistic, based on the history and the
circumstances of various nations.
But what is universal and will be consistent, and is new, and it
will be applied to aid around the world, is that nations follow a rule
of law, that nations are transparent, that nations have democratic
institutions. And that will be the formula that the United States will
follow in its pursuit of aid programs around the world, and Egypt
fulfills those requirements.
Q The Energy Department today is turning
over thousands of pages of documents pursuant to a court order on the
workings of the energy task force. Does this make it much
more difficult for the White House to stick to its position that it
will not turn over records to the GAO?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think they're actually turning
over information that's a result of requests to the agencies that is
broader than just the issue you mentioned, if I recall what the request
was. And that is contacts going back
to -- what was it, I think 1992. No,
that's a different issue, involving the timing of those documents and
the transmission.
But from the President's point of view, what's important, Bill, is
the issue involving separation of powers between the executive and the
legislature that was put forward in the GAO suit, that they are seeking
those documents. And there has been no change in the
administration position on that.
Q But as a practical matter, many of those
documents are about to be made public.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, we went through this before on an
issue that I mentioned just previously. We do not know
precisely what documents will be brought forth, what documents are
covered under this. So we'll all see what those documents
are. But the constitutional principle that the President and
the Vice President have enunciated remains in place, and the President
will continue to fight for that.
Q You have said from this podium on many
occasion that Governor Ridge has met informally with members of
Congress, God knows how many times, and they're trying to work out a
way in which he could brief 100 senators, but not in a formal
setting. And yet there are still voices being heard on
Capitol Hill that demand that the man comes to a hearing. And they're
even threatening to subpoena him. What would happen if the
subpoena is issued? What would the White House do?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I'm not going to get into any
hypotheticals. I think the Governor himself addressed many
of these issues yesterday. And the President's position is
clear that as an assistant to the President, as an advisor to the
President, it is not proper, it is a change in the way Congress does
its business to demand that Governor Ridge testify. And the
Governor indicated yesterday that he will continue to work with the
Hill to reach some type of understanding of how best to convey
information to the Hill without testifying.
Q According to you, he has given them all
the information they need. Why would they be insisting on a
subpoena?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think that's a great question for the
Hill.
Q Ari, in USA Today this morning they report
that according to an undercover test conducted by the Department of
Transportation at the President's request, screenings at various
airports failed miserably, knives going undetected in 70 percent of
tests, guns in 30 percent. What was the President's reaction
upon reading this story, and what action do you guys see in the
future?
MR. FLEISCHER: That test was done at the request of the
administration. It was actually carried out prior to the
federal government's takeover of aviation security, which, if you
recall, took place on February 17th. And this was done in
order to provide the Department of Transportation with a realistic
assessment of the needs that we have at the airports.
Since that was done, since the assessment was done and its findings
were known, and were talked about today in the paper, the federal
government has taken over aviation security. And there's an
additional period of time throughout the remainder of the year under
the act by which the federal government will take on increasing
responsibilities involving aviation security.
This week, for example, marks the beginning of a comprehensive
training program for the first wave of senior federal security
screeners who are now going to be deployed at airports around the
country. And that's going to be some 300 people per week for
the next four weeks. These new screeners have considerable
law enforcement, military, and private sector security experience.
So I think it's fair to say that as a result of the legislation
enacted by the Congress last year, and its implementation throughout
the course of this year, security gets better at the airports every
day. It is an issue that will continue to be a top priority
for this administration. But frankly, it's a recognition of exactly
why we needed a law in the first place. It's exactly why the
President, when he traveled to Chicago to announce his proposal, which
Congress largely followed and provided some additional items to
strengthen airport security, was so important and necessary.
So there are issues that have to be dealt with
forthrightly. The President will continue to be very
bottom-line, results-oriented, seeking Department of Transportation to
test their systems to make sure they're as reliable as they can be, as
we continue to make every effort throughout the year to beef up
security in accordance with a law that's a helpful one.
Q So does the President now see more clearly
the need for the screeners to have been federalized, which he resisted
during the process of that legislation?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think whether they are
federalized or whether they are employees of the private sector, the
job remains the same, and that is to effectively stop weapons or
anything else that can do harm from being brought through metal
detectors and in people's bags, et cetera. That's the mission of the
screeners, whoever their employer is. The President's
concerns remain the same. Nevertheless, he signed it into
law, and he's going to do everything he can to make it work.
Q Speaking of signing into law, is there
going to be some kind of ceremony here for the campaign finance reform
bill?
MR. FLEISCHER: We still are waiting to receive the bill,
and we're working out details of whatever arrangements will be put in
order. So we don't even have the bill yet. It's
still up on the Hill.
Q The President meets tomorrow with Prime
Minister Helen Clark of New Zealand. Since New Zealand is
now supporting the anti-terrorism efforts, and its troops actually work
in tandem with American or British troops, is the U.S. considering
modifying its military and diplomatic classification regarding New
Zealand?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, New Zealand is an
ally. And the President is looking forward to his meeting
with Prime Minister Clark tomorrow. As for the issue, the
ban continues to be a problem. It is an impediment to full
alliance relations. But he'll discuss this
tomorrow. But I don't believe -- I see no
circumstance in which this will get in the way of a full discussion
about the number of issues, which are many, that the United States and
New Zealand agree on.
Q Ari, what's the type of criminal inquiry
into the possibility of leaks that may have led to press reports in
advance of some of the asset seizures? Specifically, I think
one of the ones was in Richardson, Texas.
Q Ron, that was reported by the Wall Street
Journal last Friday, kind of old news by now, accurately
so. I would refer you to the U.S. Attorney in Chicago who
is conducting the investigation of any unauthorized disclosures which
could have resulted in harm to an ongoing law enforcement effort.
Q How are you all coming with that here?
MR. FLEISCHER: There are a number of agencies throughout
the federal government that have been asked to cooperate, including the
White House and other agencies, that may or may not have any
knowledge. And of course, we're complying.
Q How did it start, do you know?
MR. FLEISCHER: You have to talk to the U.S. Attorney.
Q To follow up on the Middle East, what does
President Bush hope to see accomplished at the Arab summit, and can it
be accomplished if Chairman Arafat isn't there?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President hopes that the Arab
summit in Beirut will focus on how to bring peace to the region, and
the President views the ideas of Crown Prince Abdullah as a very
helpful way for the Arab nations to move peace forward. The
Crown Prince's ideas involved, for the first time, the recognition of
the right of Israel to exist in secure borders, along with some other
issues that the President wants to make sure are carefully thought out
and discussed.
But the President welcomed those ideas, and he hopes that those
ideas would be a real focal point of the Arab summit so that, for the
first time, several Arab nations would focus on recognizing Israel's
right to exist in peace and security. As you know, the
President, when he went to the United Nations for an international
gathering, talked about the need to create a Palestinian
state. So you have some very helpful statements by the
President of the United States, by the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia;
the President hopes that that can be the message of the Beirut summit.
Q And do you feel that focus would be
blurred if Arafat was not there?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President believes that it
would be constructive and that Israel should give consideration, that
the best circumstance would be for Prime Minister Sharon and the Israel
government to permit Chairman Arafat to attend the summit.
Q Ari, the Palestinians are saying that the
Saudi proposal also envisions a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its
capital. With that endpoint in there, is that a realistic
starting point for negotiations?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, as I just indicated, the President
welcomed the ideas about the recognition of Israel's right to exist in
security, which is something, frankly, that Resolution 242 and 338 also
focus on. But as for the rest of it, I indicated these are
things that need to be talked about. This is exactly what
the Mitchell Accords are focused on, is how, after security talks are
successful and after the violence is brought down, the focus of the
Mitchell plan is to address just the exact issues that you raised,
which are the political issues, which are the lines of what the
territory should look like, what the boundaries between states should
be, how to deal with settlements. All that is part of the
Mitchell plan.
The trick -- and this is where the summit can
be helpful -- is creating an environment in which
the peace talks can take root and be fruitful. That's the
challenge of the Beirut summit. That's what the President
hopes can be accomplished.
Q Is the White House going to take up the
offer by Iraq to send a delegation there to investigate the fate of
Mike Speicher?
MR. FLEISCHER: The government is always interested in
any information concerning those who are missing in
action. We are examining the -- right now all
that appears is the media reports concerning this issue. We
do not have enough information to evaluate what is or is not part of
this statement or media report. And DOD is looking into it,
as well as State Department.
Q Ari, what is the administration's view of
the current state of relations between the Palestinian Authority and
Iran, and specifically, do we believe or do we put credence into
reports from Israeli intelligence that the Iranians and Palestinian
Authority have recently adopted a very broad-based cooperation
agreement that includes some pretty sophisticated weapons?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, here's what we
know -- and this is based on, of course, what the
world has seen with the Karine-A, which was the ship that set sail from
Iran with weapons that were destined for the Palestinian
Authority. That clearly demonstrated in that one instance,
particularly, a troubling link between Iran funding, the delivery of
weapons which would have been used in terrorist operations, which is
very, very troubling.
To go beyond that, I do not have any more information to go beyond
that. I've seen the story that you are referring
to -- it talked about also a meeting in Moscow,
which I'm not able to find anybody to confirm such a
meeting. So it's a source of concern and one of the reasons
the President has spoken out as he has about Iran is because he is
worried about Iran financing or providing arms for terrorists around
the world.
Q When you say you're unable to go beyond
that one incident of the Karine-A, does that mean that the
administration has no evidence that the cooperation went beyond that
one instance?
MR. FLEISCHER: No. As I indicated, one of the
reasons the President has said what he has said about Iran is because
of his concern, his worries about Iran's role in
terrorism. I cited one specific about which we do know.
Q So we think it's possible that there have
been -- that there is something
more --
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not indicating more than that; I'm
just focusing on the one issue where I specifically said we do
know. Involving the Moscow meeting, specifically, I have not
found anybody who can confirm anything along those lines.
Q Ari, how strongly is Sharon being pressed
to let Arafat go? We know there have been some instances in
the past where, let's say, Colin Powell has picked up the phone and in
very blunt, frank language, pressed a U.S. position, and other times
there's been more of an at a distance, whatever you guys come up with
sort of stance. How would you characterize
how -- the U.S. position on letting Arafat go?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the American position is that it is
better for Chairman Arafat to be there than not be there, in order for
the summit to focus on peace. That message has been
conveyed, has been received by the Israeli government at numerous
levels, and I leave it at that.
Q Has pressure really been applied, hey,
guys, this is a good idea --
MR. FLEISCHER: I just resist
the -- you know, very often in diplomacy, there
are normal contacts, there are conversations that take
place. And I don't know how to use the word,
"pressure." These are things that are just ongoing
conversations that are important between sovereign
nations. And I think the message speaks for
itself. I don't seek to ascribe it any degree of volume one
way or another. The message speaks for itself.
Q Ari, on another
topic. President Bush is set to travel to South Carolina
soon. Is there any concern from the President over the
Confederate flag controversy there? And if so, and if not,
what is his position on it?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, April, as you remember, after years
of controversy involving that issue, a compromise was reached by the
people of South Carolina that was supported by, at that time, a
Republican assemblyman in South Carolina, a then Democrat House in
South Carolina and a Democrat governor in South
Carolina. And that was broadly agreed to by the communities
that they represent, and that was a compromise that the people of South
Carolina entered into freely on their own. And the
President, as he said prior to that, and as he believes today, believes
this is an issue for the people of South Carolina to
resolve -- as they did in the compromise that was
reached among these diverse parties.
Q Well, Ari, a follow-up to that real
quick. Some people are saying it's a part of their history,
and opponents are saying that it's definitely a racist symbol because
it was erected in 1962 as something to counter civil
rights. What is the President's thoughts? Does he
lean more so to the fact that it's history for some family members who
fought in the Civil War, who died in the Civil War, who fought under
that flag? Or does he think that it's racist from the 1962
standpoint? What side does he more so lean on?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think there's nothing really I can add
to beyond what I said just now. The President thinks that
this is an issue that many parties feel very passionately about, and
that's why the compromise that was reached brought together all those
parties. And the President said then and says now, this is
something for the people of South Carolina to decide. The
compromise they entered into had decided it.
Q To follow up on the Speicher question, how
do we go about -- how does the United States and Iraq go
about with diplomatic channels at this point? Does the
President have to sign off on anything and any kind of contact along
those lines?
MR. FLEISCHER: No. If you remember, there's a
tripartite commission that is in place dealing with just these types of
issues that involves our representatives in the region. And
that's the standard group that discusses these issues. And
that's really done through State --
Q The President doesn't have to
okay --
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm sorry?
Q The President doesn't have to necessarily
give an okay --
MR. FLEISCHER: No, the tripartite commission is
something that is done under the auspices of the Department of State as
part of their ongoing efforts in diplomacy. Department of
Defense, of course, is involved as well. They're the ones
who make the classification in the case of the Lt. Commander involving
his classification as MIA.
Q Ari, two questions. One, as for
peace in the Indian Subcontinent is concerned, there have been many,
many ups and downs and many high-level visits, including South Asian
Affairs -- who just came back from
the region. Where do you put the relations between the
United States and India? Because India still demands from
the U.S. that President Bush -- again,
they're doing their job as far as terrorism is concerned,
but he should go beyond Afghanistan. So where do we
stand --
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, relations between India and the
United States are indeed very important. They always have
been and always will continue to be. And the issue
particularly involving what's happening in Afghanistan makes it even
more so because of the relations between India and Pakistan, the
importance of a peaceful resolution of any of the differences involving
Kashmir. So it is a top priority, it's something that the
President has focused on, continues to focus on, as well as the State
Department, too, of course.
Q Does the President share the State
Department's views by ordering non-essential U.S. officials out of
Pakistan because the State Department statement said that Pakistan is
no longer a place after terrorism?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, as you know, these are issues that,
unfortunately, the State Department must wrestle with from time to time
in different regions of the world. And after careful review
of the security situation in Pakistan, Secretary Powell made the
designation he made. That's a State Department issue that is based on
their information that they have. And of course, the
President supports what they have done.
Q Ari, since the President is a national
role model who is known to be a devout church member who abhors child
molesting, and since this morning's Washington Post reports a standing
ovation at the Washington Shrine of the Most Blessed Sacrament when
Father DiSilva said in the pulpit, "Cardinal Law is not above the law,
he should say, I resign" -- and my question: The
President does not believe that Father DiSilva is wrong, does he, Ari?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, Lester, the President has addressed
this issue, himself, and the President has said that he has faith in
the Catholic Church. And the Church is dealing with this
issue, and the President believes that they will deal with it well.
Q So he doesn't believe he's wrong?
MR. FLEISCHER: I told you what the President's position
is.
Q Ari, does the President believe that
Yasser Arafat is in no way a terrorist; therefore, Israel should show
restraint against Palestinian bombers and gunmen, when we show no such
restraint against Taliban and al Qaeda?
MR. FLEISCHER: Here's what the President
believes. The President believes in order for peace to be
achieved in the Middle East, the violence has got to be
reduced. And the President believes that Chairman Arafat can
do more, should do more, and must do more in order for that violence to
be reduced. The President is also looking at the Oslo
Accords, which set in process a peaceful political resolution of
disputes, which is not the case, of course, involving the Taliban or al
Qaeda. And so the President calls on Chairman Arafat to do
more in the pursuit of peace, along with his obligations, along with
the obligations of other nations in the region under the various
accords they have committed themselves to.
Q The Washington Post yesterday reported
that environmental officials in Alabama are protesting an EPA
new -- what they call a sweetheart deal to intervene in a
pollution case in Anniston. The Alabama environmental
officials say it's an unwarranted and unauthorized federal takeover and
contrary to longstanding EPA policy. This is where PCBs were
dumped throughout the town. Given the President's views on
state's rights, I'm wondering how he can justify the EPA going in there
and interfering with enforcement action.
MR. FLEISCHER: Russell, I have no information on
that. You may want to address that to EPA.
Q Second question. Arthur
Andersen is taking out these full-page ads in newspapers saying,
injustice for all, one indictment, 28,000 Andersen U.S. men and
women. Two things on that: Does the President
believe this was an unjust indictment, given that no individuals were
indicted? And second, has he met with anyone from Arthur
Andersen, any employees, any executives about this indictment?
MR. FLEISCHER: Russell, the President broadly believes
that the best way to have justice in this country is to have the
Department of Justice evaluate information that it has at its disposal
as it makes decisions about what cases should be prosecuted and the
manner in which cases should be prosecuted. That is the
realm and the responsibility of the Department of Justice and the
professional attorneys, and the President has faith in the people he
has appointed to the Department of Justice that justice will be carried
out, based on the information that they have. Those are not
issues that the White House micromanages.
Q -- he meet with Andersen
employees and executives?
MR. FLEISCHER: Anybody at the White House? I
have no idea.
Q With the President.
MR. FLEISCHER: With the President? I'd have
to check. I really don't know off the top of my head.
| Printer-Friendly Version |
| Email this page to a friend |