05 November 2001
Transcript: White House Daily Briefing, November 5, 2001
(President's schedule, World Trade Center/recovery efforts,
appropriations, President's meetings with foreign leaders, coalition
information center, latest bin Laden video, Arab leaders' reactions,
Election day, people detained by federal authorities, stimulus
package, homeland security spending, ABM, Managua/elections,
post-Taliban/Afghanistan, security at borders, administration's
message) (5780)
White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer briefed.
Following is the White House transcript:
(begin transcript)
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
November 5, 2001
PRESS BRIEFING INDEX
TOPIC
-- President's daily schedule
-- Recovery efforts at World Trade Center
-- Appropriations
-- President's meetings with foreign leaders
-- Coalition information center
-- Latest bin Laden video, Arab leaders' reactions
-- Election day
-- People detained by federal authorities
-- Stimulus package
-- Homeland security spending
-- ABM
-- Managua elections
-- Post-Taliban Afghanistan
-- Security at borders
-- Administration's message
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
November 5, 2001
PRESS BRIEFING BY ARI FLEISCHER
The James S. Brady Briefing Room
1:03 P.M. EST
MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. I'll give you a brief update on the
President's day, and two announcements of upcoming visits. Then I'll
be happy to take your questions.
The President this morning had his usual briefings with the
intelligence community, as well as the FBI and Governor Ridge. He had
a meeting that he convened of the National Security Council. Earlier
this morning, too, the President called Arizona Diamondbacks owner
Jerry Colangelo to congratulate the Diamonds on their victory in the
World Series.
QUESTION: Did that hurt you? (Laughter.)
MR. FLEISCHER: The question was: did that hurt me. I fully support the
activities of the President at all times, even in this one as a Yankee
fan. Thank you for asking.
Q: Did he call the Yankees?
Q: Did he call Mayor Giuliani?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's the only call that I'm aware of. Thank you for
inflicting that pain on me this early in the briefing.
Q: At least it's out of the way. (Laughter.)
MR. FLEISCHER: The President will be meeting with the President of
Algeria later this afternoon to talk about cooperation in the war on
terrorism. And the President will also be meeting with his domestic
staff to discuss several of the initiatives, including the economic
stimulus and the aviation bill, that are being considered in the
Congress, where the President will work very closely with the Congress
to get action on both those matters.
The President will welcome Sheik Sab al Ahmad Jaber al Sabah, the
acting Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Kuwait, to the White
House on November the 7th. And at the invitation of President Bush,
President Ali Abdallah Salih will also be at the White House; he is
the President of Yemen. That meeting is scheduled for November 27th.
And with that, I'm happy to take questions. Helen?
Q: Ari, is the President going to pursue the nomination, the
appointment, of Mr. Gaddi as Peace Corps director when he has no
foreign relations experience, when he presided over the nearly $2
billion bankruptcy of Orange County, when he is opposed as unqualified
by several previous Peace Corps directors?
MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, as you know, anybody that the President has
announced for an appointment, he of course supports. And in the case
of anybody else who has not yet announced --
Q: But he's not qualified, and in these particular times, wouldn't you
want someone who knew the world?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, you're saying in your opinion he's not qualified,
others may differ.
Q: Ari, what are the White House staffers here thinking about what
happened this weekend in New York? Fire fighters and police are very
upset because they've been pulled back from the recovery efforts at
the World Trade Center. And they are saying -- some have said publicly
-- that it's about money for Mayor Giuliani. What are the thoughts
here about that?
MR. FLEISCHER: That obviously this is a very sensitive time for the
rescue community in New York City. And I think that it's important to
be understanding, it's important to listen, as people move forward
with the efforts to clean up what is left behind of the attack on the
World Trade Center, and in doing so in a way that tries to bring the
communities together. That has always been what Mayor Giuliani has
focused on and I know that it's a very sensitive time for New Yorkers
and they're working together on it.
Q: To follow up, does the President agree with the fact that the
massive numbers have been pulled back, of fire fighters? I mean, they
not only just want to find their people, but they also are trying to
find the thousands that are still in that rubble.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President is not going to micro-manage the
clean-up of the World Trade Center. The President hopes that it will
be done in a manner that is reflective of the sensitivities involved.
And, obviously, the President has made a commitment to New York that
he is keeping, to give New York the $20 billion that he promised.
Q: Several prominent lawmakers -- among them, Senator Byrd, even
Chairman Young in the House Appropriations Committee -- are thinking
about another $20 billion, if not more, in additional government
spending to deal with a variety of other issues, some of them
bioterrorism, some of them homeland security.
What are the President's thoughts about going $1 over the $686 billion
number he negotiated on October -- I believe it was 5th -- with the
Congress? And how is he going to make sure that everyone who needs to
know does, in fact, know that message?
MR. FLEISCHER: At the President's direction, people from the Office of
Management and Budget met last week with House appropriators, with
Chairman Young, with several other congressmen to discuss the level of
appropriations appropriate for this fall.
And at that meeting it was made very clear, as the President has said
before, he does have an agreement with Congress and Congress committed
to the President that they believe -- this was even after the
September 11th attack -- that $686 billion was the right number and
the appropriate amount of spending that would sufficiently cover all
of America's domestic needs in the wake of that attack. That number
has been signed on to and agreed by both the President and the
congressional leaders in early October.
That does number does not include, as also agreed to, an additional
$40 billion of spending on the emergency appropriations measures and
$15 billion which can be available for the airlines. And so the
President believes that as a result of the $686 billion and these
other agreements, that there is sufficient funding, particularly this
fall, to cover all the needs.
Now, as an example of that, why the President feels that so strongly,
in addition because $686 billion is a hefty increase and a lot of
money, they have not even yet been able to spend the $40 billion that
is sitting ready and approved for emergency appropriations. There is
always an issue when it comes to spending about after it's approved,
how quickly can you get it out the door. And they have only spent some
$2 billion to $3 billion -- last estimate I saw was $2.3 billion -- of
the $40 billion that's already approved has gone out the door. So
there is plenty of money in the pipeline, ready and approved. And the
President believes if they go $1 above, the sky is going to be the
limit and it's going to be another congressional bidding war, and he
does not support that.
Q: Will you hear or will the President this week or at sometime in the
near future say the V-word to make sure Congress understands that if
spending bills come within range that if Mitch Daniels advises the
President will push over $686 billion, he will veto it?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think it's a little premature. Nothing has even
moved. Right now there is an agreement. If there is anything that
moves, it obviously will go beyond the agreement that Congress has
already made with the President. And the President would regret if
Congress were to take any action that was contrary to an agreement
already reached.
In the meetings the President has had with the four leaders, there is
a concern about whether or not the lid will come off in Congress --
and this applies to both parties -- will take advantage of this to
start spending, even though there already is sufficient money. In
fact, there's so much money they haven't even been able to spend all
the money that has been designated for emergency purposes and to deal
with the aftermath of the attack on September 11th.
Q: Ari, the President has an extraordinary number of meetings with
foreign leaders this week. Is that just a coincidence? Is it because
of the timing of the U.N.? Or is there something in particular driving
all those meetings?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, it's a confluence of events. And obviously any time
that people are coming to the United Nations in New York City for a
United Nations General Assembly, they're in our country, and so it
should not surprise people if there would be more meetings right
around the time of this meeting.
But the President will be meeting this week, for example, with Prime
Minister Blair, with President Chirac, and then he'll be going up to
New York for the meeting of the United Nations General Assembly, where
he will meet with President Musharraf. President Putin is coming next
week, of course, for a summit both here and in Crawford, Texas.
So there are a series of international meetings underway, as well as
the remarks the President will give tomorrow morning to a rather
unusual gathering in Poland of some 17 nations that are gathered
behind what used to be the Iron Curtain to now talk about how they are
supporting the United States in the war on terrorism.
This was a meeting called by the Polish government, to bring together
the nations of Eastern and Central Europe to discuss how to work with
the United States on the fight against terrorism. In some small ways,
that's a rather -- a very notable development. These nations used to
be part of a bloc that opposed us; now they're working shoulder to
shoulder with us.
Q: Can you give us some sense of what the President is likely to say
in that?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think the President is going to give a speech in
which he discusses how this is a war that unites the freedom-loving
people of the world against terrorism. He will remind people about the
horrors and the evil of the Taliban and the al Qaeda organization, the
terror that they preach and that they practice. And he will discuss
how the world can work together to win this war, and how important it
is to win it.
Q: Ari, one last thing if I may. Would you update us on the status of
your new international communications efforts?
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, let me give you a report on that. The coalition
information center had a very busy weekend. Al Jazeera TV, at 1:00
p.m. on Saturday, released the latest tape provided to them at some
point, time ago by Osama bin Laden. And as a result of that, within
literally hours, former ambassador to Syria Christopher Ross, who is
now a special advisor to the State Department, appeared live, speaking
Arabic, on the air on Al Jazeera TV to discuss the United States'
goals in the campaign in Afghanistan, and also to address some of the
issues raised in that message from Osama bin Laden.
And the ambassador's message, in fluent Arabic, was essentially that
Osama bin Laden is showing how isolated he is from fellow Muslim
nations and from the rest of the world. Following his 15-minute live
reaction on Al Jazeera TV, the ambassador participated in a 90-minute
discussion show about events in Afghanistan and in the Middle East. So
I think one of the early successes that you can see for the coalition
information center is the ability to respond very quickly in Arabic,
in a key part of the world, as America gets its message to other
nations.
Q: Ari, do you think that bin Laden -- I mean, you've called it
propaganda, but did he make a tactical mistake, given who his audience
was, by specifically targeting moderate Arab countries who are members
of the United Nations?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think that -- you know, as the President has
said, he has basically just dismissed this as more propaganda that
shows how isolated Osama bin Laden is. And I think, judging from the
reactions of several Arab leaders, themselves, they had a harsh
reaction to the message they received on that tape.
For example, let me cite to you what was said by Arab League Secretary
General Amre Moussa, who said, "bin Laden doesn't speak in the name of
Arabs and Muslims." Also you have the words of the Egyptian Foreign
Minister, Ahmed Maher, who said, "There is a war between bin Laden and
the whole world." So, obviously, when you take a look at the reactions
that are given now by some of the leading Arabic figures, they are,
themselves, are pointing out that bin Laden does not represent the
Arabic world, he does not represent Islam.
And keep in mind that prior to September 11th, only three nations in
the world even recognized the Taliban regime, because of how
oppressive and unrepresentative they are. Since then, two of those
three have cut off all relations.
Q: Can I follow up on what Campbell asked, having to do with the
statements of the Arab leaders. You say Amre Moussa and Ahmed Maher --
and I think this morning you mentioned a Saudi official that also made
some statements. My question is, are these statements being also
broadcast by Al Jazeera, or just for outside consumption?
MR. FLEISCHER: I can't tell you if these are broadcast by Al Jazeera
or not, I did not watch it all weekend. But I think its' fair to say
that Al Jazeera covers very actively events in the Middle East, and so
I think it's a safe presumption that they covered it; but I couldn't
tell you for certain.
Q: Were any of these comments coordinated with the new communications
center?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, they were noted by the coalition information
center. And then they were very quickly discussed and spread
throughout spokespeople in England, spokespeople in the United States.
It's another way that the coalition information center monitors events
on the ground in the Middle East. As soon as there is a development,
positive or negative, it's discussed and shared with the coalition
allies so that we can rapidly respond to it in the region.
Q: Was the communication team given a heads-up from any of these
leaders that they were going to make statements --
MR. FLEISCHER: Not to my knowledge.
Q: Tomorrow, of course, is election day. The President is getting some
criticism from conservative groups for not campaigning actively for
the Republican gubernatorial candidates in New Jersey and Virginia.
Why has he chosen not to do this and how does he respond to the
criticism from people like Paul Weyrich, for example, who said that
he's made a mistake --
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, tomorrow is election day and the President has
lent his support to our candidates in a variety of places. He has
taped Get Out The Vote messages; there has been mail that has gone
out. But the President, obviously, is also very busy with some other
endeavors and I think it's too soon to guess what tomorrow's results
will be.
But no matter what they are, this has been a year in which I think
there have been some four special elections to the United States
Congress, the candidate supported by the President won three of those
four. So at the end of the year, I think we'll have a fair sense of
politics. But it's been a year in which there have been several
positive developments already for the President and for those who
share his views.
Q: Did he choose not to campaign in person for Earley and Schundler,
in the two gubernatorial races, out of a sense that his role as a
wartime President required not appearing too partisan in an election
year?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think that, as I indicated, the President has taken
several steps that were supportive of the candidates in both New
Jersey and in Virginia. And as far as personal campaigning
appearances, that's something that the President will always decide
about whether or not the time is right for him to campaign and to play
a more active, visible part in politics.
But, clearly, the President does understand and believes that politics
is an ongoing part of democracy, whether the time is of war or peace.
Q: So why did he decide that this was not the right time to --
MR. FLEISCHER: The President just makes those judgments on the basis
of what he thinks is right.
Q: Ari, to what extent should these elections tomorrow be viewed
through a White House prism? You have pointed us toward the outcome in
previous elections. To what extent should these be viewed that way?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think in all cases you have to take a look at
off-year elections as local elections primarily. I think there's a
pretty universal view on that, whether it was the special elections in
the Congress earlier, in which the President played whatever role he
may have played. Also the elections tomorrow, typically these type of
off-year elections will reflect local events, local politics.
Q: So you don't see any -- especially in the state races -- where, at
least across the river in Virginia, they have talked, both sides, both
candidates, about the terrorism issue and the response to it -- you
don't see any referendum on George W. Bush here? Is that what you're
telling us?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I don't think there's anything like that. And I
think Terry McAuliffe of the DNC has said something similar about
that, too.
Q: Ari, if you can go back to foreign policy. It's always difficult to
know who to believe in foreign policy. But what do you make of the
fact that the President of Pakistan helps the United States, but many
in Pakistan may be supplying intelligence and ammunition to the
Taliban? On the other hand, in Iran you've got the Defense Minister
who claims to be helping the Northern Alliance, but the nation's
restrained. And then you have the Saudi Arabia controversy. How do you
make your assessment? Who do you believe on the situation?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think what you're asking about is historical.
It is indicative of the vagaries of foreign policy. And that is why
the United States is so engaged in the world, and is working with the
different parties in the different regions, and is engaged in active
diplomacy and active operations. And as we discuss different matters
that you may or may not hear different things from different people in
those regions.
Q: Ari, since September 11th there have been hundreds of people who
have been detained by federal authorities; most of them are still in
custody, most virtually incommunicado, held without their names having
been released, and most on charges that would not have entailed the
kind of detention that they're under now. Does the President believe
that the danger the country faces justifies extraordinary federal law
enforcement efforts in this way?
MR. FLEISCHER: Terry, you may want to check with the Immigration and
Naturalization Service and the Federal Bureau of Investigation
because, in fact, the lion's share of the people are not still in
custody. Most of the people, the overwhelming number of the people
were detained, they were questioned, and then they've been released.
So on the premise of what you're asking about, it really is just the
opposite. And the reasons for anybody who remain under detention, for
those people who are, that's something the INS or FBI could give you
more specific reasons why they've taken those steps.
Q: There have been concerns raised by legal experts and by some of the
members of the Arab American community about the nature of the
detention for some of these people.
MR. FLEISCHER: The President is fully satisfied that anybody who is
continuing to be held is being held for a wise reason.
Q: How many do you have?
MR. FLEISCHER: You need to ask INS and FBI for the counts.
Q: Ari, to follow on Major's questions earlier, the President's
proposals for the stimulus package were released I think at least a
couple of weeks before the latest unemployment figures. Given that the
unemployment figure was bad just last Friday, why would the President
consider spending some more money for unemployment insurance --
unemployment benefits for health insurance for displaced workers, or
at least transferring some money out of his proposal for tax cuts into
unemployment?
MR. FLEISCHER: Because the President believes that the amount he has
proposed is sufficient, and remains sufficient, even with the latest
numbers. And I remind you that under the President's proposal, those
states in which unemployment increased by some 30 percent will
automatically qualify for the extended period of 26 weeks, or 13 weeks
above the existing 26.
In other words, above the six months under current law by which
somebody would get unemployment compensation, the President would add
another 13 weeks. So if anybody lost their job as a result of the
attack of September 11th, under current law, they will receive
benefits through March 11th. Under the President's proposal, they will
receive benefits through June 11th.
And so do discuss anything beyond that at this time just seems to be
premature. In the event that there is additional economic difficulties
at that time next year, I think the President will be very willing to
discuss it and listen to good proposals at that time.
But, clearly, here in November, what you're asking is, will the
President support extending unemployment insurance into the fall of
2002. And I think that's premature. People who have lost their jobs
will receive all the protection that they need through the summer of
2002, under the President's proposal.
Q: Ari, on the Poland speech tomorrow, how does he make the case to
these countries that it's in their interest to help us out?
Specifically, several of these nations are aspiring NATO members, and
I wonder whether the President promises, implicitly or otherwise, to
promote their prospects for admission?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, one of the most notable things about the meeting
tomorrow is that the initiative behind the conference was taken by
these nations, themselves, particularly Poland, under President
Kwasniewski. It was an initiative by Poland to bring together these
Central European and East European countries to support the United
States and the war on terrorism, which is why I remark that this is
rather an interesting development -- because it was only some 10 years
ago, just over that, that many of these nations belonged to a bloc
that was opposed to the United States. But here, they've acted on
their own. And that's one reason the President is looking forward
tomorrow to joining them, via live teleconference, to beam in and to
talk about our shared goals; because now, we have reached the point
where so many of these nations which used to oppose us now share goals
with us.
Q: How does he make the case it's in their interest?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think they've already made the decision that it's in
their interest by having this meeting tomorrow to talk about how they
can work with the United States in the fight against terrorism. If
they didn't think it was in their interest, they wouldn't be meeting
tomorrow.
Q: If I could follow up with one more question. Is the President's
message to the world leaders this week generally -- is he leaning on
them more to help the United States than he has been in recent weeks?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think you will be able to gauge each day what
the President's message is and what he is trying to say. I shared with
you what he's going to say tomorrow. You will have occasion, also, to
listen to the President on the various -- when Prime Minister Blair,
when President Chirac is here, and of course, we haven't given any
indication this early about what his speech to the United Nations will
be about; there will be more on that later.
Q: Ari, on the stimulus package, as far as dislocated worker
assistance, are you saying, then, that the administration believes
there is sufficient assistance in there for health insurance subsidies
in the form of COBRA, or is there concern more that that could become
a new federal entitlement?
Also, Senator Breaux, over the weekend, suggested as an alternative to
the COBRA subsidy, health insurance credit. What is the
administration's view of that as an alternative?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President's proposal on the domestic front to help
workers who are unemployed as a result of the attack on our country,
is twofold: one is an extension of unemployment benefits that will go
from six months to nine months; the second is a proposal that would
provide $3 billion worth of grants, called national emergency grants,
to the states, where the states would administer it in a way that
could get health care to workers who have lost their jobs.
It differs from the proposals dealing with COBRA. COBRA is an entirely
different proposal, and it has a different aim. The President's
proposal is aimed at an existing system that will provide for much
more flexibility and much more direct assistance to workers who need
health care. And as a result of administering it through an existing
program that is up and running and successful in the states, it could
also be of assistance to somebody who may not have lost their job, but
may have just had their health care impacted as a result of the
attacks. And that's at the discretion of the governors, so it can
provide even more help and more flexibility.
But in the President's opinion, it clearly is a better proposal than
anything that would create for the first time a wholly new federal
entitlement program, which is what these COBRA discussions are.
Q: And you're position is that $3 billion is sufficient? The Democrats
are contending we need at least $10 billion or $11 billion more. And
also, again, what is your view of a health insurance credit as an
alternative?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President believes that his proposal involving $3
billion worth of grants administered through the states through the
existing national emergency grant program, is the best way to get help
to people who need insurance. The President believes he's got the best
proposal.
Q: Ari, is the President prepared to spend billions of dollars more on
homeland security to assure the integrity of critical infrastructure,
including the energy sector?
MR. FLEISCHER: There has been a series of discussions involving
Senator Frist and Senator Kennedy and others about homeland defense
and bioterrorism. Those conversations are ongoing, and I think that we
are getting very close to something that all will be agreed to. We're
not there yet --
Q: What about other aspects of homeland security? Critical
infrastructure, energy sector, as I said?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President believes that the $20 billion package
that he sent up to the Hill recently encompasses the needs that we
need to address right now. And he believes that that is the
appropriate amount of money, that was contained in his $20 billion
program.
Q: Could you give us any readout on missile defense talks in Russia?
There was some reports out of Moscow today that both sides are fairly
optimistic they're getting close to some sort of way of working this
with the ABM.
MR. FLEISCHER: Nothing new to report, other than, I think, if you
recall at the beginning of the year, many people dismissed the
President's idea of moving beyond the ABM treaty, and thought that it
could never happen or that it would undermine stability in Europe. And
with each passing day, the President has been more successful in
talking to world leaders, and talking to President Putin and others,
about the need for a new framework to think about how U.S.-Russian
relations should be approached.
And the talks will continue. As you know, President Putin will be here
next week, and he will be in Crawford. And I anticipate, even after
those meetings, the talks will continue. These talks are about
creating a new framework to move forward in a way that for the first
time really has the United States and Russia cooperating on so many of
these big world issues, and beyond the fight against terrorism, a
cooperation on a new strategic framework dealing with missile defense
and nuclear defense.
Q: Do you anticipate any kind of a breakthrough either before or
during President Putin's visit here?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, as I mentioned, I think these talks are going to
be one stop on the road. But the talks and other activities are going
to continue well after these meetings are over. So we will just have
to see what events bring, but I'm not willing to make any guesses or
bets at this point. The leaders will get together and we'll see what
happens.
Q: Ari, yesterday the Nicaraguans went to the polls to select the
President between Daniel Ortega of the Sandinistan Front and Enrique
Bolanos. How closely is the White House following the results, which
should be known officially today? And what effect will whoever wins
have on the relations between Washington and Managua?
MR. FLEISCHER: The White House is following those results. Of course,
so, too, is the State Department. And as you accurately indicated, the
results are not yet known, so I don't want to go beyond that until the
events are certified.
Q: Ari, is the administration working on putting together an
international trust fund to rebuild Afghanistan -- even before the war
is over? For example, if certain territories are taken by the
opposition?
MR. FLEISCHER: The international trust fund? I have not heard anything
about an international trust fund.
Q: There were some reports about it over the weekend and I didn't know
whether there were any discussions on that? Or an international fund
of any sort, focusing on trying to get contributions together for that
--
MR. FLEISCHER: The President has spoken, of course, with the United
Nations about the need to start thinking about a post-Taliban
Afghanistan, and what role the United Nations may be able to play.
Obviously, any time you get into a topic like that, finances does
become a part of that. But there's nothing more specific, Campbell,
that I'm aware of. But let me ask and see if there's anything else
that's out there.
Q: The United States is going to increase the number of INS or border
patrol officers in the checkpoints on the border with Canada. And also
the United States is going to increase the number of Customs officers
on this same border. What is going to be done on the border with
Mexico when it comes to increasing security at the checkpoints with
Mexico? And, also, is the same initiative going to be taking place in
that part of --
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President does think it's very important that
the United States be a nation that remains open to immigrants, and
remains open to free travel, which has been a hallmark of U.S.-Mexico,
U.S.-Canada relations. At the same time, he wants to make certain that
it is done in a legal fashion, in a way that makes certain that every
possible step is taken to secure the borders against those who have
come here for the purpose of creating terrorism or committing crimes.
And so there will be an effort on the borders to make certain that
that is the case, which I think you can expect.
Q: Ari, the President recently has spoken very enthusiastically about
free trade. And one thing free traders do is they reduce tariffs. But
there is a particular issue between the U.S. and Pakistan right now;
some textile manufacturers in the United States are not that
enthusiastic about -- that's cutting tariffs on Pakistani textile
imports to the United States. Can you tell us where the administration
is on that, and philosophically where the President comes down on
choosing between someone who is a vital coalition partner and somebody
in the United States who would be threatened by this change in
economic policy?
MR. FLEISCHER: That is the first I've heard about anything involving a
textile issue involving Pakistan, so I will take a look and get back.
Q: Ari, does the President intend to allow Surgeon General Satcher to
complete his term? Or would he like to install his own Surgeon General
before February?
MR. FLEISCHER: As you know, as always, I don't comment or speculate
about anything involving personnel.
Q: Ari, to what extent do the events of this coming week -- the
meetings with the foreign leaders and the speeches -- reflect a view
that the administration's message has not resonated, hasn't adequately
gotten out?
MR. FLEISCHER: Not at all. As you know, the President has been meeting
with a series of foreign leaders prior to September 11th, but on an
accelerated basis since September 11th. There has been no shortage of
world leaders who want to come to Washington because they believe that
it is very important for the world to send that signal, that they
stand with the United States in the war on terrorism.
So what you're seeing is a natural outcome as the President meets with
leaders from around the world. And he is very pleased to share that
message publicly.
Thank you.
END 1:30 P.M. EST
(end transcript)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
