1:10 p.m. EDT

MR. ERELI: Welcome back, everyone. Glad you're safe and sound with us at the State Department. I don't have any announcements today to start the week, so we'll open it to the first questions.

QUESTION: Could we try to get the latest view in the State Department as to the likelihood that Iraq can hold elections by early January?

MR. ERELI: The holding of elections in Iraq, the holding of free, fair, open elections in Iraq at the end of the year and at the end of January 2005, is a goal that the Iraqi Government has set for itself. It's a goal that we support. It's something that we're all going to work between now and then to achieve.

That means providing Iraqi people throughout the country the opportunity to go to the polls and express their opinion, and participate in the choice of their future leaders. It is an endeavor that we are using -- that we, and the Iraqis, are using all of the tools at our disposal to achieve: That means militarily fighting the insurgency that is trying to prevent the peaceful conduct of elections throughout the country; it means politically working with all parts of the Iraqi society to engage them both in terms of setting up the electoral process, but also in terms of working against those such as terrorists or former regime elements that want to frustrate the process; and, economically in terms of providing assistance and support for those parts of Iraq that need reconstruction, that need to see the benefits of a new Iraq, and to complement what is being done politically.

So, I don't know how to put it differently than I think a number of officials have already put it both on the Hill and before the TV cameras that this is the Iraqi goal, this is the goal of the United States, this is the goal of the UN and the multinational community, the multinational force, to have free, fair and open elections throughout Iraq by January 2005, and that's what we're working toward.

QUESTION: Well, your goal is clear. And for a long time, absent your statement, is the confidence that so recently we were hearing, that the Secretary told us in New York last week that it was feasible. But on TV over the weekend he seemed a little bit -- and Armitage keeps up that tone, but the Secretary seemed a little less sanguine about the elections. So you don't have to handicap it for us, but we're listening for good -- for obvious reasons, not to hold your feet to the fire, but we know how awful the situation is in Iraq, and we know you're trying to put the best face you can on the situation. But what is the likelihood of elections throughout Iraq? And secondly, would the Administration support partial elections, excluding areas of Iraq where violence is just too awful to expect people to go out and vote and risk getting killed?

MR. ERELI: I'm not going to make predictions. I will say that we have a goal that we're working toward and that's what we're trying to accomplish in cooperation with the Government of Iraq, and that's elections throughout Iraq by January 2005. And I don't want to speculate on scenarios short of that. We think it's achievable. We think it's doable. The Deputy has spoken to that, the Secretary has spoken to that, and the President has spoken to that. And I don't think you should read into different phrasings of the same idea differences of opinion or differences of assessment.

QUESTION: On this topic, in one of his interviews yesterday the Secretary responded to a question with this, which I am wondering if you can explain. The quote was, "We have a record of overtly supporting candidates for government, candidates for office in governments that are going through the process of transition to democracy."

Can you explain exactly what he meant by that and perhaps give us some examples of countries where you have overtly supported candidates for office?

MR. ERELI: We have a very active, as you know, a very active program of supporting democratic processes throughout the world. You know, we do it in -- we've done it in Yemen, we've done it in where I've worked, we've done it in other countries in the Middle East, we've done it in the Balkans, we've done it in Europe, Eastern Europe, we've done it in Africa. It's providing grants to American NGOs to help develop capacity building in emerging democracies so that they can have functioning systems whereby political parties develop their institutional capability, political parties learn how to field and support and promote candidates. We're not supporting individual candidates in these processes, but we are supporting the process of empowering institutions and people to participate and flourish in a new political system.

Now, with respect to Iraq, I think our support for the democratic process there is fairly well known, fairly well publicized.

QUESTION: Can I just stop you right there?

MR. ERELI: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: That's all well and fine, what you just said. That's not what the Secretary said. He said, "We have a record of overtly supporting candidates for government, candidates for office and government that are going through a process of transitioning to democracy."

MR. ERELI: Right, which is what I --

QUESTION: He didn't say --

MR. ERELI: That's consistent with what I just said.

QUESTION: No, well, it may be consistent with it, but it's different than what you just said, because you talked about support for democratic processes, which I'm sure you're talking about IRI and NDI and that kind of thing.

MR. ERELI: Exactly.

QUESTION: He says you overtly support candidates for government --

MR. ERELI: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- candidates for office -- candidates for office. What candidates have you guys supported in the past, overtly?

MR. ERELI: I think he was -- the Secretary was speaking generically, as opposed to -- the United States does not, in political processes, favor one candidate over another.

QUESTION: Well, that's what he -- that's what it sounds like.

MR. ERELI: We favor -- I don't read it that way. I read it as --

QUESTION: How can -- wait. How can you read it any other way? "We have a record of overtly supporting candidates for government, candidates for office in governments that are going through a process of transitioning to democracy." How can you read that any other way than "We overtly support candidates for office in other governments?"

MR. ERELI: Okay. The question was a question about covert support for democracy programs -- democracy --

QUESTION: And we're all aware of your record on that.

MR. ERELI: And the Secretary said, we have a -- we are in Iraq, as elsewhere, we are supporting political processes and candidates overtly. And I read that -- first of all, that's where the "overt" word comes from. As far as the candidates, we are not -- I read it as we are not supporting any individual candidate; we do not support individual candidates. We support the process of defining parties, being able to come up with candidates, and those candidates being able to campaign. So it is not --

QUESTION: Adam, I'm reading the entire sentence here. I'm not leaving anything out. It's all in context --

MR. ERELI: It was --

QUESTION: -- and that's not what he said. He said "candidates."

MR. ERELI: I've given you -- I've given the way I read, the quote, we are not supporting, to my knowledge, or trying to favor individual candidates over other candidates. We are supporting a capacity building process in Iraq. That capacity building process means helping parties and Iraqi citizens to acquire campaign political participation skills so that Iraqi democracy can be, I think, a fully functioning and successful undertaking. That's what's behind that quote.

QUESTION: So he didn't mean what he said.

MR. ERELI: If you are suggest --

QUESTION: I'll drop it after that. But he did not mean to say that we have a record of overtly supporting candidates?

MR. ERELI: I would caution you against interpreting this to say, "We favor certain candidates and we are supporting those candidates." That is not what we are doing.

QUESTION: Can I ask you -- sorry, I meant to ask about -- I'm sorry. And maybe I'm the last to know, but did he meet in New York with Allawi, have an unscheduled -- sometimes they're the most interesting meetings, the ones that you don't let us know about in advance. Or was there not a meeting? There's some confusion.

MR. ERELI: He had a -- when President Allawi met President -- when Prime Minister Allawi met President Bush, the Secretary did have some private time with Prime Minister Allawi.

QUESTION: But that was -- but that wasn't Friday.

MR. ERELI: No, it was not Friday.

QUESTION: It was earlier in the week.

MR. ERELI: Nothing on Friday.

QUESTION: There was nothing on Friday.

MR. ERELI: Nothing on Friday.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. ERELI: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: What does the U.S. think of ElBaradei wanting a third term at the IAEA?

QUESTION: Oh, I'm sorry, can we stay on Iraq elections?

QUESTION: Sure.

QUESTION: What is the U.S. view of Iran's involvement as far as the election process is concerned? Are they providing money, anything like that? You talked about the U.S. programs. What about the Iranian side and what role is Iran playing?

MR. ERELI: I don't really have too much factual information to share with you. I think we've made clear that Iran does have influence in Iraq. That's quite clear. But to be more specific about, you know, how that influence works, what they're doing where with whom, that's very difficult for me to say.

What our interest is is, I think, to support what the Government of Iraq has said they want to achieve, which is the involvement of all Iraqi political factions in a peaceful competition for power. And, again, as the Secretary pointed out in the Sunday shows, part of this effort is constituted by this undertaking to bring together Iraq's neighbors to discuss the issues of Iraq's political future of security and stability, and for Iraq to lay out for its neighbors its vision of where it wants to go and how it sees it -- the role it sees its neighbors as well as the international community, as represented by the G-8, the role it sees these parties as playing.

So, clearly, the role or Iran as well as the role of Iraq's other neighbors in events in Iraq is something that Iraq is concerned about, is something that we are working to help Iraq channel in, I think, a positive, peaceful direction.

QUESTION: Do you see Iraq's role, then, as hindering the process?

MR. ERELI: Iran's role?

QUESTION: Iran's role. Sorry.

MR. ERELI: I think there are -- you know, obviously, the Iraqi Government has said what its views on this are. Our message to the Government of Iran, I think, is clear and consistent that they have an interest in a stable and secure Iraq; they have influence with certain parties in Iraq; we think they need to use that influence to help support the program and agenda of the Government of Iraq. And to the extent that there are actions or activities that contribute to instability, that to contribute to terrorist activity, that is of concern to us.

But to get into the kind of detail of how that works, it's just -- it's murky.

QUESTION: On -- going back to what you briefly mentioned, at the conference that the Secretary spoke of, at least I think you did --

MR. ERELI: Yes.

QUESTION: He said possible venues were Egypt and -- Cairo or Amman, and Egyptians have come out saying that they are going to hold a conference; it's unclear whether it's the same one. But is there any movement on where or when this might be, and how recent an idea is this? Is this just something that the Prime Minister came up with last week, or have I missed something?

MR. ERELI: No, this is an idea that's been around for a while. It was discussed --

QUESTION: Well, others have suggested it, but I wasn't aware the Iraqis had.

MR. ERELI: Well, it's an idea that we said we would, you know, we would look at, we would consider, we could support, and when it came up in the UN in, when was it, I guess it was May, in the course of the discussions on the last Security Council resolution on Iraq.

So I would date it to then, at least, and certainly, it's something -- it's an idea the Iraqi Government has taken up, the Iraqi Government has sought to act upon, so that we've been working with them on this for some time now as they move to put this together.

The timeframe is October, possibly November. The venue is in the region, but -- they're looking at Cairo, they're looking at Amman. I'm not aware if they're looking at other places as well, but I don't think it's been decided yet.

Yes, sir.

QUESTION: French Foreign Minister has said that the role of U.S.-led forces must be on the agenda if an international summit on Iraq is to ahead. Barnier proposed that all political groups, including a certain number of groups, who now have chosen the path of resistance by arms, should be included in the talks. Do you have any comment on that?

MR. ERELI: No, not really. It's -- I'm not in a position to discuss the agenda of such a conference. As I said, this is something that the Iraqis are taking a lead in putting together, so I would refer, you know, those kinds of questions to them.

Clearly, the issue of the U.S. presence in -- or the multinational force presence, I should say, in Iraq is a subject that has been extensively dealt with, most importantly in Security Council resolutions, which sanctions this presence, which give a legitimacy to this presence, and by public statements of the Government of Iraq, which have invited this presence. And we've always made clear that our goal is to work ourselves into obsolescence -- to make it -- to give the Iraqis the capacity to provide for security and build up their forces so that the kind of international armed presence we see in Iraq now isn't necessary in the future. That's the goal that we're all working towards.

Yes.

QUESTION: The IAEA and ElBaradei, what's your attitude toward it?

MR. ERELI: Don't have anything for you on it.

QUESTION: But do you guys, in general, oppose the terms of the UN bodies or can you make an exception in this case?

MR. ERELI: I think we view the work of Director General ElBaradei as outstanding. He has been a great leader and valued partner in his work at the International Atomic Energy Agency. As far as future discussion or review of future moves, obviously we'd have to look at the circumstances and take everything under advisement. And so I don't really have a position for you at this point.

QUESTION: The only thing I'd say is, when you look at the circumstances, the circumstances are he's going for a third term, and I thought you had a policy to oppose third terms.

MR. ERELI: I'm not going to go further than I just have.

QUESTION: Okay. Do you -- one last on this. Do you know if anybody has said, from the State Department has said to ElBaradei, or through intermediaries got the message to ElBaradei that the U.S. would oppose his standing for a third term?

MR. ERELI: I'm not aware that such communications have taken place.

Yes.

QUESTION: Events yesterday in Pakistan and also (inaudible). Do you have a response to that? And how significant do you think this is in the war on terror?

MR. ERELI: Obviously, for both the United States and Pakistan, the capture of al-Qaida, remaining al-Qaida leadership, is a top priority. We work closely with Pakistan in this endeavor. We welcomed the news over the weekend that Pakistan apprehended several suspects who may have links to al-Qaida, including a suspect in the Daniel Pearl case. We view this as a further positive development in the global war on terror, and I would note that this is yet another indication, in our view, of the significant progress being made in Pakistan and elsewhere in rounding up al-Qaida and other terrorist operatives.

It's an important step. It's an important development. But there's clearly more to do.

QUESTION: How do you feel about Hamas operatives operating in Syria? Israel has not claimed responsibility for the dispatch of a top Hamas person. I don't know if you know who finished him off, but I wonder what you think about others doing the kind of things you and Pakistan do.

MR. ERELI: As you say, there is -- there's no claim for responsibility of this act. I would simply note that, you know, in our meetings with the -- recent meetings with the Syrian Government, both the Secretary Powell and Foreign Minister Shara in New York, as well as Assistant Secretary Burns and the Syrian leadership in Damascus, we made it clear to Syria that the United States and President Bush remains committed to a comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle East. That is what we are working toward.

We also made clear that such a peace cannot be achieved against the backdrop of violence and we urge Syria to take steps to halt the activities of individuals and organizations that facilitate and direct violence and terror and that operate from Syrian territory.

QUESTION: The Secretary seemed pleased, on the whole, with his meeting with the foreign minister. Again, we don't know who did the deed, but is the timing unfortunate for you guys or -- you're in the midst of praising Syria. You're getting at least the bobbing of heads about taking actions that you would like seen taken. Does this run against that development?

MR. ERELI: I don't have any comment on the timing of this. It's -- you know, as we've always said, terrorism begets -- terrorism begets a cycle of violence that can be dealt with through ending support of terrorist organizations.

QUESTION: I just want to ask you about one line in there. You said that such a peace cannot take place against a backdrop of violence. Presumably, you would exclude the blowing up of this car with someone in it, or is that violence, too?

MR. ERELI: As I said, terrorists and their supporters beget a cycle of violence that is best addressed through the end of support of terror.

QUESTION: Is it your position that this person was a terrorist or a begetter of violence?

MR. ERELI: My understanding is he's a member of Hamas.

QUESTION: Okay. So his killing and the violent nature of his killing isn't part of the violence against which a Middle East peace cannot take place?

MR. ERELI: I'm not -- I think that, in our view, the best way to address the longstanding violence in the region is through ending support of terror.

QUESTION: Well, wait -- is --

QUESTION: So the crux of what you're saying is that -- I don't want to go where you don't want to go, and it's ticklish, I know, for you because it's always special when it comes to Israel attack -- going after terrorists, but -- if Israel did the deed -- but you would have left it to the Syrians to take care of Hamas in Damascus rather than go after Hamas leaders; is that correct?

MR. ERELI: We have made it clear that in numerous meetings with the Syrians that we think it's in their interests, in the interests of the region, to end support for terrorist organizations and terrorist individuals operating from their territory.

QUESTION: It's been going on a lot of years. So you would still, you know, hold back and wait for them to do that; is that the idea?

MR. ERELI: That is --

QUESTION: That's the --

MR. ERELI: That is what our policy is based on, the need for Syria to take actions against these organizations.

Yes, ma'am. I'm sorry. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Hamas already accuse Israel being behind the attack.

MR. ERELI: Pardon?

QUESTION: Hamas already accuse Israel of being behind the attack. Israelis officially denied that but privately admitted to Israel Channel 2. Whoever did this attack, do you think it is a legitimate way of eliminating people, leadership from Hamas, rather than arresting them and trying them? Does the U.S. agree to this method of killing?

MR. ERELI: You know, our position on targeted killings, I think, is well known. I don't have anything new to add to what we've said to this in the past.

QUESTION: What, you regard this as a targeted killing?

MR. ERELI: She -- the way the question came -- the way the question was presented, I'm not commenting on this specific act. As a general policy --

QUESTION: I understand. But can you -- do you regard this as a targeted killing, or just an unfortunate, or perhaps fortunate, act of violence?

MR. ERELI: I don't think I have enough information to give you an informed answer.

QUESTION: You do agree that it was violence?

MR. ERELI: Yeah, I think a car bomb --

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. ERELI: -- blowing somebody up is violent.

QUESTION: Is the U.S. asking Israel or Syria to provide any additional information?

MR. ERELI: Not that I'm aware.

Yes, sir.

QUESTION: I wonder why you can't see it in the terms of state terrorism, when a country is conducting what its officials are saying or describing its policy as "long-arm policy of Israel," killing other people in other people's country, or other countries who are conducting, with the United States, very serious kind of discussion that has to do with the arrangements of security and peace in the area. Why can't you go beyond talking about it as a targeted killing and admit that it is actually a state terrorism, because this is a conduct of a country against another neighboring country?

MR. ERELI: I don't know that -- everything you suggest is a supposition. I don't have the facts to be able to conclude that what you said is actually true. So, you know, you're asking me to say something, to comment on something that you purport to be true that we don't know to be true.

I think what we do know is that there are terrorist organizations and terrorist individuals operating out of Syria with the support and connivance of the Government of Syria, and that this is not in the interests of peace, and not in the interests -- and not consistent with those -- not consistent with statements in favor of peace.

So our view is that the best way to resolve this scourge or this problem is to provide no haven and no support for individuals who believe that violence, as opposed to negotiation, is the way to solve the problems -- is the way to achieve peace, or to achieve an end to the conflict between Israelis and Arabs.

QUESTION: Yeah, if I may. Do you see that yourself objecting to any violent acts by -- or solving problems, for countries to solve their problems with other countries is through violent acts and state terrorism, or you just insist that, well, one country should do this and this and that for the other country to meet the demands of Israel?

MR. ERELI: We think that if a country is committed to negotiated -- peaceful settlement of disputes through negotiation, then it is inconsistent to support organizations, terrorist organizations whose purpose is to use violence to settle those disputes.

Yes.

QUESTION: Adam, recently, there was a Guantanamo detainee that was released, and he was killed by the American troops. This is elsewhere.

And also, there's just been the release --

MR. ERELI: I'm sorry; he was released and then killed?

QUESTION: By American troops. In other words, he had been a detainee at Guantanamo, and of course, went back, I believe to Afghanistan. Now, they've just released Hamdi, with a type of restriction that he can't -- he's to renounce American citizenship, he's to not travel, he's being returned, I suppose, to Saudi Arabia, and they've just announced that in the 1:00 news.

If you're constantly saying that courts elsewhere are not helping the situation, why are the release from Guantanamo and the case of Hamdi --

MR. ERELI: The case of Hamdi is -- I'd refer you, for the substance of this issue, I'd refer you to the Department of Justice, because they're the ones that have dealt with the legal aspects of this case and they can speak to the terms of the release.

We, from the State Department, are working with the Government of Saudi Arabia to, as we would in any case such as this; we are working with the Government of Saudi Arabia on the logistics of Mr. Hamdi's return to Saudi Arabia. I'm not aware that that return has taken place. I know it's something that we're working on, and it's in the final stages.

QUESTION: But Adam, isn't that, because you're releasing a high-profile type of terrorist, isn't that going to enter into, just make things worse or just create a drawing card for --

MR. ERELI: No, I think it's something -- without getting into the details, it's something that we have been able to work out with our Saudi partners in ways that I think is -- satisfies everybody's concerns.

QUESTION: New subject, what's your --

QUESTION: No, actually, if we could stay on this for a second. So Adam, you're saying you do have agreement with the Saudis paving the way for Hamdi's return?

MR. ERELI: We're working on it. I don't know if everything's finalized yet.

QUESTION: Do you anticipate that this will be wrapped up soon?

MR. ERELI: It's, as I said, it's working through the final stages.

QUESTION: Can you tell us what's holding things up?

MR. ERELI: Just knitting everything up. I don't know if there's anything specific. It's just working through the needs of all the parties.

QUESTION:     What's your understanding, if you have one, of what happened this weekend in Khartoum?

DPB#155
[End]