Pakistan/Musharraf visit agenda
12:07 P.M. EST
MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. The President
this morning called President Mubarak of Egypt. The call was
part of the two leaders' regular consultations about the situation in
the Middle East. The President expressed his appreciation
for President Mubarak's leadership role in the search for peace in the
region. The President also reaffirmed the value of
U.S.-Egyptian relationship to regional security and stability.
After his call, the President convened meetings of the National
Security Council. He had his regular briefings from the CIA
and from the FBI. And then the President signed into action
an executive order for Historically Black Colleges and
Universities. This is a follow-on to the President's
commitment to increase funding for Historically Black Colleges and
Universities by 30 percent over four years. The executive
order will strengthen the ability of these universities to educate
children, particularly in the minority community.
Then the President named Congressman Tony Hall, a Democrat of Ohio,
to be the United States representative to the Food and Agriculture
Organization in Rome. The President, later today, will meet
with leaders and members of the Boy Scouts of America to receive their
annual report. And following that, at 1:30 p.m. in the East Room, the
President will make an announcement about the 2002 National Drug
Control Strategy.
The strategy the President will outline today will focus on three
things: one, stopping drug use before it starts; two,
healing America's drug users; and three, disrupting the
market. The President's National Drug Control Strategy seeks
to reduce use of illegal drugs by 10 percent over two years, and by 25
percent over five years. And these goals apply to drug use
among young Americans, which are considered people in the 12-17
year-old age group, and among adults.
There will be a briefing by the Director of the Office of National
Drug Control Strategy following the President's announcement, here in
the briefing room, on the record, off camera, to help reporters --
answer any questions about it.
With that, I'm more than happy to take
questions. Terry.
Q Why is the President appearing in a very
sharply partisan political ad? It's seeming, according to
Democrats, to exploit the patriotism surrounding the war effort against
Democrats who have honest disagreements with him on domestic policy.
MR. FLEISCHER: Have you seen the ad?
Q I have not; I've read the script.
MR. FLEISCHER: Okay. I have a hard time
classifying it as sharply partisan. It says the same things
that the President has said repeatedly, which is it's important to pass
a stimulus plan to get the economy going again and to help workers find
jobs. That's not partisan. That's the President's
policy. And it's a good message.
Q What the President is saying, it's time
for members of Congress to do their job during wartime. And
is an honest disagreement about domestic policy not doing one's job
during wartime?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think honest disagreements about policy
are the essence of what campaigns are all about. And this is
an election year, and the President will be doing his part to help
elect people who vote for and support the agenda that he's proposed,
particularly helping workers get jobs.
Q And part of his pitch to the American
people will be that his agenda is necessary to the war effort's
success, and that those who oppose it are opposing success in the war?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, there's no question that the
President views the actions of those who vote with him as helping him
to implement his agenda across the board.
Q Isn't this a subtle way, though, of using
the war politically during the 2002 elections?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, have you seen the ad?
Q No.
MR. FLEISCHER: I recommend take a look at the ad, read
the script, and you'll see that it's focused on the stimulus and
everything that's in there is really things that are part of the public
policy debate, which is what you would hope that campaign ads focus
on.
Q The President's position, though, in terms
of using the war politically -- obviously some Democrats criticized
comments Karl Rove made weeks ago --
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, this ad is about the stimulus.
Q Right. But just in general, the
President's position about whether the war -- using the war in any way
politically to help candidates in 2002, what's his position?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think the voters will make their
own minds up about which party they trust most when it comes to
fighting terrorism and fighting the war. And those are the
judgments that the voters always make.
Q Is the President ready to go to war with
Iraq?
MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, as the President said in his State
of the Union, the President is prepared to take whatever action is
necessary to protect the United States, protect our allies, and to
protect the peace internationally. And I can assure you that
no decisions have been made beyond the first phase of the war on
terrorism. The President has been very plainspoken with the
American people about the need to fight the war on terrorism wherever
terrorism is. And he's focused right now on Afghanistan, but
the President has been very clear that time is not on our side because
of the threats posed by nations and terrorists against the United
States.
Q Does he know of any connection with the
current fight against terrorism by Iraq? Does he have any
evidence?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, when the President referred to the
axis of evil, and identified North Korea, Iran and Iraq, what the
President was referring to is their -- not only their support of
terrorism, which is plain -- they are on the State Department list of
terrorist states -- but also their development of weapons of mass
destruction, their willingness in the case of several of those nations
to export technology and material and provide weapons of mass
destruction. And the President does fear the marrying of any
of these nations with terrorist organizations.
Q Well, we have weapons of mass destruction
and we don't permit any inspection.
MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, if you're suggesting that there's
a moral equivalence between the United States' success in keeping the
peace for 60 years with our weapons and the actions of terrorists, I
would urge you to reexamine that premise. I see no moral
equivalence.
Q Senator Daschle said yesterday that it's
right to take a very close look at the problems presented by Iran, Iraq
and North Korea, but the President should be careful with the kind of
rhetoric he used by labeling them the axis of evil. Any
response to that?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, Senator Daschle's remarks are
confusing because it appears that he has changed from what he said the
night of the State of the Union address when the President spoke to the
nation about the axis of evil. Let me cite for you what
Senator Daschle said in an interview on January 30th with Good Morning
America.
When asked specifically about the President's reference to the axis
of evil, Senator Daschle said, "We know that we've got to take more
preventive action, and the President outlined some of the steps last
night, and I think the Congress supports him, Charlie." And
he continued, "And if it takes preemptive strikes, if it takes
preemptive action, I think the Congress is prepared to support
it." So it just seems that something has changed with
Senator Daschle or perhaps he has had a change of opinion, but it does
not appear that he is perfectly consistent.
Q In those comments he didn't say anything
about the President's phrase, axis of evil. This is the
first time he has come out and said that phrase is a little hot.
MR. FLEISCHER: That's why I raise it
then. When he had a chance to say that when interviewed the
morning after the speech, he indicated otherwise, because he was asked
in that interview exactly about the axis of evil. And, at
that time, he had nothing negative to say about it. In fact,
he went on to indicate that the Congress would support the President if
the President deemed it necessary to take action.
Q Ari, in the drug control strategy
opening statement, the President talks about how internationally, drugs finance
the work of terrorists, profits fund their work. As you
know, in Afghanistan, the poppy crop is about to be replanted in
March. What is the United States prepared to do about the
crop? Will we wipe it out? Are we going to do
anything to stop Afghanistan from becoming the heroin capital of the
world?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, there's no question that drug use
has a direct funding for terrorists; that casual drug users, non-casual
drug users, serious drug abusers, as a result of their purchase of
drugs, it ultimately does support many terrorist organizations around
the world.
In Afghanistan, this is a topic that has been discussed with the
Interim Chairman of Afghanistan. It is an issue that the
Afghani government is concerned with, and I think that as a result of
the prosecution of the war against terrorism, you will see a diminution
of the amount of poppy in Afghanistan that is exported for
drugs. Can we eradicate all of it? Is that a
possibility? I don't think anybody is prepared to say that
will happen in a country that is as lacking in central control as
Afghanistan. But it will represent an improvement because
there will be a diminution of the supply.
Q But are you saying that this is Chairman
Karzai's job, or will this become a function of the U.S.
military? Chairman Karzai has said that they will eliminate
drug-trafficking, but they've also got a big job on their hands in
order to do it.
MR. FLEISCHER: They have a big job on their
hands. I think you will see the United States in a variety
of means be helpful to the government of Afghanistan. I'm
not indicating that's anything that the military will play a role in,
but the United States wants to work with the government of Afghanistan
to help eradicate their drug crops.
Q Why not take a more proactive role, rather
than just being a helper? Why wouldn't the military actually
go in and do some of the work here?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, when it comes not only to
eradication of drugs in Afghanistan, but helping Afghanistan become an
independent, strong nation, the United States is going to be working to
train Afghanistan's military, and that's something which Chairman
Karzai and the President talked about. Chairman Karzai
recognizes the importance for Afghanistan to be able to stand on its
own feet and take action across the board, not only in this one area of
drug production, but in terms of law enforcement and rule of law and
openness, transparency, in Afghanistan. He wants to create
an Afghanistan that is able to take care of its own
matters. And the United States will be helpful to
Afghanistan in that endeavor.
The United States won't do everything for
Afghanistan. We cannot and we should not. But the
United States will help Afghanistan in a number of areas, including
drug eradication.
Q I just want to be clear on
this. You're saying that the United States will not take any
direct action to eliminate heroin in Afghanistan going forward?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I didn't say that. I
talked about the role of the military. I said the United
States will continue to work productively with
Afghanistan. And a number of steps have not all been
determined. They are a young country. They are
just -- still in a state of war. So there will be a series
of developing actions with Afghanistan, not all of which can be known
right now.
Q You are saying the U.S. military would not
take a part in eradicating --
MR. FLEISCHER: Ron, I have heard no discussion about the
United States military taking part in that role. Now, again,
I want to stress that Afghanistan is a young country. There
will be continued actions with Afghanistan. Afghanistan is
still in the middle of a war. But not all steps can be
known with how we're going to cooperate with Afghanistan, because,
again, there are still an interim government. They don't
know all the steps they'll be able to take. But across the
board, the United States wants to be helpful and work with
Afghanistan. It's in both our nation's interests.
Q Has the President or Karl Rove given the
RNC the green light to work behind the scenes to either defeat or alter
the leading campaign finance reform bill?
MR. FLEISCHER: No.
Q Is the President or any of his aides doing
anything to either work to defeat or pass any amendments that would
change that bill as it currently stands?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President would very much like to see
the House of Representatives pass a campaign finance reform measure
that improves the current system. The President does see a
number of weaknesses in the current system that he thinks can be
improved. Particularly, the President would like to ban soft
money from corporations, ban soft money from unions. The President
would like to see greater disclosure along the lines of what he,
himself, did during the course of the campaign, where the President
instantly -- virtually instantly disclosed contributions on his web
page. The President would like to see an increase in the hard dollar
limits of contributions to candidates. The President
believes that if that is enacted, it will mean candidates spend less
time raising money, and more time focusing on the constituents' needs.
The bill that currently -- a couple different bills are currently
before the House -- are going to be amended in a process that's not yet
clear. As the rule is currently constituted, there will be
some 10 amendments by the majority, some five by the
minority. There will be additional possibilities of
amendments. So it's still a little hard to say what the
final outcome of the House will be. But the President has
made it clear to all those in Congress who ask him that he will sign
into law something, if in his judgment it improves the system.
Q If he wants -- he says he would very much
like to see a bill. Why then isn't he working the phones, inviting
lawmakers over here to get the bill that he really likes to pass the
House of Representatives?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, he's contributed to this process
mightily by, for the first time in more than 10 years, sending the
signal to the Democrats and Republicans alike in Washington that this
year campaign finance reform is real. It used to be a phony
debate. It used to be a debate where the Democratic Congress
would send a bill to former President Bush, knowing he was going to
veto it. It used to be a debate in which former President
Clinton would make a proposal to the Republican Congress, knowing it
was going to go nowhere. And frankly, both parties liked it
that way. Both parties liked the phoniness of the
debate. They both liked being able to say to each other,
we're more for reform than you are, it would be done if it wasn't for
you.
President Bush has changed that this year, and I think that's why
you're seeing something very close and interesting in the House of
Representatives, where nobody knows what the ultimate outcome is going
to be. And he has accomplished that by making it clear to
members of Congress that they should not count on him to scuttle
whatever is done, that he generally wants to improve the
system. So I think people can thank the President for making
it a real and meaningful debate, and making people in both parties
focus on the reality of the actions they'll take.
Q So why doesn't he send the message to the
party not to work on trying to defeat the bill in the House?
MR. FLEISCHER: Because individual members are entitled
to exercise their individual will. I don't think it should
surprise anybody that there are individual members of the Republican
National Committee who are state party chairmen, who represent other
congressmen in the House or congressmen in the Senate, who have
individual views about this and a wide diversity of views about it.
Q The President has no influence over them
and what he feels should happen?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think the President has exercised his
influence plenty, and that's why you're seeing for the first time in
more than a decade a real debate.
Q He's not exerting his influence at all?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think he's exerted it to the point
where, for the first time in more than a decade, campaign finance
reform is real.
Q Ari, a point of contention, but apparently
negotiable is the effective date when a soft money ban would actually
take effect. At this point, do you think it's feasible or
even fair for a soft money ban to go into effect this year?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, the President is open-minded about
that. I think the effective date will be something that
ultimately Congress will decide. But the President is open-minded
about whether it should be this year, it should be after the
election. I think you find plenty of people in both parties
who will tell you different things about how that would impact the
ultimate outcome.
Q Now, if he's open-minded to this and a
bill gets on his desk, are you saying then that you would act quickly
on it if it included the ban going into effect this year?
MR. FLEISCHER: Obviously, if a bill lands on his desk,
he has 10 days to either sign it or not. So I don't think
that changes the timing of how the President would act, once it's on
his desk.
Q Ari, the President will be announcing
shortly his national drug control policy. In the past, the
certification process this country has had irritated a lot of countries
in Latin America because it pointed the finger at suppliers and at the
people who produce it, but it has not paid much attention to the people
who use it, consumption. You say in the President's new plan
that's a major facet, to stop the consumption in this
country. But how does this President's budget on that issue
compare to the previous budget? Because everybody gave lip
service to stop consumption, but they didn't do much about it.
MR. FLEISCHER: The President's budget will spend more
than $19 billion on fighting the war against drugs on a wide variety of
fronts, including treatment, including demand, including supply,
including border enforcement. And I would urge you when
Director Walters is here, you may be able to get into greater depth
with him about it.
Q Ari, can you give us a little more
background on where the latest FBI alert came from, whether it was
shared with the Office of Homeland Security, how it was implemented?
MR. FLEISCHER: The alert that the FBI announced last
night was a result of a collaborative process that has been in place
here for months, that involves many people of the national security
team, and especially Governor Ridge. The information was
derived from multiple sources and it was deemed to be
credible. It was deemed to be specific by name, a photo was
available -- in several cases more than one photo. And there
was no more specificity than that. In other words, it was
not a known location, a known target. It was not even known
if the Yemeni individual in question is in the United States or outside
the United States. We just do not know.
But the information came from a number of sources sufficiently
credible that the alert went out last night. It's called a
BOLO alert, which means "be on the lookout," and that's something the
FBI and law enforcement communities are long familiar
with. Be on the lookout for somebody for different types of
crime. In this case, the crime is fear of terrorism.
Q Does that mean that there are any special
roles for homeland security if it's an FBI alert?
MR. FLEISCHER: The FBI has almost always issued the
alert. The FBI is the operational entity here that sends out
alerts to 18,000 law enforcement -- the community. Homeland
security is a policy-coordinating role. Just as the National
Security Council doesn't put troops in the field to fight a war, the
Homeland Security Council doesn't operate the FBI, but it's a
coordinating function.
Q Do you know the exact date? You
were told the exact date that this would occur?
MR. FLEISCHER: Beginning on. On or
about. Beginning on. So, no, it's not limited to
any one day, but based on the information that was gleaned, it's
beginning today.
Q Was the President told that the alert was
going to go out before it did, and did he sign off on it?
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, the President was aware of that.
Q Did he sign off on it?
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, I mean -- unfortunately, this is --
although this is not the same type of ongoing alert status which has
been in place, which is currently in place through the Olympics and a
little bit beyond, it's unfortunate to say that there's just almost a
routine, a pattern now that has become part of the alert structure of
our government. It's unfortunate, because it's a recognition
of the fact that we have to deal with terrorism in that
vein. It's fortunate because it means we're dealing with
terrorism in that vein, meaning we get information quickly into the
hands of the law enforcement community, including in this case a
specific picture of a specific individual.
Q The reaction, as reported on the wires,
was almost universally, how much higher can we go? We're
already on high alert, what more do they want us to
do? There were quotes from a number of different police
officials around the country to that effect. What are you
supposed to do if the country is already on high alert, and even higher
for the Olympics?
MR. FLEISCHER: Be armed with a photo of somebody, so
they can look for the person if they see him. That's what
the purpose is. That's why this is not the same status of
alert before, as I just said. The United States is still in
the same alert status it was prior to the Olympic games, continuing
through the duration of the games. This is what's called a
BOLO, "be on the lookout for." And that's something,
frankly, that the law enforcement community welcomes. They
want that type of specific information, wherever there's a photo
available. Imagine how helpful that is to the eyes and ears
of law enforcement throughout the communities and the
country. That's exactly the type of information police
officials and local officials want. And, fortunately, in
this case, the United States government was able to provide it.
Q Has the CIA in any way overstepped its
mandate as an intelligence gathering organization by participating in
military operations in Afghanistan?
MR. FLEISCHER: Actually, the President believes that the
integration immediately of the CIA with the Department of Defense has
been one of the reasons we were so successful in winning the war on
terrorism up to this point in Afghanistan; that everything that has
happened has been a result of a marriage of the CIA and DOD, involving
intelligence sharing and operational role that the CIA has played.
So it's just the opposite -- the President believes that this is a
great part of the transformation and the way that a country like ours,
that has a large conventional capacity, can fight and win
terrorist-style wars, guerrilla-style wars, because of the strength
that the CIA and the DOD have, when combined.
Q Just so I'm understanding
this. So the CIA no longer has to maintain its operations to
intelligence gathering? It can move into a variety of other
operational spheres, as well, including military actions taken against
specific targets?
MR. FLEISCHER: They will at all times conform with what
the law requires, and that is always allowable under the laws.
Q If I could clarify one thing on the
warning. Are you saying that this was not an alert to the
public that they should expect a new terrorist threat, rather just a
warning to law enforcement to watch out for these guys?
MR. FLEISCHER: Technically, Jim, it is an alert to
18,000 law enforcement officials who are a part of the FBI and media
communications system. As a practical matter, it's hard to
send something out to 18,000 law enforcement officials without it also
becoming a public alert. And that's just a recognition of
the way the media and the interaction of government officials plays in
our society with a free press. So it's a blurring of the
lines, but technically it was sent to 18,000 law enforcement
officials. The public is notified, and in the President's
judgment, that's helpful.
Q But that's also done -- was also done in
the previous cases. You're saying this was different from previous
alerts?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, in previous cases, as well, there
were notices that were sent to the 18,000 law enforcement
officials. And at the same time, it was made
public. The same thing happened last night here.
Q They were not any
different? You said they were different, the previous ones.
MR. FLEISCHER: Because the technical answer is, the FBI
notifies 18,000 people who are part of their communications
system. That's the instant communication. It
helps keep law enforcement locally tied in to what's happening
nationally. Imagine the process. Word gets out,
the FBI shares it with the public.
Q Let me ask a question about
Iraq. The President's remarks and some other comments by
officials after the State of the Union led some people to believe that
basically the bombers were warming up and headed to the
runway. You and Secretary Powell today have suggested that
is not the case. What is the case? What is the
state of play on going after Iraq?
MR. FLEISCHER: First of all, I think that's an
over-interpretation. The President said directly in his State of the
Union address that we will be patient, we are a deliberative nation,
but time is not on our side. And immediately the next
morning when I was asked for additional information, I said military
action is not imminent. So I think it's all very
clear. I think the American people have welcomed what the
President said.
Let me make a broader point about what the President said, though,
on the axis of evil and the language that he used, because this is a
type of diplomacy that the President engages in; it's rather
plainspoken. The President believes that moral clarity makes
for strong diplomacy and that creates better results. And,
as an example, Ronald Reagan did not say to Mikhail Gorbachev -- let me
rephrase that -- Ronald Reagan said to Mikhail Gorbachev, tear down
this wall. He didn't say, would you mind making it a little
shorter? He spoke with moral clarity and, as a result, the
world is a better place. So, too, with President Bush.
Q He didn't say what he was going to do if
he didn't tear it down.
MR. FLEISCHER: And it came down, as a result of Ronald
Reagan's moral clarity and strength.
Q If time is not on our side, as the
President said and as you've pointed out several times, then why isn't
an attack imminent?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think it's a determination of the
President to protect the American people, and the President understands
the timetable that he may or may not operate under. And so
the President is continuing to take whatever action he thinks is
necessary. And the American people have, I think, strongly
supported the statement the President made or the actions the President
may or may not take.
Q What is the status that you know about
Daniel Pearl, and does the U.S. hold Pakistan responsible for the
safety of American journalists? Do you suggest more
journalists get out of Pakistan?
MR. FLEISCHER: The United States continues to very
closely monitor what is happening with the kidnaping of Mr.
Pearl. There have been reports this morning that I cannot
confirm. The United States continues to call for the
immediate and unconditional release of Mr. Pearl. He's a
journalist who's doing his job. And, as I've said before
from here, it's a reminder about the risks and the dangers that
journalists face in doing their job around the world to keep their
viewers and their readers informed.
President Musharraf will be here tomorrow. The
cooperation of the Pakistani government and security forces has been
very strong and very helpful. The President hopes that this
matter will be resolved.
Q The man who was arrested, did he give any
indication where Pearl is, either dead or alive?
MR. FLEISCHER: I have no information to contribute on
that.
Q Ari, getting back to this alert issue,
whatever happened to the idea of the Homeland Security Director coming
up with a recognizable series of alerts that people could identify
with?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's still under
development. Nothing is final about that. The
Homeland Security Director believes it would be helpful, and I think
you will see that happening. But again, I want to remind
you, what was put out by the FBI last night is called a BOLO, be on the
lookout. It's not a change in our alert status. Our alert
status remains just as it was prior to the Olympics, and ongoing.
Q But you have to --
MR. FLEISCHER: Last night's alert, in other words, last
night's BOLO fits in to the existing alert.
Q But as others have mentioned, it adds to
the anxiety, if you will, and how soon do you think there will be a
recognizable system of alerts that would have maybe various grades or
various names attached to them?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not willing to take a
guess. That will be developed by the Homeland Security
Council in cooperation with other agencies, and I have not heard a
timetable for when it will be. But I'm not really sure that
it does add to anxiety. I think, frankly, it's just the type
of information that the law enforcement community seeks; that when
there is something specific, when there is a picture available, imagine
how much safer we are because that picture is then in the hands of
officials at airports, at train stations, at bus stations, at different
security venues. That's exactly the type of information that needs to
be shared with local law enforcement by the federal government to
prevent terrorism or to
disrupt a potential attack.
Q Ari, with the Boy Scouts meeting with the
President this afternoon, does the President share the view by some Boy
Scouts and their supporters that the organization has been mistreated
or unfairly treated, I guess, since the issue of the membership
requirements of the group went before the Supreme Court?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think not by President
Bush. Certainly the President met with the Boy Scouts last
year, is meeting with them again today. So the President is
very pleased to receive them here at the White House.
Q Ari, union leaders representing United
Airlines workers predict that they'll reject the company's contract
offer in the next day or two, setting a strike deadline for the 20th, I
believe. Does the President or Larry Lindsey or anyone
intend to get further involved in this process?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think it's premature to judge the
outcome of an election that's underway. The voting by the
members of United Airlines union have begun today; it's
ongoing. The results will not be known until sometime
later. And that's even unclear exactly at what point the
voting will be known. So I don't think it's wise to judge
the outcome of an election. Certainly we've learned that
lesson from 2000 about judging outcomes of elections. So
we'll wait six weeks until it's over.
Q The Senate bill on the faith-based
initiative doesn't have any of the charitable choice language that the
House bill had. Now that House members are saying that the
charitable choice language this year in reauthorizing welfare reform is
going to be a struggle, as well, how would the President treat the idea
that this idea of charitable choice for faith-based groups is actually
-- might be on the decline right now, with the way that the Senate has
become more Democratic?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think the President would differ
with that interpretation, actually. The House, of course,
did pass a measure that sought to create a level playing field, so that
faith-based groups, community organizations would not be discriminated
against by the government in issuing contracts because those groups
were from the basis of faith.
The House of Representatives accomplished it through a measure very
similar to the 1996 welfare law, called charitable
choice. The Senate arrived at the same result through a
different measure, which is a ban on discrimination against religious
groups based on a iconography and other issues of that nature.
So they both, in the President's opinion, help accomplish the goal
of tearing down barriers so groups that do good work in communities, to
help people who are suffering, help people who are in poverty, help
people who suffer from drug abuse or alcohol abuse, can get help often
from the faith-based groups that provide the best help in breaking
people of these habits.
So the President is pleased to see --
Q -- really a significant difference between
the two bills --
MR. FLEISCHER: No, the President sees them both as
constructive ways to get to the same end point, and that end point is
tearing down barriers in which the government discriminates against
faith-based groups and refuses to give them money because they may
operate from a faith position, as they help improve and save people's
lives.
Q On the Boy Scouts, does the President
agree with the Boy Scouts view that -- their decision to exclude gays
from membership?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President views this as the courts
have held, which is that it's a private organization.
Q The New York Times reports that while
Congress twice voted last year to allow U.S. hostages who were held in
our Tehran Embassy for 444 days to sue the $8 billion we hold in
Iranian assets. This is being opposed by the State
Department, even though President Bush has accurately identified Iran
as part of the evil axis. And my question, why is the
President allowing the State Department to try to block this twice
congressionally justified lawsuit?
MR. FLEISCHER: Lester, I have no information on that, so
let me take that question and try to post something on that.
Q In what I think is your impressive
knowledge of the presidency, can you name any book, beside the Bible,
that has been more promoted by any President than the New York Times
number one best seller that was carried by President Bush in front of
cameras, BIAS, a CBS insider exposes how the media distort the news?
MR. FLEISCHER: What was the
question? (Laughter.)
Q Well, do you know of any book that has
ever been more promoted by a President of the United States than this
book?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm sure there were
some. (Laughter.)
Q Can you name one? And did you
like the book, too, Ari?
MR. FLEISCHER: You guys keep me so busy I have a hard
time reading books.
Q That's an evasion.
MR. FLEISCHER: Actually, I think it's an interesting
book. I think it raises some interesting issues.
Q The President liked it, didn't
he? The President thought it was great?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President thought it also raised some
interesting questions.
Q Such as?
Q Going back to alert, this comes on the eve
of General Musharraf's visit to Washington, he's in
town. And -- number one. Number two, there was a
CBS report last week and also a published report that Osama bin Laden
was in Pakistan on September 10th and ISI then -- then the ISI chief
was in Washington on September 11th. And, finally, what are
we seeking or asking General Musharraf when he comes tomorrow to meet
with the President? What is he expecting and what is the
United States expecting from him?
MR. FLEISCHER: This will be the President's second
meeting directly and personally with President
Musharraf. They met up in New York in
November. And they'll just discuss a wide range of issues,
including the war against terrorism. Education reform, which
interestingly has been a key issue for President Musharraf, something
they spent a lot of time talking about in New York, I anticipate
they'll spend a lot more time talking about here in
Washington. I anticipate they are going to want to talk
about economic assistance and also a restoration of democratic
government in Pakistan. I think they will also talk about
military-to-military cooperation and expanding military exchange
programs as well.
Q Is he going to talk to him about the Wall
Street Journal reporter and also Osama bin Laden's presence?
MR. FLEISCHER: The Wall Street Journal reporter, Mr.
Pearl, will likely come up.
Thank you.
END 12:39
P.M. EST
#136-02/12