1wh-Bush Meets Muslims10ct

8/6/2019 1wh-Bush Meets Muslims10ct

1/13

News from the Washington File

01 October 2001Transcript: White House Daily Briefing, October 1, 2001

(President's schedule, travel, vaccinations, terrorist threats, Reagan

National Airport, anti-terrorism legislation, personal

income/spending, military draft, Americans held in Afghanistan,

funding of rebel groups in Afghanistan, Afghanistan, harboring

terrorists, India, U.N. Conference on Terrorism, Mideast, Bush/visit

to mosque, Afghanistan/aid, federal funds/rates) (5560)

White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer briefed.

Following is the White House transcript:

(begin transcript)

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

October 1, 2001

PRESS BRIEFING BY ARI FLEISCHER

INDEX

-- President's schedule

-- Travel

-- Vaccinations

-- Threats of additional terrorist attacks

-- Reagan National Airport

-- Anti-terrorism legislation

-- Domestic agenda

-- Personal income and spending

-- Draft

-- Americans held in Afghanistan

-- Funding of rebel groups in Afghanistan

-- Government of Afghanistan

-- Harboring terrorists

-- India

-- U.N. Conference on Terrorism

-- Transcript discrepancy

-- Middle East

-- President's visit to mosque

-- Aid to Afghanistan

-- Federal funds rates

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

October 1, 2001

PRESS BRIEFING BY ARI FLEISCHER

The James S. Brady Briefing Room


2/13


3/13

Q: Will the First Lady go with him?

MR. FLEISCHER: I'll have more information to you shortly; I don't have

that yet.

Q: Has the President updated his small pox vaccination? Has he had an

anthrax inoculation? And have gas masks been issued in the WhiteHouse?

MR. FLEISCHER: I'll have to ask on the vaccinations -- I don't know

the answer to it. And I'm not aware of any distribution of gas masks

to staff in the White House.

Q: Have you updated your vaccination?

MR. FLEISCHER: Thank you for your interest, Helen. (Laughter.) I have

not.

Q: On the broader question, Ari, do you think it would be wise for

Americans to consider doing such a thing, considering what someadministration officials have said about the possible -- possible --

threat of biological or chemical attacks in this country?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think Secretary Thompson of Health and Human

Services addressed that last night, when he indicated that in the wake

of the attack on New York City, the federal government moved supplies

into the region that turned out to be unnecessary, but the government

is as prepared as possible to do as much as can be done. I'm not aware

of anybody advising the American people to do that. That's a question

more for health professionals. But I have not heard any such

advisement.

Q: In spite of the continued warnings of the possibility of further

terrorist attacks, stories over the weekend indicated that

administration officials said that there was no new intelligence, that

this was based on the situation as it had developed and on proper

concern. And out of concern I guess also to get the anti-terrorism

package passed -- comport with what you understand?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think what you heard over the weekend, as

you've heard since September 11th, has been reminders that the United

States still faces threats. And those threats are of a general nature.

Obviously, we did not have any specific information about the attacks

on September 11th, yet attacks still took place.

So what the President is working very hard to do is find that balance,

to let Americans know that threats do remain. The government is taking

all steps necessary to counter those threats, including planning

domestically at home. But the most important action the government can

take is going after the terrorists who did it, so they don't have any

abilities to do it again.

But that's the tenor of it, that's separate and apart from the

important need to pass legislation on the Hill that can give the

government the tools it needs to fight terrorism.

Q: What Attorney General Ashcroft specifically said is there is a very

serious threat of additional problems now, and he went on to say,

we've not been able to rule out plans for hijacking additional

aircraft. The President has also been out there saying, get back to

work, America; get up in the skies. What is it?


4/13

MR. FLEISCHER: Terry, we've discussed this here repeatedly, and it's

both. And that's the reality of life in America today. And events

changed life on September 11th, and I think that's plain for all to

see. And the American people are responding. Air travel has been

increasing on a regular basis, particularly in the last week, and

that's a healthy sign across the country. But it's also important thegovernment has been forthright about it, that threats remain. And

that's why the President announced the airline safety package last

week that he is intent on moving forward to provide greater security

in the cockpits, more federal marshals, greater training,

federalization of background checks and screening.

So a series of actions have been taken and will continue to be taken

to do everything possible to make America as safe as can be. But the

one issue will always remain in our country, so long as we are free

and so long as we are open, threats from terrorism remain. And that's

why the President is as determined as he is to treat this as a war, in

reality, and to take it to the enemy so that the cause of terrorism

can be rooted out, so Americans can again find that balance betweenliberty and fear, and so liberty can win.

Q: Just to follow up on this, are administration officials

unnecessarily alarming people, though, with these very strong warnings

of serious threats of additional terrorist activity?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think if you look at the reactions from the American

people, the American people are appreciative of the forthrightness of

the government. I think the government has an obligation to be

forthright, and that's why you're hearing these measured statements

from government leaders.

Q: The Attorney General also said yesterday that it was his estimation

that the threat of a terrorist attack could increase in this country

based on the retaliation, military retaliation, of the U.S.

government. Does the President, number one, agree with that? And,

number two, does that in any way inhibit the choices he may make?

MR. FLEISCHER: Major, I think the point that the Attorney General and

others are making is that threats do remain. But in no case will those

threats deter the President from carrying out this mission and winning

this war. And the President will take whatever actions are necessary

to take this war to the terrorists who have already attacked our

country and to those who continue to harbor the terrorists.

Q: Ari, getting back to Reagan National, will the President make a

decision this week? It's supposed to be soon.

MR. FLEISCHER: I don't have a hard schedule for you on when the

President will make a decision about that matter, but the President is

going to have additional conversations with his staff this week about

that. And as soon as there is something more definitive to say, it

will be shared with you.

Q: Well, there's a version out there he's leaning in the direction of

opening it. Is that true?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President is very, very aware of the

implications of leaving National Airport closed for the people who

work in Northern Virginia, for the thousands of employees and their

families and the impact that leaving National closed would have on


5/13

them.

He's also aware of the implications of leaving National closed would

have on US Airways and its ability to operate. He's very sensitive on

those points.

There are obviously security considerations because of the uniquelocation of National Airport, which literally puts the airplanes on

the flight path to and from National seconds away from many major

federal facilities.

So the President is listening to his top transportation and security

experts on that issue, but I think the President is very hopeful that

he can find a solution that allows all those concerns to be addressed.

Q: On the issue of National Airport, Ashcroft was out this weekend

talking about the continued threats. When is the fine line crossed

between security and the economy? I mean, we know National Airport,

you know -- that airport has a lot of employees that live in this

area. But when do you cross the line of trying to keep the nation safeand fears of anthrax and fears of another airport -- airline running

into another building? What do you do?

MR. FLEISCHER: You have faith in the American people. The American

people want to know what the facts are. And the American people will

react accordingly, and they'll react well. And that's the strength of

our country, and it always has been. So there always is that issue of

how a government official can find the appropriate balance between

letting the country know the facts and taking all appropriate action

to deal with those facts. And I think that's a line that the

government officials you've heard talk have tried to find. I think

they've found it.

Q: Wait a minute, just to follow up. But if National is reopened this

week, the economy outweighed security on this matter?

MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think that a balance would have been found. I'm

not sure I would say that any one outweighed the other. And I think

you have to wait and hear what the resolution is and the manner in

which it's resolved, too. The specifics will be very important. But it

will be a question of finding the appropriate balance.

Look, I think throughout the country people are re-jiggering what they

took for granted, what all of us took for granted before September

11th. You listen to the American people go to airports now, and

statements that people are making now are statements they never would

have made before September 11th. People saying, I'm happy to wait in

line an hour. I mean, people are saying that they understand the need

for more security at this time. I don't think it's anything that

anybody wants, but they understand it, and they're accepting of it.

And that's why I say, you have faith in the country.

Q: On the anti-terrorism legislation, Ari. Does the President feel, as

Attorney General Ashcroft, that immigrants suspected of terrorist

actions or being involved in terrorist actions should remain in jail

until their cases are adjudicated? Or does he believe there should be

a time limit, the seven days being considered --

MR. FLEISCHER: The President supports the package that the Attorney

General has proposed to the Congress.


6/13

Q: You do not see a concern there in cases that perhaps drag on, and

people being held during that period of time?

MR. FLEISCHER: The President supports the package the Attorney General

has sent to the Congress.

Q: Ari, there is a whole bunch of legislation now on the Hill dealingwith this attack and the fallout from it. There's the anti-terrorism

-- or counter-terrorism package that he was talking about, there's the

economic stimulus package, there's a package about germ warfare,

there's one on infrastructure security and probably others I don't

even know about. Are there priorities here that the White House would

like to set for Congress?

MR. FLEISCHER: On the counter-terrorism?

Q: On the whole --

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, clearly it begins with the package that the

Attorney General has proposed, which is the subject of discussion onthe Hill as we speak. It's a potential that there will be action in

the House Judiciary Committee on it this week. The administration has

been working very closely with members of the House, as well as with

Chairman Leahy and others in the Senate who have just jurisdiction

over this. So, as always, it's very important to listen to Congress

and to work the deliberative process the Congress puts in place. And

those efforts are underway now.

Q: What about these other things that I mentioned?

MR. FLEISCHER: Give me some specifics again.

Q: Germ warfare, infrastructure security, economic stimulus, airline

workers.

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, each one of those is a different topic. On the

question of stimulus, for example, and an aid to people who have lost

their jobs as a result of the attacks, the President is going to have

a meeting tomorrow morning with the congressional leadership. This is

now part of what I would refer to you as his weekly consultative

meetings with the leaders.

I don't think there are going to be any decisions made, necessarily,

at tomorrow morning's meeting. After these meetings take place,

typically what happens is each leader has to go back and talk to their

rank and file. In the case of the House, that means each leader has to

talk to a couple hundred people. In the case of the Senate, that means

each leader has to go back and talk to scores of people.

But the point is, the President wants to put together a very

bipartisan mechanism with the leaders so that he can share their ideas

in private at these meetings and talk about how they can get

agreements together, and then let the deliberative process take over

from there.

Q: So are you saying that after the counter-terrorism bill, there

really isn't an established set of priorities at this point?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think they're all important. And you can add to

that list the domestic agenda, action on education, because that will

always be important to this country in times of war and peace, having


7/13


8/13

But you know, when the President says those things I think it's also

very helpful to local police and state police and others who are not

directly under federal jurisdiction about the importance of the role

that they play throughout the country in being the eyes and ears of

the law enforcement community at the grass-roots level.

Q: If it's true that there is an increase risk of bioterrorism --

people talking about it over the weekend -- why shouldn't Americans

take more preventative actions? Why shouldn't they be looking for

different types of inoculations or gas masks, or whatever,

particularly in potentially affected cities like Washington, D.C.?

MR. FLEISCHER: Those statements would come from the appropriate law

enforcement officials based on any information they have. And as I

indicated, I'm not aware of anybody in government who has recommended

such a step.

Q: Two more on Afghanistan. Does the White House envision a time when

the draft would be reactivated? And also, I know you don't negotiatewith the Taliban, but do you have any words of warning to them about

the foreign aid, Christian aid workers who are under arrest?

MR. FLEISCHER: On the question of the draft, as I've indicated twice

earlier in briefings over the last couple of weeks, I've checked with

DOD and they have told me that there is no discussion of that.

Q: But Rumsfeld seemed to open the door a little bit yesterday.

MR. FLEISCHER: What did he say?

Q: He seemed to -- I got the impression that it was not totally ruled

out on the future, although --

MR. FLEISCHER: I did not get that impression from listening to him.

And on the question of the workers in Afghanistan, if you recall, in

the President's address to the Congress and to the nation two Thursday

nights ago, the President did say that one of the demands is the

unconditional release of the Americans who are being held by the

Taliban for preaching Christianity.

Q: Is the President concerned that funding some of the rebel groups in

Afghanistan could, in the end, create a version of the Taliban as, or

more, radical than the one that exists there now?

MR. FLEISCHER: That fighting the Taliban could result in that?

Q: Funding other groups perhaps that could end up replacing the

Taliban could end up creating just a replica version of something as

extreme.

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the United States is not going to get in the

business of choosing who rules Afghanistan. But the United States will

assist those who are seeking a peaceful and economically developed

Afghanistan that does not engage in terrorism.

Q: How will it do that, Ari?

Q: Is there a long-term plan being looked at by the White House for

consistent aid over a period of years? Or is it just being looked at

in the short-term?


9/13

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, of course, it is always important to separate the

people of Afghanistan, who simply want to live their lives, from the

Taliban, which has repressed the people of Afghanistan, has now

resorted to such measures as taking away the international food that

has been provided to the people of Afghanistan. So there really is a

difference between the regime that so-called represents the people ofAfghanistan and the desires of the people. And the United States is

the world's largest donor of food to the people of Afghanistan, and

the President remains committed even going forward to providing food

to the people of Afghanistan.

Q: One of the people that the administration has been talking to

through our embassy in Rome and congressional delegation is the exiled

King. He has said that he would be willing, and has indications that

there would be willingness on the part of the Taliban, to enter into

some kind of unity government which would include the Taliban. Would

that be acceptable to the administration?

MR. FLEISCHER: Again, as I said, the United States will not -- is notin the business of approving or creating a new government for

Afghanistan. But the United States message to the Taliban could not be

more clear.

Q: If there is a coalition government centered around this exiled

King, which would include the Taliban, as long as they're for a

peaceful and economically engaged Afghanistan that doesn't support

terrorism, that's fine with the administration?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, again, the United States is not going to choose

who rules Afghanistan. But that's a hypothetical, and of course, I

can't comment on anything that is a hypothetical.

Q: It's a live more than --

MR. FLEISCHER: Often, hypotheticals have some degree of being live.

Q: Do you stand by your statement earlier today, that the purpose of

the mission is to eliminate those who harbor terrorists so that they

can't practice terrorism again against the U.S.? And can you clarify

that?

MR. FLEISCHER: The President made clear that the United States will

treat those who continue to harbor terrorists the same as it treats

terrorists. And the President has made it very clear that he is

prepared to take action in a host of areas against those who engage in

terrorism and against those who continue to harbor terrorists.

Q: Well, we know now the Taliban has acknowledged that they know where

bin Laden is. Would you call that harboring, and what does that mean

to them?

MR. FLEISCHER: We didn't need to hear that statement from the Taliban

to know that they harbor terrorists.

Q: Okay, so what's next?

MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not going to tell you what's next, Helen.

Major.


10/13

Q: You said that the United States government will assist those who

seek to create a peaceful, economically-developed Afghanistan, free of

terrorism. Secretary Rumsfeld said the same thing; Andrew Card said

the same thing. How is the U.S. government going to go about doing

that?

MR. FLEISCHER: Through a variety of ways which can involve political,diplomatic, military, financial -- all of the above.

Q: When you say military, political, diplomatic -- direct U.S.

assistance to those who seek to overthrow the Taliban?

MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not going to go beyond that statement, but that's a

reiteration of something you've heard for a long time. And it should

not come as any surprise that when the President says that we will

treat those who continue to harbor terrorists the same as we treat

terrorists, the President has said he's going to take action to

protect our country from terrorist attacks. This should not be a

subject of a lot of guessing.

Q: According to an article in India Globe, the U.N. is -- conference

on international terrorism going on right now at the United Nations.

What role the U.S. is playing? And, number two, Indian Foreign

Minister is in the building meeting somebody here. Whether, one, he's

meeting with the President, and also, if there's any policy change

towards India, between U.S. and India, what relation --

MR. FLEISCHER: That meeting is with Dr. Rice. And if there are any

other developments in the meeting or anybody else drops by, I'll try

to give you a read if that happens. But that's a meeting with Dr.

Rice.

Q: Any change in the U.S. policy towards India?

MR. FLEISCHER: There's nothing that I'm aware of. Again, if there's

any readout on the meeting, we'll try to provide it. But it's with the

National Security Advisor.

Q: And the U.N. conference on terrorism going on, what role is the

U.S. playing?

MR. FLEISCHER: Let me check with the State Department to see exactly

who may be up there. And I know State is briefing at 12:30 p.m., so

that's a question you can address there, too.

Q: Ari, you might have already answered this, but last week when you

were asked about Bill Maher, you said, in the context of that answer,

you said that Americans need to watch what they say and watch what

they do. That line for some reason wasn't in the official White House

transcript. Do you know why?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think we addressed that last week, Ron. And the first

I heard of it was when I came back from my trip to New York that day,

that it wasn't there. And if you take a look at transcripts,

unfortunately, every now and then there is a mistake in it. And that's

what I think happened. It was a mistake.

Q: Thank you.

MR. FLEISCHER: Les.


11/13

Q: Ari, the New Yorker reports that only four months ago the U.S.

government gave $40 million to the Taliban, and the Washington Times

reports that since the Oslo Accords the U.S. has given $900 million to

the PLO, which produces suicide bombers and thousands who cheered at

the September 11th mass murder. And my question is, why does the

President allow such federal government expenditures?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President -- if your question is about the

Middle East, the President does believe it's very important to work

with the various sides in the Middle East to help bring about peace.

Q: Nine-hundred-million dollars?

MR. FLEISCHER: I don't have the precise figure in front of me, Les. I

can't indicate that that's an accurate number or not. But the

President has said that it's important to work with the parties to

help bring them together, to create peace in the Middle East.

Q: Was the President made aware before he visited the mosque that

three of the organizations that met with him -- the Council onAmerican Islamic Relations, the Muslim Public Affairs Council and the

American Muslim Reliance -- have, reports the Weekly Standard,

sponsored a speaker who announced that Jews are descended from apes,

the Holocaust is denied, and a comparison of Palestinian suicide

bombers to American Minutemen. Who arranged this mosque meeting, Ari,

and why wasn't the President warned about that?

MR. FLEISCHER: A similar question came up at Friday's briefing as

well, about some statements that reportedly were made by some of the

people the President met with. And my reaction then is the exact same

as my reaction now. You should never assume that when the President

meets with a group for important reasons of meeting with a group that

he would ever agree with anything anybody in that group has said.

There are often times that the President can meet with people and not

share their opinions.

Q: He knew about this, Ari, these people, and what they've said, and

met with them?

MR. FLEISCHER: As I indicated already, I'll say it again, when the

President meets with groups, it's not an indication, of course, that

he agrees with everything anybody may have said in that group.

Q: What is the administration's understanding of the prospect of a

humanitarian catastrophe inside Afghanistan this winter? What steps

would we take beyond the food aid contributions that we've already

made to try and prevent it? And would we, given the Taliban has now

seized international food contributions, would that be a reason for

military action against the Taliban?

MR. FLEISCHER: Wendell, given the fact that the United States is the

world's largest donor of food aid to the people of Afghanistan, the

United States and President Bush are very concerned about the actions

the Taliban regime has taken to seize the food of the people who need

the food the most, and that's the people of Afghanistan.

It is a concern, particularly as winter approaches, and the President

remains very concerned about it. And as I indicated going forward,

that will remain an objective of the President, is to do everything

possible to help the people of Afghanistan. They should not be

punished because of the actions of the regime that represses them.


12/13

Q: And our assessment of the threat they face? Our assessment of the

threat they face?

MR. FLEISCHER: It's a serious humanitarian problem, given the fact

that the Taliban regime continues to repress the people of

Afghanistan, as evidenced by the fact that they're seizing the food ofthe people of Afghanistan.

Q: Despite a series of short-term -- of cuts in the short-term federal

funds rate, long-term rates have remained quite high, and more

short-term cuts are probably in the offing. My question is, how

concerned is the administration, and -- policy makers with that twist

between low short-term rates and high long rates? And how do you

propose to address the problem?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, again, that's often one of those issues where

economists differ about the meaning of it. So there are some people

who say that's a sign of anticipated strength in the economy, which is

why long-term rates don't come down even further, and others who saythat the spread between short-term and long-term is a policy issue.

So that's one of the many factors that are being addressed as the

President talks to Congress about a possible economic package.

Q: Ari, I just wanted to follow on that. Is there disagreement within

the administration on the proposition that long rates are a deterrent

to investment and to growth?

MR. FLEISCHER: No, there's none that I've heard. It's just one of

scores of pieces of economic data that's often analyzed.

Q: Just to follow up on Wendell's question, where do you stand now on

this thought about having direct food drops in Afghanistan by the Air

Force or by other military forces?

MR. FLEISCHER: And anything dealing with operational elements I'm just

not going do discuss, even on the humanitarian nature like that when

you talk about the military drop in food.

Thank you, everybody.

THE PRESS: Thank you.

END 12:34 P.M. EDT

(end transcript)

(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.

Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)

Return to the Washington File

This site is produced and maintained by the U.S. Department of State.

Links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of

the views contained therein.

1wh-Bush Meets Muslims10ct

Documents

Transcript of 1wh-Bush Meets Muslims10ct