===================================================================== [C] HABEAS CASES / AFGHAN TRANSITION / IRAQ, 2002.08.01 TO 2003.08.31 ===================================================================== August 14, 2003 PRESS GAGGLE BY SCOTT MCCLELLAN AND A SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ABOARD AIR FORCE ONE EN ROUTE MCAS MIRAMAR, CALIFORNIA 12:48 P.M. CDT MR. McCLELLAN: All right, good afternoon, everybody. I want to start with an important news development. And what I want to do is I'm going to have some brief remarks on this, and then I'm going to have a senior administration official give you a little bit more information. And then we can do the rest of the gaggle, and I will authorize you all to go ahead and call this in to your desks, this news. Earlier this week, Ryuduan bin Isomuddin, known as Hambali, was captured. He is now in custody of the United States government. Hambali was al Qaeda's chief representative and senior planner in Southeast Asia. He was operational chief of Jemaah Islamiya, the violent Islamic extremist group based in Indonesia. Hambali's capture is another important victory in the global war on terrorism and a significant blow to the enemy. The United States will be relentless in its pursuit of terrorists, in order to rid the world of the scourge of terrorism. And now I want to bring in a senior administration official to give you a little bit more information. Q: Can you spell the name? MR. McCLELLAN: This will be in the transcript: Ryuduan, R-y-u-d-u-a-n, then bin, b-i-n, and then Isomuddin, I-s-o-m-u-d-d-i-n. And Hambali, H-a-m-b-a-l-i. That's what he -- he is known as Hambali. Now let me switch to the senior administration official. He'll give you a little bit more information. SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Hambali is one of the world's most lethal terrorists. He's a 39-year old. The 39-year old Hambali was al Qaeda's chief representative in Southeast Asia and operational chief of Jemaah Islamiya. His lengthy terrorist credentials include the Bali nightclub bombings in October, 2002, that killed nearly 200 people. Q: He was the main guy for that? Is that what you're saying? Q: Mastermind? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes. Hold on a second. And a deadly series of church bombings in Indonesia and the Philippines in December 2000. He's a leading suspect in the bombing of the J.W. Marriott Hotel in Jakarta earlier this month. He's also -- Hambali is a close associate of the September 11th mastermind, Khalid Shaykh Muhammad, KSM. Q: You said -- I'm sorry, I missed that. What's the connection there? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: He's a close associate. Q: And spell that other person's name, please? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: KSM, Khalid Shaykh Muhammad, K-h-a-l-i-d, S-h-a- y-k, M-u-h-a-m-m-e-d. Again, he's who we previously captured. Q: Would you mind spelling the name of that syndicate? What's the name of that al Jemaah? Can you spell that, too? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Jemaah Islamiya. J-e-m-a-a-h, I-s-l-a-m-i-y-a. Q: And he is a chief in that organization? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: He's the operational chief of Jemaah Islamiya. Hang on a second, I'm going to give you a little bit more information. As I was saying, he is the leading suspect in the bombing of the J.W. Marriott Hotel in Jakarta and close associate of Khalid Shaykh Muhammad. Hambali facilitated the January 2000 meeting in Malaysia that included two of the September 11th hijackers. Q: KSM did? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Information obtained from a senior al Qaeda detainee and corroborated by other sources indicates al Qaeda tasked Hambali shortly after September 11th with recruiting pilots to participate in additional hijackings inside the United States. Q: Can you repeat it, from the Malaysia meeting? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes: facilitated the January 2000 meeting in Malaysia that included two of the September 11th hijackers. Q: And who was this? Is this the guy you talked -- SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: We'll see what additional information I can get you. Let me continue. As I was talking about, on these additional attacks that Hambali was involved and participating in, the sources also indicate that an al Qaeda leader in Pakistan earlier this year provided Hambali a large sum of money for a major attack. Information obtained from Hambali will assist in our ongoing efforts to neutralize the threat. Again, as was previously stated, this is a significant victory in the global war on terrorism and a devastating blow to the enemy. He was one of the few remaining senior planners of al Qaeda and their most important link to terrorist groups in Southeast Asia. Q: Their most important link, l-i-n-k? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes. His detention effectively diminishes the group's lethal capabilities and global reach. It's still important to remember that this fight has captured -- that al Qaeda remains a threat to the United States, our allies and interests around the world. Q: Can you go over that key sentence: it effectively diminishes the group's -- SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Their lethal capabilities and global reach. Q: That's al Jemaah or al Qaeda? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: It's -- the importance of which is magnified in the series of high profile arrests of al Qaeda operatives around the world in recent months. It effectively diminishes the group's lethal capabilities and -- Q: Which group? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: What I'm trying to tell you is that -- al Qaeda. This is a significant victory. Q: al Qaeda. Q: Can you go over again -- after September 11th, Hambali was recruited to find pilots for further attacks? Is that what you were saying? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: That's right, to participate in additional hijackings inside the United States. Q: That's something that we have known before. I know we've known about the meeting in Malaysia. SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: That's why I wanted to put this in perspective, the importance of this, the importance of the capture of Hambali. Q: Is there new indication that there were plans -- SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I think you can double-check some of this with the Central Intelligence Agency. Q: And the Pakistani money for further attacks was in 2003, what you just said about that -- SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: It was earlier this year, that's correct. Q: Was that major attack thwarted, or was that J.W. Marriott? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: That's what I said, information attained from Hambali will assist in efforts to neutralize the threat. Q: When you said, sources indicate al Qaeda leader of Pakistan provided him a large sum of money for a major attack. SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: That's right. Q: Was that attack -- SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Information obtained from Hambali is going to assist us in our ongoing efforts to neutralize that threat. We have ongoing efforts to neutralize the threat, among many others. Q: -- is going to assist us or has assisted us? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I said, information obtained from him will assist us in our ongoing efforts to neutralize this threat. Q: Can you tell us anything about where he was captured, or any of the details of the operation? A U.S. military operation, other helpful countries? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: It was a joint operation, but I cannot get into the details of that operation at this point. It did involve others. Q: In Indonesia? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes. Q: Other governments? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I cannot get into those details, those specifics at this point. Q: When did he actually -- SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Earlier this week. Q: Are you -- is this the first news that any -- SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Remember, this is going to be very helpful in helping us obtain information about current and future threats, this capture. Q: Are you telling us this, the first news of this coming out from anywhere? Like, DOD isn't briefing on this or anything like that? Is this -- SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I am announcing it. I am announcing it. Q: Where was the capture? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Again, I can't get into the specific details of that. Q: Was it in the U.S.? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Southeast Asia. Q: Can you tell us in what part of the world he is being held right now? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No, I can't get into those kind of details at this point. Q: Is he being held by the U.S. government? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: That's what was said, he's in the custody of the United States government. Q: Why did you choose to make this announcement instead of CIA or -- SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: This is a significant announcement. This is a significant victory in our global war on terrorism. And as you have heard from -- as you have heard what an evil person he is, that's what I wanted to describe for you, the importance of the capture of Hambali. Q: Will the President be making reference to this today? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, listen to his remarks. I expect he may. Q: Do you know when he was told about this? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yesterday. Q: Do you know by whom? Condi Rice? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: In his briefings, his intelligence briefings. Q: He was told yesterday? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes. Q: Do you know anything about his reaction? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, again, you might want to listen to his remarks. Q: I want to make sure I'm a thousand percent clear on something. He says, an al Qaeda leader in Pakistan provided him a large sum of money for a major attack. Is that something that we thwarted or one that may still be brewing, or what? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: That's what I said. We have ongoing efforts to neutralize such a threat. And we are -- the information that we will obtain from Hambali will help us in those efforts. Q: So it wasn't the J.W. Marriott or something that's already happened? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: At this point, he is going to be interrogated. We will be able to learn more information about current and future threats. But we take all threats seriously and we confront those threats. We address those threats. Intelligence is something that we take very seriously. And that's why this is such an important victory. Now, do we want to go back to Scott for -- are we through with this? Q: Hambali, himself, provided the information about the Pakistani-al Qaeda funding, or that information came from somewhere else? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No, I said -- I believe you're talking about -- which part are you talking about? Q: The Pakistan money. Who was the source of that information? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Sources, sources that we have. We had senior -- we had information -- that's what I pointed out -- information from a senior al Qaeda detainee, and corroborated by other sources, about the initial efforts where Hambali was tasked with recruiting pilots to participate in additional hijackings. And then I said, those sources -- referring to the same sources -- also indicate that a large sum of money -- Q: The beginning of that sentence was, information -- Q: And he -- SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: He will be interrogated about current and future threats in our custody, and that's why I said, in that context, we will be able to obtain additional information from him to help us in our ongoing efforts to neutralize this threat. Q: One last time. You have from sources, detainees, that al Qaeda provided Hambali with a large sum of money for a major attack? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Right. Q: Where? Here, in the United States? What do you know about the attack? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: That's -- the information that I'm sharing with you at this time is what I have here. We have ongoing efforts to -- we will seek more information from Hambali on that. Q: What's the language on the other part -- the first part of the sentence, information obtained -- SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I've been through this. I've been through this. We're going to have a transcript on this. Q: I just want to make sure I get it right. Was information obtained by -- SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: We're going to have a transcript on this. Q: I just want to make sure -- MR. McCLELLAN: No, I think -- Q: -- got it right: information obtained by U.S. government says -- SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Will help us in our ongoing efforts to neutralize the threat. Q: Not what I'm asking, sorry. The part about him recruiting 9/11 hijackers. How do you know that? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: From a senior al Qaeda detainee and other sources that corroborated that account. Q: He wasn't recruiting 9/11 hijackers, he was recruiting future hijackers post-9/11? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: That's correct. Q: All right. Q: I thought this was the January 2000 meeting. Q: No, no, no, that was the Malaysia meeting. Q: Malaysia meeting. SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes, different meeting. That was two of the September 11th hijackers. Q: Can you be precise about -- SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: We'll have a transcript for this. Q: What was precise alleged role in the Bali nightclub? Bali mastermind, facilitator? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: He's their -- as I said Jemaah Islamiya's is chief operational planner in southeast Asia. Q: Would it be an over-statement to call him the mastermind of that attack? Q: He's responsible -- SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: He's the operational chief, I would describe him as the operational chief of -- is Jemaah Islamiya. They have been linked to the Bali bombings. Q: Linked? Q: He has been linked, or Jemaah -- SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Jemaah Islamiya -- look, Central Intelligence Agency can probably provide you additional information that -- but this is already, this is information that is already out. Q: And as a senior administration official, does the White House -- are you doing this here because the White House is eager to take partial credit or a large share of the credit for this? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: We're announcing this because of the significance of this capture. We're announcing this because there's a significant development in our ongoing war on terrorism. And to provide you with information about this individual and the fact that he is someone who has a long history of wanting to harm America and our allies and others around the world. Q: I just can't recall another occasion where the White House announced a capture like this. I'm sure it's happened, but I can't recall. Q: Why did you announce it today, and not yesterday, when the President was informed? Was this in order to link up with the remarks at Miramar or not to step on -- SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: We're announcing it as soon as we are able to make this information public. A lot of times there are -- well, for a number of reasons, sometimes these announcements are not made exactly when they happen, and that involves national security issues, other reasons about why. But we were able to go ahead and make this announcement public and wanted to share the information with you. Q: Does this person, Hambali, go into a judicial process now? What happens there? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: He's being detained and interrogated at this point. Q: Indefinitely? Q: Can you say, his detention, which agency is interrogating him? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: He's in the custody of the United States government. Q: Can I ask one -- SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: All right, we're going to go back -- other matters? Q: Back to Scott. (...) * * * July 18, 2003 Statement by the Press Secretary US - UK DISCUSSIONS ON BRITISH DETAINEES During their meeting on July 17, 2003, the President and Prime Minister Blair discussed the issue of U.K. nationals detained at Guantanamo Bay. The President and the Prime Minister have asked American and British legal experts to meet to discuss a range of options for disposition of the British detainees. Pending these discussions, the President has determined not to commence any military commission proceedings against UK nationals. The President and the Prime Minister are confident that their experts will be able to agree on a solution that satisfies the mutual interests of the US and the UK. To this end, we welcome the visit to Washington early next week of a British delegation led by Attorney General Lord Goldsmith. Similarly, the United States will not commence military commission proceedings against any Australian nationals pending parallel discussions with Australian legal experts next week. * * * September 25, 2002 WHITE HOUSE PRESS BRIEFING [ ARI FLEISCHER ] (...) Q: The President, whenever he talks about homeland defense on the stump, says something to the effect of the Senate is more interested in special interests than in the interests of the security of the American people. On Monday, and at least one other time this month, he has said instead that the Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington, and not interested in the security of the American people. When he said that Monday, and he said it in Kentucky, did he misspeak? Or does he really believe that Democrats are not interested in the security of the American people? FLEISCHER: Ron, this is a policy debate, where people have said of the President, in terms of his positions on these flexibility measures that I just cited, they have differences with the President. And the President has differences, and he's working with the Democrats and Republicans to bring people together so that we can have a homeland security department. And that's where the President is on this. Now, in terms of what the President said, I'm aware of the debate that is taking place on Capitol Hill, and the accusations that have been made about the President on this. And now is a time for everybody concerned to take a deep breath, to stop finger-pointing, and to work well together to protect our national security and our homeland defense. That's how the President approaches this issue. And I'm aware of what was said on the floor by Senator Daschle and in his news conference, as well. And at his news conference, Senator Daschle admitted that his floor statement was not based on what the President or the Vice President had said, but instead was based on newspaper accounts, not the actual statements made. And the Senator cited a headline -- I'm going to go through this, Ron -- the Senator cited the headline saying, "Cheney talks about war, electing Taff would aid war effort." Vice President Cheney's totally innocuous quote, delivered at the end of a lengthy speech about President Bush's entire agenda included the economy, national and homeland security, trade promotion authority, energy, common-sense judges and fiscal restraint. The last sentence of the Vice President's speech was the following: "President Bush and I are very grateful for the opportunity to serve our country. We thank you for your support -- not just for our efforts, but for candidates like Adam Taff, who will make a fine partner for us in the work ahead." That's what the Vice President said. Hardly the stuff of politics. Senator Daschle, citing another press account said -- and this is what you just referred to, Ron; this is why I go through this -- this is the quote that was given on the floor of the Senate earlier today. "The President is quoted in the Washington Post this morning as saying that the Democratic controlled Senate is not interested in the security of the American people." Despite the assertion that Senator Daschle was quoting precisely -- as he said at his news conference -- from the press, that's a misstatement of what the President said. The President never in that speech referred to the Democratic controlled Senate. Here is what the President said, and this is what the President believes: "So I ask Congress to give me the flexibility necessary to be able to deal with the true threats of the 21st century by being able to move the right people to the right place at the right time, so we can better assure America that we're doing everything possible. The House responded, but the Senate is more interested in special interest in Washington and not interested in the security of the American people. I will not accept a Department of Homeland Security that does not allow this President, and future Presidents, to better keep the American people secure." And the President continued. "And people are working hard in Washington to get it right in Washington, both Republicans and Democrats. See, this isn't a partisan issue, this is an American issue, this is an issue which is vital to our future. It will help us determine how secure we'll be." That's what the President thinks. And make no mistake, he feels very strongly about the need for the Senate, the complete Senate, everybody in it -- Democrat, Republicans, independents -- to join together to protect our national security and to pass it. If it is not passed, it will have implications for our homeland security, and that's what the President feels very strongly. Q: I appreciate that. But the question wasn't about what Senator Daschle said; it's what the President said in that speech and in one in Kentucky, where he says -- I'm taking his words literally -- "the Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington, and not interested in the security of the American people." Did the President mean to say that the Senate is not interested in the security of the American people, or did he misspeak? FLEISCHER: There is no doubt about it. If this does not pass into law because special interest provisions will have prevailed, the Senate will not have acted in the best interests of the American people. And the interests of the special interests will have been put ahead, and the result will be that the Senate will not have acted in that interest, for the national security. Q: Sorry, I don't want to be argumentative here, but you're not responding to the question, because that's not what the President said. The President said, "the Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington, and not interested in the security of the American people." Did he mean to say that the Senate is not interested in the security of the American people, or did he misspeak? It's one of the two. FLEISCHER: The President is stating the fact that unless and until this passes, the Senate will not have acted in the interests of the security of the American people. Homeland security is just that; it is the security of the American people. Q: That's not what he said. He said, "the Senate is not interested in the security of the American people." He didn't say "if" or "whether" or "but." FLEISCHER: He made that -- Q: He said, "the Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington, and not interested in the security of the American people." Did he mean to say that, or did he misspeak? FLEISCHER: I think there's no question that in the event that this does not pass because the special interests, who are fighting to take away the flexibility that every agency currently has in terms of the President's ability to act for national security -- if that is deprived and taken away from the President, and rolled back, then the President's conclusion will have been that the special interests prevailed over the security of the American people, and that in that Senate action, that the Senate action will have shown, by failure to pass it, that the special interests prevailed over the security interests of the country. Q: Will that show that special interests have prevailed over the interests of the American people? Or will it show that, again, in the President's own words, "the Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington, and not interested in the security of the American people"? FLEISCHER: We won't know until the vote takes place. Q: But does he stand by that remark or not? He didn't -- FLEISCHER: I think it's clear -- Q: -- he didn't qualify it. He said -- FLEISCHER: What the President wants to -- Q: -- "the Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington, and not interested in the security of the American people." Does he stand by that comment, or not? FLEISCHER: What the President is trying to do is bring the Democrats and Republicans together, as he said in the rest of his remarks, when he said that this is not a partisan issue, it is an issue vital to our future. It will determine how secure we will be. And there's no getting around the fact that if the Senate does not pass it -- Q: That's why I'm wondering if he misspoke -- FLEISCHER: -- that the security of our country will not have been protected. Q: That's why I'm wondering if he misspoke, because it doesn't jibe with what he said a couple sentences later. FLEISCHER: I can only interpret it for you as I have. Terry. Terry, and then we'll go to Bill. Q: He's trying to bring Democrats and Republicans together essentially by saying if you don't agree with me, then I'm going to use the bully pulpit and tell America you don't want to protect the American people. FLEISCHER: Terry, the President has also, in this debate, met with a policy difference with the Democrats, as well, who say about the President that he is stopping homeland security from going through if the President sticks to his position. This is a policy debate, it's a legitimate policy debate, and the President wants to make certain that in the end that a compromise can be reached. And that's why he's working with the Democrats and Republicans to do so. Q: Well, that's a heck of a way of trying to reach a compromise with somebody who disagrees with you, by finger-pointing and saying, those guys don't want to protect the security of the American people. FLEISCHER: If homeland security is not passed in the Senate, it will be true that the Senate will not have acted to protect the American people's security. That's why it is such a vital matter, and that's why there are leaders in the Senate in both parties who have joined with the President to get it passed. The President has indicated what he did not out of any malicious feelings about the Senate or any senators, but out of an overriding desire to make certain that the Senate finishes its business, because protecting the homeland is our top priority. And it has security implications. Q: So the President has not second thoughts about using the terminology, the security of the American people? Does he wish he had put it differently? FLEISCHER: The President, again, said that -- you can just quote him -- the House responded, but the Senate is more interested in the special interests in Washington, and not interested in the security of the American people. He won't accept it if it doesn't protect security. And then he praised the Democrats and Republicans. This is a choice that the House -- the Senate has to make about the votes that they cast. Ivan. Q: It's very hard to get passed the notion that he's not interested in the security of the American people. FLEISCHER: We have a lot of people with their hands up. (...) # # # September 26, 2002 PRESS GAGGLE BY ARI FLEISCHER Press Secretary's Office (...) Q: What about all this talk last night that Condi engaged in on PBS about connections between IraQ: and al Qaeda? That's new. I mean, she went further than you folks have ever gone before. Can you clarify some of what she was saying? I mean, how do we know this? Why do we suspect this? FLEISCHER: Well, we know it because some of the information we have comes from detainees, and in particular some very high-ranking detainees. And -- Q: Zubaydah? FLEISCHER: Well, I'm not going to indicate exactly who. Since -- Q: It doesn't matter; they're in custody. FLEISCHER: I'm sorry? Q: What does it matter? They're in custody. FLEISCHER: Well, you might go visit them. Q: Don't think so. It's hard to get to Diego Garcia from here. MS. BUCHAN: We can arrange it. (Laughter.) Q: Yes, but that would be exile. Q: It'll be a one-way trip. Q: "Eager [sic.] was I ere I saw Elba." FLEISCHER: Here's what we know, and here's -- let me try to elaborate on what Condi said, or help you understand what Condi said. Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in IraQ: of al Qaeda members, including some members who have been in Baghdad. And the relationship between Iraqi officials to those al Qaeda members remains unclear, but we know it's there. We have solid reporting of senior-level contacts between al Qaeda and Iraqi officials going back a decade, and, as Condi said, of chemical and biological agent training. Reports of such cooperation have increased since 1998. We know that al Qaeda have found refuge in Iraq. There is credible reporting that al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in IraQ: to acquire chemical and other weapons of mass destruction capabilities. Q: But today, the President stopped just short of saying that they were linked. Is there a reason he did that? I mean, are they linked, in his mind? I mean, are they -- there are -- FLEISCHER: I'd have to take a look at the verbatim of how the President said it. But we're all saying the same thing: al Qaeda and IraQ: are too close for comfort, in terms of some of these activities that we've talked about. But I want to underscore, the case the President is making about the need for regime change is not directly tied to anything involving al Qaeda. It's tied to Saddam Hussein's history of developing weapons on his own. The President continues to have fears about what Iraq's activities with al Qaeda could lead to. But his case is much broader than that. Q: Well, what are these links that go back a decade? I mean, who are we talking about? FLEISCHER: These are links between al Qaeda and Baghdad. Q: But what are the links? I mean -- FLEISCHER: Well, Condi -- Q: -- has Baghdad supplied al Qaeda with training, munitions, supplies, whatever, that has allowed them to carry out attacks against the United States? FLEISCHER: Well, as Condi said last night -- I cite her words -- "IraQ: has provided some training to al Qaeda in chemical weapons development." Q: But do we know that that expertise has ever been used in a terrorist attack against -- not only the U.S., but anybody? FLEISCHER: Well, the point is to make certain that it's not. Why is IraQ: providing training to terrorists that could put anybody at risk? Q: Hey, Ari, is the President going to say again that the Senate is not interested in the security of the American people in relation to homeland security legislation? Is he going to say that again? FLEISCHER: Cover his events. Keep covering them, and see what he says. Q: Does he think that was a mistake? FLEISCHER: The President addressed it the way he wants to address it, and said what he thought. Q: Does the President still think that the Senate is not interested in the security of the American people? FLEISCHER: I think he's made himself clear. I think he's made himself clear. Q: Actually, he hasn't addressed it at all. FLEISCHER: He spoke last night about it again. And the point remains that failure to pass homeland security would be a setback for the security interests of our country. Q: But he left the phrase out last night. So from that, do we conclude that he wishes he hadn't said it in the first place? FLEISCHER: No. I think that it's not uncommon for leaders not to put their speeches in Xerox machines and give the same speech all over again. Q: So he still stands behind his remarks on Monday? FLEISCHER: No changes. (...) # # # October 1, 2002 PRESS BRIEFING BY ARI FLEISCHER (...) Q: Ari, is there concern here at the White House that the meetings taking place in Vienna between the weapons inspectors and representatives of the Iraqi government are undermining the President's efforts to get a single resolution out of the U.N.? FLEISCHER: No, I have not heard that. I think there are some people who have had different thoughts about whether it should be one or two resolutions, people in other countries, with or without what's happening with Hans Blix in the meetings in Vienna. And those conversations will continue. But the President, again, thinks it's very important for the United Nations to act differently and not just repeat the mistakes that have been made for 10 years, that have allowed Saddam Hussein to think that he can act with impunity as he builds up his arms. And so the United States position remains that the best resolution -- and what we are seeking -- is one resolution. Q: Apparently, there's some support building for the two resolution method. What exactly is the White House's position on two resolutions? If it comes down to that, can you live -- FLEISCHER: I just gave it to you. Q: But is there a middle ground that -- FLEISCHER: I just gave you our position, Ken. Q: Isn't it true the State Department is crafting behind the scenes a compromise that would have a two-stage resolution with a trigger -- the second resolution with military force would kick in if Iraq doesn't comply with the first one? FLEISCHER: The President has said clearly that he wants to see a one-resolution solution. He does not think that we need to send any signs of weakness to Saddam Hussein; that Saddam Hussein will exploit any opportunity he sees that gives him a signal that the world is not united, that the world is not speaking as one, and that the world is willing to give Saddam Hussein more time. Because more time for Saddam Hussein means more development of more weapons. Q: So just to follow, you're saying that this administration is absolutely, 100 percent, ruling out any support of any two-stage resolution such as the French -- FLEISCHER: I can only say to you as plain as I have, this is what the President believes. Q: If I could do one more on a separate thing. Just going back to the subject of the congressional resolution, the President and you all have talked about the focus is disarming Saddam Hussein, disarming Iraq. Why then shouldn't the President solely have military force used for that focus, to disarm Saddam Hussein? FLEISCHER: If you're saying, why should the United States retreat from the previous positions taken by the United Nations and the United States Congress, it's because retreating in the face of Saddam Hussein's threat is not an option. Q: But it's unfair to really compare it, because the previous resolutions didn't authorize the use of force. You're talking about authorizing the use of military force. And my question is, if -- FLEISCHER: You know, that supposes that the people who passed regime change didn't mean it, or they thought that Saddam Hussein would term-limit himself. And when they passed regime change in 1998, you have to assume that they meant it. And they cited all those reasons in there about the Iraqi violations of the oil-for-food program, which by the way, he uses to build up his arms. So therefore, it's important to mention it, not to leave it unsaid. That's how he's getting his money for arms. They cited his support for terror, his repression of people, his hostility toward his neighbors. All of these were cited in 1998 by the Congress as why regime change is necessary. Q: But they didn't authorize the use of force to bring about regime change. FLEISCHER: Well, that's why I said, unless they didn't mean what they voted for in 1998 -- and I don't think Congress indicated that -- or unless they thought Saddam Hussein was into term limits, they remain important criteria today. Q: Ari, the CBO has new estimates that the war in Iraq would cost between $9 billion and $13 billion. Does the White House think that's too low? FLEISCHER: Again, the President has not made any decisions about military action or what military option he might pursue. And so I think it's impossible to speculate. I can only say that the cost of a one-way ticket is substantially less than that. The cost of one bullet, if the Iraqi people take it on themselves, is substantially less than that. The cost of war is more than that. But there are many options that the President hopes the world and people of Iraq will exercise themselves of that gets rid of the threat. But it's impossible to say what the President options are militarily from a price tag, because he's made no decisions. Q: Should they be making these estimates? FLEISCHER: The Congressional Budget Office is a separate branch of the government, they work for the Congress. Q: Ari, two questions. First, I noticed the President this morning, when he said the goal is disarmament, did not mention regime change. And when you go through the Lugar-Biden bill, it doesn't really dwell on regime change as being an objective here in the way that it was in '98. FLEISCHER: If you are asking, has the President changed his opinion about enforcing the law, the answer is, no. Of course, the President believes that -- Q: You didn't raise that, though, as an objection to the Lugar-Biden amendment. FLEISCHER: I think if you take a look at the language of the resolution that was sent up to the Hill some two weeks ago, the modified draft that was sent up last week, it makes it perfectly plain by citing the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act that regime change remains our policy. You have that, David. Q: And the second question is, you just said before, the cost of a one-way ticket is less than that, the cost of a single bullet is less than that. Are you suggesting that two perfectly good alternatives, to your mind, would be an exile of Saddam Hussein -- FLEISCHER: As you know, Secretary Rumsfeld, and many others, including the President, are not shy about saying the Iraqi people -- after all, this was called the Iraqi Liberation Act -- the Iraqi people can help resolve this matter, as well, and the Iraqi military. And so there are many options that the United States is prepared to see, and the President has said the military option is not his first choice, but the President is indeed prepared, if necessary, to use force. And that's why he's asked Congress to authorize it. Q: Will you help in the one-way ticket scenario? is the U.S. government willing to provide assistance in that regard? FLEISCHER: I think that's part of regime change, isn't it, if Saddam Hussein is gone? (...) Q: Ari, could I just clarify the one bullet line -- is the White House from this podium advocating the assassination of Saddam Hussein by his own people, by his military? FLEISCHER: No, the question was about potential costs and different scenarios for costs. And I just cited the fact that Saddam Hussein has survived as a result of the repression and suppression of his own people, and that's a reality about what life is like inside Iraq. Q: But I'm not asking you a question about costs. I'm asking you if you intend to advocate from that podium that some Iraqis, person put a bullet in his head? FLEISCHER: Regime change is welcome in whatever form that it takes. Q: So the answer is, yes? FLEISCHER: Thank you. Regime change is welcome in whatever form it takes. END 1:07 P.M. EDT # # # October 10, 2002 PRESS BRIEFING BY ARI FLEISCHER (...) Q: The Europeans have offered a deal on International Criminal Court that would exempt U.S. military personnel and diplomats. Why is that not enough? FLEISCHER: The United States continues to feel very strongly that the International Criminal Court is not in the interests of the United States, that as we learned in the aftermath of the Serbian attacks on -- into Kosovo and to Bosnia, that there are existing mechanisms that can be set up to make certain that people who engage in criminal wrongdoing can be brought to justice. But under the ICC's charter, people can be brought before a court even if they do not subscribe to the International Criminal Court treaty. And the President thinks that is a way that Americans will ultimately be targeted, often for political reasons. And we will not and we do not support that. Q: But the President's objections were that soldiers or diplomats could be dragged before this court. If they are covered, who else -- what other Americans do you want covered under the -- exempted, rather? FLEISCHER: There should be no American who would be subject to an arbitrary court that could act for capricious reasons. Q: No Americans whatsoever? FLEISCHER: That's correct. (...) # # # November 5, 2002 PRESS GAGGLE BY ARI FLEISCHER (...) Q: So, other topics. Abu Ali, did the President sign off on the Predator attack? FLEISCHER: I'm not going to comment at any level of specificity about this one event, other than to say that the President has made very plain to the American people that the war on terrorism is not a traditional war, it's not a -- it's not traditional in the sense that there is one known battlefield or one known nation or one known region. The President has made clear that we will fight the war on terrorism wherever we need to fight the war on terrorism. The terrorists don't recognize any borders or nations. And the United States will be dedicated to protecting the American people. Q: Does that statement mean that you are supporting what happened or that the White House actually signed off on it and was involved in making it happen? FLEISCHER: I am not going to address the specifics of any one event. I am making clear, however, that the President has said to the American people that this is a different kind of war, with a different kind of battlefield, where known political boundaries, which previously existed in traditional wars do not exist in the war on terrorism. The President has talked about a shadowy war where terrorists are going to try to hide, and terrorists will try to -- when they emerge, were going to be on the lookout for them when they emerge. The President has been very up-front about that. The President has also made clear to the American people that one of the best ways to fight the war on terror is political, diplomatic, military, and that sometimes the best course is a good offense. Q: Now, the President was obviously pleased that Bin al Sheeb was picked up. He uses it in his speeches all the time. How was he feeling about this particular operation involving a guy who was said to be heavily involved in the bombing of the Cole? FLEISCHER: Well, Abu Ali has ties to al Qaeda. And the President has made clear that in this war on terrorism it is important to bring the leaders of al Qaeda to justice. Q: When was he notified about this episode? FLEISCHER: Again, I'm not going to make any comments at all about any one specific event. My comments are general, Im not going to comment on the specifics of this one event. Q: So let me ask you about that. By not addressing the specifics, are you saying that the United States will engage in shadowy war, that there will be killings around the world using military equipment and personnel in the name of the American people that the American people will not be told about? FLEISCHER: The President has made very plain to the American people that the United States is going to bring to justice the terrorists, al Qaeda terrorists particularly, as our way of protecting our country. Q: Secretly, if necessary. FLEISCHER: And the President has said very plainly to the American people that this is a war in which there will sometimes be visible moments and sometimes there are going to be long lulls. And there are going to be things that are done that the American people may never know about. That is the very nature of the war of terror. And the President makes no bones about it, he will protect the American people in this war. Q: Ari, shouldn't justice involve a judge, a jury, a prosecution, a defense? FLEISCHER: Absolutely, when it's a case of American citizens and when its a case of anything covered under Americas laws and our -- America's Constitutional protections for America's citizens. When it comes to terrorists who seek to kill us, the President will defend and protect America. (...) # # # May 6, 2003 PRESS BRIEFING BY ARI FLEISCHER (...) Q: The other question about numbers is just to set the record straight. On the visit to the aircraft carrier, I believe you told us from this podium that the reason the President had to take a jet out was because the carrier would be hundreds of miles offshore. And as it turned out, it was way, way less than that. FLEISCHER: Correct. Correct. Q: Were you misled? FLEISCHER: No, the original planning was exactly as I said and when I -- when I announced it, that was exactly how the plan had been anticipated. And then, the President wanted to land, exactly as I told you on the flight out there, which was the day of the trip when we knew the exact -- or when we knew how close the carrier was. The President wanted to land on it, on an aircraft that would allow him to see an aircraft landing the same way that the pilots saw an aircraft landing. He wanted to see it as realistically as possible. And that's why, once the initial decision was made to fly out on the Viking, even when a helicopter option became doable, the President decided instead he wanted to still take the Viking. But, no, that was all part of the original planning. (...) Q: Ari, I'd like to follow up two questions if I can. First, on Ed's about the aircraft carrier. How was it that what was planned to be a couple hundred miles out to sea took place -- did the Captain of the ship suddenly speed up after the President announced his plans? (Laughter.) FLEISCHER: Well, that's -- that would have been an option. Q: That's putting the pedal to the metal. That's hundreds of miles here. FLEISCHER: Well, keep in mind, the original day, even before anybody thought about going to the Abraham Lincoln, was for the Abraham Lincoln to arrive in port on May 2nd. And so that was the date that was promised to the crews and to their families and the date that was kept. But, indeed, the ship did make much faster progress than anticipated. I asked about that when I was on board. It's a factor of the weather. They were able to get closer to shore. But the bottom line remains the same, that the President wanted to arrive on it in a manner that would allow him to see an arrival on a carrier the same way pilots got to see an arrival on a carrier. As it did get closer, he could have taken a helicopter out there if he had wanted to. He chose not to. Q: So it was the weather? FLEISCHER: The weather is one factor that allowed them to get closer. There could have been others just associated with the logistics of the trip. (...) Q: Now, on the question of the carrier, what was the cost of going out there in a Viking, as opposed to doing it by helicopter? FLEISCHER: I don't have any estimates of that. Q: Could you ask? FLEISCHER: I'll see if that's obtainable. Q: Thank you. Do you have any statements or any information on two reports today, one that Saddam or his son stole nearly a billion dollars; and the other that the French might have provided visas or passports for Iraqi officials? FLEISCHER: On your first question, while I cannot confirm the exact specifics of that story, it is not surprising that Iraqi leaders would try to loot their country, get ill-gotten loot from the people into their own hands and try to flee the country with it. That would fit very much the type of leadership that Iraq suffered from, where money that belonged to the people that could have been applied to health care, to hospitals, to food has been diverted into the hands of crooks. And the United States is committed to doing everything possible through our various channels -- we have many -- to try to find out where this money has gone, and try to get it back for the Iraqi people. Often it is difficult in the international world of finance, but this government is committed to trying to make that happen. On the second question about France, I saw the report this morning. I cannot confirm it. I think the French will have to explain what they did or did not do. Q: Ari, I know you're not ready to announce a successor to Mitch Daniels today, but any reason to think it wouldn't be his deputy? FLEISCHER: I'm just not going to speculate about who it may or may not be. Q: Ari, on the Patriot Act, Senator Hatch wants to make its provisions permanent. Does the President support that move? And is the President at all concerned about how it's being carried out might affect civil liberties? FLEISCHER: Let me take a look at that. I don't recall what the termination date of the Patriot Act was. If I recall, it was 2005. But I want to take a look at that and see exactly what it is, this far in advance of a date like that. I don't know that we would have a developed position on it yet. Certainly you will find, when you talk to Justice Department officials and others, they've been successful in many of their law enforcement actions against what would-be terrorists or terrorist financing as a result of the Patriot Act. And so it has served a very, very useful purpose to law enforcement. Q: So there isn't any real concern about how it's been carried out as how it might impact on civil liberties? FLEISCHER: No, I think it was crafted with civil liberties in mind, crafted in an era where we have to also make certain where we're doing everything possible to fight terrorists. Q: One more follow-up on that. Has the President signed off on what is being referred to as Patriot Act 2 yet? FLEISCHER: I'm not aware of anything that is moving along those lines. (...) # # # May 28, 2003 PRESS BRIEFING BY ARI FLEISCHER (...) Q: I have two questions for you, Ari. It has to do with Amnesty International had a press conference today in Washington. And it's accusing the United States of many things specifically. It says, while the overthrow of Saddam Hussein has brought greater freedom for the Iraqi people, the politics and destruction within Iraq have unintended negative consequences for millions of people worldwide. Regardless of how much greater liberty Iraqis may eventually realize, the Bush's administration war in Iraq has contributed to diminishing human rights for millions of others worldwide. While billions were spent to dethrone Saddam Hussein, dictators and rebels elsewhere wreaked havoc on millions of people across the globe, with little attention and even less condemnation from the U.S. government or the international community. That's a charge -- FLEISCHER: I think that as the world increasingly sees the brutality, the horrors that Saddam Hussein carried out against his own people, the unearthing of mass graves, that Amnesty International can invest considerable portions of its time and its reputation to discussing Saddam Hussein's tortures and what he has done to the Iraqi people. And I think the world is rejoicing in the fact that thanks to the efforts of the coalition, millions of people who were previously imprisoned are now free. Q: And the second charge. It says that the United States continued to breach fundamental human rights of more than 600 detainees held in the U.S. navy base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. It also speaks of the continuing legal limbo in which all Guantanamo detainees have been held, who have neither been recognized by the U.S. as prisoners of war, nor allowed any means of challenging the legality of their detention before a court. FLEISCHER: I just dismiss that as without merit. The prisoners in Guantanamo are being treated humanely. They're receiving medical care, they're receiving food. They're receiving far better treatment than they received in the life that they were living previously. And it's a reminder, also, that these people are terrorists who still want to wreak harm and havoc on the United States and our people. They are very dangerous people. (...) # # # May 31, 2003 REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT TO THE PRESS POOL AFTER TOUR OF AUSCHWITZ Auschwitz, Poland THE PRESIDENT: Laura and I have just toured Auschwitz I, and what they call Auschwitz II, a place where millions were murdered. The sites are a sobering reminder that -- of the power of evil and the need for people to resist evil. This site is a sobering reminder that when we find anti-Semitism, whether it be in Europe or anywhere else, mankind must come together to fight such dark impulses. And this site is also a strong reminder that the civilized world must never forget what took place on this site. May God bless the victims and the families of the victims, and may we always remember. Thank you. # # # June 10, 2003 PRESS BRIEFING BY ARI FLEISCHER (...) Q: Newspapers in recent days have been filled with articles about lying, cheating criminality at high levels. You have Martha Stewart charged with insider trading, indicted for obstruction; Sammy Sosa using a corked bat. On the front page of the Post today -- FLEISCHER: Russell, you're not going to blame President Bush for Sammy Sosa, are you? (Laughter.) Q: I'm just asking a question. On the front page of the Post today you've got WorldCom execs inflating revenues and Freddie Mac execs fired for doctoring the books, and so forth. I'm wondering, is the President concerned about sort of a culture of cheating and lying and criminality taking hold in the country? And if he is, what does he plan to do about it? FLEISCHER: Russell, I think that's a rather pessimistic statement to make about the American people and the American character. And the President wouldn't share that. I think to the President what it indicates is a need to have a society of laws where the laws are vigorously enforced, no matter who violates them; and to have ethics that are followed at home and in the workplace and corporate boards. That's how the President approaches it. But, no, the President would have a different approach to what it means society-wide. (...) # # # # # # # # #