Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

WHITE HOUSE BRIEFING - ARI SAYS "DEMS KNEW ABOUT SHADOW GOVERN."
cable news stations ^ | 3/5/02 | me

Posted on 03/05/2002 9:40:46 AM PST by Elkiejg

I just caught part of the WH briefing with Ari (before cable stations cut away for the Pentagon briefing). The media was peppering him about Dems saying they didn't know about shadow gov. arrangements. HE SHOT THEM DOWN.....kept claiming in his soft spoken way "We're confident that when they talk with people on the Hill, they will see that the info. was previously submitted to them" - I'm paraphrasing.

He also got a great shot in to old Helen Thomas when he replied to her that the shadow gov. situation had been around since the cold war years - which he was sure she remembered!! I laughed out loud.

The stupid press kept hammering - "Daschle, Byrd, etc. say they don't know anything about it" -- Ari would reply with his "I'm sure when they talk to people, etc., etc." It was great - sorry they cut away for the Pentagon.

Does anyone know if transcripts are put out on these briefings? It would be worth reading.


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: dasshole
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141 next last
To: Elkiejg
More "good cop" "bad cop" theatre.
The consitution already provides for this.
this shadow crap aint it.
Hooray for our "strict constructionist".[/sarcasm]
61 posted on 03/05/2002 10:51:48 AM PST by tomakaze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun
It's the reverse vampires, man!
62 posted on 03/05/2002 10:52:44 AM PST by counterrevolutionary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Utah Girl
You make my day with the press conf post every day. That and the screaming head thread on sunday.
63 posted on 03/05/2002 10:56:32 AM PST by cksharks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Utah Girl
Can you ping me when you show your briefs? :)
64 posted on 03/05/2002 10:57:04 AM PST by Bigoleelephant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Nephi
His response was timid.

That is this administrations way. I like it and everyone including the media knows exactly what Ari is saying. heh heh

65 posted on 03/05/2002 11:03:01 AM PST by blackbart1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Elkiejg; Utah Girl
March 5, 2002, Tuesday 01:24 PM Eastern Time

THE WHITE HOUSE REGULAR BRIEFING  

ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMAN  

WHITE HOUSE BRIEFING ROOM, WASHINGTON, D.C.

MR. FLEISCHER: Good morning -- good afternoon. The president this morning had his usual round of intelligence and FBI briefings, and then he had a approximately one-hour-long meeting with Republican members of the congressional leadership in both the House and the Senate, where he gave them an update on the war and talked about several issues on the domestic agenda, including the importance of helping America achieve energy independence. There's an important vote coming up in the Senate. The president talked about the need to help the economy by passing a stimulus. And he also talked about the importance of passing a faith-based initiative to help lower-income Americans and other Americans who need help in making it in America. Later this afternoon, the president will meet with the Ecumenical Patriarch of the Greek Orthodox Church. And then this evening, the president will meet with the president of Egypt, which will be followed by a press availability. And then the president will have dinner with the president of Egypt back in the residence.

And that is it as way of opening statement. I'm happy to take questions.

Go ahead, Helen.

Q Ari, can you tell us why Senator Daschle was not told about the shadow government?

MR. FLEISCHER: Number one, let me --

Q And why the other leaders of both parties --

Q Tell us about today's meeting.

MR. FLEISCHER: Number one, let me disabuse you of the misnomer of "shadow government." That's a misnomer.

Senator Daschle was here at the White House earlier today, where White House aides, and others, reiterated to the senator information that had previously been provided to people who work for him. And --

Q You mean they failed to tell him?

MR. FLEISCHER: I do not speak for members of Congress. That's not something that I would describe.

Q Are you talking about his staff?

MR. FLEISCHER: Again, I do not speak for members of Congress. But the administration has consulted with the Congress -- has informed the Congress about its programs that have been in place, as you know, since the Cold War, to have continuity of government and continuity of operations. The administration has informed the Congress about those plans, about those programs, and was pleased to reiterate that to Senator Daschle today.

Q Let me follow up on that?

Q Yeah, can I follow up?

Q Was Lott and Hastert also in that meeting? And this was with Card and --

MR. FLEISCHER: Senator Lott was there. The speaker, I think, had been previously informed. And Congressman Gephardt will also be provided that information.

Q Why wasn't Gephardt here today?

Q Why wasn't Gephardt there?

MR. FLEISCHER: Plans are already underway. He's already been talked to and that will happen.

Q Wait, wait now. He has already been talked to, you say?

MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct.

Q Why would he not be at the briefing today, though?

MR. FLEISCHER: That's a scheduling matter --

Q The speaker had already been talked to.

MR. FLEISCHER: It's a scheduling matter. That's happening.

Q How is it a scheduling matter? Were they invited?

Q I just want to get something straight. They said that --

MR. FLEISCHER: Again, I don't make all the invitations here at the White House --

Q Was Gephardt invited to the meeting?

MR. FLEISCHER: Again, Campbell, I don't make all the scheduling arrangements for the White House. I'd have to go back and take a careful look to see who was.

Q Well, his office says he wasn't invited.

MR. FLEISCHER: I can tell you he's already been talked to -- his office has already been talked to.

66 posted on 03/05/2002 11:03:27 AM PST by Wallaby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
Q But why would he be left out of a meeting when you had Lott and Hastert?

MR. FLEISCHER: If he was, it's inadvertent.

Q When you say he's been talked to, are you saying he has been --

MR. FLEISCHER: About coming down.

Q Has he been briefed on the shadow government, or has his people been briefed on the shadow government?

MR. FLEISCHER: Let me say this on the topic of who exactly has been briefed, because I'm not going to give you the specific names or titles of the people who have been briefed.

As I indicated, going back to the Cold War there has been a well- known plan, a well-established plan for continuity of government and continuity of operations of the government. This is nothing new. These are not new government employees, these are people who currently work for the government, who, in order to assure continuity of government and continuity of operations, things such as sending out Social Security checks in the event that there was an attack on Washington, should be in place to make sure that the continuity of the operations and the continuity of the government can be maintained. I think the American people would think something was remiss if the United States government did not take every appropriate step to ensure those continuity operations.

In that capacity, and it's part of something that's top secret, and so therefore I'm not going to get into it in great length, the appropriate people were informed of these plans. Now, as I indicated earlier this morning, the president is confident that when members of Congress have a chance to pause, to think, and to talk to each other, they will recognize that this administration informed the Congress properly and informed the Congress appropriately.

Q So they're lying? Are they lying when they say they were not informed?

MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, I can only say that there's a lot of information, and very often it just takes a few days for people to put it all together and realize what they have.

Q The staffs didn't tell them?

MR. FLEISCHER: John?

Q If the appropriate people were informed, I would make the logical leap to assume that that would be Speaker Hastert and Senate President Pro Tempore Robert Byrd. But his office claims that no one in their office was informed of the shadow government. I have heard that the secretary of the Senate and the sergeant at arms were informed of a, quote, "secret location," but not the existence of a shadow government. So where is the disconnect here?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well again, this somehow notion of a "shadow government," that's a misnomer. As I indicated --

Q Well, a bunch of people operating -- whatever label you want to put on it. A bunch of people operating in a secret bunker -- that information, to my knowledge, was not made clear to anyone who was in the line of succession on the Democratic side.

67 posted on 03/05/2002 11:06:28 AM PST by Wallaby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Wphile
If Bush can win on this one and somehow get the Senate to vote, then this will be a major victory for him and his future nominees.

I don't think GW has a chance on this one. Judicial nominees are something the Dems (lib dems and all their sepcial interest groups) are willing to fight to the death over. IMHO, it was one of the key reasons Jeffords was turned.
68 posted on 03/05/2002 11:08:09 AM PST by wheezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: CPT Clay
Couldn't agree with you more -- it is time for Helen Thomas to go!
69 posted on 03/05/2002 11:09:31 AM PST by PhiKapMom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Wallaby
WOW! That was fast! Is it already on the website? Thanks!
70 posted on 03/05/2002 11:09:47 AM PST by Freedom2specul8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Wallaby
I can only assure you again that the administration informed the appropriate people and operated exactly as an administration should vis-a-vis the Congress.

Q But --

Q One more. Do these concerns that the leaders of Congress are raising indicate to you a breakdown in communication -- that whatever you said wasn't understood and that the White House, therefore, needs to work on making sure that the legislative branch is informed of these kinds of activities in a way that they get?

MR. FLEISCHER: Obviously, there was an additional meeting today where information was reiterated. And I'm certain that as people return to the Hill and have the appropriate conversations with the appropriate people, it will become clear to them, and they will have that opportunity. They will hear from their people.

Q Ari, did everyone get the same information? Ari, there's some suggestions that, from what we understand from officials, is that those in the direct line of succession had a more detailed understanding of what was going on, including the fact that there were officials working at undisclosed locations to maintain continuation of government, while others simply knew that there was a location but not the details of what was happening there.

MR. FLEISCHER: "People were appropriately informed" is how I'm going to leave it.

71 posted on 03/05/2002 11:10:38 AM PST by Wallaby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: YaYa123
remember these guys?
72 posted on 03/05/2002 11:11:32 AM PST by blackbag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Elkiejg; *Dasshole
Bump.
73 posted on 03/05/2002 11:12:57 AM PST by Holden Magroin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CaliforniaOkie
Mount Weather

Complete Info on Continuity of Govt. Plans and Facilities

74 posted on 03/05/2002 11:14:46 AM PST by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Elkiejg

"Good boy, Ari!"

75 posted on 03/05/2002 11:19:29 AM PST by Cinnamon Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Holden Magroin
Deb?

Q Ari, if I could just to back to the first question, you said before that people who work for Senator Daschle ha����cDeb?

Q Ari, if I could just to back to the first question, you said before that people who work for Senator Daschle ha����cDeb?

Q Ari, if I could just to back to the first question, you said before that people who work for Senator Daschle ha����cDeb?

Q Ari, if I could just to back to the first question, you said before that people who work for Senator Daschle ha����cDeb?

Q Ari, if I could just to back to the first question, you said before that people who work for Senator Daschle ha����cDeb?

Q Ari, if I could just to back to the first question, you said before that people who work for Senator Daschle ha����

76 posted on 03/05/2002 11:21:15 AM PST by Wallaby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: wheezer
I don't think GW has a chance on this one. Judicial nominees are something the Dems (lib dems and all their sepcial interest groups) are willing to fight to the death over. IMHO, it was one of the key reasons Jeffords was turned.

I totally agree with your statement. That is why it is so infuriating that the Republicans were caught by surprise on the Pickering nomination. The Democrats have not EVER cooperated with the Republicans on judges, why do they think the Dems will start now?

77 posted on 03/05/2002 11:21:18 AM PST by Utah Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Utah Girl;Nick Danger
MR. FLEISCHER: I think Jim had a question earlier. I promised him I'd come back.

Q Right. Why shouldn't Tom Ridge appear before Congress and testify?

MR. FLEISCHER: This is an issue that came up when the president created the Homeland Security Council, and the president shared at that time directly with members of Congress his thinking, so this is directly from the president. The president believes that the best way to structure the Homeland Security Council is to pattern it after the very successful and bipartisan National Security Council. That has been a bipartisan tradition of the national security adviser going back decades, where that person, the adviser to the president, is just that, an adviser to the president, and is not a briefer to the Congress. There are many other people who fill that role both in the Homeland Security Council side as well as the national security side. So the president is satisfied that Congress receives through open testimony the information that it is due and deserves from the appropriate officials.

Q Like who? Like who?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, when it comes to homeland security, that's a combination of the FBI, the CIA, the --

Q But not the homeland security?

MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct. That's what I'm saying. The answer to Jim's question is no, the president does not think he should.

Q But why not? The public is directly involved in this.

MR. FLEISCHER: For the same reason that advisers to the president, the assistants to the president, the national security adviser to the president -- there's a long-standing bipartisan tradition that those officials' jobs is to be in an advisory capacity to the president, not a testimonial capacity to the Congress.

78 posted on 03/05/2002 11:23:44 AM PST by Wallaby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: all
stuttering post #76 should read:


Deb?

Q Ari, if I could just to back to the first question, you said before that people who work for Senator Daschle had been informed. Were people who work for Senator Byrd informed as well?

MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not going to get into every person who was notified. But again, as I say, the notifications were made exactly as they should be made, and I think that will become increasingly clear as Congress just has a chance to talk to themselves.

Q And that would mean to everybody directly in line?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think I've done my best to be respectful of people who I think are still trying to talk to each other up on the Hill and answer the question.

Q Should Tom Ridge testify before Congress?

MR. FLEISCHER: Let me come back to that.

79 posted on 03/05/2002 11:27:52 AM PST by Wallaby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Holden Magroin
See revision of post #76 in preceding post.
80 posted on 03/05/2002 11:28:50 AM PST by Wallaby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson