Listen to today's Press Briefing with White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer. 
Listen to the Briefing
Posted on 05/17/2002 1:26:51 PM PDT by mondonico
Q Go ahead, finish your point.
MR. FLEISCHER: When you talked about Governor Ridge, I was thinking about the issue that has come up in some time here, about the question of alerts. And as you know, we remain a nation on an elevated alert status, because there are terrorists, including al Qaeda, who are still determined to hit us, if they possibly can.
It's been asked here earlier, why didn't the administration put out some type of alert prior to 9/11. And as a sign of just how difficult it is to wrestle with these notions of alerts, particularly in the case of this August information, which you now understand was generalized information -- actually the May information, the August summary -- was generalized information about hijacking and any number of other things. I want to draw your attention to the bipartisan difficulty that everybody in this town has deciding exactly when do you put out an alert, because it can help deter an attack and it can get the security people on higher guard, and when does it no longer serve a fruitful purpose?
Here are some of the statements that were made by members of Congress, again, in both parties, wrestling with this, after alerts went out in the last several months. "I would -- this is October 12, 2001. "I would not have warned the American people of a general threat of an attack. I don't think that does anybody any good." That was Senator Biden on CNN.
This is Senator Shelby, on October 31st, as alerts went out in the post-9/11 atmosphere. Senator Shelby said, "The administration has to make a judgment call" -- his words -- "about what to do with intelligence that it received." But he asked, "How many times can you cry wolf if nothing happens?" And Senator Dodd, also October 31st, also expressed frustration over the alert. "It's crazy to make these kinds of statements. Imaginations run wild."
And this is in regard to when the administration received information that we shared with the country, we shared with the public. You remember the alert about suspension bridges on the West Coast. These are very difficult judgment calls to make. And I think it's fair to say that on a bipartisan basis, people are wrestling with them. Even in the post 9/11 environment, even when we had more specific, at least, information then that generalized notion of hijacking back in the summer period of 2001.
Q My second question --
MR. FLEISCHER: You had it -- oh, no, you didn't.
Q The Phoenix report -- yesterday we asked Dr. Rice. She said she was going to look into it. When will we find out when the White House received the report of the FBI agent --
MR. FLEISCHER: Once I have an update, I will share it.
David.
Q Ari, back to the Library of Congress report for a second. You said a little while ago that the information that was out there in this report and others didn't raise enough alarms. What steps has the President taken or ordered to make sure that intelligence agencies that do come across these kinds of things raise the proper alarms from here on out? You know, bring it to his attention or to someone's attention that --
MR. FLEISCHER: Everything has changed since September 11th. The fact of the matter is we were a nation that was a peace nation, that was on a peacetime footing, and that was reflected in the very briefing which the President has in the morning, which was a CIA briefing. And as a result of the attack that took place on our country, we are now on a war footing.
And as a result of that, in addition to creation of the Office of Homeland Security, as you know, the President now, at his morning briefings, is joined by the Director of the FBI as well as the head of the
CIA. And the Director of the FBI, who only assumed his post some week or two before the attacks -- the Director of the FBI is working very hard to change and strengthen the FBI. And the President sees the excellent job that he is doing bringing those changes to the FBI, to make it more proactive on preventing the country from being attacked, while the previous mission was much more oriented on arresting people who have committed domestic crimes such as kidnapping.
The very fact that Congress itself recognized a weakness in the intelligence agencies' ability to fight terrorism was reflected by their action in passing the Patriot Act, which gave the intelligence agencies more power. Congress deserves credit for that. These are all the changes that have taken place since September 11th, reflecting the fact we're a nation that's shifted to a war footing.
Q So if a report similar to this one came out today, the President is confident that the proper alarm bells would be sounded?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think it's fair to say that everybody is much more focused on the mission of fighting terrorism than they were prior to September 11th. As I indicated, the mission of the FBI was a different mission prior to September 11th.
Mark.
Q Ari, can you help me with a definition? When does a legitimate question about what the administration, what the President knew, become an "incendiary or irresponsible suggestion"?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think that anytime anybody suggests or implies to the American people that this President had specific information that could have prevented the attacks on our country on September 11th, that crosses the lines. I don't think that's a fair thing to say. And I think that the American people will be very weary of any politician who seeks to turn the sorrow of victims into their own political gain.
Q Well, you're implying that there's no way that any President of the United States -- not just this one, but that any President of the United States, is capable of making an error in judgment, or that his administration -- or her administration -- is incapable of making an error and not funneling information up. That it's improper to look back and say, hey, can we learn from that mistake?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's exactly why there's a congressional investigation that we are working with the Intelligence Committees of the Congress, so that they can pursue it.
Q -- you just laid out, a congressional inquiry is second-guessing a President, and implying --
MR. FLEISCHER: A congressional inquiry is a gathering of all the information; is the exact forum that Congress has set up for itself to answer the very questions that the American people deserve answers to.
But when Congress has already got an entity that it created, to answer those questions, and then members of Congress say, we need answers to the questions, we have created the very entity to answer those questions -- they understand, they have done that. And that entity is working on a thorough and complete investigation. And we await its report.
I'm sorry, Ed, and then Russell. Did you have your hand up?
Q Ari, can the American people be confident that this President, who prides himself on being plainspoken and direct, to ever admit a mistake if he felt he had made one?
MR. FLEISCHER: Ed, I think the American people know that this President is determined to protect this country, and this President is determined to find out everything that can be found out, so that this country has the full protections. And that's why we're working with the Congress.
Q Hindsight is 20/20, but has the President himself expressed some level of frustration or anger -- if only that report had moved to my desk much more quickly, if only --
MR. FLEISCHER: Which report?
Q The one that was sitting on Condi's desk for final sign-off. If only this information had been presented to me in a way that perhaps said this is a much bigger threat -- is he saying any level of frustration --
MR. FLEISCHER: This President is a realist. He deals with events as they are.
Q You've said that for the most part, the threat -- or the information that the President got was very general. But the FAA did issue eight separate warnings to the airlines last summer. So why weren't the airlines giving any more specific directions or instructions on how they should react?
MR. FLEISCHER: And those notifications to the airlines reflected all the information about the nature of what was known, which was generalized information.
Q So are you saying it's the fault of the airlines that no specific steps were taken? Because the airlines say that, you know, the warnings that they got were of no particular substance.
MR. FLEISCHER: The airlines are stating that the information they got is exactly as Dr. Rice described it yesterday, generalized information about hijackings, which of course is nothing new. The fact that there are terrorist who seek to hijack airlines in the pre 9/11 traditional sense is not new. We had --
Q -- there a breakdown there?
MR. FLEISCHER: You're asking the exact question about if the information was so general, how could the United States government, and the President, have possibly known the September 11th attack was going to take place? Your statement is valid. The information available to the government was general. That general information was shared with the carriers.
Q But is that normal to issue eight warnings? Does that really suggest that it was really a general threat, if you have eight warnings over --
MR. FLEISCHER: As general information is made available, the law enforcement community makes notification, and has done so for years, to the relevant entities, in the private sector, in this case, the carriers.
Ken.
Q Ari, a question about the draft presidential directive that landed on Dr. Rice's desk on September 10th. Who specifically requested that that directive be drafted? What specifically prompted the drafting of that directive, and did it have any connection with the threats throughout the summer of 2001 that you and Dr. Rice --
MR. FLEISCHER: This was driven by the President's determination, as a candidate for office, to do more about terrorism. If you recall, you've heard the President say that it appeared as if we were swatting at flies, and he wanted to dismantle al Qaeda because of the threat it posed. The work on this actually began during the transition. It's a reflection of the President's desire to take more fundamental steps against terrorism.
Q So it predated even his tenure in office?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, that's why I gave you the Citadel speech in 1999 as the first example of where the President put his finger on the growing threat the United States faced as a result of terrorism.
Q -- specific task to draft a directive, an action plan to go after al Qaeda actually predated his administration?
MR. FLEISCHER: A plan on what to do about terrorism began in its earliest stage during the transition. And as -- after January 20, 2001, it went through the normal National Security Council process, which begins with deputies and other people at the working levels of the agencies, and makes its way up through the more higher-level officials in the approval process.
Q At what point did it focus on al Qaeda? At what point was the decision made to focus this directive on al Qaeda?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think it was focused on al Qaeda from the very earliest days.
Q Ari, what was it that was -- we know there were some previous presidential decision directives on terrorism -- for instance, one in 1998 that even authorized the United States to go after and kill, if necessary, Osama bin Laden. What was it that this particular directive did or addressed that was not addressed in previous presidential --
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I can't speak to the previous ones. I'm not familiar enough with their details. But as I indicated, this presidential directive would have directed the Pentagon to come up with military options, which could have included boots on the ground, to take action on the financial front, to work with the Northern Alliance. Its purpose was to dismantle al Qaeda.
Q Can I just follow up on that? What is it -- how long would this have taken? In other words, there's some attention here to the fact that it was ready, but not signed by the President, not put into effect. How long would it have taken to implement this plan?
MR. FLEISCHER: That really would have depended on the military options that the Pentagon came up with, so it's an indeterminate period of time.
Q You're suggesting it's clearly something that would have taken months to implement, if you're talking about military options on the ground?
MR. FLEISCHER: The direction to the Pentagon was to develop military options for the purpose of dismantling al Qaeda, not for the purpose of, as the President put it, swatting at flies. That would suggest a time period of some length, an indeterminate one.
Q Ari, you said, as we all still know, we're still under threat. Intelligence is very important at this point. Is it appropriate then that CIA Director Tenet is so involved in the Middle East at this point, given the burden of responsibility he has within his own organization?
MR. FLEISCHER: They're all important, and they both are involved in successfully winning the war against terrorism. There are terrorist threats in the Middle East. The prospects for eliminating terrorism worldwide would be enhanced as a result of bringing peace to the Middle East. The prospects for creating peace in the Middle East will be enhanced as a result of a worldwide effort to dismantle terrorism. The two go together, and Director Tenet's involvement has been very, very successful and helpful.
Q A few minutes ago, Ari, you mentioned the sorrow of victims. Yesterday, several of the -- not all, certainly -- but several of the family members of victims said critical things about the President. And assuming you don't ascribe partisan motivation to them, can you say how much concern that caused? And has anybody at the White House made any effort to talk to any of the family members?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'll have to find out about if anybody has talked. It's a big --
Q Ari?
MR. FLEISCHER: Can I answer his question? It's a big White House. But, you know, I think that for the families of what took place, if anybody were to suggest to them that this administration had information that could have prevented it, well, of course they're going to feel that way. That's totally understandable. But the administration, the President did not have that information. And so I think -- as they hear and realize -- and many of them have not said those statements -- but as they understand the exact facts as you now know them, I think they recognize that we are all in this as one nation, in it together, and that we are a nation of Republicans and Democrats who shares their sorrow.
Bob.
Q Ari, what consideration was given over the past eight months to proactively putting this information out to the public?
MR. FLEISCHER: What information?
Q What's come out in the last 24 hours.
MR. FLEISCHER: Can you be more specific?
Q Specifically, the information Dr. Rice gave us yesterday about the analytic and what -- the general nature of the threat, how it was assessed, how it was processed, how the decisions were made.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the administration will share information on a regular basis that helps keep the country informed about events that took place. It's always a balance between information that is classified, information that deals with sources and methods. And I think we've been -- leaned as strong as we can in the direction of getting information out about our administration's efforts to fight terrorism.
Q But, I mean, the information that came out specifically yesterday. In other words, what consideration was given over the last eight months to saying, let's put the National Security Advisor out to tell the American people what we did know -- however general, however nonspecific -- and how we processed it?
MR. FLEISCHER: Rewind the tape to the other night, when a leaked document was selectively provided to a news organization that covered one snapshot in a misleading way, that left out other information such as the information that was shared with security officials at carriers alerting them, notifying them of the generalized notion of hijacking. In the wake of a select leak of classified information that was misrepresentative of what the President was doing, what the administration was doing, we made the decision, as I indicated yesterday, to provide you with the answers to all your questions. So that's the --
Q -- there was not a consideration made or a decision made or a discussion had previous to that?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think the American people know that this administration has a lot of meetings that take place at classified levels where intelligence information is reviewed, where threats are -- the President himself talks every morning, talks often about what he sees every morning involving the threat matrix. I think the American people understand. And that's why every morning I say to you the President had his CIA briefing and FBI briefing. I'm not at liberty to discuss every morning what is in his CIA briefing or FBI briefing, but I think the American people have a general sense of the process the President uses to obtain the information he needs to protect our country.
Q Just to ask one final --
MR. FLEISCHER: Bob, and then we'll come back. Bob.
Q Can I just ask, what level of concern has been expressed around here in the last 24 hours, at the staff level or by the President himself, that the President may have in some way been damaged by the way that this has been handled, by the way that it's come out?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think the real damage that can get done in something like this, when somebody selectively leaks a misleading piece of information without providing all relevant information, is it sends a terrible signal at a time when we should be a united nation. And that's the damage done by selective leaks of classified information that are not representative of a full story and a full picture. And that's where I think that it's a very difficult issue for you all to cover, because you recognize that you're getting a selective piece of information, not a full story.
Q -- do that, right?
Q I just want to ask you, did Mr. Clarke, as quoted in The Washington Post today, of the NSC, say in July that "something really spectacular is going to happen here"? Is that accurate?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'd have to ask him. And if you're --
Q Well, it was in a major paper today.
MR. FLEISCHER: I know, but I don't ask --
Q -- get a briefing on that?
MR. FLEISCHER: I do not receive a daily briefing on his verbatim quotes.
Q Well, I mean, you must have anticipated you would be asked about that.
MR. FLEISCHER: No, as Dr. Rice indicated yesterday, and as the President said in his interview with The Washington Post, that the reporting that we had over the summer, in the early moments of the summer, did show that there was something building, mostly focused on somewhere foreign.
Q Well, according to the same story, George Tenet had been "nearly frantic", is the quote, with concern since June 22nd. I don't recall that kind of thing being -- know anything.
MR. FLEISCHER: Let me just walk you through the facts of what Dr. Rice briefed yesterday in terms of the timetable.
Q -- don't need to. I heard it. (Laughter.)
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not in a position to tell you whether somebody's verbatim quote like that.
Q I'm trying to get at what the mind-set was in July and June. You didn't --
MR. FLEISCHER: Obviously people were taking these threats seriously.
Q Well, can I just follow up on the presidential directive, and Clarke's role, actually, because based on what Condi told us yesterday, he was very much involved in these working groups and sort of bringing all the pieces together --
MR. FLEISCHER: Correct.
Q -- that presumably led to the directive winding up on her desk. But he was also part of the Clinton administration's counterterrorism team. He was there at the end of that administration. They had also been working on a plan for dealing with bin Laden and al Qaeda. So would it be fair to say that -- I'm assuming, when there was the transition, that he would have said to Dr. Rice, look, here's the deal, here's the plan we've been working on, this is serious, we need to pay attention to this. Was there a delay, because of a changeover in administration where she said, wait a minute, we're going to have to take our time here, we're new at all this, and figure out what's a priority and what's not?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think just the opposite. As I indicated, the planning began during the transition period. And the goal shifted to the dismantling of al Qaeda.
Q Ari, was there any indication that al Qaeda may have gotten wind of this process, this directive, and that may have played a roll in the assassination of --
MR. FLEISCHER: Nothing that I've heard. I don't know.
John.
Q Can I return to this issue of the notifications over the spring and summer to the airlines -- through FAA to the airlines and the airports? We talk a lot in here about lessons learned since September 11th. Is there any concern, and have there been reforms in that process? Because, even though, as you say, the information was very general, I assume you don't put out these warnings to have nothing -- these alerts or notifications, whatever you call them, to have nothing happen. You don't just send them out, so the airlines go, that's nice, and not do anything. Now, they say it was so general, they didn't know what to do. You say, you only had general information, you were doing the best you could in putting them on some notice. The effect is, nothing happened. They got these, they read them, and they said, oh, and based on anything you say to ask the airlines, no increased security, no notification of the pilots and flight attendants, apparently -- is there any reform in that process, to make sure that even if it says, we don't know what, do something?
MR. FLEISCHER: There was a major reform. It was a new law. It was the security act that Congress passed that the President signed that fundamentally revamped and had a federal takeover of security at airports.
Q Security on the perimeter.
MR. FLEISCHER: More than the perimeter. It's the creation of new security officials, security managers at every airport, the federalization of the work force. As you know, the changes made on board airplanes, the reinforcement of cockpit doors, the changes in what you can carry, as anybody who has traveled since September 11th will tell you, there has been an entire revamping of what they go through when they walk through the metal detectors.
Q But if they received this same document tomorrow, that said the administration has some general information that this might happen, we don't have anything else --
MR. FLEISCHER: John, general information is general information. When the United States government has specific information, we share those specifics, as you know.
Q I'm not -- I'm saying, if they got a notification tomorrow, just like then, are they now required under this new law to do something?
MR. FLEISCHER: It's idiosyncratic. It depends on the nature of the information. If the information lends itself to simple and direct actions, you could expect that simple and direct actions will be taken. If it's generalized information, then it's generalized. And that is what makes it harder for people to react to.
Q -- in the system --
MR. FLEISCHER: What the system is, is provide information about generalized threats. And that was done.
Q But they don't have to do anything.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the changes that were made are what's been done.
Q A quick question on a different subject. Chairman Arafat has said he will run for office, he will hold elections, perhaps within six months. Palestinian officials say, however, it would be very difficult to achieve this, which is something the administration wants, unless Israel lets up some, and allows for the free movement of peoples. What's the administration's reaction to Arafat's --
MR. FLEISCHER: Reform of the Palestinian Authority should be done because it's the right thing to give hope to the Palestinian people. This should not be contingent on any other matters; it should be done because the Palestinian people deserve a better future with economic opportunity. It's the right thing to do in any case. And the President will be focused more on the result and less on the process. He wants to see that they reform.
Q Ari, can I ask you on another subject, too -- President Bush will be making a major statement on a Cuba policy on Monday. Will the trip that ex-President Jimmy Carter took to Havana play any role in his statement on Monday?
MR. FLEISCHER: I would urge you to listen carefully to the President's speech on Monday, and you will be the judge.
Q Thank you.
MR. FLEISCHER: Thank you.
THE PRESS: Week ahead?
MR. FLEISCHER: Oh, I'm sorry, thank you. Thank you for continuing the pain. (Laughter.)
*** will make remarks on democracy and freedom in Cuba. That afternoon, the President will travel to Miami, Florida, to make remarks on Cuban Independence Day. The President will also attend a Republican Party of Florida dinner before he returns to the White House that evening.
On Tuesday, the President will participate in a photo opportunity with the NCAA champions on the South Lawn of the White House.
On Wednesday morning, the President and Mrs. Bush will travel to Europe, where he will visit Germany, Russia, France, and Italy to mark the new era with Russia, and to talk with our allies in Germany and France about the exciting future that lies ahead between our nation and the European continent. We will provide you more detailed information on the exact schedule and itinerary of the Europe trip later this afternoon.
Q NCAA champs -- basketball?
MR. FLEISCHER: Multiple sports.
Q Men and women?
MR. FLEISCHER: Multiple sports. We'll get that information to you.
END 1:06 P.M. EDT
Listen to today's Press Briefing with White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer. Listen to the Briefing
Michael
Helen.
Q Why has the White House persistently tried to delay any major investigation, so that the American people and everyone else can get to the bottom of what the cause was? It will be Monday morning quarterbacking, fair enough. But at least we'll know what the truth is.
MR. FLEISCHER: With all due respect, that's two out of three mischaracterizations of what the President has said.
Q You have tried to stall it, haven't you? You don't deny that, do you? Surely. Daschle has said repeatedly that he's been asked -- he's been asked repeatedly to not go ahead with an investigation.
MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, let me remind you of the words of the Vice President, what he said last night, because --
Q Last night is a different story.
MR. FLEISCHER: Let me tell you what the Vice President said --
Q This story broke --
MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, we all know you have opinions on these matters.
Q That isn't -- I don't think that's very fair. I know your opinion, too, okay?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm entitled to have opinions.
Q And so am I.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, Helen, let me answer your opinionated question. The Vice President said last night in his speech up in New York that, "We believe that a thorough investigation of the events that led up to September 11th is entirely appropriate, and at the President's direction I've worked with the leaders of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees to ensure that they get the necessary cooperation from the Executive Branch.
There was some discussion earlier this year, at the time that the Congress was wrestling with how to begin an investigation into what took place on September 11th. Congress itself debated in what form this investigation should take place. That's not a surprise. Any issue involving jurisdiction on Capitol Hill, in terms of who gets to investigate what, is typically one of the most contentious issues within the members of Congress themselves.
There were a variety of different viewpoints expressed by Democrats and Republicans on the Hill. Some wanted a blue-ribbon commission that involved people who are not serving in the Congress. Others wanted a broad investigation which would have created a super-committee that would allow people off the Intelligence Committees to investigate. And others wanted to keep it limited to the Intelligence Committees, which have an expertise in working with the very issues presented.
The final determination made by the Congress, supported by the administration as we talked with them earlier this year, was precisely what's happening now, that the Vice President expressed our support for.
Q Are you denying that the administration -- are you saying the administration did not try to delay any investigation?
MR. FLEISCHER: The administration made it clear to the Congress that we supported an investigation so long as it was done in a responsible way by people who had the expertise to know how to handle it. The administration made clear to the Congress that we are a nation at war, and that the key participants from the Central Intelligence Agency, from the FBI, and from the military have vital ongoing missions to protect our country, and we wanted to make certain that those who are doing the investigation were expert enough and cognizant of the fact of the current war-fighting duties of the personnel involved, so that this did not become a fishing expedition or another endless waste of taxpayer money in an open-ended congressional investigation. And we worked --
Q And you did try to delay it? MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, we work together to get a satisfactory result.
It isn't a question now of whether or not the warnings were specific. They never are.
It's a question of whether or not 9/11 should have been anticipated, given the warnings. And whether plans should have been in place to deal with such a scenario.
It's been common knowledge since 1993 that Islamic terrorists associated with Osama Bin Laden have wanted to hijack planes and fly them into buildings.
Had there been such plans, there might have been enough time to deal with the hijacking as it was occuring. At very least, the second the FAA became aware that 4 planes in US airspace had been hijacked simultaneously, fighter aircraft should have been scrambled.
The administration sure does like to pretend that Bush was already knowledgable about the threat by presenting these speeches he made early on. Unfortunately for them it makes them look even more inept.
To "detect and respond" to terrorism is to wait for an explosion and then clean up the mess. Be that as it may, the administration has proven that it was clearly unable to meet the stated campaign promises made by Bush. They were certainly aware of the previous administration's gaffes with bin Laden and yet were unable to even issue a concrete advisory when it was known for over two years that New York and DC were targets of a terrorist hijacking(Time Magazine Cover story 1998).
And in 1998, Time Magazine narrowed the targets to DC and New York. How much more information did this administration think was necessary before it acted?
Well, Helen, let me answer your opinionated question.
He gets paid the big bucks because he knows how to politely rephrase “Listen, bitch.”
And what, exactly, could they have added to the article that was PUBLISHED IN 1998??? That Islamic terrorists might hijack planes? That's like saying a bear might sh_t in the woods. That NY and DC were targets? According to you, we've known that since at least 1998!
Sheesh.
And in 1998, Time Magazine narrowed the targets to DC and New York. How much more information did this administration think was necessary before it acted?
I glad you’re so impressed by Time’s investigative skills, but I’m sure the government knew (since at least the late 18th century) that DC and New York would be prime targets for foreign enemies seeking to inflict damage.
Of course nobody, in all these 200+ years, had the hindsight to know that this brilliant bit of information meant that we should stop all flights originating out of Newark or Boston on September 11th, 2001.
Until, of course, September 11th, 2001.
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.