Exerpt: August 6 Press Briefing

Question: Anything on the Palestinian delegation, please?

Mr. Reeker: The -- sorry? I just missed it.

Question: The Palestinian delegation.

Mr. Reeker: The Palestinian delegation. I'm sorry.

Yes, as you know, we have talked for some time, the Secretary has, about meeting with a delegation of Palestinians. We do expect that a delegation of Palestinians will be in Washington for meetings with Secretary Powell and a range of other U.S. officials on Thursday and Friday of this week -- that's August 8th and 9th. We expect to see Abdurazaq Yahiyeh, who is Minister of Interior, Maher Masri, the Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry, and Saeb Erekat, who is Minister of Local Government.

So this is part of our ongoing series of meetings with those from the region. The purpose of these meetings will be to hold discussions and exchange views on a wide range of issues, including Palestinian civil reform efforts, a renewal of security cooperation, progress on political dialogue. Just as with these meetings, we look forward to further such exchanges in the future, which is part of our effort under the President's strategy which is supported by regional and international partners to restore calm, to renew hope for Palestinians and Israelis alike, focusing on institutions and real reforms, as the President described in his June 24th speech.

Question: Phil, we never heard about security work here in the U.S. for some time now. The CIA was supposed to be formulating changes or new ideas -- how to bolster security. Where is the process at this point?

Mr. Reeker: I don't think I have any particular updates to give you, Barry. At this point, obviously security and security cooperation is a vital part of this effort, as the Secretary and the President have made quite clear. It is absolutely important that the Palestinians do all they can to end the terror and violence, and security cooperation is an important element of that, but I don't think I can offer you any specifics at this point. But as we have things to discuss, I will certainly endeavor to see what I can give you.

Eli.

Question: Phil, you mentioned this delegation, but the security minister that Arafat recently named is not among them. If you are going to talk about security, why wouldn't you want to talk to the security guy?

Mr. Reeker: I believe that Mr. Yahiyeh --

Question: He is? Oh, you did. I'm sorry.

Question: Interior (inaudible) --

Question: My bad.

Mr. Reeker: Eli's bad. Let's put that on the record. (Laughter.) Eli's bad. Thank you, Barry, for your support in that thing.

Elaine, you had something to follow up?

Question: I was going to ask how you decided who to invite.

Mr. Reeker: I think we have been talking to a wide range of Palestinians, as we have discussed over a period of time now. We have a broad array of contacts with Palestinians, including members of the legislative council, including individuals who have come here to Washington. The President discussed in his speech the need for reform, the need to develop institutions, and the need to work with individuals who can speak on behalf of the Palestinian community who can make a difference, who can exercise responsibility and leadership.

So the Secretary very much looks forward to the opportunity to talk to this group of Palestinians as part of our ongoing effort at the end of this week, and we will keep you posted on the follow-up to those talks.

Ben.

Question: Phil, the Israelis have had a whole series of, you know, suicide bombings in the last few days. It seems that nothing they do seems to have an effect, and they have now moved to demolishing homes and to deporting or exiling people into Gaza who apparently had some knowledge that their family member was about to carry out an attack.

What is the United States view of those two measures?

Mr. Reeker: Well, I think as you are familiar, Ben, we said that Israel has a right to self-defense, and that remains our position. But as always, as we have said before, Israel should consider the consequences of any action it takes or plans to take, keep in mind the vision of peace to which we have all signed up, which the President has enunciated in his speeches and statements.

We certainly understand the need for Israel to take steps to ensure its self-defense, and we have been very clear, as I said earlier, about the need for Palestinian action against violence and terror. And that will certainly be part of the focus of our talks with the Palestinian delegation later this week.

But at the same time, it is important to remember that steps such as the displacement of people through the demolition of homes and property can undermine trust and confidence. And I would say what we have said before; that is, that Israel should consider the consequences of such actions, keep in mind the vision of peace, thinking about the consequences and what really will make a difference in their security, as the President said last week. And we will continue to remind them of that.

Question: Can I just follow up one thing? The Palestinians have been saying and some human rights groups have been saying that this is a violation of international law, or a violation of human rights, that it's collective punishment. Is it your view that this is not the case, that it's simply inadvisable because it undermines confidence, or is it your view that these are somehow illegal acts?

Mr. Reeker: I will go back to what I said. I don't know if I could provide you any sort of international legal analysis. You know, we have always said that we expect Israel's action in its campaign against terror to be based on information related to an individual's culpability, not to a personal or family relationship.

I would just say once again, as we have before, that taking punitive actions against innocent people won't solve Israel's security problems, and if relatives of those who have committed terrorist acts, for instance, are involved in terrorist activities, then they should be dealt with through normal legal procedures. We make those views known to the Israelis, just as we make them known here.

Question: Is it incumbent upon the Palestinian security forces to round up the leaders of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other groups? And I guess since they haven't yet, do we look at any marker for success of reform of the Palestinian security forces, the ability to achieve that goal?

Mr. Reeker: Certainly discussion of security, security cooperation, steps that can be taken, will be part of what we talk about with the Palestinian delegation that will be here later this week. All Palestinians need to do all they can to end the terror and violence, to speak out against it, to take whatever steps they can. That is part of the strategy. It's going to be absolutely important to get security on the ground. That is an important thing that will help as we also move along the other tracks that the President outlined in his June 24 speech.

Question: Well, I suppose not just being an important step, but are we looking at that as -- do we have a particular marker in mind? I mean, we do, I assume, want them to round up the leaders of these groups that claim responsibility for terrorist activities and for homicide bombings.

Mr. Reeker: We will continue to talk to Palestinian leaders --

Question: -- a milestone in mind as to when?

Mr. Reeker: -- as they consider -- continue to work on reforming their institutions and developing the important institutions, including security cooperation, that are going to be important in this thing. I can't offer you any particular "when's", but it is something that everybody needs to be focused on. It is very much part of the strategy and what we will be talking to them about.

Elaine.

Question: Moving to a nearby country, can you --

Mr. Reeker: Was there anything else on this? I'm sorry. The gentleman behind you.

Question: What steps did the State Department take regarding the humiliation and discrimination of the American delegation that was sent back?

Mr. Reeker: To your question yesterday -- I will get to that, but if we could just finish, if there was anything more on this. But definitely we will make that the next question. Was there something else on the Middle East?

Let's do Judy and then --

Question: The U.S. Consulate -- is the State Department considering moving it from East Jerusalem?

Mr. Reeker: As you know, and we have talked about it for some time, the security of our people overseas has to be a top priority, and we have been looking to relocate our Consulate in East Jerusalem to a more secure site for several years. That is nothing new and we have talked about it before.

We do plan to move some of the operations of the Consulate General to such a site, and that would include the Consular -- that is American Citizens' Services, visa services, those functions

-- as well as the Public Affairs offices. The Consul General's office and the main offices of our consulate will remain at their current location on Agron Road. The move is solely intended to address significant security concerns, which we have been looking at for some time.

Question: So where's the new location?

Mr. Reeker: I don't have any details, and I can try to get back to you if I can offer you any more details.

Question: When is this going to start?

Mr. Reeker: I don't have any more details and can try to get back to you on that. It's something that we have been looking at for some time, but I don't have a timetable on that.

Is this on this?

Question: Yes. If it is for security reasons, why would you move only two functions of the Consulate and not the whole thing? I mean, it just seems --

Mr. Reeker: Those are clearly the functions that have public access involved, and I think that is fairly obvious in terms of why those may need to have a different type of setting, because people have to have access to them to actually perform their defined functions. And in terms of other aspects of our work there, the access to and from for members of the public, for instance, is not as important. But we will be reviewing all of those things as we make these considerations.

Question: And just a quick follow-up. I'm assuming the new location for these offices would be in Jerusalem-proper, West Jerusalem?

Mr. Reeker: I just don't have any more information on the new location.

Question: So you can't say even if they would be in Jerusalem?

Mr. Reeker: As soon as I have more information, I would be happy to share it with you. I don't have any other information.

Question: Phil, could "plan" be maybe not the right word? A plan, the word plan to me means that you know what you're doing, you know where you're moving. No, if there's a plan -- I don't mean it that way -- if there's a plan to move it, the plan would involve location X is where it's going.

Mr. Reeker: Or maybe a variety of locations that we are looking at. I don't have any further information for you.

Question: It's the intention to move, isn't it?

Mr. Reeker: Barry, I'll let you write the word that you want. We plan, and we have for some time --

Question: No, no. I have to use your words.

Mr. Reeker: -- we plan to move some of the operations of our Consulate General to such a site, to relocate our Consulate in East Jerusalem to a more secure site. We have been talking about that for several years, looking at options. I have given you as much information as I can on that. I don't have any more information on that.

Question: All right, fine.

Mr. Reeker: I don't have any more information on that. When I have more information on when we are moving, where we are moving, what we are moving precisely, I will try to --

Question: (Inaudible.)

Mr. Reeker: To the best of my knowledge.

Question: And just one last thing on the delegation. Are all three members of the delegation considered by Secretary of State Powell to be reformers? (Inaudible) Saeb Erekat in there?

Mr. Reeker: Barry, they are Palestinians that we want to talk to. They are Palestinians who we think can engage in constructive discussions, can engage in the reforms of institutions necessary. I would note that some of these are, in fact, Palestinians with whom Israeli officials have met in recent days. Israel has also been meeting with a wide range of Palestinian officials. The Defense Minister met with Interior Minister Yahiyeh, and we regard those types of direct discussions to be important and we continue to urge the parties to continue with those, as well. So we will look forward to that.

Now, we are going to --

Question: Well, one -- no, one more.

Mr. Reeker: Yes, Barry.

Question: Thursday and Friday, which day is Powell's day?

Mr. Reeker: I don't have an exact schedule for you, Barry.

Question: Why was it delayed? We heard at first they were going to come on Monday. Is there a reason for the delay?

Mr. Reeker: There wasn't a set schedule yet. The Secretary just returned, as you know, from Asia, from an extensive trip there.

Question: Right.

Mr. Reeker: We had looked at scheduling in terms of this delegation being able to come, and these are the days on which it is scheduled.

Question: In reference to the delay, I heard that one of the ministers had a family illness

or --

Mr. Reeker: You would need to ask those individuals about their personal lives.

Yes, sir.

Question: Do you consider the delegation to be one that is acceptable, not just to you, but also to Arafat?

Mr. Reeker: You would have to ask him about that. Our focus is on working with Palestinians with whom we think we can have constructive discussions about the way to move forward in line with the President's strategy -- in terms of reforms, in terms of creating and restructuring Palestinian institutions to set them on the road to the statehood, to the independent statehood that the President has envisioned that all of the international community has signed up to.

Question: Will ideas about restructuring be discussed with these officials while they're here? Obviously --

Mr. Reeker: I am sure that will be part of the discussion. And as I said, and I can repeat what I said, the purpose of these meetings is to hold discussions and exchange views on a wide range of issues, including Palestinian civil reform efforts and a renewal of security cooperation and progress on political dialogue.

Now, this gentleman was waiting patiently. Thank you.

Question: I only have one question about the Consulate General.

Mr. Reeker: Okay. Sure.

Question: I understand that although you haven't announced a site yet, the Palestinians are already worried that it's going to be somewhere they'll have difficulty getting to. In your consideration of a location, is one of the factors finding somewhere where Palestinians will not be restricted?

Mr. Reeker: We consider all kinds of factors, Elaine, and I just can't describe for you in any great detail decisions that may or may not have been made.

Question: Okay.

Question: One more follow-up on this?

Mr. Reeker: Yes.

Question: I'm sorry.

Mr. Reeker: That's all right.

Question: With the delegation and in light of the recent spate of violence in Israel, are we still thinking that a January timetable is even doable? Is that going to be on the table for the discussion for the elections?

Mr. Reeker: I'm not quite sure what timetable you're referring to.

Question: Timetable for elections.

Mr. Reeker: We will hear from the Palestinian delegation what they have to say, their views on that subject, and let you know if we have anything further to say after that.

Now, anything else on that? Okay.

This gentleman here had had a question yesterday. Go ahead and mention it again so I can recall what it was.

Question: What steps did the State Department take to -- regarding the humiliation and discrimination of an American delegate that was turned back from Ben Gurion Airport?

Mr. Reeker: That's right. You are referring to an incident on Sunday, June 16th, when a group of 20 American citizens from the group American Muslims for Jerusalem were denied entry into Israel by Israeli immigration and security officials. I did check into that, as I promised to yesterday, and discovered that our consular officials from the American Embassy in Tel Aviv have been in touch with the group and also asked Israeli officials to reconsider their decision at the time of the denial of entry into Israel.

The Israelis decided to deny entry and return the group to the United States. We then discussed the incident with Israeli officials, as well as with the organization. The Government of Israel is well aware of our concerns in this matter and on the issue of fair treatment for American citizens seeking entry to Israel.

Ultimately, however, as you know, and as also our decision, decisions on who to admit to their country is the prerogative of Israel, in this case, or any country involved.

Question: I went to the website and I looked at the Travel Warnings, and does that mean that the State Department is willing to compromise the values that we hold dear and are willing to allow Israel, or any other country, to discriminate against Americans based on their national origin or religion?

Mr. Reeker: We are not at all willing to compromise our values, and we do not do that. But what we cannot do is make determinations for another country in terms of entry into their country, just as we don't allow any other country to make those determinations for us. Ultimately, decisions on whom to admit is the prerogative of the country involved.

Question: Did the -- excuse me, on this thing --

Mr. Reeker: Yes, Gene.

Question: Did the Israelis give you any reason?

Mr. Reeker: I am not aware of any specifics. They made their decisions, we raised our concerns, and I am sure the Israelis would be happy to provide you with their views on the subject.

Teri.

Question: On Iraq, could you tell us where the $8 million that was sort of hanging -- funding for INC is? And also, if you have any comments on the agreement reportedly reached last week between the Pentagon and State on funding for the intelligence-gathering program.

Mr. Reeker: Sure. Anything on the Pentagon side of it, I would just refer you over there. I think they would be --

Question: But it was an agreement between you and them.

Mr. Reeker: I will let them talk about it.

Question: Oh, nice.

Mr. Reeker: On May 23rd, as you will recall, and as you referenced, the Department of State notified Congress of our intent to award the Iraqi National Congress a new cooperative agreement offering the organization another $8 million for the period June through December of this year, 2002. We are still waiting for a formal response from the Iraqi National Congress to our offer, and that is where things stand. We are waiting for a response on that.

We are anxious to continue our support for the Iraqi National Congress's newspaper, their TV station, regional offices, their office of humanitarian relief, and we believe that they can continue to play a productive and useful role through the activities that were proposed in the agreement. But to this time, we don't have a response from them on that.

Question: But, Phil, if the controversial part was the part that DOD is now funding, why wouldn't the 8 million be released?

Mr. Reeker: You would need to ask the Iraqi National Congress. We have an offer on the table to them and we haven't gotten a response from them on that.

Question: Phil, there are a number of questions --

Question: Could you --

Mr. Reeker: Let's just do -- let's do one at a time. Teri?

Question: Go ahead.

Mr. Reeker: Okay. Joel.

Question: I just wanted to follow up on that. But there were a number of conditions and stipulations, from what I understand, that the State Department put on that money. Could you run through what those are?

Mr. Reeker: I don't have all the details of that. We usually do have conditions in terms of how our money is spent when we are using taxpayer money to further the goals in these things. We think that this could be very constructive. We have made this offer of an agreement and we are waiting for a formal response from the INC. If they have issues they want to discuss, they need to respond to them.

Yes, Elise.

Question: Could you just sort this out? So are you saying that the State Department will still continue to administer and fund some of the activities of the Iraqi opposition and that the Pentagon will handle another part of it? Is that what you were saying?

Mr. Reeker: Yes.

Question: Okay. And then also, a lot of, you know, as the Iraqi opposition comes in and has this meeting, and you have also been meeting with other groups, a lot of people that are -- you know, as the Hill has these hearings on Iraq, that none of these groups really provide a credible alternative to Saddam Hussein and that the real, kind of, post-Saddam government, if you will, will have to be germinated from within the country. Can you speak to that?

Mr. Reeker: I don't think I can speculate and discuss hypotheticals. The purpose of the meeting like the one you reference, which we expect to take place on August 9th -- that is Friday -- with some figures from a variety of Iraqi opposition groups, is to discuss coordination and how they can work together, how we can work with them. Our policy remains very much the same. I don't have to share it with you again.

We do think that Iraq, the people of Iraq, the people of the region, indeed, the people of the world would be far better off with a regime change because of the threats posed by the regime of Saddam Hussein and what he has demonstrated in the past and his efforts to continue developing weapons of mass destruction and reneging on agreements he made, basically thumbing his nose at the international community and the UN Security Council on the requirements he has under those resolutions.

Question: If I could follow up. But at the same time that you are working with these groups and you think that they have a lot to offer, the United States has obviously not created a government-in-exile, if you will, and a lot --

Mr. Reeker: That was not the goal of any of our meetings. We have been --

Question: Well, no, I --

Mr. Reeker: --working with these groups to see where we can cooperate, exchange ideas and thoughts.

Question: Right. But can you at least acknowledge that there are, when you think of a post-Saddam Iraq, that there are elements within the country themselves that perhaps nobody knows about that would have to be taken into consideration and --

Question: Without trying to get into the area of the hypothetical, I am sure there are many Iraqis who could be strong leaders and could act responsibly for the good of their nation, for the good of the people of Iraq. That has never been in doubt. Our concerns have not been with the people of Iraq and we want to do whatever we can to help the people of Iraq. They are the ones that have suffered the most under the tyranny of Saddam Hussein's regime. They are the ones, many of his own people, who have been gassed, who have been subject to attacks with chemical weapons, for instance, as well as other countries who have come under those attacks throughout the period of Saddam's scourge.

So certainly, it is the people of Iraq who will benefit the most from a change of regime there. That has been our policy and will continue to be our policy as we keep all of our options on the table and continue talking with Iraqi opposition leaders, as well as with friends and allies around the world.

Question: Just one more. If you say that there are obviously, or you believe there to be lots of people that would make good leaders in Iraq, how are you expecting to reach these people and work with the opposition that's outside of the country in determining --

Mr. Reeker: We are working with the opposition outside of the country. Those are the types of people that are coming to our meetings.

Question: But don't you think that some people are being left -- when you talk about a post-Saddam Iraq, that obviously isn't a huge population that not only would benefit from a post-Saddam Iraq, but could help take part in such a regime. Aren't they being left out of the equation?

Mr. Reeker: In terms of that type of thing, I don't think that is something that I could discuss. And I think I have gone about as far as I can and have been pretty clear and discussed quite openly our contacts with Iraqi opposition.

Question: Phil, back to the $8 million, and I don't want to belabor this point, and I --

Question: You never want to belabor anything, but you do. (Laughter.)

Question: I never want to belabor. And also, I might add that I'm fully aware that this Administration never disagrees on anything internally. But --

Question: Thank you, Eli, for that fine point.

Question: But the $8 million that was on the table for the Iraqi National Congress, there was a stipulation, among other things, that if money could not be spent on the ground in Iraq, as I understand an information collection program --

Mr. Reeker: Yes, we did not offer to continue our funding of the Iraqi National Congress's Information Collection Program in the new $8 million agreement. That is correct. I think that is on the record about six times over the past many months that we have discussed this.

Question: Okay, absolutely. So now that the --

Mr. Reeker: Thank you. Since you're not belaboring the point --

Question: I'm not belaboring it, but now that the Information Collection Program, and I could not imagine it doing anything except for stuff on the ground in Iraq, is being funded, are we to assume that there's a change in U.S. policy, that you are now funding activities on the ground in Iraq?

Mr. Reeker: Eli, we are talking about a specific offer.

Question: Right.

Mr. Reeker: A cooperative agreement that covered a certain set of cooperation. And what that proposal was for was not reflective of any specific line of U.S. policy, it was reflective of our overall policy; that is, to engage with Iraqi opposition and do things where we can cooperate, continuing our support, for instance, for their newspaper, TV station, regional offices, things like that. That is what this cooperative agreement was about. The offer is still on the table. We haven't had a formal response from the INC. That is what we are awaiting and I don't think -- you know, if you want to talk to DOD about the specifics of their offers and plans with Iraqi opposition, including the INC, I'll let you talk to DOD about that.

Question: Well, I'm let me just -- I'm just asking a question about U.S. foreign policy.

Mr. Reeker: Exactly.

Question: Do we fund opposition activities on the ground in Iraq -- yes or no?

Mr. Reeker: I will let you talk to other agencies. I can talk to you about what the State Department is doing and what the State Department is offering, and those are the things that we have talked about here and talked about many times before.

Question: I thought the State Department determined foreign policy for the United States of America.

Mr. Reeker: We work very closely with all of the other agencies that are involved in national security and foreign policy under the President of the United States' direction.

Question: Well, I'll call up George W. Bush.

Mr. Reeker: Now. Who was next?

Elaine.

Question: I have a question on Saudi Arabia, if people are done with Iraq.

Mr. Reeker: Are we done with Iraq?

Question: Well, I have one more Iraq question, actually.

Mr. Reeker: Go ahead, Eli.

Question: Sorry. Today and yesterday were there -- did you -- were we meeting with oppositionists? Can you go over that at all? Are we meeting with -- I understand that there's a joint meeting later this week or maybe rescheduled for later, but then there were, I think, other meetings that were envisioned as sort of these working groups to talk about --

Mr. Reeker: Not that I have been informed. I would have to check.

Question: You can't -- okay. My understanding was that there were these meetings.

Mr. Reeker: Yes, Elaine.

Question: Can you say whether Secretary Powell has been in touch with the Saudi Government about the Defense Department briefing that describes Saudi Arabia as an enemy?

Mr. Reeker: Just to be quite clear, when you say Defense Department briefing, that was not in the capacity of a Defense Department briefing or a briefing like we do here. The views expressed by private individuals as outlined in a newspaper article today, and as the Defense Department has also told you, do not reflect the views of the President of the United States or of the U.S. Government.

Secretary Powell has assured the Saudi Foreign Minister of this in a telephone conversation this morning. As we have reiterated, the musings of private individuals do not reflect U.S. Government views or policies. And indeed, briefings by outside individuals are not reflective of views in the Department of Defense or the State Department or any part of the U.S. Government.

The United States and Saudi Arabia enjoy excellent relations. We share a broad array of interests, including a common vision of peace, stability and prosperity in the region. We are pleased that we have been able to expand this relationship to include common efforts against the threat of international terrorism. The Saudi Government has cooperated in the international campaign against terrorism and we welcome steps taken by Saudi Arabia to help combat the problem of terrorism financing, an important aspect of our war on terrorism globally.

As with any relationship, we have differences with the Saudis. We raise these differences, they raise their differences. We have private discussions at all levels, and then we work to resolve them. That is what diplomacy is about. But certainly these views that have been bantered about by certain individuals do not reflect the views of the President, nor of the U.S. Government, and the Secretary made that quite clear in his telephone conversation today.

Question: To the Foreign Minister, you say? Excuse me.

Mr. Reeker: Yes, Barry, that's what I said.

Question: Who took the initiative of the call this morning?

Mr. Reeker: I believe Secretary Powell called Foreign Minister Saud.

Question: And are we to -- did Powell call Foreign Minister Saud because --

Mr. Reeker: That's what I just said.

Question: I understand that, but did he call because of the Tom Ricks article in The Washington Post? Is that what prompted the phone call?

Mr. Reeker: They speak quite often, but I think he wanted to make quite clear that those views, as the Defense Department already had, that those views do not represent the views of the U.S. Government, that these musings of private individuals are not indicative of U.S. policy.

Question: So this wasn't a routine, how are you, foreign minister call; this was an FYI?

Mr. Reeker: I think they discussed a number of issues in terms of the bilateral relationship. We have a regular dialogue, including discussions about progress in the strategy on the Middle East process. As you know, we have met with Foreign Minister Saud and other Saudi officials, as well as other Arab leaders. They are taking their responsibilities that the President outlined in terms of working on this process, along with the Israelis, along with the Palestinians, along with others in the international community. So that is part of a regular dialogue they have. But in the phone call today, the Secretary did reiterate the points I just mentioned.

Joel.

Question: Phil, but you -- I mean, you talked about how we have the cozy relationship with the Saudis, but, you know --

Mr. Reeker: It's not the word I used, but go ahead.

Question: Well, no. But --

Mr. Reeker: You like paraphrasing.

Question: Excellent bilateral relations, et cetera. But if you look at what the Rand guy was talking about in this briefing, he didn't really use many facts that aren't well known, just the fact that -- and the State Department acknowledges this -- Saudi money has gone to fund the families of homicide bombers, that Saudi money does fund rather radical madrassas (inaudible) education throughout the world, and institutions that we ourselves want to see changing because we, I think, fear that there is a fueling of terrorism in those institutions, and yet --

Mr. Reeker: And your point is?

Question: Well, despite all this, is there at least a reevaluation that is going on within the State Department thinking about maybe this embrace of the Saudis is not the wisest thing for our foreign diplomacy?

Mr. Reeker: Again, I think your characterization of embraces or otherwise doesn't reflect the way diplomacy is conducted. We work with countries with which we have relationships. We have a broad array of interests. We sometimes have differences and we are able to discuss those differences because we have strong diplomatic relations. That is what that's about. That's how we can effect changes, how we can make our interests and our points known. We have discussed some of the concerns we have had in this regard. The Saudis have discussed some of these concerns.

We have worked with Saudi Arabia in terms of the financial aspects of the war on terrorism. We have provided expertise. We have had teams that have gone back and forth between our two countries on that, and they have -- we have indeed expanded our efforts in this regard in recent times. I think that is all part of the process of diplomacy and why it is important to have those channels at a variety of levels to make clear when we have differences and concerns and how we can work mutually to the benefit of both our countries and both our peoples.

Question: But how do they have a vision of peace if we know they're fueling terrorism?

Mr. Reeker: Again, you need to listen to what I've said.

Question: I'm listening.

Mr. Reeker: And you need to look at what we have been working on in the Middle East in terms of the Saudis taking an active role, meeting with the President and talking about the responsibilities they have and meeting those responsibilities and working with the parties in the Middle East to work toward the strategy that the President has enunciated on June 24th.

Question: And I get that, but the Saudi Committee for Support of the Intifada Al Quds, which is the one that did the telethon, which is giving the money to the families of the homicide bombers, is headed up by the Interior Minister, who is a member of the royal family.

Mr. Reeker: Joel, we have been through all of that. We have talked about before what the Saudi official government has said and steps they're taking to look into those things and steps they're taking to ensure that financing does not go to terrorists. And we will continue to work on those subjects.

So to go over it again here, I can just refer you back to what we have said before, what I have said now about how we work together with the Saudis to see that issues of concern to us are addressed, and that is what diplomacy is about and why we will continue to maintain our relations with Saudi Arabia and with so many other countries to look out for the interests of the United States and our people as we work together all around the world.

Question: One last follow-up. Other than the word of the Saudi Government, what assurances do we have that their money is no longer going into these --

Mr. Reeker: We watch these things very closely through a variety of mechanisms, most of which I am not in a position to share with you here.