US Department of State Daily Briefing #39:
Tuesday, 3/17/92
Tutwiler
Source: State Department Spokesman Margaret Tutwiler
Description: Washington, DC
Date: Mar, 17 19923/17/92
Category: Briefings
Region: MidEast/North Africa, Eurasia
Country: Iraq, Israel, USSR (former)
Subject: Military Affairs, Mideast Peace Process
11:58 A.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MS. TUTWILER: I don't have anything. Go.
[Israel: Reported Transfer of US Patriot Technology and
US Housing Loan Guarantees]
Q Earlier today the Secretary met Defense Minister Arens of
Israel. I'm
wondering if you could tell us whether the two discussed (a) the loan
guarantee issue,
and the possibility of a compromise on that, and (2) the alleged transfer
of U.S. technology to a third party?
MS. TUTWILER: I'm going to shock you and do exactly
what Minister Arens did, which is to describe this as a good meeting,
which it was, and a private meeting. Any further characterizations,
I won't do.
I will tell you that the two gentlemen met one-on-one,
no staff, no one in the room, and they met for, I believe, it's
approximately 45 minutes.
As we said yesterday, the Minister is here on a private
visit. They were meeting as colleagues and friends, and viewed it as
a private visit.
Q Margaret, a related question:
Minister Arens has repeated several times a denial that Israel sold
Patriots to China. That is what he chooses to deny. I wonder
whether he has told the Administration something further such as they
did not transfer technology from the Patriot to China?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't know. You would have to ask the
Minister.
Q Well, what I was asking is what he's told you. Because he's
told
the world one
thing, which is answering a question which is not particularly interesting,
and I
would think that the Administration would want answers to other
questions.
MS. TUTWILER: What I'm not going to do is have a
further characterization of his meeting this morning with the
Secretary other than to characterize it as private and a good
meeting.
Q Margaret, do you have anything further on the team
that is going over to Israel to inspect the Patriot batteries?
MS. TUTWILER: Yes. I don't have a name for you today
of who is going to be heading the team or at what level.
Hopefully, I can have that for you tomorrow. People are still
working on this. But I can tell you that the team will have
representatives from the Department of State who will lead the
team and will have technical experts from the Department of
Defense and embassy staff.
We expect that the team will be in Israel by the end of
this week and would complete their mission within a few days and
return.
Q What is that mission? Could you elaborate --
MS. TUTWILER: Excuse me?
Q Could you enunicate their mission?
MS. TUTWILER: Yes. I announced yesterday, in response
to a question I was asked, that Israel has agreed to a team of
U.S. experts to travel to Israel to ensure that there are not
any misunderstandings on technology transfer questions,
including those on the Patriot missile. We welcome this Israeli
gesture which is in keeping with the strong ties between our two
countries. That's what I said yesterday.
Q Can we just follow that up a little bit? Is this
an explanatory mission that is going to go to Israel and say,
look, we just want to go through these rules and regulations
again to make sure you understand the nuance? Or is it a team
that's actually going to go over and investigate? Are you
looking for information or giving information?
MS. TUTWILER: The best way to describe this at this
point is in the language that I used yesterday that I repeated
to Barry now. It's something that we welcome. I will,
hopefully, be able to be more forthcoming when the team returns.
As you've noticed even today, I can't even tell you
who's leading the team or at what level, which you asked
yesterday. I think that this is something that's best, right
now, if I just leave the characterizations that have already
been formulated.
Q But, Margaret, wouldn't you agree that a few days
is insufficient time to conduct an investigation?
MS. TUTWILER: I couldn't draw that conclusion, Mark.
I'm not a technical expert. I don't know what a normal mission
of this type, what length of time it takes.
I assume that the experts who I talked with this
morning do know and that they know the amount of time it will
take them to ascertain what it is they'd like to ascertain and
discuss. So that's why I'm telling you that we would envision
they would be back in a few days.
Q Could we assume that the people who will be going
there, the persons will be from the political-military affairs
department -- the office of Richard Clarke -- or higher ups?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't know the level, and I don't know
the specific office that the State Department representative
will be from who is leading this mission. I just don't have
that information yet.
Q Will the team be able to discuss everything
related to technology transfer, possibly reviewing all of the
elements?
MS. TUTWILER: No, they will not. They will be doing
just one thing.
Q Margaret, you described Baker and Arens as good
friends.
MS. TUTWILER: They are.
Q There's been a swirl of allegations about Israeli
technology -- U.S.-supplied -- going elsewhere illegally. If
you or Mr. Baker knew any of these allegations to be patently
false, would you just let them hang out there or would you deny
them?
MS. TUTWILER: What we're not doing, Barry -- and I'm
sorry that you weren't here yesterday because we spent about 52
minutes on this --
Q I was listening to Mr. Arens.
MS. TUTWILER: I understand. I went through this at
quite some length yesterday, and the Administration's position,
since this is not a final report, since this report is due out
in two weeks --
Q I don't mean just the Patriot --
MS. TUTWILER: -- we're not commenting on it. There
are wild allegations out here. There are all kinds of stories
out here, etc., and our position, to date, has been -- last week
and this week, and I don't know any reason it's going to change
today -- that we are not going to comment one way or the other
on a report that has not even been sent forward in final form to
the Deputy Secretary of State or to the Secretary.
Q Could you tell us anything about what might be
going on internally in the building so far as any policing of
leaks? Is there any?
MS. TUTWILER: Policing of leaks? I'm not exactly --
Q Well, I don't want to invite your own comments.
You make your own statements.
MS. TUTWILER: I did this also yesterday.
Q Well, fine.
MS. TUTWILER: I don't know how you would police leaks.
If somebody has an answer to that --
Q I'm not saying that you should. I'm just asking
you if you think, as some reports have suggested, that there is
a school -- that the bureaucracy, as always, doesn't have a
consistent view of Israel.
Is it possible that within the Department there are
people trying to injure Israel by releasing information that you
would describe as a wild allegation?
MS. TUTWILER: Number 1 -- and I'm not trying to cut
you off -- I did do this at quite some length yesterday.
Q It will go on for some time, I think.
MS. TUTWILER: Number 2, I don't know. You say "the
leaks from this Department." I don't know where these leaks are
coming from.
Q I don't know. I'm asking you if you folks are
trying to find out if there is an element in this building that
would like to injure Israel with what you call, in another
context, "wild allegations?"
MS. TUTWILER: I know of no investigation in this
building, if that is your question, concerning these leaks. I
know of no call that I am aware of for an FBI investigation of
this. I do not know of anyone that is investigating this in
this building.
But, again, I go back to what I just said: I don't
assume that these leaks are from this building. I don't know
where these leaks are from. They could well be from individuals
in this building, who I characterized yesterday -- whoever these
individuals are -- as irresponsible.
I do not know what building or what agency or what
department all of these leaks, Barry, -- these and others -- are
coming from. I don't know.
Q So far as Mr. Clarke, who runs political-military
affairs, is the Secretary satisfied Mr. Clarke has been doing a
good job?
MS. TUTWILER: I answered this yesterday. I did all
this yesterday.
Q Can I ask a related question? Is it still the
Secretary's position that any loan guarantee arrangements would
necessarily involve a freeze on new Israeli settlements in the
occupied territories?
MS. TUTWILER: Let me help you on this. Contrary to
some reporting this morning about where the Administration is or
is not, or has or has not been over the weekend:
Since January, we have been negotiating with members of
Congress to design a loan guarantee proposal that would meet
Israeli needs and be consistent with long-standing United States
policy.
We believe that if the United States is to provide $10
billion in new loan guarantees to Israel, we must have
assurances that these funds will be used consistent with U.S.
policy. Each proposal that has been submitted to us by the
Congress fails to meet that basic requirement.
Over the weekend, we submitted a detailed proposal
which would provide loan guarantees to the government of Israel
conditioned on the requirement that there be no new housing
construction beyond what is already underway.
The proposal we submitted is fair and it is balanced.
We will not accept any proposal by the Congress which fails to
meet this fundamental test. It must be consistent with United
States policy since 1967 that settlements are an obstacle to
peace.
We would like to find a way to provide loan guarantees
on the basis of long-held U.S. policy positions. As all of you
know, the President and the Secretary of State are meeting later
this afternoon with Senator Kasten and Senator Leahy, and they
will continue these discussions at that meeting.
Q Well, Margaret, the Israeli Defense Minister,
among others, has said that it would be unacceptable to the
Israeli Government that there be any freeze on settlements
imposed by the United States in connection with the loan
guarantees or anything else.
In light of those statements, which I'm sure you've
seen, do you now consider -- and in light of what you just said
-- do you now consider the loan guarantee proposal to be a dead
horse?
MS. TUTWILER: I can't make that deduction. Why in the
world would the President of the United States and the Secretary
be meeting, at the request of Senator Leahy, to continue these
discussions this afternoon at 4:30?
Q (Inaudible) wrong this afternoon?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't ever do predictions. I have no
way of foretelling or crystal-balling what will come out of that
meeting. I don't know.
Q Is there anything in this weekend proposal that
represents a climb-down or an alteration in the Administration's
position?
MS. TUTWILER: The Administration's position, as I've
just stated, has been consistent. And I would refer you back to
two particular, and I believe in four public testimonies held
last month, the Secretary of State articulated that position.
Q So, in other words, what they came back with this
weekend is the same thing -- almost the same exact language that
they've been proposing all along.
MS. TUTWILER: I've just stated what our views are, and
I believe they used many of the same phrases and words that the
Secretary used in public testimony.
Q Can you give your position on two American
companies who are building 6,500 residential units in the
occupied territories between this year and next year and
spending $800 million on land which is occupied? Do you have
any thoughts about American companies involved in construction?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't know anything about --
Q Can you take the question, if it's possible?
MS. TUTWILER: I'll be happy to look into it. I don't
know anything about it. Yes, Saul.
Q Margaret, I don't see where the Israelis figure in
this dialogue that's been going on. You say there's been
negotiations between the Secretary and the Administration and
Leahy/Kasten, and Leahy/Kasten will come back with their
proposals. But I don't see where you've been talking to the
Israelis.
MS. TUTWILER: As you know, the Secretary has had a
number of meetings with Ambassador Shoval here in Washington.
Since the last time they met, there are experts in our building
who have been talking to experts not only in their Embassy here
but with experts in their government in Israel. So those
conversations have continued.
Q Well, this last proposal that was made by the
Secretary to Kasten/Leahy, has that been turned down by the
Israelis or Kasten/Leahy, or who? Where does that stand?
MS. TUTWILER: As I think you're aware, right now -- up
until now -- the Administration and the Hill have been in
discussions working on various drafts and various proposals.
Q But have the Israelis specifically turned down
this proposal? Or have they come up through Kasten/Leahy with
another proposal?
MS. TUTWILER: You should more appropriately refer your
questions concerning the Israelis views of this process to the
Israeli Government.
I have stated that we have stayed in contact; that we
have stayed in communication. And during this particular phase
of this, the Administration has been working to the best of
their ability quietly, very hard on trying to work something out
with the Hill.
Q Is there going to be -- do you foresee the
possibility that there's still time for a markup on the Foreign
Aid Bill?
MS. TUTWILER: That would be more appropriately asked
up on the Hill. I don't have an answer to that.
Q Well, they claim not, unless they get some sort of
go-ahead from the Administration on the possibility that they
can sort of do it on their own as a piece of legislation.
MS. TUTWILER: Maybe they'll be discussing that with
the President this afternoon.
Q What?
MS. TUTWILER: Maybe they will be discussing that with
the President this afternoon.
Q What is the position since -- if that doesn't
happen, if there is no Foreign Aid Bill and just a continuing
resolution, what happens to the $12 billion that the
Administration would like to see in IMF money and other kinds of
aid?
MS. TUTWILER: That's a very good question.
Q They tell me on the Hill that you don't seem to
care about that.
MS. TUTWILER: Well, that's not the view that the
President expressed last Friday in his press conference, and
your question, though, is premised on a hypothetical and a
conclusion that I don't have yet; and I cannot answer and
speculate with you "what if" and what takes place this afternoon
and what the Hill decides, what the President decides, what goes
on in that meeting, because you're right, whatever decisions do
come out of that does definitely affect other things, and we're
just going to have to wait and see.
Q Margaret, two things --
Q Will there be -- do you know if there's going to
be anything definitive from this meeting today --
MS. TUTWILER: No.
Q -- or are we just going to go on and on --
MS. TUTWILER: Johanna just asked me that. How can I
prejudge it. I don't know.
Q Well, one way or the other, is there going to be
anything on --
MS. TUTWILER: I don't know.
Q Margaret, the Israelis say this is a humanitarian
issue, and it's being mixed with policy. You gave two
considerations in discussing the situation. Can we say now that
the Administration acknowledges that they're linking a
humanitarian issue with their settlements policy -- with your
settlements policy?
MS. TUTWILER: I would refer you back to hours worth of
public testimony where the Secretary of State has over and over
and over again answered that question and questions very similar
to it. Nothing has changed concerning our views and our policy.
Q Do you mean they're linked or they're not linked?
MS. TUTWILER: I refer you back to his testimony on his
answers to those exact types of questions.
Q Well, I don't want to go back. I want to take up
with you today --
MS. TUTWILER: Well, then I'll get it for you right
after the briefing.
Q No. Don't get me it. Don't get me it. I can
find it as easily as you can. Today, when this issue is ripe
and there's about to be a White House meeting, you mentioned the
two considerations: trying to provide a loan under
circumstances, and U.S. policy on settlements. Aren't you
linking the two?
MS. TUTWILER: On that specific, literal question, I
will be happy to have someone get you the record of how he has
answered that question. Our statement today does take into
effect, and you know -- and the Secretary has articulated in
testimony that in his view -- you may disagree with it -- that
this Administration has done, if not more, at least as much as
other Administrations on our concern about Israeli absorption.
He has laid out publicly two proposals, if you recall,
in public testimonies, and he said the choice is Israel's. He
said we are for humanitarian assistance on this issue. However,
he has also very straightforwardly articulated United States'
policy since 1967 concerning our view and our policy on
settlements.
Q So they're linked? Is that your answer?
MS. TUTWILER: My answer is --
Q I know you care --
MS. TUTWILER: -- I will refer you to the record.
Q You don't have to rehearse all the aid the U.S.
has given Israel. We know that. I'm asking you if you're
linking --
MS. TUTWILER: I wasn't -- I didn't mention that.
Q Well, you're telling me, you know, how concerned
the U.S. is about absorption. The Israelis know you're
concerned. They say you're linking a humanitarian issue --
MS. TUTWILER: I understand that.
Q -- to a territorial issue. Are you?
MS. TUTWILER: I've just answered your question the way
I'm going to consistently answer your question which is on that
specific, literal [question], I refer you to his public
testimony. I have answered, paraphrasing portions of his
testimony, to the best of my memory.
Q All right. The other thing is the Ambassador of
Israel at a panel discussion yesterday said something I hadn't
heard before, and I wondered if Israel had made this -- had said
this in its negotiations with the U.S. -- that if the loan went
through and for other financial reasons within a few years they
would assume they'd no longer have to ask the United States for
economic aid. They would still require military aid, but their
situation -- their economic situation would be improved to the
extent that they thought that it would be very likely in a few
years down the road they would no longer have to ask for
economic aid.
Have the Israelis made that argument?
MS. TUTWILER: That's the first I've heard of it. But
I want to be fair to the Ambassador. Maybe he has mentioned
that here to --
Q Maybe it's a new conclusion, but I wondered if
they've used it --
MS. TUTWILER: I just don't know.
Q -- in their argument.
MS. TUTWILER: I've never heard of that, and maybe he
has mentioned that here to -- he talks to people in this
building all the time, and maybe they're well aware of it. I
just simply am not. I've never heard of it.
Q Margaret, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm
under the impression that, in fact, the settlements being an
obstacle to peace has not been U.S. policy since 1967. That
from 1967 until 1982, the United States believed that
settlements were illegal, and that in 1982 the softer formula
came about after President Reagan misspoke.
MS. TUTWILER: That is not my understanding, and some
of your colleagues here are saying that I am correct. So I will
be happy to get you the entire record since 1967 from the
experts. But that is not my understanding.
Q That would, in fact, be very helpful.
MS. TUTWILER: Well, it's probably all public
knowledge, so I don't know how fast -- to be honest with you,
people here are really, really busy right this minute -- they
can pull it out for you.
Q It would be very helpful.
Q Margaret, are they illegal -- the settlements now?
Are they illegal?
MS. TUTWILER: You know the Bush Administration has not
taken -- as you know, the Carter Administration, which is what
Jan was talking about, called them illegal. The Reagan
Administration said they were not, and the Bush Administration
has refused for three years and now three months to say whether
they are either legal or illegal. That hasn't changed today.
Q Margaret, in the territories -- while you are in
the territories, can you confirm that the next peace round of
talks or next round of peace talks will be the 27th of April in
Washington?
MS. TUTWILER: That's the first I've heard of that
date.
Q And can you comment or do you have any thoughts
about the proposed establishment of a confederation between the
Palestinians and Jordan?
MS. TUTWILER: That is something, as you know, that has
been talked about for years. That idea has been around for a
long time, and our position is that those types of formulas or
ideas are what are to be worked out in negotiations. We don't
take a stand or a view on it.
[Former Soviet Union: Status of Nuclear Weapons Transfers to Russia]
Q Margaret, trying to keep to your 12:30 --
MS. TUTWILER: Thank you.
Q -- if I can, lots of things are going on in the
former Soviet Union.
MS. TUTWILER: Yes, they are.
Q They don't seem to be going according to U.S.
hopes and script. One is -- one results in my asking you
whether the U.S. is still confident that all tactical nuclear
weapons will be in Russia's hands by the spring?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't know any reason, Barry, to doubt
that that has changed. If you look at various officials who
have spoken over the last 36 hours, that would tend to lead you
to believe there is no change in that. You know that they're
meeting, I believe, this Friday, the 20th, in Kiev, to have
further discussions along -- about military matters. I don't
have an agenda or know everything they're going to discuss, and
so I don't have any reason to believe or that we've seen any
signs that there's been a change.
Q Are you disappointed by Mr. Yeltsin setting up his
own Defense Ministry and apparently his own army?
MS. TUTWILER: I did this yesterday, too.
Q You did that yesterday? All right.
[Israel: US Investigation/Visit by Experts]
Q Margaret, can I get back just to one thing: On
the Patriot investigation, which you're apparently acknowledging
for the first time today --
MS. TUTWILER: No, I did that yesterday. [Laughter]
MS. TUTWILER: You all should have been here yesterday.
It was a big day.
Q Probably a hell of a day. [Laughter]
MS. TUTWILER: We covered a lot.
Q Well, I was here -- yes, I read the transcript
yesterday, but what you're saying is that these people are going
to investigate the Patriot, as well as other issues.
MS. TUTWILER: No, I just said the opposite. Here is
what I said yesterday --
Q All right. All right.
MS. TUTWILER: -- and here's what I said today: It's
literal, O.K.? Israel has agreed to a team of U.S. experts to
travel to Israel to ensure that there are not any
misunderstandings on technology transfer questions, including on
the Patriot missile. We welcome this Israeli gesture, which is
in keeping with the strong ties between our two countries.
When I was asked, "Is this going out there to discuss
other subjects which you know are also on the agenda here," I
said no, it's not. And I said they'd be back in a few days, and
I think they're leaving at the end of this week. And I don't
know who's going to head the team yet.
Q The Israelis in public and in private and in
meetings with the Administration have vociferously denied these
allegations. I'm interested to know whether it's the intent --
aside from the Inspector General's report -- whether it's the
intent of this Administration, of the Government, of the State
Department, to find out one way or the other and publicize the
truth of this allegation?
MS. TUTWILER: Well, sure.
Q I mean, so you're promising Israel that you're
going to find out one way or the other and make it public.
MS. TUTWILER: I don't know if we've promised Israel.
You're asking me a simple question --
Q Well, you're promising us --
MS. TUTWILER: -- if for no other fact that you'll
continue to ask me every day when the team returns, "What did
they find?" I imagine we're going to have, you know, some type
of answer.
Q But it's not just this team, as I understand it,
that's been charged with taking a look at it --
MS. TUTWILER: This team is Patriot-specific.
Q I see.
MS. TUTWILER: That is what you're asking -- I believe
-- I think you're asking me. The IG report, I have said, will
be public -- the public part of it, in probably two weeks, with
the classified annex. I said we'd be happy to discuss and try
to answer your questions on the public portion of it.
Obviously, we can't on the classified portion of it.
Q Margaret, you've got me a little confused now on
this team.
MS. TUTWILER: I'm sorry.
Q The language you just read, which you used
yesterday, said --
MS. TUTWILER: Correct.
Q -- technology transfers, including Patriot
missiles.
MS. TUTWILER: Right.
Q You've now, I think, a couple of times said that
this would be limited to Patriot missiles. Is it going to go
into other technology transfers, such as, the Jericho II, etc.?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't know anything about the Jericho
II, but my understanding this morning, when asking the very
question that I keep getting asked, "Is this part of, or are
they going to have as their mandate part of the IG ongoing --
this investigation has not concluded." The answer I get is no;
that it is not. That it is going to deal with the Patriot leak
issue that came up and the team returns. That's my answer from
a number of people that I've asked this morning.
Q That's narrower than what you said yesterday.
MS. TUTWILER: I understand that.
Q But what you just read is broader than that.
MS. TUTWILER: I understand that.
Q Well, then what does it mean?
Q We'll take either one. We don't care.
MS. TUTWILER: I would go with what I am verbally
saying as explanations that people here have given me. Now, I
can't say that the experts, if they're there, someone wants to
discuss something else, that they say, "Oh, no, I'm so sorry.
We can't possibly."
So, I mean, probably that is why -- and this is very
worked-on language that was worked at, so that is why this is
reading the way that it is reading. O.K.? And I'm not going to
change a word of it.
Q But you intend that a conclusion one way or
another is going to be reached and become known.
MS. TUTWILER: I don't know. I mean, they haven't
left. I can't even tell you who the head is. I mean, I don't
-- how do I know?
Q Is this an inspection visit or investigation?
MS. TUTWILER: It's what I've said it is.
Q Margaret, is this something that the U.S. has to
undertake by law --
MS. TUTWILER: Excuse me?
Q Is this something the Administration has to do by
law under the Export Control Act as opposed to Israel suggesting
or --
MS. TUTWILER: I don't know. I didn't ask that
question. I'll be happy to ask if it's something we're legally
obligated to do. I don't know.
Q Margaret, the --
MS. TUTWILER: No one's ever -- excuse me. No one's
ever raised that and said, "We're doing this, because we have to
under the law," so I don't know.
Q The Patriot is a new allegation. Can we draw from
the rather narrow nature of this upcoming trip that the
technology transfer issues that were raised in the IG's
investigation have already been aired with the Israelis and
discussed?
MS. TUTWILER: I have said, I believe, yesterday that
-- I can't remember what I said. Wait a second.
Q Probably the truth.
MS. TUTWILER: It's always the truth. That's why I'm
so careful.
Q I read what you said yesterday --
MS. TUTWILER: I know, and I'm trying to remember.
Wait one second. I'm trying to remember. I'm going to take
your question. I don't want to answer this without checking on
at what point -- since this is not a finished investigation --
at what point did we or did we not, as a Government, talk to the
Israelis. So let me just take your question, okay, so that I
answer it literally and accurately.
Q This is not -- this does not involve the IG,
though. Is that correct?
MS. TUTWILER: This?
Q Right.
MS. TUTWILER: Correct.
Q This team is not connected to the IG. The IG is
totally separate.
MS. TUTWILER: That is my understanding of this, and,
in fact, yesterday we posted at the end of the briefing -- I'll
read it for you -- a statement, because I was asked many of
these questions. I believe it was Chris who kept asking me
yesterday about OIG teams, and we gave you the answer yesterday
that OIG teams are routinely sent out to facilities overseas to
conduct audits and inspections.
However, the Office of the Inspector General is not
involved with the planned travel of U.S. experts to Israel to
review technology transfer issues, including the Patriot
missile.
Q Well, is it fair, then, to assume that this
upcoming trip of these experts, about which you've been talking
this morning, has to do with the fact that there were stories
made public about technology transfer and is a reaction to those
stories?
MS. TUTWILER: My understanding is that this mission,
this team, is specific. If you remember, there have been a
number of irresponsible leaks over the last several days.
Q I just call them stories. You call them
"irresponsible leaks."
MS. TUTWILER: Leaks. Right. I call them
irresponsible leaks. And so it's my understanding that this
mission is a mission specific. But could, yes, they discuss
other things, because, as you know, there are other additional
leaks.
Q Then my question --
MS. TUTWILER: Yes, I guess they could. But our report
is not a final report yet.
Q My question really goes to the reason for sending
this team. Would you have sent this team if that hadn't become
public -- if those stories hadn't appeared, or whatever you call
them -- leaks, was it?
MS. TUTWILER: I'll be happy to look into that for you.
[Turkey: Violence in Istanbul]
Q Margaret, violence in Istanbul. Is there any -- I
see travel advisories come out with a greater frequency than
ever, and you had one about East Jerusalem the other day. There
has been a lot of -- what am I trying to say -- crime, attacks
-- I don't know what you call it.
MS. TUTWILER: Crime in Istanbul?
Q Well, they seem to be fundamentalist-linked. And
I wondered if the Administration has any special concern about
what's going on, as Turkey tries to hold the line against
fundamentalism?
MS. TUTWILER: My understanding, Barry, on this bomb
this morning is that no one's claimed responsibility for it, and
that it was detonated, indeed, in the police headquarters
offices, and that no one was -- I believe I'm correct -- no one
was hurt. This morning there were early reports on a network --
American network, saying that so and so had claimed
responsibility. It's our understanding we have no evidence of
someone claiming responsibility.
Q That's what I meant.
Q Thank you.
MS. TUTWILER: Thank you all.
(The briefing concluded at 12:28 p.m.)