Judy Boucher Welcome To My World Mp3 Download ##TOP##

Get lyrics of Judy boucher welcome to my world song you love. List contains Judy boucher welcome to my world song lyrics of older one songs and hot new releases. Get known every word of your favorite song or start your own karaoke party tonight :-).

Get lyrics of If it is love my dear welcome to my world and let us share a good time together song you love. List contains If it is love my dear welcome to my world and let us share a good time together song lyrics of older one songs and hot new releases. Get known every word of your favorite song or start your own karaoke party tonight :-).

Judy Boucher Welcome To My World Mp3 Download

Download 🔥 https://urloso.com/2y4Dor 🔥

12:30 p.m. EST MR. BOUCHER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I don't have any statements or announcements at this moment, so I'd be glad to take your questions. QUESTION: Have you seen Governor Ridge's comments about the need to legalize undocumented aliens, and do you have any observations? MR. BOUCHER: I really don't have any further comments, in addition to what the White House has already said. I think Scott McClellan talked about it this morning. Obviously, we're all interested in a safe, orderly and legal process of migration, and that's something the Administration has been working on. QUESTION: North Korea. What is the status of U.S. food aid contributions to -- for North Korea? I believe that so far it's only been 40,000 metric tons, and you had the oppor -- the possibility of contributing an additional 60, if you felt satisfied with the monitoring mechanisms, and so on. Has it gone up from 40? Are you going to give any more? Have they made any progress on monitoring? MR. BOUCHER: That's an issue that we're still considering. As you know, North Korea has not allowed the World Food Program access to all the vulnerable North Koreans and has restricted, in many ways, the World Food Program's ability to monitor the distribution of food aid. That's been a concern throughout the year. At this point, we have made no decision on additional U.S. food aid for North Korea, nothing -- nothing new to announce, and we're considering that extra chunk of 2003 assistance right now in deciding what we ought to do -- what we ought to do with it by the end of the calendar year. QUESTION: Do you think that -- well, have you seen any progress at all on the monitoring issues that you raised there? And do you think, given that the World Food Program is having to cut its rations, that you might consider actually coming up with the additional aid, even if there hasn't been progress? MR. BOUCHER: Those are all issues that we need to consider now, whether there has been progress at all, or whether, in some way, we're in a position to know where the food goes. And when we look at food aid to North Korea, we look at three things: One is the need established by the World Food Program. And they've come out, I guess, with a new appeal for 2004. The second is competing needs elsewhere. That's always a factor, as we consider how much we can make available. And the third is this issue of ensuring that food reaches those people to whom it's intended. So at this point, we're looking at the 2004 field, but also still now considering what to do about the prospect of the additional food that we could have made available in 2003, if those conditions had been satisfied earlier. So we'll have to decide, at this point, whether we go ahead or not. QUESTION: So you're holding open the possibility of something happening between now and the end of the year -- or wouldn't North Korea have to do something? MR. BOUCHER: I'm holding open the possibility that we'll make a decision between now and the end of the year. Which way that decision will go, I just don't -- can't predict, at this point. QUESTION: But would North Korea have to do something to meet your concerns? MR. BOUCHER: Well, certainly anything that North Korea would do to improve the monitoring, to improve the ability of the World Food Program and other donors to understand where the food goes, if the food goes to people who need it, would be welcome even at this late date. But the kind of questions your colleague raised about, you know, "Has there been any progress? Is there a way to monitor shipments? Is there a desperate need that sort of overrides the problems with the monitoring arrangement?" Those things are being looked at now. QUESTION: Richard, speaking of late dates. The days are slipping by and there doesn't seem to be, yet, any progress on coming up with a date for the six-party talks. Is it safe to assume that if an agreement on the date hasn't been reached by the end of this -- by tomorrow or by Monday, that it will -- they will -- the talks will likely slip just for logistical reasons, perhaps, until January or February? MR. BOUCHER: When it's safe to assume that, we'll tell you when it's safe to assume that. I wouldn't assume that quite yet. QUESTION: You still think there's a chance? MR. BOUCHER: Yeah. We're, we're still willing to go. We're willing to go and we're willing to go to talks this month without any preconditions. We've made clear we think other parties, including North Korea, should be ready to do that as well, without preconditions. The diplomacy continues. We're in touch with other parties about the issues for the talks, and so we'll still have to see. I can't -- I can't tell you at this point that it's -- I guess I can tell you. It's still possible for this year. It's also possible it'll slip into next year. QUESTION: But you do acknowledge that time is running out? MR. BOUCHER: I do acknowledge that time is -- time waits for no man. QUESTION: Have you heard back from the North Koreans at all? MR. BOUCHER: I don't -- I'm not going to give you an exact update on who's talked to whom recently, but we're in touch with the parties. As you know -- QUESTION: I didn't ask for an update. I just asked if you'd heard back from the North Koreans. MR. BOUCHER: If we'd heard from one particular party, I'm not going to be able to say. We're in touch with the parties; we're involved in these talks. QUESTION: New subject? MR. BOUCHER: Yes. QUESTION: On Iraq and the contract issue. I'm wondering now that, you know, the reaction has not exactly quelled, that it's still, there's still some anger. I note Chancellor Schroeder's words this morning, and the fact that even people like Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz's pals in the Neocon world, Mr. Crystal and Mr. Kagan, are saying that this whole thing was a blunder and that the decision should be reversed, that if this department at least is willing to concede that it was -- this issue was handled badly. MR. BOUCHER: I don't think it's the role of this Department to decide how others have done their work. For better or for worse, I think it's the role of this Department to make clear to other countries, as we are doing, that there's a good reason for this policy. The reason was explained again by the President this morning. There are indeed lots of different pots of money in Iraq that different countries will use in different ways, that different countries -- companies will do the work for in different ways. This particular pot of money has a certain set of rules attached to it and the reason for those rules was explained by the President this morning. Those who have stood up, those who have risked their lives deserve to get some priority when it comes to U.S. expenditures, and that's our view and that's what we're sticking to. That's what we're explaining to others. Subcontracting, other money, there will be opportunities for a lot of people. There's a lot of work to be done in Iraq. That's what we're explaining, and that's our policy. QUESTION: Two things on that, then, very briefly. You're saying that all 63 countries who are eligible for these prime contracts risked their lives? MR. BOUCHER: I'm saying that generally the people who stood up with the coalition took a stand. They stood with the United States at a time of danger. Many of them, some of them did risk their lives before and after the war, not all of them. But they did stand up and stood by the United States at a time of danger and peril. QUESTION: All right. Well, can you not at least admit that this has been a difficult process trying to explain what the policy is, why it was, and that it could have perhaps been happened betterly -- better? (Laughter.) Could have been handled in a better -- MR. BOUCHER: I would never admit that because it would be ungrammatically. (Laughter.) QUESTION: It could have been handled in a better way. I'm sorry. QUESTION: Do you concede that your question could have been phrased better? QUESTION: Yes, yes, it could. I don't know how that slipped out. I apologize. MR. BOUCHER: I don't -- we all do it. I do it. The -- I don't think that's the issue right now. I'm just not ready to do a post-mortem on something that's still unfolding. Teri. QUESTION: Can you talk about plans to have former Secretary Baker go out and whether or not -- there were comments yesterday from, I believe, Russia, maybe Germany, about how they -- this decision will definitely make them less willing to write off Iraq's debt, just as you're saying -- they've got to talk about it. MR. BOUCHER: We'll have to see how it unfolds. As you know, the Sec -- the President, excuse me, talked to several foreign leaders yesterday about Secretary Baker's trip, about the dead issues. We have already agreed with a great number of countries that restructuring of Iraq's debt is necessary in order to support Iraq's development. It's something that nations can do to help Iraq stand on its own two feet, and that's something we all have an interest in. Secretary Baker's travel, he'll leave on Monday for France, Germany, Italy, Russia and the UK. I think we'll be working with him. We'll be supporting him as he goes on this travel. QUESTION: But, to answer my question, you don't -- you're not linking what happened to anything Baker is going to now be up against? MR. BOUCHER: I'm sure Secretary Baker will get the questions on his trip, but let's see how it unfolds. QUESTION: With these -- with some of these countries being shut out of -- shut out of getting money from these prime contracts, I mean, they are going to be able to say that there's definitely cause and effect for more of the -- MR. BOUCHER: I mean, first of all, it's not shut out. It's -- QUESTION: For the prime contracts, though. MR. BOUCHER: For the prime contracts, yes, they're not going to get the prime contracts, but they're not shut out of the money. There are plenty of subcontractors. I cited yesterday already some of the existing contracts. The existing infrastructure contract has 151 subcontractors and 96 of those are Iraqis. So as this process unfolds in its reality, there will be work for many companies under these particular contracts, as well as work for many countries under other contracts and other funds that have been forthcoming from the international community at Madrid or that are based on Iraqi revenues and assets. QUESTION: Could you tell us if Secretary Powell had any more conversations after the one with Joschka Fischer yesterday regarding this? MR. BOUCHER: No. QUESTION: None? Nobody called? MR. BOUCHER: No, no that was it. QUESTION: Richard. MR. BOUCHER: Yeah. Adi. QUESTION: Related to the issue of debt release -- relief is, obviously, war compensation claims dating back to the 1991 war, specifically in reference to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. I know at the Madrid conference it was talked a little bit in terms of trying to make progress with those two countries to do away, or at least make arrangements for those war compensation claims related to debt relief. Has -- can you give us an update on that? Where does that stand now? MR. BOUCHER: I'm not sure there's anything new at this moment. The initial resolutions after the war addressed that issue to some extent, but we all recognize it's still an issue that we all need to look at together. It is something that we have discussed with other partners. But at this point, I don't have any resolution to the -- how it will be handled in the end. Yeah. Elise. QUESTION: Kofi Annan in Europe is calling for the U.S. to rescind the decision on the contracts. And yesterday, I don't know if he meant to imply this, but Secretary Rumsfeld said that this is an expanding list of countries. Is there any decision, or maybe not decision, but thought by the Administration that maybe this isn't going over so well, you know, trying to see how you can expand now the -- MR. BOUCHER: Well, I made the point yesterday, I think, that we have, in fact, increased the eligibility for these contracts. We've expanded the eligibility for prime contracts to the coalition. That's the essence of what this move was. We have also made clear that circumstances can change, and that the list of eligibility could change as circumstances change, so it's not -- it's not fixed in stone. There are opportunities for others to participate, and, as Secretary Rumsfeld said, it could expand. We'll just have to see how circumstances might change. QUESTION: But when you say that it could change if circumstances change, do you mean that if some of these countries support the reconstruction effort that that might change, or do you think that there's any chance that the Administration would rethink its position and have this list a little bit more open? MR. BOUCHER: We've talked in terms of joining or participating more in various aspects of the effort in Iraq, and that that might change the circumstances of the list. QUESTION: Do they have to risk their lives? MR. BOUCHER: I don't have precise criteria at this moment, but we've made clear we're willing to take into account what other people do. QUESTION: Well, the President said that it involved risk of life. MR. BOUCHER: Yes, he did. QUESTION: Then isn't that the parameter? MR. BOUCHER: He didn't say that those -- he said that was the basis for what we've done. I don't remember the President establishing criteria for future adjustments. Excuse me. QUESTION: Bless you. MR. BOUCHER: Sorry. Let's work our way to the back. Christophe. QUESTION: The part from the question of debt, debt relief, do you expect Secretary Baker to discuss also other Iraq-related issues such as the timetable for the political transition or more NATO involvement in this country? MR. BOUCHER: Secretary Baker obviously knows a lot about our policies and U.S. foreign policy, but the mission that he has embarked upon, I think, is primarily -- is to discuss the issue of debt relief. So we do not intend to raise other issues as far as I know. Okay. Let's go there. QUESTION: Mr. Boucher. MR. BOUCHER: Lambros. QUESTION: Why from the famous Wolfowitz memo of December 5th on contracts eligible to compete for contracts funded with U.S. appropriated funds for Iraq reconstruction excluded Greece and the Republic of Cyprus, despite the fact that both countries participated in the Iraqi war? MR. BOUCHER: The list that we discussed very extensively yesterday was an inclusive list of countries who had been identified as coalition members, and it didn't -- wasn't designed to exclude anybody. It was designed to include those who had stood by us as coalition members during the war. QUESTION: But Greece offered Souda base, Greece offered the airspace, Greece offered four islands. When your forces were stationed out of Turkey and wanted a permission to go via Turkey to the north of Iraq. Why, then, you did not take into consideration this offer? MR. BOUCHER: I can't explain the whole list in a memo that we didn't write. If you really want to go to that level of detail, you'll have to ask at the Pentagon. QUESTION: Oh, and incidentally, why in Turkey, Richard, twice with a big no, refused the use of Turkish soil and the -- by U.S. forces, including the airspace. Why this type of partiality? MR. BOUCHER: This is not an exercise in comparing countries. This is an exercise -- this was an attempt to identify the countries who had been a member of this -- of the coalition. There were, in fact, some countries who have contributed support for Iraq during the war, after the war, who were active in Iraq, but who, at one point or another, may have said, "I don't want to be listed among the coalition members." Well, they weren't listed and they're not listed now, and so each country's circumstances are different. But if you'll remember the whole history of our discussion, of who's in the coalition and who's not, it was always an issue where, to some extent, we'd let countries themselves not only decide what they would do, but decide how to make it public and how they would like to be described in public. QUESTION: But, Richard, it's a fair question that, I mean, what is the criteria for what makes a specific coalition member that would be on this list? I mean, some countries feel as if they did enough and you call them members of the coalition, but aren't open to contracts. So I mean, is it a first-tier member of the coalition or specific members that did -- MR. BOUCHER: The President and I both explained the general policy today. The President explained the policy today that led to people's inclusion on the list, the expansion of the list to 63 countries eligible for prime contracts. If you want more details on the specifics of a particular list in a particular memo, how that was executed, you'll have to talk to the authors of the memo. QUESTION: How do you respond you respond to the EU reaction today, which says that you should reverse your decision? MR. BOUCHER: Well, as people have noted, there have been others who have said the same thing. Once again, we're happy to explain why we did this, how we did this, and the fact that there is a lot of work to be done in Iraq and there will be a lot of companies from many, many nations involved in it. But the President restated our policy again this morning. QUESTION: Okay. On that, then, does that mean that you're flat-out -- you're flat-out saying that you're not going to rescind this decision, but that other countries may get -- may be added, right? MR. BOUCHER: I'd stick with what the President said. QUESTION: This decision is going to stand. The list could grow, but this decision -- MR. BOUCHER: The President said this is the decision we made; and this morning he was quite clear he's sticking to it. We've also made clear that circumstances can change with regards to the listing or the execution. QUESTION: Okay. QUESTION: Since you said this isn't -- this was an interagency decision, I don't think it's quite fair that you pass off some questions to the Pentagon, when surely you were in on all of it except perhaps the drafting of the memo. So why can't you explain some of the questions about why -- which countries are on the list? As another example, besides Greece, of course, there's Canada, who was very active in Afghanistan, and in some sense, them and Germany taking over some of the bases. Other countries have done things which freed up U.S. soldiers to go into Iraq. So they are saying, we are stalwart partners in the war on terror, even if we didn't, you know, set foot in Iraq for you. How do you explain that? I mean, the war on terror is supposedly everything, not just this location or that location, right? MR. BOUCHER: Yeah, but contracts for Iraq are contracts for Iraq. The President, once again, this morning, quite clearly stated that we included countries who had stood by us, who had put their lives at risk in regard to Iraq, for contracts involving U.S. funds for Iraq, in terms of the prime contractors. That's the basic criteria that we use. That's a criteria I think I have explained from here. QUESTION: I'm not sure where we left it yesterday, whether you were going to get more explanation on this national security paragraph in the memo, or did -- were you just going to leave that to DOD? MR. BOUCHER: I think that, again, is a paragraph in a memo that we didn't write and I'll have to let somebody else explain that. QUESTION: Right. But were you not -- you weren't explained while they were writing it, or that wasn't something that the State Department itself asked about when the memo was being drafted with you support and (inaudible)? MR. BOUCHER: That paragraph, in a Defense Department memo, if you want to ask about a particular paragraph in a particular memo, that other people wrote and other people signed, you'll have to ask them about it. QUESTION: Did the State Department ask about it when it was being drafted with your consultation? MR. BOUCHER: I'm not going to get into the interagency discussions? QUESTION: Well, Richard, how about this then? The State Department and its embassies and consulates abroad is the, you know, direct, the prime contact point for foreign governments when they have a question about U.S. policy. What exactly are you these countries when they call up and say, "Hey, what's going on with this security thing," you refer them to the Pentagon, or say, "Go ask Mr. Wolfowitz?" MR. BOUCHER: We're telling them what we're telling you, the rationale for the policy, the basis on which it was decided, and we're telling them what I told -- what we discussed at great length yesterday. This is not casting aspersions on other countries, as regards to security. This is saying that there are countries who stood up, who, as the President said, risked their lives to stand with us on a security issue in Iraq, and we think that they deserve some priority on the contracts. QUESTION: So if they have a specific question about why that -- why that language was used, you don't answer it, basically? MR. BOUCHER: We explain the basic rationale, we explained what it means as I've explained to you what it means. QUESTION: But it doesn't answer that question. MR. BOUCHER: It does answer the question. QUESTION: About the national security -- about the national security elements in this. MR. BOUCHER: I think we answered the question yesterday. I just answered it again today. The national security element is that there are countries that stood up in a positive way to help with our security and the security of all of us in Iraq by risking their lives, by standing up with the coalition, and that's a rational and solid security basis to say that we've included those countries in the list of prime contracts. QUESTION: But, Richard, there are some countries that didn't risk their lives. And there is, if I remember correctly, when we were all talking about who's going to contribute troops and everybody wanted to know who was going to contribute troops, you said, well, there are a lot of ways that countries can contribute, some with troops, some with other ways. MR. BOUCHER: We're back to where we started this discussion. There are many countries on the list who stood by us at a moment of danger, who identified themselves publicly with the coalition, who did, at that time, contribute in different ways. This is a list of the coalition members, and that's the basis on which it was published. Joel. QUESTION: Richard, yesterday was Human Rights Day throughout the world. And as of late, there are various officials, as well as, I guess you could say, left-wing or left-of-center type officials, ex-officials that have been talking to numerous think tanks, both in Europe and here in the United States. The Secretary tomorrow is going to talk, I believe, to other so-called left-wing or left-of-center groups from both the Palestinian and Israeli side. And also, the -- MR. BOUCHER: Let's get to the question here somewhere. I'm trying to -- it's hard to find it. QUESTION: Okay, the question is: Is there a subtle change in policy, whereas, before you have largely ignored some of these so-called think tanks, and they seem to now be getting a lot of these speakers and conducting forums? MR. BOUCHER: The simplest answer I can give you is no. We talk to all kinds of groups, all political persuasions in the United States. I send speakers out throughout the country. The Secretary speaks to a variety of groups. Look on our website. You'll see the incredible variety of groups that he himself has spoken to, as well as others. QUESTION: Richard, on the Middle East, yesterday -- and this went under the radar -- at least under my radar, at least. I was totally ignorant of it, until I heard it this morning, that the Secretary and Mr. Armitage met with the Egyptian Intelligence Chief yesterday? MR. BOUCHER: Yeah. QUESTION: Oh. QUESTION: Yeah. Any reason why that wouldn't have appeared on any schedule anyplace? Was it supposed to be a secret? And if it's not -- if it's not supposed to be -- MR. BOUCHER: It wasn't a secret. It just wasn't an announcement. QUESTION: If it's not supposed to be a secret, can you tell us what they talked about? MR. BOUCHER: There were meetings yesterday. Secretary Powell met with Egyptian Intelligence, Director of Intelligence, Omar Soliman. Deputy Secretary Armitage also met with him. In the course of these meetings, we discussed with him, really, a full range of regional issues. Obviously, the Israeli-Palestinian situation was one of our major issues, since the Egyptians, in particular, Mr. Soliman, have been very involved in trying to move progress down the roadmap, progress towards ending violence and getting back to a situation of reduced tensions where peace talks can proceed. So that's an issue we discussed at some length with him. We also discussed other issues in the region, including the situation in Sudan. We have expressed our strong support for Egypt's constructive efforts to promote peace in the region, and we place a high value on our strategic partnership with Egypt. Sorry, excuse me. Allergic to something up here today -- yeah, but you're five feet away, it's okay. We also raised concerns about human rights issues in some of these meetings. We talked about the state of emergency courts and how they're trying political dissidents. We have objected to Egypt's emergency law, and we also discussed then the general issue that the President has raised of moving towards democracy, the importance of standing up for democracy the way the President said in his speech when he said the great and proud nation of Egypt has shown the way toward peace in the Middle East and now should show the way towards democracy in the Middle East. So these are all issues that we continue to discuss with the Egyptian Government. They're all issues we continue to cooperate on and work closely with them, as we look forward to a visit by President Mubarak next year. QUESTION: Okay, and specifically on -- what -- how much of the discussion was about these talks that General Soliman was, as he's noted, was heavily involved in last week? I guess they ended on Sunday with the 12 Palestinian factions, and their proposal for a year-long, the alleged Egyptian proposal for a year-long truce and try -- and Egypt's trying to convince them to allow the PA to negotiate with Israel on their behalf. Are any of these -- does the U.S. think that any of these are good ideas? MR. BOUCHER: We have supported Egyptian efforts to achieve a ceasefire. We have supported Egyptian efforts to help increase and enhance the authority of the Palestinian Prime Minister and the Palestinian Authority. We have supported Egyptian efforts to reduce the violence, end the violence. We have said, however, that a ceasefire, in and of itself, doesn't resolve the problem. It needs to be a step on the way to ending the ability of terrorist groups to carry out the violence, and so that's a point that we always make as well. QUESTION: And that's a point that was made yesterday? MR. BOUCHER: Generally, yes. It didn't get into the specifics ins and outs of those talks, but did express our support for their efforts on trying to achieve a ceasefire and the need to work together to end the violence more fundamentally and permanently. QUESTION: Just a follow-up. Did the Egyptian Intelligence Chief give you any reason to be more hopeful than the fact that talks on the surface, at least, have failed, would indicate? I mean, is there anything else -- or was it just -- MR. BOUCHER: I don't -- I don't want to put words in his mouth, but none of us are making predictions at this point. We're just trying to work hard to end the violence, to keep people focused on the process ahead in the roadmap so that both sides understand they -- we expect them to move forward, and we expect, particularly, the Palestinians to move forward on the issue of ending the violence. We also have made clear to the Israelis, as the President has in his public statements, that they have obligations as well, and that we're looking for ways for the parties to move forward on the roadmap to produce some progress for the sake of the people on both sides. QUESTION: Can we just go back to where my first question was? Was there some reason why this was not -- I mean -- why no one knew about it except for the principals? I mean, why we weren't -- why that it was -- it was not known yesterday? MR. BOUCHER: I knew about it. I just didn't tell you. QUESTION: Oh, all right then. QUESTION: It was in The Week Ahead. QUESTION: But I'm just wondering if there was a specific reason why you were -- MR. BOUCHER: I'm not sure if it was in The Week Ahead, but that's off the record anyway. Some meetings we don't necessarily acknowledge in advance. We're happy to acknowledge them when they occur, but we don't necessarily call attention to them in advance. QUESTION: Was there any specific why you didn't want it well known, that you're aware of? MR. BOUCHER: We're happy to talk about it now that it's happened and that people are asking about it. QUESTION: Was it the Egyptian's request because he's the intelligence guy? MR. BOUCHER: Some meetings we don't publicize in advance. We generally make those decisions. This one we made on our own, that we just don't necessarily advertise every one of our meetings, even if we're happy to talk about them after they occur. QUESTION: Well, anyone else get -- any other secret meetings yesterday? (Laughter.) QUESTION: If you'd like to talk about it. MR. BOUCHER: Meaning secret meetings? QUESTION: Yes. MR. BOUCHER: You can't call a minute secret if we spend 10 minutes talking about it. QUESTION: No, I mean -- QUESTION: Did you have any today? QUESTION: -- that you want to talk about. No, but they're over. QUESTION: Richard, I think I know the answer to this, but I have been asked to ask. The President called Prime Minister Chretien this morning to say goodbye and Chreitien reported that the President told him that Canadians would be able to bid on Iraqi contracts. Now, I assume he's talking about the subcontracting process rather than the prime contract. Is that right? You don't know of any exceptions made? MR. BOUCHER: I don't know of any change at this moment, but you can check with the White House for a readout of that phone call. Yeah. QUESTION: You don't know about the famous Canadian exception? MR. BOUCHER: Yeah. QUESTION: Richard, the -- in The Federal Register there's a notice that the Secretary has decided to drop the travel restrictions on UNITA senior leadership and their families that date, I think, to '97. And I presume that this is because of the end of the civil war there. But could you just confirm why he decided to do this and why it took so long, because the civil war's been over since April? MR. BOUCHER: Let me check on that. I don't have my copy yet. Yeah. QUESTION: Richard, the last couple of days when you were talking about the Iraqi Governing Council's decision to expel the, the MEK, you said that the fighters are contained in camps. Does that mean that they are no longer filtering in and out of the camp, possibly in and out of Iran? And my second question is: Is there any evidence that of the 4,000, or so, fighters who are in the camps, that any of them in the past have been involved in attacks on Americans? MR. BOUCHER: The information, specific information, on sort of the fencing and how people are contained, I think you'll have to get from our military people, but I understand they are confined, contained in certain locations and that the processing is underway. We're looking at information they might have. We're looking at individuals and names. We're looking at questions such as whether any of them, specifically, might have committed crimes. As that process continues, I suppose we'll identify those who need to be referred to judicial or other processes. QUESTION: A follow-up. If -- I was curious as to why, when you said that you believed that there are high level members of al-Qaida being sheltered in Iran that you wouldn't be willing to, to swap for members of the, of MEK. MR. BOUCHER: We're -- QUESTION: Given the Administration's commitment to the fight against terrorism. MR. BOUCHER: I think there's, there's two things, there's two different situations, but more important, swapping people to different fates. The point is that we all have an obligation to act against terrorism. It's not dependent on some negotiation. It's not dependent on some swap. It's not dependent on some two-way deal. We have an obligation on the Mujahedin-e Khalq, as a terrorist organization, to confine them, put them out of business, make sure that no terrorists are allowed to go free, and we are handling that situation as we think appropriate. We also believe that, as per the UN resolutions, that all nations have an obligation with regard to al-Qaida. QUESTION: Would you -- MR. BOUCHER: So that obligation that Iran has, with regards to al-Qaida people they have said are in their custody, is not dependent on some negotiation or some swap. It should be done. QUESTION: Do you know if the MEK have their cell phones and broadcasting equipment in the camps? MR. BOUCHER: Again, specific circumstances of the camps, you'd have to get from the military. Let's see. We've got some more in the back. Lambros. QUESTION: On November 17 terrorist organization, the Athens criminal court sentenced, finally, the 15 guilty members 11,000 years in prison regarding the killings of Americans. Are you satisfied with this decision or you are expecting something more? MR. BOUCHER: I hadn't seen the sentence, so I'll have to look into it and get something for you. QUESTION: And the assassin of the CIA Chief Station in your embassy in Athens, Richard Wells, is free due to the pass of the time limitation of 20 years. Any comment on that? MR. BOUCHER: Again, I'll have to see what comment we might want to make on that. Elise. QUESTION: This is on Russia and the recent elections and just in general. The OSCE is calling the election results distorted, and distorted by Putin's moves against the independent television, things like that, and is calling into question this, along with his recent arrests of businessmen and the continuing human rights abuses in Chechnya, making this kind of like a whole issue about democracy. Is the U.S. concerned enough about a possible backslide in democracy to take possible measures against -- against Russia? Is this changing the relationship in any way? MR. BOUCHER: I think if you look at our -- at our history on this, that we've been quite clear that the progress of democracy and economic reform is very important to us in Russia. We have certainly welcomed and promoted the ability of the United States and Russia to cooperate in very, very important strategic ways, be it the war on terrorism or specific circumstances of Afghanistan, or the work we've done together in the UN since the war. At the same time, we've also been quite clear in public, as well as in private, that there are issues that we feel have hindered the progress towards democracy or have marred the record that Russia is trying to establish as a new democratic nation. Chechnya and the activities of human rights abuses that have occurred there has been an issue of ongoing concern all along, and we've been quite outspoken on that. We've been quite outspoken about some of the recent, some of the actions against the media in Russia over the last several years. We've been, I think, quite clear on the Yukos affair. So any number of these things, we have been speaking out about because of our overall interest in seeing the progress towards democracy and economic reform, and our overall interest in continuing this process of cooperation between the United States and Russia that's been so beneficial to us, as well as to the Russians. QUESTION: Proposal -- just a follow-up. Proposal by some people in Washington advocating kicking Russia out of the G8, arguing that this is really a club of democracies with similar values that Russia does not belong in. What's the Administration's position on this? MR. BOUCHER: I don't -- I don't think we've taken a view on that. I'm not aware that there's any particular consideration being given to that. QUESTION: Richard, has your -- sorry, this is on Russia. MR. BOUCHER: Sir. QUESTION: On Yukos. QUESTION: Go ahead. QUESTION: Are you going to ask about Yukos, Matt? QUESTION: No. QUESTION: Oh. Have you -- have you -- you said that the State Department would continue checking into whether -- well, coming up with an assessment of whether the Yukos affair was politically motivated or whether that there were truly legitimate judicial reasons to have taken Khodorkovsky and the others into custody. Have you come up with any information on that? What's the -- do you have anything? MR. BOUCHER: I don't have anything new on that at this -- at this point. I'll see if there is anything new to say. QUESTION: Do you continue to -- I mean, are you sure that they continue to check into it, and that -- MR. BOUCHER: We, our Embassy in Moscow, has continued to follow the situation and report on any developments. Yeah. QUESTION: Richard, has your initial assessment to the election changed at all? The reason I ask is that you came out on, I guess it was Monday or Tuesday, and said that you agreed wholeheartedly with the OSCE; and then your colleague, shortly after that at the White House said that the election -- the election -- the United States believed the elections were broadly representative of the will of the Russian electorate. And the Russians, at least, are saying that in the President's phone call with President Putin yesterday, he congratulated him on the results of the election and, so is -- does the State Department still adhere to its sharing of the OSCE's serious concerns about the conduct of the election? MR. BOUCHER: I think if you look at the context of the White House remarks and the statements that we made that we've all said that we have the concerns that the OSCE has raised. We've always made -- all made clear that, particularly with regards to the media and the consistently positive reporting on one side of the political debate and the consistently negative reporting on the other side, that we felt it was a distorting factor in the election and that's something we have pointed out both here and at the White House. QUESTION: Does the State Department believe that the results of the election were reflective of the will of the Russian electorate? MR. BOUCHER: I think that's been the general commentary from any number of people. It's not something that we would -- well, it's a view we probably share. But I think the point is that to have that as a -- how can I say it -- to have that as a firmly accepted result, you need to have an election that complied completely with international standards, and unfortunately there were failures in that regard. Yeah. Judy. QUESTION: Yeah. Turkey receives EU's support for Turkey, Turkey's bid for EU membership. And in your perspective, what are the main obstacles barring full membership, and do you share EU's view that Cyprus issue is one of them, though it's not in the Copenhagen criteria? MR. BOUCHER: I'm not prepared to do a whole dissertation on Turkey and the EU on the spur of the moment. I would say, very generally, we have always supported Turkey's progress towards Europe. We have always supported Turkey's eligibility for European Union membership. We've always encouraged the Europeans to proceed in that direction and we've always encouraged Turkey to meet the criteria for EU membership because we felt that was an important part of Turkey's reform, Turkey's economic and political agenda as well. QUESTION: So you don't share EU's view that Cyprus is one of the main obstacles? MR. BOUCHER: We're not a member of the European Union, so we don't set the criteria. But we have always encouraged the progress of Turkey towards the European Union. We've always encouraged Turkey to meet the criteria. QUESTION: Do you have anything to say for the elections, forthcoming elections in Cyprus? MR. BOUCHER: I think we've said it before. QUESTION: Nothing new? MR. BOUCHER: Nothing new. QUESTION: Thank you MR. BOUCHER: Sir. QUESTION: Richard, yesterday the Chinese Premier has concluded talks here in Washington. Earlier in the week he was -- met with Wall Street stock officials or the stock exchange. And aside from Taiwan and Hong Kong -- or, sorry, Taiwan and North Korea -- is the -- are there any discussions on lesser problems such as, Nepal, Tibet, and other areas as might relate to the Chinese? MR. BOUCHER: I think there were quite extensive briefings done at the White House about the visit, and I'd really refer you over there since that's where most of the discussions took place. In the Secretary's conversations with Premier Wen two nights ago, they talked about North Korea, they talked about the bilateral relationship, they talked about economic and trade matters, and Taiwan, as well. QUESTION: North Korea, sorry. Yesterday, or maybe this morning in a South Korean major newspaper it quote about the, kind of a fume coming from Yongbyon facility inside of North Korea. Can you say anything on that or -- MR. BOUCHER: No, that would not be something I could comment on at all. QUESTION: Do you want to say something to whether North Korea is preparing for a six-party talk? And you always repeating that no precondition, but if they are doing something? MR. BOUCHER: I said it again today, 10 minutes ago, 15 minutes ago. QUESTION: Oh, sorry. I'm sorry. MR. BOUCHER: Ma'am. QUESTION: Thank you. Change subject -- MR. BOUCHER: Please. QUESTION: -- on Venezuela? The Venezuelan Government has taken a number of measures, actions against the news channel GloboVision, which undermines its capacity to broadcast news. Considering the political situation, the political crisis in Venezuela, and the very bad relation between President Chavez and the media, is the U.S. -- my question is: The U.S., as part of the international community, as part of the Group of Friends of Venezuela has any comments on that? MR. BOUCHER: It's something we've certainly had comments on before. Are you telling me there's a new step? We've certainly been quite outspoken about President Chavez's pressure on the media and including the situation with GloboVision. We are concerned that the media are not being allowed to report freely and completely on the different points of view in Venezuela and the different efforts that are underway. Okay. QUESTION: Mr. Boucher. The EU members agreed to establish one EU airspace. What is the U.S. position on that? MR. BOUCHER: I don't know. A simple answer. QUESTION: Can you take the -- MR. BOUCHER: I'd find out if we know what it means before I find out, and then I'll find out if we have anything to say about it, okay? QUESTION: Okay. MR. BOUCHER: All right. Now we have many more. QUESTION: Yes. During the talks between President Bush and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, and President Bush said, and you reiterated it yesterday, that U.S. opposes any comments and actions which may lead to unilateral changes of status quo of the Taiwan Strait. However, Taiwan's President announced that a referendum will be held on March 20th. Will U.S. say something or do something to show its opposition? MR. BOUCHER: I think we have already made our views clear, our policy clear on that -- that in the President's remarks yesterday and the explanations that we've given here are the policy, we've seen the statements. But I don't think it's quite clear yet what they have in mind, so we'll just have to see how things develop. But certainly the policy framework is quite clear, and the President's comments are very explicit. Yeah. QUESTION: If the North Korea keep to insist their conditions, how is the United States going to change the North Korean behavior? MR. BOUCHER: It's for North Korea to change North Korean behavior. The world community has made very clear that we believe it's important to proceed to a denuclearized Korean Peninsula. In fact, at the last round of talks, the North accepted that that was the goal. But we have worked with other members of the international community, those who are participating in these talks, as well as others. And we think the international community has made very clear to North Korea that the kinds of opening it seeks, the kind of benefits it might seek from the world have been hindered and hampered and harmed because of the stance that they have taken in developing nuclear weapons. And so it continues to be very clear to North Korea that a denuclearized Korean Peninsula is the only way that they will be able to set right their relations with the world. And I think that's an effort that we will continue to make, but as we make the effort to resolve this peacefully.

Yeah. QUESTION: (Inaudible) the Chinese Premier. Do you have any sense whether this decades-long antagonism between China and Taiwan is likely to subside or be manageable? Or is it likely to be exacerbated? MR. BOUCHER: I don't think this particular round of talks changes the situation between China and Taiwan. It certainly -- the United States' policy has been very clear, that we look for a peaceful dialogue, a peaceful resolution of the differences between China and Taiwan, and that remains our policy. But as far as predictions about how they might treat each other or whether or not they might start a dialogue, I think I'll leave that to the political commentators. Okay. Another one down here. QUESTION: Does the Secretary have any plans to meet soon with the new representative of the Iraqi Governing Council, who saw the President yesterday? And does the Department have any comment on her appointment? MR. BOUCHER: It's great. We welcome her, look forward to working with her, and she met with the Deputy Secretary this morning. I guess we've got one more here. QUESTION: Richard, there's talk -- at least news reports -- that the Iraqi Council may be dissolved in late-July. Is there anything that you would say, what would take its place and how would -- MR. BOUCHER: I would say get on the CPA website and read the November 15th decision of the Council. (The briefing was concluded at 1:20 p.m.) DPB # 172