Bush: North Legal Case Should Be ‘Unfettered’

Here are excerpts from President Bush’s news conference Friday:

Contra Aid

Question: How do you reconcile your efforts to arrange third-country military aid for the Contras with the spirit of the ban by Congress on aid to the rebels?

Answer: Look, I am not going to comment on any aspect of the North trial while it’s in progress. If I even commented on your question, it could prejudice the trial that’s going to be--and that would be totally unfair.

And I would note that of all the material that you seem to be referring to and that has been introduced, all the material that was introduced yesterday, material you’re referring to, has been available to the independent counsel, and the Iran-Contra committee, and has been reviewed by them for any special significance. So I believe the legal process ought to run unfettered, without you or me endangering the trial process that’s going on right now.

Q: I know you don’t want to talk about it, but Sen. (Edmund S.) Muskie, former Sen. Muskie, who was a member of the Tower Commission, says he was not aware of this effort to involve the Hondurans, or of your role. You have said this was available to the Tower Commission. Do you want to reply to that, without prejudicing Oliver North?

A: No.

Q: Mr. President--.

A: Because I don’t want to prejudice the trial, John. It would be imprudent for us to do that, and we’re not going to do it. And I stand by my statement about the Iran-Contra committee.

Q: Will you speak after the trial?

A: That’s it.

Q: Do your statements today mean that you won’t discuss this Contra affair?

A: Yes. It means I’ve said all I want to say about it! Look, we’re having a briefing on Alaska. . . .

Oil Spill

Q: A number of local officials in Alaska, as well as Alaskan residents, have been (calling) virtually since the spill took place for a greater federal role. . . . Why has it taken so long to reach this conclusion, and hasn’t valuable time been lost during your deliberations?

A: Well, as you may recall, action started immediately. The big thing was to get the ship--stop the hemorrhaging, and get that ship moved. I immediately asked the head of the Coast Guard, and the head of the Department of Transportation, and Bill Reilly to go up there. . . . There is no demand from reasonable people to federalize this operation, and that is not going to be done.

So what have we done? The flow was stopped. . . . And now the cleanup phase comes and it’s the time when we can step up some activity. So, something has gone on. I’m not about to defend the status quo, but there is no desire on our part to federalize.

Q: Mr. President, you’ve used words like “deadly” and “tragic” and “disastrous” to describe this oil spill. During the campaign, you said you were an environmentalist. Have you had any opportunity to rescind your commitment to drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge as a result of this disaster?

A: . . . No, I don’t think that--I don’t think that you--that you compromise the genuine national security interests of this country. And I don’t think that you can predicate a sound national energy policy on an aberration that seemed to have taken place in Prince William Sound.

Arms Control

Q: Mr. President, Mr. Gorbachev today made another arms control gesture, saying that he’ll stop production of weapons-grade uranium and shut down two plutonium plants. What’s your response, or reaction?

A: . . . We’ll be ready to react when we feel like reacting, and when we have prudently made our--our reviews upon which to act. . . . I haven’t seen it analyzed, Lesley, so I honestly can’t tell you that I know the full significance.

The Mideast

. . . We’ve had two visits here now this week--(Egyptian) President (Hosni) Mubarak, (Israeli) Prime Minister (Yitzhak) Shamir. We’ll have a visit, a forthcoming visit from (Jordan’s) King Hussein.

And I’m going to give the same assurances to him I’ve given to Mubarak and Shamir, and that is that if I personally can be helpful (in the peace process), I want to do it.

. . . But I would simply say it is not a time where a lot of high-visibility missions on the part of the President can accommodate--can be helpful in the process.

Q: Do you believe the PLO should have a role in independent elections in Israel--West Bank?

A: I think that the answer is to get on with the elections and I’ve--I’d like to--we haven’t fully resolved exactly who’s going to have a role but I think that’s a matter to be determined by--between the parties--but I’d leave it right there.

Eastern Europe

Q: Can you tell me if you believe the political agreement reached in Poland this week could be a model for political reform throughout Eastern Europe? . . .

A: . . . I would say that the round-table development there in Poland is very positive, and I would certainly commend the parties getting together there. I go back to when we were there not very many months ago, and many of you were with me on that trip.

I think the situation has moved so fast since that trip that I took a year or two ago that it’s mind-boggling. . . .