MR. CASEY: Okay. Well, good afternoon, everybody. I don't have any opening announcements for you, so Matt --

QUESTION: Yeah. Tom, does the State Department share the view of the Pentagon that the -- that several of the benchmarks that are outlined in the GAO report should be changed from unfulfilled or not met to fulfilled or met?

MR. CASEY: Matt, look, I'm going to let the GAO actually put out its report and then we can have a discussion about how people view the individual judgments made. I think from our perspective, what we want to see happen is see the GAO fulfill the requirement that Congress placed upon it. I would point out again, as I did this morning, that the standard that the GAO has been asked to apply in the legislation is somewhat different than the standard that was applied for the July 15th benchmarks report; and in that sense, it wouldn't surprise me if there are some differences in terms of the final judgments rendered.

QUESTION: Yeah, I understand that. But the Pentagon spokesman said that they have asked -- that the Pentagon has asked for several of these -- of the GAO's findings to be revised. Has the State Department made similar requests?

MR. CASEY: I'm not sure what Jeff has said or what the Pentagon may or may not have done. Again, I think I will let the internal conversations between us and the GAO and other people on this take place in private. The GAO is going to issue its report. It's going to make its findings as it sees fit. Certainly, we want that to reflect accurately the standards that was given to it by Congress. And certainly, we hope that it will reflect the progress that has been made as well as those areas where there has not been the kind of progress we'd like to see.

QUESTION: But in your comments this morning, you made clear that the Administration doesn't believe that the standards that were -- that Congress gave to the GAO allow for the report to say that progress has been met. It allows only for them to give a thumbs up/thumbs down. So how are they supposed to fulfill their mandate and, at the same time, give partial credit where you think partial credit is due?

MR. CASEY: Again, Matt, I think that they have to apply the standard that Congress has given them. I expect that they will do so. Certainly though, in whatever narrative that accompanies this, I would hope that they would note, regardless of whether they provide a thumbs up or a thumbs down on any individual category, a assessment and a realistic look at what has or hasn't occurred.

QUESTION: So you would like, then, that in addition for them to go through the 18 benchmarks and say yes or no to each one of them, that they would also have some kind of a, I don't know, descriptive page or pages that say even though we found that this -- they were lacking here and there, that there was progress made towards that end.

MR. CASEY: Look, Matt, I'm going to try not to give too much advice to the GAO. They've got a job to do and I know that they know how to do it, and I certainly expect they'll carry out their function professionally, as they always do. What I understand though is this isn't a two-page check sheet; it is a report that does go into some detail about the individual elements. And I certainly hope that in the discussion that they have or the written descriptions that they have, that that is -- and I have ever reason to expect it will be -- reflective of their understanding of the facts on the ground.

Sylvie.

QUESTION: You said previously that you didn't want to comment on the release of the South Korean hostages in Afghanistan, and now they have all been released. What do you think of the negotiations between the South Korean Government and the Taliban? Do you think it set a dangerous precedent?

MR. CASEY: I guess you're ahead of me on this one. I hadn't been aware that all of the hostages, in fact, had been released.

But look, first of all, we're very grateful that all of these individuals, if that's in fact true, have been released. They should have never been taken hostage in the first place. It is again typical of what we are dealing with in confronting the Taliban in Afghanistan that the organization, the terrorist movement, would choose to take hostage these innocent people. And we shouldn’t also forget that while many of them have been released, again, the Taliban did kill several of these hostages as well. So this has been a terrible incident. It's one that we are grateful is, if not over, reaching a conclusion. We're glad to see these people return home.

I will leave it to the South Korean Government to talk about what the nature of those conversations were. Again, I'd simply reiterate that the longstanding U.S. policy, as I've said over the past few days and as everyone else has, is not to make concessions to terrorists.

QUESTION: But when -- sorry. When the Italians --

MR. CASEY: We are grateful that these individuals have been released and are getting a chance to --

QUESTION: But not to -- not grateful to the Taliban?

MR. CASEY: No, I don't think so. You don't be -- you're not grateful for someone for stopping to do what they should have never done in the first place.

QUESTION: When the Italians negotiated with the Taliban, the U.S. Government protested and their relations with Italy were strained by this incident. So now you decided not to criticize in any way the South Korean --

MR. CASEY: Let me see if I can give you some sense of guidance on that. In a domestic law enforcement case if a hostage is taken, we certainly don't expect the police department not to pick up the phone and have a conversation with the hostage-takers. However, we wouldn't expect the police department to make concessions to those hostage-takers. That is the distinction, and I don't think anyone has ever said that a conversation is somehow contrary to U.S. policy. We've said that making concessions is. And again, that would be how we would look at anything related to this issue. I don't -- again, I'd leave it to the South Korean Government to tell you what the nature of those discussions were and what kinds of results came from them.

QUESTION: So to your knowledge, there was no concession at all?

MR. CASEY: I do not have any information about -- that would lead me to that conclusion, no.

QUESTION: What was the U.S. role in the talks? Did you have any kind of --

MR. CASEY: The U.S. role was to encourage the release of these individuals in our public statements and to encourage the Government of Afghanistan and the Government of South Korea to work together closely on this. But we had no direct or really even indirect role in those discussions.

QUESTION: With these negotiations -- don't you think it sets a dangerous precedent for future cases where the Taliban will be able to negotiate with other foreign governments? And here you're talking about negotiating about the mission to Afghanistan, the South Korean mission to Afghanistan, and the South Korean -- their church activities in Afghanistan.

MR. CASEY: Look, again, I will let the South Korean Government talk about the nature of their discussions. In terms of their -- the deployment of any individuals from their forces in Afghanistan, a number of months ago they had made an announcement and made a decision that that deployment would end by the end of the year, so I'm not aware that anything's changed in that regard.

In terms of the Taliban itself, again, I'll repeat what I said yesterday. This is a terrorist movement. It is an organization that conducts suicide bombing, that kill -- that kills individuals indiscriminately, that takes hostages and kills some of them even if, in this instance, gratefully, a number of them have been released. This is not an organization that has legitimacy either with the Afghan people or with anyone in the international community. And I sincerely doubt that an incident in which dozens of innocent South Koreans were taken hostage is going to do anything to enhance their credibility.

Yes, Arshad.

QUESTION: Change of subject. As you may have seen, former Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif announced that he plans to return to Pakistan on September the 10th. That follows the Supreme Court decision earlier this month in Pakistan under which they ruled that he was eligible to return. Is this a good thing? Is this part of the sort of free and fair elections and democratic process the United States hopes to see in Pakistan?

MR. CASEY: Well, Arshad, these are the kinds of individual decisions that Pakistanis are going to have to work through. We would expect that -- you know, the internal politics of Pakistan is going to be something that they, themselves, are going to decide. Our expectation is that any outcome in this situation or in some of the other political discussions that have been going on that we've talked about is that the outcome is going to be consistent with the rule of law in the Pakistani constitution.

QUESTION: One other one on this. As I'm sure you're well aware, another former Prime Minister of Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto, yesterday said that she was very close to reaching an agreement with Musharraf under which he'd give up his role as chief of the armed services. Musharraf's -- a spokesman for the president today said that he has yet to decide whether to step down as the army chief and try to become a civilian president. Has the U.S. Government, at any level, sought clarification from the Pakistani authorities about what is going on, what are Musharraf's intentions, whether he is willing to give up his uniform?

MR. CASEY: Well, Arshad, first of all, President Musharraf said that he would address this issue of dual leadership of both his civilian -- his combined civilian and military role as army chief and as president in accordance with the constitution. As I said yesterday, he's made commitments in that regard. And we would expect that he'd honor them.

In terms of U.S. discussions with Pakistani officials, this is something where we certainly do talk with both officials of the government, as well as members of the major political parties. But these are decisions that the Pakistanis themselves are going to make. Certainly we're very interested in this process and are observing it carefully. I know that Richard Boucher, among others, speaks regularly to Pakistani officials. Certainly, our Ambassador Anne Patterson and her team in Islamabad are in regular contact with a variety of political players there. So we're keeping ourselves apprised of these discussions through those kinds of contacts.

But at this point, my best understanding is that these are decisions that are still being worked through and have yet to be made. And I'd simply let the Pakistani political process work through these issues. And I'm sure that when there is something definitive we'll hear it first from them.

QUESTION: One other thing on this. I mean, you just said -- yesterday you said that you would expect all leaders to honor their commitments, but you didn't specifically say Musharraf. And today you said we would expect that he had -- you know, he's made commitments and we would expect that he would honor them.

It seems to me your guidance on this has shifted over the last year or so. There was a time when you used to say he's made commitments and we expect him to honor them. Then more recently, and I'm quite certain Sean has said, this is a matter for the Pakistani people; they need to decide this. He has said that he will deal with this issue and we leave it at that. And now you're back to saying he should honor his commitment, which I believe was to step down -- was to give up his role -- his dual role or, in other words, give up the uniform.

Is there -- you know, is there any clarity on what really is your position about this? Do you want him to give up the uniform or not?

MR. CASEY: Look, again, and I'll just repeat what I said a couple of minutes ago, he said he's going to deal with this issue and made a commitment to deal with this issue, in accordance with the constitution of the country. That's a commitment he's made. We expect him to honor that commitment.

QUESTION: So that's the commitment you expect him to honor, not the -- what I believe were previous commitments to give up the uniform?

MR. CASEY: Again, my understanding of what he's committed to is to deal with this issue in accordance with Pakistani law and the constitution, and that's our expectation of what will happen.

QUESTION: Okay. And to tilt at one more windmill --

MR. CASEY: Sure.

QUESTION: -- can you give us clarity on what you think -- whether you think he should keep the uniform or not?

MR. CASEY: Again, these are the kinds of issues that are in the political process. They're going to have to work it through themselves. And I think as we've seen, there's a lot of activity and a lot of discussion going on on this issue right now. We'll leave it to them to comment on it at this point.

QUESTION: Well, what is the view of what "dealing with this in accordance with the Pakistani constitution" is? What does the United States see --

MR. CASEY: Well, there's a Pakistani Supreme Court. It has opinions on this. There's a Pakistani parliament. There's a Pakistani political system. And it's not for the U.S. to interpret Pakistan's constitution for Pakistan's --

QUESTION: Well, no, I'm not asking you to interpret it for them. I'm asking what is your interpretation of what Musharraf means when he says, "I'll deal with this in accordance with the constitution." You don't have one?

MR. CASEY: It means he'll deal with it in accordance with the constitution, Matt.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. CASEY: Zain.

QUESTION: Can I change the subject?

MR. CASEY: Yeah.

QUESTION: One last question, if you don't mind.

QUESTION: Go ahead.

MR. CASEY: Okay.

QUESTION: Being a key war on terror ally, does the U.S. expect Musharraf to be the anchor in any political equation in Pakistan?

MR. CASEY: Would you say that again? Do we expect him to be the --

QUESTION: Anchor in any politically -- future political equation in Pakistan.

MR. CASEY: Well, I think our expectation is that Pakistani democracy needs to develop in order for the country to achieve what President Musharraf's stated objectives are and what we share, which is to build a democratic country, to build one that is a moderate Islamic nation, that is an ally with the United States and others in the war on terror, and that works together with us to combat extremism. Who Pakistan's political leaders will be in the future is a decision that the Pakistanis are going to make, and that is one of the reasons why we do want to see the elections take place later on this year do so in a way that is free and fair.

Yes, Zain.

QUESTION: There's a chemical scare at the UN right now where a bunch of chemical weapons have been found in old UN files. I understand from our other sources, sort of internally, that the State Department had been aware that this had existed and we're looking for some sort of comment on --

MR. CASEY: Sure. I would take exception to that characterization of it, but let me explain to you what my understanding of the situation is and this is also something you might want to talk to the FBI about as well.

A couple of months ago, as you all know, the United Nations Security Council decided to terminate the mandate for UNMOVIC, the monitoring organization that was dealing with WMD issues in Iraq. That organization is now in the process of closing up shop, archiving its files, cleaning out its books, effectively.

In the course of doing so, the UNMOVIC staff found a small amount of chemical agents. They had apparently been in the UNMOVIC office for over a decade. And once they found this, they notified our UN mission of this.

There is an agreement, as I understand it, between the FBI and the UN to handle any issues related to this nature. The FBI has been notified. They are, if not on the scene now, on their way to the scene, and they will be securing the material, taking it to an appropriate location and ensuring that it is disposed of properly.

The other thing that of course is important is they will be working with the UN to conduct an investigation of this incident so that we assure ourselves that we understand why these items were there and why they were there for so long, and verify that there are no other outstanding issues related to it.

QUESTION: When did you find out --

MR. CASEY: Last night.

QUESTION: -- that it existed. Last night. And did you know -- sorry. So did you know that they were these dangerous specific sources of --

MR. CASEY: Again, what we were told is that they had found a small amount of individual vials of chemical agents that had been there for approximately ten or more years. And we took immediate steps to notify the appropriate authorities, in this case the FBI. And again, they've responded to this.

QUESTION: So, sorry, Tom, but I have to ask this. This is not the elusive stash of WMD that Saddam had according to your intelligence --

MR. CASEY: No --

QUESTION: (Inaudible).

MR. CASEY: -- I don't think I could be accurate in describing it that way.

QUESTION: And you assure that all of it is over a decade old, so none of it is the stuff that Secretary Powell was waving around when he gave his little speech and --

MR. CASEY: Matt, again, what we've --

QUESTION: -- a vial of anthrax.

MR. CASEY: What we've been told by UNMOVIC is that these small vials are items that have been in the UNMOVIC offices for over a decade. Certainly, one of the things we want to do is make sure that the UN, working with the FBI, does conduct a full investigation of this so we're absolutely certain how they, in fact, got there, how long they were there, and, you know, the kind of exact nature of how this came about.

QUESTION: Do you know where they were from?

MR. CASEY: I don't.

QUESTION: And – okay. Are they still dangerous?

MR. CASEY: Again, I am not in a position to give you a rundown of the individual agents. My understanding at this point is that the UN and law enforcement officials have conducted testing of the area; they have determined that there is no threat that these items currently, or in the past, had posed to public health and safety in the area. But again --

QUESTION: So there's no --

MR. CASEY: -- I'd leave it to the FBI experts on this to give you a better readout.

QUESTION: So there's absolutely no question that you guys weren't confusing these chemical agents in the UN office for the WMD that Saddam was supposed to have had?

MR. CASEY: No, Matt. Look, these are small -- these are small sample items that UNMOVIC had had in their possession for quite a long time.

QUESTION: Tom, is the investigation -- you said that there was going to be a joint UN and FBI investigation to figure out how these got there and so on. Is there going to be any kind of investigation into whether there are other bits of chemical weapons lying around in file drawers in the UN?

MR. CASEY: Well, certainly, part of what we want to make sure of in looking at this is that there are -- there is nothing else out there that would need to be secured, that there's no other kinds of items like this out there. UNMOVIC itself believes that this is the only items of these kind that are in circulation, but certainly, we want to make sure that there is a full and thorough review because certainly, the fact that these were in the office for 10-plus years is something that probably shouldn't have happened and we want to make sure we understand why and we want to make sure that everything is done to verify that there is no other outstanding material there.

Mr. Lambros.

QUESTION: Mr. Casey, two questions on Greek Katrina -- the fires. Do you have any readout about the talks Under Secretary of State Henrietta Fore, acting as a USAID Administrator, had in Athens with Greek officials, including the Greek Foreign Minister Dora Bakoyianni?

MR. CASEY: I don't have any detailed readout of their conversations, Mr. Lambros. But again, as we said the other day, we have provided an immediate contribution to the Hellenic Red Cross to help them cope with some of the costs and concerns related to the fire. There are a number of items, including some of the ones that I mentioned, extra chemical suits and other kinds of things for firefighters, that are en route.

And most importantly, again, what the Greek Government has identified for us as their main concern is that we help them contribute to the reconstruction effort, including efforts at reforestation and efforts to support people being able to return back to their normal lives.

This is something that we are currently working on with the Greek Government and, as I said, with our Office of Public and Private Partnerships at USAID to help work with individuals here, including and particularly, the Greek American community to make sure that we're all doing what we can to help support this effort.

QUESTION: But along the $100,000 the U.S. Government sent to the Hellenic Red Cross, as you said yesterday and the other day for the victims of the fires over Greece, I'm wondering what additional and concrete aid you sent to help since the damage, according to the Greek Government, estimated so far $1.6 billion. There are a lot of complaints into the Greek American community for the delay on behalf of the U.S. Government to help Greece.

MR. CASEY: Well, Mr. Lambros, again, I think we responded very quickly and very appropriately to the request for assistance. We have made our offer in very quick fashion. Our embassy provided support early on and of course, this contribution to the Hellenic Red Cross was made several days ago. In the interim, what, of course, we have done has been to talk to the Greek Government about what they believe they need and what they believe are the most important items or the most important ways that we can contribute to that effort.

As I said, there are a number of items that I mentioned yesterday that are put together and that I believe are en route. And in addition to that, since they have identified the sort of reconstruction phase of this as being the key element where they believe we can best contribute, that is where we are currently focusing our efforts.

QUESTION: Thank you. May I go to FYROM or --

MR. CASEY: Well, let me go -- let's -- let me have Nina ask her question and then we can go back to FYROM.

QUESTION: To FYROM.

QUESTION: Can I have a couple of questions on the IAEA report on Iran, please? Now the report states that the Natanz facility is producing enriched uranium in much smaller quantities than you seemed to expect. Does this mean that you're not as concerned now about the pace and scale of the Iranian nuclear program?

MR. CASEY: Well, first of all, let's be clear about what Iran has or hasn't done. Iran hasn't, in any measurable way, clarified those outstanding issues that remain before the IAEA. They've made a commitment to do so, but none of those answers have been forthcoming, and these are questions that have been out there for over four years.

The Government of Iran also has not done fundamentally what it has been asked to do repeatedly in IAEA Board of Governors resolutions and UN Security Council resolutions, which is suspend its uranium enrichment activities, answer all those outstanding questions, and engage in negotiations with the international community to be able to resolve the outstanding concerns about what has been a two-decade clandestine nuclear program and one that, at almost every step of the way, the Iranian Government has resisted answering questions about.

So from our perspective, while the report may offer some new details or some new insight into how Iran's program is developing, the fact of the matter is they have not met any of their international obligations in this regard. And the fact that that program is continuing and is moving forward shows that this Iranian regime is continuing on a path of defiance of the international community, rather than in joining with us in negotiations to achieve what they've always said is their stated objective, which is a peaceful civilian nuclear program, designed to generate power for their people.

And it is again unfortunate that the Iranian people are suffering as a result of a government that refuses to engage in what is a very positive opportunity to deal with the international community, to achieve power that it claims it needs for the people and for the development of the country and to work with us to resolve those questions. Instead, they've chosen this path of defiance. And as a result of that, they've come under UN sanctions and they will come under additional UN sanctions unless they change their views.

QUESTION: Yes, you've said that you're considering a new round of sanctions, but what about the timing and nature of this report? I mean, it's the UN's watchdog that supplied the report. ElBaradei is painting quite a positive picture about Iran's compliance. Is the timing of all this, as you're trying to push for new sanctions, is this going to present an obstacle in the coming weeks?

MR. CASEY: Well, look, I said this morning and I think it's true, there's no partial credit when it comes to answering the questions about Iran's nuclear program. Iran needs to do all of what the international community is required of it. What the UN Security Council resolutions are are obligations, legal, moral obligations on the part of the Iranian Government. They aren't allowed to cherry pick it. They can't pick and choose. And I'd note that while they have agreed again to a "plan of action" to answer the outstanding questions about their nuclear program with the IAEA, they've yet to actually answer any of them. And you'll forgive us if we're skeptical about promises made by the Iranian Government to answer questions about their nuclear program, when those questions have been out there for several years. And at any point during those discussions Iran could have chosen to respond to them. You'll also forgive us, too, if we're a little skeptical about the benign intentions of a program that was kept under wraps and hidden for almost two decades and for which the Iranian Government has still never been willing to appropriately account for.

Yes.

QUESTION: Tom, what is hampering efforts to get a new resolution through or to discuss these evaluations?

MR. CASEY: Well, I think there are a number of discussions that are going on. I know Under Secretary Burns speaks regularly to his P-5+1 colleagues and there's certainly been consultations ongoing in New York. These are complicated issues. And these are ones, as we've seen with past resolutions that take some time for people to work through. But we are continuing to have these discussions. I think we're making some progress. And I would look forward some time in the coming weeks, months, to see a new resolution passed and one that ratchets up the pressure on Iran.

I'd also note that the sanctions that are already in place are having an impact and having an impact every day on the activities of the Iranian Government. They are, I think, finding themselves increasingly isolated not only in a political sense and not only as a result of these sanctions, but as a result of what these sanctions mean to the broader world out there. There I would suggest to you any number of financial institutions and other businesses that are taking a very serious look at the kinds of business they might have done in the past with Iran and thinking twice about that.

I also think there are a number of organizations, private institutions that have made their own decision. But now is not the time to be putting money into or making new investments in Iran because nobody wants to be tainted with the brush of nuclear proliferation. Nobody wants to do anything that would contribute to the development of an Iranian nuclear weapon. And many businesses, I don’t think, want to run the risk of working with individuals or entities in a country that is under Chapter 7 sanctions. As we've said before, this is not a distinguished list; it's not one you want to be one. And it does have a real impact in terms of how a country is able to function in the international community.

Yes, Arshad.

QUESTION: If we can just go back to the chemical weapons that were found at the UN for a moment.

MR. CASEY: Sure.

QUESTION: Did you say that you learned about this last night?

MR. CASEY: My understanding is our notification of this -- first notification of this was yesterday evening, yeah.

QUESTION: Okay. Because I see that a UN spokeswoman is quoted as having told a news conference in New York that the chemicals had been found last Friday. And as the host of the UN, and given the need to bring in the FBI and people to safely dispose of this stuff, why on earth would the U.S. Government only had been notified yesterday?

MR. CASEY: Arshad, I don't know. I'm not sure of when the facts of when UNMOVIC discovered this material. What I was told is that our notification came last night on this. So I'd just have to refer you back to the UN in terms of what the timetable was. I'm not sure if that's an accurate understanding or not. Certainly, we would hope that in any instance like this we would be notified as soon as possible. And again, when we were notified of this we immediately took steps to contact the appropriate agencies, in this case the FBI, to get them engaged this morning in resolving this issue.

QUESTION: So to your knowledge, the FBI became engaged only on this today?

MR. CASEY: Again, my understanding is the first U.S. Government notification of this was from the UN last night. And I believe that USUN, our mission there, was the first point of contact for any of the UN agencies. I do not know if the UN might have spoken directly to other government agencies in a different context, but this is my understanding of when we became aware of this.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. CASEY: Mr. Lambros.

QUESTION: Yes, sir.

MR. CASEY: What did you want to ask about?

QUESTION: On FYROM, let me get a pencil.

MR. CASEY: What we call Macedonia. Yes, okay.

QUESTION: You break my heart. (Laughter.)

MR. CASEY: We will have that conversation some other time.

QUESTION: Okay, thank you.

MR. CASEY: Okay.

QUESTION: There is a persistent story, Mr. Casey, out of Skopje that SENCAP, Southeastern Energy Capital, a major Greek and American joint venture in energy, is being unfairly denied its $2 billion investment in the TEC Negotino power plant by the government in FYROM. The FRD -- excuse me, the EBRD, European Bank of Reconstruction and Development, and the IFC, International Finance Corporation, have already sent letters to the Government of Skopje warning that they will not finance a project that was not selected through "transparent and (inaudible) selection process."

Given the U.S. Government insistence and promotion of non-corrupt practices and the importance that it places on energy issues (inaudible) the improvement of Skopje's relations with Greece, I'm wondering what is the DOS policy regarding the fair treatment of U.S. energy companies, especially in the former Eastern bloc countries aspiring to join NATO and the European Union?

MR. CASEY: Mr. Lambros, I'm not familiar with the particular items you're referring to. But I think in general, it is certainly fair to say that we want to see all kinds of international business deals be handled in a manner that is fair, that is transparent and have decisions made on the basis of market factors; meaning business decisions, economic decisions based on who is the company that can compete best, who is the best qualified candidate for any kind of contract or any kind of investment opportunity, rather than on other considerations.

So certainly, we would hope that the Government of Macedonia as well as the governments of any countries in which the U.S. is engaged with operate in accordance with international standards of transparency and fairness, and accord international investors the same kind of treatment they would their own national companies.

QUESTION: Can you look into that specific issue?

MR. CASEY: I'm happy to do, though I suspect that in this instance you probably will wind up being referred back to some of the international financial institutions' comments that you already have.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. CASEY: Nina. Sorry, one last one.

QUESTION: Do you have anything to say about this continuous shelling that's going on -- Iranian forces shelling Kurdish guerilla border areas?

MR. CASEY: I haven't seen those reports and, no, I really don't. I think you might want to talk to people in some other agencies about that one.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:19 p.m.)

DPB # 154