MR. CASEY: Welcome to you all. Happy Friday. I know you're very anxious to ask some questions here, but let me just start by saying other than I hope you have a happy weekend, that I don't have any opening statements or announcements.

So Mr. Lambros, I will be happy to talk to you about Pakistan.

QUESTION: Mr. Casey, any reaction to the brutal and barbaric explosions in Pakistan, earlier today against the great and democratic politician lady Benazir Bhutto.

MR. CASEY: Well, Mr. Lambros, I hope you did see our statement last night with respect to that. But just to repeat some of our basic views on this, the United States condemns this terrorist attack that was conducted during a peaceful rally for former Prime Minister Bhutto and her party members. And we do send our condolences to the victims of that attack. At this point I understand there's been approximately 130 people who have been identified as killed or wounded in this. I would note that former Prime Minister Bhutto has spoken and commended the courage of the security personnel who were protecting her. And I understand that many security personnel were in fact victims of this as well.

Our Ambassador Anne Patterson has spoken with the government officials from Pakistan to convey our condolences and also to offer U.S. assistance, should the Government of Pakistan need it in response to this event. And she has also called former Prime Minister Bhutto just to convey our sympathy and the sympathy of the United States Government for those individuals whose lives were lost and also to express our concern for her well-being as well.

And we hope to see that a thorough investigation is conducted of this. We do not know who is responsible for this terrible attack. But we hope that the individuals who are are found and brought to justice, we do not wish to see any actions take place that would undermine the democratic process in Pakistan or make it harder for the Pakistani people to have an opportunity to express their views in free and fair elections.

QUESTION: Any communication between Department of State and Pakistan officials on this tragedy?

MR. CASEY: Well, as I said, Anne Patterson, our Ambassador, has made calls both to former Prime Minister Bhutto and to Pakistani Government officials. At this point, I know the Secretary is traveling and I'm not aware of any other calls that might have occurred from this building here, but certainly we are all very concerned about this and we do hope that this will be something that we will not see repeated in the future.

QUESTION: And the last one. Anything to say about the claim of the (inaudible) from Dubai that behind this -- those explosions were the intelligence service of General and President Pervez Musharraf?

MR. CASEY: Again, Mr. Lambros, as far as I know, no one has claimed responsibility for this. The Pakistani Government has promised a full investigation. I have seen reports that the Prime Minister -- sorry, that President Musharraf in fact called former Prime Minister Bhutto about this, to express his concerns as well. And I note that former Prime Minister Bhutto in fact did commend the work being done by the security personnel that were with her -- many of whom, again, were victims of this as well. So I think at this point, we will let the investigation move forward. I do know that there, unfortunately as we all know, are many extremist elements in Pakistan who do not want to see Pakistan develop as a peaceful, moderate and modern Islamic nation. This is something that unfortunately has occurred in the past in Pakistan, including attempts on President Musharraf's life by those affiliated with al-Qaida.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Oh --

MR. CASEY: Please go ahead.

QUESTION: Just for clarification, who was providing security for the former Prime Minister? Since we have this whole issue of contractors and what not and --

MR. CASEY: Pakistani Security Services.

QUESTION: It is?

MR. CASEY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. CASEY: There was no U.S. involvement in it, no.

QUESTION: Okay. No private security --

MR. CASEY: My understand -- you can check with her or with the Pakistani Government. My understanding is the Pakistani Government.

Yeah.

QUESTION: I know you obviously haven't -- as you said, haven't made any conclusions about who's responsible and you're obviously working with the Pakistanis on trying to help them find out. But before Bhutto had come to the country, she said and the Pakistanis have said that there were some al-Qaida-related groups that were threatening to do something upon her return. And do you think that this attack in any way kind of highlights the critical threat that al-Qaida poses in the country?

MR. CASEY: Well, as I've just said, we know that al-Qaida and the Taliban and those associated with them have tried to undermine the Pakistani Government and efforts at Pakistani democracy. That includes through attempts to assassinate President Musharraf because of his willingness to confront extremism in his own country. I don't know at this point whether those same kinds of extremist elements were responsible for this attack, but certainly we are all aware of the threat that is posed by extremism in Pakistan as well as in Afghanistan and elsewhere. And it's another reason why we all need to be able to work together to confront it, because certainly I don't think the people of Pakistan wish to see people try and express political views through bombs and bullets. We are working with them and I know that part of the efforts of many of the political parties in Pakistan is to be able to help themselves have a free and open and transparent electoral system. That's the way you choose leaders, not through political assassinations.

QUESTION: Musharraf and Bhutto obviously were working on some kind of power-sharing agreement, but not necessarily -- it wasn't necessarily a true alliance in the sense that they had a kind of common set of goals and objectives for the country. Do you think that this attack will devolve into kind of political recriminations or are you hoping -- on either side, or are you hoping that this kind of focuses them or crystallizes the need for them to work together towards fighting terrorism in Pakistan?

MR. CASEY: Well, we certainly respect that there are a lot of political differences in the Pakistani system and that there are different parties with distinct and unique viewpoints. We certainly want all of those legitimate political parties and political movements to be able to participate in the life of the country.

We would hope, however, that whoever the Pakistani people elect, that there would be a common cause among all the parties in terms of recognizing the threat posed by extremism and being willing to work with the United States and others in the international community to confront it. So I would hope that not only as a result of this but just based on the interests of the Pakistani people and all the political parties in Pakistan that people would decide that whatever differences they might have over other issues, there should be a coming together to work with the United States, to work with the international community and to work with each other to be able to confront what's a serious problem for Pakistan as well as for the rest of us.

QUESTION: So I mean, in terms of this particular attack, are you afraid that this will be a kind of political -- you know, as whoever was -- do you think that this was an attempt to kind of make Pakistan more politically divisive?

MR. CASEY: Well, without knowing who is responsible for this or what their motivations were, it's really hard to say. I do again take as positive the fact that the Pakistani Government has promised a full investigation, that the former Prime Minister again has praised the efforts of the Pakistani security forces who were protecting her. I think that at least says -- that at least says to me that if there was any attempt through this to divide some of the political forces in Pakistan, that it hasn't succeeded. And in fact, it appears to me based on the statements that you've seen, a general rallying to the desire to have everyone be able to function and campaign and work effectively and openly in the country without threat of violence or intimidation.

Yeah, Joel?

QUESTION: Tom, several months ago, I guess it must have been Secretary Rice or Richard Boucher that perhaps persuaded Pervez Musharraf to -- he was contemplating at the time putting Pakistan into military rule or military law. And of course, it didn't.

Now, when you speak of the people of Pakistan repeatedly, are you basically sending the wrong message because they're moderates versus extremists, as you just enunciated here, and is this sending a lukewarm message and thus creating or giving a green light for further violence?

MR. CASEY: Joel, I would think it's frankly an insult to the people of Pakistan to assume that those that would practice politics by car bomb or bullet represent anything but a small and very distinct minority of the country. When I speak of the people of Pakistan, I speak of the folks who are represented by political parties, like President Musharraf's, like Benazir Bhutto's, like others who are there.

And again, what we're talking about as our goal is the development of Pakistan as a moderate Islamic state that is a democracy. And one of the first real tests of that democracy and its advance forward is going to be these elections. But that is our focus. There is no support that I can see outside of this very small minority for the kinds of actions that are represented by yesterday's attack.

Param.

QUESTION: Tom, I just wanted to find out whether there's any reply to the Commission of International Religious Freedom report on Saudi Arabia.

MR. CASEY: I think the short answer to that, Param, is we're going to look at that report. I know there are a number of issues of concern that have been raised there and we're going to study it and see what we can glean from it and what kind of responses might be appropriate to it.

Certainly though, one thing I think needs to be made clear is that we do not support nor could we ever support the preaching of intolerance or the spreading of messages of hate against any kind of religious or ethnic group. That is a longstanding principle.

The United States, as you've heard from Ambassador Hanford, has worked with Saudi Arabia about our concerns about the previous publication of textbooks and other material that promoted negative stereotypes and promoted intolerance. The Saudis have taken some measures to do so. They are reviewing textbooks. My understanding is the complete process of doing that is something they've said would take a couple of years to accomplish in total. Now, I know there are some specific recommendations made in this report, including those concerning a Saudi-sponsored religious school here in the United States. I think at this point, our officials here need to take a close look at the report and at its recommendations before I can really offer you any kind of an assessment on what might be appropriate in that regard.

QUESTION: Just a quick follow-up, Tom. The Administration granted Saudi Arabia a waiver and announced in July 2006 that Saudi Arabia was pursuing a number of policies to promote greater religious freedom and tolerance. And according to this commission, other than the waiver, no action has been taken by the U.S. Government and the reports -- basically on the -- it says that no follow-up measures have been taken by the Saudi side.

MR. CASEY: Well, again, I think the best assessment I can provide for you of what the Saudis have or haven't done is what was put into and reported in our International Religious Freedom Report that came out, I believe, last month, and what Ambassador Hanford said about Saudi commitments and efforts in that regard.

Certainly, this is an ongoing issue in our discussions with Saudi Arabia. Religious freedom is an important concern for us worldwide and certainly issues related to that in Saudi Arabia have been noted. But there is an ongoing dialogue. Ambassador Hanford has said there's been some progress. That certainly does not mean there aren't more things to be done. And as I said, the Saudis have undertaken a number of commitments specifically with reference to textbooks and educational material, the implementation of which is ongoing.

QUESTION: Just one last one on this, Tom?

MR. CASEY: Sure.

QUESTION: It also said that it appears that the Saudi Government had made little or no progress on efforts to halt the exportation of extremist ideology.

MR. CASEY: Again, Param, the best assessment I can offer you is the -- and the official view of the Department can be found in the International Religious Freedom Report. I'd just refer you back to that and what Ambassador Hanford said in rolling that out for you guys awhile ago. I don't have any new assessment to offer you beyond that.

QUESTION: Thanks.

MR. CASEY: Nicholas.

QUESTION: Tom, I understand that you might have a clarification on my Blackwater question yesterday. Is that correct?

MR. CASEY: No.

QUESTION: No? Because I -- since then, I've spoken to Blackwater and they had spoken to someone in DS and they said that indeed there was communication two years ago with a proposal from Blackwater to install cameras and have a DS agent accompany convoys.

MR. CASEY: So let me get this straight. Someone in Blackwater told you they had a conversation with someone in DS? Well, neither of those sounds --

QUESTION: There are emails to prove it. It's --

MR. CASEY: No, neither of those someones have contacted me. I don't have anything more for you on it than I had yesterday.

QUESTION: Can you -- can I ask you to -- if you can check if that actually happened? And if it did, why was the request -- I'm told it's for legal reasons. Perhaps that's the case, perhaps not. But can you check if that --

MR. CASEY: You know, Nicholas, I will be happy to delve into the minutiae for you, yes.

Yeah, one more.

QUESTION: Excuse me, I came in late. But the London Times today reported that there was very little progress with Secretary Rice on her trip in the Middle East. Is this summit because of different difficulties with the players involved in jeopardy or in danger of being delayed? What's your take on this report that the Secretary basically has not gotten anywhere?

MR. CASEY: Well, I haven't seen the report. I'm not sure what they're basing it on, though. You know, I think the Secretary has spoken to this throughout her trip. We believe that the parties, the Palestinians and Israelis, are moving forward in their own discussions. Obviously, we need to see that work continue and there's a great deal more that needs to be done before the international meeting takes place. She's addressed that in various of her appearances with your colleagues there.

But we believe that this is an important initiative. We think it is an opportunity to make real progress towards everyone's understood goal, which is the creation of a Palestinian state that can live in peace side by side with Israel. And as you've heard from her, we intend to hold this international meeting or conference in the fall. I think she's referred to that as either November or December, and there's certainly no plans, as she has said, to change that. We expect to hold that meeting during the course of the fall and we hope that it will contribute to a lasting and enduring solution to the issues that confront the Israelis and Palestinians.

QUESTION: So there's no disappointment and analysis from this end that things didn't gel as quickly as they would have liked on this trip? She's going back shortly again to --

SECRETARY RICE: As -- yes, she's going to -- she'll be back in the region again in -- a number of times, I suspect, over the coming weeks and months. That's something that we told you she planned on doing before this trip as well as before others.

I am hard pressed to understand the analysis that says that the trip was a disappointment or that otherwise didn't achieve the results intended. The results intended were to consult with the Israelis and Palestinians on their efforts to reach an agreement on some of these key factors and their effort to be able to put forward some ideas at the international conference; and certainly also to consult as well with Egypt and Jordan, two key partners in the region, both of whom very much support this initiative and are working with us on it.

So I -- unless the London Times has heard something directly from the Secretary that I haven't, I think she's generally pleased with what has gone on and, you know, realizes that there's a lot more work to do. But certainly, I don't think anybody is thinking based on this trip that we aren't still fully committed to and intending to move forward with the conference.

Param.

QUESTION: There's a short announcement this morning from the White House that the President will be at the State Department on Wednesday to announce or call new initiatives to help the people of Cuba. Is there something you can shed light about or at least a quick backdrop to the Cuba-U.S. relations (inaudible)?

MR. CASEY: Well, in terms of anything the President might say or announce here later in the week, I will simply have us all stay tuned. And I'm looking forward -- I know we're all looking forward to having him over here and talk on this important subject.

I do think just to give you a general perspective, we continue to hope that as Cuba moves through this transition which has largely begun that its people will be given an opportunity for the first time to freely choose its own leaders, and that the current regime will do the right thing by its people, which is give them an opportunity to truly express their views, to enjoy some basic human and civil rights, and to do what has been a consistent failure throughout the long tenure of Fidel Castro, which is allow the people a chance to have a say in who actually rules the country.

And as you've seen from the previous steps that have been announced and the previous reports from the President's Commission on Cuba, the United States wants to be able to be in a position to assist the Cuban people as they move through that transition and wants to be able to be in a position to help a free Cuba if, in fact, there is an opportunity for the people of that island to finally have an ability to control their own destiny and have a say in the running of their country.

QUESTION: You don't feel that the embargo -- longstanding embargo should be lifted?

MR. CASEY: We believe that what should be lifted is the longstanding embargo on the rights of the Cuban people that's been imposed by Fidel Castro.

QUESTION: Tom, there have been a couple of reports -- in fact, I heard one this morning on NPR -- about the fact that Raul Castro is actually opening up the country in terms of allowing more discussion among civil society about the future of the country, what the needs are, that they're taking a lot more kind of temperature of, you know, what the public is looking for in terms of the future, that they're opening up the political space for these type of discussions. I mean, do you think -- do you see any -- I take your point about the need for the Cubans to decide who will lead the country, but you don't see any expansion of the political space for opposition or dissent in terms of the future of Cuba?

MR. CASEY: Well, I think, unfortunately, the measures of that that really matter -- the number of political prisoners, the ability of people to freely associate, to openly express dissent with the government -- unfortunately, by all of those measures, it's business as usual as far as the regime is concerned.

Nicholas.

QUESTION: Tom, on the PKK issue, representatives of the KRG in northern Iraq are saying that the United States is obligated by UN resolutions to protect the territorial integrity of Iraq, which means that it'll have to protect against any foreign invasion. Is that your interpretation as well?

MR. CASEY: It's my interpretation, Nicholas, that the PKK represents a very serious problem for both Iraq and for Turkey, and it's our expectation that what will happen is that we will be able to work cooperatively with both the Turks and the Iraqis to resolve it. And so I think it's speculative for anyone to be talking about the possibility of some kind of unilateral military action at this point.

QUESTION: A follow-up?

MR. CASEY: Somehow I knew you would, Mr. Lambros. Yeah, please.

QUESTION: Mr. Casey, according to today's Los Angeles Times, Graham Fuller, former Deputy Director of CIA National Intelligence Council, stated clearly, "Washington supports Kurdish PKK terrorists against Iran." How do you respond since that means clearly cooperation between the United States of America and PKK rebels?

MR. CASEY: And who is this saying this, Mr. Lambros?

QUESTION: It's Graham Fuller.

QUESTION: Graham.

MR. CASEY: Graham Fuller. Yeah, well, if he's a former employee of the CIA, the best I can say is I think that's a spy who's been out in the cold too long.

The United States does not have contact with and does not support the PKK. It's a terrorist organization. It's treated as such. And the only thing we want to see from it is to have it go out of business.

QUESTION: A thousand of Kurdish people in northern Iraq protested yesterday against Turkish vote in the parliament for cross-borders operation against PKK rebels, saying no to Turkey. Any comment on that?

MR. CASEY: Mr. Lambros, I think it's a positive thing that people in Iraq are free to express their views just as people in Turkey are. Again, our position is that we need to have Turkey and Iraq work together with us to be able to confront the PKK. It represents a challenge and a problem and a threat to both countries, and that's why it's important that we continue those efforts.

Thanks, guys.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:16 p.m.)

DPB#185