For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
October 9, 2002
Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
12:24 P.M. EDT
MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. I'd like to begin with a
statement.
The President has invited Republican members of the Judiciary
Committee to the White House this afternoon to discuss the troubling
developments related to the confirmation of the President's nominee to
the 4th Circuit from California, Dennis Shedd.
Yesterday, Senator Leahy failed to uphold his commitment to Senator
Strom Thurmond, the longest-serving member of the United States Senate,
to hold a vote on Dennis Shedd before the end of the year. This
promise had been made to Senator Thurmond on several occasions.
Senator Thurmond yesterday said that he has never been treated in such
a fashion in his 48 years in the United States Senate.
There is strong bipartisan support for Dennis Shedd both on the
committee and on the floor of the Senate. The votes are there to
confirm him. Judge Shedd has been rated well-qualified by the American
Bar Association; he was unanimously confirmed to be a district judge 12
years ago and his reversal rate is less than 1 percent. Judge Shedd
served in the United States Senate, including Chief Counsel and Staff
Director for the Senate Judiciary Committee for 10 years.
The Senate has confirmed only 50 percent of President Bush's
appeals court nominees in these first two years. In the past three
administrations, the Senate has confirmed 90 percent of the President's
appeals court nominees during the same period of time. Additionally,
this Senate has forced more of the President's nominees to wait a year
for action than in the past 50 years combined.
Nominees deserve to be treated with dignity; senators deserve to
have their commitments upheld; and the American people deserve better,
especially when there is a vacancy crisis in the United States courts.
With that, I'm happy to take your questions.
Q Why isn't he inviting Democrats, as well, to the meeting this
afternoon? Wouldn't that help actually get something done, if he could
talk to Leahy?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think the problem lies on that side, and the
President is going to talk to Republicans about how to find solutions
to it.
Q Has he thought about talking to Senator Leahy?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think Senator Leahy expressed his message
yesterday, when he failed to uphold a commitment that he, himself, made
to Senator Thurmond. And so the President looks forward to having
Senator Thurmond and the others down here today to talk about this.
Q Has the President talked to Leahy once about this issue?
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't think this is a question of the President
talking to the Chairman of the Committee. This is a question of the
Chairman of the Committee doing what he told Senator Thurmond that he
would do.
Q What did he tell him?
MR. FLEISCHER: He said that he would have a vote this year. And I
think this is why Senator Thurmond, who is 100 years old, who is in his
last days in the Senate, as the Senate gets ready to recess, feels as
strongly about it as he does. Mr. Shedd is from South Carolina, and I
think that Senator Thurmond has seen a lot in his time in the Senate
and he said this is one of the worst.
Q He's never seen anything like this before, though?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think he'll speak for himself.
Q He's probably seen this happen before, though.
MR. FLEISCHER: He speaks for himself on this.
Q One question, Ari, about -- I know you were asked at the
gaggle this morning about the CIA report related to Saddam Hussein and
terrorism. Related to that, do you think it's -- do you think you
can share a little more with the American people what's on the
President's mind with regard to what is a pretty big question, the
unknown related to Saddam Hussein and his biological and chemical
weapons status, whether he might use that against American troops
should a decision be made to go into combat? What's the policy or the
plan to deal with that? It's a pretty scary prospect, I think, for a
lot of people.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, one, the very fact that you raise a valid
issue is another reason why Saddam Hussein presents such a threat to
the world, because the very fact that people say he has these weapons,
he may use these weapons -- despite the fact that he denies he has
them -- suggests that blackmail is something the United States has to
consider. The fact that he might do this means the United States has
to limit what it does to prevent him from harming people is a fact that
Saddam Hussein counts on to hold the world at abeyance. And that's why
the President feels so strongly it is important to -- for the world
to continue to pressure Saddam Hussein to disarm.
As for the specifics, David, as you know the President said in his
speech that he is basically giving advice to Saddam Hussein's military
not to listen to Saddam Hussein if they are told by Saddam Hussein to
use these weapons. But, of course, the military is trained, the
military is ready, the military is able to deal with such threats. The
President hopes it won't come to that point.
Q But if I can just follow on that -- but should the American
people -- don't they deserve a little bit more information to deal
with what is the biggest unknown and the most menacing unknown of
combat?
MR. FLEISCHER: What type of information are you suggesting?
Q Well, how specifically we plan to deal with the potential that
the CIA is talking about of a terrorist strike launched away from
troops, or using his weapons of mass destruction against troops and how
we would try to counteract it, and what might follow.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, of course, on the question of what we would
do specifically from a military point of view, I think the military
would be somewhat reluctant to describe every tactic they would take,
because that would be information that an enemy would want to know. In
order to hone an attack or have a more effective attack, they would, of
course, want to know what defenses are available to those who might be
attacked. So there are some limits on what can be said about that
publicly, and I think people understand that.
But this is why in the President's speech he cited -- and the
President raised this himself when he said there is no easy or
risk-free course of action. Some argue we should wait, and the
President said, that's the riskiest of all options. The longer we
wait, the stronger and bolder Saddam Hussein will become. And the
President has said that an Iraqi regime faced with its own demise may
attempt cruel and desperate measures. This is a reflection on how
serious we take the threat from Saddam Hussein.
Q Ari, one thing the President did not say was what Secretary
Tenet said -- Director Tenet said in that letter, and that is that
Saddam has drawn a line against weapons of mass destruction, and
there's a low probability that he will use them unless he sees a threat
coming from the U.S., unless he is cornered. Does the President agree
with that assessment, or not?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President, of course, has this
information from the CIA and uses this in all his analysis, and he has
no quarrels with what he has received from the CIA. It goes into the
full context of all the information he receives about the threat that
Saddam Hussein poses, and the threat that he presents. And the point
that I make to you on that is that, when you talk about the
probabilities, as the President said in his own speech last night, or
two nights ago, he said, "We can wait and hope that Saddam does not
give weapons to terrorists or develop a nuclear weapon to blackmail the
world, but I am convinced that that is a hope against all evidence. As
Americans, we want peace, we work and sacrifice for peace. But there
can be no peace if our security depends on the will and whims of a
ruthless and aggressive dictator."
And that's the problem, Ron, that this issue presents -- that the
only person who has sure knowledge of whether Saddam Hussein will use
those weapons is Saddam Hussein. And you have to be aware of the fact
that to suggest that as a result of unknowns, the President cannot
defend the American people -- that relies on us trusting Saddam
Hussein, and being willing to say that since Saddam Hussein is the only
one who knows whether he'll use those weapons, we can't act or should
not act, because we'll rely on his will and whim.
Q So even though in one part of the CIA Director's memo, where
he clearly says there's a low probability that Saddam will strike
unless he's cornered, the President, as he says in the speech, believes
he's not going to risk one life on Saddam Hussein's word?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think -- you also have to report what the
rest of the statement was from the Director, because it wasn't just
that truncated part of it. It was, in full fashion, the Director of
the CIA had more to say than that. He went on to say that "there is no
question that the likelihood of Saddam using WMD" -- weapons of mass
destruction -- "against the United States and its allies in the region
for blackmail, deterrence, or otherwise, rose as he continues to build
his arsenal. His past use of WMD against civilian and military targets
shows that he produces those weapons to use, and not just deter."
So that's the full context of what the Director said. And let me
put it to you this way: Another way to look at this is if Saddam
Hussein holds a gun to your head even while he denies that he actually
owns a gun, how safe should you feel?
Q I was going down the same road as Ron. I'm just wondering how
you get this difference of opinion out there. Obviously, it's a
national intelligence estimate. They're both working off of the same
intelligence. How is it the President says, on the one hand, during
his speech on Monday that at any given moment, this could happen, where
the Deputy Director of the CIA reports the probability of that is low?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, keep in mind, too, and to be precise and to
be accurate for both, when the President said at any given moment it
could happen, he is referring to the transfer of weapons to terrorist
organizations.
Q -- what the Deputy Director was saying.
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think his quote actually is, as you see,
about Saddam Hussein, Iraq using them himself.
Q I read that as engaging in terrorist activities.
MR. FLEISCHER: The quote in the letter that's been public now
since last night is, "My judgment would be that the probability of him
initiating an attack," and then he goes on to describe it, initiating
--
Q -- saying anything about the transfer --
MR. FLEISCHER: The difference is him initiating versus the
transfer. But the point the President is making on all of this, it
depends on Saddam Hussein's decisions. And the trust, therefore, has
to fall to Saddam Hussein not to use what he has.
And another way to look at this, I think, to keep this in the
context of what is known, is what was the probability that Saddam
Hussein would invade Iran? He did. What was the probability of Saddam
Hussein invading Kuwait? He did. What was the probability of Saddam
Hussein using chemical weapons against his own people? He did. There
are some things that are clearly known from history that we have to
learn from, lest we make mistakes, to protect the American people into
the future.
The other thing, and let me just draw this to the general nature of
intelligence information, sometimes it is the very fact of intelligence
information that the only way of surely knowing anything is to know it
in the past because it's too late and the damage has been done. You
always have to remember, particularly with a country like Iraq, that
they engage in deception and they engage in a great bit of planning to
deploy in a way that we will never know. And so intelligence is
limited in what it can tell you with certainty. The risks, however, as
the President said, when dealing with Saddam Hussein and his history
and his abilities, are such that the American people face a growing
threat.
Helen.
Q The President hasn't held a news conference since last July.
He's held two this year. Isn't that a long time? I mean, with all due
respect to you, Ari, you're a very good spokesman, I suppose, for the
White House -- (laughter) --
MR. FLEISCHER: Keep going, Helen. (Laughter.)
Q -- really would like to question the President, all of the
statements he's made. And it can only come from him.
Q Hear, hear.
MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, your views on this are well-known, and
you've articulated them --
Q Well, that isn't --
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I understand the press's views on this. Let me
take that.
Q I hope it's the consensus in this room that reporters want to
question the President.
MR. FLEISCHER: As I say, your views, the press's views on this are
well-known. The President continues to take a great many questions
from reporters in numerous different forums --
Q It isn't the same thing.
MR. FLEISCHER: -- and I understand that you would like him to
take questions in the form of a news conference. I assure you we take
a look at this often, and --
Q And say no. (Laughter.)
MR. FLEISCHER: And say no.
Q Helen's right. And I have a question -- how much does oil
have to do with the assessment of the threat from Saddam Hussein?
President Bush didn't mention it.
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not sure I follow your question.
Q Well, you keep talking about blackmail. You're talking about
blackmailing the region to get control of the oil supplies. How
significant is that in the President's thinking?
MR. FLEISCHER: I see. Well, if you take a look at what the
President said when he went to the United Nations, and what Congress
said when it passed the Iraq Liberation Act for regime change in 1998,
that issue is not in play.
The issue is the enforcement of the United Nations resolutions
urging -- calling on Iraq to make certain that they disarm, that they
cease the development of weapons of mass destruction, they cease the
hostility towards its neighbors, the repression of minorities. And
Congress stated similar positions in 1998. Those are the factors,
Terry, that threaten the peace.
Q But when you talk about the potential -- the very real
potential that if he gets a nuclear weapon he'll be able to blackmail
the world, what would we be concerned that he wants, that he would
demand?
MR. FLEISCHER: Think if Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons at the
time he invaded Iran, or the time he invaded Kuwait. If he had invaded
Kuwait in possession of nuclear weapons, think how much harder it would
have been to put the coalition together to forcibly remove Saddam
Hussein from Kuwait. If he has them, he knows that that calculation
changes and changes dramatically.
And the risk with Saddam Hussein is, while others may have nuclear
weapons, Saddam Hussein has a military history of invading his
neighbors, using the military tools he has to accomplish through force
what cannot and should not be accomplished, that is the takeover of
others. And that's why the U.N., as part of its resolution cited the
need for him to cease his hostility toward his neighbors.
Q But if his neighbors didn't have so much oil -- there are
countries in Africa which invade each other and we don't get involved
-- most security analysts take a look at it and say oil is a central
aspect to the nation's security. And Saddam Hussein getting control of
the world's oil supplies -- are you saying oil is not at all a factor
in the President's thinking?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think when you take a look at what the United
Nations voted for, what the Congress voted for, what President Clinton
signed, and what President Bush supports, that is not a factor.
Q So oil is not a factor?
MR. FLEISCHER: That is not a factor. This is about preserving the
peace and saving the lives of Americans. And it's also -- a factor
that is new is what took place on September 11th, and the awakening
here that we are vulnerable to attacks on our own soil, now, and that
Saddam Hussein, if he links up with terrorists, has an interest in
harming us.
Q So the stability of oil prices is not a national security or
an economic matter -- how can you say that it's not a factor? I just
don't understand that.
MR. FLEISCHER: The question is about any potential use of military
force. And this is about saving the lives of American people.
Q Saddam Hussein's oil reserves are not at all a factor in any
of the geopolitical calculations?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, the question as I took it was about whether or
not this is a factor in what makes us --
Q -- on a broader question.
MR. FLEISCHER: I think the reasons are exactly as the President
stated. Now, there are implications as a result of any action that
will have effects on the economy. And no one can predict what those
will or will not be. The past history, at least in 1991, shows that
the projections and the predictions were dire and were wrong, but I
think it's impossible to state what the impact will be if this comes to
pass.
Q But the White House doesn't have anybody looking at what those
implications would be?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, I think it's impossible to state with any
precision what that effect might be. But the question as I took it --
get back to cause and motive for why we are considering military
action.
Q Ari, three pieces of legislation that the White House
described as important are stuck right now -- terrorism insurance,
the energy bill, and the homeland security bill in the Senate. Has the
President, himself, been involved in speaking to any members this week
on those bills? And if not, does he have any plans for meetings this
week?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'll have to take a look at the various phone calls
he makes -- I don't track them minute by minute -- to see. But, of
course, on the flight yesterday and on the flight the day before, the
President talked with the members of Congress who accompanied him about
the legislative calendar and what was realistic, what Congress may or
may not be able to achieve in the little while it has left.
I began by talking about judges, for example, and -- just belabor
the point for just one moment -- the reason I bring this up is when
you take a look at what has happened in the Congress, particularly this
year on the appropriation bills in the Senate, and the budget in the
Senate, and on judges in the Senate, it is not a record to be proud
of. It's a record of inaction.
On the judges, in President Reagan's first two years, 98 percent of
all his judicial nominees were confirmed; President Bush's first two
years, 93 percent; President Clinton's first two years, 90 percent.
Now it's 63 percent for President Bush.
On the circuit court judges, a higher level of courts, 95 percent
for the first two years of President Reagan; 96 percent for the first
two years of President Bush; 86 percent for the first two years of
President Clinton; and 43 percent for this President Bush.
No budget in the Senate, no appropriation bills have been sent to
the President. It has not been a strong year for the Congress this
year.
Q I wasn't really asking about the judges. Do you expect any of
these bills at this point, any progress on terrorism insurance or
energy or the homeland security bill in the Senate? Any progress to
report at all?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President is hopeful, but we'll just have
to wait and see. It's hard to say what Congress will or will not get
done.
As I've said many times before from this podium, as Congress gets
ready to adjourn, it does have a history of accelerating action, that
the deadline of Congress leaving forces decisions to be made,
conferences to conclude. The absence of a deadline often means that
Congress will continue to talk without action. The President hopes
that they will. The items that the President has called on the
Congress to pass are the job-creating impact of terrorism insurance,
the need for other appropriation bills to be passed, without busting
the budget, holding the line on spending.
Welfare reform remains an important issue that is still mired in
the Senate. The welfare authorization expires this year. Welfare,
when it was passed in 1996, has led to the improvement in lives of
millions of our fellow citizens. It would be a shame if that
legislation expired. And there are health care items, including the
patient bill of rights, that have gotten mired into disputes in the
Congress and have gone nowhere, that the President wishes could get
passed.
The energy conference continues to meet. We'll see ultimately if
they're able to reach agreement. The terrorism insurance discussions
continue. As I've said before, that is something that is probably one
of the closer issues to getting resolved. Homeland security is pending
in the Senate, as well, and I think there's just no guess what's going
to happen with that.
Q Do you have something on the election bill --
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, the President looks forward to signing the
election reform bill as soon as it's passed and sent to him. He thinks
it's a solid piece of legislation. He looks forward to signing it.
Q Ari, a Washington Post editorial on Sunday strongly criticized
the President for what they termed "averting his gaze from the defaming
of Islam and the gross distortions which they attributed to the
Reverend Franklin Graham, the Reverend Jerry Falwell, and to Pat
Robertson. And my question is, does the President agree with the
Washington Post's claim that these three are, "defaming with great
distortions," so that the Washington Post editors are better informed
on comparative religion than these three Baptist Church leaders?
MR. FLEISCHER: Les, I'm not familiar with the specific quotes you
cited, so --
Q You didn't read the Washington Post on Sunday?
MR. FLEISCHER: I was, as you know, not in Washington on Sunday, I
was traveling with the President. So forgive me if I missed an
editorial.
Q You'll take it. All right. (Laughter.)
Q Falwell called Mohammed a terrorist, the prophet Mohammed.
MR. FLEISCHER: Assuming, of course, that that's an accurate quote
-- I haven't read it, myself -- the President's views on Islam are
well-known. The President has said many times in his visits to mosques
and his visits with Muslim leaders and his invitations for Muslim
leaders to come here, as an important signal of America's openness and
welcoming of Muslims, that Islam is a religion of peace.
Q And so he will disagree publicly with these three church
leaders?
MR. FLEISCHER: You know the President's position, it is exactly as
I stated --
Q Why can't you say whether he repudiates their remarks or not?
MR. FLEISCHER: Simply because I'm not aware of specifically what
they've said, David. But there should be no --
Q The remarks have been out there for some time and are pretty
well documented.
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, I don't -- I have a long pattern, as you
know, if I haven't seen the remarks, I always want to make certain that
everything I'm hearing is accurate. But there should be no
misunderstanding, you've all seen it with your own eyes, you've
traveled on the trips the President has taken to these mosques and to
these visits. It's a very important part of America's openness and
tradition of tolerance.
Q Congressman McDermott has announced in Seattle that the
President "is trying to bring himself all the power to become an
emperor." Louis Farrakhan has announced in Detroit "our President is a
threat to world peace." And singer Harry Belafonte has announced in
San Diego that Secretary Colin Powell is "a racial sellout." And my
question is, does the President believe that these announcements were
as much a mistake as ABC, CBS and NBC refusing to telecast his address
to the nation -- (laughter) -- like Fox and CNN did? And shouldn't
Fox and CNN now be given front-row seats in this room and at
presidential news conferences, since they're obviously more interested
in the presidency, those networks. (Laughter.) I don't blame these
correspondents. It wasn't their fault, but those networks are less
interested than Fox and CNN; isn't that true, Ari?
MR. FLEISCHER: How did you get your second-row seat, Les?
Q It was vacant.
MR. FLEISCHER: Okay, let's see. So you've gone from, let's see,
this is the second question now, into a bank shot, into a speech. Let
me -- I'm not sure where you ended, so I don't know where to began.
Q Well, you can give a little of both, on McDermott and the
rest, and then on these networks that don't cover the President. But
CNN and Fox did. Don't they deserve --
Q Congress Daily also covered this. (Laughter.)
MR. FLEISCHER: These are judgments that news organizations make.
They exercise their own discretion as they see fit. And I think it's
entirely appropriate that the final decision about what is news is made
by the people who write the news for a living.
Q More people listen to Fox and CNN than to these other
networks, didn't they, Ari?
MR. FLEISCHER: Keith, one thing, I should have mentioned to you
when I was talking about the list of what's pending, the faith-based
legislation also is very important legislation that still has a
fighting chance in the Congress. And the President would very much
like to see the Senate conclude its work on faith-based.
Q Can you talk a little bit about the extent of the monitoring
the administration is going to be doing, going forward on the labor
-- the contract negotiations? And will there be a specific focus on
monitoring of safety of workers as they go back to work?
MR. FLEISCHER: Okay. Let me walk you through a little bit
procedurally on how this works. As you know, a temporary restraining
order was agreed to by a judge last night. The next step is an
injunction. If an injunction is issued, the parties then, under the
law, would be required to continue to work with the federal mediator
that is on the scene toward a solution for the labor dispute. After 60
days, if no agreement's been reached, the board would be required to
issue a second report to the President that includes the current
positions of the parties involved, efforts which have been made for the
settlement, a statement by each party of its position, and a statement
of the employers' last offer of settlement.
At that point, between 61 and 75 days, the National Labor Relations
Board will conduct a secret ballot of the ILWU employees on the PMA's
last offer of settlement. The NLRB would be required to certify the
results to the Attorney General no less than five days thereafter. At
the end of the 80-day period of legal injunction, the legal injunction
is discharged. If the dispute is unresolved and if the employees have
rejected the last final offer in a secret ballot, the parties become
free to engage in work stoppages again.
The bottom line is, the federal government has taken the most
meaningful and authoritative action it can, and that was the action the
President took last night to protect America's economy and to protect
people's jobs. At this point, it is really up to management and labor
to enter into an agreement. The federal government will be there as a
helping hand, but it is up to the parties to resolve a dispute.
And nobody should be under any illusions at the end of 80 days that
the federal government can step in and solve the problem. This is a
worker-management dispute at a very fundamental level. We are going to
be helpful. Labor will be on the scene. The mediator is available.
But it remains important for the strength of the economy, for labor and
management to use this cooling-off period that the President has
provided to get an agreement.
Q -- will there be a monitoring by the administration of the
situation? Does this administration have a hands-off --
MR. FLEISCHER: We will, of course, continue to monitor and to be
helpful. But fundamentally, in our free market country, and in a
country that respects the rights of workers, workers and management
have to resolve the dispute. The federal government will continue to
be helpful, but it remains the parties' responsibilities to enter into
an agreement. The government cannot do it for them.
Q Ari, I have two questions for you. I assume that when the
President meets with the Republican senators today, he will also bring
up the case of Estrada, is that correct?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'll let you know what happens in the meeting if
other specific judges come up. But it's possible.
Q It is reported the President is going to keep this nomination
alive. It seems to be dead in the water.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, fundamentally, it is up to the majority party
in the Senate to schedule votes. And the long and short of it is the
failure to act on the President's nominations means that there are
courtrooms that have no judges. That is a hard way to serve justice in
our country, or to serve people who expect to go to trial and have
speedy trials without having to wait inordinate amount of times because
there aren't enough judges to hear the cases.
Q I would like to
go back to the National Intelligence Estimate
on Iraq for a moment. Senator Graham said that his purpose in
releasing or publicizing this portion that would be classified was to
draw attention to the judgement of the estimate that the likelihood of
Saddam using weapons of mass destruction in a terrorist attack against
the United States actually was increased substantially if we attack
him. Given that you said twice now, I believe, that the President
doesn't dispute anything that's in that National Intelligence Estimate,
doesn't this argue for a very different approach to dealing with the
problems of disarming him?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, Ken, this is why the President himself brought
that up; prior to Senator Graham saying it, the President himself
bought it up in his speech two nights ago. The President raised that
very issue and talked about it. But again, the underpinning of that is
that the United States can and shall be blackmailed by Iraq. And the
United States cannot and will not be blackmailed by Iraq.
Q One more in this area. Knight Ridder had a story yesterday
quoting several unnamed intelligence analysts saying that they have
been pressured -- that they and others have been pressured to bring
their intelligence estimates in line with administration policy on
Iraq. Does the President have any concerns about this? Can you
respond to those -- that story?
MR. FLEISCHER: Obviously, given the questioning here, you would
think that that is just not the case. It's without basis or premise.
And I think it is fair to say it clearly is. The CIA is fortunate to
be led by a leader like George Tenet, somebody who has served as a
Democratic staffer as the Staff Director of the Democrats on the Senate
Intelligence Committee. He served under President Clinton as the head
of the CIA, and now he serves his country by also serving under
President Bush as the head of the CIA. I think that should be
comforting to the American people to know that the President has chosen
somebody without regard to their party, but because he thinks they
serve their country.
Q Ari, has the President had his conversation with President
Chirac? And also, how would you characterize the situation with the
U.N. Security Council and its efforts to get a resolution?
MR. FLEISCHER: The answer to your first question is no. It will
take place shortly, and I'll try to give you a report following it.
And the characterizations with the Security Council, the conversations
are continuing. There are additional meetings with the P-5, and I
think you can anticipate these conversations will still be ongoing.
Q Ari, I hate to beat this issue of the National Intelligence
Estimate, but if I can summarize, what I think you've been saying is
the President's come to the conclusion that Saddam Hussein is
unpredictable, and he said as much in the Boston speech on Friday, and
then repeated a version of that on Monday. If you read that sentence
of the Tenet letter that is, as you say, just one in a broader
sentence, what you get is a CIA view that, in fact, he's been more
predictable on the use of weapons of mass destruction against the
United States and its allies. That's why he can assign a low
probability to it. I guess where we're all headed is has the President
heard that sentence and basically decided that his own assessment of
the risk posed by Saddam is different from the one that's in the NIE?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, they're one and the same, as Director Tenet
said. Director Tenet has said that there is a similar approach, and
it's based on the analysis that has been provided to the President.
But the assessment the President makes is based on a variety of
factors. The President walked through those factors in his speech on
Monday. It's based on the possibility of Saddam Hussein using his
biological and chemical weapons against the United States or our allies
or our interests in the region. It's based on Saddam Hussein linking
up with terrorists who would leave no fingerprints on Iraqi weapons as
they delivered them to America's shores or to Americans abroad.
And so there's a variety of circumstances that go into it. And as
the Director has said, in his own statement, there's no question the
likelihood of Saddam using WMD against the United States or our allies
in the region for blackmail, deterrence or otherwise grows as his
arsenal continues to build.
And, again, I make this point because I think this gets at the
definition or the nature of intelligence information -- if you accept
the premise that there is only one person who knows for certain whether
Iraq intends to use those weapons, and if that one person is Saddam
Hussein, how much of a chance can the United States take that Saddam
Hussein will not use those weapons, when he has used his weapons before
against Iran, Kuwait, he's launched Scud missiles as Saudi Arabia and
at Israel, and he's used chemical weapons against his own people? He
has the means and he has the history. And the President has the
President has the responsibility to protect the country.
Q Ari, the House vote coming tomorrow on the Iraq resolution,
are you satisfied that you're going to get the signal that you wanted
to send the world?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think the strong likelihood is the House tomorrow
will send a very strong signal to the world, to our allies and to the
American people that we stand as one; the country speaks with a strong,
united voice; and many people, Democrat and Republican alike, deserve
praise for their actions.
Q Is the President had time to listen to any of the debate? I
know ahead of time he was saying that he expected it to be important
and well-reasoned debate. Does he think so?
MR. FLEISCHER: He's keeping up with it pretty closely. He's
paying attention to the things that are being said. He's regularly
briefed on the status of events and he understands how important a
moment this is for the Congress.
Q -- satisfied that the tone of it is what he expected?
MR. FLEISCHER: I have not heard him say anything that would lead
me to conclude otherwise.
Q On the Senate side, apparently the thing is going to slip to
next week. Does he think that, for example, Senator Byrd is being
obstructionist here, and that that's sending the wrong signal?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President does not make the scheduling
decisions for the Senate. These are matters that the Senate Democratic
leadership has to deal with on their own, to determine when something
can come to the floor or not come to the floor. The President will be
looking for the final result in the Senate.
But I do want to underscore, the President does think the Congress
is fulfilling its responsibility and doing it well. The Congress
serves our democracy well when they ask tough questions, when they hold
a debate, when there's an informed debate. And no matter what side of
this debate people come down on, the President will respect them for
exercising their role in our democratic system.
Q Ari, two questions. The New York Times this week published a
letter from Theodore Sorenson, a former legal counsel to President John
F. Kennedy, in which he said that the President --
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm well aware of what he said, Russell. I'm well
aware.
Q -- the question is, is it possible that the United States
now endorses for other countries a policy of presidential
assassination, the very epitome of terrorism, after our own tragic
experience with that despicable act? And he asks whether the President
has reprimanded you. Has the President reprimanded you?
MR. FLEISCHER: As far as that is concerned, on the policy, as you
know -- I think you were here when I said on the record that that is
not -- and people heard it the day I said it -- that is not a
statement of administration policy.
Q But did the President reprimand you?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think I have made the views clear of what the
White House is on this.
Q Second question. The President has called both North Korea
and Iraq two parts of an axis of evil. He says they both have weapons
of mass destruction. He says they both threaten their neighbors. He
says that both leaders -- he compares them to Stalin. So, other than
the oil that Iraq controls, what's the difference?
MR. FLEISCHER: Between North Korea and Iraq? How many of Iraq's
-- how many of North Korea's neighbors have they invaded lately?
Q Well, there was the one.
MR. FLEISCHER: I said lately. And I said by the current -- and
also, of course, by the current leader. Saddam Hussein has ordered
the Iraqi military to attack Iran. Saddam Hussein ordered the --
Q -- when he was our guy, right? On the attack on Iran.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, if you have some disputes with the policies
that were in place in 1979, you're welcome to bring those up with
leaders who were here in 1979. Saddam Hussein ordered his military to
attack Iran. Saddam Hussein ordered his military to attack Kuwait.
Saddam Hussein launched the missiles at Saudi Arabia and at Israel.
It's a very different matter, and a very different leader.
Q Ari, what's the assessment now of who was behind this attack
on the Marines in Kuwait?
MR. FLEISCHER: We're continuing to gather information about it.
We are exploring the concerns that it is tied to al Qaeda, and we
cannot rule that out.
Q What al Qaeda fingerprints do you see here?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, obviously, anything of this nature gets into
our ability to learn things from abroad, and I'm not at liberty to go
into every detail about how we can do that. But it's an accurate
statement that we have concerns about ties to al Qaeda and we have not
ruled that out.
Q Ari, a question about the speech in Cincinnati. He said that
-- referred to a very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical
treatment in Baghdad this year. Is he talking about Abu Zarqawi, who
was implicated in the millennium plot in Jordan?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think -- let me take a look at the nature of
that information and see if that's something that I'm at liberty to
give to you.
Q Can I just ask a follow-up? Regardless of who that person
was, it seemed that he laid that out as evidence of something, as
evidence that this was an example of Iraq providing support for a
member of al Qaeda or some other terrorist organization. Was he
insinuating that there was something going on there beyond medical
treatment, or is that alone --
MR. FLEISCHER: No, the President laid it out exactly as he said
it. But as part of a large, voluminous body of evidence of Saddam
Hussein being too close for comfort with his activities with terrorists
around the world.
And, again, the nature of intelligence is we don't have every bit
of information about every action taken. And, of course, Iraq would
not want us to know if it was in league with terrorists, and so they
would do things that would make it harder for us to find that out,
wouldn't they? And so, the President said it just as he said it; he
didn't go beyond that.
Q Ari, I just want to make sure that we understand what you're
saying about the National Intelligence Estimate. The CIA seemed to be
saying that a U.S. military action would encourage him to use weapons
he wouldn't otherwise use at the moment, if only for fear of confirming
that he has them. You seem to be saying that that judgment is merely a
short-term one; that, as time goes on, as he builds up weapons, he
would be more likely to use them. So you're saying that their judgment
that he would be more likely to use them is short-term, and how short
term?
MR. FLEISCHER: Let me cite for you the two principals who have
spoken on this who I think are authoritative on the matter. One is
George Tenet, the head of the CIA. As he said, there is no question
that the likelihood of Saddam using weapons of mass destruction against
the United States or our allies in the region for blackmail, deterrence
or otherwise grows as Saddam Hussein's arsenal continues to build. It
grows.
As the President said, "we could wait and hope that Saddam does not
give weapons to terrorists or develop a nuclear weapon to blackmail the
world, but I'm convinced that that is a hope against all evidence. As
Americans, we want peace; we work and sacrifice for peace, but there
can be no peace if our security depends on the will and whims of a
ruthless and aggressive dictator."
Q You're saying that their conclusion that he would be more
likely to use them under some circumstance is merely a short-term
circumstance that would not hold for very long?
MR. FLEISCHER: They did not specify the precise timing. But,
clearly, as the President has said, this is a growing problem and
growing threat to the United States.
Q What's the administration's judgment about this time factor?
I mean --
MR. FLEISCHER: Jim, I've seen nothing that puts a precise time
definition on it.
Q Of course not --
MR. FLEISCHER: The last time we had something that we thought was
a precise -- or one of the last times we had something that had a
precise definition of time was when we thought he was years away from
development of nuclear weapons, in 1991. But only after a war began
and we were able to have other means of verification of what materials
and what facilities he had were we able to determine that it was
approximately a year or maybe six months away, which again, is a
reflection on the fact that the nature of intelligence is not -- is
dependent on scraps of information, on bits of information, and also
requires us to see through or learn about efforts that are well hidden
and designed to be hidden from us.
Q Thank you, Ari. On terrorism, in general, do you see any
practical or philosophical correlation between international terrorism
and this domestic terrorism that is going on around us here? And how
concerned, personally, is the President about this situation? How much
time is he putting into it?
MR. FLEISCHER: One, on the shootings in the area, the President
yesterday raised this issue in his FBI briefing with the Attorney
General. And he asked for information about what the federal
government was doing to help. The information was provided to the
President in specificity about the number of agents the FBI is
providing on the group, replacement of the FBI agents in the various
command posts, the helicopters that have been made available to the
local law enforcement officials. The Bureau of Tobacco, Alcohol and
Firearms has also been involved. The federal government is helping in
the ballistic testing. And the President was pleased to hear that, and
he directed the FBI to continue to do everything in its power to help
local governments. It's clearly a concern.
Q Do you think one has triggered the other?
MR. FLEISCHER: Connie, we still do not know. The federal
government does not know and the local law enforcement community does
not know who this is who is doing it. If they did, they probably would
have him in custody by now. And I think that we just don't know. And
there's an old adage, you don't know what you don't know. And I don't
think anybody can leap to any conclusions or reach any conclusions
about who this is. And don't interpret that to mean that we're open to
the possibility that it is something connected to terrorism. We simply
don't know.
Q Ari, the Secretary of State said yesterday on the Hill that
passage of this resolution would help him in his diplomatic efforts
before the Security Council. Has the President as a result of his
conversations with other world leaders concluded that any world leaders
are waiting for a signal from the Congress before they decide how to
vote on the Security Council resolution?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think there's no question that the world
looks to the Congress, and the action that the Congress takes speaks
volumes about what the American people think. And so a vote in the
Congress will be something that the world looks at. I can't say with
precision, when this is a matter before the United Nations, how much of
a factor that will be. But it is important for the Congress to speak
and represent the American people; that does send a signal to the
world.
Q Daschle and Gephardt again today called for replacing Harvey
Pitt at the SEC because they said he's set to weaken the board that
oversees the accounting industry. What's your reaction?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think that's an old, tired cry that, given the
fact that the Securities and Exchange Commission has announced a record
number of enforcement actions, has seized money from corporate
officials who never should have had that money in the first place as a
result of their shady transactions, and has taken that money back from
those officials, I think that it's a political charge that has no merit
and substance.
Q As you know, the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee has
come out with a report in which they say the SEC was very lax in its
enforcement and oversight of Enron. And as you know, since I brought
this up before, one of the things they focused on was the
market-to-market accounting method, which is used -- which was used
to allow Enron to inflate its profits. Aren't you revisiting this
issue at all? How can you say that it's an old, tired argument, when
new facts have come out from this report?
MR. FLEISCHER: Because I think that they neglected to report on
the successes that the Securities and Exchange Commission has had. And
those successes are the record number of enforcement actions that have
been taken, the indictments that have been brought, as well as the
actions of the Justice Department, and the indictments have been
brought against numerous corporate leaders who engaged in these type of
transactions that deserve to be prosecuted. And now they stand a very
good chance of going to prison.
Q Thank you.
MR. FLEISCHER: Thank you.
END 1:07 P.M. EDT
|