For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
December 9, 2002
Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
The James S. Brady Briefing Room
12:42 P.M. EST
MR. FLEISCHER:
Good afternoon. The President began today with his
intelligence briefing, followed by a briefing with the FBI. Then he
met with the President of Tajikistan, and we will shortly issue a joint
statement between the President of the United States and the President
of Tajikistan that declares our commitment to continue the development
of our long-term strategic partnership and cooperation between our
nations based on our common goal of promoting peace, security, economic
development and democracy in the Republic of Tajikistan and in Central
Asia. You will have that statement shortly.
The President then, as you know, has made the announcement of the
appointment, pending Senate confirmation, of John Snow as Secretary of
the Treasury. Later this afternoon the President will meet with the
Prime Minister of Finland.
And that is the President's public events for the day. I'm happy
to take your questions.
Q Is your new Treasury nominee still a member of Augusta? And,
if so, doesn't that present a problem?
MR. FLEISCHER: Mr. Snow is in the process of stepping down from
many of the boards and clubs that he belongs to. In this case, he is
resigning his membership there, and that's the answer to your
question.
Q Why is he resigning from Augusta, specifically?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's an individual decision that he makes. It is
not, in the President's judgment, a disqualifying matter in appointment
to Cabinet Sectaries. But these are individual decisions that
individual appointees make. And it's not uncommon for people who get
appointed to look at their various memberships and make determinations
about what they want to do and not do as Cabinet Secretaries.
Q Even though it's not disqualifying, did the White House
suggest or ask or recommend that he resign?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, it's his decision to make -- on all his
memberships, board of directors, et cetera.
Q Why wouldn't it be a disqualifying factor to be a member of a
club that excludes women?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President does not judge that to be a
disqualifying factor.
Q I have a couple of other questions. The President said today
that he had outstanding economic advisors. If he did, why did he
change the team?
MR. FLEISCHER: As you know -- and I'm not going to re-plow old
ground -- but the President, as I indicated last week, thanked Dr.
Lindsey and thanked Secretary O'Neill for their service. As the
President said this morning and as I said last week, the nation has
moved from recession to growth and they played an instrumental part in
security the tax cuts, trade promotion authority, terrorism insurance.
That's what the President was reflecting.
Q And this is totally unrelated, but I hope that you can speak
to it. There's a growing anti-war movement in this country against --
MR. FLEISCHER: You're right it is unrelated. (Laughter.)
Q -- It is totally unrelated -- against potential war with
Iraq. There's a series of protests scheduled across the country
tomorrow. What's the administration's position on that? Do you think
that this is going to be a problem that you'll have to face as you go
forward putting pressure on Saddam Hussein? Are these people
misinformed about the issues?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think peaceful protest is one of America's
most time-honored traditions, and properly so. We're a stronger nation
thanks to people from both sides of any debate who feel the right to
demonstrate their beliefs in the peaceful manner of their choice.
Q Is this going to complicate your efforts to squeeze Saddam
Hussein?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think that -- again, this is part of the
America tradition. And the President believes that the overwhelming
majority of the American people agree with him that Saddam Hussein is a
threat, and that he needs to be dealt with. And we hope that the
provisions that have been put in place, through the inspections and
through the collective will of the international community, will help
Saddam Hussein come to the realization that he must disarm.
Q And given that now Iraq has handed in a declaration and
said, announced, it has no weapons of mass destruction, what's the
inspectors' role now?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the inspectors' role will be exactly
prescribed in the Security Council resolution covering the inspections,
which is to receive unlimited, unconditional access to all sites in
Iraq so they can inspect to determine whether or not Saddam Hussein
has, indeed, disarmed. It's a very difficult task. And we want to
help them to do it.
Q How is the administration going to help them do that?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, number one we're helping them to do it by
getting them into the country. They couldn't do it having been thrown
out of the country. Now that the President has gone to the United
Nations and asked for the return of the inspectors, they're now able to
do their job. And they are growing in numbers, growing in material.
They still have an extraordinarily difficult task given the size of the
country and the ease of which material can be hidden or moved. So that
is the challenge that they face, and that is the purpose of their
mission.
Q Back in August, Vice President Cheney warned against this
scenario, explicitly, saying it was dangerous. What changed?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think that the Vice President said what the
President thinks, what all people in the administration think, and the
Vice President also recognizes the value of having the inspectors there
while we all say it's not a guarantee. I think when you take a look at
the realm of what is possible inside Iraq with the inspectors, there's
a clear recognition said by the President and the Vice President that
we want the inspectors to be there so they can do their level best to
determine whether Saddam Hussein disarmed. But the presence of
inspectors in and of itself is not a guarantee of disarmament.
Q Ari, do you have -- does the United States now have in its
possession the declaration made by the Iraqis, and do you have an
estimate now how long it will take to analyze that?
MR. FLEISCHER: I have not seen any reliable estimate of how long
it will take to analyze, other than it's going to take whatever time is
right and appropriate. The analysis of this document is going to be
done in a very thoughtful, thorough and complete way. We want to be
very deliberative as we move through and look at this document to
determine with the international community what this indicates about
Saddam Hussein and his disarmament.
In terms of the document, we are in the process. The United States
is assisting the President of the Security Council with copying and
distribution of the declaration.
Q And I think the IAEA official there was saying it could take
the inspectors as long as a year to verify compliance on that front.
Is that a realistic estimate?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not in a position to judge how long it will
take the inspectors to do their job. That really depends on Iraqi
cooperation. If the Iraqis cooperate, their job is made much easier.
If the Iraqis don't, their job is made much harder.
Q Will you be sharing more information now, more intelligence
information with the inspectors now that the document has been handed
over?
MR. FLEISCHER: We're going to continue to cooperate with the
inspectors, of course.
Q Ari, back to the Treasury Secretary for a moment. How should
we expect John Snow to be different stylistically, if not
substantively, from Paul O'Neill?
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't think it's my business to compare one
person to the next. I think you heard what the President has said
about Mr. Snow. The President looks forward to the Senate hopefully
confirming him. I can tell you this morning he's already made more
than 20 phone calls to Capitol Hill to members of both parties. The
initial reaction has been very positive.
In addition, a number of leading groups throughout the nation
have issued statements on his behalf that cite his experience, that
cite his track record of success, that cite his work involving ethics
in corporations. So the President is heartened by the initial
reaction.
Q Does the President expect him to toe the line more than
O'Neill did?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President expects all his advisors to
feel free to speak freely, to give him their unvarnished opinions, and
then to represent the administration as one team.
Q Ari, was it Snow that made the phone calls?
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes.
Q Could you just clarify that? Was it Snow who made --
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, I'm sorry. John Snow is making courtesy calls
to Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill.
Q How many?
MR. FLEISCHER: He's made more than 20 so far; he's continuing his
calls.
Q Ari, based on the Iraqi's declaration so far -- I know the
analysis is going on, but their public declarations. Are they lying?
Is this a material breach of the resolution when they say that they
have no weapons of mass destruction? And is the government prepared to
prove such a lie?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the history of Iraq certainly is that they
lie. They lie to the United States, they lie to the inspectors --
Q What I'm asking about is --
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm getting there.
Q -- specific question.
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm getting there. The history of Iraq is
unquestionably that they lie. They have lied to the United States,
they have lied to the United Nations, and they've lied to the
inspectors. The question now is what is contained in this voluminous
declaration that they have submitted. The answer to that is, we don't
yet know.
And that's why I indicated earlier that what we will do with this
declaration is look at it very thoughtfully, very carefully and very
thoroughly to determine what is in there and also what is not in
there. But I can't judge beyond that at this point.
Q Why not? I mean, the President has been so unequivocal in
this --
MR. FLEISCHER: Because we haven't read it yet.
Q The President has been so unequivocal in his laying out of
his policy. The Iraqi government is coming up and saying, we have no
weapons of mass destruction.
MR. FLEISCHER: You're asking why we don't have a conclusion based
on the declaration yet?
Q I mean, does the government have the proof that, in fact,
they do?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, as I indicated earlier, the President has
said on numerous times, and so have other leaders -- and so have other
previous administrations, interestingly -- they've made flat-out
declarations that Iraq does possess biological --
Q Then why -- why do we have to go through the careful,
methodical analysis?
MR. FLEISCHER: Because it's important to do what the United
Nations is called on to do. And this is important. And the President
believes in it and the international community believes.
Q But in an administration of moral clarity, why do we need
all these niceties? If we have the goods, let's lay them on the
table. Why do we need to go through a report that appears -- based on
the bluntness of this President -- to be patently false?
MR. FLEISCHER: One, we have not made any conclusions about the
declaration Iraq has given to us. We've only just received it.
Q Why? Why is the declaration different to the issue of
whether they have weapons?
Q There are those who believe that the only way inspections
will be successful is to have defectors inside of Iraq tell where
things are. And there are published reports that Dr. Rice spent some
time with Hans Blix and tried to forcefully stress point five of the
resolution. Does the President believe that, too, is really the only
way to get this done to make the inspections effective?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I don't know that it's the only way for the
inspectors to be effective. The inspectors are going to work very hard
to be effective with whatever means they have. But it's certainly an
enhanced way for the inspectors to be effective.
History has shown that very often the best quality information the
inspectors were able to discover in the '90s was a result of
information they received from people inside Iraq -- scientists and
weapons experts -- who had information that they wanted to share.
Q Ari, you said that this declaration from Iraq would be the
beginning of a process.
MR. FLEISCHER: Correct.
Q To Terry's point of what the Vice President has said, he
fears that if this goes on forever, inspecting one site a day or two
sites a day, that it loses its urgency, that the world consensus you
now have to deal with this would dissipate over time. Is there a time
frame within the administration that says, okay, if you say you have no
weapons of mass destruction prove to us within X that you have
destroyed this, destroyed that, show us this site?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think the time frame begins with the submission
of this declaration by Iraq. And it will continue with the United
States engaging in the analysis of the declaration to see what it
says. I think those events may help determine the time frame. I have
not heard the President engaged in any speculation about what the time
frame may be beyond that. But the President is taking it in turn. And
the turn now is to review the declaration Iraq has presented.
Q He urged the U.N. to act on this in days and weeks, you'll
remember, not months and years. Does he believe there has to be --
Iraq says it's now -- now the burden is on the United States to prove
they're lying. Obviously, you view it differently. Does the
administration have a sense that this needs to be resolved within a
period of days and weeks, months?
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, that's what I indicated. I have not heard the
President engage in any speculation on that. The President's statement
about days and weeks applied to the vote that the United Nations cast.
And the vote felt just shy of two months. The President went to the
United Nations on September 10th. The United Nations voted in early
November, if I recall, for their 15 to nothing resolution that gave
Iraq the 30 days. The 30 days expired last week -- just this past
weekend, so it actually is moving very much along the time line that
the President outlined.
Q One more. Iraq says it has no weapons of mass destruction.
Everyone in this administration, from the President on down, says it
does. Will you wait until this analysis is complete? Or is there a
real-time transfer of intelligence data, as in today or tomorrow, from
the United States government to the inspectors saying, they say they
have none, it is a lie, here's the proof, go look?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, we're going to continue to work with the
inspectors to help to get them the information so they can do their
job. And we want the inspectors to be successful in doing their job.
Of course, at the same time, we want to make certain that sources
and methods are not compromised in any information that can be conveyed
to the inspectors. I think that's very well-known and the inspectors
understand that.
Q But they say they were not getting this information prior to
the Iraqi declaration. Are they getting it now, or will you wait until
this analysis is complete?
MR. FLEISCHER: As you can imagine, I'm not at liberty to discuss
conveyance of intelligence information in any great detail. But it's
in the United States interest for the inspectors to be successful.
Q Ari, if the President is going to commit American lives,
those of young men and women, to a war, isn't there a higher obligation
to come up with affirmative proof than simply asserting a charge on
past behavior?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, again, there are reasons the President and
the Vice President, members of the President's administration, foreign
leaders -- I remind you that Vice President Gore, just as recently as
July of this year, himself, categorically, based on what he knew when
he was Vice President, said, Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.
Former President Clinton said the identical thing.
There's a reason that all these people in both parties have said
it. They've said it because they have reporting to let them know that
it's true.
To your first question, the burden on the President -- and on that
score, you're absolutely right. Of course, there is. And this
President does not engage in any discussion of war lightly. I want to
remind you, he's the person who's had, because of the attack on our
country on September 11th, the burden and the duty to hug the widows
and the children of those who have lost their lives already in combat.
Combat is the last thing this President wants to engage in.
In the event it ever gets to the point of combat, you can be
assured the President will communicate with the American people and
explain the reasons why to the American people, that this choice would
become an unavoidable choice. That is not to say that the President
will release intelligence information that will compromise sources or
methods or abilities to win a war, if that were to be the only way to
go. But, yes, the President would talk more to the American people.
We are not at that point. The President hopes to avoid that point.
Q Ari, two questions on Iraq. Would you clarify one thing for
me? As I understand it, the Iraqis not only have to say whatever it is
they have, but also prove that they destroyed what they used to have.
Is that, in fact, the case? And, secondly, there have been concerns
expressed that the Iraqis would lay something out in their declaration
-- this is the reason for the talks over the weekend about making it
available to everyone -- that they would somehow lay out the means to
make weapons of mass destruction. Where does that concern come from,
and is that a concern of the U.S.?
MR. FLEISCHER: On your second point, I would refer you to the
statement that was issued by the President of the Security Council in
this regard. I will read from it. It begins, "After consulting with
members of the Security Council, the Presidency decided to allow access
to the Iraqi declaration to those members with the expertise to assess
the risks of proliferation and other sensitive information to begin its
immediate review."
There are proliferation concerns, of course, and so those concerns
will be dealt with as the Presidency of the United Nations Security
Council indicates, in a way that makes sure our mutual international
goals of nonproliferation are in no way endangered by this process.
Q And the other part was, don't the Iraqis have the
responsibility to prove that they dismantled things they once had?
MR. FLEISCHER: Under the United Nations resolutions, Iraq is under
obligation to destroy all its weapons of mass production. And
presumably, evidence exists that they have, indeed, done that.
Q One other thing --
MR. FLEISCHER: We're going to keep moving. There are a lot of
hands up, and everybody has been on extended tours here.
Q Believe me, I'll take less than my colleagues have so far.
(Laughter.)
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I get to make those judgments. Sorry, we'll
try to come -- we'll try to come back. Jeanne, do you have something?
Q Just a quick one. On the Treasury Secretary, neither the
President nor Mr. Snow mentioned the efforts by the Treasury Department
to crack down on terrorism funding. Will that continue to work -- be a
part of the Treasury Department's responsibilities --
MR. FLEISCHER: Of course.
Q -- r is it being moved to Justice or something? Is that --
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I've not heard of anything that would indicate
a movement. And unless I missed my mark, on the organization of the
Department of Homeland Security the financial aspects of the war
against terrorism remained at the Department of the Treasury, so --
Q Is there any reason neither one of them mentioned that as
their -- as their responsibilities?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, if you recall, the President -- there was a
reference to the war on terror. And I just think at an announcement
like this, the President doesn't go into every single important mission
of any announcement that he makes. There are many other important
missions at the Department of Treasury, as well, that the Secretary
will be involved in.
Q Air, the President has said war is the last resolve. But
critics are saying there is a clear path being laid to war right now.
And they're saying that no matter what Saddam Hussein does, he cannot
jump enough hoops and jump high enough to appease the White House.
What are your thoughts about those statements?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think from the President's point of view that the
strongest path to peace is by making certain that Saddam Hussein
understands that he must disarm, that is the best way to ensure the
peace, that Saddam Hussein will honor his international obligations and
disarm so that war can be avoided.
In the President's judgment it may also be the best path to make
sure that we protect the American people so that Saddam Hussein does
not fool the world, develop weapons of mass destruction, only later to
use them.
Q But to back up what you're saying, as David said earlier,
why not lay out your evidence? Why not show the American people that
this is not a vendetta to avenge his father, this is not an obsession
or what have you? Why not lay out information?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, again, I would remind you of the President's
speech in Cincinnati, in which the President discussed Iraq's pursuit
of weapons of mass destruction. There's been other material that we
have released. But I think you can also imagine that when it comes to
anything that could compromise our ability to continue to gain
information about the situation inside Iraq, or if war became
necessary, to make certain that we would win the war, we are not going
to compromise any of that information. And I think that people
understand that.
Q Ari, at best Mr. Snow can't be confirmed by the Senate until
early January. Does the President want to put out an economic stimulus
proposal by the end of the year? And if so, would Mr. Snow be an
active participant in formulating it?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, in terms of the timing of it, I would not
make any predictions about when the President will offer an economic
plan. But certainly, the President has been taking a look at a number
of ideas and has made no final determinations about them. And whenever
the time is right in his judgment, he will share that.
Q Will it be at the end of the year?
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't rule anything in or out, in terms of the
timing.
Q Ari, since Mr. Lindsey was at the event this morning, can
you tell us was Secretary O'Neill also supposed to be there? Was he
invited? And did the President speak to him? Has he spoken to him
since --
MR. FLEISCHER: I think the only people at the event were White
House aides. Bob Zoellick was there. But I'm not aware that anybody
else was there other than those.
Q Secretary Evans --
MR. FLEISCHER: Was Don there?
Q Yes.
MR. FLEISCHER: I didn't see him. I don't know. You would have to
check Treasury's schedule.
Q Okay, an unrelated follow, please. What role, if any, did
the President have in honoring his father by naming a Nimitz-class
aircraft for him?
MR. FLEISCHER: I have no idea. I know that he's honored that his
father was honored.
Q Right.
MR. FLEISCHER: But I don't know.
Q Did he get to at least pass the word on to his father, do you
know? Do you have anything on that at all?
MR. FLEISCHER: No idea. I've been doing other things.
Q Just going back to a previous question, how big a role will
Snow have in formulating the economic policy? I mean, the President
did say he'll be the senior member of his economic team, so isn't he
expecting him to have a pretty big say in that?
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, I think he may have some role. Obviously, his
first priority is going to be continue the courtesy calls he's making
up to Capitol Hill. And he has, as I indicated, a lengthy list of
people that he wants to call; I think he's going to focus on that. But
I think members of the Hill would like him, if he is confirmed, to hit
the ground running. And so we'll continue to work together.
Q So are we to infer that from that, that his role is really
more as a diplomat or as a salesman, as some have said, for the
economic plan which the President already has the bearings of in
place?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, his role will be exactly as the President
outlined it. He will be the lead member on the economic team. He will
be, as any Secretary of Treasury is, a decision-maker under the items
under his purview. And he will work with the President and the rest of
the team, if he is confirmed, to help implement the economic policies
that the President decides upon.
Q Ari, the reaction from the Democrats has been that this is
rearranging deck chairs and --
MR. FLEISCHER: Some Democrats.
Q Well, some Democrats -- well, including one who worked with
Snow at the CSX. Their assertion, though, is that the problem is not
-- there's no "it's the plan." What's your reaction to that?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think that the proof is in the pudding.
And the fact of the matter is that the economy has gone from recession
to growth. And as the Vice President said accurately, during the
transition, he said back then the economy was on the verge of
recession. The slowdown began in the summer of 2000, manufacturing has
declined for 28 months in a row -- that's two years and four months.
And so what's important is that all people -- Democrats and
Republicans -- work together so that this longstanding decline which
has now turned around and gone into growth, can grow even more and more
jobs be created for everybody, regardless of what their party is. I
don't think people who are unemployed want to know a political party is
going to get a job, they want to know if the political parties care
about the people who are unemployed. And so that's the President's
focus.
Q Ari, in picking another captain of traditional industry here
to head the Treasury Department, what did the President find in Mr.
Snow that he could not have gotten from, say, a Wall Street graybeard
of some sort?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think it was all the reasons that the
President outlined in his statement: the experience that Mr. Snow has,
the expertise he has, the wide respect that he has from those who have
known him. Those are all the factors that led to the President's
conclusion to nominate him.
Q And why not -- I mean, as compared to getting somebody who
had Wall Street experience and --
MR. FLEISCHER: I think in the President's judgment there are many
good places to find many experts. At the end, he has to make a
determination about the individual and which individual he thinks is
best suited to carrying out the mission of the Secretary of the
Treasury in the Bush administration. And he made his determination and
went forward.
Q Can you tell me when the White House first reached out to
Mr. Snow about the possibility of --
MR. FLEISCHER: I can tell you this. They first met during the
campaign and Mr. Snow -- maybe some of you may recall this -- Mr. Snow
attended the economic roundtable in Austin during the transition. And
that's when the President first got to see him and listen to him and
gauge and judge his abilities. And then the President made the call to
him Friday evening to offer him the position.
Q Ari, had he been reached out to by others before the
President called him Friday evening?
MR. FLEISCHER: He very well may have. I don't know. I don't know
the names of everybody who may have any conversations.
Q On the economic stimulus, how quickly can an economic
stimulus package be presented? There are so many people out there
hurting. Can the President create jobs immediately, while at the same
time preparing to further cut taxes?
MR. FLEISCHER: The timing on all matters of economic policy, of
course, is going to be determined by working with the Congress. Unlike
foreign policy, where the President has the ability to execute certain
actions immediately, when it comes to domestic or economic policy, of
course, it's always important for Congress to have its say. And so any
proposals that the President makes will, of course, go before the
Congress. And that will determine the timing of them.
Q So there's no hope he can offer these people until February
or so, you're saying?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think that, again, the factors of the
economy result from many different conditions. The economy has been
growing in this year. Not fast enough for the President, but the
average growth right now is approximately 3.3 percent for the first
three quarters of the year. If you recall the economy grew by about 5
percent in the first quarter, 1 percent in the second quarter, and 4
percent in the third. And so the economy is growing at a healthy
clip. There is still concern about the pace of the recovery. And
recoveries often have a zigzag pattern to them. And the President is
looking long-term for how we can create the most jobs and provide the
most help for people, while also being mindful of those who are
unemployed today.
Q It's been reported that the administration is looking at
$300 billion stimulus package, and that package would include
accelerating some of the provisions that are due to kick in, in 2004
and moving them up a year, as well as some form of cut on dividends
taxation. Can you respond at all to --
MR. FLEISCHER: What's your window on the $300 billion?
Q What is the window?
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes.
Q One year -- 10 year --
MR. FLEISCHER: You said three -- 10-year? Yes, as you know, the
President is reviewing a number of items. And I'm just not going to
prejudge any determinations the President may make.
Q There's also a report -- well, actually several reports that
the administration was planning to unveil this package this week, or
certainly by mid-December.
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes.
Q And that that was held up --
MR. FLEISCHER: I've seen those reports that the President was
going to announce a package this week. And I can only presume that
anybody who said that to the press forgot to talk to the President.
That was never in the President's plans.
Q Ari, you said that Democrats and Republicans should both
work together in dealing with the economic problems we're facing. I
was wondering, are you making any plans for having Democratic input
into the formulation of any policy that might be coming from the White
House? You had an economic summit earlier, but it was a different
situation -- different personnel, different economic conditions. Are
there any plans of this nature --
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President always welcomes the idea and
input from Democrats on these matters. If you recall with the tax cut
that was enacted into law, that helped give the economy the boost it
got, which after September 11th helped the economy to begin the
recovery, the President had the support in the Senate of some 12
Democrats and he worked very closely with Senator Breaux, for example,
on several of those provisions. So we always are on the lookout for
Democrats to work with to advance the President's agenda.
Q Ari, based on what you've said so far about Iraq, is it a
fair characterization then to now say that all evidence that you have
that is fit for public consumption has been revealed to the public?
Or, conversely, to say that one of the things that you still have as
evidence are fit for public consumption? Is that a fair
characterization?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, it's an area where I'm just not at liberty
to get into giving you details or a lot of information about the flow
of intelligence information.
Let me try to give you a reason why. Let's just say as a
hypothetical that there is an individual inside Iraq who is in a
position to know things, who's telling us things. Would you expect us
to name that individual or to provide that individual's name to anybody
to in any way put that individual in any way that harm could be done?
Of course not.
So there is just things that when it comes to protecting
intelligence information we will not disclose. The reason we will not
disclose them is to protect our ability to receive that information,
because that information is how policymakers make the best decisions.
Q But has everything disclosable then been disclosed now?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, we also make determinations on what we can
disclose about protecting sources and methods, and I'm just not at
liberty to get into every detail about it.
Q Why is the President appointing convicted criminals, like
Elliott Abrams, to policy positions at the White House?
MR. FLEISCHER: Russell, you asked that question last week about
somebody else. You asked it about somebody else.
I dispute the premise of your question.
Q I have a second question.
MR. FLEISCHER: I dispute the premise of your second question.
(Laughter.)
Q Yesterday on Meet the Press, the columnist Bob Novak said
that hawks inside the Bush administration never wanted inspections in
Iraq because "this is really about change of regime in Iraq and change
of the political outlines in the Middle East more to Israel's
benefit." That's what this has been all about, and since it's very
hard to sell that to the American people, they have done it on a
weapons of mass destruction basis."
Is there anything you can say to counter the public perception that
hawks like Richard Perle and Wolfowitz have hijacked this country's
foreign policy?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President sets the foreign policy and the
foreign policy is, of course, that the inspectors are on the scene and
doing their job.
Q Ari, The Washington Times reports this morning that in
Arizona there are more than a dozen known militia organizations
responding to a reported one million illegal immigrants. And Chris
Simcox, the newspaper publisher in Tombstone, is quoted as saying, "I
dare the President of the United States to arrest Americans who are
protecting their own country. We will no longer tolerate the ineptness
of the government in dealing with these criminals and drug dealers."
And my question -- first question -- does the President believe that
such militia members should be arrested, or recruited, trained and
deputized?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President believes that the laws of the land
need to be observed and the laws need to be enforced.
Q All right. Considering the billions of federal taxpayer
dollars that go to support U.S. universities, does the President
believe that universities who use affirmative action by race in their
admissions should be obliged to use affirmative action by race rather
than ability alone in selecting members of their football and
basketball teams?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think the best guide to what the President
believes on this issue is to look at what he did as the governor of
Texas, when the President --
Q The Hopwood decision came out against --
MR. FLEISCHER: Lester, I was just answering your question.
Q You remember that, the Hopwood decision, don't you?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's your second question. Yes, I do.
Jim Angle, and then David Gregory. Jim.
Q On Snow, I understand he had been considered for SEC. The
vetting process has already begun. Does this help speed things along
at all? Does that mean that it takes a little less time to get him
ready? And how soon can you get things ready for Congress to take up
his nomination?
MR. FLEISCHER: Of course, the vetting process has begun; it will
continue. And you will receive the official notification today about
the intent to nominate. And the formal process, as you've seen many,
many times, is you have intent to nominate, then you have nominate, and
then of course, the Senate begins its consideration. This is all part
of the nomination process, and it's underway.
Q Had it been underway for a while? Does that mean that this
will move a little more quickly than it would have, had you just
decided to call him on Friday and start --
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think it really just began in earnest.
Q Ari, any response -- apparently, there have been some
complaints in the neighborhood around the Naval Observatory about some
construction to the Vice President's house there. No one is being --
MR. FLEISCHER: Where do you live? (Laughter.)
Q But is there any response to that? I mean, if --
MR. FLEISCHER: You'd have to talk to the Vice President's Office.
I don't know any of the facts in this matter.
Q Thank you.
END 1:12 P.M. EST
|