Excerpts from the Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer, February 24, 2003
(Full Transcript)
QUESTION: Ari, on that point, about this humanitarian
relief. If the administration is interested in going through the steps
of what relief will be offered, why isn't the President giving the
American people more information about what an American-led occupation
of Iraq would look like, would entail, the sort of sacrifice, the
potential danger? Don't we have, as a society, the right to have that
conversation before military action begins, if it begins?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think there is no question that you
will, in the case the President decides that the use of force is
necessary. If the President makes the decision that the use of force
is necessary, you can anticipate a series of additional conversation
with the President about this matter. These are important questions
that you raise. The humanitarian issue is an important question, and
they all are important questions. And I anticipate that you will hear
from the President on this.
QUESTION: I just need to follow on one point about
this resolution. It's been very clear, I mean, the President initially
was not very enthusiastic about pursuing a second resolution. He said
he'd welcome it, but didn't feel he needs it. That hasn't changed, yet
now the United States is actually tabling this resolution. Why does
the President now believe this is more than welcome, but necessary?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President and our allies will be
tabling this resolution. And it's precisely for the very reasons that
the President gave when he went to New York on September 12th. The
fact of the matter is, there would be no inspectors and there would be
no United Nations role if the President did not go to New York and put
in process this plan that put the United Nations front and center in
this issue.
And so this is now the final moments to see, having put the United
Nations front and center, what the United Nations will do. So to
answer your question directly, this is the logical follow-up to what
the President began last September.
QUESTION: But it's not, because he said that he
didn't need it, and that it would be welcome. But he clearly wasn't
that enthusiastic about it, and now he appears to have changed his
view, to the point where he and the UK are actually putting forward the
resolution. What's changed?
MR. FLEISCHER: Nothing has changed. I think it's perfectly
consistent. The President made clear that it is not necessary, but it
is desirable. And, therefore, the President and our allies are
presenting it to the United Nations, and now it's up to the United
Nations, and we'll see what path they take. But it is not necessary,
from a legal point of view, for the United States, but the President
views it as important and helpful, and therefore he is proceeding.
QUESTION: A reaction to two stories, if I could.
One, this just occurred, so if you haven't heard about it, I
understand. The arrest of three Kuwaitis for plotting a terrorist
activity on U.S. forces. Have you heard about that?
MR. FLEISCHER: I just saw the top line on the wire
immediately prior to coming out here, so I have no substantive
details.
QUESTION: If you can report something later, I'd
appreciate it. Secondly, your reaction to Turkey approving -- the
Cabinet, anyhow -- approving the deployment of U.S. forces?
MR. FLEISCHER: We continue to make good progress in the
talks with Turkey. Our plea is with the actions taken by the Turkish
government to date. There are still some additional "t"s to be crossed
and "i"s to be dotted, but nevertheless, this is a very serious matter
and the democratic country of Turkey has taken it seriously, has
responded seriously, has listened carefully, and we're working
together. And that's where it stands for now. And we, of course, look
forward to a vote in the Turkish Parliament, as well.
QUESTION: The British Foreign Minister, Mr. Straw,
has said that they're going to be allowing a period of up to two weeks,
maybe a little more, before asking for a decision on the resolution
which the U.S. and UK are introducing today. We've never heard a time
line from you. Does that sound right?
MR. FLEISCHER: The time line for the President is, having
said that the resolution will be introduced today in New York at the
United Nations, the President expects it to be voted on in short
order. And it's impossible --
QUESTION: So two weeks, or a little more?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think it's impossible to specify an exact
date. I think it's important to be respectful to the United Nations
process and to allow the members of the Security Council, who have not
yet seen the document, to see the document, to see the resolution, and
then to give diplomacy its chance. I can't predict precisely how many
days that will be, but it won't be many.
QUESTION: Do you stand by your answer from this
morning?
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, no changes. But I'm not going to be
more precise than that.
QUESTION: Let me follow, if I may. France today --
MR. FLEISCHER: There's flexibility to it.
QUESTION: France today is introducing a memo which
would suggest specific deadlines and time frames. It seems to be in
direct competition with the U.S.-UK resolution.
MR. FLEISCHER: I think the most notable thing in the memo
is a discussion of increasing the number of inspectors, which
underscores the point that Saddam Hussein is not cooperating, that
Saddam Hussein is not disarming. If Saddam Hussein was disarming, you
could actually have fewer inspectors in Iraq. The fact that people
think that -- some people think they need to have more inspectors there
underscores the American position that Saddam Hussein is not complying
and not cooperating.
You will have later today the text of the resolution the United
States is offering. You'll be able to make all apt comparisons.
QUESTION: The French, though, don't seem to be
attempting to underscore the U.S. position -- one must observe.
MR. FLEISCHER: This is why there are 15 members on the
Security Council. And the President looks forward to talking with all
of them.
QUESTION: Ari, why is the President pushing the world
into war when millions, and people all over the world are against this
war? The Turks are 95 percent against it, even though they're leaders
are being bought.
MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, I think this falls right back into
the category of subjects that we will not agree on, you and me, or you
and the President -- and you and most Americans, frankly. The fact of
the matter is that --
QUESTION: Maybe it doesn't matter whether all the
world is against this?
MR. FLEISCHER: If your perception is -- if your reporting
indicates to you all the world is against this, then I don't think
you've lent too much reporting to it.
QUESTION: Your polls --
MR. FLEISCHER: The President has made clear that the reason
we are on the verge of war is because Saddam Hussein has failed to
disarm. The United Nations speaking for the world called on Saddam
Hussein to disarm -- immediately, finally, final chance. So I think
the questions are best addressed to Saddam Hussein --
QUESTION: Are you going to make all the countries --
MR. FLEISCHER: -- why has he brought the world to the verge
of war.
QUESTION: -- in defiance of U.N. resolutions to
disarm?
MR. FLEISCHER: The United Nations Security Council will
shortly have a resolution before it which spells out what actions the
United States and our allies think are appropriate to enforce
Resolution 1441. We'll see what the Security Council says.
QUESTION: Why is he paying off our allies? I mean,
if they really are for it, wouldn't they just go all out for us?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think that's a woeful mischaracterization
of the situation on the ground in Turkey, which, after all, is a
neighboring state to Iraq. It is not a voting member of the United
Nations --
QUESTION: They don't want to attack.
MR. FLEISCHER: -- it is not a voting member of the United
Nations Security Council, but as a country on the front line, that as
1991 proved, would suffer economic damage as a result of any
hostilities.
QUESTION: But the people are against it.
MR. FLEISCHER: Relations between the government and Turkey
and the government in the United States are democracy to democracy, and
the Turkish democracy will have its chance, per Turkish laws, to
speak. We'll hear what Turkey says.
QUESTION: The U.N. weapons inspectors have determined
that Iraq has this missile which exceeds limits that it agreed to, or
were imposed on it by the U.N. Hans Blix has said it should be
destroyed. If Iraq destroys those missiles, why isn't that concrete
progress toward disarmament?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, number one, we expect that Saddam
Hussein will destroy those missiles. The United Nations Security
Council has called on it to do so, and unless he engages in further
defiance, we expect that he will. But, number two, as the President
said over the weekend, that would just be the tip of the iceberg. And
the reason for that is when a criminal holds a gun to your head and
takes one bullet out of the chamber, you still have to worry about all
the rest of the bullets in the chamber, because they can kill you,
too.
And the fact is, with Saddam Hussein, he still has not shown the
world that he has disarmed from the VX, the nerve agents, the botulin,
the anthrax, all of which the United Nations found that he had in his
possession in the late 1990s, which he has yet to account for. That's
the fear about what's in the rest of the gun, in the other chamber --
in the chamber in the gun.
QUESTION: So there's no way that Iraq can do
anything, really, to avoid war? Because if they begin to dismantle
their weapons, the President still believes that they've got other
bullets in the chamber and is --
MR. FLEISCHER: Under Security Council Resolution 1441,
which was passed in November last year, Iraq had an obligation to
immediately and fully disarm from all the weapons that were prohibited
-- and I just cited several of them. So if Iraq were to take one
missile out of the chamber that they left in the chamber -- VX, sarin,
botulin, anthrax -- the world still has a lot to worry about.
QUESTION: I understand. And you won't wait to see
whether the French proposal or any other proposal could get them to
take those bullets out of the chamber -- you aren't willing to take
"yes" for an answer here on the missiles and anything else?
MR. FLEISCHER: Given the fact that the resolution passed in
November and called for full and immediate compliance, "yes" has not
been a word that anybody has heard out of Iraq.
QUESTION: Can I ask one question on Turkey? Has the
United States agreed to the Turkish request to send, in the event of
war, tens of thousands of Turkish troops to occupy Kurdish areas in the
north of Iraq?
MR. FLEISCHER: The position of the United States is
unequivocal, that the territorial integrity of Iraq should be honored.
QUESTION: That's not what I asked.
MR. FLEISCHER: The territorial integrity --
QUESTION: Will there be Turkish troops in northern
Iraq?
MR. FLEISCHER: As for the complete agreement in terms of
the loans, et cetera, and the financial compensation to assist Turkey
because of the economic consequences of hostilities, I think you can
anticipate that all information will be shared once an agreement is
finalized.
QUESTION: So is that a "yes" or a "no" that we have
or have not agreed to Turkish troops in northern Iraq?
MR. FLEISCHER: You will hear once the agreement is
finalized in its entirety.
QUESTION: Ari, you've repeatedly talked about why
it's important that Saddam Hussein follow exactly what the Security
Council has mandated in the 17 resolutions. Should you be defeated in
the Security Council on this new resolution that you're introducing
today, would the President consider it to be a violation of the
Security Council's will to go forward with a military action in any
case?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President has always made clear
that he hopes the Security Council will enforce its resolutions to
disarm Saddam Hussein. But if they do not, the coalition of the
willing will do so.
QUESTION: That's slightly different than my
question. That would be extant if you were just dealing with the 17
resolutions that have been passed so far. But if the Security Council
specifically declines to give an authorization for military action in
this resolution, wouldn't taking military action then be in defiance of
the Security Council's will about how it would go about enforcing its
past resolutions?
MR. FLEISCHER: Given what the President has said, if the
Security Council does not act, the coalition will be assembled. And I
think in that case, the question is similar to the previous situation,
which was not far removed from this, which is where the Security
Council did not act, given the threat of Slobodan Milosevic and the
ethnic cleansing in Serbia and Bosnia -- or Kosovo, and the
international community responded because the Security Council would
not.
QUESTION: If it looked like the Security Council
would not pass this, would the United States then withdraw it, rather
than bring it to a formal vote?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think we'll just let events take place.
And the President, as he said over the weekend, is confident that once
the Security Council members see the resolution and then the matter
proceeds to a vote, it will be passed.
QUESTION: France has basically said that its veto is
not necessarily needed, because there are so many other countries
opposed. I know that Tony Blair spoke with President Putin. What has
been high-level contact, either with the President or others, with
Russia around the issue of the resolution?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, of course, today the President had a
meeting with an important staff member of the President of Russia, and
so there was conversation today about it, as well. And I think you can
anticipate that over the next little while you're going to see a whole
series, as you have been seeing, of diplomatic phone calls and
meetings. And those will involve the President, it will involve the
Secretary of State, it will involve others in the administration, as
well. And Russia, of course, is a member of the Security Council and
we always look forward to talking to Russia.
QUESTION: Can you tell us who the staff member was?
MR. FLEISCHER: I have the title, I don't have the name.
We'll be happy to post it, and if I had the name, I couldn't pronounce
it. But it's the head of the administration of the President of
Russia. I believe it's the equivalent of the Chief of Staff.
QUESTION: Ari, given the fact that the French are
going to introduce at least a memo, maybe even another resolution
saying that inspectors need more time, what -- besides saying that the
U.N. will be irrelevant if they don't act now -- what is going to be
the U.S. strategy over the next two weeks to try to get this passed,
and at least try to avoid a veto?
MR. FLEISCHER: To those who say the inspectors need more
time -- need more time to do what? To get run around? They haven't
had any cooperation from Iraq to date. And so when the resolution that
was passed unanimously last year stated that Iraq's compliance should
be full and immediate, it didn't say it should be delayed and stretched
out. It didn't say it should be denied. It didn't say that it should
be gamed. It said full and immediate. The question is: will Saddam
Hussein disarm? He has shown the world that he has not and will not.
And that will be the case that the administration makes. The
administration, in the course of phone calls and meetings and through
diplomacy, will work with each of the 15 members of the Security
Council about the language that is being offered today. We'll hear
their thoughts and concerns about the language, and we will work
together, and then see what ultimately happens when it's put to a
vote.
QUESTION: The next obvious question, which is, the
resolution, or the language of the resolution that you are offering
today is obviously negotiable -- based on what the French and the
Russians and the Chinese say?
MR. FLEISCHER: Certainly. The United Nations Security
Council is not a rubber stamp. The United Nations Security Council is
an important deliberative organization. And the President has been
successful, I remind you, in going to the Security Council before.
QUESTION: Ari, the President has said before about
Iraq -- to paraphrase, that if he waited -- if the United States waited
until Iraq developed and possessed a nuclear weapon, that the will to
confront Iraq might be even less. Does the fact that North Korea is
known to possess nuclear weapons play a factor in the very different
approach we're taking toward Pyongyang?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, as the President has made abundantly
clear, there are different ways of dealing with different regions of
the world. The ultimate outcome is always to enforce the proliferation
regimes of the international community so that would-be threats do not
come into possession of weapons of mass destruction. In the case of
Korea, the President's approach is based on a multilateral approach, is
based on diplomacy, because he thinks it will be the most effective.
In the case of Iraq, the President has very little hope left that
Saddam Hussein will respond to diplomacy. And that's why it requires
different solutions in different parts of the world. But, certainly, I
don't think anybody would like to look at the situation in North Korea
and Iraq and come to the conclusion that if North Korea has nuclear
weapons than it's okay for Iraq to have nuclear weapons. That would be
a very wrong conclusion to reach.
QUESTION: On the second resolution, though we don't
know the specific language yet, it does seem clear that the allies who
are proposing it will not seek specific, explicit authorization for the
use of force. Why not?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think you have to wait for the language to
be offered. I'm not going to venture into guesses about what the
language may or may not be.
QUESTION: Well, we know that it's not going to ask
for authorization force. Can you respond to that at all?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I'm going to wait for the language to be
introduced, and then at that time I think we'll be in a position to
answer most of your questions.
QUESTION: Can you characterize the thrust of this
resolution in any way?
MR. FLEISCHER: The resolution that will be offered at the
United Nations today is direct and to the point, and it makes certain
that Resolution 1441 is implemented.
QUESTION: That sweet -- that short and sweet?
MR. FLEISCHER: Short and sweet.
QUESTION: Ari, can I take another crack at the box
score questions about the U.N. Security Council? What degree of
confidence does the White House have going into this, as it prepares to
table its latest resolution? What degree of confidence that you are
passed a veto at this point?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President has said that he is
confident that the requisite number of the Security Council will vote
for it. Of course, it passes with nine votes and no veto. I'm not in
a position to give you an answer from other nations about how they will
use their veto.
Clearly, the United States hopes that nobody will veto it. We see
no need for it to be vetoed. We think that a veto would mean that Iraq
will get to continue to build up its arms and get away with it. But
I'm not in a position to answer you authoritatively on what the outcome
will be. As far as a veto, clearly, the President hopes that would not
be the case. But we are confident we will have the requisite number of
votes to pass, unless there is a veto.
QUESTION: If you -- as far as war is concerned with
Iraq -- if you can go inside the President's mind, he must be really
tremendous -- under pressure from every side and also the most tense
person in the world today. When he sees all these demonstrations, like
millions against him -- and thousands in favoring with him, how does he
feel about this? And where can he go from here?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, it's an interesting question. But I
think as many of the people -- particularly reporters who knew the
President from the campaign and who have been up close with him know,
there is something about President Bush that when he makes up his mind
about something, he demonstrates leadership and acts on principle and
is very comfortable with the actions and decisions that he makes. And
that's the zone that the President is in.
The President believes very strongly in the importance of
consultation and working with our allies. And he believes very
strongly in the need to lead. And that's what he's doing. And when he
looks at what has happened in Iraq, when he looks at the threat Saddam
Hussein can present to the American people -- particularly after
September 11th -- the President is certain that what he is doing and
the path that he has chosen to protect the peace. And that's his
approach.
QUESTION: -- as far as the U.N. Security Council is
concerned, Mr. Thomas Friedman of the New York Times, he has written a
commentary or article which -- carried. And he said that since France
is not cooperating as far as the world affairs are concerned in the
Security Council, France should be put off the Security Council, and --
the world's largest democracy -- India
-- to be the member of the -- Security Council in the United
Nations. So how does the United States will --
MR. FLEISCHER: I remember that column. I have not heard
the President weigh-in on that topic. What I know the President
believes -- and this is what I was indicating earlier in response to
Jacobo's questions -- is in the President's conversation with President
Chirac, it's important, despite the difficulties that have been made
and the relations between the United States and France on this issue to
always remember that France is on our side. There is a difference
between France and the United States on the approach to the use of
force.
But the President knows the that nations of Western Europe and the
nations of Eastern Europe are allied nations with the United States.
We have shared values, we have shared approaches. We may have
differences with a minority of a minority of nations on a continent,
but the President still believes that it's important for us to respect
those countries.
QUESTION: Ari, with respect to the timing of the
Security Council vote coming in a couple weeks or something like that,
that seems to -- at least the British have told us that they'd like to
leave some room for additional reports from the U.N. inspectors. You
were just saying that Saddam has not and will not disarm, so what's the
point of additional reports from the inspectors?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, number one, we look forward to the
additional reports that will come in from Mr. Blix and Dr. Baradei.
They have been given a assignment the United States supports through
the United Nations Security Council, and we want to hear what they have
to say.
QUESTION: If you've decided that Saddam has not and
will not disarm, do we even need any more inspectors?
MR. FLEISCHER: We have seen no evidence from Saddam Hussein
that he has or that he will. And the inspectors are there to carry out
their mission as we asked them to do so.
QUESTION: I mean, what's the point, if we decided
that there's no further chance that Saddam is going to disarm?
MR. FLEISCHER: This is why the President said almost a
month ago that time is running out. This is a matter of weeks, not
months. The signal the President was sending is this cannot go on
indefinitely, given the fact that Saddam Hussein has not shown that he
will comply, has not shown that he will disarm. But there remains an
important process underway that the Security Council set in motion with
the resolution that the United States supports. But that was not an
indefinite process.
QUESTION: To follow mi amiga, Sarah, you've got
military scenarios and potential flashpoints in many parts of the
world, including the ongoing war against terrorism. At what point does
President Bush consider this a third world war, as some have described
it?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President views this as the war against
terrorism. And the President views this, particularly after September
11th, as a United States of America for whom everything changed. And
the President is not content to sit back and take a chance that
dictators, terrorists, people who have killed their own people, people
who have gassed their own people, people who have shown a willingness
to link up with others would bring harm to our country once again. The
President does not want to undergo another September 11th for our
country. And it is a worry.
And so, therefore, the President views this as an ongoing war
against terrorism. I have not heard him use any other language than
that.
QUESTION: Ari, when 1441 was introduced, it took
about seven weeks, I think, of diplomacy, language was negotiated word
by word. The President said today, put the stress on we're going to
work with the Security Council for days this time. I'm wondering if in
his mind there is sort of a drop- dead date for getting this thing
done, and if this time around the language is firm, this is what we
want an up or down vote on and we're not going to be negotiating about
language?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, number one, this resolution is far,
far shorter than Resolution 1441. It contains far fewer words, far
fewer pages. So there is less to talk about. This is very straight
and to the point. And that's one reason why the President indicates
that there need not be interminable delays in bringing this to a vote.
But the President has said that the time is coming, and the President
is confident that the timetable that the United Nations will act on
will also be reflective of not letting this stretch out and drag out
interminably. The President thinks it will be voted on in short
order.
QUESTION: You mean the language, this is the
resolution he wants voted on?
MR. FLEISCHER: Clearly, the United States is a sponsor of
it; it's the resolution that we want voted on.
QUESTION: Ari, if there are, indeed, military
hostilities with Iraq, would the President condone the use of the
so-called mini-nukes, which have been authorized for development under
recent presidential directives, in the fight against Saddam Hussein for
bunker-busting or anything like that?
MR. FLEISCHER: In standing with our long time policies, the
White House and the government do not rule anything in, do not rule
anything out.
So I don't talk about specific types of munitions.
QUESTION: Yes, Ari, one of the most vocal arguments
being made by people who are against the war is that if we start
bombing, there are many innocent civilians, Iraqi civilians will be
killed. What's the response to that?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think that the United States
military takes great pride in the fact that they work incredibly hard
to make certain that there are as few civilian casualties as possible.
And that is part of the training of the military, it is part of the
technical expertise of the military. Unfortunately, in war, not
everything goes perfectly, and so nobody can rule anything out.
But one worry is clearly Saddam Hussein's effort to use people
around the world -- to have them come to Baghdad, then to take their
lives as human shields. It is one of the cruelest things a leader can
do, to put people in harm's way. And this is why the Pentagon has gone
out of its way to warn people about Saddam Hussein's efforts to take
innocents and put them in harm's way, and create them as -- put them in
place as human shields. It is illegal, it is against international
procedures. Unfortunately, it is something that Saddam Hussein has
done before.
QUESTION: Ari, could I follow up on the human shield
question? There are some anti-war demonstrators who have voluntarily
offered themselves up as human shields in Iraq. How does the President
feel about the safety and well being of those people in the event that
there is a war?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President hopes that no one will allow
themselves to be used in such a manner, that this is very, very
serious, and that to put -- for anybody to put themselves or to allow
Saddam Hussein to use them in such a way as human shields is very
worrisome. And the President hopes that nobody will do that to
themselves.
QUESTION: He doesn't view their presence as a
deterrent?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President views the use of military
force as a last resort, which he hopes can be avoided. But it's a last
resort that if he makes the decision that it's necessary to engage in,
he will do so to protect the people of the United States from attack.