Arming pilots
12:42 P.M. EDT
MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. Let me give you a
report on the
President's day, and then I'm happy to take your questions.
The President began with a bipartisan meeting with the leaders of
Congress, at which the President discussed many of the remaining items
that are pending on the congressional calendar -- to promote economic
security, job development, and focus on the domestic agenda, as well as
the situation with Iraq. At his morning meeting were Speaker Hastert,
Leader Daschle, Minority Leader Lott, and Minority Leader Gephardt.
From there, the President had his intelligence briefing. Then he
had a briefing by the FBI and convened a meeting of the National
Security Council.
The President also this morning met with the President of the Czech
Republic, Vaclav Havel, where he paid tribute to a person that he views
is a great man who helped bring about the end of communism. During
that meeting the President discussed with President Havel what the
President said -- President Bush said this to President Havel --
"It's important to speak with moral clarity and when you see wrong, to
speak about the wrong you see." They spoke about the situation
vis-a-vis Iraq; they spoke about NATO expansion.
The President also this morning participated in an event to promote
awareness of preventive cancer screenings with Lance Armstrong. And
later today he will meet with Historically Black Colleges and
Universities Presidential Board. And then the President will have
meetings with Democratic senators on the creation of the department of
homeland security, an issue that remains hung up in the Senate. Then,
this evening, the President looks forward to having dinner with the
President of the Czech Republic.
John.
Q How much of a delay do you think this entreaty to the United
Nations that Iraq has made will put into this process that the
President has started at the Security Council? And do you foresee a
situation under which inspectors could go back into Iraq without the
backing of a tough U.N. resolution?
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't know that there will be a delay. The
United Nations Security Council has not previously set a vote, the
timing for a vote. And based on the consultations that Secretary
Powell has had, and the fact that most of the people he's consulted
with have now returned to their capitals for consultations, the process
is ongoing. And we'll see exactly the timing of the United Nations
Security Council action. But I don't think you can interpret any
recent events to suggest there will be a delay. I think the U.N. is
moving at the pace that it was going to.
Q And on the second part of that, can you foresee a situation
under which the inspectors, UNMOVIC, will go back into Iraq without the
backing of this new resolution that the President is seeking?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the point the President made to the United
Nations is something has to be different this time, that the world
needs to learn the lesson that when Saddam Hussein deliberately sought
to mislead, to evade, and to play games with the arms inspectors, whose
purpose was to enforce the U.N. resolutions, and that's why the
President wants this to be different this time. He wants something
meaningful and something significant out of the United Nations, and
he's hopeful that that will happen.
That remains to be seen, John. That will be part of the results
that we are waiting for to see from the United Nations.
Q I'm sorry. Does he have a basic problem -- problem with the
basic structure of UNMOVIC? If you're talking about it not being like
the last time -- UNMOVIC isn't what UNSCOM was.
MR. FLEISCHER: The President has a basic problem with the
structure of Saddam Hussein's Iraq. It is Saddam Hussein's Iraq that
has frustrated the good works of the inspectors. The inspectors have
worked diligently and tried their best to get information about what is
happening in Iraq. And that's why I think I can cite to you some of
the statements that have been made, for example, by the former chief
U.N. arms inspector, Richard Butler, who -- his reaction to what
Saddam Hussein said in the letter that was sent to the United Nations
is: "But what we really needed to hear is that you can inspect without
conditions, that you can go anywhere anytime. The letter," he
continues, "did not say that. That is a black hole. That is a
significant omission," Butler said. "It is a very snaky letter." And
then Butler added that if inspectors did not have unfettered access to
Iraqi facilities, they do not have, "a snowball's chance in hell" of
establishing whether Iraq had nuclear, chemical or germ weapons.
"Iraq's basic position is to say that it has no weapons of mass
destruction. That is a black lie." That's what the former head of the
U.N. inspectors has said about the most recent developments from Saddam
Hussein.
Q Ari, on the congressional resolution, how close is the White
House to finalizing the wording of exactly what you're going to ask for
from Congress?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, we're in the process of talking to the
Congress. Nothing has been sent up to the Hill at this time, nothing
has been exchanged. We're in the process of talking with the Congress
about it, and will continue to do that. But I think you can expect
something being sent over to the Congress shortly. And if this
morning's meeting is any indication, there is a seriousness in the
Congress about dealing with this in a real fashion, and in a fashion
that has credibility, and serves the purpose of hopefully promoting
peace.
Q Do you think we'll see that today, by the end of this week?
MR. FLEISCHER: We'll try to keep you posted on it.
Q Ari, is regime change still the policy of this
administration?
MR. FLEISCHER: Of course, it is.
Q And if so, what incentive, then, does Saddam Hussein have to
disarm?
MR. FLEISCHER: One, this was decided on in 1998 in one of the most
bipartisan acts that the Congress took, and that was signed by
President Clinton. To suggest in any way that because Saddam Hussein
has not shown a willingness to abide by the very terms that he agreed
to with the United Nations should mean that the United States should
change its policy of regime change makes no sense.
Regime change was the policy because, as President Clinton said at
the time, Saddam Hussein has violated all the agreements that he
entered into, and the only way to get the policies implemented to
protect the peace, in President Clinton's judgment at that time, was
through regime change. What's happened in the four years since? The
inspectors have gone away, and Saddam Hussein has continued his efforts
to have weapons of mass destruction.
Q Is regime change, though, part of the goal of what you're
trying to accomplish through the U.N.?
MR. FLEISCHER: The goal of what we're trying to accomplish through
the U.N. is exactly what the President laid out last week, which begins
with disarmament and Iraq's honoring the resolutions to destroy all
their weapons of mass destruction; to cease the repression of
minorities; the return of prisoners that were taken in the '91 war; to
renounce Iraq's involvement with terrorism; to permit no terrorist
organizations to operate in Iraq; and to cease its violation of the
oil-for-food programs. Those are the issues the President brought to
the attention of the United Nations.
Q Ari, if I could follow up on Sandra's question. Now that the
President has secured the bipartisan agreement of the leadership of
Congress to pass a resolution authorizing him to use force, is he
prepared to share with the American people, to level with the American
people, about what the use of force actually, practically means? For
instance, is the administration, now that this debate is underway and
will take place in the next couple of days, prepared to say how long
will American soldiers be in Iraq, should the President use this
authority he is seeking?
MR. FLEISCHER: Make no doubt, if this gets to the point where the
President decides that force is the route to go in order to preserve
the greatest chance for world peace, and for regional peace, the
President will, of course, speak to the American people. The President
is in the middle of a process where he began at the United Nations
talking to the world about the importance of the United Nations showing
its relevance. And the President has started this process as a result
of the consultations not only with the Congress, the United Nations,
but, of course, the American people have a right to hear what the
President thinks. And that, if it comes to that point, the President
will do that at the appropriate time.
Q But the Congress is now at the sticking point, at the point at
which members and senators have to decide, based on what their
constituents' view is, in part, to give the President the authority to
use this force. They now have to make the decision. And don't they
need the answer to the question, if we give you this force, this
authority to use force, how long will American soldiers be in --
MR. FLEISCHER: The President will continue to talk about this
publicly and in various forums and in various ways. And at the
appropriate time, in his judgment, he will talk to the American people
more directly about it.
Q One more question. He expects the Congress to vote to
authorize him to use force before he answers the question how long
American soldiers would be expected to be in Iraq and what government
the United States would support, post Saddam?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think Congress is asking the appropriate
questions in the hearings that it has, so that Congress can make the
appropriate decisions as they approach a vote on a resolution. And I
think Congress is satisfied with what they are hearing from the
President and are hearing from the administration witnesses that are
going up there this week, today, tomorrow and the next day. Anything
beyond that, I don't want to speculate about the timing of it, but the
President understands, of course, the importance of talking to the
country about it. It's a vital part of the job of the President.
Q What would the President say to Foreign Minister Ivanov on
Friday to try to get the Russians on board?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, first of all, the meeting with the Foreign
Minister and the Defense Minister are focused on implementation of the
Treaty of Moscow, which is the reduction of offensive weapons down to a
range of between 1,700 and 2,200 weapons, offensive weapons. That's
the focus of the meeting. And I think, depending on what the President
hears as a result of the consultations that Secretary Powell has had
with the Russians, he may have some other thoughts closer to the
meeting. I don't want to speculate this far out. If anything comes up
on the topic of Iraq -- and it very well might -- prior to Friday,
I'll try to help you out closer to the meeting.
Q And how are you going to convince Russia to join with you at
the U.N.?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, this is the essence of diplomacy. And I
think that as you've seen before, very often diplomacy moves in ways
that aren't immediately apparent, at least through public statements.
And the United States will continue to work very closely with our
friends and allies at various levels of the government. And we're
confident that at the time that the vote takes place, that the world
will agree. What choice does the world have, other than to show that
it is not willing to put any meaning in the resolutions it passes? And
that's not something I think the United Nations Security Council wants
to countenance.
John.
Q Two points on the U.N. debate. First, Secretary Powell said
in the hours after the President's speech that thing were going well,
that he was having good consultations, and that he hoped to have at
least discussions with Security Council members, key members,
discussions about language of a resolution by the end of this week.
Now you have two permanent members saying they don't even see the need
for a resolution. Is it at least fair to say that at this point, the
timetable for United Nations action, if there is to be action, is not
what the administration had hoped for?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, that was basically John's question, about the
timing of it. And I've seen nothing to suggest that the timing has
changed for what the United Nations Security Council is considering.
This is --
Q Do you think there will be language this week?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think what you're seeing is the essence of
diplomacy. And in diplomacy, there is no such thing as a slam-dunk.
Diplomacy is a careful and considered art, and it involves important
discussions between sovereigns. And they may have different views of
similar -- of the same issue, but those views often are not as far
apart as people would think. And so the efforts of the Secretary will
continue in his discussions with these groups -- with these nations.
And this is the middle of the week, and there are more conversations
that are going on.
Q Second point, the President and the administration have said
consistently there cannot be and should not be any negotiations with
Iraq, whether the issue is weapons inspections or anything else.
MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct.
Q Mr. Blix, the head of the inspections part of the U.N., has
had meetings with the Iraqis. He's supposed to have more meetings with
the Iraqis. There's talk about another meeting in Vienna two weeks
from now. Is that not negotiating with the Iraqi, even if they're
"practical arrangements"?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, what you're seeing there is actually some of
the more technical conversations that would be expected. These are not
negotiations with the Iraqis about the terms of inspection. Obviously,
there are some rather mundane things that go in to having inspectors
depart one country and arrive into another country. That's not the
same, though, as the terms of the inspections.
Q You're confident there are no discussions about, say, as under
the previous regime of inspections, giving notices when you're going
to --
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President's position is that Iraq lost a
war and, as a result of the loss of the war, they negotiated and
accepted the terms of the armistice. That is not up to negotiation.
That is the word that Iraq gave as the condition for ending the war
that they lost. And that will not be renegotiated. These technical
conversations are of a different sort.
Q I have two quick questions. One, General Musharraf told the
United Nations that during his meeting with President Bush, the
question of cross-border terrorism and incursions never came up. But
Indian and American officials in New York also said that it did. One,
who is telling the truth? And, two, General Musharraf also said that,
this is not my job to stop the cross-border terrorism. But 700,000
Indian military; if they cannot do it, then how can I do it?
MR. FLEISCHER: Goyle, on both the meetings with President Vajpayee
and -- Prime Minister Vajpayee and President Musharraf, they talked
about the importance of bringing peace to the Subcontinent. And this
is always an important issue. As you know, almost twice in this past
year, it resulted in escalations almost to the point of hostilities.
So this is a very abhorrent issue. They discussed a number of issues
in their meetings.
Q Second question is that -- sorry -- there was a number of
demonstrators at United Nations and also they want to meet with
President Bush, that they are calling on the administration and
especially on President Bush that there is religious persecution and
minorities are being persecuted and murdered, killed and raped in
Bangladesh, right after the new government of Prime Minister -- and
nobody is doing anything about that. And that question was also raised
in New York at United Nations.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, human rights is an issue that is important in
all nations around the world, and something that is always stressed in
the President's meetings, and something that the State Department
always focuses on in its conversation with foreign nations.
Ellen.
Q On the prisoners issue, are we -- do we have any idea how
many prisoners there are, how many of them may be of United States
origin? And, if we don't know, have our allies been negotiating or
discussing at all with Saddam Hussein?
MR. FLEISCHER: There is one unaccounted for American still
remaining as a result of the war in 1991.
Q Prisoners was plural, so --
MR. FLEISCHER: And there are many from other nations, including
many Arab nations and many other nations that were part of the
coalition. I'd have to take a look to see what the hard number
estimate is. There is an estimate for it. I don't have a copy of that
with me. Let me see if we can't provide that to you, Ellen. But, yes,
there is.
Q Ari, getting back to John's question, I recognize that the
Blix conversations are viewed as technical conversation, but often the
devil is in the details. So has the White House reserved some kind of
right to accept an agreement that is reached between the inspectors and
the Iraqi government, the right to review it and decide whether that
meets the standard that the President has set?
MR. FLEISCHER: This is not a negotiable item for the Iraqi
government to decide what the terms of inspections are. This is not
for them to negotiate. This is for them to accept and to do as they
have promised to do.
And I'll give you an illustration of why. Last night, Tariq Aziz,
the Foreign Minister of Iraq, in explaining the letter that was sent to
the United Nations, said, "If the inspectors come and act honestly,
professionally, in order to check the truth, to search for the truth,
we can reach the truth within a reasonable period." Based on Iraq's
actions in the 1990s, when they lied, when they deceived, when they
created such a climate that the inspectors could not do their jobs, who
is Iraq to judge what is honest, professional, or the truth? They have
no qualifications to make those judgments. In fact, history has shown
that any judgments they make turn out to be lies.
Q So, are you just confident that Blix will negotiate, or anyone
else who is negotiating here on how they go in, where they go, all of
that -- will just meet the needs of the White House? Or does the
White House withhold the right to take a look at that agreement and say
no, that doesn't work for us --
MR. FLEISCHER: What meets the needs of the world community is
disarmament. That is the bottom line. This cannot be --
Q That is the goal --
MR. FLEISCHER: No, that is more than the goal. That is what has
to happen in order for the world to know that Saddam Hussein does not
pose a threat -- as well as the other actions that the President
outlined at the United Nations involving the return of prisoners, et
cetera.
And in order to know that is the case, any inspection regime has to
be far different from what it was in the past. It has to be set to a
different standard, the bar must be much higher. Why repeat the
mistakes that were made that led to cat-and-mouse games throughout the
'90s? Who in the world wants to play that game again?
Q Okay. If I could just -- one other thing on the resolution
that's headed towards Congress. The White House is going to send
language up, but how open will you all be there to tweaking by members
of Congress? Are you going to -- is the White House looking for --
MR. FLEISCHER: This is a bipartisan process that involves the
legislature and the executive working closely together. Of course, the
administration wants to make certain that it is meaningful, but the
administration looks forward to working with the Congress on this.
Their voices are important. This is Congress' resolution that the
Congress would pass and, of course, the Congress wants to pass
something that the President will support.
Q A two-point question if I may. With France and Russia saying
that the letter from Iraq is satisfactory, it does seem improbable that
the United States will be successful in getting a strong resolution
through the Security Council without a veto. So my two-part question
is, one, if the inspectors go back into Iraq under the previous rules
and the previous resolutions, and they do their work and are able to do
an unfettered inspection, one, how will the Bush administration evoke a
regime change? And, two, if the inspectors are not allowed to do their
work, will the United States go back to the U.N. again or will it take
unilateral action at that time?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, again, your premise that under the existing
inspecting regime, arms inspectors could go back into Iraq and have
their work carried out unfettered is not borne out by any of the events
of the last decade. There is nothing in Iraq's behavior that would
suggest that inspectors going into Iraq under the existing terms could
have anything other than opposition, confrontation, inaction, as a
result of Iraq's blocking tactics.
And that's why, I think -- let me share with you again something
that Richard Butler, the United Nations special -- excuse me, the
UNSCOM executive chairman, said on July 31st of this year in his
testimony before Senator Biden and the Foreign Relations Committee. He
said, his quote is, "It's essential to recognize that the claim made by
Saddam Hussein's representatives that Iraq has no weapons of mass
destruction is false. Everyone concerned, from Iraq's neighbors to the
United Nations Security Council to the Secretary General of the United
Nations, with whom Iraq is currently negotiating on the issue --
everyone, simply, Mr. Chairman, is being lied to. From the beginning,
Iraq refused to obey the law. Instead, it actively sought to defeat
the application of the law in order to preserve its weapons of mass
destruction capabilities."
And he continued, "Now, I've given this briefest recollection of
that history because, Mr. Chairman, I put to you and your colleagues,
it shows two things. One, Iraq remains in breach of international
law. Two, it has been determined to maintain weapons of mass
destruction capability at all costs."
These are the words of the experts who have a history and
experience of personally dealing with the obstacles put up by Iraq.
And so that is why the President feels so strongly that anything that
is done now must indeed be done differently so that the world can know
that disarmament will be carried out.
Q How do you do things differently? I mean, if the U.N. will
not act, if you cannot get a strong resolution with teeth through a
Security Council, if the inspectors going back in are nothing more than
a charade, then how will the United States evoke a regime change and
bring about disarmament?
MR. FLEISCHER: I am not going to prejudge the action that the
Security Council will take. That's the purpose of the Secretary's
negotiations with members of the Security Council. But I also urge
you, as you say that, in the wake of this letter from Iraq to the
United Nations, that the ground has shifted.
You know, people said that when the President went to the United
Nations, he wouldn't be successful in moving the United Nations. He
was successful, and he will continue to use all tools at his disposal.
And the Secretary is engaged in the diplomacy right now to make certain
that the result is the strong one that the United States seeks.
Q Ari, earlier this week, Dr. Lindsey said --
MR. FLEISCHER: We're going to come back to this row. You should
have had your hands up earlier.
Q I did have my hand up.
MR. FLEISCHER: I looked right here, Les.
Q We both had our hands up, Ari.
MR. FLEISCHER: Ken.
Q Two questions, one on inspections, the other on the
congressional resolution. You say that something has to be different
this time. Is it not possible that the threat of U.S. military action,
in and of itself, has created a different situation, that Saddam
Hussein is essentially checkmated from doing anything to interfere with
these inspectors because of that threat, and that, therefore, a new
U.N. resolution is superfluous?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, on the first part of your question, I think
that's true. I think that, given the fact that Iraq showed no movement
and the world showed no movement from 1998 until 2002, until President
Bush put the issue before the United Nations, demonstrates that the
President's approach has at least made people properly focus again on
this issue and the threat that Saddam Hussein poses to world peace.
Beyond that, I can't make any predictions about what Saddam Hussein
will do.
Q So why is a new resolution necessary if he has this sort of
--
MR. FLEISCHER: Because the President thinks it's very important
for the United Nations to show that the resolutions that they pass have
teeth. What alternative is there? To say that the United Nations
plays no role in the world? The United Nations does not preserve the
peace?
And this is why the President in many of his meetings following his
speech to the United Nations said to the world leaders with whom he met
that this is a test to see whether or not this is the United Nations or
the League of Nations. And that test remains unanswered.
Q One on a congressional resolution. After he got back to the
Hill, Senator Lott was telling reporters that, in his view, the
resolution should focus rather narrowly on the issue of weapons of mass
destruction and Iraqi disarmament, and not deal with the question of
regime change. Would that be acceptable to the White House?
MR. FLEISCHER: We'll see. We'll keep working with the Congress on
the language. I'm just not going to prejudge something that hasn't
even been sent up there yet.
Richard.
Q Ari, much of the focus has been on China -- I mean, on
Russia and France balking in the Security Council. Is there concern
that China might veto a resolution? And what's the administration
doing about China?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the same thing we're doing with all nations,
and that is the consultative process that Secretary Powell began in New
York that is continuing. And it's very -- it's still in mid-course
of the consultation. And the President feels very strongly about the
need for the Security Council to speak clearly and strongly. And we
will see what they do.
Q Is there a point at which the President himself will jump into
the negotiations with the Council members or leaders of the nations in
the permanent membership?
MR. FLEISCHER: We will always let you know, every time I can,
about any of the phone calls or any of the other actions the President
makes. Of course, the President jumped in rather firmly, with both
feet and the rest of him, last week when he went to New York and gave
the speech and met with all those leaders.
Q Ari, as you said, Powell has been pressing for a resolution
with teeth. Have we -- we must have given the U.N. some indication
of what that means, of what's acceptable to the United States.
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, and I hope you will forgive me if I allow this
diplomacy to go on where it should, which is in the diplomatic
corridors and in the Secretary's conversations privately with these
world leaders. The President has seen, and the Secretary has seen,
that often the best diplomacy and the most effective diplomacy is that
carried out respectfully from nation to nation. And so allow the
Secretary to continue his efforts to work on the terms and the drafting
of the resolution, and we will continue to move the process in
accordance with the time line.
Q Can I just ask more broadly -- by some estimates, it would
take months, and possibly stretch even into, way into next year, for
there to be an accurate accounting done. Is that -- more broadly
speaking, is that acceptable, going that far into next year?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I don't want to guess what any timetables
are. But it is important to note that Saddam Hussein has successfully
used inspectors in the past, because of the way the inspection regime
was set up, as a way to continue to develop weapons of mass
destruction, all the while, while thwarting the inspectors whose job it
was to make certain he wasn't developing those weapons. Your point is
another valid reason that anything that comes in the future has to be
far, far different from what went on in the past.
Mark.
Q Ari, is there a report that American and British delegations
are drawing up a specific draft to be presented to the Security
Council. Are we participating in such a drafting?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, as I indicated many times, the Secretary
continues to consult with members of the Perm Five, as well as other
members of the Security Council resolution. And I just want to allow
that process to continue, and let the members of the Perm Five and the
Security Council talk to the Secretary, and do so knowing that any
conversations about language will be shared at the appropriate time.
Q Is it impossible to argue with Russia and France that the
previous Security Council resolutions have no teeth to them? Is it
possible to argue that? Will you continue to argue that? Assuming
they believe that there should be enough teeth --
MR. FLEISCHER: In the halls of the U.N., everything is possible to
argue about. But this is the ongoing diplomacy. This is the essence
of the United Nations' job. And it is being carried out.
Q On the inspections, one of the things that's difficult to sort
out here is that it is clear the Iraqis said the inspectors could come
back. It is not at all clear that they are saying they would have
unfettered access to sites. The question in my mind is how will the
administration be sure that if, in fact, the inspectors go back, that
they are, in fact, entitled to go anyplace, anytime? Does that come
from the
Blix meeting? Does that come from a new U.N. resolution? How do
you determine that the inspectors will be able to do what the Security
Council has said they must do?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'll tell you, the best way to determine that the
Security Council resolutions will be enforced is through Iraq's
intentions. The United Nations Security Council can pass resolutions,
the United Nations Security Council can put as much teeth as possible
into them. But if Iraq's intentions are to thwart the inspectors, at
no matter what level they are set, Iraq obviously has something to
hide.
If Iraq does exactly what the President set out in his speech to
the United Nations and allows for, actually, unconditional inspectors,
actual disarmament, anytime, anywhere, anyplace, anybody, if Iraq
destroys the weapons of mass destruction, ceases its repression of
minorities, returns the prisoners, renounces terrorism, and stops its
violations of the oil-for-food program, then they will have done what
the President said at the United Nations. But this is a test of the
United Nations' relevance, and it's a test of Iraq's intentions.
Q As I understand it, the administration does not want to send
inspectors in there in some half-baked way, without their rights being
absolutely clear, and have them wander around for several months and
face exactly what happened before. How -- does the administration
have a specific way in mind of making sure it has an airtight pledge
from Iraq, before inspectors go in, about exactly what their rights
are?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, again, this is what Secretary Powell is
talking to other nations around the world about.
Q So that's what you want out of a U.N. resolution then? That's
why you want a new U.N. resolution?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President has said he wants the United Nations
to act in a way that is meaningful and effective.
Connie.
Q Thank you. Briefly on another topic, there's been another
terrorist attack today in Israel. Are you optimistic or pessimistic
regarding events in the Middle East? Do you see the Arafat era drawing
to a close? And any hopes for a peaceful Palestinian state?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I've characterized in the past the Middle
East as an area in which sometimes there are two steps backward for
every step forward. I think the last month has been characterized by
several steps forward. Now, unfortunately, today there has been one
step backward. There had been a long period of calm in the Middle
East, which, unfortunately, was shattered today in this latest suicide
bombing, or homicide bombing.
Nevertheless, the President continues to believe -- and he talked
to President Havel about this -- that peace in the Middle East needs
to be secured by the creation of a Palestinian state, and that
Palestinian state must be based on democratic principles, and have a
government that represents its people. There has been some interesting
movement within the Palestinian people, within the Palestinian
Authority. And the Palestinian people, like all people around the
Earth, know that they, too, are entitled to good government, to a
government that puts their health care needs, their food needs, their
everyday needs ahead of the needs of the leadership, ahead of
corruption. And that is something that can create a better climate for
peace in the Middle East.
So the President will continue to work diligently toward achieving
that goal. And it remains important. And the President hopes that we
can get back to the path of slow, quiet, progress in the Middle East.
Deb.
Q Ari, the French and the Russians seem prepared to accept the
idea that the inspectors might go into Iraq and then nothing would
happen for six months, until they report back. Is that time frame
acceptable to us?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, I just urge you not to prejudge anybody's
final conclusions, based on any of the things that you've heard
publicly at this point. The process is underway, the consultations
continue, and the world has not yet voted.
Q Well, can you give us any signs of progress? I mean,
yesterday there seemed to be a lot of signs of two steps backward. Do
you have any indications to offer us of one step forward?
MR. FLEISCHER: Just again, this is a process, and it's a
consultative process. And often in these processes, there are several
different stages to it. And the Secretary is hard at work at it.
Paula.
Q A few days ago, one of the President's chief economic advisors
estimated that the cost of a war in Iraq could be upwards of 2 percent
of GDP, or upwards of $200 billion, the one-year costs. It's being
reported that the Joint Committee on Taxation is about to embrace
dynamic scoring for its revenue projections. And this, of course,
would affect things like tax cuts and the effect that it could have on
revenues and economic growth. OMB is holding a news conference this
afternoon, and I am wondering if the administration is about to embrace
dynamic scoring, and what effect that would have on revenue
projections, economic growth, and the cost of a war in Iraq.
MR. FLEISCHER: The administration -- Director Daniel's news
conference this afternoon is actually on a very different topic. It's
a discussion of the revenues that have come in through the third
quarter. So it's on a different topic. The administration's focus on
estimates is that they should be accurate, regardless of whatever the
standard it is. And there is a legitimate academic debate about what
the best way to ensure accuracy is.
Q Well, is OMB about to announce, or is it OMB's intention, the
next time it does its budget, to use dynamic scoring?
MR. FLEISCHER: You may want to ask Mitch that question this
afternoon. But that's not the purpose of his news conference.
Q What is that estimate based on, Ari?
MR. FLEISCHER: Which estimate?
Q The Lindsey estimate from the other day. It was a lot higher
than a lot of --
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, I can only tell you, just as Deputy Press
Secretary McClellan told you the other day, that any discussions about
this are premature because the President has not made any decisions.
April -- and welcome back.
Q Thank you. Ari, the President's well into this push for
regime change in Iraq and a possible attack on Iraq. But there's still
some naysayers, people who feel this is a diversionary tactic, be
another "wag the dog" kind of situation. What do you say to those
people?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I just think there are so few people who
could possibly think that, and they have found so little credibility
even within the Democratic Party, that it just should pass unnoticed.
It's not worth commenting on. This is a very serious matter, and it's
being dealt with very seriously by this administration.
Q Ari, another topic real quick. The elections in Florida --
President Bush came out with a commission, and apparently the same
thing happened in his brother's state. What does he feel about the
fact that people are having a hard time using their privilege and their
right to vote in his brother's home state?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, April, I think the President looked at this
as a matter that in those two counties in which Florida found these
problems, that those county officials had a lot of new money that the
state of Florida provided in order for them to have a successful
election. There was a lot of confusion in those two counties about how
to use the new resources, and to use the new equipment. And the
President, of course, in every election everywhere in the country,
hopes that everybody will be able to exercise their franchise as fully
as possible. And that's why local election officials are given the
funding that they're given. And they have a difficult job to do, and
the President hopes that they'll be successful.
Q Is he concerned at all about this?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think everybody is concerned about
elections everywhere, and making certain that all people at all levels
are doing everything they can to make certain that people have those
-- the ability to vote. What happened in these two counties the
President hopes will not be repeated.
Q Did the administration see any connection between the
breakthrough in North Korea and the recent movement on Iraq? In other
words, is there any sense that North Korea is taking the pressure on
Iraq as a warning of what could happen to North Korea?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, one, the President welcomes and supports
Prime Minister Koizumi's efforts in talking to the North Koreans.
Japan has kept us closely informed about their actions and their
efforts throughout this process. And I think that there's no question
that people see the President's determination and the President's
strength and they realize that, particularly in the case of North
Korea, North Korea is unilateralist, North Korea's militaristic ways
have made North Korea stand out alone, virtually alone in the world,
and have now caused them to hopefully reconsider and to work more
productively with their neighbors, rather than the isolationist path
they've chosen for themselves.
Q Ari, there was a newspaper report this morning that suggested
that White House negotiators, as well as Senate negotiators, have made
progress toward faith-based legislation, that a vote could be coming
soon. Is that the case?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, we are hopeful that's the case. But the
progress on that legislation remains slow. It's very important for the
Senate to take action on the faith-based legislation. The Senate,
indeed, is backing up, they have so many bills that remain to be acted
on in the Senate, that have been acted on in the House, and that the
President has supported. I think it's too soon to say, but the
administration wants to work productively with the Senate to make that
happen.
Q Does the White House believe that Senator Daschle is the
roadblock here?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I'm not going to name any individual names.
The Senate leadership certainly does have its hands full with all the
number of important items that are pending before the Senate with so
little time left.
Q Ari, a minute ago, in response to Jim's question, I believe
you said that any attempts to thwart the inspectors would be -- would
show that Iraq has something to hide. Is the administration going to
view any such attempts as tantamount to a guilty plea by Iraq?
MR. FLEISCHER: Iraq is already guilty. There are no innocent or
guilty pleas remaining for Iraq. Iraq is in possession of weapons of
mass destruction, contrary to their promises that they would destroy
their weapons of mass destruction. And Iraq, even while the inspectors
were in Iraq, sought to develop more weapons of mass destruction. So
it's not a question of any further decisions about Iraq's innocence or
guilt; Iraq has proven itself guilty to the world.
Q I guess if I could put it another way, would attempts to
thwart the inspections be, in essence, a trap door falling from beneath
Saddam Hussein?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, the President wants to make certain that
Iraq is disarmed. And when the question comes down to the inspection
way of disarmament, that's why the President has said that this has to
be done in an entirely different way, subject to a different standard
and a new standard. Otherwise the world would make the same mistakes
that we made throughout the '90s. And the President sees no fruitful
purpose in the world going down that road again.
Q Even assuming there is an inspection way of disarmament, as
you just phrased it, and Hussein opens up his weapons sites, is there
some level of uncertainty with which the administration is prepared to
live at the end stage of that process, or do you assume that if this
thing plays itself out that we could arrive at a point where we know
with an absolute degree of certainty that his weapons of mass
destruction have in fact been neutralized or destroyed?
MR. FLEISCHER: There's no question from an American point of view,
the best way to know that his weapons of mass destruction have been
destroyed is through regime change, no question.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
MR. FLEISCHER: Thank you.
Q Wait a minute, wait a minute.
Q Ari, just really quickly --
MR. FLEISCHER: All right, we'll go to you two. I promised you I
would.
Q -- said that Dr. Lindsey's comments were premature. Are you
saying then that he doesn't speak for the administration, and two, then
that Secretary O'Neill is on message when he says it was unwise for him
to make that --
MR. FLEISCHER: I didn't say Dr. Lindsey's comments, I said the
discussion is premature.
Q Doesn't Dr. Lindsey speak for the administration?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm saying this discussion is premature.
Les.
Q No, it's not premature. He's already made the comments. It's
three days old.
MR. FLEISCHER: And that's my comment on it.
Mr. Kinsolving.
Q What is the comment? I'm sorry, I don't understand.
MR. FLEISCHER: That discussion of the costs of war are premature
because the President has made no determinations.
Les.
Q Transportation Secretary Mineta has reported that the start-up
costs to train airline pilots to carry firearms is nearly $1 billion,
with a $250 million annual cost to maintain that training. The Airline
Pilots Association, among others, say that that figure is far too
high. My question is even if Mineta's figures were accurate, has
anyone in the Bush administration calculated the cost to the U.S.
economy if even one more airliner is hijacked by terrorists, especially
if it's shot down by F-16s?
MR. FLEISCHER: You raise a complicated and important issue about
how to protect the safety of passengers. And this is not a black or
white issue. This is a very complicated issue about how to arm pilots
in a way that actually promotes safety, so mistakes don't happen from
people who are not trained in the arts of security, particularly
security in the confined spaces of an airliner traveling in an area
where a stray bullet could actually bring the plane down itself.
And so the Secretary's focus, and the President's focus all along
have been on the best way to do this while maintaining safety. And
it's not a simple question, and that's why the Secretary is focused on
training aspects and what the costs of training would be, the effect of
taking pilots out of the cockpit so they will not be able to fly and
putting them in a training program, what the effect that would be on
air travel. There are a host of issues that come into play with this,
and those are all being worked together with the Congress.
Q The Associated Press quotes the Reverend Jesse Jackson as
comparing President Bush's foreign policy to King Herod's. But you,
Ari, told us that when Jesse was caught paying extensive money to get
his impregnated mistress out of Chicago, the President telephoned him
to say, "You are in my prayers", with no such prayers for other clergy
adulterers such as Jim Bakker or Jimmy Swaggart. My question is, does
the White House have anything by way of response to the King Herod
charge? Or do you think that Jesse's failure to attract more than 600
to a 15,000-seat arena at Michigan State University illustrates how
discredited he is? (Laughter.)
Q Yes.
MR. FLEISCHER: Les, the White House --
Q Could I just get a chance without the cackle?
MR. FLEISCHER: The White House is not aware of any recent
statements by King Herod. (Laughter.)
END 1:22 P.M. EDT