For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
December 4, 2002
Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
12:25 P.M. EST
MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. I have a brief announcement to
begin, and then I'll be happy to take your questions. The President
will welcome Prime Minister Paavo Lipponen of Finland to Washington on
December 9th. Finland is a good friend of the United States and an
active supporter in the global war on terrorism. The President and the
Prime Minister will discuss a number of key issues of mutual and
bilateral interest.
And with that, I'm happy to take your questions.
Q
Ari, the chief Iraqi liaison officer, in a news conference
this morning, said that the declaration they will make to the U.N. will
not include any admission of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction.
Since you have said repeatedly that the administration believes they
have weapons of mass destruction, what's the next step?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, one of the reasons that the President is
skeptical about Iraqi compliance is because of their past statements
that were then contradicted by actual facts. And in this case, I
remind you that in the '90s Iraq also denied that they had weapons of
mass destruction, only for weapons inspectors to find those weapons of
mass destruction. And then the weapons inspectors proceeded to destroy
as much of it as they possibly could. It remains an issue we believe
and we have said publicly they continue to have weapons of mass
destruction, biological weapons and chemical weapons.
So this is not a new statement by Iraq. The last time they made
it, events proved them false.
Q Okay, but that said, they're going to say it in the
declaration before the U.N. So does this mean that that is a breach
and a reason that the U.S. could then go to the U.N. to take military
action? Or are we going to let this play out? The inspectors say
they're going to go back in January --
MR. FLEISCHER: Let me try to review with you the steps that will
be upcoming. And the President is less interested in any of these
statements that Iraqis happen to make; he is more interested in what
they put in writing and present, per their obligations to the United
Nations Security Council.
On December 8th, the Iraqis have said that they will turn over, per
their obligations to the U.N., a declaration of their weapons
programs. That is up to the Iraqis to determine the length of it, what
it says, the language it will be in. We have various reports that it
may be hundreds, if not thousands of pages long. It may be in more
than one language. We'll have to see what the Iraqis turn over.
It will then go to the United Nations, and then the United Nations
will review it through the Security Council. It will be shared with
member states of the United Nations Security Council and the General
Assembly. And then the United States will carefully review it. We
will take the appropriate amount of time to review it, to assess it, to
study it. And then only at that point will I be able to indicate what
the United States thinks of it. And I don't know because it depends
much on what the Iraqis say and how much they provide how long that
process will take. But it begins on the 8th.
Q If I can try one more time. I mean, we know what they're
going to say, if the officer is speaking on behalf of the country,
which is, we have no weapons of mass destruction. There will be new
stuff in the declaration, but nothing that is prohibited. So, given
that, are they not already in defiance?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President will wait until they make the
formal declaration, as required by the United Nations Security
Council. However, the last time the Iraqis said they had no weapons of
mass destruction, they turned out to be liars.
Q Can I follow up on that? You said, events proved them false
and facts contradicted them. What facts contradict them now?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, we'll find out. Let's wait to see what they
publish.
Q Well, are there -- will you wait to develop facts?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's what I just indicated. The Iraqis will turn
this document over, and we are less interested in any of their public
statements now, and more interested in what they actually put in
writing when they provide this document to the United Nations Security
Council. At that point, we will study it, we will assess it, we will
review it. And then the inspections, of course, will accelerate beyond
that.
Q So you won't have a statement about whether or not that would
be a material breach of their resolution --
MR. FLEISCHER: I can't predict any future statement. We haven't
seen what the Iraqis said yet.
Q Well, let me ask you then, based on their statement and your
previous statements -- they say they don't have weapons, it's the
position of the United States that they do. Can you prove that?
MR. FLEISCHER: We have said publicly that based on our
information, they indeed have weapons of mass destruction. And this is
why I remind you -- the Iraqis don't exactly have a good track record
of honesty and truth-telling when it comes to the declaration of what
they have. That's why the work of the inspectors is important. And
that's why the President insisted on the return of the inspectors.
This is why the President refers to this as 10 years of defiance.
We've heard Iraqi lies before. After all, when the Iraqis recently
said, in the '90s, they had no weapons of mass destruction, how do they
explain the fact that they proved that they had them?
Q But what proved that they were lying were facts established
by the inspectors.
MR. FLEISCHER: Correct.
Q Is that what will happen this time?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's the purpose of having the inspectors there.
That's what the President hopes the inspectors will be able to do.
Q So the inspectors will disprove any lie by the Iraqis?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's the purpose of having the inspectors there.
Whether the inspectors ultimately will be able to disprove any lie by
the Iraqis remains to be determined. That depends on the resources of
the inspectors. It also depends substantially on the compliance of
Iraq with the inspection regime.
Q You indicated earlier this morning that you could inform us
of how the President is being informed about the inspections. Is he
being informed? Does he get reports on a regular basis? How does he
know -- these bellicose statements that he's making. And the first
law of journalism is never to assume, and I don't think the White House
is aware of that.
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm sorry, the first law is never assume?
Q Never assume.
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not sure what that means, Helen. But in any
case, the President does receive reports on a daily basis in his
morning briefings.
Q From whom?
MR. FLEISCHER: As a result -- it's the National Security Council
team, the security team. Dr. Rice and others. And I'm not going to
get into the specifics --
Q But is it coming from the source?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not going to get into the specifics of what he
is told in these briefings, but you can presume the mechanisms that are
set up through the United Nations is they have their inspectors on the
ground who conduct their inspections. Then there is actually a very
slow process where the inspectors then, through their official
channels, get back to the United Nations Security Council, through
their direct relationship with the Security Council. The Security
Council then receives the information, and that's the official flow of
the information. The United States then would be in a position to
receive it from the United Nations.
Q That's how we're getting it then, through the security?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's the official loop of the information. And I
don't think you're going to be surprised to see that there will often
be a lag between some of the leaks that come out on the ground
immediately in Baghdad and the official channels that the information
flows in.
Q Ari, the U.N. resolution clearly states that any false
statements or omissions in the declaration due on the 8th will
constitute further material breach. Will a false statement or an
omission on that document be a trigger for war?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President, again, will look forward to seeing
the assessments and the studies of the document that Iraq presents on
December 8th. This will be the beginning of a process. We will, the
administration will review the information that we receive from the
Iraqis. We have our own ways of determining whether something seems to
be accurate or not --
Q I understand that, but will a false statement on that
declaration be a trigger for war?
MR. FLEISCHER: As I indicated, this December 8th will be the
beginning of a process. The trigger for war will be decided by Saddam
Hussein, and only Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein has within his
ability the means to avoid war. The President has said war is his last
resort. Now, Saddam Hussein has to disarm. And Saddam Hussein has to
figure out what the President means when the President says zero
tolerance. The President hopes that Saddam Hussein interprets that to
mean that he must do what he promised the world, and that is disarm.
The burden is on Saddam Hussein.
Q Well, if an omission or a false statement in the declaration
does not automatically constitute a trigger for war, then what teeth
are in that resolution?
MR. FLEISCHER: Let me just say, when it comes to anything that
you, as you put, is a trigger for war, if there were such a trigger for
war, you would hear about that from the President and not from the
staff. But the process begins on December 8th, and that is the path
that the President sought to put into motion. And this process is now
beginning.
Q Talk about the acceleration of inspections after the 8th to
verify the Iraqi declaration. Can you talk a little bit about sort of
how -- what acceleration means, and does it involve a widening of the
number of people on the ground, sort of troop support, U.N. -- what
does it mean to accelerate and --
MR. FLEISCHER: Under the plan that the United Nations has put in
place to verify Iraqi compliance with U.N. resolutions, the United
Nations is sending a growing number of inspectors into Iraq, and these
inspectors will have a additional equipment that allows them to do
their job. And the amount of equipment and the amount of inspectors
grows over time, per the United Nations' plans.
What you have seen in the last five or six days or so has been the
very, very beginning of a process where they have a small crew of
people inside Iraq with a limited amount of equipment. You can
anticipate that more people and more equipment will be arriving.
Q Do you know how much that grows from the small -- to what
levels and --
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't have the precise numbers of people, whether
it's going to go from 17 to 111 -- I'd the have that. I don't keep
that. That's the United Nations.
Q Prior to the action on -- earlier this fall we were talking
about a robust inspection process, and that was described as involving
troop support in some way to protect the inspections on the ground. Is
that anticipated as an accelerated -- as the inspection process
accelerates?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, the terms of the inspectors going to it was
determined by the 15 to nothing United Nations Security Council vote,
which, of course, the United States pushed for, and troops was not a
part of that.
Q First, on the first few days of the inspections, it's been a
little confusing what the President's remarks were really aimed at.
Does the White House regard these first few days of inspections as a
meaningful indication of anything?
MR. FLEISCHER: The White House, President Bush regards these first
several days of inspections in the precise words that the President
used -- the beginning of a process. I've said that it was too soon to
say what any of these preliminary inspections with the limited number
of inspectors on the ground means to whether or not Saddam Hussein will
indeed disarm. And I think it's pretty logical that the process is
beginning. They have a small number of inspectors on the ground now,
with not as many resources as they will have. After 11 years of
defiance, after four years of the absence of inspectors, six days is
not even close to enough time to determine whether Saddam Hussein is
cooperating or complying with his mandate to disarm.
But it is the beginning of a process that the President thinks is
an important process, that he called for, and he's pleased to see that
the process of inspections is again resuming.
Q Now, when that declaration comes out, I gather what you are
saying is we will take that declaration, the inspectors will then go
and check the assertions by the Iraqis that they don't have these
things, and that you seem to be saying the U.S. would wait until there
was evidence to the contrary, rather than to just declare a declaration
they have no weapons as false on the face of it.
MR. FLEISCHER: I said nothing about what the United States would
do after we get it. I'm reserving judgment for the events to take
place. I'm not going to speculate about what a future event may be
about a document that we have yet to see.
Q The question was, do we intend to wait for evidence that it's
false, or just declare if false if they claim they have nothing when
--
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I said that we will begin, upon receipt of the
Iraqi document through the United Nations, then into the hands of the
United States government, we will wait to study it, to review it, to
assess what it means. And that could take -- I can't predict how
much time it will take because that depends on what the documents says,
how voluminous or how short it is. But it will be a process, in and of
itself.
Q How much concern is there that this could be a quagmire, that
you could have months of no clear evidence one way or the other that
the Iraqis do or do not have weapons of mass destruction?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, that's up to Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein
can create a quagmire if he wants to. He certainly did in the 1990s.
The President hopes that the inspection regime will be tough enough and
vigorous enough to get at the bottom line, which the world wants to
see, and that is that Saddam Hussein disarms. If it is a quagmire,
it's because Saddam Hussein turned it into one.
Q To follow up on Jim's question, I guess the first five days
of inspections, there's no assessment by administration -- I mean, do
you feel like it's a meaningless process, that there's no sense of
encouragement that there has been access granted to these presidential
palaces, that this has gone without incident?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think this is -- don't interpret this to
mean literally 365 days, but you're asking how did the year go based on
the first morning of the first day. And it's an impossible assessment
to make this quickly. That's why I've said it's too soon to say. You
heard it directly from the President. I don't think this is
complicated -- the President said that these last several days with
the inspectors there is the beginning of a process. His statement that
he is not encouraged and his skepticism is based on 11 years of
empirical evidence and behavior from Saddam Hussein which he violated
United Nations resolutions and did everything he could to thwart the
inspectors.
So I don't think anybody can draw conclusions based on five days,
and that separate and apart from the bigger picture about, do you trust
Saddam Hussein.
Q Do you think Blix is characterizing his assessment when he
says he's encouraged by what has taken place in the last five days?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think that he is a good man with a very
difficult job, and he is doing his level best. And he will have
additional resources as time goes along here, with more inspectors on
the ground. And it's very important that they have the means and the
ability, and that Saddam Hussein provides them with the cooperation so
that they can do their job in a full, vigorous manner. That way, the
world knows that the inspectors can check to see if Saddam Hussein has
weapons or if he's moving around and hiding them and burying them and
dividing them and diversifying them and putting them in small places
that are hard to find in a country the size of France.
Q If I could switch topics temporarily, I assume -- what does
the President think these days of the idea of ending the so-called
double taxation on dividends?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President is reviewing and continues to take a
look at the economic data that comes out on a regular basis. And if he
has anything further to announce about any policy, whether it's that
one or anything else on the economic horizon, he'll indicate it. I'm
not going to presume to start going down the line, potential
announcement by potential announcement or something that may not be in
a potential announcement --
Q But does he like the idea?
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't know how to answer that without giving you
any indications that -- if I say to you, he likes it, you'll say,
will he do it. If I say, well, he likes it, but he won't do it, you'll
say, well, why wouldn't he do it if he likes it. (Laughter.) So I
prefer just to let the President explain his likes and dislikes.
Q You figured out my strategy. (Laughter.)
Q While Iraq continues to deny that it has weapons of mass
destruction, the North Koreans have admitted that they have a nuclear
program under way. Today, the North Koreans rejected an effort by the
International Atomic Energy Agency to go in and begin inspections of
that program. Why not the same tough line with the North Koreans, who
have a program, indisputably, as with Iraq, which may or may not?
MR. FLEISCHER: The reason is because not every nation is the same,
and not every foreign policy needs to be put into a photocopier. The
world is much more complicated than that. And the President's foreign
policy is reflective of those nuances and those important differences
between how to make certain that peace is protected by dealing with
different regions of the world in different ways. The world is not one
place, in terms of how nations need to be treated. Different solutions
work differently in different regions.
The difference between North Korea and Iraq, in the President's
judgment, is that Iraq for 10 years has defied 16 United Nations
Security Council resolutions, has repeatedly promised to disarm and has
never done so. And that is not the case in North Korea, where they are
not under these United Nations Security Council resolutions.
Now, in terms of what North Korea has said in this instance, their
rejection of the IAEA resolution to open its facilities to inspection
is another disappointing example of North Korea's isolationism, which
will only hurt the people of North Korea. And we are working with our
regional partners to try to find a peaceful solution to this issue.
Q And what do you do now to keep the pressure up --
MR. FLEISCHER: We will continue to apply this pressure to North
Korea by working in partnership with Russia and China, who together put
out a joint statement calling on North Korea to make certain that they
comply with their obligations, concerning the agreed framework, as well
as Japan and South Korea.
The region has a peaceful interest in working together so North
Korea comes into compliance with international norms. The isolationist
path that North Korea has put itself on only hurts the people of North
Korea and it has risks for the rest of the world. And that's why we
want to work together with our allies to help North Korea so they honor
their obligations.
Q The Washington Post reports that former President Clinton
told New York University -- this is a quote -- what was done to Tom
Daschle was unconscionable and they -- that is the Republicans --
have a destruction machine, we don't. And my question is, what is the
reaction of the titular leader of this party regarding an alleged
destruction machine, and to Esquire Magazine's poll of 1900 men, which
the Washington Times reports the result of Mr. Clinton was voted,
quote, the most loathsome living American?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, on your first question, Lester, I don't know
what that was a reference to by the former President. I can tell you
that we are very proud to have a policy machine with which many of the
American people agree.
Q Wait a minute --
MR. FLEISCHER: You got two in that one question, Lester. We're
going to keep moving. That was two. I counted.
Q Can I go back to the inspectors? The difference in tone
between what Kofi Annan and Hans Blix is saying, and what the President
has told us is striking. Does he disagree with their assessments that,
so far, the Iraqis have been cooperating? Does he think they have been
suckered by the Iraqis?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, it's exactly as I indicated. The President
believes -- I answered about Hans Blix, but Kofi Annan, as well --
they are both good, gifted and able people who do a very difficult
job. And the President looks forward to continuing to work with them
on this.
Q Were they wrong to make any sort of judgment this early? You
just said, it's too soon to tell.
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think different people are free to look at
different days' worth of activities and come to their conclusions. The
President is looking at the totality of what can help Saddam Hussein to
disarm.
Q Can you bring us up to date on where things stand on the
search for an SEC -- new head of the SEC? It's been almost a month
since Harvey Pitt resigned, and is the White House concerned about the
message this sends to people about lack of enforcement discipline?
MR. FLEISCHER: Holly, as with all personnel, I just don't
speculate about who may or may not be named, as well as the timing of
any potential nominees?
Q Do you expect anything in the next few weeks or after --
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, that would be speculating on the timing of a
nominee. As you know, it's standard White House policy.
Q Ari, can you tell us about -- anything about the Arab
American al Qaeda suspect, what he's believed of having done, any
connections to September 11th?
MR. FLEISCHER: This is in regard to the stories out of Israel,
about the detention of an American citizen?
Q Right.
MR. FLEISCHER: I have seen the media stories about this. I
continue to try to obtain verification through official means, and I do
not have anything to verify. I'm going to continue to monitor it. If
anything comes up, I will share it with you. But I have been looking
into it, and there's nothing at this point that I have to verify.
Q An unrelated follow-up. Senator Schumer is sending a letter
to Prince Bandar complaining that, much like some of the criticism the
White House has had for the Palestinians, the Saudis speak with two
voices, one in English and one in their own country in Arabic, and they
say very different things in terms of the war on terror and the
relationship with Israel, et cetera. Is it the feeling that the Saudis
do have to take steps similar to what you had asked Arafat to do, in
terms of making sure that their message is the same in English and
Arabic?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I haven't seen the letter, and so I cannot
comment on that. There is nothing that I have heard from anybody
inside the administration about a dual language concern. In fact, our
assessment, as you well know, is that Saudi Arabia is a good partner in
the war on terrorism, and they are a good partner who can do more. And
we continue to work with them, so we can do more together.
Q Ari, Otto Reich has been acting -- had been acting as the
Assistant Secretary of State for Latin America through a recess
appointment which came to an end. There have been some rumors
circulating that the President will not renominate him under the new
Congress. Can you address that?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, if I were to answer that, Holly would come
right back and say, why did you speculate on that personnel issue and
not on my personnel issue. No, Jacobo, it's in the same category. I
just don't speculate about potential appointments on any position,
unless there is an announcement to be made.
Q Why have a cookie-cutter policy here? (Laughter.) That
might be good for one agency, but perhaps for another --
MR. FLEISCHER: If you were foreign nations, I would treat you with
that same nuanced approach. However, you are not foreign nations.
Q I thought we were.
MR. FLEISCHER: Americana.
Q Ari, can you answer a follow-up? How does the President view
the job that Mr. Reich did as an interim appointment?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President thinks that Otto Reich is serving his
country ably and well. He is a fine public servant who has helped
bring democracy and freedom to Latin America and Central America, and
is very proud of him.
Q Does he know his background?
Q Reaction to the habeas corpus --
MR. FLEISCHER: The ruling was just handed down. It's
approximately 100 pages, and so our attorneys are reviewing it as we
speak. If I have anything additional, I will provide it later. I do
note the court did uphold the President's constitutional authority to
direct the military to detain unlawful enemy combatants in order to
protect the American people in this war on terrorism.
There are additional provisions dealing with habeas corpus rights,
the right to an attorney that is limited to habeas corpus. And if we
continue to look through the opinion in its entirety, that is the one
area -- that narrow area of habeas corpus is also importantly part of
this decision.
Q Will you appeal that part --
MR. FLEISCHER: Ken, our lawyers are reviewing it now, and I have
no indications one way or another. The decision was just handed down.
Q Ari, are we to take your earlier response on North Korea
versus Iraq, if you will, to be an indication that the administration
views North Korea as less of an immediate threat to the U.S. and its
allies than it views Iraq?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think it's a view that we believe that diplomacy
can be successful in North Korea, and that the President, while he
hopes that diplomacy will be successful in Iraq, is prepared if
necessary, as a last resort, to use force to make certain that we
protect the American people from the threat, the unique threat that
Iraq presents.
Q Which poses the most immediate threat to the U.S. and its
allies, Iraq or North Korea?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think they both possess threats to the United
States and the United States' interests, and the President deals with
each of them accordingly. I haven't heard the President make a
delineation one above the other. Iraq, of course, does have a history
that North Korea does not have of engaging in war against its
neighbors, in resorting to the deadly use of massive force, including
weapons of mass destruction against its neighbors, including the
invasion of sovereign nations.
Q Ari, is the U.S. involved in this present fighting going on
in Iraq between the Kurds and al Qaeda sympathizers? Is the U.S.
giving any support to the Kurds?
MR. FLEISCHER: There's nothing that's been brought to my attention
on that matter, Connie.
Q How much time is the President and staff devoting to foreign
policy issues, or are they all on the back burner now while everybody
focuses on Iraq?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think just because there's a large focus in terms
of what is covered on Iraq doesn't indicate that other issues are not
on the front burner. As the President indicated just an hour or two
ago, about the ongoing hope for peace process in the Middle East and
the humanitarian needs of the Palestinian people and the security needs
of Israel. All these issues remain deeply engaged. In fact, Secretary
Powell will hold a news conference in Colombia in approximately one and
a half hours, as a sign of our continued engagement around the world.
Q I know the President said earlier today he had not seen yet
the Pew report, but I'm wondering anyone here at the White House had
been briefed on it.
MR. FLEISCHER: The report has been received in the White House and
we will review it. It has not yet been reviewed.
Q No further response?
MR. FLEISCHER: Nothing beyond what the President said earlier.
Q Ari, on the memo that was written by the Chief of Staff
regarding bonuses for federal political appointees, was the President
aware of that before it happened? And two, is the President going to
increase in the budget money for those kinds of bonuses so that career
-- the pool for career employees is not diminished?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, in terms of the pool, the pool is sufficient
given the fact that there are 1.8 million civil servants, and
restoration of the political employees means an additional 2,000 people
are added to a pool of 1.8 million people, not all of which, in fact,
very few of which will receive bonuses. And so this policy is a
restoration of a longstanding bipartisan policy that has been pursued
by multiple American administrations because it's the views of these
previous administrations and this one that federal workers deserve to
be rewarded for good work, and there should not be a distinction
between those who do good work because
they're civil and those who do good work because they're
appointed. Good work is good work, and good work by the federal
government's employees, all of whom are paid by the taxpayers, should
be rewarded.
Q Then why exclude White House employees from it?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'd like to find that out, myself. (Laughter.) I
can tell you this, for example, Senate confirmable employees at the
agencies are not eligible for bonuses, per the statute. That's the law
of the land. I don't know all the legal issues involving the White
House, but the White House is not covered underneath this. I urge you
all to get that reversed, but the White House is not covered.
Q How much is the bonus that they get?
MR. FLEISCHER: It's in the thousands of dollars, Helen, and I
don't know -- the top range I think is between $10,000 and $15,000,
just a little bit over $15,000, if I recall.
Q That should bring them up to par with the civil service?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, these are performance bonuses. Just as in the
private sector, it's an incentive for the most -- hardest working
employees who are able to do the most concrete, measurable work on
behalf of the taxpayers, an incentive program to give them bonuses,
much like everybody receives in the private sector.
For many years, going back at least 30 years, this has been a
program that made no distinction between appointed employees and civil
service employees.
Q Do civil service get the same bonuses if they perform well?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct. That's correct.
Q Does the administration feel that Brazil, under its
newly-elected President, will be a reliable partner in the war on
terrorism?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President, as you know, looks forward to his
meeting with the newly-elected President of Brazil, and when he spoke
to the President-elect after his announcement, he said he looked
forward to working with him on a range of issues; especially trade and
regional issues of that nature are what's predominant in our
relationship with Brazil. We look forward to working with him on all
kinds of issues, including the war on terrorism.
Q What kind of role would the administration like to see Brazil
play in the hemisphere in terms of security?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, in terms of security, the role, of course, is
to work together to make certain that we can combat terrorism.
Terrorism is a global concern, and we will, of course, discuss that
with Brazil. The focus of much of this war is not as pronounced, of
course, fortunately, in that area of the world as it is in other areas
of the world, but nevertheless, we look forward to all cooperation with
Brazil, both in terms of security issues, but also trade and other
economic matters.
Q Ari, why bring Elliott Abrams back to the White House,
especially someone who was involved -- well, who had to have a pardon
by the President during the Iran-Contra scandal?
MR. FLEISCHER: First of all, he's not being brought back to the
White House; he's continuing his fine work for the White House. He
currently works here. And the President thinks of Elliott Abrams just
as I indicated about Otto Reich -- they are both warriors for
democracy. They have both done outstanding jobs serving our country
and leading to the advent and the development and the advance of
democracy, which has improved the lives of people around the world.
Q -- why give him such a role?
MR. FLEISCHER: Because he's an outstanding federal worker who has
an outstanding record. And the President is very pleased to see his
promotion.
Q -- anything to keep him out of certain areas?
MR. FLEISCHER: Obviously, he was hired by this administration
because of the outstanding work he has done for our country. And I
think if you take a look, particularly in Latin and Central America, at
nations that were not governed by democracies, and the advent of
democracy that swept Latin and Central America in the '80s and
throughout the '90s, Elliott Abrams played a very important role in
that. And we are honored and pleased to have him work here at the
White House.
Q -- role in something that is very questionable --
Q Ari, I just wanted to follow up on Iraq for a second. If
the beginning of the process is Saturday, and the United States has its
own independent ways to verify the truth or fiction of what is
presented by Iraq, is it the U.S. intention to put together it's own
assessment and make that public pretty much immediately after receiving
material? Or work entirely through the U.N. and come to some unanimity
of assessment through the U.N.?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, as I indicated upon receipt of Iraq's
declaration that will be a process in itself of studying what Iraq has
said. And I can make no predictions about what our response would be
because that will presume knowledge of what Iraq will submit. And I
have no such knowledge.
So it depends on Iraq says. We will study it, assess it, and take
the necessary time to review it. And then I think it will be made
clear to you, we will certainly at some point down the road, after
December 8th, have something to say about it. And we will make that
known.
Q On the process, the President believes that he is fully free
to express the U.S. assessment independent of the U.N. assessment?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think every member of the United Nations is free
to express their assessments. It's also important to continue to work
with the United Nations. And we will.
Q The Japanese government decided yesterday to send Aegis to
the Indian ocean in order to join the U.S.-led fight against these
terrorists. The plan has been passed three times over the past year.
So it's the first-time decision, and a big, big decision for the
Japanese government. Could you tell me -- comment?
MR. FLEISCHER: I will make my comment a broad one. The President
is very pleased with the cooperation of Japan on numerous fronts in the
war on terrorism. I never make it my habit to discuss anything
operational of a military nature. So I'm not giving any response on
that individual point. But as a broad matter, the President is very
grateful to Japan and the people of Japan for their support of the
United States in the war on terror.
Q A question on Mexico. The President has until today to
present an appeal in federal court in San Francisco to open the border
to the Mexican trucks. Certain environmental groups in Los Angeles
present a decision to the court that has been accepted. And the border
is closed now for the Mexican trucks, in contrast what the President
ordered last week. Has the President sent an appeal already?
MR. FLEISCHER: Actually, the border is open per the President's
directive. The President honoring our commitments to NAFTA and also to
safety here at home, has put in a place a system for trucks driven by
Mexican drivers that comply fully with all federal, state, and local
laws and regulations pertaining to trucker safety, that they would have
the rights to drive on American roads.
A group that opposes the President's commitment to NAFTA and to
safety has filed a stay against the President's decision. The court
has not ruled on the stay, and so the President's decision is in
effect. And I don't have anything more for you on that, other than the
President's decision is in effect. The procedures will go through the
courts, as per usual. And I can't guess what the timing of the courts
will be.
Q The President said earlier today that he believes al Qaeda
was behind the Kenya attacks. How high is your confidence in that?
And does that rule out this other group -- al-Itihaad al-Islamiya?
Or because of their perceived connections to al Qaeda are they still in
the ball game?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I don't have anything I can share with you on
any other groups. I can simply say to you that the President expressed
his beliefs because he holds them. I think the President in reviewing
the information he has is in a position that he could express what he
believes.
Q Have you made any definite connections?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think if the President thought it was
definite, he would have said, it is definite. It is. The President
-- quoting his words said, I believe it was al Qaeda. So the
President is saying, following up and sharing with you the suspicions
that you've heard previous quarters.
Q Ari, it's been widely reported that a Russian scientist may
have shared a vaccine-resistant strain of smallpox with Iraq. Do you
have any information on that?
MR. FLEISCHER: We continue to have concerns about Iraq's
developmental weapons of mass destruction and whether or not Iraq has a
weaponized program involving smallpox. I'm not at liberty to discuss
any information about that. But, of course, we have concerns. And the
derivation of it is not something I can get into.
Q Do you have any sense yet when the President's plan about
who you may vaccinate is going to be ready or announced?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, there is nothing new to report on that topic.
And especially in terms of the timing of the report. There is nothing
new to indicate on it. It remains a matter that the President is
reviewing?
Q
You were saying -- on the quagmire question, you were
saying it's up to Saddam Hussein. But if, in fact, his actions leave
us in limbo, then isn't that a trap for the U.S.? Doesn't put the
administration in a difficult position in the sense that he may not do
anything that creates such a bright line, it would unit the Security
Council in military action? Isn't there a risk here for the U.S. if
this sort of thing gets -- drifts off into some limbo for who knows
how long?
MR. FLEISCHER: Jim, let me make it as plain as I can -- from the
President's perspective. The real reason the inspectors are back in
Iraq after a four-year absence is because President Bush went to the
United Nations and created a new climate and put the spine in the
United Nations and the Security Council so the inspectors could get
back into Iraq. This is a process that the President launched and the
President created and the President has a real abiding interest in
seeing work.
The President has also put the world on notice -- including Iraq
-- that war is not his first resort. He wants to avoid war. But he
is determined to protect the American people, hopefully through the
inspectors who can make Saddam Hussein disarm. But if Saddam Hussein
does not disarm, the President has made it abundantly clear that he
will protect the American people as a last resort by using force and
assembling a coalition of the willing, if necessary.
But make no mistake, the reason the inspectors are there now is
because President Bush wanted them there and got the United Nations to
put them there as a result of the diplomacy and the efforts that were
launched at the United Nations. The process is just beginning. The
President is content to let the process move forward.
Thank you.
END 1:05 P.M. EST
|