For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
December 5, 2002
Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
1:45 P.M. EST
MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. The President today began his day
with his usual intelligence briefings, followed by an FBI briefing.
Then he met for approximately one hour with the President of Kenya and
the Prime Minister of Ethiopia, where they discussed cooperation in the
war against terrorism, they discussed regional issues involving
security and the Horn of Afghan; they discussed the HIV-AIDS crisis in
Africa and the United States commitment in the huge amount of aid that
we are providing to help fight the scourge of AIDS in Africa. And they
also discussed the food crisis that is affecting areas in the region,
as well.
The President will shortly depart for the Islamic Center of
Washington, D.C. -- or shortly give remarks at the Islamic Center of
D.C. on the holiday of Eid al-Fitr. And then this evening the
President will participate in the Christmas tree lighting and the
Pageant of Peace on the Ellipse here in Washington.
With that, I'm happy to take your questions.
Q Ari, when Tariq Aziz of Iraq says that his country possesses
no weapons of mass destruction, how do we know that he's not telling
the truth?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, Iraq has lied before and they're lying now
about whether they possess weapons of mass destruction. Tariq Aziz's
statement is very much like statements that Iraq made throughout the
'90s, denying that they had weapons of mass destruction when, of
course, it was found that they indeed had weapons of mass destruction.
And so I see little reason to believe Iraq now when they have such a
history of lying in the past about this very topic.
Q Well, I mean, you're saying, I don't see why, if they were
lying in the past they wouldn't be lying now, but do you have anything
that constitutes proof?
MR. FLEISCHER: Let me cite for you something I think you will find
constructive. This is July 31, 2002, Senator Biden's committee up on
Capitol Hill, and this is a statement by Richard Butler, formerly of
the United Nations. Quote -- this is Richard Butler speaking --
"It is essential to recognize that the claim made by Saddam's
representative that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction is false.
Everyone concerned, from Iraq's neighbors to the U.N. Security Council
to the Secretary of the U.N., with whom Iraq is currently negotiating
on this issue -- everyone simply, Mr. Chairman, is being lied to."
And Mr. Butler, formerly of the U.N., continued, "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."
Two more paragraphs -- "The work of UNSCOM, the body created by
the United Nations Security Council to take away Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction, had various degrees of success -- varying degrees," said
Mr. Butler. "But above all, it was not permitted to finish the job.
Almost four years have now passed since Iraq terminated UNSCOM's work,
and in that period, Iraq has been free of any inspection and monitoring
of its WMD programs."
And then Mr. Butler concluded, "This shows two key things. One,
Iraq remains in breach of international law, and two, it has been
determined to maintain a weapons of mass destruction capability at all
costs."
President Bush has said Iraq has weapons of mass destruction; Tony
Blair has said Iraq has weapons of mass destruction; Donald Rumsfeld
has said Iraq has weapons of mass destruction; Richard Butler has said
they do; the United Nations has said they do; the experts have said
they do. Iraq says they don't. You can choose who you want to
believe.
Q So -- but if you had this evidence other than what Richard
Butler is talking about, why don't you lay it out on the table? Why
don't you share it with the American public?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think the burden now falls on Saddam Hussein and
his opportunity to shed that burden comes this weekend when he will
send to the United Nations a declaration of the weapons that he
possesses. And I think it will be a very interesting day to see what
he says in that document, and we shall see what he says he has. Also
we'll see what he says he doesn't have.
Q Why can't you present your own evidence, for god sake?
Nobody is stopping you. And Butler knows damn well that we pulled the
inspectors out.
MR. FLEISCHER: I think, Helen, the burden is on Saddam Hussein to
comply with the will of the United Nations and demonstrate --
Q Did we pull the inspectors out of Iraq?
MR. FLEISCHER: -- and Saddam Hussein by shooting at the
inspectors, by bugging their rooms, by stopping them from being able to
do their work, by holding them in parking lots for days, by slamming
the gates to facilities they had every right under international law to
inspect created an environment which they were withdrawn.
Q To what extent are you worried that you could lose
international support if no -- if the inspectors can't find any
weapons?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, again, let's let events take their course. I
think that it will be important to note what Saddam Hussein says when
he submits this declaration over the course of the weekend. We'll see
what he says, and we'll also see what he doesn't say when he submits
this.
Q Can you just step us through a little bit how the United
States government is going to deal with this report? In other words,
how information is going to get to various departments and agencies and
experts, and what the administration is going to do with it?
MR. FLEISCHER: Here's the procedure I think we can anticipate --
and again, much of this depends on Iraq and what they will do in fact.
We've heard much speculation about what Iraq will release in this
report over the weekend. The word that we hear is that this report
will be relatively voluminous, many, many pages, and it's unclear yet
what language it will be in. It's possible it will be in Arabic and
portions in English -- we just don't know. So we'll see what Saddam
Hussein produces.
And then we will be very thoughtful. We will be deliberative. We
will study it, we will assess what it says, we will assess what it
doesn't say. And the process will be that the report must be received
by the United Nations in New York. It's unclear in what manner it will
be transmitted to New York, whether Saddam Hussein will release it on
the ground in Iraq, whether they will have to move them from Iraq
physically to New York, how it will be physically transmitted, the
amount of time for that, whether it's courier, electronic, we don't
know. That's up to Saddam Hussein and the United Nations.
It will be received by the United Nations in New York. The
Security Council will receive it. It will be shared with member states
of the Security Council. And then you can anticipate that at the point
that the United States government receives it, we will begin to study
it carefully. We will assess what it says. Depending on how big it is
will determine the amount of time it takes for us to study it.
Q Who is going to study it in the United States government? Do
you have teams of experts at the CIA, State, Department of Defense
people here? Can you spell that out a little bit?
MR. FLEISCHER: Sure. I think there will be many people in various
government agencies who will take a very careful look at it from an
expert point of view to determine what it is that this document shows,
and it will be a large number of people who take a look at it.
Q Now, Hans Blix and his team have said that they could be
overwhelmed by this much information and documentation. It could take
them a very long time, indeed, just to make their way through it. Is
the United States prepared to provide translation assistance, analysis,
sort of point the inspectors to special pages?
MR. FLEISCHER: Our whole intention of having the inspectors return
to Iraq was so we could work together to make certain that Saddam
Hussein disarms. So as the report is received I think you're going to
see the members of the Security Council, the United States included,
cooperate to discern what is in the document, to study it carefully,
and also to see what is not in the document.
Q Ari, three times you've mentioned what the report does not
contain, which may in the end be more significant, of course, than what
it does contain. While you're reluctant right now to provide us with
sort of a footnotes and backup evidence for the kind of statements like
the one you read from Mr. Butler, after the report is out, is it the
administration's intent to make public or to provide to the inspectors
evidence of areas that you believe are not covered in the Iraqi
declaration?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, we will, of course, work closely with the
inspectors, as we always have and always will, to make certain that
they have the best information available so they can do their job. We
-- President Bush is the one who wanted them to go into Iraq, and now
that they're in Iraq, we want them to be successful. So we will, of
course, work with them to provide them information, as we have and as
we will continue to do.
But you may want to look back at what the President said in signing
the Defense Authorization bill at the Pentagon this week, when the
President talked about the importance of this declaration being full,
accurate, and complete.
Q There have been moments in American history when Presidents
have decided that it was worthwhile to make some intelligence data
public to prove the case and not simply make the statement. Adlai
Stevenson at the U.N. is a famous one, but there have been others. Is
it the administration's intention at this point to attempt that, to
provide backup evidence, whether it's in the form of satellite
photographs or other intelligence, to indicate areas that you believe
that Saddam Hussein is --
MR. FLEISCHER: The burden of proof lies with Saddam Hussein. The
world has seen Iraq lie for 10 years, and Iraq continues its ways of
lying and deceiving to the world when it says it does not have weapons
of mass destruction. When the authorities that I cited earlier,
including -- let me read you one additional report because I think
this, too, is constructive, and it comes from, frankly, The New York
Times.
This is April 10, 1998. "A team of independent experts who
reviewed Iraq's progress in eliminating biological weapons at Baghdad's
request has rejected Saddam Hussein's contention that he no longer has
a germ warfare program." And this report was compiled by military and
scientific experts from 13 countries, including the United States,
Russia, China and France.
So given the overwhelming amount of history that the world has had
dealing with Saddam Hussein, and his deceptions and lies about whether
he does or doesn't have weapons of mass destruction, the burden this
time lies with Saddam Hussein. And he can begin to shed that burden
with what he reveals when he produces the declaration this weekend.
Q The burden of proof may lie on him, but the burden of putting
together a coalition, if you believed he has withheld information,
obviously lies on the United States. And the way you put together that
coalition is providing evidence to back up your claims and the claims
of others. The question is --
MR. FLEISCHER: I think the President is --
Q -- are you prepared to do that in public?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think in terms of assembling a coalition, the
President is very well satisfied that the coalition is already
assembling. The President has said that he will assemble a coalition
of the willing, and the coalition has access to information and they
know what I have just been saying to you, in citing these very public
cases, including news reports.
Q Why can't the public know?
MR. FLEISCHER: We'll know this weekend, won't we, when Saddam
Hussein makes his report.
Q It's not your intention to make it public, is that where
we're --
MR. FLEISCHER: Not make public --
Q It's not your intention to make public intelligence that
would contradict whatever is in Saddam's --
MR. FLEISCHER: All events in due course. Let Saddam Hussein make
his report this weekend, which is what the United Nations asked to
happen, and that is what the President called for.
Q Is there any plan this weekend for the administration to
respond to the declaration at all, any type of statement or is that
something --
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, let him send his report. We'll take a look
at what he does and what he says, and we'll keep you apprised as we
receive the information. I can't guess. If he sends in one piece of
paper with one paragraph on it, then it's rather easy to study it and
it won't take much time. If he sends in tens of thousands of pages
worth of documents, it will require some time to take a look at.
Q Is Bush meeting with the principals tomorrow to discuss how
to respond to the declaration?
MR. FLEISCHER: I haven't looked ahead at tomorrow's schedule in
any case. He has a National Security Council meeting every day, so
-- you know I read that out every morning, I tell you he has the
meeting. I'm not at liberty to go into any of what is discussed at
National Security Council meetings, but the President meets with the
NSC every day.
Q Are you essentially confirming the statement of one member of
the inspection team that if the U.S. has intelligence that points to
Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, it has not been shared
with the inspectors? And if that's the case, why has it not been
shared with the inspectors? And is it your plan to do so after the
declaration --
MR. FLEISCHER: Wendell, it is never the practice of the White
House to discuss how we -- what in any detail level we do with
intelligence information. I've made it abundantly clear that we will
continue to cooperate with the inspectors to provide them with
information and tools they need so they can get the job done that the
President has asked them to go into Iraq to do. We have an interest in
working closely with them. But I never discuss publicly in any way --
Q Well, having said that, you can then say whether or not the
inspector is accurate in saying that if you have the intelligence it
has not been shared with the team.
MR. FLEISCHER: We will continue to work closely with the
inspectors as the events go along, as we always have.
Q Ari, you talk about the coalition is already assembling, in
sort of response to David's question, you don't have to provide any
additional information politically to bring this coalition together.
How do you gauge the support in that light of Turkey for the operation,
what's envisioned there? And can you expect to secure -- can the
U.S. expect to secure use of Turkey as a staging ground for U.S.
troops?
MR. FLEISCHER: Some two to three weeks ago, I think it was rather
extensively reported that the State Department contacted some 50
nations around the world to discuss cooperation in the eventuality of a
potential conflict with Iraq. And those conversations began at that
point; they've been developing since then. And it is always my
practice to allow nations to speak for themselves about what level of
cooperation they are providing. So I am not going to get into any one
nation specific.
I'll just repeat that the President is very satisfied that the
international community agrees with him about the threat that Saddam
Hussein presents. The international community and many of these
nations that we are working most closely with see it the same way the
President does. They, too, don't want war. They believe war should be
a last resort, and they hope that Saddam Hussein will disarm so it can
be averted. But make no mistake that the work of assembling a
coalition continues.
Q You just had a Defense official, Mr. Wolfowitz, come back
from Turkey, where they talked about these sorts of issues. What's
your sense of the success of his mission there?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think as he described it, it was a very
successful visit and he was pleased with his consultations with
officials in Turkey. The President will be -- the President, as you
know, met with Turkish officials during his visit to the Czech
Republic, and important members of the Turkish government or governing
structure will be coming to visit the President next week.
Q Ari, in yesterday's briefing, you called Elliott Abrams a
warrior for democracy. Shouldn't a warrior for democracy show more
respect for the elected representatives of the people, namely the
American Congress?
MR. FLEISCHER: I said everything that the President believes on
that topic, and I don't have anything additional or different to add to
it today.
Q He pleaded guilty, as you know, to two misdemeanor counts for
essentially lying to Congress in the '80s about Iran-Contra. Is that
consummate with being a warrior for democracy in your view and the
President's view?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think there is no question that, as a result of
Elliott Abrams' efforts and the efforts of others as well, democracy
has spread throughout Central and Latin America and he enjoys the
tremendous faith and confidence of the President.
Q Ari, if I can come back to Greg's question, when you say the
coalition is already beginning to form into place, there seems to be a
few countries, including the British -- Foreign Secretary Jack Straw,
I think -- I'm sure last week made these comments, that there's still
a preference for another vote at the U.N. What is the White House
position right now on, after all the information has been revealed, you
have responded, does the Security Council get assembled again for
another vote?
MR. FLEISCHER: It is always the prerogative of the United Nations
Security Council to meet and to vote as they see fit. The President is
very appreciative of the powerful messages the United Nations Security
Council sent in its 15 to nothing vote that created the environment for
the inspectors to go back into Iraq. And the President wants to see
what Saddam Hussein does next.
Q If it's the U.N.'s prerogative, would Ambassador Negroponte
be at the table? In other words, would the United States go along with
potentially another vote?
MR. FLEISCHER: The Security Council always has the right to meet,
and the United States is a part of the Security Council.
Q That's a yes?
MR. FLEISCHER: About will he be at the table?
Q Yes. If there is another vote -- in other words, the
United States will go along with it if the majority of countries --
MR. FLEISCHER: The United States is a member of the Security
Council. But I don't think anybody can predict whether the United
Nations will or will not need to go in for another vote, or whether or
not -- but it is certainly the prerogative of the United Nations
Security Council to meet as they see fit at any time.
Q Ari, Iraq will have its say, of sorts, on Saturday when they
release what has been described as a voluminous document. That will be
their manifesto on what they have and what they don't have. You said
this morning that the inspectors don't have access to all the
intelligence information that U.S. officials have. Won't that then be
the time for the U.S. to make public evidence that it has that may not
be reflected in what the inspectors are finding, and would speak to
what's omitted --
MR. FLEISCHER: Got this question earlier, and I indicated that we
will see what Iraq does this weekend. I am not going to predict every
future course of events.
Q But wouldn't it be reasonable? Wouldn't it be logical at
that point if the facts, as you see them, are in direct opposition to
what the Iraqis are asserting, wouldn't that be the time --
MR. FLEISCHER: Let's wait and see what Saddam Hussein says this
weekend. Maybe he will release a list of all his weapons of mass
destruction and where they are, and that way the United Nations can go
in and fulfill their mission to dismantle and destroy them. I'm not
going to guess what Iraq will do this weekend, and I am not going to
indicate every step that may or may not come following that action.
Q Two questions. Does the President have any idea of perhaps
making some kind of hierarchy for material breaches? In other words,
if you have smallpox vaccine, but you don't have a method of delivery
-- in terms of taking military action for enforcement? And my second
question has to do with United Airlines. Has there been any contact
since yesterday's decision by the board between the administration and
United Airlines?
MR. FLEISCHER: On your first question, I've seen nothing about a
hierarchy of breach. The President believes that breach is breach, and
that this is about disarmament and Iraq must disarm.
And in terms of United Airlines, I don't know if anybody in the
administration has spoken directly to United or not. I shared with you
this morning the thoughts of the President and the White House about
the decision made by the board.
Q Ari, just to follow up on that, you did say that he was --
hr respected their decision. But some congressional Republicans,
including the Speaker, said they questioned the timing of it, coming
last night before the machinists vote, saying it didn't give them a
chance. Did the President have any concerns at all about the timing
or --
MR. FLEISCHER: No, the timing is decided by the Air Transportation
Stabilization Board. They make those decisions.
Q So he wasn't worried about that at all?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think you can make the case that if they
waited to do this after the vote, why didn't they allow the workers to
know this information before they voted? I mean, I fail to see how
whether it came before or after the vote is material. This is the
decision that they have made and I think that once they reach the
decision, the public has a right to know it.
Q Ari, there was a poll released -- I believe it was by the
Pew Foundation -- yesterday showing that overseas, that the United
States is not held in as high esteem as it once was. Is this something
that troubles the President? And what does he think might be
contributing to that?
MR. FLEISCHER: You know, I would encourage everybody to go back
and take a look at the raw data in that poll and pay less attention to
some of the interpretations that instantly came out that accompanied
it. Because I think, if you look at it, what you'll see is, with the
exception of some areas in the Muslim world where the President has
already acknowledged the United States has a job to do and we have to
bring people together between the United States and the Muslim world,
but around the rest of the world, the poll showed overwhelming
favorable notions of the United States of America, particularly among
those who recently struggled against tyranny and oppression.
The numbers are astounding in terms of people in all parts of the
world who look to the United States with a favorable image. And I
think that's one of the reasons why you see so many people from around
the world want to come to the United States to go to college and get
good educations, because they see so much hope and opportunity in
America, and opportunity for learning. And we welcome them. We want
them to take advantage of it in a way that is consistent with our
immigration laws, and then go back to their countries. And they are
good emissaries for the wonderful spirit of the American people.
So I think this is one of the most stark example of a poll whose
data showed one thing and whose instant analysis showed another.
Q In that case, let's look at the Muslim world quickly at
least. Obviously, if you go to war with Iraq, it might not sit too
well with some other -- some folks in the Muslim world. What exactly
is it that the administration is tending to do to try to bring those
folks closer?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, let me remind you that Syria voted with the
United States on the Security Council resolution and so Iraq operates
alone in terms of whether or not it should disarm. Syria has called on
Iraq to disarm. I don't make any predictions about whether Syria will
or will not take any part in anything beyond the vote in the United
Nations, but I think the point is instructive. And I remind you about
all the efforts the United States has made to help bring freedom to
Muslims around the world, including Bosnia, including Afghanistan.
Q This is the populace that was being polled. Is there any
reason to think that the populace of these Arab nations will look more
fondly on the United States if it invades Iraq?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think, given the fact that Iran was
attacked by Iraq, given the fact that Kuwait was attacked by Iraq, and
given the fact that Saudi Arabia was attacked by Iraq, I don't think
you're going to find many citizens that believe that Saddam Hussein is
an exact role model for the way Arab community wants to be seen.
Q Ari, when you said the coalition is assembling over the past
two weeks, what exactly does that mean? What's been going on?
MR. FLEISCHER: It means just as I did in the follow-up, that the
State Department contacted some 50 nations around the world in terms of
possible cooperation, in the event that war becomes necessary, and that
we are receiving good responses from many nations. And that the
President believes that one of the best ways to avert war is to make
absolutely certain that Saddam Hussein understands that, if he does not
comply and disarm, we are ready to wage it and it will be waged
successfully.
Q What do you mean, good responses? Do you mean nations have
stepped up and committed specific forces to a coalition force?
MR. FLEISCHER: Nations have stepped up and committed specific
levels of support. I won't get into what those may be, whether it is
troops, whether it is equipment, whether it is overflight, whether it
is landing bases. As I indicated, that is for each nation to do on its
own. But you can assume all of the above in various regions of the
world.
Q So people have made specific commitments sort of along the
lines that the President outlined at the NATO summit?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct. That's correct.
Q Ari, one of the Joint Chiefs yesterday shared a view in
response to a question that the trigger for military disarmament in
Iraq would most likely have to come after the inspectors were able to
come up with the tangible goods to make the case that Iraq is lying.
Does the President believe that that is the case? Because that would
suggest that the burden of proof is more with the inspectors than with
Iraq.
MR. FLEISCHER: No, the burden of proof is clearly on Iraq. And
one of the issues, again -- I've said this before, and I hope you can
just think about this in the most logical way of 100 inspectors working
in a nation the size of France where, often, the ability to hide
something is not so complicated, because what you're hiding is
relatively small. And the amount of facilities that can be available
underground or mobile makes your task of hiding or deceiving or moving
relatively easy.
The burden falls on Saddam Hussein to comply. And this is why the
President keeps saying this is not a game of hide and seek. If an
adversary wants to hide, it's not hard to hide weapons of mass
destruction from even the best inspectors, particularly in a country
the size of Iraq. So Iraq is under an obligation under international
law not to just not hide, but to cooperate. Iraq must cooperate, and
this is what the inspectors and the world community will soon see if
Iraq is indeed doing it or not.
Q Can I follow up on that? If the inspection process is this
difficult in the size of the country and with the number of inspectors,
then how long is the President willing to let this process -- which
so far has looked on the outside like cooperation -- continue?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, I want to remind you that, when you say it
looks on the outside like cooperation, how do you square that with what
Tariq Aziz just said when he said he has no weapons of mass
destruction, unless Tariq Aziz's word is taken at face value. And I
submit to you -- and this is why I cited a public account -- pull
your own reporting for the last 10 years. Those reports I cited,
particularly the first one, was not in the name of any government
official, it was independent reporting -- refuted Iraqi claims. So I
know that when you also independently take a look at Iraqi claims, you
do render a judgment about whether it's accurate or not.
Q So the President does believe that Baghdad's word is enough
of a trigger?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President will wait for Iraq to submit its
declaration, and then we will take a look at it, as I said, in a
thoughtful, deliberative manner, take all appropriate time to review
it, and then you will hear from the United States in various forms as
time goes along.
Q On the domestic front, the latest CBO analysis shows that the
federal deficit could balloon to upwards of $900 billion a year by the
end of 2012. Taking that into account, does the administration believe
there's room in the budget for permanent extension of a $1.35 trillion
tax cut without this adversely affecting the deficit?
MR. FLEISCHER: Paula, Paula, Paula, you have misread the CBO
report. The CBO reached its conclusion that the deficit could reach
that level if spending did not get checked, at current spending rates
and if appropriation bills are increased by the amount that some have
proposed to increase spending. The risk to the deficit comes from
spending.
The fact of the matter is that the economy was in recession, which
led to a decline in revenues, creating a deficit. What has helped to
make sure that the deficit will eventually decline is growth. Growth
came as a result of the tax cuts, because clearly we went from a
recession that began when the President got to town, to now a period of
some growth.
Q The projection is assuming not only the current spending
trend, but also assuming the extension of the permanent tax cut.
MR. FLEISCHER: There's no question the President thinks that the
tax cut should be made permanent, and the President thinks it makes no
sense at all to reimpose a marriage penalty on people because the
government is spending too much.
Q How does this square with fiscal discipline, Ari?
MR. FLEISCHER: Alex?
Q A couple questions. One is, there's some Internet postings,
reportedly by al Qaeda, that a terrorist gift is on its way to mark the
end of Ramadan, specifically citing today and tomorrow. At the same
time, France has doubled its anti-terror efforts. Are we approaching
or going into a period of higher alert?
And my second question is again about Hezbollah. Are we concerned,
do you have indications that Hezbollah is going to take its suicide
bombing campaign worldwide, as some of their leaders have said? Are
you concerned about that?
MR. FLEISCHER: Number one, you're citing a report that appeared on
a web page that was noted and observed, and I think it was then
publicly reported. And we, as you know, throughout the Ramadan period,
have been on a state of readiness and alert. The alert level remains
the same as it was, which is an elevated state. And we continue to
take all these threats seriously and to evaluate them all. This does
remain a period of caution for the American people. We remain a nation
at war.
And, as the President noted, he visited today with the President of
Kenya, nations around the world have been victims of this war. And it
is not an idle reminder. It is, unfortunately, a real reminder to the
American people and our friends everywhere that there are people who
want to bring harm to us.
Hezbollah, of course, is one of the most notorious and dangerous
terrorist organizations in the world. The practice of suicide bombings
is one of the most vile and heinous practices known to man. And we of
course have concerns. There's nothing specific I can point to in that
regard, but all you need to do is unfortunately watch the news about
events in the Middle East and you can see the terror that Hezbollah is
capable of.
Q But do you believe Hezbollah is on the verge of mounting a
global terror campaign of its own?
MR. FLEISCHER: I have nothing that's been provided to me
pertaining to Hezbollah and a global campaign.
Q Ari?
MR. FLEISCHER: Russell, welcome back. I don't know where you've
been, but you're always welcome.
Q Congratulations on your marriage, too.
MR. FLEISCHER: Thank you, sir.
Q Ari, two questions. What was the President thinking when he
appointed an alleged war criminal to investigate a war crime? What was
he thinking?
MR. FLEISCHER: Who are you thinking of?
Q Chile, Allende, Cambodia, Kissinger.
MR. FLEISCHER: Would he appoint --
Q Kissinger.
MR. FLEISCHER: Oh, I see what you're saying. Everything that I
said when Henry Kissinger was appointed two weeks ago, about the
outstanding integrity of Henry Kissinger and the high regard in which
he's held. You should have been here two weeks ago; you missed that
one.
Go ahead, you get a follow-up because you haven't been here.
Q You said Iraq has lied in the past and its continuing to
lie. Kissinger lied to Congress about Cambodia. Kissinger lied to
Congress about Chile. How do we know he's not going to lie about his
investigation?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think that if you want to compare what Tariq Aziz
said last week to what Henry Kissinger, who has ably served the United
States and who continues to ably serve the United States and is held in
very high regard by people in both parties, including the families of
9/11, that's your judgment, your business. The President rejects that
line of thinking.
Q Where does find these great men? Where? Every one from the
Iran-Contra scandal has been named to this administration. (Laughter.)
MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, tomorrow I announce your appointment.
(Laughter.)
Q Ari, Secretary Rumsfeld says the goal against Iraq is regime
change. Secretary Powell says disarmament is the same as regime
change. Is there a contradiction here, and what is the President's
position.
MR. FLEISCHER: The President, as you know, and Secretary Powell,
as you know, and Secretary Rumsfeld, as you know, have all said the
goal is both. The goal is to make certain that Saddam Hussein disarms,
and the United States policy under law is regime change.
Q What's the White House reaction to comments made by Prince
Nayef, the Interior Minister in Saudi Arabia, where he questioned
whether al Qaeda was responsible for the 9/11 attacks and suggested
that Zionists were behind it?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not familiar with those remarks. I'll take a
look at them; I have not seen them.
Thank you.
END 2:15 P.M. EST
|