For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
January 30, 2003
Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
2:04 P.M. EST
MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. I want to give you a report. It's
been a busy day on both the domestic and diplomacy fronts, so I have
several reports to give you. Let me start with the President's
schedule.
The President had his intelligence briefing this morning; then the
FBI briefing. The President then left the White House en route to
travel to the Boys & Girls Club here in Washington to announce the new
domestic initiative to promote mentoring across America, and to
announce a new group on the one-year anniversary of USA Freedom Corps
that is designed to usher in more volunteerism across America and more
mentors across America.
This group will represent the new Council, and it includes a list
that has been provided to you earlier, that includes people such as
Sean Aston, who, of course, was Frodo's friend, Sam, in the Lord of the
Rings; former Senators Bob Dole and John Glenn; Cal Ripken, formally
with the Baltimore Orioles; Darrell Green, formally of the Washington
Redskins, and many others, all designed to follow through on the
President's State of the Union about the importance of increasing
volunteerism and mentoring throughout America.
The President then returned to the White House where he had a
meeting in the Oval Office with the Prime Minister of Italy, Prime
Minister Berlusconi. He had lunch with Prime Minister Berlusconi.
I'll get to that in a minute. He is currently meeting with the Foreign
Minister of Saudi Arabia. And this evening he will welcome to the
White House the combatant commanders for their semi-annual visit to
Washington.
Let me share with you several pieces of information. On the
domestic front, the Senate has begun the year with signs of progress.
In the Senate Finance Committee, the Finance Committee today passed out
unanimously, voted unanimously to support the President's nominee for
the Secretary of Treasury, John Snow. The President is grateful for
this action. He thinks it's very important that he be allowed to have
his full economic team in place.
He would like to thank Chairman Grassley and Democratic Leader
Baucus for their bipartisan efforts. Senator Baucus noted it's
important for this vote to be taken up on the floor of the Senate
today. The President agrees. For the good of the economy, it's
important for the Senate to move quickly in a bipartisan way to confirm
the Secretary of the Treasury.
In a slightly more partisan way, the Senate Judiciary Committee
today, on a party-line vote, reported out Miguel Estrada for the Court
of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The President is pleased that this is
the first of the nominees that he had named early last year whose
appointments had been blocked by the previous Senate, and now action is
beginning so the judiciary emergency vacancy can be filled. The
President is very grateful to Chairman Hatch of the Senate Judiciary
Committee for the action, and he looks forward to passage on the
floor.
On the foreign policy front, number one, the President would like
to thank the leaders of eight European nations who signed the op/ed
that ran in the European versions of many newspapers today. The
President is very grateful to these eight European leaders, and to
others who are supportive of his efforts to make certain that Saddam
Hussein is disarmed.
The President had a very successful meeting with Prime Minister
Berlusconi. The two agreed about the importance of disarming Saddam
Hussein. The President emphasized once again that he hopes to do this
peacefully, and the two agreed about the importance of continued
consultation and cooperation, as we will keep in touch with our good
friends, the Italians.
The President also made a series of phone calls this morning. I
mentioned yesterday that we are now entering in this final stage a
diplomatic window, and the President is very busy talking to leaders
throughout Europe and throughout the world about the situation in Iraq
and how this can be resolved so Saddam Hussein does disarm.
He spoke this morning with Portuguese Prime Minister Barossa. The
President thanked the Prime Minister for his public support on Iraq and
asked the Prime Minister to pass along his thanks to the Portuguese
people for their longstanding friendship that they have shown for the
United States. The President listened carefully to the Prime
Minister's views on the next steps in addressing Iraq's continued
refusal to disarm itself from weapons of mass destruction. Both agreed
on the importance of consulting with other members of the international
community regarding Iraq. The two leaders agreed to stay in close
touch and continue consultations.
The President this morning also called Swedish Prime Minister
Person. They had a very friendly discussion and they agreed that
Saddam Hussein must disarm, and they need to work together to
accomplish that goal. The President said he would continue to seek
common ground with leaders, and he noted that time was running out.
The President will, again, look forward to continuing this consultation
with the Swedish Prime Minister.
And then, finally, President Bush, of course, tomorrow will be
pleased to welcome British Prime Minister Blair to Camp David. The
Prime Minister was President Bush's first guest at Camp David two years
ago, and tomorrow's meeting is another in a continuous series of
consultations on a variety of important issues, including Iraq. I
expect the two leaders will talk about a range of issues, including
Iraq, the Middle East, the war on terror, and ways that we can,
together in concert with friends and allies, fight the spread of
weapons of mass destruction. The President values Prime Minister
Blair's leadership and will listen carefully to what the Prime Minister
has to say.
With that, I'm happy to take your questions. David.
Q On the question of exile for Saddam Hussein, is the
administration prepared to propose something in a specific and detailed
way to back such a move? Or will it simply be satisfied to say
publicly, as the President did today, that that would be a good thing
if that were to emerge out of the region, if the Saudis push that or if
others pushed that and Saddam were to agree? And a second piece to
that, any indications? Is the world getting any indication that Saddam
would agree to such a thing?
MR. FLEISCHER: Number one, it would be a very desirable event if
Saddam Hussein were to leave Iraq. That would be one way for peace to
be preserved. And the President hopes that can happen. Whether it
will happen or not, I don't think anybody can guess or count on. The
only person who know whether that will happen is Saddam Hussein. And
the most likely way to make it happen is through continued growing
pressure on Saddam Hussein. The less pressure, the less likely it is.
The more pressure, the more the likelihood. But it's very hard to
assess how likely it will be. And it's very hard to understand what
Saddam Hussein has done, let alone to predict what he will do.
As for the question about how that would be treated, this will be
an international matter. This is not a matter for the Americans to
decide. It would be something that would be discussed in concert with
friends and allies. And I couldn't possibly guess or speculate what
any outcomes may or may not be.
Q But the pressure is being brought to bear primarily by the
United States. We're the ones who have the troops there in the largest
numbers. So if we're really committed to putting that on the table, is
this administration prepared to put together a concrete proposal to
suggest to Saddam that he might take?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, I think the first thing that would be
important is for Saddam Hussein to leave. And again, as I indicated to
you -- you are accurate in pointing out that much of the military
presence is America. But any such matter -- whether it would or
would not come up -- would be an international matter, not a uniquely
American one.
Q Are you saying he has leave first?
Q Ari, on your weeks and months formulation, is this a rejection
of calls for more times for the weapons inspectors? And is it a
deadline?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, number one, the reason the President said
weeks not months is because he does not want to repeat the mistakes of
the '90s, where Saddam Hussein once again games the world, strings
things out and continues to hide his weapons. There does come a point
at which the world can judge whether or not Saddam Hussein is complying
and is disarming. It doesn't take a long time to know if Saddam
Hussein is disarming or not. And the President has expressed that as
weeks not months.
Q Does that mean that the President would not agree to an
extension of the mandate of the weapons inspectors?
MR. FLEISCHER: The extension -- there is no time period for the
inspectors. The inspectors have a mission until their mission is
deemed by the United Nations Security Council to have run its fruitful
course.
Q So by saying weeks not months, has he effectively set a
deadline?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, again, the President has said that he has not
made a decision about military action, if that's what you mean. But
the President is clearly sending a message to Saddam Hussein and to our
friends and allies that there is no point in repeating the mistakes
that have been made before which allowed Saddam Hussein to bob and
weave, to hide and to dodge, to cheat and retreat. We will not repeat
and return to that era. (Laughter.)
Q I don't know whether I can follow that poetry. (Laughter.)
MR. FLEISCHER: What do you have? (Laughter.)
Q Not even going to go there.
Q Cheat and retreat.
Q In terms of this idea of weeks not months, if the President is
as certain --
MR. FLEISCHER: That was inadvertent, by the way. (Laughter.)
Q When you got it, you got it. (Laughter.)
MR. FLEISCHER: I wouldn't even know how I said it if you didn't
laugh.
Q If the President is as certain as he was in the State of the
Union address on Tuesday night that Saddam Hussein is not disarming and
is playing, as you say, cheat and retreat with weapons inspectors, why
does he feel the need to wait at all? And in terms of making the
decision, what more evidence does he need? Because as you have been
quick to point out, you already have all the authorization you need to
go to war, if necessary.
MR. FLEISCHER: In the phone calls the President is making to world
leaders, and in his meeting with Prime Minister Berlusconi, the
President is emphasizing how important it is to let diplomacy run its
course to the greatest degree that it can solve this problem. The
President is serious about consultation. The President is serious
about diplomacy. He hopes it will work, and he wants to give it time
to work. But diplomacy never works if it's diplomacy forever in the
face of a threat like Saddam Hussein. And that's a lesson the world
has seen over the last 10 years, unlimited diplomacy leads to unlimited
running around by Saddam Hussein to continue to develop his weapons.
Q Sure. But you also said zero tolerance last fall. The
President has said that he's in material breach. He's said he's not
cooperating with weapons inspectors.
MR. FLEISCHER: Correct.
Q And he is not disarming. He's said that he is in violation of
Resolution 1441. Zero tolerance? Where's the zero tolerance?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President will let you know when it reaches the
point where it is down to zero. The President has said that it is the
final phase. He does have zero tolerance. If you're asking why isn't
there military action today, the answer is because the President is
serious about consulting with our friends and allies, as he promised he
would do.
Q We do know something that -- you said, the President wants
to let diplomacy run its course, but we know that course won't extend
more than eight weeks from today.
MR. FLEISCHER: The President said weeks not months.
Q So we will be either at war, or Saddam will have disarmed
within eight weeks?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President said weeks not months. I think
Saddam Hussein needs to figure out what that means. And hopefully, it
will help to disarm. If it doesn't, the President has made clear, he
will lead a coalition to disarm him.
Q And it is important for the American people to know, as well,
that it's a matter of weeks then.
MR. FLEISCHER: The President did say it for a reason.
Q And could you just clear up one thing that's caused some,
perhaps misunderstanding and anxiety, and that's, what specifically is
the administration's doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons in any war
with Iraq?
MR. FLEISCHER: It's exactly as I said last week and as Secretary
Rumsfeld has said, that America's policy involving nuclear weapons is
to not rule anything in, not rule anything out. We do not comment
about potential use of nuclear weapons.
Q Is there any greater likelihood that nuclear weapons would be
used by the United States in this war than in any previous conflict?
MR. FLEISCHER: It is a deliberately ambiguous statement.
Q Senator Kennedy had a speech yesterday. Are you going to be
able to provide the undeniable proof to silence the critics?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, I think people will judge the information
that they already have had. I think that most Americans, even before
the State of the Union, agreed that Saddam Hussein was a threat and
that they would support the judgment if the President were to make it
to use force to remove the threat from Saddam Hussein using weapons of
mass destruction that we all know, the United Nations knows and others
know that he has. And we'll just leave it at that.
Q How do you respond to some of this Democratic criticism?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President respects those who disagree. After
all, there were a number -- not a lot, but there were a small number
of Democrats who voted against the resolution for the use of force.
There was a much larger number of Democrats who voted against the
resolution for the use of force in 1991. It is their prerogative, and
the President respects it.
The President will continue to do what he thinks is right for the
country, and in doing what he thinks is right for the country, this
President is confident that his leadership will be followed and will be
supported.
Q Back to the question of exile. Would the administration
support an effort by the Saudis or by the international community,
generally, that would specifically include amnesty from war crimes or
any other charges?
MR. FLEISCHER: Let's be more specific on David's previous
question. And again, the President thinks it would be in the interest
of peace if Saddam Hussein were somehow to be convinced to leave the
country. But beyond that, I'm not prepared to speculate about what may
or may not happen. Again, that's a matter for not just the United
States to have an opinion about, but the international community, and
I'm not speculating.
Q But without going into details, though, have there been
discussions between administration officials and other nations about
what some sort of exile package might look like?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, I'm not going to speculate about it. I
think there are some things that the less said, the better, so that
Saddam Hussein leaves the country. Now, don't take that to mean one
way or another, but I'm just not going to speculate on the topic. The
hope for peace is that Saddam Hussein leaves.
I think it's not only the hope for peace, but the hope for the
future of the Iraqi people. The Iraqi people deserve a government
where they're the people of Iraq. It is the Iraqi people who have to
suffer under a totalitarian state and a brutal regime. It's not just
American servicemen and women and people around the world and people in
the region who would be spared from harm's way if Saddam Hussein were
to leave. That, itself, is important. But what about the people of
Iraq? They would be the biggest winners if Saddam Hussein were to
leave.
Q Ari, you said that the President welcomes criticism. But how
does the President feel about the fact that Edward Kennedy wants
Congress to approve any military action, or Robert Byrd saying the
matter should be approved by the United Nations? Does he feel that is
hampering his efforts to pressure Saddam?
MR. FLEISCHER: No. I think, again, this is a democracy and people
are welcome to their opinions. I think many of the opinions that
you're hearing are distinct minority opinions that don't have much
support on the Hill. In fact, I'm not sure, I suspect there may be
some discomfort within some Democratic quarters for ideas like this
because I don't think the Democrats want to have to take votes on some
of these matters, necessarily.
But the President respects it; these are their opinions. And no
matter what, at the end of the day, we all work together in this
country of ours, and they have that right. That is the strength of our
system.
Q Ari, a second question having to do with Miguel Estrada. You
said today he was approved by a partisan vote in the Judiciary
Committee. That will go to the floor of the Senate. There, I imagine
some Democrats will also try to block his approval. Is the President
working on that nomination? I think it's the first one to be passed
this year, if I'm not mistaken, by the Judiciary Committee.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, according to the information I have, it has
never happened in the history of the Senate for a circuit court nominee
being passed out of committee to be blocked on the floor through a
filibuster. So the committee has spoken. Progress is being made. The
logjam in the Senate is now breaking. And the President looks at the
vote on John Snow in the Finance Committee today, and the vote on
Miguel Estrada in the Judiciary Committee today as signs of progress,
based on the last election where the American people said, work
together and get things done. And that's why the President welcomed
the action today, and he hopes that both votes will move to the floor.
The American people are entitled to have an Executive Branch and a
Judiciary Branch filled in, not left blank and vacant.
Q Ari, the President mentioned something that was mentioned
earlier, the aluminum tubes as part of the list of evidence that the
U.S. thinks that Saddam Hussein has got weapons of mass destruction.
But the IAEA and other world officials -- Mohammed ElBaradei,
actually, specifically said that it's just not there, that is not what
that it's intended to be used for in Iraq, that it's really just
conventional. Isn't there a concern that when the President and the
White House make statements like that it's going to undermine your
overall argument of this Mt. Everest of evidence that you say exists?
MR. FLEISCHER: No. And I'll give you three reasons why, in the
President's judgment. Number one, Mohammed ElBaradei and the IAEA said
that the importations of these tubes is illegal and violates the
policies that Iraq committed itself to, regardless of what the IAEA has
so far judged them to be. They said Iraq's actions in importing them
are, in and of themselves, a violation. That should be a cause for
concern, number one, about whether Iraq is disarming.
Number two, on the tubes, the IAEA has said that their
investigation remains open. They have not reached final conclusions
about this. On that point, therefore, to point three, there are
continuing discussions with the IAEA in which information is being
shared about this information. The preponderance of evidence is that
Iraq attempted to procure high-strength aluminum tubes for uranium
enrichment. We stand by that statement.
Our technical analysis at the extremely tight manufacturing
tolerances and high-strength materials indicates the tubes far exceed
any specifications required for non-nuclear capabilities. Iraq
attempted to procure the tubes covertly. The cost of the tubes is far
greater than what one would pay for if the tubes were just to be used
for artillery. Iraq has devoted substantial efforts to concealing its
nuclear program in the past. It's not surprising that it would attempt
to mislead the inspectors on this issue and the inspectors have left it
open because they want to continue to hear from us and to work on this
before final conclusions are reached. The President stands by every
word he said.
Q Is this intelligence that's already been shared with him?
MR. FLEISCHER: It's an ongoing process.
Q Will Secretary Powell outline some of that? Because it's an
interesting statement --
MR. FLEISCHER: I know you will be there on Wednesday next week, so
you'll find out Wednesday.
Q Ari, Prime Minister Blair is on record saying that he would
like a second Security Council vote on use of force in Iraq. What's
the administration's thinking at the moment about whether a second
resolution would be desirable or possible?
MR. FLEISCHER: And, just as I've indicated, we will continue to
consult with our friends and allies about the next course. The
President does think that the United Nations is important. He hopes
that they will prove to be important by taking meaningful action that
results in the disarmament of Saddam Hussein so this can be resolved
peacefully. But the -- as you know, the President has also said that
if Saddam Hussein does not disarm, he will lead a coalition to disarm
him.
Q But, you've already demonstrated that you think -- the
United States -- this is important by sending Secretary Powell up
there next week. On the second resolution, has there been a decision
made on whether we will seek a second resolution?
MR. FLEISCHER: The decision is we will continue to consult.
Q You talked about diplomacy running its course. Could you just
give us some idea what to expect, beginning with Secretary Powell's
comments and running at least through the next report from the arms
inspectors, which will be on the 14th of February? What do you foresee
happening? What does the U.S. want to happen during that critical
period?
MR. FLEISCHER: There is one thing the United States wants to see
happen and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm. That's what this is
all about. Everyone of these actions, everyone of these steps, every
shipment of troops is all aimed at one thing; that's the disarmament
of Saddam Hussein so the threat to the world and to the region can go
away.
Toward that end, what you are seeing now is a very active window of
diplomacy involving the President's personal time making a series of
phone calls -- which will continue -- a series of personal meetings
-- which will continue -- meetings and phone calls by the Secretary
of State, by others in the government. You're seeing a very active
diplomacy of a kind that you saw, frankly, around the September-October
period, as well. That will continue. It won't continue forever. It
will continue for a finite period of time as the President has said.
Following that, I think this is then where the President will have
to make a judgement about whether Saddam Hussein will indeed disarm on
his own, or whether he will have to make the decision to use military
force to disarm Saddam Hussein.
Q In that context, how important then is the next report from
the arms inspectors on the 14th of February?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not going to speculate about a report that
hasn't been made yet.
Q But it's obviously part of this sequencing and the last one
was quite important. This is the next benchmark, if you will, about
whether or not the Iraqis are actually coming clean. One would think
it would weigh fairly heavily.
MR. FLEISCHER: Today is January 30th and I can't speculate about a
report that is two weeks out in terms of gauging it's importance. We
already know from the last report that Iraq is not compliant.
Q Let me ask you one quick question about Medicare, if I will.
Does the administration intend to write its own legislation, and when
will we learn the details of the President's proposal?
MR. FLEISCHER: In the immediate aftermath of the State of the
Union, the President is going to continue to travel the country and to
make the case for the initiatives that he announced in the State of the
Union. He did that today on the mentoring program. He will have more
to say about the AIDS initiative to help people in Africa and the
Caribbean. So you can anticipate a series of events including
follow-on statements. No date is picked at this moment and we'll let
you know when there is a date picked.
Q To submit legislation you mean?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, to make another speech with additional
details. If you're asking about actual legislative language, I don't
know if the administration is going to have a legislative language or
not. That's something that typically Congress writes through
legislative councils offices. But the points and the specifics will be
well-known whether or not it includes legislative language or not.
Q Ari, when the President made his remarks today, when he was
talking about the issue of exile, he was careful to make the point the
goal here is not just to remove Saddam Hussein, but to disarm. And so,
whoever comes -- if Saddam Hussein leaves, it's not an automatic that
this conflict is over depending on who comes in. So can you flesh out
what the administration's concerns are in that area in terms of
obtaining the goal of disarmament?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, certainly. If Saddam Hussein were to leave
and the son stayed behind and the son had weapons of mass destruction,
the world would be just as much at risk. The President views this as
how to promote peace, and the way to promote peace is to make sure that
there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, just as they promised
and pledged that they would not have them, and to change the regime.
Q Now, how deep in the regime does this -- would this have to
go?
MR. FLEISCHER: I couldn't speculate a guess. It has to go to the
point of peace. It has to go to the point where Iraq will join its
proper place around the world as a peace-loving nation. And it has a
peace-loving people, and so perhaps there will be a leadership in Iraq
one day with a peace-loving leadership.
Q But clearly when the White House aims at the goal of
disarmament and the leadership in Iraq that is also committed to that,
are you all not talking about Saddam Hussein and all his top advisors
are all going to be --
MR. FLEISCHER: I can't speculate -- as I indicated, I can't
speculate and I don't know names.
Q This is really a follow-up to Jean. The President's words
were, speaking of Saddam Hussein and the possibility of his exile, "and
should he choose to leave the country along with a lot of the other
henchmen who have tortured the Iraqi people, we would welcome that."
That -- if you take his words literally, that appears to set a pretty
precise condition that it's not enough for Saddam to leave, it has to
be --
MR. FLEISCHER: That's why it's called regime change. Certainly,
nobody would want to leave in place an infrastructure where they could
just come back and do it again. So the point the President is making I
think is a fairly obvious one, that the regime leadership has to leave,
so, therefore, a new leadership can emerge that is focused on peace. I
think, otherwise, you would just continue to see turmoil and strife and
an Iraq that was to remilitarize. And the President does not think the
world wants to repeat this position. This is a chance for the world to
deal with this in a fundamental way.
Q How widespread does that have to be? How many people are we
talking about --
MR. FLEISCHER: I can't make those judgments.
Q Can you set some minimum benchmarks --
MR. FLEISCHER: I can set you the principles, and the principles
are, deep enough so that the leadership that emerges is a leadership
dedicated to peace, not war.
Q You mentioned his son. Would his son and the other family
members who are part of the regime, at a minimum, have to go?
MR. FLEISCHER: Ken, I didn't bring the family tree with me.
Q Ari, two things. Yesterday in South Africa, former President
Nelson Mandela said, "All President Bush wants is Iraqi oil because
Iraq produces 64 percent of the oil and he wants to get a hold of it."
He also said that America is "so arrogant" that they dropped the atomic
bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and killed innocent people. President
Bush, on the other hand, yesterday said, "either you're with us or
you're with the enemy." In saying this, does the President believe
that Nelson Mandela, France and Germany are with the enemy?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, on the last point. And on the first point, if
this was a war for oil, the United States would be the ones saying lift
the sanctions. That way Iraq could pump oil. This is about peace, and
this is about protecting people in the region and the American people
from Saddam Hussein who has weapons that kill millions.
Lester.
Q Can I have a second one?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, you can't, not today. We're running late.
Q On January the 27th, during his receiving an award from
Ambassador Negroponte in Stamford, Connecticut, the President's father
strongly denounced the Episcopal Church's presiding bishop, Frank
Griswold for "highly offensive rhetoric," and Griswold saying that he
has to apologize for being from the United States which is loathed and
hated for indifference to human suffering -- to which the former
President said, "This was uncalled for and hurt this proud father very
much. I know this President better than the Bishop, and unlike the
Bishop, I will never feel the need to apologize for this great
country." And my question: Even though this was reported only by Fox
Network, Hannedy and Colms and WorldNet Daily --
MR. FLEISCHER: And now, Lester Kensolving.
Q -- surely the President must have heard about what his father
said, and so what was the President's reaction to his father's
statement, Ari?
MR. FLEISCHER: Number one, Lester, I do not know what the
President has heard about what his father has said, and so --
Q He doesn't know?
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't know. But even if I did, I don't talk
about what the President and his father would talk about, even if they
talked to each other through the media.
Q All right. I'm all but sick that you don't want to convey in
that answer that you and the President don't know or care about what
his father said. So could you check with Fox News and the President
and have another answer at your next briefing, Ari, would you?
MR. FLEISCHER: I will.
Q You will?
MR. FLEISCHER: I will.
Q Thank you.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I'm kind of shaking my head ruefully. That
wasn't quite a vertical shake, as much as a horizontal.
Q Do you want to leave the impression you don't care what the
father said, Ari?
Q Lester has a fifth question which I'll be glad to carry for
him. (Laughter.) The last time Prime Minister Blair was here, there
was a lot of talk about evidence linking Iraq with continued pursuit of
chemical, biological, nuclear weapons, and they referenced an IAEA
report up at Camp David. It turns out this was a report that actually
had been out a couple years before. Next week, Secretary of State
Powell goes to the U.N. Once again we have assurances that the case
convincingly can be made that Iraq has continued down this path. Will
he be able to present to members of the Security Council new -- and
by that I mean evidence gathered in the last three to six months, by
whatever means our intelligence, intelligence from allied nations --
that will close the loop on this evidentiary-wise, and prove that this
is an ongoing and current concern?
MR. FLEISCHER: Let me make a point on this issue of so-called new
evidence versus existing known evidence. It doesn't matter if it's new
or old if it can still kill you. So whether there is information that
is one day old, or one year old that Saddam Hussein has biological and
chemical weapons, the impact is not whether the information is new or
old; the impact is whether he has them or not. That's what's at stake
here. So whether Colin Powell has new information or old information,
the point is, is the information accurate describing that Saddam
Hussein has weapons of mass destruction. That's what's at stake here.
Q Some of those who have been reluctant to go along with us
have, in essence, asked the question, what's the urgency, what is a
sign that this is an imminent, like, immediate threat?
MR. FLEISCHER: And in that point what the President would tell you
is that, one, Saddam Hussein has committed to giving up the weapons of
mass destruction, and if the United Nations is to have a meaningful
place in our world, the United Nations resolutions vis-a-vis Iraq to
give up the weapons of mass destruction must be enforced. Otherwise,
the world can never rest easy because he'll continue to have them.
Two, September 11th changed everything for the United States and,
indeed, for this President. While the notion of containment may
previously have made some sense prior to September 11th, September 11th
changed everything because it shows that we are indeed a vulnerable
country, that threats to us cannot be contained. As the President said
in his State of the Union speech, imagine if any of the hijackers on
September 11th had not only driven their planes into buildings, but
were armed with a vial, a canister, a crate of a biological or a
chemical weapon. The damage done to our country would have been
massive. The risk remains and the risk is nowhere greater than under
Saddam Hussein.
Q Ari, it seems that the White House is highlighting South
Africa as one of the countries that disarmed. And yet, one of the
former leaders of South Africa is highly critical of President Bush and
his efforts to possibly go to war with Saddam Hussein. Nelson Mandela
is on record as saying that --
MR. FLEISCHER: This was just asked.
Q No, not what I'm asking. He's on record of saying that
President Bush has no foresight and he doesn't think properly and he's
ready to throw the world into a holocaust. How can you say that you
respect the people who disagree -- and he's clearly disagreeing --
but yet still highlight South Africa for disarmament? How does that
mesh?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think they mesh perfectly. Number one, South
Africa proved to the world that when a nation wants to disarm, it knows
how to disarm. And whether a former leader of South Africa has
different opinions about politics and diplomacy, that doesn't change
the empirical facts of the process that South Africa used, inviting
inspectors in to visibly observe disarmament take place.
And as for the statement, Nelson Mandela was a great leader, he
remains a great man. But on this, the President and Nelson Mandela do
not see eye to eye.
Q Has he ever taken any of Nelson Mandela's calls on this
issue?
MR. FLEISCHER: As you know, they've met. I don't know if they've
talked recently. I don't think they've had any phone calls recently.
Q Ari, two quick questions. Just came back from a conference in
New Delhi, and Indian Americans were meeting on terrorism. They have
passed a resolution and sided with President Bush for war against
terrorism. Also, they are calling the President that the U.S. can do
more as across the border terrorism into India. Also I'm thankful to
the U.S. Ambassador to India, Ambassador Blackwell, who hosted the
reception and he was very generous. Do you have any comments on how
much more the President can do on cross-border terrorism in India?
MR. FLEISCHER: As you know, Secretary Powell met yesterday with
the Pakistani Foreign Minister and this conversation came up. And the
Secretary recommitted the United States to working with India and
Pakistan to continue the reduction of tensions.
Q Ari, you said that the President has not made a decision on
military action. Hasn't he made a decision, though, that if Saddam
doesn't disarm within these weeks -- however many weeks we're talking
about -- that at the end of those weeks that he's made a decision
that he will have to resort to military action? I mean, he's made some
sort of decision here in the last couple of days.
MR. FLEISCHER: I think that it's been well-known for months when
the President says that if Saddam Hussein does not disarm he will lead
a coalition to disarm him. So the question is, how could disarmament
best be achieved. The President continues to hope it can be achieved
peacefully through growing pressure. And certainly the op-ed that ran
today from eight European nations, and additional letters that have
now, interestingly, started to come in from a couple other European
countries, makes the case that pressure will grow.
Q Could you maybe describe what decision, if any, he has made in
recent days? His thinking seems to have shifted somehow. You're
talking about weeks, not months; you're talking about -- you pointed
out this intense diplomacy and you likened it to the September-October
period last time, which was right before we waged war. So what has
changed in his thinking? Has he reached a final straw now?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I likened it to September-October when people
said that nobody would follow the United States, and the United Nations
passed a resolution which unanimously people followed the United
States.
Q Ari, during the lead up to the Gulf War, Saddam Hussein was
given a deadline for getting out of Kuwait. Obviously -- or
presumably, such discussions of a deadline are part of the ongoing
diplomacy. Could you share with us in general what some of the
President's thinking on the value of a deadline or --
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, what the President has said is this is the
time for diplomacy, and he meant it. In the event he makes the
judgment that diplomacy is insufficient to protect the peace, at that
point, and on the timing of the President's determination, the
President would then come to the country and discuss this at far
greater length. And I'm not going to go beyond that.
Q I'd like to go back to the aluminum tubes. Are you saying
that the administration knows more than the inspectors do? Or are you
saying that you're looking at the same evidence and reaching different
conclusions? Because while you're right, the inspectors say it's an
open case, they clearly say the evidence to date tends to back the
Iraqi view of this, as opposed to the United States view.
MR. FLEISCHER: And it's a matter of some technical provision,
technical matters, and technical people are talking about this.
Q But do you know more than they do?
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't know I can say that, yes or no. I think
both the IAEA and the United States are in a position to know quite a
bit, and we work together on these things -- that's the point.
Q Ari, going back to the statement you made earlier, you
referred to mistakes of the '90s. Who made those mistakes?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think that mistakes were made collectively
that allowed Saddam Hussein to think that he could once again defy the
world and keep his weapons of mass destruction. I think that's one of
the issues that was very prominent last November, when the Security
Council voted unanimously for a much tougher resolution than the
resolutions that guided the collective will of the Security Council
throughout the '90s.
Q Well, there were two administrations, obviously, in the '90s.
Are you assigning blame to one of them?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, it's just as I indicated. It was the
collective judgments of the '90s that had weaker resolutions in place
that Saddam Hussein was able to defy.
Q Who is to blame for that?
MR. FLEISCHER: As I indicated, the collective will that led to the
tougher resolutions.
Q Ari, my question is related to Bob's question, just a little
bit different. Will the President and British Prime Minister Blair set
a deadline for Saddam Hussein to disarm; a deadline for war if he does
not?
MR. FLEISCHER: The purpose of this meeting is to consult, to
listen carefully to Prime Minister Blair's idea. And then Secretary
Powell will, of course, be up in New York. So, no, you will not see
that this weekend at Camp David, no.
Q Senator Daschle and Congresswoman Pelosi, among others in
Washington, and senior members of Tony Blair's own Labor Party in
London have urged the Prime Minister to act as a restraining influence
on President Bush. Is that a realistic assessment of Mr. Blair's
potential influence, and how would you characterize that influence?
MR. FLEISCHER: The United States and the people of Great Britain
have a very powerful bond, and that is shared by the President of the
United States and the Prime Minister of Great Britain. The two don't
see everything eye-to-eye; the two differ on issues sometimes. And
that is a sign of a great and healthy relationship between two strong
democracies. And I anticipate that the Prime Minister will share his
judgments and his wisdom with the President. The President looks
forward to hearing it and the two will work as they always have,
together, to secure peace.
Q On the issue, though, of Iraq, is it at all fair or accurate
to describe Mr. Blair's influence as being in any way that of
restraint?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think that you have to ask the questions
appropriately to British officials, who can make the judgments about
any of the Prime Minister's thoughts. But I think that this is a
question of to restrain Saddam Hussein, not to restrain anybody else.
Q Following on from my colleague's question, would you still
agree, as if often said in London, that there is a special relationship
between Britain and the United States?
MR. FLEISCHER: I just indicated that in different words, but of
course there is. And it's a relationship that is special because of
the relationship between the people of the United States and the people
of Great Britain.
Q So how much influence will Mr. Blair have on the President,
when the final decision, or if a decision is taken to go to war with
Iraq -- how much influence --
MR. FLEISCHER: The President very much values Prime Minister
Blair's advice and consultation.
Q Does the United States still have plans in place for an
American or international caretaker to, in effect, take over and help
the Iraqi people after Saddam Hussein?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President has made clear that if there is a
decision to use military force, the United States will be committed to
preserving security for the people of Iraq; that we will work closely
with iraqis inside and outside the country to protect the territorial
integrity of Iraq and the unity of Iraq.
Q You know, there's resentment among moderate Democrats,
particularly in the Senate, over the Republican tactics that were used
against Senators Cleland and Landrieu, and there's a feeling that it
may be more difficult to get those moderate votes for administration
positions in the future. Does the White House regret the tone or the
tenor of that campaign, or those campaigns in those two states?
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't think I've ever seen an election where
either party looked at the other party after the election and said, you
ran a campaign that I didn't like. Democrats say it about Republicans,
Republicans say it about Democrats. It's the history of our republic.
But the fact of the matter is, when it comes to the good of the
nation, all parties work together, as Senator Baucus proved on the
Senate Finance Committee today with a unanimous vote to confirm Mr.
Snow to Treasury.
Q Ari, if the President is serious about diplomacy and believes
there's a narrow window left for peaceful disarmament, why is the
President only reaching out to those countries that have come out in
support of U.S. policy and a possible war? Why not arrange meetings
with the leaders of France and Germany and other --
MR. FLEISCHER: First of all, there aren't very many nations to
talk to in that regard. It is not a large number. And as we all know,
Germany has said they are unalterably opposed to support. The
President understands that. I've never said there won't be any other
conversation with any other nations.
But to set the record straight, the President is spending more time
talking to people who support his position because most European
governments do.
Q Ari, when you referred to additional letters just now, what
were you referring to?
MR. FLEISCHER: Additional letters?
Q You were talking about -- you said the eight who have signed
the editorial --
MR. FLEISCHER: I saw one report on the wire that Albania has sent
a letter very similar to the message that was received earlier. And I
also saw a report that one of the Baltic nations has publicly announced
that they, too, stand with the United States. So I think you're seeing
a developing story.
Q Ari, once again, Germany and France have maneuvered and kept
NATO from discussing providing aid to the United States in case of
military conflict. You have said before that the President accepts
that some people will stand on the sidelines, but how does he feel
about what is amounting to actual instruction?
MR. FLEISCHER: Number one, the President appreciates the
overwhelming majority of NATO nations who want to work in support of
the American position. NATO works by consensus and the President is
confident that in the end, consensus will be achieved.
Q -- a military caretaker in Iraq, does that plan still hold
under the scenario that Saddam takes his top lieutenants and goes into
exile?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, what holds is that the United States is
committed to the preservation of freedom and security in Iraq. The
United States, if it gets to the issue of military force, will not walk
away. The United States will do what is necessary to help preserve the
peace -- into the future.
And as the President said today, that in the event there is
military action, it will be immediately accompanied and followed by
humanitarian action, food action, medical supplies action for the
people of Iraq.
Q Understood. Should Saddam choose exile, will that plan for
military caretaker still be in effect?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, let Saddam choose exile first.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
MR. FLEISCHER: Thank you.
END 2:47 P.M. EST
|