For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 13, 2003
Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
12:40 P.M. EST
MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. It's been another day of phone
diplomacy at the White House, as well as action on the domestic agenda
on Capitol Hill. Let me give you a report.
The President began his day in a conversation with President Roh of
South Korea. President Roh said South Korea will vigorously support
United States' efforts on Iraq based on the spirit of the U.S.-South
Korean alliance. The President thanked him for his strong support and
said the U.S. alliance with South Korea is a vital cornerstone of U.S.
foreign policy. The two leaders exchanged views on the North Korea
nuclear issue and reaffirmed their intention to continue working
closely with other countries i the region for a peaceful solution
through diplomacy.
The President also spoke with Bulgarian Prime Minister Saxe-Coburg
Gotha. They discussed the diplomatic efforts at the United Nations.
The President expressed his appreciation for Bulgaria's friendship and
support, including on the critical issue of Iraq. The two leaders
agreed to stay in touch.
Following that, the President had his intelligence briefing, the
FBI briefing, then he met with the Prime Minister of Ireland. The
President just completed a phone call with Prime Minister Blair as part
of their ongoing discussions about events. And the President will make
additional phone calls this afternoon that we'll bring to your
attention later in the day.
Two items on the domestic front that are important and I want to
note them. One, in a rather notably large bipartisan vote in the
United States Senate, the Senate passed the ban on partial-birth
abortion. There is a statement from the President. I would like to
read it to you:
"Partial birth abortion is an abhorrent procedure that offends
human dignity. And I commend the Senate for passing legislation to ban
it. Today's action is an important step toward building a culture of
life in America. I look forward to the House passing legislation and
working with the Senate to resolve any differences so that I can sign
legislation banning partial-birth abortion into law."
The vote on this was 65 senators, overwhelmingly bipartisan. The
President was pleased to see that action.
In addition, I want to note on the domestic front -- and it is
notable that even at this very busy and important time involving
national security and foreign policy, Congress is working and working
hard. The House is scheduled today to pass legislation dealing with
medical liability. The President believes that the medical liability
system is badly broken, that frivolous and abusive lawsuits are driving
up costs for patients, threatening access to quality health care, and
forcing good doctors to shut down clinics in communities across the
nation. The President urges the House to pass legislation to fix this
problem today.
And it's also notable the House Budget Committee has also passed
the President's budget. So action is beginning on many fronts on
Capitol Hill on the domestic agenda.
With that, I'm happy to take your questions.
Q Ari, the President was very clear last week, he wanted a vote
in the Security Council: it's time for countries to show their cards.
And now today, Secretary Powell says, among the options is to go for a
vote, or not to go for a vote. What's going on here?
MR. FLEISCHER: Okay, let me try to share or inform you about where
things stand in the fluid situation with the diplomacy.
The end is coming into sight, and there are numerous routes to
reach that end through the diplomacy the President is pursuing. And
the President has said that he seeks a vote, and we seek a vote. There
are options, as the Secretary has said. I discussed with you this
morning the possibility of the vote coming to a conclusion tomorrow, or
it could continue into next week. There are numerous options to
achieve in the end the President seeks, which is a diplomatic
solution. I cannot predict for you every shape and turn of the road on
the way to that end, but this end is coming into sight, and that's why
you're seeing some levels of flexibility and discussion of options as
it comes into sight.
Q Does that level of flexibility reflect a sense that things
are starting to break the President's way, and break the way -- you
know, in the direction of Tony Blair, as well?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President and others are working this
hard, but I made no predictions. I have not cited how any nation has
indicated that it will vote. That's a matter for individual nations to
address. And I make no predictions. I would reiterate what I've said
all along, because I think this is how these things work, that people
will know how the vote will come out on the day of the vote. That is
the best day to get an indication from the various nations.
Q One more on this. Given France's comments today, are you --
is the President still convinced that France will veto? Or is there
now some flexibility to the consensus?
MR. FLEISCHER: France has made many interesting comments of late.
France has said they reject the logic of ultimatums. This is what
their foreign minister said. France also looked at the British
proposal and they rejected it before Iraq rejected it. If that's not
an unreasonable veto, what is? So we looked at what France is doing,
and we wish they were doing otherwise.
Q Speaking of fluidity, can you explain why the President took
the rare step to cancel an event at the last minute? He was supposed
to go up to the Hill. And why plans for him to visit Tony Blair
somewhere outside of London -- why that planning didn't proceed?
MR. FLEISCHER: Number one, on your first question, it's because of
just what I indicated, the President is working on the situation
vis-a-vis Iraq and the diplomacy, and he wanted to make the phone call
that I just reported to you.
Two, as I told you this morning, there are no plans to travel. I
asked that question to the Chief of Staff, he said there are no plans
to travel. And so I don't have any information for you beyond that.
Q Had there been tentative plans to visit Tony Blair?
MR. FLEISCHER: There's no information about something that there
are no plans to do.
Q Ari, the President was categorical a week ago, saying that no
matter what the whip count, he wanted a vote. Now the Secretary of
State raises the possibility that there may not be a vote. Is this
thing going completely south?
MR. FLEISCHER: It's interesting. One question is, is it going
north; another question is, is it south. It's ongoing. And I don't
think it should surprise anybody that as it gets down to the very last
stages of diplomacy, there are different ideas that can be discussed,
there are different ends to reach, different routes to reach that end.
And that's what you're seeing. You're seeing that on the question
of the substance of the resolution, on the deadline. But one thing is
not in doubt, no matter what the end is through diplomacy. What is not
in doubt, in President Bush's mind, is that Saddam Hussein will be
disarmed.
Q Jack Straw said this morning that the second resolution is
less likely than at any time before. Why should we not think this is
failing? And since when is it up -- when is it likely that this
President changes his mind? He hardly ever does. And, yet, he appears
to have backed away from what he said at that press conference, about
demanding a vote.
MR. FLEISCHER: The President has always said that the United
States does not need a second resolution and we are going to work very
hard with our friends and allies on this.
Q That's not what I'm talking about.
MR. FLEISCHER: The President has always valued the counsel and the
advice he gets from our foreign friends and leaders on this,
particularly our European allies who are working on this issue with us,
as well as allies from around the world. So the President will
continue to work this and consult with our friends and allies about the
best course to take to achieve the ultimate diplomatic outcome. If a
diplomatic outcome cannot be achieved, there should never be any
question and a doubt of anybody about the President's intent to disarm
Saddam Hussein. I don't think there is any doubt.
Q That wasn't my question. I want to know why he changed his
mind. Apparently he is not going to insist on a vote under some
circumstances.
MR. FLEISCHER: I think, again, what you're seeing is the President
going the last mile on behalf of diplomacy. There is an end to that
road. And the end is coming into sight. Until it is final and the
road is traveled, this President is determined to pursue a variety of
diplomatic options, and that --
Q You've evaded the question three different times. I want to
know why the President -- who categorically said that he would demand
a vote no matter what the whip count, because he wanted to see how all
of these other nations stood -- is now apparently willing to back off
and not have a vote?
MR. FLEISCHER: Because your premise is suggesting that in the
conducting of diplomacy there can be no room for flexibility. And as
the President travels the last bit of this road, he is going to work to
consult with our allies and friends.
Q Did we read you right this morning when you -- you
suggested that the diplomatic -- the coalition you're trying to put
together would actually make -- set a deadline for Iraq and have a
diplomatic ultimatum, rather than the U.N.? I mean, would it be --
MR. FLEISCHER: There are two issues in play here. One is, through
the United Nations Security Council, the resolution that is pending
before them right now has a date for bringing the diplomacy to an end
of March 17th. That is the resolution pending before the Security
Council now. That is the only date pending in the resolution before
the Security Council.
If there is a military date by which the President would say that
force will be used, the President has not spoken out on that matter.
So you have two separate tracks.
Q My point is, why is the President going through this charade
of diplomacy when he obviously plans to go to war?
MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, this is a very serious word, the diplomacy.
And the President is carrying it out because he believes in the value
of consultations.
Q But he obviously is not going to follow, no matter what
happens.
MR. FLEISCHER: I think that, frankly --
Q How can you do that, really?
MR. FLEISCHER: -- when you use the word "charade" -- which, if
I'm not mistaken, has French roots -- (laughter) -- you may want to
address your question to those who say they will veto any resolution.
Q Aren't you glad you --
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm glad I minored in French. (Laughter.)
Q You did?
MR. FLEISCHER: Mais, oui.
Q It's come to this. (Laughter.)
Ari, what is the administration's formal legal position and
assessment from the State Department legal advisor, from the White
House counsel about the lawfulness of taking military action if this
resolution were to be voted down in the teeth of the opposition of the
Security Council, either by a majority or by a veto?
MR. FLEISCHER: You want me to read you a legal sentence?
Q Thank you.
MR. FLEISCHER: The United Nations Security Council Resolution 678
authorized use of all necessary means to uphold United Nations Security
Council Resolution 660, and subsequent resolutions and to restore
international peace and security in the area. That was the basis for
the use of force against Iraq during the Gulf War.
Thereafter, United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 declared
a cease-fire, but imposed several conditions, including extensive WMD
related conditions. Those conditions provided the conditions essential
to the restoration of peace and security in the area. A material
breech of those conditions removes the basis for the cease-fire and
provides a legal grounds for the use of force.
Q Thank you. So it's our assessment that we can go to war even
if the Security Council votes down this second resolution, should there
be a vote.?
MR. FLEISCHER: There is no question, based on both international
law and domestic law that the President has that authority.
Q Thank you. (Laughter.) Is that assessment shared by Great
Britain, Spain and other members of the coalition of the willing? Or
is some of the reason for this talk that maybe we won't have a vote
that their international lawyers come to a different conclusion, that
this war would be illegal over a U.N. veto?
MR. FLEISCHER: You need to talk to them about their
interpretations of laws. I don't speak for them.
Q Ari, did you mean to say earlier that you saw no daylight in
the French foreign minister's statement today that -- maintaining
unity on the Security Council is important and France was open to all
opportunities in that regard?
MR. FLEISCHER: I didn't address issue. What I said --
Q You said you talked about their statements being --
MR. FLEISCHER: I cited the foreign minister's statement that
France rejects the logic of ultimatums. Well, if you reject the logic
of ultimatums, you're telling Iraq you have forever to disarm, which is
contradicted by 1441, which said you must immediately disarm, which
raises questions about France's commitment to 1441.
Q But his most recent statement, can you comment on that, that
they're looking for opportunities to maintain Security Council unity.
Do you see any daylight in that?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think France has recognized that it's statement
that it would veto anything that is put before the Security Council has
created problems in France from which they're trying to retreat.
Q And does that create a diplomatic opportunity for the United
States?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, as I indicated, the President is pursuing the
diplomacy still at this late date. But it will not be pursued all that
much longer. It is coming to an end.
Q Yesterday you indicated that it would be pointless for the
President to call President Chirac. Is that still the case?
MR. FLEISCHER: If a call is made, as you know, we keep you
informed.
Q One on Iraq, one on North Korea, Ari. On Iraq, when the
Secretary of State said in public today that we have several options
here, going for a vote or not, was he speaking for himself? Or was he
basically speaking a position that the President, himself, has now
taken on? This is just to understand whether the President has, in
fact, reversed from last week.
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think that I expressed it all from the point
of view of both the President and the Secretary.
Q He was speaking for the President; is that a fair
assumption?
MR. FLEISCHER: Certainly what I just described is not inconsistent
with anything either the President or the Secretary has said.
Q Well, that's not true, because it is inconsistent with what
the President said last week.
MR. FLEISCHER: No, as I indicated, in regard to Bill's question,
as we pursue the diplomacy, there is flexibility.
Q But there wasn't last week.
MR. FLEISCHER: David.
Q On North Korea, when the President spoke today to President
Roh, obviously the South Korean position has been that our position of
trying to isolate North Korea or engage in multilateral talks is
flawed, they want to continue with the Sunshine Policy. He said it
many times publicly. Did they discuss this, and did they simply agree
to disagree?
MR. FLEISCHER: The two agreed about the importance of working on
this issue in a multilateral fashion. And as you know, the President
is very public and on the record as supporting the Sunshine Policy. He
said it when he visited South Korea last year, he said it on numerous
occasions.
Q Even under these circumstances?
MR. FLEISCHER: There's no change. There's no change. But the
President's approach to the issue of making certain that North Korea
understands it must dismantle its nuclear programs is a multilateral
approach. There's a separate issue from the Sunshine Policy, which is
a policy that deals with bilateral relations between North and South
Korea on all issues, not only nuclear issue.
Ellen, bienvenue, welcome back. I know you've been traveling.
Q Thank you. With the President possibly putting the date past
the 17th as a date for a vote that might happen at the United Nations.
What consideration is being taken into the -- just the sort of health
of the troops? It's getting very hot over there, huge sandstorms, et
cetera.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, as I indicated, when the resolution was first
offered, the resolution was not set in stone. And we were talking with
our allies and consulting about it. And I think it's been clear from
the very beginning that in terms of discussing the date, there may be a
discussion of the date, but there would not be a whole lot of
flexibility on the movement of the date. There may be some levels of
it, but not much.
Q Ari, the White House has said pretty regularly that the lack
of unity or inconsistency at the U.N. sends a wrong signal to Saddam
Hussein. How is the idea of clearly blowing out the March 17th
deadline that the U.S. put forward and possibly not having a vote at
the U.N., even though the President said he wanted one, how is that not
sending the wrong signal to Saddam Hussein from the White House?
MR. FLEISCHER: First of all, you're saying, blowing out the
deadline.
Q Potentially. Well, if you have negotiations through Monday
--
MR. FLEISCHER: I think, again, what you are seeing is the
President of the United States pursue diplomacy to its fullest. This
President would very much like to have this matter settled through
peace and diplomacy. And he is taking every step that he can think is
helpful and wise to doing that, in consultation with our allies. But
the worst mistake Saddam Hussein could ever make would be to
underestimate the seriousness of this issue for this President and for
the free world.
Q One more. The British are still sort of smarting over
remarks that Secretary Rumsfeld made a couple days ago, talking about
the fact that they might be -- not be with the United States
militarily. There is kind of talk that -- there and other places
-- that he's just become a loose cannon. Is there concern about that
talk or about the idea that the Secretary might be a loose cannon at
the White House?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think that's -- the Secretary dealt with
that issue in its entirety through the course of his briefing and in
the statement he issued following the briefing.
Q Ari, given all the machinations at the U.N. and statements
from this podium and elsewhere around town, can Saddam Hussein draw any
other conclusion but that he's playing a winning hand at the moment?
MR. FLEISCHER: That would be a very mistaken conclusion for Saddam
Hussein to draw. I think the conclusion of people around the world
that they can draw is that the United States and America's allies are
working on the final stages of diplomacy, hoping for the Security
Council to take strong action. And if it does not, the United States
and a coalition of the willing will proceed to disarm Saddam Hussein.
Q Ari, on the timing, obviously the original deadline was the
17th. Now we may not even have a vote on a second resolution, if there
is one by the 17th. So how -- what does the time line look like
here? I know you say we're coming to the end of the road, but
obviously it is sliding a bit. Are we likely to go past the end of the
month before this is resolved one way or the other?
MR. FLEISCHER: I made no predictions about what the timing could
be. I think if there are anything that is to said conclusively about
the timing on a military front, of course, you'll hear that from the
President. But beyond that, I make no predictions.
Q Well, on the flexibility front, since we've shown flexibility
in the diplomacy, does that also suggest some flexibility on the weeks,
not months?
MR. FLEISCHER: Nothing has changed that.
Q That remains as it was?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct.
Q Now on the --
MR. FLEISCHER: The timing and the flexibility that you have seen
on the diplomacy is, of course, within the context of what the
President said on weeks, not months.
Q So the end point hasn't moved, only the middle points?
MR. FLEISCHER: The diplomacy. I think you're watching diplomacy
in action.
Q Now, the U.S. still has not embraced the British benchmarks,
the tests for Saddam Hussein. That did create some confusion in the
Security Council last night, because some of the undecided six wanted
to know if the U.S. would, in fact, support these tests, if they were
willing to vote for them. Could you clarify what the U.S. would do if
others were willing to support this?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, as was discussed at the Security Council last
night, and it was well known by the various nations that met in closed
session at the Security Council last night, the position of the United
States was that it was in the context of Resolution 1441, that we
thought that the benchmarks deserved serious consideration. Obviously,
before it could even be very much discussed, the French rejected it out
of hand. And as I noted, the French rejected it before the Iraqis
did.
Q One more thing, if you would. You say that one of the
concerns here is that we value the counsel of allies. I gather the
flexibility the President is now showing in diplomacy is in deference
to the concerns of our allies?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President from the very beginning, when
he went up to New York on September 12th, made this a matter of
consultation with the world. The President has begun this effort, now
some six months ago, with an eye toward the United Nations Security
Council facing up to its fundamental responsibilities to deal with how
to disarm Saddam Hussein. This process has been a consultative one,
and will continue to be.
Q Sure, but the President was quite firm in the news conference
on what he wanted to happen and when he wanted it to happen. And he is
obviously now showing some flexibility. Should we interpret that as a
sign that he is just waiting to see if something else happens, or that
he's responding to the concerns of allies who suggested if he waited,
there would be a better outcome?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think the President is, as I indicated earlier,
pursuing the last bits of diplomacy here, to see where they can lead
to. And I make no predictions about what that outcome can be.
Q Ari, what would you expect the course of the next few days to
take? If we reach the point where there will be no vote, the decision
is made to reach no vote, does the President at that point go right to
the next decision about whether or not to force a war? Or are there
other things that he must confront before that decision?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I just -- I'm not going to get ahead of where
the diplomacy is. They continue to talk, and we'll see what the
outcome is and work forward from there.
Q And why would it be a positive option for the U.S. to have no
vote? What would be the logic behind that?
MR. FLEISCHER: I've always indicated -- number one, the
President is moving forward with this. Now, we obviously are saying
that there are options. The President will continue to consult with
his friends and allies about the route that they think is the best
route to take.
Q But what is the benefit of having no vote?
MR. FLEISCHER: If it gets to that point, maybe we'll have
something to say at that time. It may not get to that point.
Q They don't want a vote? The allies don't want a vote?
MR. FLEISCHER: Bill.
Q You were saying that there's no plans for the President to
travel. Are there any plans for the Secretary or the Vice President to
travel overseas, to sell this resolution?
MR. FLEISCHER: You need, at all times, to address that to their
offices. I don't have information on their schedules.
Q Ari, the French foreign minister today made very conciliatory
statements, saying, one, that the need to find consensus on the
Security Council and to preserve the unity of the Security Council. Is
the White House's newfound flexibility in response to some of that kind
of talk, or is there hope that maybe --
MR. FLEISCHER: I think you have to understand the context in which
that statement was made, of course, and that is in the aftermath of the
statement by French leaders that they will veto any resolution at the
Security Council, no matter what these amendments or ultimatums are.
And so I think you have to look at this as a matter of France trying to
figure out how to recover from that statement.
Q Do you get the sense that they're getting any heat
internally?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think it shows, and the statement itself says
that -- this is why I said to you, if that's not an unreasonable veto,
what is; the statement, we will veto any resolution -- any amendment
to the resolution that is pending, the statement that rejects to logic
of ultimatums -- which is what was said by their foreign minister
-- if you reject the logic of ultimatum, then how do you support the
immediate clause of Resolution 1441? How do you support the finality
clause of Resolution 1441? There is an inconsistency here. If you
reject the logic of an ultimatum, you're saying Iraq has forever to
disarm. And that is not a position that will lead to the disarmament
of Saddam Hussein. That will be a position that allows him to continue
to arm up.
Q Can I just finish --
MR. FLEISCHER: We're going to keep moving. We've got a lot of
hands up in the back.
Q Ari, actually, if I can follow on that. The French Foreign
Minister in these most recent comments has gone so far to say that
France sees sort of merit, potentially, in benchmarks. And I'm just
wondering whether or not some of your words today are a rejection or
whether you have less faith that that's an honest statement?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, the diplomacy continues. And if anybody has
something that is productive, that will be reflected in the diplomacy
that's ongoing. But they, of course, did reject the benchmarks that
were on the table.
Q Ari, you very often have set an example from that podium as
using diplomatic language, intentionally not attacking France, while
others in other parts of government and elsewhere have. Today, you've
discussed how the French rejected the proposal even before Iraq did.
You brought up the etymology of the word "charade." And also you
discussed how the French were actually retreating. Are you signalling
a change in attitude here?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, first, you'll note that I did indicate that
I've studied the matter carefully. (Laughter.)
Q There's no question about that. (Laughter.)
MR. FLEISCHER: I think I'm letting the facts speak for
themselves. I'm quoting the statements made by French officials.
Q In the Bush-Blair phone calls today and yesterday, was there
any mention of the Rumsfeld comments?
MR. FLEISCHER: In which calls?
Q The Bush-Blair calls today and yesterday?
MR. FLEISCHER: Not to my knowledge.
Q So they didn't discuss Rumsfeld's comments --
MR. FLEISCHER: I said not to my knowledge. But the call --
today's call literally took place just as I was coming out here, a
little prior to it.
Q What about yesterday's call?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, not to my knowledge. But I don't have every
detail of the phone call.
Q Ari, to what extent does the flexibility here reflect Tony
Blair's dire political situation at home?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think that Prime Minister Blair, from the very
beginning, has acted on the basis of principle and acted on the basis
of the internationally recognized need to disarm Saddam Hussein and the
desire to do it peacefully. I don't talk about other nation's
political circumstances. But that is clearly the President's view of
how Tony Blair has approached this.
Q When you say flexibility, presumably it is others like Tony
Blair who are asking for this flexibility. And I guess I'm wondering
is the President trying to get --
MR. FLEISCHER: It's not for me to divine people's politics or
motives. I can describe to you the public stances that they have taken
in this case, and the President's approach. And the President's
approach is one of multilateralism. It is to listen to America's
allies and to consult.
Q You're not denying the President's trying to help Tony Blair
out here?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President has always said that he wants to
listen and work very closely and carefully with our friends and
allies. The President finds that an important part of diplomacy, an
important part of good relations. Of course, the President seeks to
help out our allies.
Q Ari, on Tuesday I spent part of the day at the United
Nations, going through all the resolutions and talking to people on
staff, to U.N. staff and the diplomats. Now, all the resolutions and
diplomats all agreed that Saddam Hussein must disarm fully, according
to 1441.
But also, the President when he went to address the United Nations
last year -- which I'm sure he's planning this year also -- he also
said the same thing. But also he promised the U.N. world body that he
supports and the U.S. will continue to support the United Nations and
their activities. The question all the diplomats and the staff was
asking, what is really -- what is the future of the United Nations if
the U.S. goes to war without U.N. resolution? That means end of the
U.N.?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think the future of the United Nations if the
United States and a coalition of the willing go to war without the
United Nations Security Council can be judged by looking at the past.
It happened when the United Nations Security Council failed to take
action in Kosovo. It happened when the United Nations Security Council
failed to take action in Rwanda.
So if the United Nations Security Council fails to take action
here, it will not be a first. It will be a repeat of a pattern.
Q Ari, back on the coalition of the willing, what role do they
have at this point in setting either the diplomatic deadline or the
military deadline for Iraqi disarmament?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, as you noticed, the President is making a
series of phone calls, not only to members of the Security Council, but
to other nations around the world. This is part of the very process
you're watching unfold before your eyes of President Bush, in as
multilateral way as you can think, consulting with our friends and
allies. And the conversations talk about many different topics. And
the President, as I indicated yesterday, gets ideas about various
diplomatic proposals, various amendments, various benchmarks, from a
number of nations that he consults with. All of that gets, then,
talked about again with the various nations -- with England and with
Spain -- and that gets reflected in what the final outcome may or may
not be.
Q But if you don't get a vote from the U.N., or you don't get
an approval from the U.N., will you then fall back on more of a formal
approach with the coalition where they would take a general view on
this?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think the coalition will take a general view as
expressed through the military support and the military action.
That'll be a rather specific general view.
Q Rather than a diplomatic step in the first place?
MR. FLEISCHER: The diplomacy would be expressed by their military
support.
Q Thank you. Ari, there is a basic action in economics that
you can't have guns and butter at the same time. If United States goes
to war with Iraq, a war that would cost at least several billions of
dollars, how can the President uphold the war and his tax cut?
MR. FLEISCHER: I repeatedly get this question. I'm always puzzled
by why people don't say, if there's a war in Iraq, why does the
President still think that senior citizens deserve prescription drugs?
The question always seems to be, if there is a war in Iraq, why is the
President pushing for tax cuts? Nobody ever talks about the other side
of the ledger.
Q So we can have it all?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, my point is, the very same reason, if there is
a war with Iraq, that doesn't change the equation that the economy
needs to grow, and the people deserve jobs. With our without a war in
Iraq, the President believes the economy needs to grow, people deserve
jobs, and that's why he's pushing an economic growth stimulus package.
The President also thinks the seniors deserve prescription drugs, and
that will continue.
Q Ari, you have said on repeated occasions from this podium
that the President would be disappointed with any nation in the
Security Council that doesn't vote for the proposal the U.N., Great
Britain and Spain have advanced. The President has been on the phone
for three solid days, and I imagine Secretary of State Powell, too, and
you still are -- I won't use the word sliding back the date -- but
the date is moving for a resolution.
Does the President still feel he can get the countries that are on
the borderline? Because it's the word out there that a lot of
countries are still undecided.
MR. FLEISCHER: As I indicated earlier, I'm making no predictions
about the outcome. The diplomacy is earnest and it continues.
Q You know from your time on the Hill, you don't need to be
flexible if you're winning; and you don't postpone votes, if you've got
the votes. Are we wrong to conclude from these developments, at least,
that things aren't going well right now?
MR. FLEISCHER: The third question I got here earlier. The answer
is the same. The question has been framed to me from different points
of view. Is this an indication you have the votes? Is this an
indication you don't have the votes? It's an indication that we're
working with the United Nations. And the United Nations process is a
process of diplomacy that takes a little bit of time. Again, we'll see
what the outcome is. But one outcome that is not going to be in any
doubt is if the United Nations Security Council doesn't act, Saddam
Hussein will still be disarmed.
Q Can you point to a single positive development in recent
days, other than that they're taking the President's calls?
MR. FLEISCHER: I appreciate the opportunity you're affording me to
speak for other nations. But it's just something, as you know, by
policy, I'm not going to do.
Q You used the words inflexible and unreasonable to describe
the French. Are you writing them off now entirely?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, clearly France has said they're going to veto
the resolution no matter what it says. So France is -- I think
France is doing its own writing.
Q In a broader sense, though, are you writing them off as a
long-time ally?
MR. FLEISCHER: Absolutely not. No, I've talked about this
before. On this issue, when it comes to whether the military should be
used to disarm Saddam Hussein, whether force is required, or whether
Saddam Hussein will disarm on his own -- France seems to think that
Saddam Hussein will disarm on his own. The United States and many
other nations do not agree. We hope that he will, but we haven't seen
any evidence at this point.
But, no matter what, the United States and France have an important
strategic relationship. We have common values, and the relationship
can be strained. It's obvious for everybody to see. What you have to
do is watch your TV and see the natural reaction of the American
people. They're reacting.
But France has been helpful, and still is helpful, in the war
against terrorism. The President has said different nations will help
in different ways. France will help in a way that it proceeds and
perceives. That won't stop the United States from reflecting,
accurately, on the very statements that the French have made. The
United States is responsible for the statements it makes. France must
be responsible for the statements that they, too, make.
Q So what's the lasting impact?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not in a position to predict that. I have said
that, in terms of government to government, and President Bush to
President Chirac, they understand that they have other strategic
interests, we have other partnerships, we have common values. I think
there's no question, though, that when you watch the American people's
reaction, it is not good.
Q So is there no worry, though, that this rift with the French
will bleed over into other areas, and other --
MR. FLEISCHER: As I mentioned, France has been a stalwart ally in
the war on terror. Germany, as well. The information sharing, the
working with the police agencies, and working together around the world
to fight terrorism, is strong with those nations. So the issue should
not be confused or broadened into something that it is not. We remain
important nations and allies. We have differences. You are seeing
those differences today.
Q Ari, Richard Perle is the Chairman of the Defense Policy
Board and the lead public advocate for war on Iraq. In the New Yorker
Magazine this week, Seymour Hirsch reports that Perle is also managing
partner of a venture capital company, Trireme Partners, and is
positioned to profit from a war in Iraq. The Federal Code of Conduct,
which governs Perle in this matter, prohibits conflict of interest.
Henry Kissinger resigned from the 9/11 Commission because of similar
business conflicts. When asked on Sunday by Wolf Blitzer about the New
Yorker article, Perle called Hirsch "the closest thing American
journalism has to a terrorist."
Two questions. Given Perle's conflict of interest, and given the
widespread public belief that this war is being driven by corporate
interests -- war for oil, and war for defense contracts, war for
construction companies -- does the President believe --
MR. FLEISCHER: Who's informed judgment is that?
Q Widespread public belief.
MR. FLEISCHER: Widespread? Or just that chair?
Q No, widespread. Does the President believe that Richard
Perle should resign from the Defense Policy Board? And second
question, do you agree with Richard Perle that Hirsch is the closest
thing American journalism has to a terrorist?
MR. FLEISCHER: Russell, there's absolutely no basis to your own
individual and personal statement about what may lead to war. If
anything leads to war, it's the fact that Saddam Hussein has refused to
disarm. And I think you do an injustice to people -- no matter what
their background -- if you believe that people believe that Saddam
Hussein should be disarmed for any reason that suggests personal
profit.
Q Okay, what about the question, Ari? Should he resign and is
he a terrorist?
MR. FLEISCHER: Russell, you've had your -- you've made your
speech.
Q You didn't answer the question.
MR. FLEISCHER: You've made your speech.
Q In regard to France's behavior right now, do we believe that
on this particular issue France is acting honorably? And does the
White House -- you were referring to the American people's reaction
-- does the White House have any objection to the calls for boycotts
of French products?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President has said repeatedly he believes that
President Chirac is acting on principle. And it's a principle on which
we disagree. Nations have disagreements. We have a disagreement with
France. We certainly have a disagreement with a statement made that
France rejects the logic of ultimatums, and that no matter what is
offered, the resolution will be vetoed. No matter what changes, the
resolution will be vetoed. Well, of course, we object to those
statements.
Q What about the question of whether the White House has any
feeling about the growing calls for boycotts of French products to
protest France --
MR. FLEISCHER: I think you are seeing the American people speak
spontaneously. And that is their right. It is the right of people in
Europe to demonstrate. It is the right of people in Europe to speak
their mind. So, too, is it the right of the American people to speak
theirs.
Q Since you have said that the President largely went for this
second resolution to help the allies, primarily Tony Blair, would he
only pull the resolution at the request of Tony Blair? And does he
think that it would be more harmful for Blair to have a losing -- to
have no vote at all or to have a vote that loses?
MR. FLEISCHER: I just can't speculate about the ultimate outcome.
We are proceeding, and we will see what the United Nations Security
Council does.
Q Ari, Tony Blair has effectively been asked to fall on his
sword, and he's having a difficult time doing it. If he's replaced as
the party leader, or if he makes a decision that he ultimately can't go
with the United States under the conditions that are finally decided
upon, and the United States decides to go it alone, doesn't that create
the impression in the eyes of the world that the U.S. is kind of acting
like something of an imperial bully to revamp the map of the Gulf in
line with certain agenda that certain people have in the
administration? That's already widespread. But wouldn't that really
kind of encourage that view?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think I reject the premise of the question. I
think that when you take a look at the actions of nations in the
region, when you take a look at the coalition of the willing, that you
can see that this is actually many nations who share the United States'
approach. And that will be reflected if the decision is made to use
force, and you will see that.
You said fall on his sword. I think what Tony Blair is doing is
trying to act so Saddam Hussein is not armed with a sword that he can
swing against others.
Q Isn't the broad disarray at the Security Council level an
ominous sign in terms of the hopes for assembling sort of a broad
institutional international coalition in support the rebuilding,
reconstruction and democratization of Iraq after the war is over?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think that there's no question that the
United Nations will play a role in the rebuilding and reconstruction of
Iraq. And I think that's a role the United Nations will play. I do
think it is a worrisome sign about what the message to the next
proliferators are. The next proliferators are going to look at the
actions of the Security Council. And if no action is taken, they will
celebrate because they'll recognize the Security Council may not be an
effective place to take action. The President hopes that is not the
case. The President will continue to push the Security Council --
even after Iraq -- to be relevant. But this does raise questions
about how relevant they ultimately can be. We hope they will be
relevant now and into the future, as well.
Q Today's Senate vote to ban partial-birth abortions was
welcome news to the majority of Americans who oppose unrestricted
abortion. In his statement of support, the President called the
Senate's action an important step toward building a culture of life in
America. Is he looking for additional pro-life legislation?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President is very pleased with the action that
has been passed today. And the President will continue to work with
the Congress on steps that can be taken to welcome a culture of life,
including increasing support for adoption and a number of items.
Q On North Korea, at what point -- (inaudible) -- another
missile test -- (inaudible) -- particular point the President
decide, okay, no more diplomacy in North Korea?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President has said that he believes this is a
matter that can be settled through diplomacy, particularly multilateral
diplomacy, and that remains his position.
Q Ari, did the President write a letter to the new Prime
Minister of Turkey, Mr. Erdogan, seeking access to Turkish air space,
and other air rights in the event of a war?
MR. FLEISCHER: As a matter of long-standing policy, as you know, I
often come here and I inform you about phone calls the President
makes. The letter writing process has always been treated differently
by the White House, and the President will often engage in private
communications with leaders around the world. So I'm not saying "yes,"
I'm not saying "no," but I will always respect the privacy of any
written Presidential communications.
Q Is he looking for a quick decision from Turkey on this
issue?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, we remain waiting to hear what the final
answer is from Turkey, and we shall see.
Q Thank you.
MR. FLEISCHER: Thank you.
END 1:19 P.M. EST
|