For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 19, 2003
Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
12:15 P.M. EST
MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. Let me give you a report on the
President day. The President began this morning with a phone call to
British Prime Minister Blair. The President called to congratulate him
on the victory the Prime Minister had in the vote in the Parliament.
The two also discussed the situation in the Middle East, with the road
map and their hope that confirmation would take place involving the new
Palestinian Prime Minister.
The President then had his intelligence briefing, FBI briefing, and
then convened a meeting of the National Security Council. He also met
this morning with the Secretary of Defense. Then he met with the Mayor
of New York City, Mayor Bloomberg, as well as Secretary of Homeland
Security Ridge, to discuss homeland security issues and also to note
how well New York City has worked to prepare itself for any
eventualities and to congratulate the Mayor on New York's efforts.
That is on the President's schedule today. I have one other
statement for you. President Bush will welcome President Paul Biya of
Cameroon to the White House for a meeting and dinner tomorrow, March
20th, 2003. And with that, I'm happy to take your questions.
Helen.
Q Has the President consulted with any former Presidents
besides his father in terms of -- and does he have the endorsement
for the war on Iraq?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, Helen, as I told you this morning, you need
to address to former Presidents what they would say about whether or
not they support the President's endeavors. In any case, any
communication that the President, himself, has with former Presidents I
leave as a private matter between Presidents.
Q Well, has he consulted with any outsiders at all, outside of
the government?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, anything involving the Presidents, I always
leave, as is protocol, that as a matter of privacy among the various
Presidents. And the President has relied extensively on the
information that he has from his meetings with the security team, as
well, of course, with foreign leaders whose counsel he seeks on a
regular basis.
Q You mean Americans?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, foreign leaders whose counsel he seeks on a
regular basis.
Q Ari, can you confirm that the administration has asked Iraqi
opposition leaders here in this country to return to Northern Iraq and
be in position?
MR. FLEISCHER: You know, I saw there was somebody on the Hill who
suggested that yesterday, and I cannot confirm that. I've not been
able to get that confirmed; I don't know.
Q Is the administration talking to these people? And would you
like to have them in position, and how do you envision them --
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, of course, we talk to those people, yes. And
as you know, there are programs underway, working with them, training
them, in Hungary. And there was a meeting in Northern Iraq that a
White House representative went to several weeks ago.
And the purpose of these contacts and the purpose of this dialogue
and meetings is because the government of Iraq must be run by Iraqis in
the future. And we have always said that this will be a government
that comes from within inside Iraq, as well as Iraqis from outside the
country. And so, of course, we have conversations with those people.
This is all part of the planning for a post-Saddam Iraq.
Q How long do you expect that American forces would be in
control of the country, before you were able to hand over --
MR. FLEISCHER: It's impossible to say. It will be as long as is
necessary to do the job right, to provide the security atmosphere for
Iraqis to govern their own country. It will be as long as is
necessary, but not a day longer.
Q Can you confirm that the United States won't be asking Turkey
for ground basing, only for over-flight rights?
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't discuss operational issues of that nature.
Anything like that, you need to talk to the Pentagon about.
Q What about the administration's expressed expectation that
the Turks, if they go into Northern Iraq, will be under the command of
coalition forces? Have you gotten that confirmed?
MR. FLEISCHER: It's the same statement I made yesterday. We've
made our point --
Q Have you heard anything back? Is it under discussion?
MR. FLEISCHER: We've made our point; we think our point is well
understood.
Q Just to pick up on something you said in the phone call with
Prime Minister Blair. They talked about the road map. The Palestinian
Parliament has now established this position of prime minister and beat
back efforts, apparently, by Yasser Arafat to strip it of meaningful
power. Does this position now satisfy the President's request that
there be a prime minister with real authority?
MR. FLEISCHER: That was an important development. And the
President, having said on June 24th, that one of the most important
steps necessary to create an environment for peace between the Israeli
and the Palestinians would be internal reforms in the Palestinian
Authority, welcomes the steps that have been taken in the Palestinian
Authority. It's a sign of progress. What has yet to happen is the
acceptance of the position by Abu Mazen, or the confirmation. That has
not yet taken place.
Q That position, as it's now laid out officially by the
Palestinians, is a position of real authority in the President's eyes?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'll leave it that the President is pleased with
the internal progress that is being made, in terms of the Palestinians
seeking internal reforms.
Q Okay. And then, one other thing -- Ambassador Negroponte,
at the U.N. this morning, told the other members of the Security
Council that he looks forward to working with them in the days and the
weeks ahead on issues that the Security Council will be involved in.
Can you outline with any specificity what the President thinks the role
of the U.N. will be, going forward?
MR. FLEISCHER: Sure, and this was addressed in the meeting in the
Azores and a communique that was issued following the meeting, that
talked about the role of the United Nations. This was a joint
statement by the four leaders. And in there, President Bush said, as
well as the other leaders said, that it's important for the United
Nations to have a role in the humanitarian aspects of rebuilding Iraq.
And so that's -- you may want to just go back to the exact document
to find the precise words. But, clearly, there is a role for the
United Nations in the future of Iraq in terms of that humanitarian
aspect.
Q Do you expect any political role? In some of these other
situations, there have been U.N. officials who have assumed
responsibility for civil administration, in Kosovo, East Timor, places
like that.
MR. FLEISCHER: I'd refer you to the exact language in that
document. I've not brought that document with me. But that is the
document that sets forth the policy and says it in precise terms.
Q With eight hours to go to the deadline, have you gotten any
indication from the Iraqi government that Saddam plans to step down?
MR. FLEISCHER: No. With just a short amount of time to go before
the deadline, we have not received, unfortunately, any indication from
Saddam Hussein that he intends to leave the country.
Q Ari, first of all, a logistical thing. You released this
morning the letter that was sent up to the Hill. But we haven't yet
received the back-up material.
MR. FLEISCHER: That was released about an hour ago.
Q Was it?
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes.
Q Okay.
MR. FLEISCHER: I saw it was e-mailed out, and so I presume
everybody here has it.
Q Actually, I want to ask about the report.
Q The subsequent question I have for you is, the President in
his speech two nights ago described the Iraqi threat as one that could
be one to five years into the future to obtain either a nuclear weapon
or something that could strike us, a non-imminent threat. In the
President's mind, is he in this action, setting a precedent that the
United States could now act, either preemptively or preventively,
depending on how you define it, against a threat that is not an
imminent one against the United States?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, here's how the President approaches this. He
believes, number one, based on the reviews conducted by the attorneys,
that there already exists a legal basis both in international law, as
well as in domestic law, for the use of force to disarm Saddam
Hussein. And that is also found in Security Council Resolution 678 and
687, as well as 1441. The President also believes that there is a
gathering threat from Iraq, that with the failure by Saddam Hussein to
disarm of his weapons of mass destruction presents a threat to the
security of the United States. And therefore, he has come to the
conclusion that after exhausting the diplomacy, that military force
must be used if Saddam Hussein does not get out of the country.
That summarizes it for him. In terms of precedents, et cetera,
David, I think some people have made the case -- and different people
will have different historical views of these things -- but you can
look at the Cuban missile crisis, of course, where there was a decision
made without the United States being "attacked" to conduct a quarantine
or an embargo, which, of course, international lawyers will tell you is
an act of war.
And so I think you're going to find the historians, legal scholars
will have differing conclusions about these matters. But the
conclusion the President reaches is that Iraq's failure to disarm
presents a threat to the people of the United States and, therefore, he
is prepared to use force.
Q Even if you were absent the U.N. resolutions, if they didn't
exist, he would still think he would have justification under the
current circumstances?
MR. FLEISCHER: There's no question about that.
Q The report that came with -- the seven-page report, one of
the points it makes in trying to make the case that moving against
Saddam would help the war on terrorism is that detained Iraqis could
help identify terrorists living in the United States. I'm assuming,
first of all, by "detained," we're talking about folks who have been
captured in the war. Is that correct? And, secondly, what evidence do
we have, what reason do we have to believe that detained Iraqis would
be able to point us to suspects living in this country?
MR. FLEISCHER: Ron, let me re-read the report to take a look at
that provision, in particular. When I read it -- let me take a look
at that, in that particular regard. The report focuses on -- as the
congressional requirements dictate -- Congress, when it passed the
resolution with huge bipartisan support last fall, laid out several
reporting requirements imposed on the administration if a decision was
made to use force. The report was required either immediately before
or within 48 hours of the use of force. It said before, or 48 hours
afterwards.
Q -- for this provision is, is making the argument, as
required by the resolution, that a movement against Iraq would help on
the war against terrorism. In that section the claim was made that it
would help identify terrorists here. If you could provide some
guidance as to how we can make that claim.
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes. What the report required on the question of
terrorism, is that in connection -- this is reading from the law that
triggers the formal requirement to put together the written report,
which was sent last night -- and now I'm reading from the October 16,
2002 statute.
"In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in
subsection to use force, the President shall, prior to the exercise of
such force, but no later than 48 hours after, make available to the
Speaker of the House and the President Pro Tem of the Senate, a
determination that" -- here's the piece on the terrorism section --
"acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United
States and other countries continuing to take necessary actions against
international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those
nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or
aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11th." The
report walks through that this is consistent with that.
Q Right. And I think you understand -- I'm not challenging
that, I'm just asking about the one, what I think is a new rationale, a
new explanation for why the United States thinks it would help --
MR. FLEISCHER: On your specific question, let me take it and
post.
Q And I think you just answered, if I had listened to that more
carefully -- I apologize -- does the fact that he released it today
have anything to do with the timing of military action?
MR. FLEISCHER: No. What, again, the language is, is this has to
be released prior to such exercise, or as soon thereafter as may be
feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority.
That's the language of the law. The President, having given the speech
to the nation the other night, thought this was the appropriate time to
release it.
Q Can you get back to me on the other question?
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, sir.
Q Ari, do you expect victory in the upcoming House vote on the
tax cut? And do you have any update on when you'll be releasing some
sort of war cost estimates?
MR. FLEISCHER: On the action pending up on the Hill, the Congress
is moving forward with passage of its budget resolutions, and the
President is confident that at the end, what he requested will be
agreed to, either in large part or entirety or in much part.
The President is heartened to see the process begin, and begin on
time in both the House and the Senate. Of course, last year the Senate
was not even able to pass a budget, and this year a different Senate is
moving forward on passage of a budget.
Too soon to say what the ultimate outcome will be. It will be voted
on in the House; they're planning to do it this week. It will be voted
on in the Senate; they plan to do it this week. Then it will go to the
conference committee, and then it must go back to the House and Senate
for final passage. That's, of course, where the President's focus
always is strongest on, the final passage. But he's very pleased to
see them beginning the work on it this week in both the House and the
Senate. And all indications from the House are very strong.
Q And the war cost?
MR. FLEISCHER: War cost -- in terms of the supplemental, the
President has said that after hostilities begin, a supplemental will be
sent to the Hill. That remains operative.
Q Ari, you mentioned this morning that there was evidence of
some "unease" in senior Iraqi circles. Could you share with us any
evidence to that effect? And also could you share with us some of the
factors the President will consider, sort of the pros and cons, as he
picks the time of his choosing?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think that you can see from ample public
reporting, from the many communications that have been had with the
Iraqi people through the form of leaflets and other things that are
very publicly known, there is unease throughout Iraq.
Q Any evidence that senior officials in that government are
trying to defect, have attempted to defect?
MR. FLEISCHER: Anything about any one individual or another is not
something that I would be able to get into. If something like that
were to happen, I would imagine it would be a matter of time before it
is publicly known. But there's nothing I can get into on that.
Q And the various factors?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think it's safe to say that the President, having
made the speech he made to the nation about the gathering threat and
the decision that force will be necessary if Saddam Hussein does not
leave, will work very closely with the will work very closely with the
Department of Defense and with the military planners on what, indeed,
makes it a moment of our choosing. The President will be guided by the
best military advice available, and that will help shape his decision.
Q Ari, sort of repeating my question from this morning, and
following on that one. Since the President has not expressly promised
not to begin military operations before the ultimatum, the 48-hour
ultimatum ends, therefore, we could expect military operations to begin
at any point in time?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm just not going to get into any speculation
about when military operations can begin for what I imagine you all
know are the obvious reasons. Why would anybody want to give that
away?
Q Right, but the White House does not believe it is constrained
by the 48-hour ultimatum to stop Hussein not to begin any military
operations before that time?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President's language spoke for itself about
Saddam Hussein and 48 hours to avoid military conflict, and that the
use of force can begin at a moment of our own choosing. I'm just not
going to go beyond that.
Q You mentioned the language in the letter sent to the Hill
that said, if a decision to take military action is made, then this
notification would go to Congress. Should we interpret this as a sign
that the President has, in fact, made the conceptual decision to use
military force?
MR. FLEISCHER: There's no question about that. The President made
that clear to the American people in his speech the other night.
Q So we have crossed that point. He just hasn't made the
decision about exactly when forces would, in fact, move against Iraq?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President made very plain to the American
people that as a result of Saddam Hussein's failure to disarm, and his
possession of weapons of mass destruction, he has come to the
determination that the only way to enforce the United Nations
resolutions now is through the use of force. He gave Saddam Hussein 48
hours to leave Iraq in order to avoid military conflict.
Q You've got a problem on the homeland security front in the
sense that some states are refusing to mobilize their National Guard
for lack of funding. There is some talk of a supplemental for homeland
security. Do you intend to do that? Would you do it separately from
the money that you would be seeking for execution of the war?
MR. FLEISCHER: Number one, in the phone call that Secretary Ridge
had with the governors the other night, he made it clear that the use
of the Guard is a state option, as consistent with Code Orange. And
that's something that's been well-established in all the protocols that
guide what steps would be taken as the threat level goes up or comes
down. And the governors have that prerogative, they have that option
as they see fit under the way it's set up.
So I don't view that as a problem; I view that as the way the
system is set up, to give governors flexibility in decision- making.
There are some states where they may not think that they are terrorist
targets and that they don't have to make such decisions to employ the
Guard. Other states may see it differently. That's part of the
flexibility, based on threat assessment, that is provided.
In terms of funding, we have never ruled out that there would be a
homeland security component to a supplemental request. That is a
possibility.
Q So you anticipate that it would be rolled into the
supplemental that would involve the cost of the war and the initial --
MR. FLEISCHER: What I've said is we do not rule that out; that is
a possibility.
Q Back on Turkey. In light of their decision to give the U.S.
fly-over rights, does that change the status of the economic package
that the U.S. was holding out for --
MR. FLEISCHER: Two points. One, the Turkish parliament has yet to
speak on that matter. There are some important leading Turkish voices
who have expressed their position that Turkey should grant fly-over
rights. But as a legal matter, the Turkish parliament has not yet
voted on that. And so it's premature to make any judgments about what
actions Turkey will take. We will look forward to hearing the results
of that vote.
In terms of the economic package, the previous package that was
discussed with Turkey was contingent on their cooperation, their total
cooperation in the military endeavor. That total cooperation has not
developed and, therefore, the previous package is no longer the pending
package.
Q But is the administration willing to consider some smaller
version of it? Because another argument for the package, itself, was
that Turkey, being so close to the action, was going to suffer real
economic damage.
MR. FLEISCHER: Correct.
Q And so is the administration prepared, if Turkey cooperates
at some level, to go back to the table and perhaps try to provide some
kind of aid that's, perhaps, smaller?
MR. FLEISCHER: The White House has not ruled out assistance for
Turkey in this matter. But I don't have anything to indicate beyond
that.
Q First of all, to return to the supplemental. Secretary Ridge
told us out on the driveway after the meeting that there would be,
definitely be a homeland security component to the supplemental. Is he
correct, or was he getting ahead of the President?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, he's correct.
Q So he will --
MR. FLEISCHER: I will advance it that far. Yes, he will. And
that will be made clear in testimony later today up on Capitol Hill.
Q Regarding the meeting involving the Secretary and Mayor
Bloomberg, can you give us a little more detail, readout of how that
meeting went and what was said?
MR. FLEISCHER: Sure. Mayor Bloomberg briefed the President on
Operation Atlas, which is New York City's plan to protect New Yorkers
in the event of terrorist attacks. The President noted that New York
City, of course, has a tremendously effective infrastructure designed
to combat terrorism. It has been tremendously effective. New York has
great resources and great abilities, and the President expressed his
pride in that. And they did talk about the fact that there would be
some level of homeland security money in the supplemental. And that
was the nature of the conversation.
The President also recalled visiting New York in the aftermath of
September 11th and just talked again about the great determination in
the way the New Yorkers handled the terrorist attack.
Q Were specific funding levels discussed?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, no specific funds levels discussed.
Q The Mayor said that his main message on the funding question
was that whatever homeland security component there is, the money
should not be distributed according to the traditional formula of
population because he said New York City would not do well by that,
that there's a unique threat here and that that should be taken into
account. What's the President's view of that?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, as you know, the President differed with the
manner in which Congress put in place, the existing,
just-passed-into-law money for states and localities, the manner in
which Congress did it. Clearly, there's flexibility needed here to get
the funds to the areas that need the funds the most, and not to
distribute it on any other basis where there would be organizations
that have less to worry about getting larger amounts of money.
So I think that the Mayor expressed himself on it. You've heard
what he said. The President would very much like to see in the
proposal that he has made to Congress this year for additional billions
of dollars in homeland security money to have greater flexibility,
fewer earmarks in the way that money can be spent.
Q As we're on the brink of war, is there any kind of message
the White House wants to send to Iraqi forces? I mean, perhaps an
appeal to surrender, or assurances they'd be protected if they gave
up?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President's message to Iraqi forces is this is
not your war. This is your regime; don't follow the orders of the
regime. The Iraqi people are the innocents who are caught in between.
And the President would very much like to see the Iraqi people save
their lives, the Iraqi military save their lives, by laying down their
arms and by not following their orders.
Q Ari, two things. At 8:00 p.m., what should the American
public understand as it relates to potential war with Iraq?
MR. FLEISCHER: At 8:00 p.m. tonight, the American people will know
Saddam Hussein has committed his final act of defiance. The President
has urged Saddam Hussein to leave the country so that military conflict
can be avoided. At 8:00 p.m., we will know whether Saddam Hussein has
chosen to do that, or not. We have no indications that he has chosen
to do that, unfortunately.
Q My second question, why is it that the State Department last
week declined a proposal from former Congressman Walter Fauntroy, with
a group of ecumenical ministers who went to Iraq and met with Tariq
Aziz about total disarmament -- why did the State Department say, no,
this is a no-deal issue?
MR. FLEISCHER: We have made it abundantly clear from the very
beginning that this is not a negotiable matter with Iraq. Iraq must
comply with United Nations Security Council resolutions and
immediately, and fully, and unconditionally disarm. That's not a
negotiable position.
Q And Ari, this was last week, and they said they would have
total disarmament in exchange that you could buy their oil with U.S.
dollars --
MR. FLEISCHER: If that was the case, you'd have thought Iraq would
have done it. It's not a quid pro quo. Iraq needed to have followed
the binding resolutions of the United Nations.
Q Ari, for awhile now we've been asking when the President is
going to have an open discussion with the American people about the
benefits and the costs of any war. Yet in his speech last night --
or Monday night, we didn't hear anything from the President about the
potential risks of this war. Why hasn't he --
MR. FLEISCHER: The President warned the American people there will
be sacrifice in this road ahead. The President made that plain. And
if you're asking the question of costs, in terms of dollars, not human
lives --
Q I'm asking about human lives.
MR. FLEISCHER: The President said that. The President said that
in his speech the other night that there would be sacrifice. And I
think the American people understand that. The American people clearly
have seen what has been developing for months and months and months, as
a result of the diplomatic endeavors that the President tried, while
making plain and certain to the American people and to Iraq that if
Iraq did not disarm, force would be used. And the American people
understand that if force is used, lives may be lost, indeed. I think
there's no question the country understands that.
Q But do you think that they really understand the potential
for the loss of human life here if they're using recent wars, like
Afghanistan or the first Persian Gulf War, which were very different
from this?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think there's no question the American people
understand that. I think if you just talk to people in the street,
they'll tell you they understand that there are risks to life, and the
President has made that clear.
Q Ari, I realize it's limited to how much you can say, but when
are the American people next going to hear from the President, under
what circumstances, any idea what kind of timing?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not going to today, at this moment be able to
indicate to you this far in advance whatever the next communication
will be -- whether it is -- whatever time it may be. We will, at
this point, keep you informed, as up-to-date as possible, but I'm not
going to be in a position to give you early information.
Q So Americans should not, like, tune into their TV sets
tonight at 8:00 p.m. in the expectation to hear the President?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm just not going to speculate about what will or
will not happen at 8:00 p.m. tonight.
Q Saddam Hussein is holding tight just like Hitler in 1945, as
far as at this hour, a little over seven hours to go for the deadline.
And how is the President holding up in the most difficult decision of
his life as a President, as a citizen, as a commander-in-chief -- so
are we looking also at the same time, when we go and attack -- the
U.S. forces go to attack Iraq, they are looking Saddam Hussein dead or
alive?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think it's fair to say that the President has
thought about this for a considerably long period of time, and has
thought about this carefully. And if force is used, the President will
authorize force, knowing that it was in the cause of peace to disarm
Saddam Hussein from using his weapons of mass destruction, so that
Saddam Hussein cannot use weapons of mass destruction later at a time
and place of Saddam's choosing, which would leave us at the most
vulnerable.
You know, one of the things that's interesting here is we seem to
have gone from a debate at the United Nations process where people
said, you haven't proved he has weapons of mass destruction, the
inspectors haven't been able to find where Saddam is hiding them, to
now rampant speculation that Saddam Hussein has chemical, biological
weapons that he is getting ready to unleash on American forces. And I
think we've seen that in all the coverage from this. That's the very
point. If people now accept the premise that he does have weapons of
mass destruction, the world could not afford, in the President's
judgment, to allow Saddam to make the timing clear from his point of
view about when he would use them. If he has them, that's the risk,
that's the problem. If he has them, the world cannot afford to let
Saddam pick who he would use them on and when he would use them,
especially if the world was not prepared to take counter-measures.
Q Let me just follow one more -- after this war starts,
tonight, any time when the deadline ends, what is the message from the
President for the airlines? Because they are going out of business --
and the travelers and airlines, what is the message? And also as far
as the economy is concerned, about oil?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President's focus is on the entire
economy. And that, of course, includes the airlines and other
industries that would be affected. Of course, there are economic
conditions that predate any possibility of the use of military force
that also have to be taken into account. The President does have
concerns about these matters, including the airlines. And this is why
the President more broadly has been working with Congress on economic
growth, which benefits all.
Q Do you have any information on the whereabouts of Tariq Aziz
and whether he's been shot or defected?
MR. FLEISCHER: I've seen the reports on the wire; I have no
confirmation.
Q Secretary Powell said that there's 30 countries, I believe,
that expressed support for the United States position, and 15 others
that have secretly said -- indicated something. Can you give us any
idea how many of these countries are willing to send military personnel
to take part in this campaign?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think, as always, unless those nations
explicitly authorize us to speak about who was using -- sending
combat or forces in there, it's not my place to name them. It's their
place to name them for themselves.
There may be a moment where, after sufficient authorization is
given from foreign governments, more can be said or will be said. But
I think it's fair to say, when you take a look at the entire coalition
of the willing, what you see are a sizeable number of nations that
share the United States people's commitment to disarming Saddam
Hussein, and also to the reconstruction of Iraq. And this coalition
will speak in numerous ways as different nations contribute differently
to it.
There will be a number that are involved in various ways and forms,
in combat, or in providing chem or biological teams in the event that
Saddam Hussein uses weapons of mass destruction. There will be larger
numbers that help in the supply, the over-flight. And other countries,
of course, too, that contribute to the reconstruction of Iraq.
Q A follow-up on his question. One is that, have the airlines
made any specific requests or concern either about money or safety from
the White House? And, secondly, once hostilities commence, what is the
White House going to do, or how are you going to communicate with the
leaders of Congress?
MR. FLEISCHER: On your second question, that will be handled in
any number of ways. There are legal mechanisms. There are also, of
course, as you saw bring the members of Congress down here this week
for consultations, continued face-to-face meetings in consultations.
On the airlines, we have been talking with the airlines. We'll
continue to consult with the airlines and there's nothing I can report
beyond that.
Q Ari, two questions. The meeting at the United Nations this
morning, certain foreign ministers went -- Colin Powell didn't go,
nor the British Foreign Minister, nor the Spanish Foreign Minister.
Hans Blix has presented, or is presenting a report on disarmament.
What does the White House think of that meeting going on today?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, it's the prerogative of the United Nations to
continue to receive reports that, interestingly, the report continues
to show that there are serious questions about Saddam Hussein's
disarmament. And so the report is part of a series of items that raise
questions that get to the core of the issue. Saddam Hussein has not
given the world confidence that he has disarmed. That's what has
brought the world to the verge of going to war against Saddam Hussein,
so he does disarm.
Q Second question. I think the White House has stated its
position that it would like the United Nations to help in the
reconstruction of Iraq. And I've heard some reports that maybe the oil
money from Iraq's sale of oil could be used for reconstruction. Is
that something the White House would like to see?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think there's no question that the Iraqi nation
possesses a number of resources. They are a wealthy nation and they
have the ability to do what wealthy nations should do -- and that is
to turn their wealth to peaceful purposes, rather than military
purposes.
The oil-for-food program is a humanitarian program implemented
through the United Nations to provide food to the people of Iraq in the
face of a dictatorship that takes all its resources away from the
people, doesn't feed the people and, instead, builds palaces and builds
bombs. And there's no question that the President believes, and much
of the world community, including the United Nations, believes, that
Iraqi wealth should be better used to serve the causes of -- the
humanitarian causes of the Iraqi people, including providing for their
food, their medicine, et cetera.
Q Ari, going back to this idea of this being the first
preemptive or preventive war. What are other countries to make of
this? What about other countries who might seize on this and take
their own preemptive action?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, again, I harken back to what I said about the
Cuban missile crisis. And you will have different historians come to
different conclusions about different events, but, certainly, in the
Cuban missile crisis the United States was not attacked; the United
States imposed a quarantine or an embargo, which, as I indicated
earlier, people can call an act of war. That has been one of the ways
people have looked at it.
I think there's no question there is going to be historian dispute
about different circumstances. But I'm not sure your premise is
accurate on it. But in any case, the President still views this as an
unique issue involving Iraq. The President has said this on numerous
occasions. He views it as unique because of the history of the United
Nations Security Council passing the resolutions that they passed,
calling for Iraq to disarm. The President also views this as unique
because, in the case of Iraq, diplomacy was tried, it did not work;
sanctions were tried, they did not work; smart sanctions were tried,
they did not work; pinpoint military strikes were tried, they did not
work; repeated days of Cruise missile attacks were tried, they did not
work. Given the history of Saddam Hussein and his use of force and his
development of weapons of mass destruction, the President views this as
a unique threat.
Q So another country -- say, Russia, which has threatened to
go into Georgia -- Chechen rebels; or, say, an Arab country might
want to take preemptive measures against Israel; or Israel a preemptive
measure against someone -- you're saying that the President would say
to the, what we're doing here is unique, don't think about it?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President does view this as a unique threat;
that's correct.
Q Are the old ideas of containment and the other policies that
we've seen since the Cold War, are they disregarded by this
administration?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, indeed, they're not. But what you do have is
-- containment was a very sound policy when you had a bipolar world
involving the Soviet Union and the United States. And containment,
indeed, did work in that world. What you have now in the
post-communist era is a world of different types of threats to the
United States, some of which can, indeed, be dealt with through
containment. Others -- and Secretary Rumsfeld has referred this as
asymmetrical threats -- do not apply.
Containment works when you're dealing with more of a rational
nation-state, as opposed to terrorist organizations -- terrorist
organizations that cannot be contained. Their use of weapons such as
we saw on September 11th, flying airplanes into buildings -- you
cannot contain al Qaeda. That's one of the reasons the President has
engaged in this war on terrorism around the world and has conducted it
the way he has. I don't think anybody would suggest al Qaeda could
have been, or will be, or should have been contained.
So it's an asymmetrical world. You have different situations,
different threats from different portions of the world. And what's so
important -- and this is one of the things that I think people are
going to look at in the debate at the United Nations -- is for the
world to move beyond the defenses of the 20th century and think
differently in the 21st century about what is the most effective way to
maintaining the peace. And that is going to require different
solutions in different regions of the world.
It requires the flexibility of approach that President Bush has
shown. He wished that other leaders would show that same flexibility
of approach to dealing with the new threats of the 21st century, and
not be locked into making mistakes that could be made based on a 20th
century philosophy.
Q Ari, you talked a minute ago about Americans already
understanding there will be sacrifice and risk. Does that mean that
the President doesn't feel a need to address these in a more detailed
fashion sometime as the war is starting or before the war starts?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not predicting every sentence that the
President will make in any future addresses. But I think if you ask
the American people, they understand already what sacrifice means. And
the President has talked about sacrifice.
Q But the White House had said that the President would address
these issues as the time of war came. But I'm not sure -- when
you say that he has addressed them, I'm not sure where that was and
what he said.
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't know if there's a specific sentence, Bob,
that you are looking for. But when the President talks about
sacrifice, I think the American people clearly understand what the
President is talking about.
Q Just following on Peter's question, the President sees this
as a unique threat, but he's not at all concerned that others will see
this as a template for them to take their own preemptive strikes
elsewhere?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, the President believes this is a matter that
was pursued diligently through the United Nations, is based on United
Nations Security Council Resolutions 678, 687, and 1441; and that,
given the actions of Saddam Hussein, the threat that he presents, the
fact that he himself has authorized military attacks on his neighbors
before, that he possesses weapons of mass destruction, that this is a
circumstance unlike any other found on the Earth.
Q Ari, anti-war groups have said that they intend to stage
protests and some engage in civil disobedience as soon as the President
gives the order to attack Iraq. How does the President feel about
going into war with opposition that's larger and more passionate than
during the Afghani campaign? And second, how should authorities
respond to civil disobedience that may occur in the coming days?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President views it just the way he's
viewed the many protests that have taken place already. It is the
right of the America people to speak out. The President, and I think
it's been widely recognized that there is an overwhelming strong
majority of the American people who see it differently from the
protesters. And that's their right to see it that way.
Q -- while war is going on, which they intend to do?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President understands it's the right of people
to speak in America.
Q What about civil disobedience?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think you have to address that, given whatever
the circumstances are, to the local law enforcement officials who would
be involved, depending on the circumstances and what is done. That's
not a White House matter.
Q Ari, you said a minute ago that preemption is necessary when
you're dealing with an asymmetrical threat, but containment works when
you're dealing with a rational threat. How does North Korea fit into
that? Is North Korea a rational threat?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the policies that the President has announced
in North Korea, of course, focus on working in a multilateral fashion
with the other nations involved to make certain that North Korea
understands the importance of dismantling its nuclear weapons program.
We hope North Korea will respond to that multilateral message of
diplomacy. The President has said all options are on the table.
That's the approach the President is taking.
Q Let me ask you also about if you could give us an update on
the mood here at the White House, the President's mood. Is he doing
anything differently today than he does on other days?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, the President has spent today much like
yesterday. It's a day of working with the military planners, taking
last-minute looks at the various plans of the military planners, and
allowing the time that he is given to pass.
Q Ari, opponents of the war in Iraq contend that it will
increase terrorism, while the majority of our country seems to believe
that decisively removing Saddam will demoralize the terrorist network
worldwide. And my question, how does the President assess the
psychological effect of this massive military action on the minds of
terrorists?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think on two levels. One, you can already
see that the effort to fight terrorism worldwide, even with the buildup
of force in dealing with Iraq, has been very, very successful. Al
Qaeda has been severely disrupted. While threats do, indeed, remain,
and concerns are present, al Qaeda has been severely disrupted. They
have lost their ability to train in Afghanistan, they're on the run,
they're scattered throughout the world, it's not safe for them
anywhere. They know that at any given moment, any of them can be, like
their brethren before them, picked up and brought to justice. And that
has a powerful deterrent effect. And the President also believes that
the use of force against Iraq will similarly send a powerful deterrent
message to terrorists around the world that the United States will do
what it takes to prevent terrorist attacks against our country.
Q Page one of today's New York Times quotes Saddam Hussein
predicting, "a holy war that would wipe out the ranks of invading
American troops." Yesterday, you told us that Baghdad imams called for
holy war violence, the drowning of Bush and Blair was opposed by one
unidentified imam in Kuwait. And my question is, have there been any
other imams or mosques who have publicly disagreed with these calls for
holy war and drowning of Bush and Blair? And if any, approximately how
many and where? How many, Ari?
MR. FLEISCHER: Lester, I hate to say this to you, but you're going
to have to do your own research. It's not my place to speak for imams
throughout the world.
Q No, no, no, I want to know what the White House -- does the
White House think anybody else --
MR. FLEISCHER: I think you can rest assured, Lester, that the
message that you expressed from Baghdad is not a message shared by
Muslim leaders around the world.
Q And which didn't share, Ari? That's a non-answer.
MR. FLEISCHER: Thank you, Lester.
Q Ari, when the President makes a decision for the troops, will
he talk on the phone with Tommy Franks, or will that decision be sent
through other channels?
MR. FLEISCHER: We'll keep you filled in.
Q You said a couple of times over the last few weeks that the
cost issue is going to wait until a supplemental can be sent up to the
Hill.
MR. FLEISCHER: Correct.
Q I'm troubled because the budget process is going forward,
we're close to a potential war, close to war right now. Why not share
that information? Why not share the calculus this President did to
determine that it was worth it to go to war? Why not share those
dollar figures with the American public, with Capitol Hill?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, of course those figures will be shared --
Q Why not now?
MR. FLEISCHER: Because there are still open questions about the
precision of the estimates that the administration is working off of.
Much of that depends on events on the ground.
Q If I could follow up isn't -- hasn't the President used
some sort of calculation, some figures to decide, yes, this is worth
our while, it's worth it to take a hit on the economy, or whatever
effect it's going to have on the economy, to this extent, and these are
the dollars we figured were worth it --
MR. FLEISCHER: The President views this as a matter of -- a
moral matter and a matter of keeping the peace first. And that is
going to be what guides the decision he makes, not what the cost of
this may or may not be. But the President also views it as important
to be as precise as possible in providing cost figures to the Congress,
so Congress can work off of the most accurate numbers possible. And
the time to assess those numbers has not yet arrived.
Q Ari, to return to the question of preemption and uniqueness
of the Iraqi threat. Isn't the problem here that uniqueness, like
beauty, is often in the eye of the beholder, and that another country
might just as sincerely conclude that they face a threat from an enemy
that is unique to them and can only be dealt with by preemptive
military force?
MR. FLEISCHER: Ken, you have asked me what the President thinks,
and I've told you what the President thinks. I think if you have other
thoughts about it, you would need to talk to other countries to see
what they would say about this. But I can share with you what the
President's approach is.
Q He doesn't see that possibility, that some other country
might come to that same conclusion just as sincerely, and use this --
MR. FLEISCHER: It's exactly as I said, the President views this as
a unique matter in the world.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
MR. FLEISCHER: Thank you.
END 12:59 P.M. EST
|