12:30 P.M. EDT
MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. I have no prepared opening statements, so I'm
happy to take your questions.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, more than 100 Americans in our military
paid the ultimate price to defend us, and this President is proud to have
visited the Abraham Lincoln, to have flown on to it to say thank you in person
to those who defend our country. That's
the President's focus; that's why he did it.
He's proud of the way he did it and he's proud he did it.
Q On
that idea, Senator Byrd also said, "This is real life, real
lives have been lost. It's an affront to
me, it's an affront to the Americans killed or injured in Iraq
for the President to exploit the trappings of war for the momentary spectacle
of a speech."
MR. FLEISCHER: I think it does a disservice to the men and
women of our military to suggest that the President of the United
States, or the manner in which the President
visited the military would be anything other than the exact appropriate thing
to do. And I think that the 5,000
sailors on that ship recognize this for what it was --
the President going out there to say thank you to those who risked their
lives.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well --
Q The
suggestion has been made that the President's political campaign should
reimburse taxpayers for the trip.
MR. FLEISCHER: There's not a Republican that Congressman
Waxman doesn't want to investigate, and so I just dismiss that as not serious.
Q Ari, is the President disturbed that you
have not found weapons of mass destruction, you have not found Saddam
Hussein, you have not found bin Laden, you have not
found the anthrax dealer? I mean, it
seems to me all of these things are a dead-end.
What's his feeling?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think the President looks at this at
two levels: one is the accomplishment of
the overall mission, and, two, some of the component parts of the overall mission. In terms of the fight against those who
attacked our country on September 11th, the al Qaeda, harbored by the Taliban,
there is no question this has been a successful mission. The abilities of al Qaeda have been severely
diminished, and the President is grateful for that happening.
Obviously, Osama bin Laden has not been
captured. But as you look at all the operations -- just ask Khalid Sheik Mohammed how he feels
about our ability to track people down.
So, over time, the President is confident that there will be additional
arrests. But this is about more than one
man as the President has repeatedly said.
The mission against al Qaeda continues.
Vis-a-vis Iraq,
clearly this, too, was a successful operation, a successful operation. The Iraqi regime is no more. The threat is no more from the Iraqi
regime. And as you can see from the deck
of 55 cards, there has already been, in a short period of time, tremendous
success in capturing these people or having them be turned in.
As for Saddam Hussein, and as for the latest -- this tape that is in the news, we don't know
if the tape is genuine or not. It's
being studied. We don't know if he's
alive or not.
Q Well,
we went to war, didn't we, to find these --
because we said that these weapons were a direct and imminent threat to
the United States? Isn't that true?
MR. FLEISCHER: Absolutely.
One of the reasons that we went to war was because of their possession
of weapons of mass destruction. And nothing
has changed on that front at all. We said
what we said because we meant it. We had
the intelligence to report it. Secretary
Powell said it. And I may point out to
you, as you may know, there is a news conference at
Department of Defense today at 2:00 p.m.
to discuss one element in this.
And so we have always had confidence, we
continue to have confidence that WMD will be found. He's had a long period of time to hide what
he has in a variety of different places, and there is a whole protocol of the search
that is underway, that is being conducted in a very methodical fashion.
Q But
would he have been able to use them despite shock and awe and so forth, I mean,
really made them operable to contend with the U.S. forces?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think one of the reasons that he did
not use them was because of the successful manner in which the military
campaign was carried out, both in the days leading up to the actual fighting,
and then when the fighting began.
Q Ari, there's some reports that Germany now
may have offered the United States help in the U.N. resolution to lift the
sanctions. Are you optimistic that -- has Germany
come forward and offered this kind of help?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, we will continue to work with all the
members of the Security Council on the lifting of the sanctions. The President's position, as you know, is
that the sanctions should be lifted. I
don't want to speak for the German government.
But Germany,
I think, has an interest in working closely with the United
States, and we want to listen to them and
hear their thoughts. So we will continue
to pursue this and consult with all our allies.
Q What
about Russia? Has there been any signs
from Russia
that they're more accommodating than they were in the past?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not prepared, and I think it's still
early at the United Nations' process. No
resolution has been offered yet. I think
the diplomats continue to consult among each other on the language of the
potential resolution. And so I'm not
prepared to go down country-by-country on something that's under discussion.
Q Will
there be a resolution next week?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not going to predict a date. The date that everything is backed up against
is June 3rd, when the current terms for the oil-for-food program expire. The diplomats will make that decision when
they think the time is right.
Q Would
you like to have one before Powell's trip next week to Russia
and Germany?
MR. FLEISCHER: The diplomats make the decision when they
believe the time is right.
Q Ari,
everybody is getting into this trap a little bit about whether WMD will be
found, which may not be the issue because, A, you may not find them, they may
have been destroyed. Or as the President
said, they may have been dispersed. Which raises the question that they could have somehow been
spirited out of the county by terrorist groups and the like. What information do you have about that
eventuality happening? And isn't it
presumptuous to presume that the American people are safer when you can't
account for whether weapons have been taken out of the country, or weapons
materials have been taken out of the country?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think the real threat here came from
a nation state, headed by Saddam Hussein and his henchmen who showed they were
willing to use weapons of mass destruction before. That's what --
Q Well,
what --
MR. FLEISCHER: That's the basis for saying that people are
safer. If you're asking the question, on
what basis does the President conclude people are safer, that's the answer.
Q I
thought the concern was if it falls into the hands of al Qaeda --
wasn't that the rationale?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm continuing. The President said that the removal of the
regime has diminished the threat and increased our security. And I think that can go --
that's unquestionable. It was,
after all, the regime that used weapons of mass destruction in attacks
previously. Of course, we always have
concerns about anyplace that has weapons of mass destruction passing them
along. But given the routing of the
Iraqi regime, it certainly makes that much harder to do. Any type of organized efforts, organized
movements are harder for the disparate people in the regime to carry out now,
those who may be hiding or who are still among the 55. So it's a question --
Q It wasn't too hard for them to get three
trailer trucks of American hundred-dollar bills out of the country.
MR. FLEISCHER: It's a question of diminishing their
abilities. It's not a question of
eliminating the abilities for terrorists to do things --
no. That's why when the President
gave the speech on the aircraft carrier, he said that
there still are risks, that the fight against terrorism will continue to go
on. And that is the case.
But make no mistake; the threat has been
diminished. The threat from terrorism
has not been eliminated, and the war against terrorism must continue.
Q I
know that, but you're making these pronouncements without answering the direct
question, which is, what does this administration know about not only what has
been found -- you're still checking -- but
what weapons materials or actual weapons may have been taken out of the
country?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, we don't have anything concrete to
report on that. The President has said
that some may have been destroyed, some may have been dispersed --
he didn't indicate to where they may have been dispersed. It certainly is possible they were dispersed
to various hiding places throughout Iraq. So it's not a question that we have reliable
information to know of.
Q Or outside of Iraq?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President didn't specify when he said
where they may have been dispersed to.
Q Was
that what he was indicating?
MR. FLEISCHER: He didn't specify, and as I indicated, we
have no --
Q Don't
we deserve some specificity on this?
MR. FLEISCHER: It may not be knowable with precision. The President has said that they were
dispersed, and not all of that is knowable.
Q Ari,
the President yesterday talked about his confidence that the weapons of mass
destruction programs, evidence of programs would be turned up. And other administration officials have
talked about capabilities and programs.
Before the war, many administration officials, right up to the
President, talked about actual weapons, battlefield munitions, stockpiles,
locked and loaded, ready to go, as the administration claimed there were orders
to field commanders, you can use them.
Does the administration still say that kind of capability will be found
in Iraq?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think if you continue to look you'll find a
common thread in the statements made by administration officials
repeatedly -- and Dr. Rice said in some of the interviews
she gave with foreign journalists just this week, where she expressed again the
confidence of the administration that WMD will be found. And there are a variety of forms of that, and
our statement covers all those forms.
You're accurately pointing out that as we learn more about the Iraqi
program, we're finding information about just-in-time delivery mechanisms that
they have. But that doesn't substitute
for the previous statements about finding WMD.
Q So
it is still the administration's claim that Iraq had battlefield munitions, WMD
weapons ready to go that simply haven't been found yet in Iraq, but they were
there?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, clearly, when you look at many of the
things that were found in Iraq in terms of all the chemical protection units
and suits that the Iraqi military officials had, the atropine that is used to
protect somebody from a chemical weapons attack, all of which were in the hands
of Iraqi officials, it's kind of odd that they would have all that equipment
for their own forces on the field --
that's typically what you would employ if you're in a chemical
environment.
So, no, no changes on it,
Terry. It's going to be a long
process, and that's what's driving this.
And the search is underway. We
made no predictions about how long it will take --
it may take a while. And we will continue
to develop information; as I indicated, there will be some information
forthcoming on what may be known so far.
Q And
just one on the visit to the Abraham Lincoln.
There are some people who have raised a question about the appearance, that the President arrived on deck in a very
dramatic, spectacular fashion, on board a military aircraft wearing full flight
suit. And there were some people who
were concerned that that might have dissolved or weakened the distinction
between civilian control of the military and adopt the civilian --
the President adopting military regalia at the end of a war. Is the President concerned at all about that?
MR. FLEISCHER: Heavens no, that's a non-issue. If you noticed, everybody who came off the
Viking wore a flight suit, as you were required to wear a flight suit if you
were going to participate in a flight on the Viking. That is what you wear if you're on a Viking.
Q Ari, yesterday the Fed warned about the
risk of deflation. Is that a concern
of the administration? Is there any
evidence of deflation in the economy?
MR. FLEISCHER: I leave those issues up to expert
economists. You can hear what the Fed said -- they issued a news release about that topic
yesterday. They were not as precise as
you were in your question. That's a
question that economists will debate.
Q Is
it something that you're studying within the administration?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the administration always takes a very
careful look at any statements that the Federal Reserve issues. Those statements are sometimes cryptic and
they require considerable study.
Q Ari,
was it the Vice President's idea to have the President
land in the plane on the Abraham
Lincoln?
MR. FLEISCHER: The Vice President pointed out to the
President that he, himself, had done it.
So it was a variety of different people --
Q He
choppered.
MR. FLEISCHER: Pardon me?
Q He
choppered.
MR. FLEISCHER: No, he has also landed on an aircraft that
was caught by a tailhook. I don't know
if it was a Viking specifically, but he flew on an aircraft onto the aircraft
carrier in the past.
Q So
it was his idea?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well I think various staff had the idea. I really couldn't tell you. Ultimately, of course, it's always the
President's decision, and it was the President's decision to fly out on the
Viking; proudly so. So I couldn't tell
you with precision.
Q Can I ask you about the Vice President's
interview yesterday where he said he would be running again? Has --
again, just saw it this morning
-- has the President formally
asked him to run again? Have they had
that conversation?
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, I looked into that, and what you have
here is basically a reiteration of what you were told last fall. Last fall on November 7th, the President said
publicly that he -- that Vice President Cheney will be on the
ticket if the President decides to run again.
And the President did have a discussion with him about that right around
that time last fall.
Q And
is he at all concerned about his health, his heart problems?
MR. FLEISCHER: Obviously not.
Q And
why does he think he's the right running mate?
MR. FLEISCHER: For the exact same reasons that he thought in
2000. And I don't have anything
additional to add beyond that. I think
that at the time that the President makes an announcement about his own plans,
you may hear more thinking about that.
Q Ari,
going back to Elizabeth's first
question, could you give a little bit more color as to when and how this was
determined for this, what some of your staunchest critics are calling a
wonderful photo op that was used for exploitation?
MR. FLEISCHER: In terms of picking the Vice President to be
on the ticket?
Q No, her first question.
MR. FLEISCHER: And that was?
Q About the Lincoln. About how -- when was this decided? When hostilities started diminishing, or
what? When was this whole decision
decided for him to fly in on the Lincoln
aircraft carrier?
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, I think I answered all that in the
gaggle on the way out to the Lincoln,
so you've got a record of all of that.
This was as the President decided he wanted to address the nation and to
give a speech to sum up to the country where we were as the conflict wound
down. There were discussions of the best
venues, the various venues for the President to talk to the American
people. And the President thought the
very best venue would be in a place where he could thank the men and women who
helped make it possible in person.
Q Last
week you said the speech was significant because, one, we found out that he
started rehearsing in the theater for this, and you said it was
significant. But tell me this, because
of the significance of this, did he need drama to
emphasize the significance of this speech?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think that the suggestion --
the President wanted to go out somewhere to thank the men and women who
made this possible in person. They
deserve nothing less. These are the men
and women who fought a war to keep us free, to protect us and to save us. They deserve no less.
Q Ari, back on Waxman --
Congressman Waxman sent a letter to Lt. Flowers, saying, "There
appears to be a conflict between the administration statements of intent that
the oil belongs to Iraqis and its actions issuing contracts to U.S. companies
like Halliburton to produce and distribute the oil. This conflict should be addressed by the
administration in a forthright manner."
Is there any concern that at the very least, the administration has a
perception problem here, that this could become something where if Waxman
continues to call for investigations, continues to ask for information about
the contracts, that it could become --
MR. FLEISCHER: No, this is exactly what I said at the
beginning. Congressman Waxman has never
met a Republican he didn't want to investigate.
You can ask -- address all questions to the contracting
agencies. And, of course, the oil of Iraq
belongs to the Iraqi people. All
resources of Iraq
belong to the Iraqi people. And the United
States, through the Agency for International
Development and through other entities, is going to be there to help the Iraqi
people. And that is exactly what we're
doing.
Q Do
you believe that the contract should become public?
MR. FLEISCHER: You need to address those questions to the
contracting agencies, not to the White House.
Q The
administration has no position?
MR. FLEISCHER: These are contracting matters, not White
House matters.
Q Ari, just one more question on the carrier business. If footage of the President's appearance were
to appear in his reelection campaign, would it be appropriate then for the -- to have the campaign pay for it?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm just not going to speculate about what
would or would not happen. The campaign
is a long way away. That was a
wonderful, proud day for our military, for the nation and for the
President. And that is forever how he
will remember it. He was deeply moved to
be there, to arrive the way he did. The
men and women of the military were deeply moved to be able to host him. And that's the spirit that this President is
going to remember that day, and nothing else will diminish that.
Q Could you clarify for us, I didn't quite
understand what you were saying about where we stand with the U.N. Obviously, the Secretary of State is going up
there today. Where are we in the process
of putting forth the new resolution aiming at the June 3rd deadline?
MR. FLEISCHER: We're in the consultative process.
Discussions are underway among diplomats to talk about what comes next after
the June 3rd deadline expires. And the
position the President has taken is that the sanctions should be removed. There are conversations among diplomats now
about how best to accomplish that.
Q Would
you hope to have a new resolution passed by the time the oil-for-food expires,
so that you don't have any period during which no food can be delivered to the
Iraqi people?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, certainly, you want to have this action
done prior to June 3rd.
Q
Now, the Russians are proposing that Kofi Annan be given the authority to sell -- to have continued authority to sell Iraqi oil
and essentially to control the oil industry, to develop fields and all that
sort of thing. Does the U.S.
have position on that?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, the position is sanctions should be
removed. Then the decisions about who
will be part of the reconstruction will be made by the various parties. And the coalition is leading that
effort.
Q One other thing.
This afternoon, we'll get the President and President Aznar. Do you have some sense of whether or not
there will be an opening statement from them, what we can expect from that, and
how long it --
MR. FLEISCHER: There will be an opening statement. Then you'll have a chance to ask some
questions.
Q Is
that opening statement on the fact that they're both coalition members --
MR. FLEISCHER: I think it will be about the friendship of Spain,
the strong support of Spain,
and our strong relations with the people of Spain.
Q Is
there a broader point, though, to the visit?
Is something going to emerge from the state visit, I mean, in terms of
new agreements growing forth from the relationship that's developed over the last few months?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think the State Department may have
something to say today in regard to designation of terrorist organizations in Spain. The United
States and Spain
have a very strong relationship, and the President is very grateful to Spain
for the leadership they took in helping to free the world from the threat of
the Iraqi regime.
Q When
you say designation of terrorist organizations, what do you mean? What are you referring to?
MR. FLEISCHER: There is always a review underway of various
organizations. The State Department has
a list of organizations that are classified as terrorist, and they'll have
information today about the completion of their review.
Q Updating that vis-a-vis Spain?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct.
Q Your
answer to Terry's question on WMD, if I understood it correctly is that there's
no change in the administration's prewar assertion that the Iraqi regime had
chemical weapons basically ready to go and on a hair trigger or something close
to it.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the position always was, and what I was
saying is the position today, was that they had weapons of mass
destruction. I've not made any
statements about hair trigger. I don't
think if you search a transcript you'll find my using the word "hair" -- (laughter)
-- or "hair
trigger." Sorry, Ken, that was not
addressed at you.
Q Nor
would I. (Laughter.) Striking "hair trigger" --
(laughter) -- for a number of reasons, there were
statements that those weapons were ready to go, were in the hands of -- well,
operational, in effect, that orders had been issued that commanders could use
them. And there's no change in that
assessment of the situation?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I clearly the manner in which we
conducted the military campaign, that was plain for all to recognize that that
was our operation assumption.
Q If
that is still the administration's position, that puts you at odds now with the
British government, because Defense Secretary Hune gave an interview with the
Times of London last week in which he said that the intelligence they now have
is that the chemical weapons in possession of Iraq were, in fact, dispersed
last fall when the inspectors came back into the country, as part of a way to
hide them, and that when the war began, Saddam was essentially unable to
retrieve them, and that those weapons were not available for use when the war
started. Can you square that --
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think there's a deeper context to all
of that and to what Secretary Hune would have referred to, or Minister Hune
would have referred to, and that's exactly what the President said when he said
that some may have been destroyed, some may have been dispersed. But clearly we continue to have concerns as
the battle was fought that we could be subject to attacks involving weapons of
mass destruction. And one of the reasons
it's possible that we did not was because of the very conduct of the war, the
warnings that we're issued immediately prior to the war and the manner in which
the war was carried out. Thank goodness
that we were not.
Q Well,
certainly, thank goodness. But Hune's
statement to the Times of London was they couldn't use them, they were not
available for use when the war started.
Was that -- do you agree with that?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, again, I think you have to refer to the
whole context of what he said and the timing of when he said it.
Q He
said flatly that they weren't available for use, that they had been dispersed
and were simply not able to retrieve them. Is that true?
MR. FLEISCHER: The issue still is, when are we going to find
them; not exactly what precise intelligence was available that still could have
been differed about on what the Iraqis may or may not have been able to do
after the conflict began, and as the military situation on the ground changed
Iraqi options and abilities.
Q Ari, Spain was not only a major ally of the
United States in trying to get sanctions against Saddam Hussein to work,
and then for the military option when Saddam Hussein would not cooperate with
the United Nations, but now the word seems to be trying to get the United
Nations to lift the sanctions. Spain
is a member of the Security Council.
Will President Bush ask President Aznar for Spain
to play a bigger role in trying to get that passed?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I anticipate that that will be an issue
that they talk about this evening, the reconstruction of Iraq
is on the agenda. They'll talk about
it. Spain
is a member of the Security Council, so I do anticipate that will come up.
Q And
the second question -- if I understand correctly, President Bush has
not announced officially he's going for reelection, right?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct.
Q Ari, on Mideast peace, Sharon is shifting the right of return issue from
a negotiating point now to an apparent prerequisite for negotiations. Did this catch the White House off-guard, and
is it your feeling that this is just something that --
another poison pill that can be averted with negotiations?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think that all parties have
responsibilities. And that's the
President's message and that's what he is going to hold all parties to. Israel
has responsibilities; the Palestinians have responsibilities; the Arab states
have responsibilities. And that will be
the guiding point for everything that this President does, and the Secretary
does, and Bill Burns from the State Department was just in the region, as we
try to move the parties together along the path that the road map lays out.
Q Have
you seen any evidence from both parties that they take serious the President's
words that this is a goal that he wants accomplished?
MR. FLEISCHER: Certainly.
I think you see that in the very fact that the Palestinian Authority is
engaged in serious reform. The creation
of a new post of Prime Minister is evidence of that. The new cabinet is evidence of that. Prime Minister Sharon only recently
reiterated his support for a Palestinian state.
If you recall, he did that in the context of a rather divided dispute
within his own coalition in the Israeli government, and he was actually
challenged from the right, interestingly, about that statement. And he prevailed.
What's important now is to bring the
parties together so that their words are matched by their deeds. And that's an often difficult process in the Middle
East, but perhaps now the time is the best time we've had in some
number of years to make that happen. And
the President is dedicated to it.
Q Any
invites from either side
-- excuse me -- any
visits from leaders on either side anytime soon?
MR. FLEISCHER: Never rule those out.
Q Ari,
on the aircraft carrier near San Diego
last week, the President said declaratively, the war on terrorism will be won.
Reviewing actions against al Qaeda, the Taliban, and the government
of Iraq a few minutes ago, you said that all that is about a question of
diminishing the abilities of terrorist groups, not eliminating their ability to
wreak havoc on U.S. or other nations around the world --
which begs the question, how exactly would the President define a
victory on the war on terrorism, especially when he said so many times it's an
unconventional war, it could go on for a very long time? Will there be a moment we know it's
over? Will there be a moment when he can
give a speech? And what are the
criteria?
MR. FLEISCHER: It's a good question. Clearly, in the current context in which Mr.
Gregory asked the question about Iraq,
Iraq's
abilities and the terrorist abilities have been diminished. The President has said that the tide has
turned, and he expresses confidence that we will achieve victory. And of course the President believes that. That's the whole purpose of our efforts.
And just as the President, if you recall,
at the beginning of the war with Iraq,
traveled to a military base and said, we will be victorious in Iraq,
the President sets out that goal, and then charges all in his administration,
whether they're a diplomat or whether they're a soldier, to work toward
achieving that goal. And that is the
push and the direction from the President.
I think you'd expect him to say nothing else, nothing less.
Q But,
you know, you're talking about chapters, if you will, in a broader thing. And his --
that's why his statements on the carrier were so interesting, because it
was so broad and so expansive.
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't know that you could --
I think it's something that, because of the nature of terrorism, it is
something that will evolve, in terms of being able to say what constitutes
victory. It's kind of like saying that
early in mid-1950s, what constitutes victory in the Cold War. I don't think anybody then could have
answered you that the victory will come when the Berlin Wall falls and the Soviet
Union falls, as well.
There's certain struggles that our nation
has historically engaged in, whether it was the Cold War, or whether it's the
war on terrorism, that because of the foe, are of a more nebulous nature. And that's what you're seeing here in the war
against terrorism. It doesn't lend
itself to such an easy definition as a classical historical military battle
like the one that just took place in Iraq.
Q Fair
point, but in his mind, does he have a definition?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think, just as I said, it's a rather
more nebulous one -- the definition is when the threat to the
United States is diminished to the point where the President feels confident
addressing the nation in the war on terrorism the way he did in the campaign
against Iraq.
Q But
does he envision addressing the nation in that way, to, in effect,
declare major combat operations over in the war on terrorism?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, there are no plans to, obviously. The President just said last week that the
war on terrorism goes on. And I'm trying
to work with Dick's -- what I think is a very interesting question
about does a President, in a war of this kind, define the end date?
Q Which
is why I was wondering whether we're ever going to --
MR. FLEISCHER: No, there's nothing planned like that. Of course not.
Q Briefly, tax cuts. Senator Grassley is continuing to struggle to
come up with enough votes for a package.
Are you willing to accept as a price of getting enough of those votes
aid to the states?
MR. FLEISCHER: I appreciate the opportunity to negotiate
that in public. But, no, this is
something that we will continue to work with Congress on. Obviously, the Senate is closely divided. The Senate Finance Committee has narrow
margins on it. Aid to the states was not
part of the President's original proposal.
We will continue to work with Congress.
Q We've
got a bunch of governors out there in terrific pain, many of them
Republicans. Are you not willing to
state from the podium that you're willing to come to their aid if that's what
it takes?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President is coming to the aid of the
governors in both parties, and the states, and the people of the states, by
advocating a plan that creates growth, which is the best way to fill the
states' coffers with revenues.
Q Ari, the U.S.-EU relations have gone south
during the war in Iraq, and today the WTO has authorized the EU to go ahead with $4
billion in sanctions. If they do decide
to go with that, what would that do the U.S.-EU relationship? And where would you say the relationships are
headed now that the war is over, are they going up or down?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, again, just on the premise, I differ
about U.S. and
EU. There were a couple of countries in
the EU that opposed the United States
actions, and not the majority of countries.
In fact, the majority were with us.
In terms of the recent action, this is a matter of some longstanding,
this is a result of what's called the FSC --
which is foreign service corporations
-- foreign sales
corporations. And this deals with a WTO
action that struck down United States
legislation.
We are consulting with the EU about this
matter. We are working with the
Congress. The Ways and Means Committee
is expected to take up a package that deals with resolving the FSC issues in a
manner that's consistent with WTO obligations.
Q Would
a WTO dispute -- would it further -- if
they're not hurt now, would it hurt the U.S.-EU relations of this or another
topic?
MR. FLEISCHER: Clearly, trade is always one of those many
issues that allies are going to differ about and remain the best of
allies. That's the nature of trade. And I think it's a sign of how good relations
are with these countries that we trade in so many different categories of goods
and services, that we have issues that we're going to
differ about. If relations were bad,
there would be no trade. So it's part and parcel of a relationship that is as robust as
it is, that we're going to have inevitable trade disputes. And that's why the WTO has set up the
mechanisms it has. We are part of the
WTO. We respect it, and we'll work
within it.
Q The President's landing on the Abraham
Lincoln was certainly a morale boost for the veterans of Operation Iraqi
Freedom. Does the President plan similar recognition for those who served in Afghanistan? Maybe a visit to Fort Bragg to
honor the 82nd Airborne?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President has made numerous visits
to military bases to thank the personnel who served in the Afghani theater. The visit to
the Abraham Lincoln, although it was a ship at sea, was by no means the first
visit or the last visit that this President will proudly take to visit our
military, wherever they are, however he decides to arrive there.
Q Another
question if I might. Opponents on the
President's tax cut always focus on the upper 5 percent of Americans and imply
that they're undeserving of a tax cut.
When is the administration's response to that going to include the fact
that this same 5 percent pays over 50 percent of all the federal taxes, and
that the bottom 50 percent pay less than 5 percent?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think there's no question the
President believes in across-the-board tax relief because he thinks that all
Americans deserve tax relief, and it's the best way to stimulate growth in the
economy. So he does not make
distinctions among taxpayers in that manner.
He doesn't engage in what some have called class warfare. He believes all deserve tax relief; it
benefits all.
Q There's some talk that Congressman Hefley
and some others in Congress may actually put off base closures. Where does the President stand on having
more military base closures, or should it stop at this point?
MR. FLEISCHER: I believe we are still a military that is in
the process of transformation. I have
not heard specifically what Congressman Hefley will do. But the plans for
having a posture around the world, in the United
States and abroad, that matches defense
needs is still underway. The President
thinks that the amount of basing must correspond and match, with the taxpayer
dollars in mind, to the needs for our troops to be at those places.
Q I
wonder if you have any statements from the podium on two international
matters. Did you --
did the President send any message to the South Africans regarding the
death of Walter Sisulu? And also, do you
have any statements today on the 55th anniversary of Israel?
MR. FLEISCHER: Let me take a look on the South African
question. I don't have that here, so I don't
know. Let me find out about that.
And, of course, the United
States recognizes the importance of
today. It's the 55th anniversary of Israel. It expresses its pride for the people of Israel
on this important occasion. And I will
take a look and see if there's any other formal notifications that have gone
out and advise you.
Q There
are reports the President and Ariel Sharon will be on the podium together next
week. Is that confirmed?
MR. FLEISCHER: Are you referring to something that was in the
Washington Post yesterday?
Q -- said they may --
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, I noticed that there was something in
the Style section of The Washington Post yesterday, and they did not check with
the White House before writing it. So that
information is actually inaccurate.
Q It's
not going to happen?
MR. FLEISCHER: It was an inaccurate report. They did not check with the White House
before they wrote it.
Q So
it isn't going to happen?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, the President on that night has an event
that will be announced shortly. He had
other plans with other foreign leaders that night, incidently --
coincidentally, I should say.
Q One quick note on the
carrier. This is not my question,
but some of my Navy pilot friends that the pilot that flew the President
out is lucky he didn't have to swim home, because he caught the #4 wire instead
of the #3. (Laughter.) Anyway, my question --
MR. FLEISCHER: Ivan, I would remind you they have the
ability to precisely target a lot of different places, and they have
coordinates for that seat. I would not
want to say anything about Navy flying skills.
They all appear excellent to me.
Q It's
called a controlled crash, as you know, by those who fly it. But, anyway, the $1 billion and chump change
that Qusay apparently took from the bank of Iraq,
did it, in fact, cross the border into Syria? Are we tracking it? Where is it now, if we know? And also, is it true, even though the French
deny it, that they issued passports at Damascus
to some high-ranking officials?
MR. FLEISCHER: I got both these questions yesterday. I don't have any update since yesterday's
answers.
Q Ari, there was this unusual scene off the
coast of Florida yesterday with three Cuban refugees who refused
assistance, but got some level of assistance to actually come to shore. And now, my understanding is that they will
be allowed to stay in the country. Was
there anybody in the administration who ordered that scenario to take place the
way it did? And what message do you
think it sends to other potential Cuban refugees?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm going to refer anything on this to
Department of Homeland Security. As you
know, under the new Department of Homeland Security, they have agencies that
have jurisdiction over these matters that are involved in this and have more
facts and specifics about what took place on the water and on the ground.
Q Is
there anything you can say, though, on camera?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, that's the extent of what I have on
that. It's a matter that DHS is
handling. They have more information.
Q Can
I just clear something up? My
understanding is that the Lincoln
was about 30 miles off shore.
MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct.
Q Which
is, about -- given transit speed, piloting speed, about
two hours away from the dock. If the
President wanted to meet the sailors where they were, why didn't he meet them
in San Diego? Why was the ship kept at sea for an extra
afternoon and evening and a night?
MR. FLEISCHER: It was not kept at sea for an extra
afternoon, evening or a night. The
carrier was always, always, always scheduled to come back on May 2nd. And could you imagine what would have happened if it
arrived earlier? Sailors would have
gotten off the ship without their family being there. People made plans to attend a May 2nd arrival
from different parts of the country.
They don't necessarily arrive, ready to go, on the 1st, if they're told
it's the 2nd. That was an issue that we
talked about on the ship. The date
always was May 2nd, and they keep the date that they promised the sailors and
their families.
Q Ari,
a follow-up on that please, a follow-up on that?
MR. FLEISCHER: Go ahead, Lester.
Q Considering
Senator Byrd's charging the President with flamboyant showmanship on the
Lincoln, what is the President's reaction to what an editor of West Virginia's
Charleston Gazette noted this morning are so many dozens of buildings, roads,
statues, bridges, locks, dams, hospitals and even a river named by Robert C.
Byrd, that there have been signs posted, the Robert C. Byrd telephone poll and
the Robert C. Byrd parking meter? And I
have one follow-up.
MR. FLEISCHER: Why don't you ask your follow-up first. (Laughter.)
Q Doesn't
the President -- don't you have some reaction to this
showmanship business?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think we've exhausted that topic.
Q The
Dixie Chicks -- (laughter)
--
MR. FLEISCHER: Speaking of topics that have not been
exhausted. (Laughter.)
Q The
Dixie Chicks, a country music trio, has suffered a decline in sales and radio
playtime due to their lead singer's comment in London
that she is ashamed the President is from Texas. And my question: Is the President equally ashamed that the
Dixie Chicks are from Texas?
MR. FLEISCHER: Lester, I would be ashamed if you were
acknowledging that you did not watch the President's moving interview with Tom
Brokaw in which he answered that question.
So we'll be --
Q Who's
Tom Brokaw? (Laughter.)
MR. FLEISCHER: So we'll be happy --
(laughter) -- be happy to provide you a tape.
Q
Thank you.
END 1:10
P.M. EDT