Ari, back on the Middle East. The White House has already
sent advance teams, apparently, to the Middle East to look at
prospective sites. The groundwork is clearly being laid for some type
of meetings. How much of the comments that seem to be a mixed signal
coming out of the Middle East, how much is that playing into the White
House's inability at this point to firmly say, yes, the meeting is
going to happen?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think it's just a question of just making
certain of certain facts and events. As you know, the White House, as
you know, is sometimes the last to make something official. We
continue to explore possibilities.
Q Do you believe that there -- does the White House see that
there's still mixed signals coming out of the Middle East? And, also a
comment --
MR. FLEISCHER: What do you mean by "mixed signals"?
Q Well, we accept -- for instance, the Israelis presenting
the road map to the cabinet, accepting it, but still have questions,
for instance, on the settlement activity, as an example.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think that's consistent with what we've
always heard about Israel's position on that issue. It's why it's
important to bring the parties together to try to bridge any
disagreements they may have.
Q Just one more, please. Prime Minister Sharon last night made
it clear that he's willing to use language -- for instance, the word
"occupation" came up. Is this something that the White House had asked
for? And just a general comment about that --
MR. FLEISCHER: Not that I'm aware of.
Q And what was the White House position after he said that?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President, as you know, welcomes the fact
that Prime Minister Sharon is working hard to achieve peace in the
region. And others are working hard to achieve peace, as well. I
think what you're seeing is a leader of Israel who wants to find a way
to bring peace to the region, who is committed to a two-state solution,
as he has said. And what you have here is, for the first time, an
Israeli Prime Minister committing to a two-state solution; an America
President at the same time committing to, publicly, a two-state
solution. These are, again, some of the reasons why this is a hopeful
moment.
Q Ari, it's been almost a month since the President declared an
end to major combat operations in Iraq and we still haven't found any
weapons of mass destruction. So will you say at this point that there
is a very real possibility that we're just not going to find them?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think you saw what General Myers said on the
Sunday shows about the importance of being patience in this. It is
just a month and nothing has changed our confidence that they will be
found.
Q You indicated that having senior Baath Party officials in our
custody would help lead us to those weapons. But it's been a while now
that we've had them in our custody. So is the strategy shifting to now
us relying on just random searches? Or do we still have --
MR. FLEISCHER: The strategy has always been multi-fold. It
involves discussions with -- I think you've really heard medium
officials is probably where we'll get most of the information --
medium-level officials, the review of the numerous documents that are
being found, the conversations that are taking place with numerous
officials, all of the above is what goes into what we hope will be the
day when, as a result of a scrap of information or a tip that is
received, we are able to follow up. And, of course, we have already
had the successes in finding the bio -- the trucks, the bio-trucks
that have no other use than for the production of biological weapons.
Q -- on the tax cut signing tomorrow, Ari. The President
repeatedly makes reference to the downturn in the stock market before
he took office, and things were in fairly dire straits when he took
office and the recession that followed and the other events. It has
been asserted that with his signature tomorrow, the President really
takes ownership of the economy, for better or for worse, politically.
What do you think of that?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think that's one of the silliest notions I've
ever heard, because the President took ownership of the economy on
January 20th, 2001, when he became the President. I remember people
saying after the President signed the tax relief act in 2001 that the
President now has ownership of the economy. I just don't understand
that argument, that it only begins now.
This President has always faced facts, always dealt with the
reality, always dealt with the fact that, indeed, he did inherent a
recession. But it is his job as President to do something about it.
And that's what he's been doing, both in 2001 and in 2003. And that's
the purpose of his presidency, when it comes to the domestic security
and economic security.
Q Politically, the Democrats make much of the number of jobs
lost since the President took office. Is the President willing to
stand or fall on the number of jobs that have been created when he goes
to the voters next time?
MR. FLEISCHER: Mark, I think you have to ask the public on what
criteria will they make their determinations about the President. And
I think that you will find from the public, they will make that as a
very sophisticated judgment, as the public typically does. They take
into account a variety of factors. They take into account that there
was a recession, there was September 11th, an attack on our country.
And I think they will make their determinations based on the
President's response to it.
Q Is that -- the reason I ask it that way is because you know
that the projection that you folks have for the package that originally
was presented to Congress was that it would create a million jobs.
There still would be a net loss, even if that were the case, even if
the President's own projections for the effect of his tax cut came --
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, we'll all learn. We will all learn, as the
future unfolds, what the net and gross job creation number is. This is
projected to create more than 1 million jobs, and we'll see what
aggregate effect that has on the economy. But, again, I think those
are the judgments the American people look forward to making, and we
look forward to them making them.
Q On the tax cut, does the President consider the bill that
he's going to sign tomorrow, does he consider it a component of
fundamental reform? Or does he consider it a major step of the
existing system?
MR. FLEISCHER: You mean tax reform in terms of simplification?
Q Right.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, there's no question there is simplification
elements to this. I think when you take a look at the acceleration of
some of the tax cuts that were previously scheduled to be phased in
that are now on the books, that's helpful for people. I think when you
take a look at the capital gains rate structure, which, in reality, was
a 20-18 structure for upper-income people and a 10-8 structure for
lower-income people, it's now simplified to a universal 15-5. That's a
simplification -- if you understood any of those numbers that I just
said.
Q A move to a consumption tax, or closer to a consumption tax,
does he consider that --
MR. FLEISCHER: I think you'd have to ask economists that.
Q And, secondly, on the French Foreign Minister said that
President Bush decided to go to war in Iraq in January, despite his
public pledges that he hadn't made up his mind until late March. What
does the President think about this declaration?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think you watched it all play out all before
you. I think the President was prepared to use force from the day he
went to the United Nations in September and said that the United
Nations needs to enforce its resolutions. I think it was clear then
that the President in his words -- you can examine them -- talked
about the need, as he said, for the U.N. to enforce its resolutions, or
the United States will. But the President did not make up his mind
until when he indicated to you that he did.
Q So he, and senior administration officials who said that this
is accurate are lying?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think it's just a matter of different people get
different perspectives depending on where they sit.
Q Ari, our policy toward Iran has always been fairly consistent
in terms of trying to effect a change in the leadership there in that
more moderate element have the upper hand. And we've been fairly quiet
the last few months with regard to Iran. Why this new attention? Is
it simply because of the Saudi incident? Or is there an element of
Iran trying to de-stabilize Iraq and what we're trying to do in Iraq?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I really don't know that it's my place to say
what creates a increased interest. My job is to answer the questions
that
you raise about these matters. I think it is fair to say that the
recent attack on Saudi Arabia has certainly put this on people's radar
screen, and legitimately so.
Q And what about evidence of possibly meddling in Iraq and
stirring up the Shiites there against U.S. forces?
MR. FLEISCHER: That, too, is a concern about Iraqi -- Iranian
interference in Iraqi affairs. That is a concern, as well.
Q -- to a more vigorous U.S. pursuit of boosting moderates at
the expense of the Islamics?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think there's no question that Iranian
society is going through some very serious internal debates about the
future that the Iranian people want for themselves. Iran is one of the
youngest nations on Earth in terms of the percentage of its population
that is under 30 years old. And it is represented by a leadership that
many Iranians do not see as meeting the needs, their human rights,
their basic wants. And these are issues that the Iranian people will
sort out.
Q Ari, back on Iran on the claim the Iranians make that this is
a civilian nuclear program. You said earlier the United States rejects
that as a cover story. Why?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think if you look at what the IAEA has indicated
when they were there, the Iranian admission to the IAEA that they are
pursuing a full nuclear fuel cycle, while we have not yet received the
final report from the IAEA, we do, indeed, have concerns about a
country that is awash in gas and oil producing nuclear energy when they
don't need nuclear energy for their electric grid, when they don't need
nuclear energy to produce energy in their country. They have
sufficient energy from fossil fuel sources, from gas and from oil. So
that raises a concern.
And so we will look forward to the final conclusions that they have
reached. And I remind you that the IAEA would not even have been in
position to find these facilities had they not been led to these
facilities from Iraqi -- Iranian opposition groups.
Q And second, if I may, the State Department made a
determination earlier this month that China was continuing to provide
Iran with substantial assistance in its missiles development program.
Is the President planning to meet with Hu Jintao during this trip when
Hu is on the sides of the G8, or in St. Petersburg? And will he
discuss this with him?
MR. FLEISCHER: Two points: One, as you know, the State Department
did take action, as required by law, in regard to that. And two, we
will have briefings -- I believe tomorrow you will receive a briefing
about the trip. And I think we might be in a position to give you some
of the meetings tomorrow on who the President will be meeting with. So
we'll have that tomorrow.
Q Ari, the Canadian government, this morning, introduced
legislation that will decriminalize marijuana. What is the
administration's position? Should Canada expect any repercussions,
like border delays? And did President Bush speak about this with Prime
Minister Chretien?
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't believe that was a topic that came up in
their conversation. It certainly was not in the notes that were given
to me. And that's a position the President has not supported here.
Q Ari, the upcoming trip of the President, he's dealing with a
lot of international issues. But one issue in particular, how the
United States is helping Africa. When is the President going to deal
with the issue of Africa, especially with this potential trip in July
to the continent?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, certainly the signing ceremony today at the
State Department is a very significant statement of America's
commitment to the people of Africa. There are nations in Africa in
which AIDS has taken the lives of some 40 percent of the children in
one country. And the President has made it as a front-and-center
priority of his administration. This is one of the initiatives that he
launched in his State of the Union address. He highlighted in the
State of the Union because of the importance he attaches to improving
the lives of people in the African continent. And today he will
reflect on that in his remarks at the State Department.
And, of course, the AGOA, or the African Growth and Opportunity Act
is legislation that is also being implemented to improve and --
improve the lives of people of Africa through more trade with the
United States and others.
Q -- examples, do you think that it's going to kind of snub
the world community, which we already have tensions with after the
Iraqi war, to say what have you done lately to help these poor
nations?
MR. FLEISCHER: Absolutely not. The President hopes it will be a
call to action to these other nations to do what the United States has
done, and that is to put its money where its compassion is, and help
the people of Africa so they can deal with the plague of AIDS.
Q When will you announce the trip?
MR. FLEISCHER: If we have something to report, we'll report it.
Q Ari, there's a new documentary film by an Irish journalist,
Jamie Duran. He alleges --
MR. FLEISCHER: I haven't seen it.
Q Well, let me tell you about it then. He alleges U.S.
military involvement in a massacre of 3,000 Taliban prisoners in
Afghanistan. He says that the 3,000 prisoners were forced into sealed
containers and loaded onto trucks for transport to Shebarghan Prison.
When the prisoners began shouting for air, U.S. ally Afghan soldiers
fired directly into the truck, killing many of them. Then witnesses in
the film say that the trucks arrived and soldiers opened the
containers, most of the people inside were dead. U.S. Special Forces
redirected the --
MR. FLEISCHER: And your question is?
Q Well, you said you hadn't seen it, so I'm giving you some
background. So just one more thing. U.S. Special Forces redirected
the containers carrying the dead into the desert and stood by as --
MR. FLEISCHER: I think I understand your movie review.
Q And there's a mass grave of 3,000 Taliban prisoners.
Question: Does the President know about this massacre? Is he ordering
an investigation?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, one, I would not use a movie as a basis to
make assumptions about what is right and what is wrong. And if you
have questions about a factual matter in Afghanistan dealing with the
military, I think that's a question you should address to the
Pentagon. I'm not aware of any such thing.
Q Is the President aware of it?
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't know if he's aware of this movie or not; I
would doubt it.
Q To follow up on Iran, Ari, you were saying that the U.S.
policy towards Iran is unchanged and that the U.S. policy is to pursue
diplomatic means to effect change.
MR. FLEISCHER: Correct.
Q Could you please summarize again, what are the incentives
currently for Iran to make those changes? In other words, what's the
carrot? And then on the flip side, what's the stick? Is it the
pressure from external sources, or is it inside the country?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, no nation should need a carrot to stop
harboring terrorists. Nations should stop harboring terrorists because
it is the wrong thing to do if a nation wants to be seen as a serious
and legitimate player on the international stage, and a nation that is
to be taken -- treated with the respect that all nations should
have. That is why states are labeled as terrorist states.
And it's a wrong premise to say that it should be the obligation of
the United States or any other nation to offer a carrot in return for
nations behaving in a civilized way. And so that's why I said earlier
that this is a consistent message and a principled message that the
President is delivering.
Q And the disincentive to continue as they have been, as you
allege, as the United States alleges Iran is doing -- what is the
disincentive?
MR. FLEISCHER: The disincentive for Iran? I think Iran just needs
to reach the same conclusions that virtually every other nation on
Earth has reached, which is terrorists do not deserve support anywhere
-- the support of people who kill, who take innocents, who use acts of
violence against innocents as a way of life is not a policy that any
nation should take upon itself to support or harbor.
Q What is the White House policy regarding U.S. troops in the
Golan Heights to help enforce the peace there, if that ever comes
about? And will the U.S. have any input on actual issues --
Jerusalem, refugees, so forth?
MR. FLEISCHER: Our longstanding policy hereto is unchanged, and
that is the United States, in working with the two parties -- the
Israelis and the Palestinians -- have said that if the parties
request monitors -- which is different from armed forces -- if they
request monitors, that is something we'd be willing to work with the
parties on. A separate matter, though.
Q And the Golan Heights?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's for the region.
Q Just to follow up on that last question on Iran. It seems
what you're response was that there's an implied carrot out there.
That is, if a nation wants to be a part of the world community then,
obviously, they will not participate in things like harboring
terrorists. Does that mean that the U.S. would welcome Iran into the
world community we participate in if they take those steps?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think there's a certain obviousness about this,
in terms of there are states that are classified by the State
Department, after careful review, as terrorists states or states that
support terrorism. These nations have to ask themselves a fundamental
question: Why would they want to be in that business? Why would they
want to be among the elite minority of countries around the world that
engage in actions that lead to violence and to murder? That's the
fundamental issue that puts somebody on a terrorist-sponsoring state.
And I can only put it in the most simple terms like that, because that
is ultimately what it comes down to. These are decisions that states
make.
Q Is that the only block between normalized relations then,
between Iran and the U.S., the sponsoring of terrorism? If they did
not do that, would that open the door to better relations?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think that there are a series of issues that we
are pressing on Iran. They involve not supporting -- putting an end
to its nuclear weapons program, working through the IAEA and other
multilateral channels to do so, to end its support for groups which use
violence to oppose the Middle East peace process, as well as the
interference with the Iraqi people as they rebuild their future. These
are all issues that we consider important in our discussions.
Q What's the White House response, Ari, to the letter Senator
Lieberman has sent to the Chief of Staff, asking for help in tracking
down whatever federal government involvement there might be with the
missing Texas Democratic legislature?
MR. FLEISCHER: Let me make sure I understand this correctly. Is
this the letter that's dated today that was given to the Washington
Post yesterday before it was even given to the White House? That very
serious letter that -- yes. Well, I think you can tell by the manner
in which this letter was sent to the White House, it was intended less
to be a serious letter and more to be a campaign gambit by somebody who
is running for the presidency. Otherwise I think it would have been
treated as most letters are, sent to the White House first, received,
and then it would have been discussed publicly if the author had
intended it to be discussed publicly, which would have been fine. But
there -- as you know, Homeland Security is taking a look at this, and
that's where the matter lies.
Q There's a nagging doubt that the Saudis are doing everything
they can to stop terrorism. What changes have we demanded, and have
they been implemented?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the Saudis have been working well with us in
the war against terror, as we have repeatedly said. And I think in the
wake of this attack, Saudi Arabia has also recognized what you've heard
here, that they need to face the fact that they have terrorists
operating in their own country, and they are doing so. Saudi Arabia
has cooperated, and it is cooperating with the FBI team that is in
Saudi Arabia. They're working well with us. We are exchanging
information. They are pursuing leads, and all of this is appropriate.
Q President Fox says that it is time again to discuss the
immigration issue with the President, after 20 months from 9/11. What
is the President's position on the future of the immigration accord?
And second question, do you think it's fair for some members of the
U.S. Congress to trade immigration versus the opening of the oil
sector of Mexico to the U.S. investors?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President's position is he remains
committed to improving border safety and advancing our bilateral
immigration agenda with Mexico, of course, consistent with the United
States' security concerns and needs. There continue to be ongoing
conversations through the State Department. And we continue to press
Congress to make advancements on issues such as 245 I, and of course,
the Mexico trucking issue, if you remember, is something that the
President worked to make progress on.
Q Do you think it's fair to trade immigration versus oil sector
of Mexico, to be open?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not aware of anybody making that connection, so
I'd hesitate to venture into that without having more information about
it.
Q The mad cow issue, doesn't that prove that we need some
country-of-origin labeling to prove where this food comes from? And
the second question: The President last week made comments about
genetically-modified organisms. Could you comment on that?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, on the genetically-modified crops, this is an
issue that the President thinks is very important to helping people in
developing communities, in the developing world, to help the African
people who suffer from famine. And this is a serious trade dispute
between the United States and the European Union about a matter that is
scientifically safe and proven. And we regret that the European Union
has taken the actions that it has. And the President will continue to
press the Europeans to help relieve starvation around the world by
allowing genetically-modified crops to be fed around the world. It's
safe and it's healthy.
The first part of your question on mad cow was an issue where --
Q Well, mad cow -- that shouldn't American consumers know
where there beef comes from, if it comes from Canada, if it comes from
Mexico, or wherever?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, these are all a series of trade actions. Of
course, with American products are shipped around the world, as well,
they are all covered by the same international regimes that govern the
export and import of products, including agricultural products. I
think what it shows is that the Department of Agriculture and other
nations around the world will move quickly when they see potential
threats to the food supply, and they acted properly in this case and
quickly in this case.
Q Ari, the Iranian groups, the opposition groups that you
mentioned earlier have now said that there are two previously unknown
Iranian nuclear production facilities -- one at Lashkar-Abad and one
at Ramideh. Does the administration have any information to confirm
that?
MR. FLEISCHER: I've noted that report. But I do not have
confirmation at this time.
Q Thank you.
MR. FLEISCHER: Thank you.
END 1:05 P.M. EDT
#289-05/27