For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
June 17, 2003
Press Briefing with Ari Fleischer
The James S. Brady Briefing Room
12:32 P.M. EDT
MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. I have no opening statement for you, so I am
at your disposal. Helen -- a fine place to start.
Q Can you tell us more of what the
President means by revisionist historians? And what is the genesis of that, and on what
does he base it?
MR. FLEISCHER: Yesterday, in the President's remarks, he
referred to -- he referred it to revisionist historians who
are seeming to make the case that Saddam Hussein
likely did not have, or did not have, weapons of mass destruction prior to the
war. And the President bases that on
some of the statements that he has heard where people are expressing doubt
about whether or not the intelligence that was provided to the administration,
as well as to Congress for many years was accurate intelligence
information.
The President has every reason to know that
it was, indeed, accurate, just as previous administrations have said so, just
as he believes so, and therefore, he said so.
And so he looks at it and describes as revisionist history those who now
seem to cast doubt on the accuracy of the intelligence information that stated
that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction
prior to the war.
Q Is
he certain they have them now and that you will find them? And I have one more follow-up.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President has repeatedly expressed
his confidence that as a result of the actions that we have put in place with
the Department of Defense undertaking the search, with the increased number of
personnel DOD has now to carry out its mission, as well as the interviews that
are being done and will be done with mid-level Iraqi officials, including
scientists, the review of the paperwork that we're finding, as well as the
expertise of David Kay who is not helping, that we will, indeed, find the
weapons of mass destruction.
Q And
my other question is, in view of some of the faulty intelligence --
assuming it was faulty -- is there any move now to consolidate all the
intelligence agencies, or at least to have them work together under one head?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, that's the case now. The DCI, the Director of Central Intelligence,
does head all the various agencies. So
when you're talking about the National Security Agency, the Defense
Intelligence Agency, they all do report to the DCI through their various
channels.
Q Just
to pin this down, you're saying for the record that the President believes that
prior to the war Saddam Hussein did have weapons of
mass destruction, in the period immediately leading up to this most recent war?
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes. I
think there's nothing new here, nothing has changed. You've heard the President say it many, many times -- yes, that's what the President said then,
it's what he believes now, of course.
Q Then
what is the scenario? Because if there
was an imminent threat to the American people that justified the war and no
weapons program, as such, has been discovered, then what happened? Were weapons destroyed while U.N. inspectors were there, is
that what the President believes? Were
they destroyed at another point? And as
Helen pointed out earlier, they couldn't have been operational if they weren't
really poised to be used, thankfully, against U.S. and other
coalition forces. I mean, at the end of
the day, isn't it more likely that there is a history lesson here of a weapons
program that may have existed, rather than actual weapons that are found?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, it's just as the President described it, based on the
judgment and the information that he has received. And the reason I think you're seeing it play
out in the manner it is, is exactly because of the lengths that Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi officials went to hide the weapons of mass destruction that they had.
After all, it was the United Nations, when
they left Iraq, when they were
thrown out of Iraq in 1998, that concluded and told the world that Iraq had failed to
account for the thousands of liters of botulin, of
VX, of sarin gas.
It was the United Nations who put it on the record and reported they had
it.
Now, of course, we had information that
also lent credence to that conclusion.
To suggest that Saddam Hussein threw out the
inspectors and, therefore, used the fact that the inspectors were gone to
destroy his weapons, is fanciful. It's a
fit of imagination.
So the fact is he did design a system that
was intended to conceal it from the inspectors.
After all, even in the early to mid '90s, when we did find the proof of
the weapons of mass destruction, it was only after defectors told us about
it. The inspectors were in the country,
and they were unable to find it because of the great lengths the Saddam Hussein regime had gone to perfect their ability to
hide and to conceal.
And we still are in an environment where
whatever they hid, and whatever they concealed could remain hidden and
concealed. In addition, as the President
has said publicly --
Q But
do you know what imminent means, and --
MR. FLEISCHER: In addition --
imminent is my next sentence. I
was in the middle of it. (Laughter.) In
addition to the fact, the President said earlier, that they may have destroyed
some of it.
Q I want to follow up on a
different topic, and that's fundraising tonight. The President may raise $200 million just in
this primary season when he doesn't face a challenger, and the Democrats are
obviously knocking themselves out to try to emerge. What's he going to do with the money?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President is preparing for his
reelection. And part of the preparation
is, of course, to raise money from Republicans and others who support his
candidacy across the country. Next year
is an election year and the President is preparing for it.
Q But,
specifically, what's he going to do with the money in the primary season? Does he see this as a strategic advantage to
try to undercut the Democratic nominee while that nominee is cash-poor, et
cetera?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, every day, there are nine Democratic
candidates who are running against the President, saying negative things about
the President. And part of the President's
efforts next year will be to rebut the statements that will increasingly be
made about the President, all from a negative point of view, and to make sure
that he has the resource to be able to rebut some of these arguments, and to be
able to make arguments of his own.
Q Could
we see, even this summer, ads promoting his own accomplishments?
MR. FLEISCHER: It's much to early
for the White House to focus on that aspect of it yet.
Q Is
that a "no"?
MR. FLEISCHER: It's much to early.
Q But
that's not a "no"?
MR. FLEISCHER: Tom.
Q For
two days in a row --
MR. FLEISCHER: It's still too early.
Q For two days in a row the
President has now talked about the economy and his economic package, but he
hasn't mentioned extending the child credit to lower-income families. Is this still an important part of his
program, and what is he going to do to move this through the conference
committee?
MR. FLEISCHER: It is important. The President has urged the Congress to very
quickly reconcile the differences between the House-passed version and the Senate-passed
version. It's important to do so. The President is prepared to sign that into
law. He wants to sign it into law. And he calls on both parties, House and
Senate, to work together quickly to resolve their differences. He does believe that low-income families
should get a child credit.
Q Is
there a reason why he hasn't been mentioning this in the last couple speeches?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think there are any number
of issues that are on the economic agenda that the President can mention at any
given time. He believes in it. He didn't talk today, for example, about
extending the death tax permanently, which is something that he also believes
in. There are a host of economic issues
that he addresses and he talks about them from time to time.
Q In his comments in Annandale, he seemed to be a little more
pessimistic about the economy than you seemed to be this morning from this
podium. He was talking about it being
still kind of shaky. Is there -- is the President -- is
he viewing the economic data that's come in and the stock market increase in
the same way --
MR. FLEISCHER: My word was "mixed;" his word was
"shaky." It seems to me that
you can put the two together and have the same thing. So I think we're saying the same thing.
Q By
the same token, is he still encouraged by this huge stock market rally we've
had since March?
MR. FLEISCHER: It's the exact answers I gave you this
morning about that topic.
Q One on fundraising, one on
Iraq. On Iraq, the President
said Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass
destruction. You're telling us he is
certain the intelligence on which he based that statement is accurate. How can he say it's accurate when the search
hasn't turned anything up and isn't finished?
MR. FLEISCHER: Because the President is patient, and he
understands the American people are patient, as well, in the face --
Q How
does he know it's accurate when the search isn't over and it hasn't found any
weapons? How can he say the intelligence
he got that Saddam Hussein was in possession of
weapons of mass destruction, that that intelligence was accurate and reliable
when the search isn't done?
MR. FLEISCHER: Because the very nature of intelligence --
if the only reason you came to conclusions was because somebody found
something, then you wouldn't need any intelligence, you would just wait for
events to take place. The intelligence
is exactly what allows you to make judgments about future events that are not
yet known because you haven't found them.
That's the nature of intelligence.
Q But
isn't the discovery of actual weaponry what demonstrates the accuracy of intelligence -- that he was in possession of actual weaponry?
MR. FLEISCHER: And the President is confident in the
accuracy of that intelligence.
Q How?
MR. FLEISCHER: Because based on the history of Iraq, based on Saddam Hussein's previous
possession of weapons of mass destruction which were known, based on the fact
that I just indicated
-- the United Nations,
themselves, concluded that Saddam Hussein had failed
to account for the thousands of liters of biological and chemical weapons that
he possessed.
The only way to lend credence to what
you're saying is that when the United Nations concluded in 1998 that Saddam Hussein did, indeed, have these weapons, that he had
failed to account for them, is that Saddam Hussein
threw out the inspectors and destroyed his weapons of mass destruction and lost
the receipt. How come Saddam Hussein didn't prove to the world that he had
destroyed them if, when, indeed, he had them, yet he was not able to show the
inspectors who were just in Iraq that he did,
indeed, destroy them.
That's a fanciful interpretation.
That's what the President judges as
revisionist.
Q That's
not evidence, that's an argument. And
you said the President is -- knows that the intelligence he got was -- not
that he's confident, not that he has faith, but that he knows that that
intelligence is accurate.
MR. FLEISCHER: The President has every reason to believe
it's accurate.
Q Based on that argument. On the fundraising thing, the President I
guess is expected to raise upwards of $200
million. That's a staggering
figure. What should ordinary Americans
in this tough economy, mixed, shaky economy, make of that enormous figure?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, one, I caution everybody about jumping
to conclusions about how much money ultimately can or will be raised. I think we've had this conversation before
about how people are putting that number out there, and I think that's based on
the fact that the campaign laws doubled the funding and that people are looking
at what he raised in the last cycle.
That's not necessarily indicative of how it will be.
Whatever the case is for the ultimate
number, the President will follow the laws of the land, he will follow the
campaign finance laws, and he will ask the American people of all parties to
support him. The American people will be
the ones who decide how much money the President raises by the amount of
support they decide to give him.
Q Certainly,
but I'm asking about the system and what should people make of our political
system that this incumbent President is going to raise this very large amount
of money?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think it's probably a good indication that
the President has a strong amount of support throughout the country. I think it's also an indication that the
American people are fortunate not to live in a system where they are compelled
to give money from their taxes to support candidates or causes they did not
believe in. That would be taxpayer
financed campaigns, and I think the American people like the fact that
candidates have to seek their support, ask for their support, and are not entitled to take taxpayer money to use for their own
reelections when the taxpayers did not support the cause or the candidate in
question. That's our American
system. It's a newly-reformed system
based on the campaign finance laws that President Bush signed into law.
Q What
will the President base his campaign on?
Why does he deserve reelection?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, again, the President is focused right
now on governing. He is doing what needs
to be done to prepare for the election year.
The President's focus on governing is exactly as he laid out in the
State of the Union message, which is on economic security and on national
security.
Q Two
questions, please. With all the
questions being asked by the intelligence agencies of the United States, as the Senate
is preparing to hold hearings this week presided by Pat Roberts, is the
President in favor of there being open hearings so people can answer some of
the questions that Terry was asking?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, certainly, the Congress has at its
discretion as it goes through its hearing process, decisions about open and
closed. Currently, if there's a
discussion of classified information, that will be done in a closed
session. If it's a discussion of things
that are not classified, it can be done in open session. The President has welcomed these hearings. After all, this is information that has been
shared with the Congress, going back now some --
one decade in both the open and closed format before.
Q My second question, if you
would be so kind. Yesterday, the
authorities announced the detainment of 14 people involved with the illegal
aliens who died in Victoria, Texas last month. Fourteen people have been charged, I think 56
counts. Has the President been following
this thing? I know he's been pretty busy
with this international agenda. Is this
a subject that he's following?
MR. FLEISCHER: This is something that's very close to the
President's heart. And this is where I
think you've heard the President, as a Texan, someone who has seen some of the tragedies
that have taken place on our borders, reflect on, because the President looks
at this, he looks at it as a matter of values, of, as he puts it, a woman, a
mother, who wants to feed a child and come to America for more
opportunity. And we need to find a way
to welcome people, to have opportunity in the United States. And, as he puts it, when a mother wants to
feed a child, she's going to come, she's going to try to come into the United States and give her
child a better life.
And that's why the President views the
importance of improving relations with our allies, and our friends down in Central America and Latin America. That's such an important issue. This is why he was working so hard prior to
September 11th to have a reform of our immigration laws. And it is a very sensitive and, I think,
matter of compassion with the President.
Q Ari, a couple of weeks ago, you said from the podium the
President really wasn't concerned about his retractors
for the Oval Office. Why now are you
concerned? And could you explain -- you didn't answer Steve's question as to why
the President deserves people punching a chad or
pulling down a lever for him this time?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I indicated that the President right
now is focused on governing. And what
the President is focused on when it comes to governing is on providing economic
security and national security for the American people. There will come a time, but it has not come
yet, for the President to engage more in political activity. This is not an election year, but this is the
period of time in which incoming Presidents have, historically, prepared for
their election years.
Q But
what's changed? I mean, just a couple of
weeks ago, you were not worried at all about the Democrats and what they were
saying. And now, you know, you're saying
that they have all these negative words about the President, he's going to
rebut it next year.
MR. FLEISCHER: It's just perfectly consistent. What I've indicated is you've asked me many
times from this podium to respond to this barb or that barb that the Democrats
like to throw at him, and I typically don't have to engage in that because the
President is not. The President is
focused on governing.
But, as I just indicated, there is an
election year coming up next year and the President is going to prepare for
it. So there are two tracks to it, and
the President is engaged on this track.
Q I
want to try once more on the approach Terry was trying to get at. Let me ask you first --
and it may have been too close to when you came out here -- but
right before you came out the American Medical Association endorsed cloning for
research purposes. Anything you want to
say on that?
MR. FLEISCHER: I have not seen their specific report on
it. And as you know, the President's positions
on this are well- known. The President
is opposed to human cloning in all its forms.
And I have not seen any of the nuances in what the AMA has seen or even
the headline on what they have said.
Q Back on the intelligence in
Iraq. After September 11th,
there was a great debate in this country about the failure of the intelligence
agencies to connect certain dots, because of failures to communicate between
agencies, and the like. Is there not a
sliver of doubt anywhere in this administration that it is possible that the
reverse took place in this case, that because of the evidence of known weapons
programs in Iraq that everyone agrees to in the 1990s, anthrax and the like,
that when they saw things happening later, that people connected dots that
necessarily maybe should not have been connected, based on suspicions, not
facts?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think based on what was known and shown and
proved by Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction which they did, indeed, use, based on what
was known about Saddam Hussein's
pursuit of these weapons, and based on the findings of the United Nations
inspectors, based on the findings of the intelligence community throughout the
'90s and into the early part of this President's administration, leading right
up to the war, the conclusions were reached because they were the conclusions
based on the best intelligence. And the
President is confident in them. The
Congress was confident in them.
I would suggest to you, go back and read
any number of speeches given by members of Congress, Democrat and Republican
alike, in 1998, when the Congress passed --
and wisely passed -- the regime change act for Iraq, and you'll find
floor speech after floor speech that talks about Iraq's possession of
weapons of mass destruction. Members of
Congress said it with certainty then; the previous administration said it with
certainty then. And unless somebody
thinks, again, that Saddam Hussein threw out the
weapons inspectors and after he threw out the weapons inspectors he got rid of
his weapons of mass destruction and didn't tell anybody, and had no proof that
he got rid of his weapons of mass destruction --
that's why the intelligence community continues to believe as strongly
as it has and does that Saddam Hussein did, indeed,
have weapons of mass destruction leading up to the war.
Q But
you don't rule out that some of it, some of what the intelligence community
says might not be exactly right? We go
through this every time the threat level goes from yellow to orange, that there
is stuff out there --
MR. FLEISCHER: No, but there's a fundamental conclusion that
has been reached and that doesn't change.
Q Ari, a quick two-part question. You said there will come a time when the
President engages in political activities.
How will we know when that happens?
(Laughter.)
MR. FLEISCHER: You're not trying to lead me somewhere with
that type of question, are you?
Q Never, Ari.
MR. FLEISCHER: Very judicious of you.
Q Will
you be landing somewhere? (Laughter.)
MR. FLEISCHER: I hope you enjoyed it. (Laughter.) Your network surely did.
You know, there will come a time when the
President will, as events get closer to an election, to Election Day, the
President will engage in more overt campaigning. That time is not here. I think the American people typically think
campaigns go on too long, and the President tends to agree with that. Nevertheless, the President will prepare for
the campaign -- after all, next year does end in an even
number.
Q And
also in the last, 2000 and coming up, the President will accept federal funds
in the general election.
MR. FLEISCHER: Correct.
Q Is
there any dash of hypocrisy in that he doesn't contribute to that fund when he
files his tax returns?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, interestingly, we talked before about
taxpayer-financed elections, and while for the congressional races, Senate
races and House races, and for overwhelming majority of the funds that go to
presidential races is voluntary, there is that check on the tax reforms. And the best I remember this from IRS data is
something like only 12 percent, or down to 8 percent of the American people
check that box. So I think the President
is in pretty good company with a number of American people who do not check
that box.
Q Why
would he take the money, then?
MR. FLEISCHER: As you know, he's not taking the money for
the primary campaign; he will take it for the general.
Q Does
he prefer a privately-financed system altogether?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think he signed into law the system that he
supports.
Q The
amount of money the President is trying to raise, as
everyone has noted, is an enormous amount of money. You seem to be suggesting that the President
views this as an arsenal that he can dip into in order to fight back against
Democratic claims that he's doing one thing or another. Is that sort of the way you see it?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think there is a certain
obviousness in our political system, in our democracy, that when candidates run
for office they raise money. And the
President will begin raising money tonight to help him prepare for a year that
ends in an even number.
Q But
he's going to extraordinary lengths. I mean --
MR. FLEISCHER: Not really.
He's holding fundraisers.
Q Right. But he's
going to raise more money than anyone has ever raised,
twice what he raised last time, which itself was a record. I mean, doesn't --
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't think that's an indication of the
lengths to which the President is going.
I think it's an indication about the lengths of --
the breadth of support that he has from the American people. After all, an incumbent, or even a challenger
cannot raise money if the person does not have the support from the public. And the President has broad support from the
public; otherwise he would not be successful in this endeavor.
Q Right. But we were
talking more about the amount of money he's going to raise. And even when he was a challenger he raised a
huge amount of money. I mean, I'm just
trying to get a sense from you of why the President thinks it's necessary to
raise as much as he hopes to raise.
MR.
FLEISCHER: Again, there are nine
Democrats who spend all of their time saying negative things about the
President. And that means there is a
large resonation, a large reinforcement of a negative message that's coming at
the President. The President is a
competitor and he will prepare for what he needs to do in a reelection.
Q Okay. One other thing, if I may, on a
different topic. David Kay has been
appointed special advisor to Tenet, as you've noted here. There was one story that suggested that the
White House had sort of dumped the whole responsibility for finding weapons of
mass destruction on to the CIA and put it in charge of the effort to find
weapons in Iraq.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, it's the CIA and the DOD doing it
together. If you can imagine a country
as large as Iraq --
which, as you know, is the size of California -- it
requires a tremendous number of people to help move with the logistics, to get
people into place, to carry out their work.
Iraq remains a place
with great danger in many places, and so there has to be security provided for
some of the experts to travel around. So
it's a combination, it's a combined effort of the CIA and the DOD.
Q And
who is in charge of that effort?
MR. FLEISCHER: It's a combined effort. So it's the two of them. I think when it comes to intelligence information, the CIA is the keeper of the intelligence
information. When it comes to much of
the logistics and to the assistance and to the moving around, DOD, of course,
can help provide that.
Q Ari, when you said earlier that Saddam
must have had weapons of mass destruction because he had them and we don't have
receipts for their destruction, and so forth, are you indicating that we went
to war basically on an inference that he had to have them, or was there
specific, credible evidence --
MR. FLEISCHER: This was asked before. It is based on intelligence information that
led to the conclusion of this administration, the previous administration and
many on the Hill that Saddam Hussein did indeed have
weapons of mass destruction, of course.
Q So
there was enough specific, credible information of the existence of weapons,
not any inference, but of the actual existence of weapons, there was enough of
that to lead us to go to war?
MR. FLEISCHER: Let me give you an example --
Q Can
you answer that question before you --
MR. FLEISCHER: -- Saddam
having weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein's militaristic history in which he had used weapons
of mass destruction against others
--
Q I'm
not asking about history. I'm
specifically not asking about history.
I'm asking about what we saw on the ground just before the war, did we
know that those weapons were there.
MR. FLEISCHER: You cannot separate the two. You cannot separate history --
Q So
you're saying that we did not have enough of that.
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm saying it's a combination; that the
decision to go to war was based on the knowledge that Saddam
Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and Saddam
Hussein had a history of using weapons of mass destruction, that he had a
militaristic history; and that we successfully carried out a war, and did so in
a way that Saddam Hussein was not able to use his
weapons of mass destruction, that he may have had some of it destroyed, that he
had it hidden, as part of a whole apparatus of concealment that he mastered
over the years as he dealt with United Nations inspectors.
Q On
the credible evidence that we did know about, whatever amount of that there
was, I assume that our intelligence capabilities before the war are the same as
they were -- as they are now. So how it is possible that we were able to
discern those weapons before the war, but we can't when we have 200,000 troops
on the ground?
MR. FLEISCHER: Let me give you a good example. These are the biological trucks that
Secretary Powell spoke of at the United Nations. When Secretary Powell spoke about those, he
couldn't tell anybody exactly where they were, but we had intelligence
information that he had them. Now, the
inability to say exactly where they are does not disprove the fact that he has
them. And of course, as time went along,
Secretary Powell was proven exactly right and the intelligence community was
proven exactly right about what they said on these trucks.
The President has said before that he is
patient, the American people are patient and he is confident that in time we
will find this.
Q Several questions on fundraising. First of all, why is it that the President
checks the "no" box? Does he
have a philosophical rejection, or what's his reason for doing that?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think the President views
campaign funding as a voluntary matter, as the American people do, where people
want to support the candidate of their choice.
We have on the presidential level a somewhat mixed system where there is
some level of taxpayer support. And the
President, as you know, in the primary is not going to accept any taxpayer
support, he will raise funds privately --
which means he will get support as the American people see fit to give
it.
Q But
why does he -- why does he check the "no" box?
MR. FLEISCHER: Because I think the President's approach is
that from him, personally, that he believes in personally financing the causes
in which he believes.
Q But
he does accept public funding for the general election.
MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct.
Q Yet
he is not contributing to it by checking that box. Isn't there a disconnect?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's the way our system works. If he contributed to it, he'd have three more
dollars.
Q But
you won't answer the question why --
MR. FLEISCHER: I think I just did.
Q The
President has a fairly brisk fundraising schedule over the next few weeks. Does he want to get all of this, or most of
this done before the first of the year?
Is that the timetable that he set forth on fundraising?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think just as always in our system, the
President will follow the law and raise funds over a period of time, as the
campaign determines, and that will continue throughout this year and into next
year.
Q And
into next year?
MR. FLEISCHER: Certainly.
Q One last question.
David was asking you about when he might start TV advertising,
your answer was to the effect that he intends next year to rebuff the
Democratic arguments against him. Does
that imply that he won't start advertising --
MR. FLEISCHER: My answer was that it's too soon to say, it's
too soon to indicate. David very
cleverly tried to pin me down to a more specific timetable, and I just
indicated it's too soon to say.
Q Well,
your words were, though, he intends next year to rebut those arguments. Does that indicate that you won't begin to
put up TV spots this year?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm saying it's too soon for us to even begin
any discussion about when any type of paid media campaign may or may not begin.
Q Ari, one of the
great personal and political strengths that the President's polls
show is that he's trusted by the American people. Is he concerned that the longer this weapons of mass destruction issue goes on that it's going to
erode that trust?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think the American people have faith
and confidence in the statements that the President made. And the American people, after all, have
heard these very same statements for some 10 years now from elected officials,
from members of Congress, from the previous administration. So I think, again, this is not new to the
American people and the American people understand that Saddam
Hussein had a very, very detailed program of concealment that he mastered in
order to hide his weapons of mass destruction from the inspectors.
And again I remind you that in the early to
mid-'90s, were it not for the defectors, the United Nations inspectors never
would have even known about the weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein did, indeed, possess and was proved to have
possessed at that time. It's the nature
of concealment, and Saddam Hussein was a master of
it.
Q Isn't
there a point, though, where the longer this goes on, the more erosion there
might be?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, again, you'll be able to make those
judgments over time.
Q If
I could follow up on Jim's question. I
think the article that he was citing also suggested that Director Tenet is a
potential fall guy if it turns out that there --
you know, if WMD doesn't pop up.
Can you tell us about that? Is that,
in fact, the case? Is the Director of
the CIA --
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, the President has every confidence
that the intelligence that he received was accurate intelligence and that
weapons of mass destruction will, indeed, be found. The President has full faith in Director
Tenet. And the President is focused on
pursuing the reconstruction of Iraq. We have the team that's on the ground now
that is working on the finding of the weapons of mass destruction.
Q Is
there one person that is responsible for rounding up the WMD? This article did suggest that the onus has
put on at least CIA at this point.
MR. FLEISCHER: It's a joint effort, just as I said.
Q One
more unrelated follow-up to Tom --
thank you very much. (Laughter.)
MR. FLEISCHER: Wait a minute, I didn't answer you yet.
Q The
President said he's behind the tax credit, there's no --
for low-income folks, there's no question about that. However, it's been a few weeks since that
position was first announced from this podium. Is it getting closer to a time where the
President may have to suggest to members of his own party that this is a good thing --
MR. FLEISCHER: The House of Representatives just took its
action last week, and now the conference between the House and the Senate will
begin. This is the pace the Congress
follows. But the President's message to
the Congress is unequivocal. The
President wants to sign the child credit into law. He thinks it's the appropriate thing to do
for low-income families. He wants the
House and the Senate to quickly reconcile their differences so that it can,
indeed, be signed into law.
Q Ari, two questions.
First, can you comment on reports that Condi
Rice will be going to the Middle East?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not going to engage a speculation about
any potential travel. If we have travel
from the National Security Advisor, we'll keep you posted, but I'm not going to
speculate.
Q Secondly, on fundraising. Governor Dean has said that it's a threat to
democracy for any one presidential candidate to have two or three times more
money to get his or her message out than any other candidate. Regardless of how much money the President
plans to raise, does he see any merit whatsoever in
that argument?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well again, I think the amount of money that
candidates raise in our democracy is a reflection of the amount of support they
have around the country. So the
President is proud to have the support of the American people, and the American
people will ultimately be the ones who decide how much funding goes to any
Democrat or any Republican.
Q How
can that really be reflective of his support, though, considering he's getting
money from people who can afford to go to dinner for $2,000? I mean, most Americans cannot afford
that. So how can that really be
reflective of his support from middle America?
MR. FLEISCHER: The rules are equal. The rules are the same for both parties, for
the Democrats and the Republicans. Both
parties compete knowing that. They, of
course, raise money from all groups of Americans, including many low-dollar
donors. And, again, the American people
decide how much support to give either candidate in either party.
Q It's
also known, Ari, that the labor union members
overwhelmingly support Democrats, or have in previous elections. So how can that really, you know -- that doesn't really support your argument.
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not sure of your point, Heidi.
Q I
mean, Gore was endorsed by most of the labor --
you know, major labor unions.
MR. FLEISCHER: Right.
So the American people have spoken because one segment of our society
has spoken? I stand by what I've said
about the American people, broadly.
Q Ari, the federal
appeals court ruling on detainees, allowing the administration to
continue not to publicly identify these detainees -- why
was it necessary not to identify these folks who were rounded up after
September 11th?
MR. FLEISCHER: This is a matter the Department of Justice
works on in a way that makes certain that we
-- they are protective of the
national security needs of our country, while making certain that it's all done
within the Constitution. And that's what
the courts have found today.
Q I
understand the argument, but why is just publishing their names such a threat
to national security?
MR. FLEISCHER: When it comes to the legal matters of how
cases are prosecuted in a court or the procedures by which detainments
are followed, the Department of Justice is your source on that. The Department of Justice may have more to
indicate on that.
I'd note today the Department of Justice is
also announcing today the follow-up to the President's announcement in the
State of the Union from two years ago about policies dealing
with banning racial profiling. The
Department of Justice has an important announcement that they are making today
about the follow-up to that, where they are taking action now to make certain
that racial profiling is not allowed by our federal law enforcement
agencies. And the President is very
pleased to hear the Department of Justice taking that action today.
Q Ari, you said several times today, the President is still
confident that weapons of mass destruction will be found in Iraq. But last week the President made a distinction,
and said that he was confident evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program --
MR. FLEISCHER: Right.
And I was asked about that when the President said that, and I indicated
to the press that very day that the President uses the two interchangeably. When he says, weapons program, he means also,
weapons of mass destruction.
Q And can you give us an
update on Ambassador Wolf's activities in the Mideast?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Ambassador Wolf is on the
ground in the Middle East. He's already had a series of meetings with
officials there. And there are a series
of talks that are underway in the Middle East. There are talks between Palestinians and the Palestinians -- different entities within the Palestinian
community -- including the terrorist organization Hamas.
The Ambassador is in contact with Israeli
officials; he's in contact with Palestinian officials. And the reason he is there and the reasons
that Secretary Powell and Dr. Rice met yesterday with the Israeli chief of staff -- the chief of staff to the Israeli Prime
Minister -- was because of the President's strong
message, which he continues to repeat, about the need for the parties to adhere
to the road map to follow the vision toward peace. There's a lot of work underway behind the
scenes in these meetings that I just described, trying to help achieve the
return of the peace process laid out in the road map.
Q Thank
you. Two questions, Iran and Saudi Arabia. First on Iran. How much support is the U.S. willing to give
the students -- the dissenting students who are actually
putting their lives at risk in their protests?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, we're alarmed about the reports of the
arrests and the provocations that the Iranian regime has taken against the
protesters. The protesters are
expressing their peaceful voices.
They're expressing their yearning to have a government that is
representative and a government that is tolerant. And as the President said in his July 12th
statement, which is his definitive statement of policy of United States'
approach to Iran, we believe in the voices of these Iranians and we hope the
day will come when the Iranians have a government that allows reform to take
place.
Q Will
the U.S. intervene to
protect them in any way?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, our message is the voice of support that
you have heard for the Iranian students.
Q Also, on Saudi Arabia. There's been quite a bit of publicity today on the Saudis' alleged
support of terrorist groups, and also on the issue of divided families,
American families hold up in the embassy, and so forth, trying to get their
half-Saudi children out of the country. Any comments on those two issues?
MR. FLEISCHER: No. On
the second one, that's a State Department matter that is a specific
matter. Family by family, they review these
cases. It's not only in Saudi Arabia where you have
heartrending cases about family disputes that involve the laws of another
country and the laws of the United States. That happens around the world. And that's why the State Department has
consular offices and diplomats stationed around the world, to help each family
deal with the specifics of their individual case with each foreign
country.
Q Saudi support of terrorists?
MR. FLEISCHER: Saudi Arabia, as the
President has said, is a good ally of the United States in the war
against terror. And certainly Saudi Arabia, even before,
but especially since the bombing in Riyadh, has stepped up
its activities to fight terror.
Q Senator
Patrick Leahy sent the President a list of names of
candidates that he finds acceptable to fill a vacancy on the Supreme
Court. What is the President's response
to the Senator, who is stepping outside the Senate's traditional advise and consent role?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, number one,
there are no vacancies on the Supreme Court.
Number two, in the event a vacancy were to occur at some point in the
future, the President will follow the Constitution. And the Constitution says that the President
shall nominate, and the Senate shall participate through advice and consent.
Q Ari, on page one of this morning's Washington Times, you
are quoted as disagreeing with the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee in saying, "The President's message is that the best security
comes from the Israelis and Palestinians working together to fight
terror." And my question is, can you name even one Palestinian organization or
individual who has ever expressed realistic willingness to join Israel in fighting Hamas or any of the many other Palestinian terrorist
organizations?
MR. FLEISCHER: This is why what took place in Jordan was so
important, because previously, with Yasser Arafat in charge of the Palestinian Authority, the answer
was hard to find. Now there is a new
moment of opportunity both for the Israelis and for the Palestinian people,
with Prime Minister Abbas and with his Security
Minister Dahlan in charge --
Mohammed Dahlan, in charge of fighting
terror.
And the President does believe in the
statements that he received from Prime Minister Abbas
about his dedication to finding a peaceful solution, and to fighting
terror. And, very importantly, the Arab
nations are also participating in helping Prime Minister Abbas
and Minister Dahlan to be successful on their fight
against the terrorist elements.
Q Former
Vermont Governor Howard Dean, who won the Wisconsin state Democratic
convention poll decisively, over Senator Kerry and the others, has said,
regarding the location of Saddam's WMDs, "How much did the President know, and when did
he know it?" And my question is, in
view of the statements last year in which Senators Kerry, Liebermann,
and Graham, as well as Congressman Gephardt, all
affirmed that Saddam had WMDs,
doesn't the President believe this Dean smear is more directed at Dean's rival
Democrats than at the President?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think --
the fact of the matter is there is a terrible split in the Democratic
Party and among its presidential candidates about whether or not Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.
Q So
he's going after the Democrats rather than the President, isn't he?
MR. FLEISCHER: Many who have the most experience have said
that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction,
indeed.
Thank you.
END 1:11 P.M. EDT
|