For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
June 26, 2003
Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
The James S. Brady Briefing Room
11:45 A.M. EDT
MR. FLEISCHER: Good morning. The President began with an
intelligence briefing, followed by his FBI briefing. And then he met
with the President of Panama, where they discussed trade between the
United States and Panama. The President thanked the President of
Panama, President Moscoso, for her country's excellent law enforcement
and security cooperation along the Panama Canal. He congratulated the
country of Panama, the people of Panama on the 100th anniversary of
independence. And he thanked the government of Panama for their
support on Article 98 action on international agreements.
The President will, at 12:25 p.m., make remarks at the Corporate
Council on Africa's U.S.-Africa Business Summit. The President will
announce there his agenda for Africa. This is in anticipation of the
President's upcoming trip to Africa. And the President will discuss at
quite some length the situation in Congo, Liberia, Sudan. He'll
announce a new $100 million anti-terrorism effort, particularly to
include airport and seaport security. And he'll talk about his already
announced initiatives dealing with helping the people of Africa in the
fight against hunger, the fight against AIDS, to improve education, and
to develop the country and the continent, and to increase trade.
Later this afternoon, the President will meet with the Prime
Minister of Mauritius, and I anticipate that trade will be the topic at
those discussions, as well.
With that, I'm more than happy to take questions. Campbell.
Q Ari, yesterday we asked you about General Abizaid's comments
during his confirmation hearing, when he said that it was perplexing
that they had not yet found weapons of mass destruction. You said you
had not yet seen the report. Presumably, you've had a chance to go
through his comments. Do you agree that it's perplexing that they have
yet to find WMD?
MR. FLEISCHER: And let me thank you for giving me the opportunity
to look at it, which I've done. I've read most of what he said
yesterday, and indeed, he did say that it was perplexing in that sense
that we had not yet found it. He also went on to say -- and I quote
him -- "I'm confident we will show that there was deception. I'm
confident we will show that there was deception. I'm also confident at
some point it will lead us to actual weapons of mass destruction."
And then in explaining as the senators pressed him on what he meant
by perplexity, the General stated that, "Before the war, we picked up
the movement at the depots. We thought that meant that they were
certainly moving things forward for use of military operations. It may
very well have been that they received the order, quite to the
contrary, to get rid of them. But I don't know. And I think we won't
know for a while."
And I think he's stating the obvious, that we haven't found the
weapons yet. Given the fact that we have intelligence which we
strongly believe in and continue to believe in, that is perplexing. I
think it's similar to what the President said when he talked about, in
an interview, I think, with NBC, when the President said he understands
that people may be skeptical until the weapons are actually found. So
I think it's a rather plain English description of the process and the
fact that we haven't discovered them yet. But he also stated in there
his confidence that we will.
Q But, Ari, it's completely different than what the White House
has said about the same issue. The President has always said it's not
surprising, you've said it's not surprising that we haven't found them,
because they've engaged in a program of deception and denial for the
past decade. He's saying it's perplexing. Which is it?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think it's just as the President said, he
understands that people will be skeptical until they're found.
Q But that's not what -- that's not what he's saying. He's
saying it's perplexing. You're saying it's not surprising. So you're
at odds.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, when he says -- when General Abizaid says,
as he said to the senators yesterday, "Before the war we picked up the
movement at depots that we thought meant they were certainly moving
things forward for use in military operations. It may very well have
been that they received the order, quite to the contrary, to get rid of
them." That deals --
Q So is he incorrect in saying it's perplexing? Or should he
be saying it's not surprising, based on the pattern of deception and
denial?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I'm kind of perplexed by what the difference
is between perplexing and surprising.
Q Well, if you're perplexed, you don't understand it. If
you're not surprised, you expected it.
MR. FLEISCHER: Given the fact that they have been hiding, just as
he talked about -- he stated in here, how they have been -- "I'm
confident we'll show there was deception" -- I think it fits the same
remarks the President said when he said he's -- he understands
people's skepticism.
Q Yasser Arafat today said that a formal announcement of the
cease-fire may be coming soon. Is this something the White House is
concerned about, to have him in this out-front role? Does it show that
Abbas really isn't the real power and isn't the one, as the White House
would like to see out front?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think the President is less interested in who is
speaking and more interested in who is acting. And by acting, he means
who is taking actions to actually reduce the violence and to dismantle
Hamas. That's where the President's focus is; less interest in who
happens to be speaking at any one time.
Q You guys have said over and over and over that you don't want
Arafat in the frontline role. And here he is playing that very role at
a very crucial moment.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the United States has been unequivocal, and
we will continue to deal with Prime Minister Abbas because he can
deliver on peace. But the United States, obviously, doesn't control
everything that everybody in the region can say. Different people have
freedom to speak. That doesn't mean that their voices count in the
halls of this government.
Q Doesn't it show that Abbas -- that Arafat -- I'm sorry
-- is helping to deliver on peace, if he's the one who's out front
talking about a cease-fire, which is something that all the sides have
wanted?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, the President is less interested in who's
talking and more interested in actions. That's the real measure. Will
Hamas be dismantled? Will violence diminish -- will the violence
stop? That's action, not rhetoric.
Q By announcing a cease-fire is in itself action, isn't it?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think you have to refer your question to
Palestinian authorities about different people speaking. You know the
point of view of the President and the Secretary of State.
Q Has the White House still received no heads-up on Supreme
Court resignations?
MR. FLEISCHER: Right. Nothing new to share.
Q And when or if there is a vacancy, should we continue to be
guided by the President's statement in the 2000 campaign that he would
pick someone who would be in the mold of Justices Scalia and Thomas?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President made many statements in the campaign
about this topic and they are all operative. I'm not certain that you
just accurately quoted the President, though. I don't think he said,
pick somebody. I think he talked about people he respects. When it
came to pick people, he talked about picking people who were from the
mainstream and who were not going to be -- who would not -- write
laws, but who would be strict interpretations of the Constitution. But
in any case, unless there is an announcement, there is no vacancy.
Q Ari, the measures you outlined for dealing with African
regional conflicts this morning fall short of -- in a couple areas of
what's been urged by the United States. Britain has urged the United
States to lead an international force in Algeria. And Kofi Annan has
called on the United States to support expansion of the U.N.
peacekeeping force in Congo. My question, is the United States open to
further steps than what you outlined this morning?
MR. FLEISCHER: You know the President will begin his remarks
shortly, so you'll hear in some greater length what the President
thinks about each of these topics. And I think the best thing is just
to let the President's remarks speak for themselves when he gives
them. He'll be beginning in just a little over 20 minutes or so.
Q Okay. Does the President support the provision of $200
million to rescue AmeriCorps? The supporters say the program faces
crippling and unexpected budget cuts.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President, one, was disappointed by the
funding levels for fiscal 2003, and that's why his budget for the
upcoming fiscal year represents sizeable increases in funding for
AmeriCorps, so it can have 75,000 volunteers, up from its current level
which is 50,000. As a result of an accounting fix in the formula that
Congress uses to determine the funding levels for AmeriCorps, we are
already making some progress toward pushing above the 50,000 figure
this year. And we're going to continue to work with Congress to get
the funding up for the '04 levels -- to the '04 levels he requested.
Q So do you think the program can be spared, the severe cuts in
staffing that --
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think it remains to be seen. The President
believes in AmeriCorps. The President thinks AmeriCorps is doing good
work across America, helping communities, and providing very valuable
outlets for people to make contributions and to work hard for different
communities across the country. That's why he's supported a rather
large increase in the number of volunteers. So the President is on
record. He is working to accomplish it. He's going to fight for it.
We can't get everything we always seek with the Congress, but the
President wants to do it.
Q Ari, can you go back on the questions we were beginning to
pursue this morning on what the significance was of this finding in the
backyard of some pieces of a centrifuge and some plans. Have you been
able to learn any more --
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes.
Q -- about that? And what the origin of them was, what the
supplier country was, and whether the equipment found was significant
enough to make more than one prototype centrifuge?
MR. FLEISCHER: Okay. I have some additional guidance for you on
it. I'm not going to be able to answer all of those questions, but let
me start at the beginning on this topic. The head of Iraq's pre-1991
centrifuge uranium enrichment program, Dr. Mahdi Ubaydi, approached
United States officials in Baghdad and turned over a volume of
centrifuge documents and components that he had hidden in his garden
from inspectors since 1991. The doctor told us that he was interviewed
by IAEA inspectors most recently in 2002, but he did not reveal any of
this to the inspectors. Dr. Ubaydi told us that these items, the
blueprints and the key centrifuge pieces, represented a template for
what would be needed to rebuild a centrifuge uranium enrichment
program. He also claimed that this concealment was part of a secret,
high-level plan to reconstitute the nuclear weapons program once
sanctions had ended.
Those are the facts about what the United States government has
learned from this Iraqi scientist. And that is his description of the
material that was found, indeed, in his garden.
Q If I could pursue it for just a minute. Obviously, the U.N.
had found the nuclear program after the first Gulf War, had announced
that it was then dismantled. We knew they had the knowledge, but they
said that they had dismantled the pieces. Are you telling us that what
you have found is essentially some remnant pieces that the IAEA had not
gotten when they shipped everything else out of the country?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think what this says is that buried in one
scientist's garden was a template for what would be needed to rebuild
their centrifuge uranium enrichment program. And according to this
very scientist, this is information, these are materials that were
deliberately hidden, with the purpose being to produce them once the
sanctions had been lifted from the country in an effort to reconstitute
their nuclear program.
Q So, Ari, can you give us a sense of the scale and scope of
this? Are there many scientists who we don't know about who are
providing information? Or is this considered a breakthrough?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, we're hopeful that this example will lead to
other Iraqi scientists stepping forward to provide information. We
have maintained right from the beginning that the best way, based on
the history of what was discovered in the '90s, to obtain information
is as a result of Iraqis providing information to the United States,
just as this scientist has.
This case also illustrates the challenge that the international
community faces in Iraq, as we search for evidence of weapons of mass
destruction programs that were designed to elude detection from the
very scientist who often would not share with the international
inspectors what they knew and where they had things hidden.
Q Can you comment on the Supreme Court decisions, two historic
cases, one on affirmative action? Does the President believe that
there's any circumstance in which it's appropriate to consider race as
a part of determining admissions?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, of course, the Supreme Court has spoken. The
justices have ruled. And the President, as he said, felt -- believed
this was a carefully balanced decision. And it represents -- as the
President said, he applauds the decision in that it represents a way to
get diversity achieved on our college campuses, and to do so without
imposing quotas.
Q Does he believe that there's any circumstance in which it is
appropriate to use race as a factor in determining admissions?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I'd refer you right back to what the
President said in his statement. He applauds the fact that the Court
recognizes the importance of finding diversity on campuses. The
President thinks it's appropriate to do so in a race-neutral way, in a
way that increases diversity and does so without quotas.
Q And on the Texas sodomy case, does the President believe that
gay men have the legal right to have sexual relations in the privacy of
their own home?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think on this decision, the administration did
not file a brief in this case, unlike in the Michigan case. And this
is now a state matter.
Q So he has no position on this?
MR. FLEISCHER: It's just as I indicated, the administration did
not file a brief on this -- as, I think, you know.
Q Ari, back on the Iraqi scientist. Why isn't this evidence
that, in fact, Iraq had literally buried its nuclear program, that it
was not operative, and that they -- and that it was not a current
threat to the United States?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, nobody said it was operative. In fact,
people have said, clearly, that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction of
a biological and chemical nature. We expressed concerns about the
development of a nuclear program, but nobody ever maintained that Iraq
had nuclear weapons. I think the question is, did this good scientist,
under orders, bury this for the purpose of hiding it and bringing it
out later? Or did he bury it for the purpose of getting rid of it?
And as he has indicated to the United States, he buried it for the
purpose of letting the inspectors leave the country, having sanctions
be removed, and then using it to reconstitute a nuclear program.
Q The Vice President's words were, they are reconstituting a
nuclear program --
Q Thank you.
MR. FLEISCHER: And I think that's based on --
Q -- evidence of an active reconstitution?
MR. FLEISCHER: This is one piece. It was certainly not the only
garden in Iraq. But also, the Vice President was aware of a matter
that is in dispute between the United States and the IAEA involving
centrifuges, as you know.
Q Ari, we always knew that Iraq had the capability, and this is
evidence that Iraq had the capability. But it is not evidence that it
was a current threat to the United States, or that's what your critics
are saying. Why was -- why is this evidence that Iraq posed a
nuclear threat to the United States if this material had been buried
since 1991?
MR. FLEISCHER: Be mindful of what I said; this is evidence that
Iraqis -- an Iraqi scientist was hiding information from the
inspectors. And the purpose of this was to bring it back out, to
unearth it after sanctions were lifted against Iraq for the purpose of
reconstituting a nuclear program. The fear, of course, is that Iraq
would reconstitute a nuclear program and, therefore, obtain nuclear
weapons. And I remind you that in the early 1990s, the inspectors were
prepared to give Iraq a clean bill of health when it came to a nuclear
program. And only as a result of information that was obtained by
Iraqi defectors did we later learn that Iraq was far, far closer to
having nuclear weapons than the international inspectors ever thought.
Q You just said that this is not the only garden in Iraq. Do
you expect to have similar finds like this in upcoming weeks and
months?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, as I indicated, we're hopeful that this
example will encourage other Iraqis with knowledge of Saddam's WMD
programs to come forward.
Q Ari, can you tell us something about the meeting President
Bush held with the President of Panama?
MR. FLEISCHER: I just did.
Q Sorry, I was covering her.
MR. FLEISCHER: You missed it. I'm sure it's exactly what she said
to you. The President congratulated Panama on their 100th anniversary
of independence. He thanked the President for her nation's strong
support on security cooperation along the Panama Canal. They talked
about trade. That's the heart of the issues.
Q Second question, Ari, has do to with the fact that --
MR. FLEISCHER: He also thanked her for the Article 98 cooperation,
which was important.
Q Second question has to do with the fact that almost daily an
American soldier loses his life or are wounded in Iraq. Is the
government considering any additional measures? Because we hear talk
of reducing troops. Is there any chance there may be an increase, at
least of police force, or people who special in security issues?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think all these issues were discussed at great
length by Secretary Rumsfeld at his news conference yesterday -- the
day before yesterday. And the Secretary is always looking at the force
structure to make sure it's the most efficient and effective force
structure to bring greater security to Iraq. As you know, the number
of joint patrols that are being operated with Iraqi policemen has gone
up substantially. But Iraq remains -- particularly in certain
regions of Iraq -- a dangerous place, where there are loyalists who
are loyal to Saddam Hussein, who killed and tortured Iraqis, and now
they seek to harm Americans. That's why it's important, in the
President's judgment, for us to make certain that we maintain our
presence there to finish the job to help rebuild Iraq.
Q On the Iraqi matter, are you saying that it is less of a case
of an impending threat from Iraqi nuclear programs, and more of a
question of Iraqi intent and the lengths to which they were willing to
go to conceal?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, again, I'm referring specifically to what is
known in this one scientist's garden. And what is known in this one
scientist's garden is he hid this equipment, and the purpose of hiding
it, according to him, was to bring it back out later, after the
inspectors left the country and after sanctions were removed, for the
purpose of reconstituting Iraq's nuclear program.
Q So an indication of Iraqi intent, even though it wasn't an
ongoing program.
MR. FLEISCHER: In this one scientist's case, that's exactly
right. In this one scientist's case, an example of intent.
Q Now, I gather that he is conveying to U.S. authorities what
he was told by the people who told him to bury it. I mean, was there a
sense of when they were going to bring these things out? Was it just
after inspectors left, after sanctions had been lifted? What's the --
MR. FLEISCHER: According to what he told us, after sanctions had
been lifted. And if you recall, there was discussion during the 1990s
about lifting the sanctions. The United States helped defeat that
effort, but there was discussion that would have made this immediately
relevant if sanctions had been lifted.
Q Can you remind us of the one incident you were mentioning a
moment ago, where the IAEA was on the verge of saying -- or
inspectors were on the verge of saying that there were no nuclear
weapons in Iraq?
MR. FLEISCHER: Just as I said. In the early 1990s, the IAEA was
close to delivering a clean bill of health for Iraq on nuclear
programs, only to learn from defectors that Iraq did, indeed, have a
program to try to develop nuclear weapons. And it was judged that
without the war Iraq would have been able to develop -- the first
war, the 1991 war -- Iraq would have been able to develop nuclear
weapons much sooner than IAEA ever expected.
Q You made the point that the centrifuge in the gardens is an
example of Iraqi intent to deceive and intent to reconstitute a banned
program when they had the opportunity to do so.
MR. FLEISCHER: Keep in mind, I'm reporting to you what the Iraqi
scientist told the United States. These are really his explanations of
why this material was buried in his garden.
Q My question is, it is not an example of something else,
specifically the success of the international program of sanctions and
inspections in disrupting an illicit program to the point where
significant pieces of an important piece of equipment had to remain
buried in a garden --
MR. FLEISCHER: Surely. And that's one of the reasons the United
States, in the '90s, opposed efforts to lift the sanctions. And that's
why the President went to the United Nations and said, send the
inspectors back in there. The more pressure on Iraq, the President
judged, the better. But clearly, given Iraq's refusal to cooperate
with the inspectors has shown that in 2002 the IAEA spoke to this
scientist -- did he tell them what was buried in his yard, for the
scientist -- for the international community to find it in 2002? No,
he would have been killed if he did.
Q Certainly not. But doesn't it show that that decade-long,
12-year-long effort to constrain and to contain Iraq's illicit weapons
programs was pretty successful?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think it also was very close to being lifted.
Sanctions were very close to being lifted. And keep in mind that the
inspectors had been removed from the country for four years. And
during that four years, we are still now just learning what Saddam
Hussein was doing with his weapons program.
Q Nobody was talking about lifting sanctions in 2002. Doesn't
it at least partially undermine the administration's argument that it
was necessary to go to war --
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm hard-pressed to understand how the discovery of
this nuclear equipment, which would be a template to reconstituting a
program, that was buried in a scientist's backyard undermines the case
the administration was making. It seems to me rather the opposite.
Q President and Tony Blair addressed the Iraqi people. Many
Iraqi people now -- at the end of the war. Many Iraqi people now
don't identify with Mr. Bremer, they identify with the President. Does
the President have -- given some of the security concerns that Iraqi
people justifiably have now, does the President have any plans to
address the Iraqi people again, either directly going there,
television, radio, whatever? And if not, why not?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, there's nothing immediately planned, except for
the obvious fact that every time the President speaks publicly now the
Iraqi people can, in growing numbers, hear about it as a result of the
fact that there's a free press in Iraq for the first time. And there
are satellite capabilities in Iraq now, that people can receive news
and information. So the President's words are carried around the
world. And now, for the first time, the Iraqi people do get to hear
and see what President Bush says.
Q Are there attempts by the U.S. government to interview some
more scientists, find them, assuming there's lists --
MR. FLEISCHER: Of course.
Q Can you give us some sense of that?
MR. FLEISCHER: It's part of the ongoing mission, that is, both the
mission headed by David Kay, from the CIA's point of view, in
cooperation with the Department of Defense, who provides much of the
logistics and the ability to move around Iraq and carry out the work of
the group that is charged with finding where the weapons of mass
destruction are. That includes conversations with officials; it
includes reading gigantic amounts of paper, which takes time, translate
them, have experts who are fluent in Arabic read them, and some of the
papers could be in English. But it involves going through these
documents and talking to officials. This is all ongoing.
Q Ari, I have two questions. One is on the California trip,
another one on Supreme Court, but just one quick clarification. You
said the scientist approached U.S. authorities. When did he approach
U.S. authorities?
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't have the precise dates of when the first
contacts were made with the scientist.
Q Would it be this year, though?
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't have the dates.
Q And on the Supreme Court, has President Bush or yourself
given any further thought to Senator Daschle's proposal to have the
President confer with Senate Democrats before naming any possible
prospective --
MR. FLEISCHER: Sure, it's just as I described before. The
President does believe in the importance of consultation. That's why
his chief counsel has already met with several of the Democrats who
have sent letters to the White House. But the President has not ruled
in or ruled out what actions or meetings or different things he may or
may not do for a vacancy that does not exist.
Q And on the trip to California tomorrow, the opponents of the
Gray Davis recall are saying they are going to use Bush's trip as a way
to push him to change his opinion about not giving any formal stance on
that. What is his position on that?
MR. FLEISCHER: This is a matter for the people of California to
decide.
Q And if they call on him to stand -- take a stand on the
recall --
MR. FLEISCHER: He will say he just did. This is a matter for the
people of California to decide. That's the President's view.
Q Ari, regarding the President's forthcoming trip to Africa,
there have been widespread reports of tens of thousands of blacks held
in actual slavery today, with Newsweek publishing photographs of slaves
in Mauritania, and the Baltimore Sun sending two writers to buy and
free slaves in Sudan. When the Clintons visited the African nations
adjacent to these slave countries, I can recall no report that either
of them said anything about this enormous evil of black slavery today.
And my question: President Bush will surely speak out about this
slavery in Africa, won't he, Ari?
MR. FLEISCHER: As I indicated yesterday, the President, during
this trip, will visit Goree Island, and the President will talk about
--
Q Slavery.
MR. FLEISCHER: -- the President will talk about slavery, he will
talk about freedom, he will talk about democracy.
Q An American woman, Sarah Saga, whose father kidnapped her in
1985 and took her to Saudi Arabia, spent 10 days in the U.S. consulate
in Jeddah, before escaping to the United States. She was fearful of
her father and husband, whose permission, under Saudi law, she needed
to leave Saudi Arabia. And my question: Am I correct in presuming
that President -- that the President, as a compassionate leader, is
deeply concerned about Ms. Saga, and many other American women so held
hostage, or will you leave us in doubt of the President's concern by an
evasion that bucks this question to the State Department?
MR. FLEISCHER: Lester, there are agencies that are responsible for
having the specific information about specific cases.
Q But I want to know what the President thinks.
MR. FLEISCHER: The President believes that the best way to serve
the country is to have the experts review individual cases. As a broad
matter, the President is working very closely with Saudi authorities to
encourage additional reform within Saudi Arabia. As for any specific
case, it's not a buck, it's the direct answer. You need to talk to the
people immediately responsible for the specifics.
Q Thank you, Ari. That's good.
MR. FLEISCHER: Thank you, Lester, for your evaluations.
(Laughter.) Go ahead.
Q Two quick questions. One is, do we have more about General
Musharraf's meeting with President Bush? And another one in this
connection is that he may be famous here with President Bush, but back
home, he has a lot of problems domestically because two of his four
provinces there have declared Islamic --
MR. FLEISCHER: I think this was all addressed at length, and there
was a rather long background briefing immediately following
President Musharraf's visit, here in the White House press room.
Q And second, when the Prime Minister of India was in China, he
made two statements -- one, that Tibet is part of China. And second,
the U.S. is worried about India and China relations now from his
visit.
MR. FLEISCHER: India and China proliferation, is that what your
question was?
Q Relations between --
MR. FLEISCHER: Relations?
Q Relations, and also India declared that Tibet is part of
China.
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't think the topic with India-China relations
came up in the meeting with President Musharraf.
Q Two questions, please. Earlier in the year, the President
announced a plan to tentatively source over 400,000 federal jobs.
Democrats in Congress are attaching language to appropriations bills
for each of the agencies to prevent that. Is that something that the
President would veto if those bills came to his desk with that language
in it?
MR. FLEISCHER: On competitive sourcing?
Q Yes.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think if you recall, the Office of
Management and Budget made an announcement about the administration's
proposals on competitive sourcing to ensure the taxpayer dollars are
spent in the wisest fashion, and that the work force works in the most
effective way. And competition is the best way, in the President's
judgment, to do this in many cases. I'm not going to get into any
discussions of vetoes on bills that are only now just moving, but the
President made the announcement because he believes in it.
Q Thank you. Ari, my question is related to Ellen's.
Opposition to U.S. and British forces in Iraq seems to be escalating.
How is the President going to handle this? And is he concerned that it
will become a major issue of his reelection campaign?
MR. FLEISCHER: It's just as I answered when I talked to Ellen
about that. The President, of course, is deeply concerned and regrets
every loss of life, whether it's American, whether it's British, as
well as those who are wounded. After all, he is the person who has met
with many of these wounded, has met with the families of many of those
who have died. And he takes these things hard and he understands what
it could mean to a family when a life is lost.
The President also understands what it means to the future of
security for the United States and for the region to make certain that
the mission that the United States and our allies started is
completed. And that means finishing the job to help rout those who,
left to their own devices, will continue the killing of others, as well
as Americans. And these people are the loyalists, they're the
Baathists, they're the Fedayeen. And this is why the mission
continues -- and the mission is not complete; the President is
determined to finish it and do so right.
Q Ari, since you said the President feels something close in
his heart at the death of illegal immigrants, my question is, how the
White House is thinking about the proposal by some Democrats in the
House that to combat the illegal immigration threats -- people make
money with the illegal immigrants -- to give rewards up to $1
million, and even legal residence to the people who give the names and
information to lead to dismantle this?
MR. FLEISCHER: I have not talked to the President or seen anything
from White House staff indicating one way or another on that. The
President's views on these matters are well-known. The President wants
to welcome immigrants legally to the United States. He thinks it makes
for a richer, stronger, better country. And he also wants to continue
his efforts into increasing democracy and trade around the world so
that people have opportunities and better lifestyles and economic
chances at home.
Q The weapons trailers that were discovered in Iraq -- has
the President established any different procedures or expressed any
concern about consensus-building among the intelligence, whether it's
Defense, the CIA, or State, so that when he is dependent on making
public remarks on their findings, that there is a consensus?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think you're seeing that the process is a
very active interagency process, that the national intelligence
estimate, which is the one document which speaks most conclusively
about information the administration judged in leading up to the war,
is an interagency collaboration. That is the full vetting of all
documents. When there is a NIE requested, it involves all agencies.
And, of course, the different agencies all work to carry out their
missions where they have the most expertise. That's how the system
works.
Q What about the analysis of the trailers?
MR. FLEISCHER: And that was an analysis by the Central
Intelligence Agency, and by the Defense Intelligence Agency, very
public and well-known, conducted by the experts.
Q So if State Department had any reservations about the
analysis being premature, the President is not concerned about that?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, in this instance, the people with the most
authority and the most knowledge and the best ability to be on the
ground and to learn the facts, and therefore, to be the strongest
sources, have spoken. Now, of course, in any intelligence opinion,
there will be others in agencies who are free to express their thoughts
and their opinions, and they do so. That's part of the process.
Q So just to make this clear, in this instance, the President
believes that the CIA and the Defense Department have supremacy in the
analysis, not State?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President believes that they, in this instance,
have the best judgment because they were in the most authoritative
position to have accurate information. It's not only the President who
thinks that, but so, too, does the Secretary of State.
Q And one other quick question about the gardener, the
scientific gardener --
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, it was his garden. I'm not sure he was the
gardener.
Q Correct. It would be unlikely that he would be the only
scientist who might have pursued the same sort of effort to hide things
from inspectors. Do you know whether this particular scientist has
suggested any other like-minded Iraqis who the military may be talking
to now?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm only going to deal with that which is known.
And this administration is allowing the facts to speak for themselves
in this matter. The administration has no need to say it is one way or
another way. The facts speak for themselves here. And what other
facts emerge will emerge. And that's part of the process we're going
through.
Q I wanted to ask about Medicare. How does the administration
respond to critics that say that adding a prescription drug benefit to
the program might actually cripple it? That it won't control costs,
but that, in fact, costs will continue to escalate in the years --
and that this is really -- it's politically a good thing, but
practically speaking, it's bad policy?
MR. FLEISCHER: This is an issue that came up yesterday in a
meeting that the President had with members of Congress, and members of
Congress looked at existing entitlement programs -- some members did
-- and talked about how their growth has ballooned in terms of cost.
The President's response was that if you take a look at what this new
program could get prescription drugs to seniors would call for, it
calls, for the first time, for new private sector health care to be
offered within Medicare, under Medicare, so that seniors have choices
and options, and therefore, competition.
And according to the administration's estimators, the actuaries,
and estimated 47 percent of senior citizens will sign up for this new
Medicare program, which is a huge influx of people, into new private
sector plans that are better at controlling costs than what the
government has done. The experience of government enterprises has been
that the cost have grown considerably higher than original
projections. By injecting for the first time private sector
competition, the President views this as the best way to modulate and
to make certain that prices do not grow beyond what was expected.
Q Moving from the public aspects of it to the private part --
MR. FLEISCHER: Moving from government price-controlled Medicare
into -- within Medicare, private plans with choices and options
exactly like members of Congress have, just like members of Congress
have on the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan.
Q With all this talk about creating jobs and putting Americans
back to work, is the President worried about the potential negative
effect of this national Do Not Call Registry on an industry that
employs almost 450,000 Americans?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think you always have to get your fundamentals
first when it comes to what actions the government can take. And the
President is concerned about people being able to go to their homes, be
in their kitchens, be in bedrooms at night, and not get bothered by
phone calls that they don't want from telemarketing organizations; that
the public has a right not to receive those calls if they don't want
them. And first things first, from those principles about honoring
people's right to privacy. Jobs get created in our economy through all
kinds of ways. But the principle of honoring people's privacy is an
important one.
Q You said, "first things first" -- so you stop the calls and
--
MR. FLEISCHER: By that logic, if jobs was the only issue at stake,
then the government should just put everybody on the federal payroll
because that's a good policy to create jobs. There are reasons that
people have jobs, is because their work leads to consumers who want
their product. If consumers don't want their product, the consumers
have a right to speak for themselves.
Q Have you done any kind of an analysis on how many jobs would
be lost as a result of this registry?
MR. FLEISCHER: You may want to log on to Ask the White House
tomorrow, and ask the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission. That's
at 11:00 a.m., Ask the White House, www.whitehouse.gov. Anything else
I can serve up, John? (Laughter.)
Q Ari, if you could also tell us, has the President ever
received an unwanted telemarketing phone call?
MR. FLEISCHER: Probably not since he got to the White House.
(Laughter.) He gets other unwanted calls every now and then, however.
Q The President's going to California tomorrow to make a couple
of fundraising speeches. Does he think it's important for the
Republican presidential candidate, presumably himself, to stay in the
California race to the end? Does he think it's important not only for
the national ticket, but for congressional tickets? And does he intend
to do that?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think political calculations, things of that
nature, what states will get contested, is a matter quite a bit down
the road, and the campaign will address that. There's nothing I can
get into.
Q Ari, does the President continue to believe that the trailers
found in Iraq were proof of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction?
MR. FLEISCHER: It's exactly as he said.
Q Ari, just back to the Medicare question. Just to clarify,
you said that your actuaries believed 47 percent would leave
traditional Medicare for one of the private plans.
MR. FLEISCHER: Correct.
Q But there have been a number of other studies that --
MR. FLEISCHER: Correct, the Congressional Budget Office has it at
a much lower rate.
Q Yes, much lower. So didn't the congressional Republicans
come back at you and say, you are just asking us to trust your
actuaries, that this -- I mean, given the difference, you're saying
47 percent, I think the CBS study was 10 percent.
MR. FLEISCHER: I think it actually may have been even lower. But
the point is valid. There is a dispute about what percentage will
enter into, and this is why actuaries do what they do and make their
best judgments. And there are two different points of view on it, and
that will be reflected in the vote the members of Congress took.
The question was what does the President think. And the President,
based on the actuaries that formed this study, gave his judgment. Time
will tell if that's rather wrong, but the principle of giving people
more choices and more options is something this President, as you know,
believes very strongly in. And we'll see what the majority believes.
Thank you.
END 12:24 P.M.
|