For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
July 1, 2003
Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
The James S. Brady Briefing Room
12:50 P.M. EDT
MR. FLEISCHER: I have no opening statement, so I'm happy to begin
with your questions. April.
Q Thank you. Oh, wow. (Laughter.)
MR. FLEISCHER: After April's question we'll adjourn for the day.
Thank you very much. (Laughter.)
Q Ari, President Bush makes an historic trip to Africa in the
next couple of days. Many critics are concerned this is a President
who is not for affirmative action, yet his first stop will be Goree
Island to a slave house, which some African Americans consider sacred.
They're also calling -- those same critics are calling for a
statement of repudiation, if not an apology for slavery. What are your
comments about that. And also, who will be part of the entourage going
to Africa?
MR. FLEISCHER: April, you asked, on the first part, you asked the
same question last week, and the answer today is identical to what I
said last week. The President -
Q More critics are coming out --
MR. FLEISCHER: -- the President is looking forward to going to
Africa to talk with African leaders about issues that are vital to the
United States-African relations. And that involves many nations in
Africa. It also is an important moment from a moral point of view to
go to Goree Island to talk about slavery, to talk about freedom and to
talk about democracy. And that's exactly what the President is going
to do.
And as far as entourage, it will be the usual traveling party that
accompanies the President on his foreign trips -- Dr. Rice, top White
House aides. It will be the usual contingent.
Q No civil rights leaders?
MR. FLEISCHER: It will be the usual contingent that travel with
the President on foreign trips. The President does not, when he
travels abroad, take groups with him beyond the immediate White House
or State Department entities.
Q And for the record, exactly why is it the President does not
want to apologize for slavery?
MR. FLEISCHER: I just suggest you listen to his speech when he's
in Africa next week, and the speech will speak for itself.
Q So it could be an apology?
MR. FLEISCHER: Just listen to the speech. I've already indicated
to you the President will not have an apology in his speech.
Q You have the British, the French, U.N. diplomats on both
sides in the Liberian conflict asking for the U.S. to lead a
peacekeeping force. Is the President seriously considering that? And
what are the issues on the table as he makes the decision?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the United States is actively discussing what
the next steps should be to help the parties to meet their obligations
to cooperate with the joint verification team that is in place to
ensure that the cease-fire holds. A cease-fire has been agreed to with
the help of the United States as party to those talks, and we are
actively discussing and reviewing what next steps may or many not be.
Q Are troops a serious option, and will the West Africans get
an answer that they want to get by Monday?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the United States is working with regional
governments to support the negotiations and to map out a secure
transition to elections which have been called for in Liberia. The
President is determined to help the people of Liberia to find a path to
peace. The exact steps that could be taken are still under review.
Q So you aren't ruling out that U.S. troops might go to
Liberia?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not ruling it out.
Q And on President Taylor, President Bush called on him to
resign. There is some word that he's looking for immunity from war
crimes prosecution. Would that be acceptable to the United States?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, the President's statement extended to the
importance of his resignation in order to help save lives. I have not
heard anything beyond that, so I'm just going to hold with what the
President said for now.
Q And what would be the criteria -- how would the President
decide whether to send U.S. troops to Liberia? For a lot of Americans,
that's a long way away in a conflict that we don't know a lot about.
How would the President make up his mind whether or not to send troops
to Liberia?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think the issue here is to work with regional
partners to find a way to help the cease-fire to take hold. And the
President will make a judgment about what the best and most effective
way is to help the cease-fire to take hold. There are different ways
to do it, different nations that have capabilities. So this all gets
part of the review.
Q Ari, the United States just declared about 50 countries,
including Colombia and six prospective NATO members, ineligible for
military aid because they won't exempt Americans from the International
Criminal Court. My question is, why is this priority more important
than fighting the drug wars, integrating Eastern Europe? And is there
any chance that they would be declared eligible for this aid anytime
soon?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, number one, because the President is
following the law. This is a law that Congress passed that the
President signed, dealing with what's called Article 98 actions that
would make certain that American military personnel and other personnel
who are stationed abroad would not be subject to a court who has
international sovereignty that's in dispute, that would be able to
reach out to these countries and take Americans and put them on trial
before an entity that the United States does not recognize.
So it's important to protect American servicemen and women and
others in government. There should be no misunderstanding, that the
issue of protecting U.S. persons from the International Criminal Court
will be a significant and pressing matter in our relations with every
state.
Q So you're -- isn't there a chance, though, that the drug
war in Colombia, for example, would be negatively affected by this? If
you can't give Colombia military aid, what's going to be the impact on
the ground down there?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, current programs will continue under the law
until the determination date of current programs is reached. And so
that which is in the pipeline will continue through the pipeline. But
you have stated it correctly, this is a reflection of the United
States' priorities to protect the men and women in our military --
the men and women who serve. These are the people who are able to
deliver assistance to the various states around the world. And if
delivering those aid -- delivering aid to those states endangers
America's servicemen and servicewomen, the President's first priority
is the servicemen and servicewomen.
Q Ari, why should Americans take at face value what Paul Bremer
and others in the administration have said that the attacks against
U.S. forces that we've seen seeing repeatedly over these past few
weeks are basically the last desperate cries and acts of violence from
a dying regime? Why shouldn't they believe that, in fact, it's
evidence of a guerrilla insurgency movement that is really testing and
challenging whether or not the United States was prepared enough for
this phase of the conflict?
MR. FLEISCHER: Because I think that if you look at the Iraqi
people, the Iraqi people are overwhelmingly pleased with the fact the
United States has helped them to get rid of the Saddam Hussein regime.
That was clear from their dancing in the streets, from the way they
tore down the statues. And I think that is the viewpoint of the
overwhelming majority of the Iraqi people.
What we're up against is the manner in which the war was
successfully fought, many of the Republican Guardsman faded back into
Baghdad as a result of the military conflict. They simply walked away
from their posts, abandoned their positions and left to enter into the
city. So it is not surprising that some of these loyalist elements are
now doing their best to bring harm to America's military in whatever
form they can.
But in attacking the United States, these groups in Iraq attacked
the people of Iraq, because the United States is helping the people of
Iraq to find peace and stability and these groups stand in the way,
just as they did when they ruled Iraq. So I think the Ambassador says
it for good reason, it is because he's on the ground and he's in a
position to judge it.
Q Saying that, I mean, is that supposed to resonate with the
American people, that they're hurting -- when they're killing U.S.
troops, that they're really -- that they're hurting the people of
Iraq? I mean, aren't the American people at this point in a position
to say, you've got a chaotic situation on the ground, you haven't found
the weapons of mass destruction, and yet you go around the country
saying that this was such a successful enterprise -- is the President
not concerned at some point Americans are going to start scratching
their heads and say, really?
MR. FLEISCHER: No. And as you know, the President is going to be
giving remarks in the Rose Garden shortly, and so you'll be able to
hear exactly how the President views the issue. But the President
views this as a matter in which he as the Commander-in-Chief authorized
putting America's men and women of the military into harm's way. He
did it knowingly. He did it because he believes in the cause of
protecting world peace and the American people from the threat that
Saddam Hussein's regime presented.
That mission of toppling the regime has been accomplished. As the
President warned the American people, there still is danger ahead in
Iraq, and that's what we're seeing. But this President is dedicated to
this mission because he knows it serves the interests of the American
people in bringing peace and stability to Iraq. After all, what's the
alternative, to let the thugs who ran Iraq take it over again? No.
Q Even accepting your premise that the majority of the Iraqis
are glad to be rid of Saddam Hussein, it seems that many of them would
also like to be rid of us, judging by the evidence that we see day to
day on the ground. Some of them would simply like to be rid of us and
have their own government. Others are willing to kill American
soldiers to get there, for whatever reason. Doesn't it seem that we
are ill-prepared to deal with postwar Iraq, both in terms of planning
and troops?
MR. FLEISCHER: No. I think what you're doing is you're ignoring
the tremendous number of success stories that have taken place inside
Iraq.
Q What success stories?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, exactly. I think this is one of these cases
where if the glass of milk is nine-tenths full, you'll only see the
one-tenth that is empty.
Q But I haven't heard any success stories? You got any?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, you just haven't aired them, but there are
many. And I think Ambassador Bremer talks about them on a regular
basis. The fact of the matter is, one of the reasons the Iraqi people
are supportive of the efforts we've had there is because of the effort
that's been done in the reconstruction phase.
Q -- support it?
MR. FLEISCHER: And let me give you some examples. The children of
Iraq have benefited tremendously, and that means their parents have
also, from the health care systems that the United States has now got
up and going -- from the immunization programs that are underway
throughout Iraq; from the electricity that has now been restored in
many places around Iraq to a status that is even higher than it was
before the war; to the feeding of the Iraqi people that in many places
around Iraq -- in much of Iraq people are having better meals than
they did prior to the war as the result of the change in government and
the fact the United States is there to serve them.
I see your eyes are glazing over. This is my point, that when the
news is good, it's not something that you pay much attention to. But
the fact of the matter, there are pockets of violence. And most of
those pockets of violence come from the people who are the people who
defended the regime, who fought for the regime and are willing to die
for the regime. And if they fight the United States, that will be
their fate.
Q Whatever good news there may be -- and you're making
blanket statements -- there are certainly a lot of --
MR. FLEISCHER: As opposed to the ones you just made?
Q There are certainly a lot of bad news as U.S. troops continue
to get killed on an almost daily basis. And there's plenty of evidence
that there are many people in Iraq who, while they may not wish us
dead, wish us gone.
MR. FLEISCHER: And on that point, first of all, I think that there
was a recent poll I just saw. It was carried by I think one of the
wire services. It didn't really get much pick-up beyond that, but it
was a new poll of the Iraqi people where the overwhelming majority of
the Iraqi people expressed their gratitude for having the Americans
there and they've said they want the Americans to stay there to provide
security. I think you can ask questions about how reliable its polling
techniques in new Iraq, but the point is the same. You're making
blanket judgments now about the Iraqi people, which I don't think is
shared by the people on the ground there.
The fact of the matter is, the United States does not have any
intention of staying in Iraq forever. But the President has said that
we will stay as long as is necessary to get the job done and done well
and done right, and not a day longer. And that's what you're seeing.
Q How long will that be?
MR. FLEISCHER: It's impossible to put a time frame on it. It's
going to depend on security and stability on the ground.
Q -- we didn't think it was going to be very long?
Q If I could get back to Liberia for a moment. As you debate
what to do there, how much concern is there here at the White House
about the U.S. military being stretched too thin, given the deployments
in Iraq and Afghanistan and other places? And given the President's
desire to see President Taylor ousted, what planning is going into
making sure that Liberia, post-conflict, doesn't end up like another
Iraq? What are you doing to think about new leadership, how that
should come about, and so forth?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, keep in mind, on the numbers issue, the
United States military numbers more than a million. We have some 9,000
personnel in Afghanistan and some 150,000 personnel in Iraq. So I
think if you're talking about in sheer numbers, it's not a question of
being stretched too thin, it's a question of what is the best way to
accomplish a mission. And that's what the focus of the planners are as
they look at this, and that's what the President's focus will be.
The situation in Liberia has been eased and there is quiet and calm
on the streets of Monrovia recently, as a result of the international
community coming together to work toward the cease-fire. This has
been -- they authorized the establishment of what they call the joint
verification team. That was as a result of the June 17th Liberia
cease-fire. So the President wants to work with the international
community; we will play a role in that to try to bring stability to a
post-Taylor government in Liberia.
Q How would that government come about? Would there be
elections?
MR. FLEISCHER: It's as a result of the cease-fire agreement.
There have been negotiations, and then the talks are going to
recommence on July 4th.
Lester.
Q Ari, the Washington Post --
MR. FLEISCHER: Lester of the Washington Post. (Laughter.) You're
in their seat.
Q I own part of the Washington Post.
Q Ooooh.
MR. FLEISCHER: I'd like to hear that story.
Q Four shares. Four shares. The Washington Post reports,
"during the last presidential campaign, whenever George W. Bush was
asked what he would seek in a Supreme Court appointee, the first name
he brought up as his ideal was Justice Antonin Scalia." Justice
Scalia's dissent in the Lawrence versus Texas sodomy case notes that
"every single one of these laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage,
adult incest, prostitution, adultery --
Q Question?
Q -- fornication, bestiality and obscenity is called into
question by today's decision." And my question is, does the President
now think that Justice Scalia is wrong about the Court's overruling a
law of the state of which he was governor?
MR. FLEISCHER: No. The President said what he said because he
meant it. When he was asked what justices he admires most, he answered
that question, and that's because the President meant it.
Q But he did support it.
MR. FLEISCHER: Go ahead, Terry.
Q He did support that law.
MR. FLEISCHER: On this case, the administration did not file a
brief because it is not a federal matter. As governor of Texas, the
President supported the law in his capacity as governor of Texas,
correct.
Q The President expressed his approval of the Supreme Court's
upholding by one vote the practice of considering race in admissions to
the University of Michigan Law School, but that university's most
nationally known students, their football team, selects players on the
basis of ability alone, with no regard whatsoever for race. And my
question: Does the President believe that if the law school uses race
in selection, the football team should, too, because law is more
important than sport?
MR. FLEISCHER: Lester, you've asked this question before. I think
you used --
Q No -- a different version.
MR. FLEISCHER: I think you asked about a baseball team. Last time
you made the reference to a baseball team, not --
Q That was the Texas Rangers. I'm talking about Michigan.
MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct. That's why I said you've asked the
question before. Lester, the President's answer is well-known. The
President applauded the Court decision because it recognized, just as
he does, the importance of diversity on college campuses. There's room
to disagree about whether or not race should be a factor in achieving
diversity. The President has said that he thinks that the best way to
achieve diversity is through race-neutral means. And the Court did as
the President sought and it struck down quotas as a way of achieving
diversity. They differed -- the President and the Court differed on
the law school application.
Q Ari, following up on Bill's question, over the weekend,
Senator Hagel and Senator Biden said that the President needed to be
more forthcoming to the American people about just how long U.S.
soldiers are going to be inside of Iraq, what kind of resources are
required. Senator Lugar called it hogwash, the fact -- the
statements being made about U.S. will be inside of Iraq and not a day
longer. Is there any thinking, or any concern that the President's
message is not necessarily getting to the American people, that he has
not been forthcoming enough in terms of the sacrifices and resources
--
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think the President has spoken out repeatedly
on this issue, and he will continue to do so in just about an hour.
This is an issue that the President does address directly. I think the
American people actually have a very good understanding about what is
going on in Iraq, what is at stake in Iraq, and they understand that in
the Commander-in-Chief there is a President who mourns every loss of
life and everyone who is wounded in Iraq. They also understand that in
the Commander-in-Chief there is a President who is determined to carry
out the mission of making certain that after military action was taking
place in Iraq, we do not let Iraq fall back into the hands of Saddam's
loyalists and the people who would again bring the region to the point
of turmoil as a result of their being able to seize control of Iraq
again, torture the Iraqi people, kill the Iraqi people and rearm.
And this is why it's important to provide balance and stability in
Iraq so that peace can be achieved throughout the region. That has
implications for Israel, as well as for the United States.
Q On the Middle East, Yasser Arafat has said that the
Palestinian security forces arrested a member of the Al Axa Martyr
Brigade, perhaps the gunman responsible for killing the Bulgarian
national. Is it credible to your information and do you see that as a
hopeful sign that --
MR. FLEISCHER: I've not gotten any independent confirmation on
that yet. I saw the story on the wire. Obviously, it's important for
the Palestinian Authority to bring terrorists to justice.
Q Will there be a readout on Abbas and Sharon -- their
statements that were made before --
MR. FLEISCHER: A readout?
Q A readout on the Sharon and Abbas statements. They shook
hands and said that it was moving --
MR. FLEISCHER: And the President is pleased that the process is
continuing where Prime Minister Abbas and Prime Minister Sharon are
working as hard as they are and as diligently as they are and in the
spirit that they are, to make progress and move their way forward on
achieving peace. It's an encouraging moment when you see the two
leaders speak like that.
Q On the President's remarks on education this morning, in the
No Child Left Behind Act, the idea of vouchers was dropped. Why is the
President bringing it back now?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the school choice is alive. The way the
President proposed to have a school choice program through vouchers was
passed by the Congress in a more limited fashion than the President
sought. Nevertheless, as you heard in the event this morning, there
are many families in the District of Columbia and elsewhere who yearn
to have a choice so their children can get a better education. You
heard from them in the audience today. They spoke out as the President
spoke. And I think that's a powerful testament to the fact that
parents want good educations for their children. And if they have a
public school that is not giving the children the education they
deserve, parents still want to take good care of their children and
that's why choice is an important part of education in America.
Q So can we expect to hear more on this from the President,
especially as we move into the campaign season? Is this going to be a
major part of his education agenda?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, education and providing parents with options
is certainly a top priority for this President. I think you will hear
more about education generally. It's always been heart and soul of
what the President is focused on.
Q You said a minute ago that Americans have a good
understanding of what's going on in Iraq. In a new poll by USA Today
and one of my competitors shows a sharp drop in the percentage of
Americans who think things are going well there, down from 70 percent a
month ago to a little bit more than 50 percent right now. At the same
time, 37 percent of the survey in that poll thinks the administration
misled them leading up to the war. The President today also woke up to
a story of several members of the service who say we need to be getting
out of Iraq now. Is he concerned about morale? Is he concerned about
how Americans view what is happening in Iraq and whether we are still
succeeding there, whether we have, in fact, won the war? Is that why
he's talking today? Does he feel he needs to talk up the morale of the
American public, given what happens when the morale slips?
Q I think that, again, this an issue that you've heard the
President talk about repeatedly, and he will continue to talk about
repeatedly. The President, after Afghanistan, gave regular updates
about the war on terror in Afghanistan. Today he's going to give an
update about the war on terror in both Afghanistan and in Iraq.
As for the poll you cited, I had a feeling that this issue would be
brought up, so I brought it with me. So let me share this with the
one-tenth-fullers, because there were many other numbers in the poll.
And it said that while the numbers have, indeed, declined, as you
indicated, 69 percent say it was worth having -- it is worth having
U.S. troops in Iraq now; 63 percent say the administration did a good
job in planning for the situation following major conflict in Iraq; 61
percent say the administration did not deliberately mislead the
American people; 68 percent expressed confidence the United States can
rebuild the Iraqi economy.
So, no, I think the American people actually have a very good
center of gravity about the situation in Iraq. Clearly, as lives are
lost, the American people reflect on the lives lost. So, too, does the
President. But the American people remain firm in understanding the
importance of finishing the mission and making certain that Iraq does
not slide back into the hands of Saddam loyalists.
Q This is a follow-up to April's question. What else does the
President hope to accomplish on his African trip?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the trip is going to focus on promoting
democracy in Africa. In his first stop he's going to visit with the
leaders of many of the African democracies who will be gathered in
Senegal. On Goree Island, the President is going to give the speech
that I just alluded to about slavery and democracy. The President will
also have discussions about trade. Certainly the African Growth and
Opportunity Act is now starting to bring tangible benefits to the
people of Africa as trade in many African nations is actually surging.
And the President will also, when he visits Uganda, focus on the major
initiative that is now law of the land, to provide $15 billion worth of
funding over a five-year period to help the people of Africa -- and
the Caribbean, as well -- but the people of Africa to deal with the
AIDS pandemic.
Q A follow-up to Wendell's question on the new Gallup Poll. Is
the President, when he looks at those numbers, concerned that Iraq
could become a political issue and possibly a political liability as it
gets --
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, first of all, I'd be surprised if the
President is aware of those numbers. The President is not going to be
make decisions about what to do in Iraq by the polls. You saw that on
the way in to the war in Iraq. He didn't let that affect him one way
or another. Polls are volatile, they move. Principles don't. And the
President is dedicated to the principle of helping the Iraqi people to
have a stable country, because that's in America's interest.
I think about these things because I have to come here and I had a
feeling your question would involve one of those polls. It was in the
news today.
Q Could you address the larger question of the possibility that
this may get dragged into the political cycle as we head into the
campaign season?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think you need to talk to others about what they
intend to drag into a political cycle. The President will continue to
discuss these ongoing government issues with the American people.
Q Ari, on aid to the Palestinian Authority, which is under
discussion, you said, what's changed that's caused this idea that you
can give direct aid to the Palestinian Authority, and how far away are
we from something like this happening, actually happening?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, previously the Palestinian Authority, when it
was headed by Yasser Arafat and had a different finance minister, was
widely criticized by the Palestinian people themselves for being
corrupt. And there was a real reluctance from many quarters,
particularly here in the United States, to provide direct funding to
the Palestinian Authority because it would have gone to corruption.
There's been a change in leadership in the Palestinian Authority. They
have a new finance minister who is dedicated to openness and to
transparency and to honesty. Certainly Prime Minister Abbas is
dedicated to the same. And so the United States is going to talk to
the Palestinian Authority about direct aid. We have not made any
decisions yet about this matter. But this is part of the perspective
of good developments taking place in the Middle East, vis-a-vis Israel
and the Palestinian Authority.
Q What would the money be used for, given direct aid? Would
there be strings attached, or --
MR. FLEISCHER: It's too soon to say. This is also an issue that
we'd have to consult with the Congress on. But I'm not prepared to get
into what the details could be for something that doesn't even exist
yet.
Q Ari, staying on the Middle East. Prime Minister Abbas today,
according to Ha'aretz, told a meeting with Hamas -- he quoted the
President and at that point, during that meeting, he suggested that the
President conveyed that now is the time to move forward or else I'm
going to focus on the election, or the election is coming up shortly.
Can you tell me whether or not --
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, somebody else asked me about that quote. I
never heard the President say it. He certainly didn't say it in the
trilateral meeting that I attended, and I'm not aware of any other
conversation in which he said it.
Q So there is no deadline attached --
MR. FLEISCHER: You're seen the President on this issue. He's
focused on it all the time. And he will be focused on it now, he'll be
focused on it a year from now, he'll be focused on it two years from
now.
Q Part of the same quote, Prime Minister Abbas suggested the
President said that God spoke to him about al Qaeda and spoke to him
about Saddam. Is that a stretch? Is there anything to that? How
would you characterize that part of the --
MR. FLEISCHER: It's beyond a stretch. It's an invention. It was
not said.
Q I was going to ask on that very same point. Just to be
clear, to quote, as reported by Ha'aretz, is not true, didn't come up
in the meeting?
MR. FLEISCHER: Hasn't become true since I just told Ken it
wasn't. (Laughter.)
Q Well, a few seconds passed there.
Q Well, you said you weren't in all the meetings.
Q The President has made security, chiefly national security, a
focal point of the stump speech, which we all know we're going to hear
a lot of between now and November 2004. Does he have any concern with
the situation on the ground, not only in Iraq, but in Afghanistan,
could come back to haunt him? Certainly government -- the Taliban
has been removed, but Afghanistan remains a dangerous place. He said
repeatedly himself that Iraq remains a dangerous place. Does he have
any concerns that that's going to be something that dogs the campaign
going forward?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think this is a President who has shown himself
to be very strong and decisive, and he takes on the situation in the
world as it is. And he always endeavors to make that situation better
and more peaceful. And that's exactly what he has done. And that's
why it's important, as the President will talk about today, to complete
missions, to see out the task, to see the task through. And the
President will do that. And by doing that, he can help protect the
American people, to make certain that we constantly improve the
security for the American people.
I think it's clear, since September 11th, the United States has
entered an era where the war on terror will be an ongoing effort and an
ongoing operation all around the world. Like the Cold War, it is not
something that just goes away quietly overnight. It is something that
will remain a front-and-center issue that will engage the American
people, and this President, and likely successors to this President, as
well. It's the nature of the enemies who seek to attack the United
States.
Q Ari, I did have a question on Iraq, but you just said
something that I wanted to follow up on. You said, "Like the Cold
War." Are you suggesting this war on terror can last a half a century
or so?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm saying that in the war on terror, the United
States is committed to fighting this war for whatever period of time it
takes. And unlike conventional wars, like World War II, where there
was a clear date where a capital fell, the war on terror is not such an
event. And the President has said this to the American people on
numerous occasions, particularly after September 11th. And when you
see the enemies who still gather to try and bring harm to the United
States, when you see the creation of the Department of Homeland
Security, it's all done with an eye toward providing additional
protections for the American people in what is going to be an ongoing
struggle.
Q But by comparing it to the Cold War, that suggests it could
last as long as a half century.
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't think you can be literal about how long it
will be. But my point is, it is a commitment and an involvement of the
people of the United States and the government of the United States
that is going to be long-lasting.
Q And on my question on Iraq, I actually wanted to ask, is the
President disappointed by the lack of the numbers of nations who are
coming forward to volunteer troops to help in the effort in Iraq? For
instance, although Secretary Rumsfeld said they've talked to 20
nations, they still don't have that many nations that have come forward
to offer troops. And, in fact, of course, like India has not offered
troops. What's the President's reaction to that?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the United States government continues to
talk to various nations around the world about what involvement they
seek in Iraq, and we welcome support of the international community in
these efforts. We are involved in conversations with other nations.
And sometimes the nature of these conversations is that they take some
bit of time. But, regardless of the number of nations or the amount of
international forces there, the purpose of the mission remains the
same. The more the world joins in in helping to protect the Iraqi
people, the better.
Q Ari, this has been covered widely now in the press, including
India Globe, a number of people have been arrested in this area. They
were planning to attack or they had plans, they -- India and
Kashmir. Now, General Musharraf still in the U.S., when this big
arrest took place, and many of them were from Pakistan. My question is
that this shows that the training also took place here, and also they
were training in Pakistan itself, but Musharraf is saying that, no, we
have never trained, and we are not training any of those terrorists in
India. And at the same time, India is not happy with the launch of the
$3 billion package to Pakistan, because one --
MR. FLEISCHER: Okay, what's the question --
Q India.
MR. FLEISCHER: What's the question?
Q The question is that how do you pursue, or how do you put
pressure on General Musharraf that he will comply with the pledge that
he make with the United States?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think when you see what is happening in
relations between India and Pakistan, where they are now exchanging
ambassadors, and ambassadors are starting to arrive on the ground. And
you see the improvement in the tension, the diminishment of tension
between India and Pakistan. It's a result of the steps that both
President Vajpayee and Prime Minister Musharraf have taken --
President Musharraf and Prime Minister Vajpayee have taken.
And so I think that his actions speak for themselves and they've
been recognized by Indian authorities, and the President is very
pleased with President Musharraf's actions.
Q Can I follow just --
MR. FLEISCHER: We're going to go to the one-question rule now.
Q Democratic Senator John Edwards has put a hold on the Heroes
Act in the Senate committee. The measure would defer student loans for
soldiers called into action. It passed the House nearly unanimously.
Where does the President stand on that?
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, I saw that report. I want to look more into
that report. From what I've heard it's hard to understand, but let me
take a look at that.
Q What's the assessment of what's happening with North Korea?
And why won't the President hold a bilateral meeting with them, if
that's what it would take to end this tension?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President thinks that this is a regional
problem. It's not just the United States that is affected by the North
Korea's withdrawal from the nonproliferation treaty, it's the region
that's affected. And the best diplomacy in this instance is
multilateral diplomacy so that the region can have a voice at the
table. And that's something that you hear from Japan, from South
Korea, from China, and also on some levels from Russia.
Q Has it gotten worse, more menacing, though?
MR. FLEISCHER: Has what gotten more menacing?
Q The situation -- the statements from North Korea?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, it remains and issue of grave concern about
North Korea withdrawing from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty for
the purpose of developing weapons of mass destruction. It remains an
issue of great concern, and that's why it's being pursued through the
multilateral channels that it has been.
Q Ari, you talked earlier about the Iraqis who were staging
these hit-and-run ambushes and sabotages as having melted back into the
civilian populace. Has it moved now from a situation of major combat
operations to a guerrilla operation?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, it's exactly as Secretary Rumsfeld said
yesterday at the Pentagon. It remains a military operation outside of
major combat operations to go in and to mop up after these irregulars
and these people who the Secretary has called dead-enders, who if they
had their way, would try to resume power in Iraq.
Q But Americans should be thinking of this in terms of a mop-up
operation, not a guerilla conflict?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think that Secretary Rumsfeld, who is in a strong
position to evaluate it, was asked that yesterday. And I think he
characterized it just right.
Q On Liberia, as the President considers his options, does he
feel any special responsibility to bring stability there given the
historic ties between the two countries?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think this is looked at in -- just as the
context in which I said, what is the best way to bring peace and to
ensure that the cease-fire between the warring factions holds. That's
what's on the mind of the President is how to do this and do it right.
Q Ari, you touched on this a bit previously. The President
stood in front of a banner that said, "Mission Accomplished." And you
today used the term the primary mission was accomplished. But when
will the mission really be accomplished? Was that just symbolism?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think that -- again, this is almost a
little more revisionism. Certainly in early May when the President
said major combat operations have ended, major combat operations had
ended. The President didn't say all combat operations have ended. He
used a very specific word with a very specific meaning when he said
major, leaving wide open that knowledge -- and he said it to the
American people, and he said it remains dangerous -- that combat
operations of various levels will, of course, continue. And I think as
far as the crew of the Abraham Lincoln was concerned, as they were
about to arrive with their families after the longest deployment ever,
Mission Accomplished was a great way to summarize what they did.
Q So when will the total mission -- what is this
administration's definition of when the total mission will be really
accomplished?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think it will be as -- when security and
stability are brought to Iraq, when Iraq has a representative
government of all the different people of Iraq, when that government is
up and that government is stable. And this is going to be a question
of some time.
If the President in early May said major combat operations have
ended, this is just two months later -- why would anybody think,
after all the decades that Saddam Hussein had to build up the hate and
the destruction in that country, and how many loyalists he had
dedicated to helping him carry out the murders and the torture that he
had in that country, that in a mere two months, Iraq would look like
the United States? It's not the way it works, and it's not the way the
President thinks.
Q Ari, going back to Africa again. The President will be
visiting two countries that are right on the border of Zimbabwe, which
is an impending major problem for the continent in terms of starvation,
possible refugees. Is the President going to lobby the leaders of
those two countries to put more pressure on Mugabe to either loosen up
or leave the scene?
MR. FLEISCHER: I would refer you to the last statement that was
issued by the White House after the recent tainted election in
Zimbabwe, which expresses the administration's thinking on that
matter. So it is a source of real concern.
Q On Medicare reform, while the President commended the House
and Senate for moving the legislation along, there is a $172 billion
health savings account attached and incorporated with that bill. Does
the President believe that the Medicare reform bill is an appropriate
vehicle for this? And does he support health savings accounts?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, as you know, the President typically doesn't
get into what the appropriate vehicle is or not vehicle is. That's
something the Congress will work out. But the President supports the
notion of medical savings accounts. He thinks it's another way to
bring choice and innovation to health care.
Q Ari, today, Italy takes over the presidency of the European
Union.
MR. FLEISCHER: Right.
Q And the Italian government is putting forward a very
ambitious program of infrastructural development for Europe, including
government-supported improvement of the rail lines, harbors, and the
like, in order to encourage private investment. Does the President
feel that such a program given the state of the infrastructure in the
United States, would be on target here also for the U.S.?
MR. FLEISCHER: I have not had a discussion with the President
about the European Union's internal infrastructure development programs
or plans. The United States is not like Europe in all aspects. We
have a much more vigorous private sector here in the United States.
But I have not talked to the President about that directly.
Thank you.
END 1:26 P.M. EDT
|