For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
December 18, 2002
Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
The James S. Brady Briefing Room
12:50 P.M. EST
MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. The President began today with his
usual round of intelligence briefings, followed by FBI briefing. Then
he convened a meeting of the National Security Council. He also met
with the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Commissioner of
the Food and Drug Administration.
Following their meeting with the President, the FDA Commissioner
and the Secretary of HHS announced that, in an effort to improve the
health of the American people, the FDA will be moving to provide more
information and more accurate information on foods and dietary
supplements that will provide people with tools they need to have
better health from the point of view of the foods they eat or the
dietary supplements that they take.
And then following that, the President met with the Prime Minister
and President of Spain. They are currently still having lunch. At the
session in the Oval Office they talked about regional issues including
the situation vis-a-vis Iraq and the prospects of making progress
toward peace in the Middle East. As I say, they are currently having
lunch. And those are the events for the President for the day.
I'm happy to take your questions.
Q Can you now tell us, does the President believe that Iraq has
once again defied the international community with its declaration?
And is he prepared to make that case now publicly and in the United
Nations?
MR. FLEISCHER: Iraq recently submitted to the world a voluminous
document that it purported to be its final, its full, its accurate and
complete listing of all its programs involving weapons of mass
destruction. The United States is continuing to review what is in that
document but, even before our total review is complete, we have made
certain assessments of it.
And the President is concerned about Iraq's failure to list
information in this document. The President is concerned with
omissions in this document and the President is concerned with problems
in this document. I leave it at that.
Q Does that mean that Saddam Hussein has defied the
international community and is this, in the President's estimation, a
material breach of United Nations resolutions?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, in terms of what's going to come next given
the problems in the Iraqi declaration and the omissions in the Iraqi
declaration. Tomorrow, Hans Blix of the United Nations will go before
the Security Council in New York to discuss the findings and the facts
that the United Nations inspectors have found in this declaration.
Following that, I think you will see the United States move in a
very deliberative and thoughtful way about what the implications of
this are.
We want the inspectors to have the tools they need to do their
job. We want them to be able to fully use every asset given to them in
the United Nations Security Council resolution. And that will be the
deliberative path that the United States proceeds. As people start to
discuss what is indeed in this declaration and what is indeed not in
this declaration.
Q Can I just do one more on this? Because you're obviously
making it clear that the President doesn't think Iraq has come clean.
There are problems, there are omissions. The President, in Prague, was
crystal-clear. He said if Iraq does not totally come clean, then
Saddam Hussein will face his own demise and the severest of
consequences. Have we arrived at that point?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think it's fair to say again the United States
will continue to be deliberative in this matter, but this was Saddam
Hussein's last chance. And it is important now to listen to the world,
to listen to the United Nations, to listen to allies, to listen to
other countries as they, too, have their chance to look at this
declaration and evaluate it just as the United States looks forward to
doing.
Q Does that mean that the White House, including possibly the
President, is prepared to say that Iraq is in material breach because
of these concerns?
MR. FLEISCHER: As I indicated, the United States is going to
pursue a deliberative approach to this. The process of this final test
begins tomorrow in New York, as Hans Blix discusses with the United
Nations what the United Nations inspectors have found or not found in
this declaration. We will be interested to hear what Mr. Blix said.
We will be interested to hear what other nations say. And we will, as
the United States government, share information, as well tomorrow.
Q But this deliberative approach mean that you're not read to
go as far as to say there is material breach?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, I just repeated -- it will be a
deliberative approach. And any statements will be made by the
appropriate authorities. And they'll be made over the approach time
table that the President and others judge is appropriate.
Q Can I ask a Lott question briefly? Does Senator Chafee's
statement today that Senator Lott should go, should resign as Majority
leader, does that change the White House position in wanting to say
publicly whether he should remain or not?
MR. FLEISCHER: Just as a indicated yesterday, any of the events,
any of the comments that lead up to this potential January 6th meeting,
the White House will not comment on.
Q As you know, the Brits have once again gotten out a little
bit ahead of us. They've declared this morning in a statement out on
the floor of the House of Commons that the Iraqi declaration is -- to
use Jack Straw's words, an obvious falsehood.
Is this a case of the U.S. going first, the U.S. to follow to make
the same point in tandem? And do we expect to hear from the President
on this tomorrow?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, all -- all nations -- all nations have it
within their right to evaluate the declaration themselves and to share
their thoughts with the world. And I think that's part of the healthy
process that the President launched when he went to the United Nations
and said the United Nations needs to re-enter this debate and make
certain this time Saddam Hussein does what he promised to do, disarm.
Q Is this a concerted effort?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think people are all looking at the same
document and aware of the fact that tomorrow Hans Blix is going to be
talking about it. So it's kind of a natural event that many nations
are going to be reflecting on it. So we welcome the comments of other
nations.
Q Do we expect to hear from the President?
MR. FLEISCHER: As always, if there is anything from the President,
I'll let you know.
Q So you haven't made that decision?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct
Q A quick Lott question. He says he talked to the President
today. Can you characterize that --
MR. FLEISCHER: He did not say that, Bill. He said he talked to
the White House today. He did not talk to the President.
Q Who'd he talk to?
Q Yes, who'd he talk to?
MR. FLEISCHER: He talked to other officials in the White House on
a staff level. He did not talk to the President.
Q Did he talk to Karl Rove, maybe?
MR. FLEISCHER: Go ahead, Terry.
Q But on Iraq, if Iraq is lying, why shouldn't that be grounds
for war, given everything that the President has been saying for
months?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, because the President has said that he wants
to work with the international community. The President, having gone
to the United Nations, has made the decision that the United States
will work with our partners around the world in both the diplomatic
areas and in all areas to do everything we can to put the pressure on
Saddam Hussein to preserve the peace by disarmament.
The President said he would do it. You are watching the President
do exactly what he said he would do. So the President has said that
this is Saddam Hussein's last chance. The United Nations has made it
clear in passing 16 resolutions that Saddam Hussein disobeyed that
they, too, have reached the point where they want Saddam Hussein to at
this point finally do what he pledged and disarm. And this is the
President's decision, this is the President's approach.
Q Great powers can't bluff, it's often said. Is this an
admission that the United States doesn't have international support
right now to go to war, even if this declaration is an obvious
falsehood?
MR. FLEISCHER: Terry, two points again. The President is going to
pursue this in a thoughtful, deliberative way, in consultation, as he
promised, with our allies. And I assure you this President does not
bluff. When he said that Saddam Hussein must disarm and that he wants
Saddam Hussein to disarm so peace can be preserved or Saddam Hussein
will be disarmed, it is not a bluff. He hopes Saddam Hussein will do
it, still.
Q Ari, before the Iraqis submitted this declaration you said
from this podium several times that omissions would constitute a
material breach under Section 4 of the U.N. resolution. You've just
told us now for the first time that, in fact, you now believe there are
omissions in the report.
The way we would do the math, we would think omissions equal
material breach. You're not saying that now. Is there a political
advantage in delaying a declaration of material breach? Are we only
discussing a question of timing here or a question of substance?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think it's important to allow a process that the
President asked to begin, to take its course. The President went to
the United Nations Security Council and asked for the inspectors to go
back into Iraq, and the resolution authorizing the return of the
inspectors. It created a process for the inspectors to come back to
the United Nations Security Council to make reports on what they are
finding.
And so what you are seeing is the President doing just what he
said. And so, tomorrow, Hans Blix will go to the Security Council and
the pace and the timing will be measured and be deliberative.
Q Ari, you're conflating two issues. There is a question of
what the inspectors go out and do and find -- those reports. And
then there is Iraq's separate obligation to provide a report, which
they have done, of their weapons of mass destruction. We're discussing
here just an assessment of that report, not of what the inspectors have
found.
If there are omissions in that report, it seems fairly clear,
unless I'm reading 1441 incorrectly, that that alone would constitute a
material breach. Am I wrong?
MR. FLEISCHER: And as I indicated on the timing, given the fact
that the President asked the United Nations to proceed in this manner,
it's appropriate to allow Hans Blix to make his statement tomorrow.
And then we'll see what the future course takes after that.
Q I have two questions. One, according to the U.N. report,
Afghanistan still is not free of Taliban rule and especially women are
in trouble, and they are still facing the -- Taliban rule there. And
what is the President doing about the future of Afghanistan?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, when it comes to the future of Afghanistan,
the future is indeed far, far brighter than it was until the United
States was able to move in and help the people of Afghanistan to shed
themselves from the oppression of the Taliban. There is now question
that there are still pockets of resistance in isolated portions of
Afghanistan. The situation in Afghanistan remains a situation where
the United States remains deeply concerned and deeply involved.
But when you take a look at the food shortages that were taking
place in Afghanistan, when you look at the health care needs of the
people of Afghanistan, where their health care needs have been improved
now, or their health care has been improved, the situation, clearly,
has improved.
But this is not a short-term endeavor. And the United States is
going to continue to play its role to help the people of Afghanistan.
Q Just to follow. Yesterday, Governor Ridge was talking to
his future employees of Homeland Security about security of the future,
how to protect the homeland of the United States. The question is
here, that the India Globe carried a report that over 700 al Qaeda --
are still in the United States, where they are, who they, where they
live --
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm sorry, who -- who are you attributing --
who said 700 al Qaeda are in the United States?
Q According to the reports -- the India Globe carried the
report also.
MR. FLEISCHER: But whom did these reports say said that 700 al
Qaeda are in the United States?
Q Different -- intelligence reports.
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not aware -- I'm not aware of anybody in the
United States government who said that there are 700 al Qaeda in the
United States.
Now, the President has said that we have concerns about al Qaeda
operating around the world, including the possibility of them having
sleeper cells in the United States. It remains a concern, and the
United States continues -- through its efforts, through the Justice
Department, through state and local law enforcement, as well as through
other agencies of the federal government -- to take every action
possible to protect the country, to prevent potential terrorists from
coming into the country, and to ascertain whether, indeed, there are
terrorists operating inside the United States. And if there are, every
lever of the federal government is involved in making certain that we
can find them and catch them.
Q One on Iraq and one on Senate Lott. First on Iraq, has Hans
Blix -- as you know who -- as you know, will deliver his report
tomorrow to Security Council -- has he characterized to anyone in the
United States government what he is prepared to tell the Security
Council? And is the -- are you withholding judgment -- to David's
point about whether -- saying publicly an omission equals material
breach, to wait to see if Hans Blix does that first? Whether he is
prepared to say there is a breach?
MR. FLEISCHER: No. Because first of all, as I said to you this
morning, it is the job of the member states to declare whether or not
there is or is not a material breach and decide the timing for whether
to declare a material breach.
The inspectors are there to report facts, not to make conclusive
judgments of that nature. So I would not expect that to be the case.
Q So he cannot report that in his view Iraq's document has
omissions?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think -- we'll all wait to hear what he says.
And of course, there is some level of contact with all nations of the
world as they review this document. After all, the United Nations
Security Council came together as one body. And they frequently
consult. But we do not know every detail of what's going to be said
tomorrow.
Q Senator Lott this morning said that he has been in almost
daily contact with the White House. And he said that in one of those
conversations -- at least one of those conversations, he had been
told that it was the view of whoever he was talking to here at the
White House that he was being treated unfairly, and that, yes, it was
conveyed to him by the White House that it was important that he take a
lead role in trying to clear all this up, but that the White House also
viewed it important that he do so because it wanted him to be there to
help advance the very important agenda. Is that not taking sides in a
senate leadership --
MR. FLEISCHER: John, I want to be very careful here. I saw about
half of the tape of what Senator Lott said, and I did not hear him say
any of that second portion of what you said. So I want to be precise.
I mean, already, some -- it was suggested that Senator Lott said he
spoke to the President when Senator Lott never said that. So I want to
be precise if anybody is describing Senator Lott's words, and I think
everybody needs to work off of a transcript to make certain that the
information is accurate.
Let me say this about where the White House is. And I want to
repeat what the President said when he went to Philadelphia because, in
the President's approach, he views his job is to elevate the nation and
continue to focus on the issues involving race and racial healing and
racial progress in America. And that's where the President is on this
matter. I've indicated to you that in terms of any election or
possible election, if there is one, the White House will have no
comment.
I want to make very plain where the White House stands on this and
I think it's important. In all potential leadership races on Capitol
Hill, if there is a leadership race, the White House plays no role and
will play no role and offers no thoughts and opinions and proffers no
advice about this matter. It is a congressional matter if it gets to
that point.
Q Did someone tell Senator Lott that they think he's being
treated unfairly?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think that there is a sense that you can't
help but pick up a newspaper and read things and you see that things
are being said that are wrongly -- wrongly -- being sourced and
attributed to people in the White House. And I think there is a sense
here that, obviously, people read those stories and they want to know,
is the White House saying these things, yes or no. And I call on you
with respect.
This is a very sensitive matter, of course. It's a matter of
people having strong opinions, people presenting what they hope will be
a conclusion on one side or another, and then being willing to
influence the debate so that their conclusion can be reached. This is
a very difficult issue for all concerned to discern, whether or not
when somebody comes to you and says, I heard such-and-so say, whether
or not they're really representing what actually was said or not.
I have never seen an issue where the White House seems to have so
many advisors that we now read about in the press, none of whom seem to
have any names, none of whom seem to have any responsibility. And
that's why I've said to you what I have said on the record about the
White House position. And I think you're all in a very difficult spot
if you have to evaluate information you've heard that his third-hand
and fourth-hand, that allegedly applies to what is being said in the
White House, recognizing there are people who have pre-formed opinions
about what the final result may be, and they may be shared their
pre-formed opinion with you that is removed, far removed, from what the
White House is saying.
Q Did you just get to --
Q So then, if somebody in this building told Senator Lott he
was being treated unfairly, it was about quotes anonymously attributed
to White House officials or White House advisors, not that it was
unfair for fellow Republican senators to challenge his hold on the
leadership?
MR. FLEISCHER: No. As I've made plain, the White House has no
comment on any potential leadership race, and the White House will
offer no advice or opinions or judgments to people who may or may not
be involved in this. And that is, I think, something that everybody in
Washington is well familiar with in terms of the typical White House
approach to any leadership race, if there is in this case a leadership
race. Because I think that, too, is something where nobody knows with
certainty whether it will or it won't be.
Q Ari, if there are omissions in the Iraq declaration, can the
American people be confident that proof will be forthcoming to show
what those omissions are?
MR. FLEISCHER: I've said this before and I will say this again --
and I think it's very important. We are a democracy. Democracies are
extraordinarily reluctant, and particularly the American democracy, to
go to war.
In the event that the President reaches the conclusion that what he
has determined is his last choice and his last option becomes the only
option to protect and to save American lives, you can be assured the
President will repeatedly talk to the American people about this. He
will continue his deliberative and his thoughtful approach. That will
be the approach that the President takes over the passage of time. And
so, you will hear from the President when the President deems it
appropriate, and I would reach no conclusions about when that would be,
whether it's this week or some other time.
But you will hear, of course, from the President. It's his job in
our democracy.
Q With respect to my colleague, John, there are a couple of
other points I think I'd like to attempt to clear up about Senator
Lott's dealings with the White House. He says he's in contact with the
White House a couple of times a day. I'd like to know if that's true.
He says he's talked with the President about this issue more than
once. Is that true? And he says, most importantly, the President
supports him. Is that true?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, I want to go back and look at the transcript
to make certain that what is being presented here -- because, again,
I saw half of the tape, and so I have a remaining half of the tape to
watch. But I did not hear any of those points made in the half of the
tape that I saw. So let's all review the transcript to make sure that
these are all accurate presentations.
Q I can read it to you, if you'd like.
MR. FLEISCHER: The whole thing? I understand it was lengthy.
Q The part that I was referring to, yes.
MR. FLEISCHER: My position is, as you know -- and I have said
this repeatedly on behalf of the President -- that the President does
not think Senator Lott needs to resign. We will have no comment on any
events leading up to a potential race, if there is a race, on January
6th. And as I indicated earlier, the White House plays no role and
will not play a role, and offers no thoughts or opinions about any
potential candidacies.
Q You could tell us, however, if Senator Lott is speaking
accurately when he says the President supports him. Is that true?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, I want to wait until I can read a transcript
before I comment on something that I have not seen or heard myself.
Q You know that independent of what Senator Lott is saying.
MR. FLEISCHER: I made it very plain what the President's point of
view is.
Q Is it really true to say the White House plays no role?
MR. FLEISCHER: Greg.
Q How can you stand there and say that?
MR. FLEISCHER: Greg.
Q Most of us believe otherwise.
MR. FLEISCHER: Bill, you're in a position where you're not naming
who is saying these things to you. You have to evaluate whether
somebody says something to you and presents it to you as, I was talking
to somebody in the White House and this person in the White House says
--
Q That's not what I asked you.
MR. FLEISCHER: You're one step removed, I present.
Q How can you stand there and say that the White House plays no
role in this when it is widely understood in this town that the White
House has certain concerns, possibly choices about what is going on?
MR. FLEISCHER: "Widely understood in this town" is not precise
reporting. "Widely understood in this town" is often the repeating of
a rumor mill.
Q Still not the question --
MR. FLEISCHER: That is not accurate.
Q Aren't you choosing sides when you say he doesn't have to
resign? Aren't you choosing sides?
MR. FLEISCHER: As I indicated, this is about potential leadership
race, and the White House does not choose sides in a potential
leadership race if there is one.
Q You don't think he should resign, so I guess you want him to
stay as --
MR. FLEISCHER: The President does not think he should resign.
Q On Iraq, you had said -- I believe I got it -- that the
United States government would share some information tomorrow on the
report. Can you sketch sort of how that would -- will take place and
who's involved?
MR. FLEISCHER: Let me finalize that and I'll be able to provide
you that information, I think, shortly thereafter this briefing.
You'll know who it will be and we'll just put that out shortly.
Q Yesterday when you were talking about missile defense and the
decision to deploy it, you noted that there had been predictions that
doing that would cause relations with Russia to go very sour, and in
fact quite the opposite had happened. I think your words were
something to the effect that relations with Russia had never been
better.
Today, the Russian Foreign Ministry put out a fairly lengthy
statement responding to the decision to deploy missile defense,
expressing deep regret and saying that it would trigger a new arms race
and basically saying that they strongly disagreed with the decision.
Does that cause you to reassess your assessment of the U.S.-Russian
relations?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think there is no question that in a relationship
that is probably the best in modern times between the United States and
Russia, there are areas where there are disagreements and those
disagreements have been handled through very patient and quiet
diplomacy that has been effective.
But the fact of the matter is that there is a remarkable and
historic lowering of the level of offensive weapons that President Bush
and President Putin have agreed to. And the President will hope that
the Congress and the Senate will make one of its priorities in the next
Congress ratification of the Treaty of Moscow, which will prove to the
world that at a time when the United States is moving forward with
missile defense, we are actually lowering the number of offensive
weapons around the world to historic lows.
Q So you don't see this rather negative reaction out of Moscow
as problematic for the relationship?
MR. FLEISCHER: No. As I acknowledge, there are going to be
differences in the relationship between nations that are becoming
increasingly friendlier, but the facts about whether or not this has
led to a buildup of weapons, but just the opposite, as is well known.
There actually is an historic reduction of weapons.
Q One more about Russia, if I may -- Russia and Iraq. Last
week, the Iraqis canceled a very lucrative contract that it had with
the state-owned Russian oil company, Lukoil. Do we take that to be any
kind of signal or strong wind about where Russian-Iraqi relations are
going and Russia's attitude toward --
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, I have no information on that beyond the
reports that we've all seen. That's a matter between Iraq and Russia.
Q It seems to me, Ari, that you should be able to, even without
reviewing Senator Lott's most recent comments, clarify whether or not
the President has spoken to him. Have they talked Since December 5th
when Senator Lott made his comments?
MR. FLEISCHER: The last time I'm aware that the President and
Senator Lott spoke was after the President returned to the White House
from his speech in Philadelphia.
Q They've not spoken since?
MR. FLEISCHER: I said that's the last time I'm aware that they
spoke.
Q Ari, on Iraq, earlier you said that you're not aware of
everything that Mr. Blix may or may not say tomorrow to the Security
Council. Does that mean that he has at least in part briefed the White
House to a certain extent on what he will say?
MR. FLEISCHER: As I indicated, that Hans Blix works per the
Security Council, and we, the United States being a member of the
Security Council and the Security Council voted 15 to nothing, we
always consult. This is what you would expect in a multilateralist
endeavor like this.
It's not as if there are bridges that have to be crossed between
the United Nations, the United Nations Security Council, the
member-states of the Security Council and the inspectors; it is
designed to be a collaborative process. So, of course, there are going
to be communications. You're well aware of the fact that Hans Blix has
visited many capitals around the world, including Washington, where me
met with Dr. Rice, where he's met with numerous American officials.
He went to Paris and met with the French government, went to Russia and
met with the Russian government, went to Beijing, met with the Chinese
government. He's doing his job.
Q Governor Jeb Bush just recently made the following comments
to The Miami Herald regarding Lott. "Something's going to have to
change. This can't be the topic of conversation over the next week."
Did the Governor make these comments without consulting his brother at
all?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not aware of any conversation between his
brother and the President about that. Obviously, people make
statements. And the White House still will not comment.
Q So there was no --
MR. FLEISCHER: I said I'm not aware of any.
Q Can you look into it?
Q Ari, forgive me for coming back to this, but having gotten
the verbatim myself, I've got to ask it, played the tape -- tape was
played for me, Senator Lott, saying, after describing these plans to
hang in there -- he says -- that he believes the President and his
aides, "support what I'm trying to do here and will continue to do
so." Is he wrong?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, you know I have a longstanding policy that
if there's information that I have not seen myself from the transcript,
I will reserve the right to review the transcript.
Q You didn't hear him say that?
MR. FLEISCHER: I did not. I will review the transcript.
Q Ari, when you say the President says Senator Lott does not
have to resign, is that referring to his position as majority leader?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct.
Q Okay.
Q Ari, two questions on Iraq. The first one, you say that the
United States is going to share information tomorrow. Presumably that
will be to the Security Council and will involve some security --
some intelligence information. Will that also be made --
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I'm indicating that the United States will have
something to say publicly about this matter. Of course, Ambassador
Negroponte will be at the United Nations when Mr. Blix makes his
report. Ambassadors to the Security Council will be speaking in the
session at the United Nations. I've given no indication about any --
any content of that.
Q Will he point out what we consider to be omissions and our
proof that those are omissions? That things are maybe being held back
and not being disclosed?
MR. FLEISCHER: I would just urge you to wait until tomorrow and
then you'll hear from the appropriate officials.
Q Quick question, the President way back in September said,
weeks rather than months, that this is a very pressing issue, that the
danger is growing.
Here we are, we're more than three months out from that time of his
speech. Iraq continues to fire on our aircraft in the no-fly zones.
Is there any concern that American action has been co-opted by this
whole U.N. process, that maybe there might be some slackening of
support among the American people as this thing drags on and on and
on?
MR. FLEISCHER: And what was it exactly that the President said
should take weeks, not months?
Q On acting against Iraq.
MR. FLEISCHER: No, that's not precise. The President said -- if
you recall his words -- the President said that the vote that the
United Nations needed to cast after his September speech to the United
Nations urging them to vote on a new resolution had to take weeks, not
months. That's precisely what took place at the U.N. Again, this is
why words are important and the precision in which you quote government
officials is important. That's what the President said should take
weeks, not months. It did take weeks, not months.
Q Fair enough. Meanwhile, we're quite a ways down the line
and this just seems to be dragging on. There doesn't seem to be any
end in sight.
MR. FLEISCHER: The President does not hold that view. The
President holds the view that when it comes to matters of war and
peace, it is important to be deliberative, to be thoughtful and to be
wise. And that is exactly the course that the President will take.
Q Ari, Senator Lott seems to have made some sort of conversion
to embrace affirmative action. At least that's he said -- indicated
in the -- I think it was the BET interview. Where does the
administration stand on this? Does it agree with him on that?
MR. FLEISCHER: Exactly where I said yesterday when I was asked the
question yesterday. The President supports affirmative access. And
yesterday I gave a very lengthy description of what that entails. So
you'll be able to find that.
Q Ari, I have two questions. First, one on Iraq. I wanted to
clarify, does the President believe that every day that the weapons
inspectors are in Iraq is effectively containing Saddam Hussein and
Baghdad's program of weapons of mass destruction? Or does the world
continue to be, in his view, at risk as long as the inspectors are on
the ground?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, the President's view is that the inspectors are
a means to an end. And that the end is the disarmament of Iraq, and
that the inspectors can be a tool in determining whether Iraq has,
indeed, disarmed. And especially their role can be a helpful tool if
Iraq cooperates with the inspectors. That's the President's view.
Q So, in effect, he does not believe that Saddam Hussein and
the program in Baghdad could possibly be contained, no matter how many
weapons inspectors you have there?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, it all depends on whether Iraq cooperates.
And one way to measure whether Iraq is sincere in its desire to
cooperate is to evaluate their declaration and to see whether it is,
indeed, truthful and complete and full.
Q I wanted to follow up, then, on Lott. I want to just
clarify in my own mind -- if the President -- if it's important for
us to understand the President's thinking about Senator Lott, and he
reached this decision that it is not necessary -- the words are that
Senator Lott does not need to resign as majority leader, what is in the
President's mind that made him conclude that that was not necessary?
MR. FLEISCHER: For the exact reasons that the President gave in
Philadelphia. He said that Senator Lott apologized, and rightly so.
Q In the President's mind the apology was sufficient and that
Senator Lott could ably continue to be the majority leader in the
Senate?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President said that he apologized, and rightly
so, and he did not think he needed to resign.
Q And that's all that is needed at this point?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's the President's statement. That's just
exactly what he said, correct.
Q Ari, with respect to affirmative access, I understand the
example that you gave yesterday with respect to a fixed percentage in
college admissions at the University of Texas. But could you give an
example of how affirmative access would work in the workplace with
respect to recruitment, hiring and promotion?
MR. FLEISCHER: That was not something that came up in the context
of Texas. And so I think that still remains the best example. The
President has said that as part of the federal procurement process --
just what I said yesterday -- the President thinks it is a
constructive and helpful way to provide opportunities by having a
portion, making certain that the federal contractors provide a portion
of their contracts to make certain that the minority communities that
apply for contracts are included in the procurement process.
This often has been an issue where the people who get the contracts
with the federal government are sometimes the biggest businesses, and
the President would like to see more of a distribution of that.
Q But as far as affirmative action and private employment,
workplace, EEO requirements --
MR. FLEISCHER: The President believes in affirmative access and he
does not support quotas or numerical goals.
Q Ari, you just mentioned earlier that it's the job of the
member states, not the inspectors, to determine a material breach. But
I believe the French said quite the opposite, that it's the inspectors'
jobs. Are we at odds with some of our other UN members, and what's the
consequence of that?
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, I wouldn't speak for the French on this, or I
wouldn't speak for any other nation; I think you have to ask them about
their positions. I can simply assert to you what the American
position -- who it is who would declare that.
Q Is there any concern that they might try to hide behind
inspectors in declaring material breach, that they may say if the
inspectors don't do it, we can't do it?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think that we all will learn more tomorrow as
member states start to comment on the declaration. The declaration has
been provided to all states. All states are within their rights to
review it and make their positions known. And we'll know a lot more
tomorrow.
Q Just to try to clarify one more time on Iraq, what will the
United States and Great Britain do if both nations find Saddam Hussein
to be in material breach -- if the U.S. concludes differently? And
if the allies go it alone, do you expect that they could strike from
bases from Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, you've put together two things that I don't
comment on: one hypothetical and the other operational. So there is
no way I can answer a question like that. You're asking about
potential series of hypothetical events, and anything dealing with
operations, as you know, the Department of Defense would brief that.
Q We still don't know this key question, whether the U.S. and
Britain are willing to go it alone in violation of what the U.N. --
MR. FLEISCHER: The President has said repeatedly on that question
that the United States will assemble a coalition of the willing.
Q And that still stands?
MR. FLEISCHER: Absolutely.
Q Ari, two oil companies are asking the administration to open
up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve because of concerns that supply
disruptions are -- in Venezuela are going to raise oil prices. Is
that something the President is considering? And under what
circumstances would he consider opening up the reserve?
MR. FLEISCHER: The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is, by design, to
be used for severe disruptions of the market. That is a type that has
not occurred. Obviously, we're going to continue to monitor the
situation very closely. The Department of Energy -- as I indicated
yesterday, the Department of Energy last week made the determination
not to proceed or to temporarily defer some of the increases that were
taking place into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve as a way of providing
more energy into the marketplace for consumers. So we'll continue to
monitor it. But at this time we do not think the release is
necessary.
Q Ari, one on Iraq. Some members of the Security Council are
very upset that they received an edited version of the declaration of
Iraq. I'm talking about Colombia and Mexico, for example. Why is
that, if the United States wants to share with all the nations all
information about Iraq, some members -- non-permanent members
received an edited version of the document?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the procedures for which the document --
the declaration was distributed were decided by the United Nations and
the President of the Security Council. So I think that's the
appropriate place to get the answer. But it's not an uncommon
procedure for the P-5 and the E-10 to be covered by the procedures of
the Security Council in a way that's reflective of the various
expertise of the P-5 and the E-10.
Q Quick follow-up. The President spoke with Prime Minister of
Spain on the issue of Venezuela?
MR. FLEISCHER: It did not come up during the session in the Oval
Office. I do yet know if it came up during the lunch, because I'm in
here. But we'll try, if there's any additional information from the
lunch, to brief it out if there's a desire for any type of additional
briefings on it.
Q And I don't understand the term you used, a last chance.
Because I thought that last chance for Saddam Hussein was to produce a
full, complete, accurate declaration -- which he didn't. So he
missed this last chance. So what is the next last chance now?
(Laughter.)
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, as I indicated the President has made clear
that this is the last chance. And the evaluations of the declaration
continue. The President in this evaluation process will be, as I
indicated, deliberative, thoughtful, and wise. And he will continue to
consult.
Q I want to go back to the question we were talking about on
Lott earlier that you didn't answer. Aside from the transcript, who
did he talk to at the White House and what was he commenting --
MR. FLEISCHER: I'll be happy to try to find out. I'll be happy to
try to find out. I know it was not the President; that's where I start
my endeavors. It's a big building --
Q You'll try to find out?
MR. FLEISCHER: As I indicated, I'll try to find out.
Q -- staff level --
MR. FLEISCHER: Right, because it's not the President.
Q But if you know that, then you should be able to tell us who
it was.
MR. FLEISCHER: I said I'll try to find out. But just because I
can go to the President, or the President's staff and say, did the
President get a phone call, and they say no, how would that advise me
who, indeed, did? It's a big building.
Q So you will get back to us on it.
MR. FLEISCHER: That's what I indicated.
Q In this last campaign, the White House, the President, Karl
Rove, hand-picked candidates all over the country. Why is the
President so reluctant to make his views known on this much more
important leadership question?
MR. FLEISCHER: Because of the reasons I gave previously. There
is, indeed, a tradition of White Houses, on occasion, getting involved
in races across the country. But there is also a longstanding
tradition, and this White House believes that this is the most
appropriate way to proceed, that in the event of any potential
leadership races, that the White House does not get involved in
potential leadership races.
Q Ari, on the last chance question, as this debate now moves
forward in the Security Council, the expected reaction of some of the
members already talking about -- that if the United States and Great
Britain believe there are omissions, then someone should go back to
Iraq and say, where is this, where is that. Am I correct in saying it
is the view of the United States government -- view that as a waste
of time? Did Saddam have one chance to do this?
MR. FLEISCHER: No. It's the view of the United States government
that inspections need to continue, that this is a process the President
called for and asked for, and that the inspectors need to have every
tool at their disposal so they are capable of doing their job to the
very best degree possible.
Q So there can be a give and take about supplementing the
report or filing additional information or a question-and-answer period
of time -- so he didn't get one shot to file --
MR. FLEISCHER: That's a different question, and I'm not aware of
any thinking on that, other than the fact that Saddam Hussein has
already been given his chance to provide a last and complete report.
But the inspections, in the President's judgment, are important to
continue, and he wants to make certain that the inspectors have every
tool at their disposal so they can carry out their job.
Q So it's a long last chance?
MR. FLEISCHER: I've said that the process is continuing.
Q But I think what we're all struggling with a little bit is
two things. One is that the President made very, very clear when he
talked -- when he lays things out, and he frankly has been more clear
than you're being with us today in terms of leaving room for other
things to happen. The second issue is, inspections need to continue.
I thought that you and the President were also very clear in saying
that the burden is not on the inspectors to unearth information, that
it's on Saddam Hussein.
MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct.
Q So Saddam Hussein has issued a declaration that has problems
and omissions. So why isn't the ball game over?
MR. FLEISCHER: Because the President, as I indicated, has said
that we will continue to consult and work with our allies. As you
know, that was all part of the discussions with the United Nations
Security Council and the run-up to the passage of the resolution that
passed 15-nothing.
You're very well aware that the President said that he would
consult with our allies -- the consultative process is underway.
Q So we're correct --
MR. FLEISCHER: Just as you were told and promised.
Q We're correct, then, in reporting that the President is now
beginning the process convincing his allies in the Security Council
that Iraq is in material breach of this resolution and, therefore,
serious consequences must follow?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I urge you to await tomorrow and await what
Hans Blix says, and not to jump into --
Q Why do we need to wait for tomorrow? You have told us the
President's -- omissions and problems?
MR. FLEISCHER: Because your job is to cover the news; the news
will get made tomorrow.
Q You said I was asking you two different questions. But isn't
it the same thing that if the United States -- what we're being told
is that Iraq had confessed in the previous regime that it had these
mustard gas shells, and we're being told that there's nothing in here
in this documentation to prove that they destroyed them, as they
promised -- so if Hans Blix then goes to Iraq and says, hey, did you
destroy these mustard gas shells, where is the evidence, show us --
is that not giving Saddam another chance to amend his filing?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, this is the process that the President
called for at the United Nations, and you are seeing it unfold.
Q But he said he had to tell the truth, he had one chance to
tell the full truth -- complete and accurate truth. If you then go
back and say, hey, you forgot this, and Iraq gets a chance to say, oh,
you're right, and show something else, is that not --
MR. FLEISCHER: John, I appreciate your rush to war, but the --
(laughter) -- fact of the matter is, this President will do just what
he told the world he would do. He promised -- and this was part of
our consultations in the multilateral course that this President
pursued -- to consult with his allies and to be deliberative. You are
watching the process.
Q It seems to be the term "last chance" that's giving everybody
a little difficulty here.
MR. FLEISCHER: I think that you all seem to be in a rush for the
last chance to happen maybe on tomorrow's news deadline. I urge you
not to look at it that way.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
END 1:30 P.M. EST
|