Excerpts from the Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer October 1, 2002 (Full transcript)

QUESTION: Can you tell us how the Biden-Lugar resolution is weaker than the resolution that was passed in 1998, specifically?

MR. FLEISCHER: The President appreciates Senator Lugar and Senator Biden's efforts in this regard. The President appreciates all members of Congress for their thoughts and their suggestions. Specifically, on your question, the President believes that the Biden-Lugar draft ties his hands because it pulls back from many of the provisions that Congress itself cited in 1998, such as requiring or asking or demanding of Iraq to cease their support for terror, to stop repression of his own people, to cease threatening his neighbors. Those are three of the specifics that have been in previous contained bipartisan drafts of what the Congress passed, and also what the United Nations has spoken to and supported. That would not be found in the too narrow Biden-Lugar proposal.

QUESTION: But the Biden-Lugar proposal does allude to Iraq being on the list of known state sponsors of terrorism, and the 1998 resolution didn't authorize the use of force to address any of what you just talked about. So how could it be that this resolution is weaker?

MR. FLEISCHER: Because it omits those key provisions that I just cited that the President thinks --

QUESTION: But it provides for the use of force, which the 1998 resolution didn't.

MR. FLEISCHER: Sure. And on that point, the President is grateful, for the fact that still the fundamental issue that Congress is focused on is the authorization of force. And as Congress debates the various "whereas" clauses, we're going to continue to listen to the Congress and work with the Congress. Dr. Rice met earlier today with Senator Lugar. And so we're going to continue the process. It's been a healthy one.

QUESTION: Is this resolution gaining any traction on Capitol Hill, Ari?

MR. FLEISCHER: Oh, I don't think I'm in a position to handicap --

QUESTION: Is it unacceptable?

MR. FLEISCHER: The President earlier today said it ties his hands, and that it's too narrow, too narrowly focused. And so we'll continue to work with Congress. I think what you're seeing in Congress, frankly, has been a real strong, bipartisan effort to support what the President has asked for. And the President has shown a real willingness to work with Congress. This has been a healthy process so far. I think it's winding down, coming to a conclusion. And the President tomorrow morning will meet with the four leaders of the Congress, a bipartisan meeting, House and Senate leaders. And I think that the Congress itself wants to be able to soon resolve this and speak with one voice.

QUESTION: Senator Lugar was up here this morning. Can you tell us who he was meeting with and what the White House message was?

MR. FLEISCHER: I just did. He met with Dr. Condi Rice this morning here. And the two of them talked about this and Condi shared with him really very much what I just shared with you all. And that's why I began it by praising Senator Lugar for his thoughts. You know, this is a process where the "whereas" clauses are going to receive their fair amount of contemplation and debate; properly so. The declarative paragraph is what is the most important paragraph; after all, that's the one that authorizes the use of force with the bipartisan support of the United States Congress. And in this process, you saw earlier, there were drafts that were sent up to the Hill that referenced international peace -- and threats to international peace and security, which was boilerplate language taken out of previous United Nations resolutions, and we worked with Congress on that.

We'll continue to work with Congress on this and listen to helpful suggestions. But, ultimately, I think it's becoming increasingly clear that there is overwhelming bipartisan support for the essence of what the President is proposing. And until the drafting is conclusive and final and done, there's going to be continuing conversations.

QUESTION: One of the "whereas" clauses of the Biden-Lugar proposal does not include is a reference to the attempted assassination of the President's father. Does the President still believe that it's essential that the congressional resolution mention the fact that, as he put it, Saddam Hussein is the man who tried to kill his dad?

MR. FLEISCHER: Take a look at the draft that was publicly released after the initial discussions with the Congress about what was sent up there, and you'll see if that was in there or not. I just don't recall if it was or wasn't. Certainly that has been a factor that led to previous military action by the Clinton administration against the Iraqi regime. So it has previously led to military use of force.

Not an unserious matter to try to assassinate a former President. But there are many reasons that the President has cited, all of which point to Saddam Hussein's willingness to bring harm to the American people.

QUESTION: Is the President's message to lawmakers today and again tomorrow morning, don't send me, or don't write a resolution that looks like Lugar-Biden?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, you heard the President himself. The President said that he does not want a resolution that ties his hands, that will result in the United Nations passing anything that's a pullback from what the United Nations has said. After all, why would the Congress speak in a softer voice than the United Nations when the issue is how to send an effective, clear, unmistakable message to Saddam Hussein so he knows that this time the world means business? And that's why the President feels strongly.

QUESTION: Will he take it that one step further to the lawmakers and say, don't write a resolution that looks like this, this will be unacceptable?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, you heard what the President said. I can't go beyond what the President said. We'll continue to work closely with the Congress on it and we'll see where the ultimate outcome is.

QUESTION: If, as you say, what's most important is the authorizing paragraph, then this debate about the various "whereas" clauses, are they really deal-breakers, or is that part of negotiation? I mean, how much -- if you really care about authorization and you're getting what you want there, why are the "whereas" clauses -- how important are the "whereas" clauses?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think the entire resolution is important, and it conveys a message. And the question is, what will Saddam Hussein do once he hears this message? Will he say, this is watered down from what they previously said, that I detect a backtracking from the United States, I detect a backtracking from the United Nations? If that's the message Saddam Hussein hears, that's problematic. And that's why the President thinks it's important that nothing be passed that ties his hands, that sends that clear and effective signal in the authorization of the use of force.

QUESTION: But if the authorization for use of force, either explicitly or in some other way, nods to a regime change, and he gets that message, I mean, why is that less important or less frightening or less intimidating --

MR. FLEISCHER: Let me -- let me --

QUESTION: -- than just stop oppressing your people? I mean, if you can go in and change the regime, you kind of solve the other problem, perhaps.

MR. FLEISCHER: Let me give you an example of something that is not in this draft that has been in previous statements by both the Congress and the United Nations, and that deals with United Nations Security Council Resolution 949. And this deals with ceasing -- Iraq ceasing any threats to its neighbors, which, after all, is what led to the war in 1991, when Saddam Hussein attacked Kuwait in August of 1990. That's nowhere found in this resolution by Senator Biden and Senator Lugar.

So, in the event Saddam Hussein were to again threaten a neighbor, attack a neighbor, invade Kuwait, under this too-narrow resolution being discussed right now, the United States would not have the authorization to use force because Saddam Hussein invaded a neighbor.

That's why the President thinks, don't tie my hands, don't do anything that's too narrow. And that would be the case, that cited 949, U.N. Security Council Resolution 949, which we need to enforce. We need to make certain that Saddam Hussein doesn't miss any signals and attack any of his neighbors. But that's nowhere found in what Senator Lugar is working on.

But again, the point I want to emphasize is that we're listening, we're meeting. Condi had a good meeting with Senator Lugar this morning. And she welcomes, and the President welcomes the input from members of Congress. It's leading to a process that is heading toward finality. And that process is going to be inclusive because the President wants to have a big bipartisan vote. But at the same token, the President does not want his hands tied in a way that would confuse the world and weaken the resolutions that we seek to put in place.

QUESTION: If I could -- just one more? So by having these "whereas" sections, would that enable the White House to have the kind of flexibility you're talking about? If there was, say, another inspections process that got approved and somehow starts to happen, he'd have these other triggers that could be cited as a reason for taking action.

MR. FLEISCHER: Again, the inspections is not the issue. The issue is disarmament. Inspections doesn't negate what the United States and the United Nations are working on.

QUESTION: But Congress is trying to keep this focused on the weapons of mass destruction, and that involves --

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, Jean, I think you have to carefully analyze how many people are lining up behind the various proposals on the Hill, when you say Congress wants to keep it focused on WMD. I think that what the President has submitted to the Hill has very powerful, large, bipartisan majorities right now. The question is, different people continue to have ideas and we're going to continue to work with them all.

QUESTION: Yes, Ari, I have two questions for you. The first one has to do with the U.N. Russia, China and France continue to publicly say through high officials that they don't want military action, they want diplomatic steps to be taken. What happens -- and I hope it's not a hypothetical. But if the U.N. does not give the President the resolution he and Tony Blair are asking for, does the President feel the resolutions already existing are enough for the United States to take unilateral military action?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President feels that the resolutions that currently exist have been ignored, and if the United Nations were to pass just a warmed-up version of the existing resolutions, then the United Nations is going to be proven to not take Saddam Hussein seriously, and that the United Nations is at risk of being considered the League of Nations.

They've tried it for 10 years and it hasn't worked, and the President believes deeply that it is time for the United Nations to speak differently, to speak effectively, and not to repeat the mistakes that have been made for a decade that have only seen Saddam Hussein continue to build up his weapons. And so that's where the President's focus is. Now, as to where matters stand with China and France and Russia, the dialogue is continuing. There are still conversations taking place at various diplomatic levels, and I think you're going to see those conversations continue for the time-being.

QUESTION: Ari, is there concern here at the White House that the meetings taking place in Vienna between the weapons inspectors and representatives of the Iraqi government are undermining the President's efforts to get a single resolution out of the U.N.?

MR. FLEISCHER: No, I have not heard that. I think there are some people who have had different thoughts about whether it should be one or two resolutions, people in other countries, with or without what's happening with Hans Blix in the meetings in Vienna. And those conversations will continue. But the President, again, thinks it's very important for the United Nations to act differently and not just repeat the mistakes that have been made for 10 years, that have allowed Saddam Hussein to think that he can act with impunity as he builds up his arms. And so the United States position remains that the best resolution -- and what we are seeking -- is one resolution.

QUESTION: Apparently, there's some support building for the two resolution method. What exactly is the White House's position on two resolutions? If it comes down to that, can you live --

MR. FLEISCHER: I just gave it to you.

QUESTION: But is there a middle ground that --

MR. FLEISCHER: I just gave you our position, Ken.

QUESTION: Isn't it true the State Department is crafting behind the scenes a compromise that would have a two-stage resolution with a trigger -- the second resolution with military force would kick in if Iraq doesn't comply with the first one?

MR. FLEISCHER: The President has said clearly that he wants to see a one-resolution solution. He does not think that we need to send any signs of weakness to Saddam Hussein; that Saddam Hussein will exploit any opportunity he sees that gives him a signal that the world is not united, that the world is not speaking as one, and that the world is willing to give Saddam Hussein more time. Because more time for Saddam Hussein means more development of more weapons.

QUESTION: So just to follow, you're saying that this administration is absolutely, 100 percent, ruling out any support of any two-stage resolution such as the French --

MR. FLEISCHER: I can only say to you as plain as I have, this is what the President believes.

QUESTION: If I could do one more on a separate thing. Just going back to the subject of the congressional resolution, the President and you all have talked about the focus is disarming Saddam Hussein, disarming Iraq. Why then shouldn't the President solely have military force used for that focus, to disarm Saddam Hussein?

MR. FLEISCHER: If you're saying, why should the United States retreat from the previous positions taken by the United Nations and the United States Congress, it's because retreating in the face of Saddam Hussein's threat is not an option.

QUESTION: But it's unfair to really compare it, because the previous resolutions didn't authorize the use of force. You're talking about authorizing the use of military force. And my question is, if --

MR. FLEISCHER: You know, that supposes that the people who passed regime change didn't mean it, or they thought that Saddam Hussein would term-limit himself. And when they passed regime change in 1998, you have to assume that they meant it. And they cited all those reasons in there about the Iraqi violations of the oil-for-food program, which by the way, he uses to build up his arms. So therefore, it's important to mention it, not to leave it unsaid. That's how he's getting his money for arms. They cited his support for terror, his repression of people, his hostility toward his neighbors. All of these were cited in 1998 by the Congress as why regime change is necessary.

QUESTION: But they didn't authorize the use of force to bring about regime change.

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, that's why I said, unless they didn't mean what they voted for in 1998 -- and I don't think Congress indicated that -- or unless they thought Saddam Hussein was into term limits, they remain important criteria today.

QUESTION: Ari, the CBO has new estimates that the war in Iraq would cost between $9 billion and $13 billion. Does the White House think that's too low?

MR. FLEISCHER: Again, the President has not made any decisions about military action or what military option he might pursue. And so I think it's impossible to speculate. I can only say that the cost of a one-way ticket is substantially less than that. The cost of one bullet, if the Iraqi people take it on themselves, is substantially less than that. The cost of war is more than that. But there are many options that the President hopes the world and people of Iraq will exercise themselves of that gets rid of the threat. But it's impossible to say what the President options are militarily from a price tag, because he's made no decisions.

QUESTION: Should they be making these estimates?

MR. FLEISCHER: The Congressional Budget Office is a separate branch of the government, they work for the Congress.

QUESTION: Ari, two questions. First, I noticed the President this morning, when he said the goal is disarmament, did not mention regime change. And when you go through the Lugar-Biden bill, it doesn't really dwell on regime change as being an objective here in the way that it was in '98.

MR. FLEISCHER: If you are asking, has the President changed his opinion about enforcing the law, the answer is, no. Of course, the President believes that --

QUESTION: You didn't raise that, though, as an objection to the Lugar-Biden amendment.

MR. FLEISCHER: I think if you take a look at the language of the resolution that was sent up to the Hill some two weeks ago, the modified draft that was sent up last week, it makes it perfectly plain by citing the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act that regime change remains our policy. You have that, David.

QUESTION: And the second question is, you just said before, the cost of a one-way ticket is less than that, the cost of a single bullet is less than that. Are you suggesting that two perfectly good alternatives, to your mind, would be an exile of Saddam Hussein --

MR. FLEISCHER: As you know, Secretary Rumsfeld, and many others, including the President, are not shy about saying the Iraqi people -- after all, this was called the Iraqi Liberation Act -- the Iraqi people can help resolve this matter, as well, and the Iraqi military. And so there are many options that the United States is prepared to see, and the President has said the military option is not his first choice, but the President is indeed prepared, if necessary, to use force. And that's why he's asked Congress to authorize it.

QUESTION: Will you help in the one-way ticket scenario? is the U.S. government willing to provide assistance in that regard?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think that's part of regime change, isn't it, if Saddam Hussein is gone?

QUESTION: You addressed David's question about one-way ticket. What about one-way bullet? Is the White House advocating assassination as a possible option for Saddam Hussein?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think that it's fair to say that the Iraqi regime is not satisfied with Saddam Hussein, that Saddam Hussein has created a great many enemies inside Iraq. And it is impossible to last forever as a brutal dictator who suppresses his own people, who tortures his own people, who deliberately brings women in public to be raped, so it can be witnessed by their families. He has not exactly created goodwill among the Iraqi people.

QUESTION: If I could follow on that, would the White House like to see Saddam Hussein dead?

MR. FLEISCHER: The policy is regime change. And that remains -- and that remains the American position. Clearly, in the event that there is any type of military operation, command and control would, of course, be issues that would come up.

QUESTION: Is the hope, though, that he ends up dead in all this?

MR. FLEISCHER: Regime change is the policy, in whatever form it takes.

QUESTION: I just want to re-ask again then, the question I've been asking for several weeks. Is the administration about to rescind the executive order prohibiting assassination of foreign leaders, and claim that he's an international terrorist, and in fact, put out a hit on him?

MR. FLEISCHER: No. The policy remains in place, per the law.

QUESTION: Why is there no consideration to rescinding that executive order?

MR. FLEISCHER: It's just -- because it's not come up as matter that I've heard discussed, Connie. And so I can't tell you why something doesn't get discussed.

QUESTION: Could you ask?

MR. FLEISCHER: I don't really think it's an issue. The policy remains regime change, as expressed by the Congress.

QUESTION: You addressed David's question about one-way ticket. What about one-way bullet? Is the White House advocating assassination as a possible option for Saddam Hussein?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think that it's fair to say that the Iraqi regime is not satisfied with Saddam Hussein, that Saddam Hussein has created a great many enemies inside Iraq. And it is impossible to last forever as a brutal dictator who suppresses his own people, who tortures his own people, who deliberately brings women in public to be raped, so it can be witnessed by their families. He has not exactly created goodwill among the Iraqi people.

QUESTION: If I could follow on that, would the White House like to see Saddam Hussein dead?

MR. FLEISCHER: The policy is regime change. And that remains -- and that remains the American position. Clearly, in the event that there is any type of military operation, command and control would, of course, be issues that would come up.

QUESTION: Is the hope, though, that he ends up dead in all this?

MR. FLEISCHER: Regime change is the policy, in whatever form it takes.

QUESTION: I just want to re-ask again then, the question I've been asking for several weeks. Is the administration about to rescind the executive order prohibiting assassination of foreign leaders, and claim that he's an international terrorist, and in fact, put out a hit on him?

MR. FLEISCHER: No. The policy remains in place, per the law.

QUESTION: Why is there no consideration to rescinding that executive order?

MR. FLEISCHER: It's just -- because it's not come up as matter that I've heard discussed, Connie. And so I can't tell you why something doesn't get discussed.

QUESTION: Could you ask?

MR. FLEISCHER: I don't really think it's an issue. The policy remains regime change, as expressed by the Congress.

QUESTION: What is the administration's position on what kind of access inspectors should have to presidential palaces in Iraq?

MR. FLEISCHER: Unfettered access, unconditional access, anybody, anywhere.

QUESTION: And that means no prior notice, no -- not a requirement that they be accompanied by diplomats?

MR. FLEISCHER: I can only express it as plain as that. Unfettered, unconditional, any time, and anywhere.

QUESTION: Current U.N. resolutions embraced -- a 1998 resolution embraced an agreement between Secretary General Kofi Annan and Saddam Hussein that told them they would give prior notice and they would be accompanied by inspectors. Is that one of the reasons that you have to have a new U.N. resolution?

MR. FLEISCHER: Absolutely. This is one of the reasons that the existing inspection regime has not worked. Keep in mind, when the Western ear hears "presidential palace," you tend to think of a place in which a leader sleeps -- rather a legitimate purpose. That's not what's going on here. These are places that Saddam Hussein doesn't even go to. These are government facilities, government property, where who knows what is going on, and there's a good reason Saddam Hussein does not want people to go there and take a look at these facilities, even if he never sleeps there. And that's why the existing regime has been a regime that, for 10 years, Saddam Hussein has been able to play cat-and-mouse with the world. And the President thinks the time has come now for the United Nations to do something different, to act differently, so that we don't repeat those same mistakes.

QUESTION: So a new U.N. resolution, the one the U.S. favors, would clear away all the old underbrush and say simply that inspectors have the right to go anywhere, anytime, get at anyplace, no prior notice, no accompaniment by diplomats?

MR. FLEISCHER: Here are the three criteria the United States is seeking in a new resolution that would be tough and effective and different. One, it would make plain for the world to see what Saddam Hussein has violated. Two, it would call on Saddam Hussein to cease his violations of those provisions. And, three, it would make clear what will happen if Saddam Hussein fails to cease his violations.

MR. FLEISCHER: I think it was rather remarkable to see a member of the United States Congress travel to Baghdad, Iraq, to say that Saddam Hussein needs to be believed, while the President of the United States will mislead the American people. And I think it just shows it is certainly the good Congressman's right to say anything he wants, no matter how foolish. And he exercised that right.

QUESTION: Ari, back on Saddam's travel plans and his retirement plans, what steps has the administration taken to encourage other nations to sort of arrange an easy out for this situation?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think this is something that Secretary Rumsfeld has talked about before. My point being, never underestimate the yearning of people to stop being tortured, to stop being suppressed. Don't overestimate the support there is for Saddam Hussein within Iraq. Don't take this as a prediction of things to come, because I can't possibly make predictions of things to come. But don't overestimate Saddam Hussein's support from his own people.

Events will go where events will go. The point the President makes is that the free world needs to be prepared to deal with somebody who has such a history of developing weapons for the purpose of using weapons, and in the process, he has separated himself from the country. And that's why Congress called it the Iraqi Liberation Act.

QUESTION: Ari, one on the declarative portion of the Biden-Lugar resolution as written. The resolution urges the President to work through the United Nations. But, separately and distinctly from that, it would authorize the President to use force when the President could present a determination to the House and the Senate that Saddam's weapons provided such a grave threat that military force is justified. Is the President willing to provide that determination in accordance with that resolution?

MR. FLEISCHER: Again, there is an old adage in drafting of any language on the Hill that says nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to. And you've seen the drafts as they've been exchanged, so you know what the various discussions are about. And hopefully, the process will come to a conclusion rather quickly and everybody will know exactly what the language is, and then we'll see how much support there is for it in the Congress.

QUESTION: Does the President have any particular beef with that portion of the declarative part of that resolution?

MR. FLEISCHER: Again, this is not something I can negotiate in the press for the President. I can try to give you indications of where he is on some of these major issues. But nothing's agreed to until everything is, and we'll see what the ultimate outcome is.

QUESTION: If I can just finally follow that? Usually, "compromise" means to a lot of people the idea of a search for the center, a search for middle ground. Is the President searching for middle ground on this issue?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think the center and the middle ground have already been found. I think that right now, if this was put to the Congress in the form that the administration submitted it just last week as a result of the first round of discussions, it would find very large bipartisan support, very large. So the conversations are continuing because the President thinks it's important to listen to members of Congress, to continue the process, to hear. After all, the question of allowing to authorize force is an important issue. But I think the Senators have already spoken.

QUESTION: Ari, could I just clarify the one bullet line -- is the White House from this podium advocating the assassination of Saddam Hussein by his own people, by his military?

MR. FLEISCHER: No, the question was about potential costs and different scenarios for costs. And I just cited the fact that Saddam Hussein has survived as a result of the repression and suppression of his own people, and that's a reality about what life is like inside Iraq.

QUESTION: But I'm not asking you a question about costs. I'm asking you if you intend to advocate from that podium that some Iraqis, person put a bullet in his head?

MR. FLEISCHER: Regime change is welcome in whatever form that it takes.

QUESTION: So the answer is, yes?