|
|
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
November 26, 2001
Press Briefing By Ari Fleischer
The James S. Brady Briefing Room
12:50 P.M. EST
MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. I have brief remarks to summarize the
President's day, and then I'll be happy to take questions.
This morning the President had his usual round of intelligence briefings from
the Central Intelligence Agency, as well as the FBI. Then he convened a meeting
of his National Security Council to discuss the latest developments in the war.
And then he met in the Rose Garden with the two American humanitarian workers
who were freed from Afghanistan, who were imprisoned for the crime of preaching
Christianity. The President was very pleased to have that meeting, as you saw in
the Rose Garden.
And that is it in the President's public schedule for the day and I'm happy to
take your questions. Ron Fournier.
Q Can you tell me specifically when and where the
President included in his
definition of terrorist-aiding states any country that produces weapons of mass
destruction that can be used by terrorists?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think what the President was referring to is the obvious
and well-known fact that Iraq and North Korea are already listed on the State
Department list of nations that sponsor terrorism, state sponsors of terrorism.
So that's a well known existing definition.
As you remember, Ron, from the campaign, the President repeatedly referred to
the issues of proliferation in North Korea. It's one of the reasons the
President believes in a missile defense, because of the potential of North Korea
to acquire weapons of mass destruction and potentially use them.
He has had similar words about Iraq. So I think when you heard the President
saying his remarks in the Rose Garden, that he's always had that definition as
far as he's concerned, it's because of the statements he's made previously.
Q And what he's saying is clearly that if these -- Iraq, North Korea and the
other, what, five or six countries that are producing weapons of mass
destruction that are being used by terrorists, if they don't stop they will be
considered by the United States equal to terrorists and face the same
consequences?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think go back to the President's words. He said it for a
reason. The President said, "If they develop weapons of mass destruction that
will be used to terrorize nations, they will be held accountable." That's how
the President said it. And then he continued, "So part of the war on terror is
to deny terrorists weapons-getting -- I mean, weapons to be used for means of
terror getting into the hands of nations that will use them." Which is perfectly
consistent with what you've always heard the President say about nations that
use them, the concern that al Qaeda or another organization will seek to acquire
nuclear weapons from Iraq, from a North Korea. That's another way they would use
nuclear weapons if they were to give them to another nation or an entity, a
terrorist group like al Qaeda.
Q But he's never used this -- you can't find a time where he's used this
language, this formulation before?
MR. FLEISCHER: As far as the war on terror? Well, again, I think it's stating
the obvious --
Q As far as linking the nations that produce weapons of mass destruction. Has he
ever used this language before?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, again, he's repeatedly talked about terrorists -- nations
that sponsor terrorism, that's why they're called terrorist nations, nations
that sponsor terrorism by the State Department.
Q He hasn't linked them to sponsoring 00 to weapons of mass destruction.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, let me bring you back again to things the President said
previous to today. Take a look back on March 7th, when President Kim of South
Korea was here, and the President's public remarks after that meeting. The
President said, "I am concerned about the fact that the North Koreans are
shipping weapons around the world, and any agreement that would convince them
not to do so would be beneficial. But we want to make sure that their ability to
develop and spread weapons of mass destruction was, in fact, stopped."
So he's talked about it in that context. In addition, during the campaign, in
referring to the government of North Korea, he referred to the tyrants who are
doing everything they can to be a 21st century menace.
Q But this is a different context. He's linking them -- he is saying today that
they are akin to terrorists and will suffer the same fate as terrorists --
MR. FLEISCHER: And the reason I think why the President said to you that, when
you asked the question, have I expanded the definition, "I've always had that
definition, as far as I'm concerned." It's because of the language I just read
to you. And the President, when he says that they're tyrants, when he says our
concern is that they not proliferate and we're going to take every action we
need to stop them from proliferating, and called for the inspectors to be
returned in Iraq, that's in perfect consistency with what the President was
saying. I think that's why you heard the President say what he said today.
Q And to focus on Iraq for a minute, which it seems where the President is
focused. He has said now a couple of times over the past few days that Saddam
Hussein must allow U.N. inspectors back in to make sure that there is no
development of weapons of mass destruction. Is that a hard demand by this
administration? Should this be seen as the next phase in the war on terrorism?
And what specifically are the consequences for Saddam's --
MR. FLEISCHER: Okay. Well, one, I think that the President's focus is on
Afghanistan. The President has been focused on phase one, destroying the al
Qaeda and their ability to engage in terrorism; destroying the Taliban and those
who harbor terrorists. And in response to some questions the President got about
Iraq, he's answered as he did today when he was asked just what you said, what
are the consequences. And the President has said, "that's up for -- he'll find
out," referring to Saddam Hussein.
So the President has left it in an undefined way, and I think that's the
appropriate place to leave it.
Q If I could just follow-up. In this question on what ought to be done with
Iraq, has the administration essentially settled on an ultimatum, allow weapons
inspectors back in or face the consequences?
MR. FLEISCHER: Terry, that's a reiteration of longstanding American policy that
the inspectors need to be allowed back into Iraq.
Q Is there any additional oomph in it? Is this administration going to put teeth
in it? It has been a long time.
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, I refer you back to what the President said today in the
Rose Garden, and he said that's for him to find out, referring to Iraq's leader,
Saddam Hussein.
Helen.
Q Does the President feel the United States has the right to bomb or invade any
country harboring terrorists? Is he going to invade Spain?
MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, the President, as I mentioned, is focused on phase one --
Q Eight suspected terrorists --
MR. FLEISCHER: The President is focused on phase one of the war against
terrorism. But the President has made it plain to the American people that this
a long-term war.
Q Answer the question. What right do we have to invade any country?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not aware that we are invading Spain.
Q Ari, he also said he may be focused on phase one, but that this is just the
beginning. And what does that do to the coalition? The German Foreign Minister
said last week that Europe would not support expanding the war on terror to
Iraq. So the President, in a sense, is out there alone on this a little bit.
MR. FLEISCHER: No, it's nothing new. This is a reiteration of what you heard the
President say in his speech to the Congress, when the President talked about
either you're with the terrorists or you're not. So it's a message that the
President has consistently said from day one, and properly so. There can be no
good terrorists or bad terrorists. And the war on terrorism is something the
President is focused on long-term. As he said, this is an opportunity for this
generation to do something for our next generation, so our children and
grandchildren don't have to grow up in an atmosphere of fear.
Q But is he trying to prepare the allies for this, who clearly aren't supporting
you, at least at this point?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think his words speak for themselves. And I think the
allies share a willingness to make certain that terrorism is not able to do what
it has been able to do in the last -- for the last generation.
Q You mentioned the speech to Congress, which was, for most Americans, the most
important enunciation of the goals of this campaign against terror. And in that
speech, the President did not, in any way, link developing weapons of mass
destruction to a legitimate target in the war on terrorism. Today he did so. And
though there were previous statements in the campaign and other venues, they do
not exist within the same context we're dealing with now, where you have a
coalition and an active U.S. military campaign, plus planning on the next
phases. Isn't it not, today, a significant shift in administration policy in the
context of war on global terrorism, to add weapons of mass destruction to the
list of legitimate targets?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's not what the President said. The President said that they
should be held accountable, which he has said all along. And I think that it
would be a shift in policy if a President were to drop a long-standing, existing
policy that nations that sponsor terrorists are, by definition, on the State
Department list of nations that sponsor terrorism. So the President again stated
what is already known. If you're suggesting that the President should no longer
state things that are known because they're in a different context, that would
be a change. The President reiterated the long-standing American views about
North Korea and about Iraq.
And on Campbell's question, also, I want to remind you that when the President
talks about the war, he's always talked about a multi-front war, that includes
financial actions against terrorist nations, terrorist activities, arrest of
people who are involved in terrorist activities. Those are the various fronts
that the President has always discussed. And the President said they will be
held accountable. The President did not define what that means. And the
President did so deliberately.
So I want to just urge you, as you take a look at what the President said, to
remember that the coalition has been taking actions against terrorists, broadly
defined and shoulder-to-shoulder with the United States on a host of activities
not only military, but dealing with financial, dealing with political, dealing
with diplomatic, dealing with the detention and the arrests of those who engage
in terrorism.
Q Ari, beyond the exact words that the President used, it did seem like today
there was a significant shift in tone. The administration, since September 11th,
has on several occasions said flatly, we have not linked Iraq with this, with
the bombing, we have not linked Iraq with anthrax. There had been a consistent
message from the administration to downplay the notion that Iraq was somehow
linked with the terrorist attacks in America and, thus, would have invited some
kind of attack by us or response from us.
His comments today, though, seem to shift that tone and open the door to the
fact that Iraq has now joined the list of countries that could be part of phase
two. Is that what he intended to do?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, the President reiterated what has always been said about
the State Department list of nations that sponsor terrorism. In response to a
question, he answered the question. And I think that's something you've seen him
do repeatedly.
Q Ari, the policy may, indeed, be the same. But it's a question of the emphasis.
And all of us in this room today who were in the Rose Garden discerned an
emphasis on Iraq which has not been present in his past public speeches. And we
take it from that that there is a shift in his emphasis.
MR. FLEISCHER: I would urge you to understand that this is a reiteration of what
he has previously said about Iraq, and that Saddam Hussein will just have to
figure out exactly what that means. And that's why the President said, he'll
find out.
Q Will the President try to get other world leaders to get back together and get
on a weapons inspection regime in Iraq? In other words, is he going to try to
rally the coalition to focus on weapons inspection in Iraq?
MR. FLEISCHER: The United Nations has made that plain, that Iraq, as part of
their agreement that they entered into after the Gulf War, said they would allow
weapons inspectors into Iraq. Iraq unilaterally threw them out, in violation of
that agreement. So that's, again, a reiteration of a long-standing American
policy.
Q But, Ari, if I could try one more approach on this. I think the question is
whether this is a war aim. I don't think the President has specifically listed
this as a war aim in the past, to prevent Iraq from acquiring weapons of mass
destruction. Is it now a war aim?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, again, let me refer you to the President's words that have
sparked the conversation, because I think you have to look at what the President
said. And he said, "If they develop weapons of mass destruction that will be
used to terrorize nations, they will be held accountable." I think you're
inferring what that means to unusual lengths. The President said they'll be held
accountable. He didn't define what the accountability would mean. Iraq and North
Korea have long been listed as nations that sponsor terrorism, and that's what
the President said. Saddam Hussein will have to figure it out.
Q Ari, but the answer to that question came --
Q But is it a war aim --
MR. FLEISCHER: The President answered the question today by saying, he'll find
out.
Major.
Q His answer came -- when I asked him about Iraq specifically, and referred
specifically to his words at Fort Campbell, across the world and across the
years, he brought up weapons of mass destruction. In his answer to my question
about the next phase of the war, he said nations who not only harbor, who give
safe haven to terrorists, but also develop weapons of mass destruction. He added
that qualifier, weapons of mass destruction, to a specific question about Iraq.
It seems to all of us here that that is a new dimension, a new war aim, a shift
in policy bringing that definition into a legitimate war target, weapons of mass
destruction, where it didn't occur before.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I can only refer you back to the President's words after
the President -- toward the very end of the same remarks that you heard, he
asked the rhetorical question, have I expanded the definition; "I've always had
that definition, as far as I'm concerned."
Jim.
Q Yes. Let me try to make a couple of distinctions here. If, for instance,
someone used weapons of mass destruction against a civilian population,
obviously, that would be an act of terrorism.
MR. FLEISCHER: Is there a question?
Q Yes. And that would obviously be included in what the President is talking
about -- if someone were to use anthrax or some other sort of weapon, any weapon
of mass destruction, that would obviously be an act of terrorism in the
President's view.
MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct.
Q Is holding weapons of mass destruction an act of terrorism?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, the President said, "So part of the war on terror is to
deny terrorists weapons getting -- I mean, weapons to be used for means of
terror getting in the hands of nations that will use them." So the President
addressed this in the context of nations that will use them.
Q So he's talking about the use of weapons of mass destruction --
MR. FLEISCHER: That's precisely what he said.
Q -- not the development or the holding of weapons of mass destruction?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct. Because there are many nations that hold weapons
of mass destruction. The President was referring to those nations that are
listed on the State Department nations that sponsor terrorism that would use
them, which I think is something that should be self-evident to everybody in
this room. What American President would not speak sternly about any nation that
is listed as a nation that sponsors terrorism from using weapons of mass
destruction? Does anybody think that any nation that is a terrorist sponsor that
would use weapons of mass destruction would not be held accountable? Of course
they will be. That's an existing American policy, always has been, and under
President Bush it always will be.
Dick.
Q One other aspect, if I may, Ari --
MR. FLEISCHER: Okay, Jim.
Q Just one other aspect on that. What about development of weapons of mass
destruction and then giving them to terrorists or nations that are prepared to
use them?
MR. FLEISCHER: That is a use of weapons to give to terrorists. That is exactly
what the President warned about two or three weeks ago when he referred to
efforts by al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden to acquire weapons of mass destruction.
Dick.
Q Getting back to the emphasis, it really did seem to most of us today that
there was a purposeful and increased emphasis on the subject of Iraq in a way
that we haven't seen in recent days or weeks. So, put it this way, is Iraq's
alleged progress in developing either biological or nuclear weapons, has that
been over the past several months an increasing cause of concern for the
President and his advisors?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think we've just about exhausted this. I understand why you're
asking these questions, and it's something that I've talked to the President
about since he made the comments. And I'd just refer you back, again, to what
the President said about Iraq, about North Korea, prior to September 11th. It's
a reaffirmation, a restatement of a long-standing American policy. And I think
it should be readily understood that every American President has spoken out
strongly about Iraq or North Korea, and any nation that would use nuclear
weapons, especially those nations that are state sponsors of terrorism,
regardless of whether September 11th took place or not. But Saddam Hussein can
figure out the rest of it if he wants.
Q Is the President trying to lay the groundwork for the sanctions to be --
MR. FLEISCHER: Peter.
Q Ari, you've got the President of Yemen coming in to meet with President Bush
tomorrow. Two questions. What's the assessment of their cooperation in the
current war, and the investigation of the Cole? And, secondly, they are now
saying that the suspects in the bombing of the Cole, that their trial has been
postponed at the request of the U.S., because the U.S. wants to expand the
investigation. Is that an accurate assessment?
MR. FLEISCHER: Let me come back to you on that this afternoon, and let me post
that. I want to take a look at some information on Yemen before I do that.
Q All right. But what about the first question, just the assessment of their
cooperation?
MR. FLEISCHER: On both questions. I'll post both of those.
Q Ari, just one last one on Iraq. When the President left open how we might
respond, a lot of us are kind of looking at it as from the military perspective.
But is the President trying to lay the groundwork for debate over the sanctions
with Iraq?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, again, go back to what the President had said previously. I
recall him giving a very similar answer when he said, "That's up for -- he'll
find out." The President said something very similar about Iraq during one of
the presidential debates -- I think it was during the Republican primary in New
Hampshire. The President gave almost the exact same answer.
So what you heard today in the Rose Garden about Iraq and North Korea is what
you've heard from this President repeatedly, for two years now, from the
campaign forward, about the manner in which he would treat Iraq or North Korea,
or any nation that's a terrorist sponsor -- state sponsor of terrorism, if they
were to use, as he put it, use nuclear weapons. There is a long body of quotes
from the President prior to November -- September 11th, very similar.
Q But Ari, has he set up some sort of time limit? Because in the Newsweek
interview, they ask him about Iraq, and he says they should let state inspectors
in. And then they come back, and they say, have you set some sort of time limit?
And he seems to imply, well, that he has gotten a message to Hussein, there is a
time limit. Has he? How did that message get through, and what is that time
limit? And then, what's the action if it's not met?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I do not read any implied time limit in that story. It's a
longstanding American demand. And it's been something that Iraq agreed to. That
was one of the conditions that Iraq agreed to.
Q Ari, what's behind the decision to use language like, "he'll find out"? Why be
intentionally ambiguous?
MR. FLEISCHER: It's a reiteration of something he's been saying for years.
Q But what's behind it?
Q On the economic stimulus package, does the President support a provision which
requires that money made from tax reductions be funneled back into investments
in this country, rather than supporting factories overseas, for example?
MR. FLEISCHER: Can you be more specific, when you say, not supporting factories
overseas?
Q Is there a "buy America first" provision in the economic stimulus package, or
should there be one?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, as you know, the way the trade works, there are so many
businesses that are headquartered in America, that have production in America
and other nations; and, conversely, there are many businesses such as BMW,
that's headquartered in Germany, that has plants in South Carolina, for example,
that we are a very interdependent world of business.
And the President believes that the best way to promote the economy and to
stimulate the economy so it creates jobs is through a package that is now
pending in the Senate, that would cut taxes for middle income Americans, for
people who have had their taxes cut that are supposed to go into effect on
January 1st of this coming year, and next year, and the year beyond that, and
accelerating those tax cuts, providing tax cuts for low-income workers, as well
as extending unemployment insurance, and as well as providing a package of
national emergency grants to get health benefits to people who have lost their
jobs.
The President believes that's the package that can help create jobs, along with
business expensing and repeal of the corporate alternative minimum tax. That's
the package the President supports.
Q But there's no guarantee that tax cuts will actually be used to stimulate the
economy, is there?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President believes tax cuts do stimulate the economy.
He believes that's the way it works. And I think there's no question, when you
take a look at the economic data that had the existing tax cut that was passed
by the Congress, signed by the President last spring, not gone into effect, the
recession would be deeper, the recession would probably be longer. The tax cut
has helped to buffer the impact of that recession.
And it's important, in the President's opinion, for the Senate to take action
now, in the wake of September 11th, because the economy needs another jolt.
Q Why did the President capitulate today on his deadline for the economic
stimulus plan, extending it from the end of November to Christmas? Is that not a
concession that Congress won't get it done? And if it's not until Christmas,
what part of the -- when are we going to stimulate this economy?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think what you're seeing from the President is a good faith
effort to work with the Senate. The President would still like the Senate to
finish their business and get that to him so he can sign it into law.
Every day the Senate waits is another day that is made more difficult for the
unemployed worker. It's another day that's made for difficult for a business
that wants to be able to keep its work force without laying off workers. The
longer the Senate waits, the more difficult it will be for the economy to come
back. And that's the message the President was giving.
Clearly, if the Senate could get this done in November, the President would be
pleased and will work with the Senate so he can sign it in November. It may not
be too late. But, realistically, will the Senate do it? They haven't so far.
Perhaps they will.
Q Didn't he give them the green light to spend an extra month debating this by
saying, by Christmas?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, there's nothing scheduled for this week, and this is the
last week of November. So the President will have a meeting with the
congressional leaders this week. He'll again remind them of the need to get the
stimulus done.
Clearly, if they were to leave without getting it done, most of the private
sector forecasts, which assume that there will be growth next year, will change
the amount of growth, they will predict less growth because the Senate will have
failed to act. Most of the private sector forecasters have baked into their
estimates the view that the amount of growth will depend on whether or not
Congress this year passes a stimulus.
And let me give you some specifics on that, as well. Macroeconomic Advisors
assumed on October 15th -- they're one of the leading private sector forecasters
-- that there would be a $60 billion stimulus package for 2002. And they're 2002
growth rate is 4.1 percent. They've built that into their estimates. Another
group that has also done that is J.P. Morgan. They've assumed a $75 billion
stimulus in their report of growth, and they've projected 2.6 percent growth.
So there's a variety of different growth forecast for 2002, but all those
private sector forecasters have assumed Congress will pass a stimulus that the
President will be able to sign. Failure to pass a stimulus means less growth
next year.
Q On the economic stimulus, given the President wants this bill sent to
conference, is he considering embracing or endorsing the centrist coalition as
the best vehicle to getting it to conference? Or does he disagree with every
element in it?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President is open-minded about the vehicle. The President is
going to continue to work with the various senators. And I think he recognizes
that there are some senators that are simply too liberal who will not be
interested in passing a stimulus that relies on tax cuts.
But there is another group of Democrats who are more willing to pass a stimulus
that provides tax cuts. And the President sees putting together a coalition with
whoever is willing to vote for a stimulus that provides incentives based on tax
cuts, not more spending. Because the President has already proposed extending
unemployment insurance, which he thinks is terribly important and Congress needs
to do that. The President thinks it's terribly important for people to get
health care coverage as a result of the national emergency grants that he's
proposed.
But as important as that is, the President also knows the American people want
more than unemployment checks, they want paychecks. And that's the President's
focus.
Q A week ago last Sunday, Condi Rice said that the Nunn-Lugar program had not
been -- was not going to be cut under the administration's budget proposal. But
your own documents show a $98-million cut from 2001 to 2002 for the Department
of Energy portion of that program. How does that square with what the National
Security Advisor said?
MR. FLEISCHER: Actually, it depends on the component you look at, at it. But,
broadly, under the Clinton administration, DOD requested less money in those
programs than it did in fiscal year 2001 because of spending requirements
foreseen for that year. And the Bush administration took the same position in
the budget it submitted to Congress, so it matched that level of funding.
There was a separate item under the Department of Energy that a cut was taken
before the Bush administration review of the nonproliferation programs with
Russia had been put into effect. But the administration is committed to
Nunn-Lugar. The President has long believed that working cooperatively with
Russia to help them to dismantle their nuclear weapons is a very effective means
of fighting against proliferation around the world, and will continue in that
vein.
Q Ari, the President in the Rose Garden said that, we're entering into a
dangerous time. Clearly, for the troops on the ground in Afghanistan, that's
true. Was he also referring to the home front? Because there have been warnings
to the natural gas industry, for instance, that if Osama bin Laden is captured
or killed, there could be attacks on natural gas facilities? Could you just
elaborate on what that warning is about?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President has always believed that we've been, since
September 11th, in a dangerous time here on the home front. The President begins
his days every morning with a review of what's called the threat matrix, which
are the analysts' understanding of the threats that have been received in this
country. And it's a sobering way to begin a day. So the President has focused
very strongly through Governor Ridge on the homeland defense and the efforts we
need to take, and that's why security measures have been increased throughout
the country in a variety of industries.
But the President, specifically to answer your question, in his remarks that he
made was talking about the war in Afghanistan, because he's talking there about
cities may have fallen, but the mission has not yet been achieved; the
objective, which is to destroy al Qaeda's ability to engage in terrorism, has
not yet been finalized, and it won't be, necessarily, for who knows how long. It
could be years, as the President has reminded everybody, until Osama bin Laden
is brought to justice, until his top lieutenants are also brought to justice.
Q Ari, what's going on with the Vice President? Is he still in an undisclosed
location? The President was joking about it last week, but this morning he sort
of dismissed it like he's been here all along, "I had breakfast with him."
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes. The Vice President met with the President this morning. He
was here this morning after breakfast, so they spent some time together this
morning. The Vice President has been in a secure location, as well, and as we've
indicated, there are going to be days when they're together -- the President
said this -- there will be days when they are not. They happened to be together
today.
Q But there's no change in this policy of trying to keep them separate in the
interest of having someone
protected --
MR. FLEISCHER: No, that policy remains in effect. Throughout that policy there
have been times when they were together. And as the President said -- I think he
said this about a month or so ago -- there will be times when they're together
and there will be times when they're not. More often they have not been. Today
the Vice President was here this morning.
Q Ari, you and Governor Ridge have said repeatedly in the past that there's no
evidence linking Iraq to the September 11th attacks or the anthrax attacks. Is
that still the case?
MR. FLEISCHER: That is correct, Ron. There is nothing that has been brought to
my attention by it, so nothing would change that from anything I've heard
recently.
Q The President today said, cloning is morally wrong and bad public policy. Does
he plan to take any other steps, either by executive order or by urging Congress
to act, in view of what was revealed yesterday?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, this is now a matter in the Congress' hands, and the House
has already acted. The House, earlier this year in an overwhelmingly bipartisan
vote of 265 to 162, banned the type of cloning that took place in Massachusetts.
And the President applauded the House at the time, expressed his strong support
for that legislation.
The President, through stem cell research, sees great promise in fighting
diseases and curing diseases, without crossing the morally hazardous line of
cloning humans. And that's why the President believes that we can unleash the
great potential of science through stem cell research without entering the
dangerous area of human cloning. And he calls on the Senate to pass the House
legislation. It was overwhelmingly bipartisan -- some 63 Democrats voted for it
in the House, both Independents voted for it in the House, so the President
hopes the Senate will similarly act.
Q Does he think that doctors who engage in the kind of research that these
people in Massachusetts should -- should be disciplined, sent to jail, what?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President thinks that the practice of cloning should be made
illegal.
Q -- make it illegal if somebody does it, then the question is, what do you do
with the people who do it?
MR. FLEISCHER: I would refer you to what the penalty section was of the House
bill. I don't have the bill in front of me. But he has supported the Weldon
legislation.
Q Iranian radio said that Osama bin Laden is in Pakistan. Do you think the
President still believes that he is in Afghanistan? And, number two,
international Red Cross is reporting that hundreds of Pakistanis in Afghanistan
fighting against the United States, and thousands are still there. Do you think,
according to the reports, the President is surprised to know? And five air
fighters were sent to Afghanistan to defend them.
MR. FLEISCHER: One, I have not heard anything that would change what Secretary
Rumsfeld said last week about, we have no reason to believe that he's left the
country. Secretary Rumsfeld talked about how there could be things in
Afghanistan that are unknown, but he said that we have no reason to believe that
he has.
On the second question, you know, I think the President obviously understands
the situation on the ground in Afghanistan is made more complicated by the
presence of people who are not Afghani. They don't only include Pakistanis, but
they include many people from Arab nations. Afghanistan is not an Arab nation,
but much of its current problems stem from the fact that Osama bin Laden, who is
Saudi, came into Afghanistan with other non-Afghans for the purpose of hijacking
a country and hijacking a religion so they could engage in worldwide sponsorship
of terrorism. So that's -- the President, of course, is aware of that.
Q The President this morning said that Americans need to be -- there will be
loss of life in Afghanistan. Is he preparing people for the Marines going -- the
Marines, those thousand Marines now --
MR. FLEISCHER: If you remember, the President also said that in his speech to
the Congress. The President warned the American people that this would not be an
antiseptic war, that there would be casualties in the war, and he said that
explicitly in that address. And the President, as he said in the Rose Garden,
also reminded people that we've already lost lives in this war, the lives --
some 4,000 or so people were lost in the destruction of the World Trade Center,
the brave people who were on board Flight 93, as well as all the passengers of
the airplanes that were hijacked, and one that hit the Pentagon, the deaths at
the Pentagon.
America has already had many casualties -- civilian, as well as, of course --
military is always at risk. And the President was reminding people that the
risks remain, particularly at this time, to our military.
Q Ari, are we making any progress on a new sanctions regime against Iraq?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President continues to hold out hope that the sanctions
regime against Iraq can be made less porous, that it can be tightened up so that
it can be a more focused series of sanctions. That's something that, written,
has spoken eloquently about, at the United Nations, and the President remains
hopeful that that will one day become the case.
Q If I can follow up on that, was this a topic of discussion in Crawford with
President Putin, since the Russians have been one of the key obstacles here?
MR. FLEISCHER: The Iraq sanctions? I'll have to go back to take a look.
Q Ari, does the President believe there is any legitimate role for any former
member of the Taliban in a new Afghanistan government?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, a couple points on it. One, the future of the government of
Afghanistan will be up to the Afghani people. Having said that, the President
also wants to make certain that it is a multi-ethnic front -- multi-ethnic group
that governs Afghanistan, that includes women. It's hard to imagine any moderate
Taliban. However, Afghanistan is a large country. There may be people who were
in Afghanistan who are not members of the Taliban, in an active sense. But
that's something that will be sorted through in the dialogue that begins Tuesday
in Germany. And that's the first step in a long process to help determine what
the government of Afghanistan will look like.
But, again, it fundamentally remains an issue for the Afghani people. And it's
hard to imagine that they want any of the Taliban who governed them having any
positions of authority, if they had authority before.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
MR. FLEISCHER: Thank you.
END 1:25 P.M. EST
