President
|
Vice President
|
First Lady
|
Mrs. Cheney
|
News & Policies
History & Tours
|
Kids
|
Your Government
|
Appointments
|
Jobs
|
Contact
|
Graphic version
Email Updates | Español | Accessibility | Search | Privacy Policy | Help
|
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
February 14, 2003
Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
1:52 P.M. EST
MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. I want to give you a report on the
President's day, then I'm happy to take your questions. Obviously,
there were some important developments up in New York, I'd like to
discuss those with you.
The President began his day this morning with a phone call to
Estonian Prime Minister Kallas. He thanked the Prime Minister for
Estonia's friendship and support, in particular as we face the
challenged pose by Iraq. The President made the point that Estonia's
history of overcoming dictatorship gives it moral standing as a voice
for freedom around the world.
The President also spoke with President Musharraf this morning.
The President expressed his appreciation for Pakistan's important
contribution to the global war on terror, and also stressed the
importance of seeking peace and stability in South Asia. The President
and President Musharraf discussed Iraq and agreed on the need for
Saddam Hussein to comply completely with all United Nations Security
Council resolutions.
President Bush stressed the need for the Security Council to act
decisively and on as unified a front as is possible. The President and
President Musharraf agreed to remain in close touch.
Following that, the President had an intelligence briefing, then he
had his FBI briefing, he convened a meeting of the National Security
Council. He met with the Foreign Minister of Turkey and the Minister
of State for Economy of Turkey.
And he will shortly leave for the FBI, where he will discuss a new
initiative to better protect the American people through a combination
of CIA and FBI intelligence threat assessments, so we can have the
greatest resources possible to share the greatest information possible
to protect the American people.
And the President will return to the White House, and I am happy to
take your questions.
Q Ari, despite the Secretary of State's presentation, it seems
rather clear that this administration ran into a brick wall of
opposition today at the United Nations. What does the President make
of that and what's the next step?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think that's a rather over-dramatic
interpretation of what you've heard from New York today. Number one,
let's start with some of the statements that you've heard. I think
there is universal agreement that force is a last resort. That is
absolutely valid for the United States. And the President remains
hopeful that Iraq will, indeed, disarm and therefore avert the need for
force to be used to disarm him.
But in the end, the process set forward by the United Nations and
all 15 members of the Security Council unanimously is aimed at the
disarmament of Saddam Hussein. Nowhere did the world receive any
comfort today in New York that Saddam Hussein has shown the inspectors
that he has disarmed. Quite the contrary.
Q Okay. What's the evidence that it's an over-dramatization?
I mean, you heard from the allies, including those who have the ability
to veto a second resolution, that they don't support the timetable put
forth by the United States and this administration, that they want to
see inspections continue. The administration disagrees with that. So
does the President not sense that there is a groundswell of opposition
against the diplomacy that we're engaged in. And if so, what's he
going to do about it?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think you heard the same thing from the same
leaders that you've been hearing in terms of timetable. But what
remains important is the fundamental facing of the fact -- and
considering especially the two new pieces of evidence that Hans Blix
brought forward this morning about whether or not Saddam Hussein has
disarmed.
Q Just one more on this. Did Hans Blix disappoint the
President with his presentation? Did he think that Dr. Blix, perhaps,
understated the lack of Iraqi noncompliance in the President's view?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think the report from Hans Blix this morning
was very diplomatic with its bottom line being that the world has no
confidence that Saddam Hussein has disarmed. And that's what this is
about. As Secretary Powell just indicated, this is not about whether
U-2s fly. This is not about whether Mirages fly. This is about
whether Saddam Hussein's claim that he has disarmed is itself a
mirage.
Q Ari, what does the President want the Security Council to do
now? Does he want another resolution specifically authorizing force?
Or is he willing to settle for something watered down that everybody
can agree on?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President wants the world to study
carefully what Mr. Blix said. There are important things that Mr. Blix
revealed to the world this morning, that the United Nations Security
Council has to consider, the members of the Security Council have to
consider. And I think it's likely that they will.
Q Is he not going to -- or is Secretary Powell not going to
come forward at some point with a resolution asking for specific
authority to use force?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, the President has made it clear the United
States will welcome a second resolution from the Security Council.
Q Authorizing force?
MR. FLEISCHER: The exact words I think will be discussed. But
already the United Nations Security Council has said that if Iraq fails
to comply with Security Council Resolution 1441, which ordered Iraq to
fully and immediately disarm, there would be serious consequences.
Q Can I just ask one more? The specific reply to something the
French Foreign Minister said, no one can assert today the path of war
will be shorter than the path of inspections. Are you persuaded that
the path of war would lead to quicker disarmament of Iraq than further
inspections?
MR. FLEISCHER: Given the fact that it's taken more than 12 years
for Saddam Hussein to disarm, there's no question that if force is
used, it will achieve the objective of preserving the peace far faster
than the current path that we're on.
Q When would you expect the U.S. to submit a resolution to the
U.N. for action for authorizing the use of military force? Does Blix's
statement today change the timing in the U.S. view?
MR. FLEISCHER: As for Mr. Blix's statement today, I think it's
worth analyzing exactly what he said, which is what the fundamental
issue comes down to again. If you accept the premise that it's not
about the process matters, whether the U-2 flies or anything else, it's
about whether Saddam Hussein disarms -- examine carefully Mr. Blix's
own words. Mr. Blix reported to the world today that the issues of
anthrax, nerve agent, VX, and long-range missiles deserve to be taken
seriously by Iraq, rather than brushed aside.
Those are Mr. Blix's words about weapons that kill. Then he added
in a crucial sentence: it is not the task of the inspectors to find
it; it is the task of Iraq to provide it.
Mr. Blix continued -- and these are his words when he said, it is
not the task of the inspectors to find it -- which is a telling
statement. He continues, for the first time saying this publicly: the
two declared variants of the Al Samud II missile were capable of
exceeding 150 kilometers in range, the missile is therefore
proscribed.
He continues: Iraq has declared that it has reconstituted the
chambers necessary to build these missiles. These experts have
confirmed that the reconstituted casting chambers could still be used
to produce motors for missiles capable of ranges significantly greater
than 150 kilometers. Accordingly, these chambers remain proscribed.
The third item that he said is proscribed are 380 -- 380 -- SA II
missile engines, which also are proscribed. If they're proscribed, you
can ask what comes next. Under United Nations Security Council
Resolution 687, which ended the Persian Gulf War, it's clear what comes
next -- I'm reading from 687.
"Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or
rendering harmless of all ballistic missiles with a range of greater
than 150 kilometers and all related major parts and repair and
production facilities."
So when you listened to Mr. Blix this morning describe the very
fact that the weapons that kill are, one, proven to be in the hands of
Iraq in a proscribed manner, and the weapons of mass destruction that
kill even more -- the anthrax, the nerve agent, the VX -- are
unaccounted for. The world still has great cause for concern about
Saddam Hussein possessing weapons. That's what came out of New York
today.
Q And what's the timing on submitting a resolution, days?
MR. FLEISCHER: The timing will be something the United States, in
concert with our allies, will determine. I think it's too soon to say
at this point. I think it typically happens after presentations of
this importance are made to the Security Council as the member states
take time to study them, to absorb them, to think about what it means
that now we have three categories of missiles that are proscribed; that
Iraq has not accounted for the VX, the nerve agents; and this new
sentence -- it is not the task of the inspectors to find it.
Q Can you shed any light on the new evidence that the Secretary
made reference to in his remarks, new evidence that he'll be presenting
to the U.N. about Iraqi noncompliance?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, Iraqi noncompliance remains an ongoing
matter. And I think Mr. Blix alluded to it. I don't think it is a
small statement for the head of inspectors to say, it is not the
inspectors task to find the weapons -- which brings you right back to
the central problem that the world has faced for 12 years. And that is
that Saddam Hussein has built up a massive, massive apparatus to hide
the weapons he has.
Q The inspectors, however, had identified and located these
proscribed missiles. Is the United States -- is the administration now
demanding the destruction of these missiles? And will that be a
substantive step forward?
MR. FLEISCHER: What is important, Terry, is the world is watching
the United Nations. The United Nations is charged with enforcing
Resolution 1441 that's called for the full and immediate compliance by
Iraq of disarmament, and it said there would be serious consequences if
there is not. And Resolution 687, which ended the Gulf War on April 3,
1991, set out the path for a proscribed material.
Q So the missiles are proscribed -- should they be destroyed?
MR. FLEISCHER: All you need to do is read Resolution 687, which
the United States voted for, which lays out the path of what comes
next.
Q So that's a "yes"?
MR. FLEISCHER: Resolution 687 which the United States voted for
states that: these missiles shall be destroyed, removed or rendered
harmless.
Q So if Iraq --
MR. FLEISCHER: This remains a next important test.
Q The next important test. So if Iraq meets this test, that
would be a substantive step forward in actual, factual disarmament on
the ground that they destroyed 380 missiles?
MR. FLEISCHER: Let me raise another issue that is related to this,
because the threat to the world doesn't only come from these missiles,
which Hans Blix cited this morning in his remarks. The threat to the
world comes from what Hans Blix said the world has no confidence that
Saddam Hussein has destroyed, which is what UNSCOM found in the late
1990s in regard to the VX, in regard to the botulin, in regard to the
chemical munitions warheads.
This morning, if you can believe it, Iraq has said, in an act that
sounds like a democracy, that they would pass a law banning possession
of weapons of mass destruction. This comes 12 years late and 26,000
liters of anthrax short; 12 years late and 38,000 liters of botulin
short; 12 years late and 30,000 unfilled chemical munitions short.
It's not just about one weapon system that Iraq possesses to wreak
havoc and to kill people in the neighborhood, including Americans,
including our allies and including risks that could be transferred to
terrorists. It's not just one system, Terry.
Q Fair enough. The argument that will be put, however, based
on today's conclusion by Dr. Blix, is that this is the way inspections
work, one system, one program, one threat at a time, perhaps, and here
the inspectors have identified and declared a proscribed system. Six
eighty-seven, as you point out, calls for its destruction. Should that
happen, you know that allies will say, bingo, it's working.
MR. FLEISCHER: That's not the way inspections work. The way
inspections work is as Hans Blix said, it's not the job of the
inspectors to find it, it's the job of Iraq to show it and to destroy
it. And it's also the job of Iraq to comply with something that was
full and immediate. This is three months. It's neither full nor
immediate.
Q The President spoke to President Musharraf this morning, can
you count on Pakistan's support for any new resolution?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, it would not be my place to predict votes of
sovereign nations. But, again, the President has expressed his belief
that in the end, even with statements that we have heard today from our
allies, in the end the President is confident that the United Nations
will be a relevant organization dedicated to fighting proliferation and
not an organization that fights proliferation on paper only while
tyrants develop weapons that they can use.
Q Are you reaching out to other undecided countries, like
Mexico? Are you at the point of counting votes at this point?
MR. FLEISCHER: Sure, I think as you know the President has been
making many phone calls around to members of the United Nations
Security Council, and that will continue.
Q Ari, for the last couple of days the Democrats on Capitol
Hill have been reiterating their argument that the administration has
been unwilling to provide enough money for domestic security.
Yesterday you characterized their comments as partisan sniping. Is the
President prepared to reassure the American people that local, state
and federal government agencies are getting every dollar they need to
protect them? And is it partisan sniping to raise concerns about this,
given the fear that everybody in the country has right now?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I would put it to you this way, the funding
levels that Congress has passed are doing more and are providing
additional resources, but not enough and not the right way. And if you
take a look at the legislation that was passed very late in result of
the appropriation process that broke down last fall, that now was
concluded yesterday, you'll see that the President's request for $3.5
billion in aid for homeland security has been reduced to $1.3 billion
in aid for homeland security -- with the remaining money basically
earmarked for individual projects in various states that funds
important programs, such as drug courts, but are not part of the war on
terrorism.
And so the President will continue to work with Congress on
providing the right amount of funding that can be used by states and
municipalities in the right way, to help provide everybody in state and
local governments the tools they need to do their jobs. This has been
a very lengthy process. It's been a broken process, in terms of the
last year's appropriation bill so late in the process that it's an
imperfect bill. Nevertheless, given the time period that we're in, it
will be signed by the President, but the President would like Congress
to do more to help provide funding to fight homeland security, or
protect homeland security and fight terrorism. And that's contained in
his 2004 budget, as well.
Q Are you saying, then, that he would support more money,
particularly if there were --
MR. FLEISCHER: His 2004 budget provides an increase in money.
Q Osama bin Laden has basically called on other Muslims, or
Muslims within Arab countries to take up arms against the governments
that support the United States if we go into a war with Iraq. Are we
-- what are we doing to assure the Arab League that we are going to
support them and to alleviate some of their concerns?
MR. FLEISCHER: Correct. And in the audiotape that was released
apparently by Osama bin Laden, he did call for the overthrow of
governments in Yemen and Saudi Arabia and a variety of places.
Interesting, he left Iraq off that list, despite him calling them a
secular regime.
But, nevertheless, the United States has been working long and hard
in close concert with our allies around the world in the war on
terrorism, through intelligence sharing, through cooperation, through
the number of arrests that you have seen. There have been attacks that
have been averted as a result of this intelligence sharing.
But it remains a reminder of the worldwide threat people around the
world face from terrorism.
Q But any specific outreach to the Arab League nations?
MR. FLEISCHER: Oh, absolutely, sure. We work very closely with
Saudi Arabia, we work closely with Yemen, we work closely with a number
of the nations that have been targeted by terrorists.
Q Ari, Hans Blix said today that if the goal is disarmament,
Resolution 1441, that it would not take a lot of time. But if the goal
is monitoring, that it could require more time. Does the
administration believe there's any merit or any legitimacy in the goal
of monitoring Saddam Hussein for the sake of peace, for the sake of
preventing American's loss of life or innocent Iraqi's loss of life?
MR. FLEISCHER: Fourteen forty-one, which guides the actions of the
United Nations, including the United States, was crystal clear. The
result was disarmament. And as Senator McCain pointed out yesterday,
containment with somebody like Saddam Hussein is not an option, it does
not work. And that's why 1441 spoke as strongly as it did on what the
end goal is, and that is disarmament.
And what you referred to is notable, and the very last thing that
Mr. Blix reported in New York today, he indicated that if Iraq had
provided cooperation in 1991, disarmament would have taken place in the
previous decade. But he has not provided that cooperation and,
therefore, as he put it earlier in his testimony today, it's not the
job of the inspectors to find it -- it remains the job of Saddam
Hussein to show that he has either destroyed it or to turn it over so
it can be destroyed. And the world has found no comfort that those
steps have been taken.
Q And the President has been making the case that Saddam
Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, he has the means to use them,
links with terrorists, including al Qaeda. Lately, he's been talking
about invoking images of September 11th. And there are some people --
and I'm talking about regular, everyday Americans -- who are saying,
this is confusing at the very least. At the worst, perhaps it's even
misleading to make that link, to invoke images of September 11th in
making the case for war against Saddam Hussein. How does the
administration respond?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, of course the image of September 11th that
the President is reminding people of is that everything changed for the
United States on September 11th. And I don't think there's any
argument that that's an accurate statement. September 11th reminded
the American people that threats that we previously thought that
existed for perhaps our embassies abroad or for other nations to deal
with, they're actually threats that exist on our very own soil. And
what government would not shift after September 11th to recognize that
additional steps need to be taken to protect the homeland, because of
September 11th?
Jim.
Q But, did --
MR. FLEISCHER: Jim. We're going to run out of questions --
Q There's no link between September 11th and Saddam Hussein and
Iraq -- that's still the administration's position?
MR. FLEISCHER: Sure, the President has said that.
Q Did the President watch the Blix statement?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, he was meeting with Turkish officials at the
time, or for a portion of when they spoke. He was briefed on it,
however.
Q By?
MR. FLEISCHER: By -- I think Dr. Rice talked to him about it. I
think there may well have been a few other people who talked to him
about it, too.
Q What we hear see today, it seems likely that in the permanent
clash up at the Security Council that you have Britain and the United
States on one side, and China, Russia, and France on the other. And it
does seem likely that unless any second resolution is a vapid one,
there will be a veto. Is the President still rolling along with the
willing members of the coalition to go it alone if the Security Council
does not act?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, it just -- we've seen this before, where people
try to guess what nations are going to do at the United Nations.
Typically, it's American reporters trying to guess what foreign nations
will do with a vote, which is something that is very important to
them. And I would urge you to be very cautious and judicious in your
predictions on how other nations will vote. The President has been
engaged in consultations and will continue. And, as you've seen in the
past, these typically have led to very fruitful results in terms of the
world supporting the United States position, or at least not objecting
to it.
Q But is he still holding back the -- the willing coalition if
the Security Council does not act?
MR. FLEISCHER: There's no question at all that the President has
said either the United Nations will disarm Saddam Hussein or a
coalition of the willing -- which I think you've seen how substantial
and sizeable it is, and is growing to even increasingly be -- will take
that action.
Q Ari, the French Foreign Minister suggested today that there
would be another report from the arms inspectors on March 14th. What
is the U.S. view of that?
MR. FLEISCHER: As the President said several weeks ago, this is a
matter of weeks, not months. And I would hesitate to make any guesses
about specific days or dates. But the President has said weeks, not
months.
Q Does the U.S. contemplate any further reports from the arms
inspectors before the issue is joined over whether or not the
inspections should go forward at all?
MR. FLEISCHER: I wouldn't want to speculate about that.
Q Let me ask one little broader question, if I may. Clearly,
the U.S. has argued that the U.N. Security Council risks being
irrelevant if it doesn't confront this issue, the same matter is before
NATO. It seems that we're in pretty treacherous waters here with the
future of two international organizations, through which we have often
worked, hanging in the balance. What is the administration's view of
what is at stake here, and how tricky a balance this is?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think the President approaches this that there
are two things at stake here: one is the immediate security and peace
of the world given the threat that Iraq possessed. The second is the
strength of our alliances, which have been in some ways tested as a
result of the actions of Germany, France, and in the case of NATO,
Belgium.
In the end, the President has no doubt whatsoever in his mind that
the alliance will remain strong. It's strong because democracies are
entitled to differ. And when they do, they will differ, the world will
be protected as a result of the disarmament of Iraq. And then because
we share values and we are democracies, we will reunite.
And given the fact that most of Europe, so many nations in Europe
have spoken out in support of the United States' position, I think that
it's also fair to say that Belgium and Germany and France have their
own interest in making certain that whatever the end result is
vis-a-vis Iraq, that they do their own work to repair any damage that
was done. We all have an interest in working together and making sure
the alliance stays strong -- even if there are some issues where a
minority of nations disagree.
Q You continually caution us not to make predictions about what
other nations may do -- can you point us to anything specific that
gives reason to believe that the nations who have spoken against the
American can --
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I can answer the question by what does the
President think. The President, as you know, engages in quite a bit of
consultation and diplomacy. And the President does believe in the end,
and continues to hope the United Nations will, when it comes down to
time to vote, be a relevant organization. Because the consequences of
failure would mean that international organizations are no longer
capable of enforcing nonproliferation regimes around the world.
Take a look at NATO, for example. There's been much discussion
that NATO would not come to the aid of Turkey. I think it's important
to give NATO a chance now. Let's see if, ultimately, the efforts of
individual and minority nations within a larger block of NATO do
prevail -- or does the majority prevail. Give it time. And this is
another example where people said that the United States position
vis-a-vis helping Turkey would never be agreed to by NATO. NATO is
blocking -- as a result of three countries -- what the majority want to
do. How can the United States get it done? How can you help Turkey?
Give NATO a chance. I think you'll see that NATO will, indeed, come to
Turkey's aid.
Q Is the President's hope based on something he's heard in
private consultations with a leader or leaders?
MR. FLEISCHER: It's based on any number of factors.
Q Yes, two questions, Ari. The first one -- following Ivan's
line of questions. The President didn't watch Hans Blix. Did he watch
Colin Powell? What was the reaction?
| Printer-Friendly Version |
| Email this page to a friend |