For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 10, 2003
Correction: Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer, Oman - Not Aman
March 10, 2003
PRESS BRIEFING INDEX
TOPIC PAGE
President's daily schedule/phone calls 1-2; 2-3
United Nations 2-5; 7-8; 13; 14; 16-17; 17-19; 21-22
Blix report re: drones 11-13
Iraq's weaponry 8; 14-15; 22
North Korea 9-10; 23
Russia 13; 17
Coalition of the willing 13-14
Osama bin Laden 15
Cost estimates of war 15-16
Mexico 20; 23
Japan 20
Iran 20-21
Turkey 24
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release March 10, 2003
PRESS BRIEFING
BY
ARI FLEISCHER
The James S. Brady Briefing Room
1:23 P.M. EST
MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. Today is a very busy day of phone
diplomacy at the White House; let me give you a fill in.
The President early this morning spoke with President Jiang Zemin
of China. He called during the ongoing session of China's National
People of Congress to congratulate President Jiang on years of service
to his country. The Presidents recalled their common commitment to
seeking peaceful means to keep the Korean Peninsula free of nuclear
weapons. While expressing hope for a peaceful solution in Iraq, the
President emphasized his determination to defend the security of the
American people.
The Presidents agreed on the importance of developing U.S.-China
relations, and they talked about the need for continuing and ongoing
consultations about the situation vis-a-vis Iraq.
The President also this morning spoke with Japanese Prime Minister
Koizumi regarding the situation in both Iraq and North Korea. The
President thanked the Prime Minister for his support for the U.S.
-UK-Spanish resolution and for Japan's efforts to work with other
nations in order to maximize pressure on Iraq to disarm. Both agreed
that a peaceful resolution of the issue depends on Iraq's actions.
The two leaders also noted that North Korea's nuclear weapons
program is a threat to the entire international community, and agreed
to continue working for an international approach to ending North
Korea's nuclear ambitions while maintaining close United
States-Japanese-Republic of Korea coordination.
The President also today spoke with President Mbeki of South
Africa. President Bush shared his view, or expressed his view that the
lack of Iraqi compliance presents a grave threat to world peace and to
the United Nations' credibility. President Mbeki reported on the South
African team sent to Baghdad to convey information on South Africa's
voluntary disarmament of weapons of mass destruction.
Both leaders agree that Iraq must make a strategic decision to
disarm. And they also discussed the importance of the unique nature of
the U.S.-South African bilateral relationship. And President Bush
congratulated President Mbeki on the Congo peace process.
The President also today spoke to the Sultan of Qaboos [sic] to
review with him the current situation in Iraq and to thank him for
Oman's years of reliable and steady friendship and support for the
United States. The President noted that if hostilities were
unavoidable, the United States would seek to provide humanitarian aid,
relief and support to the people of Iraq so that they are cared for.
The President is approximately halfway through with the phone calls
he is making to foreign leaders today. Later this afternoon, we will
get you additional readout of the other calls the President is making
to world leaders. Obviously, there are many more to come.
The President also today had an intelligence briefing, had an FBI
briefing, convened a meeting of the National Security Council. And
with that, I'm happy to take your questions.
Scott.
Q Ari, the Russians are promising to veto this new resolution.
How much more damaging would that be than a French veto alone?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I note the Foreign Minister has indicated
that that is a possibility. And the President certainly hopes that it
will not come to that from the Russian point of view. The President
would be very disappointed if Russia were to take a stand that would be
a setback not only for peace, because it's important to immediately
disarm Saddam Hussein, but also for the freedom and the liberty of the
Iraqi people.
Q Is the President talking to Putin? And what did Jiang tell the
President?
MR. FLEISCHER: The call was just as I indicated. They're going to
continue to consult about events in Iraq.
Q Well, what commitment regarding abstaining the veto?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think continued consultation is probably the best
way to describe it. And what was your first part there?
Q Whether he's talked to Putin?
MR. FLEISCHER: He has in the past. As you know, he talked to
President Putin, I believe it was on Thursday of last week, if I
recall, or Wednesday of last week. And if there are any other phone
calls, we'll keep you informed.
Q There seems to be a hardening of the position by this White
House towards this U.N. process. It began with the President, while
you're engaged in diplomacy, being not very diplomatic, saying, well,
it's time for everybody to show their cards and forcing the vote. And
now this morning, on the record, but off camera, you were making the
point, at least suggesting that if the United Nations fails to pass the
second resolution, that it would be a moral failure on the part --
MR. FLEISCHER: Correct.
Q -- of the United Nations. A, would you explain that point
of view and that shift now that we're seeing? And, B, does this
reflect the fact that the President feels like this is going down, it's
not going to go either way?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, clearly, if a nation vetoes, then that
expresses the will of the United Nations, regardless of whether or not
the United States, Spain, England, Bulgaria, the other nations are able
to reach nine or 10 votes, which we are continuing to work very hard to
do and to strive for. And we'll see what the ultimate outcome is.
There could be a veto. There also could be nine or 10 votes still. We
are working very hard on that.
The President has made a couple points very clear. One is, if the
United Nations fails to act, that means the United Nations will not be
the international body that disarms Saddam Hussein. Another
international body will disarm Saddam Hussein. So this will remain an
international action -- just the United Nations will have chosen to
put itself on the sidelines -- that is, the United Nations Security
Council will have.
So Saddam will be disarmed by an international group. But from a
moral point of view, as the world witnessed in Rwanda, and as the world
witnessed in Kosovo, the United Nations Security Council will have
failed to act once again. And this is becoming a trend for the United
Nations Security Council, where in the most important security issues
around the world, they're leaving regions of the world in which
humanity is suffering from ethnic cleansing, is suffering from mass
killings, and in the case of Iraq, suffering from the possibility of
the use of weapons of mass destruction -- the United Nations Security
Council is, from a moral point of view, leaving the people of these
regions on the sidelines. And from the President's point of view,
that's a regrettable development if it happens.
Q Can I just follow on that?
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes
Q So if they vote with you, then they're living up to their
obligations; but if they oppose the United States, they're immoral?
MR. FLEISCHER: I didn't say they were immoral. I said that from a
moral point of view, what are the people of Iraq to think when it comes
to who is it who fought for their freedom and liberty? What were the
people of Kosovo to think? What were people to -- about, with the
ethnic cleansing, about the role of the United Nations Security
Council? Those are the issues.
Q But don't you see why people could conclude that dissent
within this deliberative body is not really condoned by the United
States?
MR. FLEISCHER: Different nations have different points of views.
That's the point of view of the United States. Other nations that will
vote differently are free to express their point of view from their
point of view. That's the point of view of the President. This is a
moral issue, and the President hopes that action will be taken. It
doesn't suggest that if they don't take action they are immoral.
But the President does believe that when people of Kosovo ask who
they are to thank for the end of ethnic cleansing, they cannot thank
the United Nations Security Council. The President of Rwanda, himself,
expressed similar thoughts about waiting for the United Nations
Security Council. And after waiting, a million people died.
So these are important issues to be discussed, frankly and openly.
And these are the implications.
Q I have a follow up to David, because he didn't follow up
enough. (Laughter.) Are you suggesting, seriously, that a failure to
pass the resolution because one of the Permanent Five veto it, even
though there may have been nine or 10 votes, would be some sort of
moral victory? You get nine or 10 votes, but you don't get the
resolution.
MR. FLEISCHER: The moral issue is an issue that I think you will
hear expressed by the people of Iraq, that in the event that
hostilities ensue and the Iraqi people are freed from the cloak of a
brutal dictatorship that tortures, that kills, people of Iraq will know
who to thank. That will be a moral issue. That will be a moral
matter. That's an approach to this issue.
And nations are certainly within their right, certainly within
their judgment. They will express that from their own point of view of
moral -- a moral position. And their position will be no less moral
than the United States' position. But the people of Iraq will know, in
their hearts, who led to action that led to their freedom and who
didn't.
Q So you are trying to build nine or 10 votes for this, even
though it may be vetoed, for that reason, to express this moral
clarity; is that --
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the reason the President is proceeding is
because the President said he would. The President does think it's
important, and the time is coming -- and it will happen this week --
for the nations of the Security Council to raise their hand and take a
stand on the immediate disarmament of Iraq.
Q If the President bombs Iraq, which he apparently plans to do,
it will be in defiance of a U.N. vote, because only in terms of
self-defense and you're attacked can you really attack under the U.N.
charter. It will also be immoral, and how do you know what the Iraqis
think? You think they'd rather be dead and have liberty? I mean, what
is this liberty if you're going to send 3,000 missiles over in 48
hours, according to all the plans I've read? How many people are going
to survive that?
MR. FLEISCHER: Number one, on the legal basis of it, under United
Nations Security Council Resolution 678, the United States --
Q It doesn't wipe out the charter.
MR. FLEISCHER: Of course it doesn't wipe out the charter; it
reinforces it, and that's why it would be legal via United Nations
previous resolutions, as previous United States Presidents have shown.
The United States military will, of course, take every step to
minimize the loss of innocents. There are no guarantees it'll happen
--
Q How can you do that with 3,000 missiles?
MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, I just would like to remind you that if the
standard was if the United Nations Security Council did not act, how
many Muslims would have been killed in ethnic cleansing in Serbia? By
that standard, if you judge legitimacy by whether the United Nations
Security Council --
Q We did intervene in Kosovo, if you recall.
MR. FLEISCHER: May I finish? If by that standard you judge
legitimacy by whether the United Nations Security Council acted, then
you would think you'd need to restore Slobodan Milosevic to power,
because he was removed without the United Nations Security Council
approval. That was regime change in Serbia, wasn't it?
Terry.
Q Wait, wait. The U.N. didn't change Slobodan Milosevic
regime, the people of Serbia did. The goal of that operation --
MR. FLEISCHER: With a little help from NATO and the United
States.
Q But I don't want to talk about history -- (laughter.)
MR. FLEISCHER: I suppose he might still be there had it not been
for NATO and the United States.
Q We allowed that conflict to end with him in power. And I
don't want to get into an argument about history, I want to talk to you
about this notion of --
MR. FLEISCHER: History is very relevant here, because you're
judging the Security Council.
Q All right. You're mis-stating the history, then.
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I'm not. The question --
Q Because Slobodan Milosevic was not removed from power by
military action. Full stop, period.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, it certainly undermined his ability to stay
in power, if I recall. But the point is, the United Nations Security
--
Q That wasn't the goal. Now you're sliding over.
MR. FLEISCHER: The United Nations Security Council failed to
authorize military action in Serbia. A different international
coalition -- in that case, NATO -- was formed to do so. The
question Helen was asking seemed to say that without Security Council
approval a military action might not have a legitimacy. It did have
legitimacy, and a result of the military action, Slobodan Milosevic
fell from power.
Q Let me ask you about -- you and others have said that by
this deadline Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi regime must take a strategic
decision to disarm. And diplomats at the United Nations and others
have noted that's kind of a vaporous phrase. It's very hard to see
what it actually means. How do you tell when someone's had what one of
them compared to a religious conversion?
Is the President open to providing some kind of specificity, some
kind of benchmark: here's what we need to see specifically from Saddam
Hussein, as either part of this resolution or around it?
MR. FLEISCHER: Here's what's happening in New York and what you
can expect. Ambassadors at the United Nations and others are in the
final stages of diplomacy in New York, in anticipation of a vote that
will take place this week. The exact form of the vote, what the exact
content of what will be voted on remains a matter of consultation and
discussion among various nations.
Some nations have suggested such things as benchmarks. There are
ideas that are being explored and looked at. And so it is too soon to
say what the final document that will be voted on will include. It's
too soon to say what the exact date will be. You've indicated it will
be this week, but there's a important phase of diplomacy underway as we
speak. That diplomacy is marked by some level of flexibility within
the diplomacy. But the bottom line remains the same; it must lead to
the immediate disarmament of Saddam Hussein.
Q So just to button this down, you're open to -- or you're
aren't ruling out this notion of benchmarks, specific tasks that the
Iraq regime must take? And is the 17th a drop-dead date, or is there a
little bit of wiggle room in there? Could it slide a day or two?
MR. FLEISCHER: What I've indicated is there's a diplomatic process
underway in which consultation is important, listening to the ideas of
various nations is important. That's underway as we speak. I've not
indicated whether anything is final in the language that has been
offered in the amended version of the resolution.
Q Ari, first, what indications do you have about the
possibility of Iraq moving explosives into oil fields? And how would
you respond to that?
MR. FLEISCHER: One, I cannot confirm those reports. I'm not in a
position to have evaluated them. Let me just suggest -- and this is
if we enter into hostilities, this will be a pattern that will be
repeated many times, just as in 1991, anything dealing with operations,
with movements, would be questions that have to get referred to the
Pentagon, not the White House.
Q Okay, and secondly, is the United States prepared to accept
the damage that's being done to international institutions and
alliances as a result of the debate over Iraq? And if the U.S. fails
this test that you have set up for it -- if the United Nations fails
this test you have set up, what sort of structure or relations do you
see emerging afterwards?
MR. FLEISCHER: Here's what's at stake in the United Nations and in
international organizations. Given that Saddam Hussein has weapons of
mass destruction that are prohibited to him, what is the lesson for the
next country that has weapons of mass destruction or nuclear weapons,
such as Iran or North Korea, where we fear they are developing their
programs to have weapons of mass destruction and nuclear weapons? How
then does the world enforce anti-proliferation arrangements if the
methods set up by the international community are not effective? And
that is being tested now with the United Nations Security Council.
There are issues that need to be thought through, from an international
point of view.
And the focus is, as the President has said, will the United
Nations Security Council be relevant? There's another point to be
made, and that is: will the United Nations Security Council be
effective? Will they be effective in stopping proliferators from
obtaining weapons? If they're not effective, then the world has to
examine these issues carefully to find the best means of finding an
effective solution.
Q Do you think changes may be needed at some point?
MR. FLEISCHER: Clearly, given the fact that after 12 years, where
Iraq has -- some thought Iraq was contained -- sanctions have been
tried, diplomacy has been tried, inspections have been tried, and it
has not worked. I think there does need to be a second look.
Q Ari, if I could just follow this point that you made here.
This morning you said that if the United Nations failed to confront
Iraq, proliferators would celebrate. You mentioned North Korea and
Iran, as you just did before. On the flip side of that, would you then
say that if we do confront Iraq, either within or outside the United
Nations context, does that suggest that the natural continuation of
President Bush's policy is that we will confront Iran and North Korea
by whatever means we need to? Either within the U.N. or outside? In
other words, Iraq is the first step would seem to be the suggestion you
were making.
MR. FLEISCHER: I think you're watching unfold an example with
North Korea where the United States is dealing with a situation of
North Korea seeking to obtain nuclear weapons through diplomacy and
through a multilateral approach.
The point is, what's the most effective way to enforce
anti-proliferation regimes, so that nations do not commit to possession
of these weapons, particularly these rogue nations. That's the bottom
line, is what is an effective mean to stop them from arming up with
these types of weapons of mass destruction. And in different regions,
different solutions may be required.
Q Following on the same point, I noticed that when you
described the conversation with Prime Minister Koizumi, you said that
there was an agreement to continue working on an international approach
with North Korea. But in your discussion of the conversation with
President Jiang --
MR. FLEISCHER: You can make the same statement there, as well, on
the phone call.
Q To work within an international framework.
MR. FLEISCHER: There's no question that China has been part of
working in a regional solution on this issue.
Q Did the President express any disappointment that China has
not been more activist in its interventions in North Korea?
MR. FLEISCHER: No.
I want to remind you that I have said on previous occasions, when
you take a look at the five nations in the region that are involved
-- and those are Russia, China, South Korea, Japan and of course the
United States, in this instance -- that different nations are
contributing, some more publicly, some more privately, as is some of
their history of their diplomacies.
Q Some not at all?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I haven't said that.
Goyle.
Q Ari, on North Korea, like you said that --
MR. FLEISCHER: By the way, whose seat do you -- who is not
showing up for their briefings anymore? (Laughter.)
Q The Washington Post.
MR. FLEISCHER: Oh. Well, I can't call on them now. Maybe they're
mysteriously in another seat.
Q They were supposed to come today. They are not here.
MR. FLEISCHER: Goyle, you have the seat.
Q On North Korea -- thank you. Like you said, North Korea is
a threat to the international community and President also has referred
to them many times. Now, thanks to China and Pakistan for making North
Korea nuclear state. The big threat is Japan and South Korea, and
there are other Asian nations in the neighboring countries. So how
much step really President is taking or putting pressure on North Korea
or China to stop whatever they have done, and now they have tested
another missile, and they are saying that they will continue. So
what's going on?
MR. FLEISCHER: Just for the sake of accuracy, and different
impression, the missile, of course, that they have tested, is a cruise
missile, that is not the type of missile they previously said they
would not engage in any further testing of. This was a land-to-sea
cruise missile, very similar to the one they tested some two weeks ago
or three weeks ago.
The President, indeed, believes it's important for the nations in
the region to put significant pressure on North Korea to get them to
dismantle their nuclear program. And the President thinks the most
effective way to do that is through all nations working together on
it. It is not a bilateral matter. It is not a unilateral matter. It
is a matter for all the nations in the region, because the risks are
present for all the nations in the region. And that's why the
President is working it in that manner.
Just as if the decision is made to use force in Iraq, it, too, will
be done with a number of nations in a multi-lateral manner. The
difference is here, it will be done in a multi-lateral manner, but the
President believes diplomacy is the best, the most effective way to
disarm North Korea.
Q Can you clarify Secretary Powell's statement this weekend, as
well as your own, about the unmanned drone that was discovered, these
recently discovered drones in Blix's report? Is this new information,
is it new evidence? And do you believe that --
MR. FLEISCHER: This is new information.
Q It is.
MR. FLEISCHER: And we are aware of the reports regarding UNMOVIC's
discovery of Iraqi production of not only the drones, but munitions
capable of dispensing chemical and biological weapons. The also have
undeclared UAVs, or drones, unmanned aerial vehicles. The drone, in
this case, has a 24-foot wingspan, as well as a second undeclared
vehicle. They were constructed from converted L-29 drop tanks, which
are auxiliary fuel tanks for L-29 model Iraqi aircraft. UNSCOM
discovered that Iraq has used modified drop tanks to spray simulated
anthrax in the past. The fuel capacities of these drones may violate
the 150-kilometer imposition on Iraq, separate and apart from the fact
that it can contain chemical or biological weapons.
There's a meeting in New York of the Security Council at 3:30 p.m.
today that is a closed session, and I anticipate that this is something
that may come up.
Q You say it's new information. Is it new information because
they have not presented this before, or is it new information for this
administration? Or was this something the administration was already
aware of?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, this was technically an appendix that was
added very late to the cluster report that I referenced when I briefed
on Friday. It was not discussed by Mr. Blix in his oral presentation,
and it may come up today in the private session the United Nations
Security Council is having.
Q But was it something the administration knew about prior to
receiving that report on Friday?
MR. FLEISCHER: It was -- if it was prior, it was so immediately
prior that as we looked through a 200-page document and then found the
appendix added at the end, we only became aware of it at that moment.
You always have fears and suspicions, as you know, of a UAV program
operating in Iraq, as Secretary Powell had talked about previously and
as other newspapers have reported. What's new here is that the U.N.
may have discovered something on the ground.
Q And do you believe that Blix intentionally buried this
information?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I have not said that. No, I think that this is
one of the issues that members states of the Security Council look
forward to learning more about. It's important to learn more about
this.
Q Is that the fear, though, that he may have done that?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's why there are questions. And I'm sure those
questions will get answered.
Q There are two things here, the unmanned aerial vehicles and
the bombs that have cluster sub-munitions, they call them, in other
words little balls that come out.
MR. FLEISCHER: Correct.
Q Is it the U.S. view that both of these are intended or have
the capability of dispersing chemical and biological weapons?
MR. FLEISCHER: There's no question that munitions are capable of
dispensing chemical and biological weapons. And based on past
reporting that UNSCOM did, there is also a concern about the UAV's
being modified for this exact same purpose, which is the spraying of
chemical and biological weapons. We're talking about weapons of mass
destruction.
Q Now, the bombs and the little round sub-munitions, the
cluster bombs, that is just as new as the UAV information? I wasn't
clear which one you were talking about being new. And is that also
part of the --
MR. FLEISCHER: Both pieces of information only became available to
us in the final version of the cluster document; the UAV is in the
appendix. So this was late-breaking news, very late last week.
Q And the U.S. view is that these are undeclared, potentially
prohibited systems?
MR. FLEISCHER: They are undeclared. And we look forward to
learning and hearing more from the United Nations.
Q Do you have any sense, has UNMOVIC given you any sense of why
it is that this was not included in Dr. Blix's report before the
Security Council?
MR. FLEISCHER: This is why I said there are outstanding
questions. And all members of the Security Council, I think it's safe
to say, look forward to hearing the answers. These are important
questions.
Q Ari, aside from the reported comments -- on Russia -- of
the foreign minister, has the White House received a direct indication
from Russia about what their country's position is on the U.N.
resolution and whether or not they now have a firm position to vote
no?
MR. FLEISCHER: You know, unless a nation is on the record and
public about what their ultimate stand will be -- whether they will
vote yes, whether they will abstain, or whether they will veto --
it's not the place of the White House to describe the position of other
nations. I cannot do that. We will continue the diplomatic process
and continue to talk to Russia, of course.
Q -- through the diplomatic process, have they reached out to
the administration to make clear their position?
MR. FLEISCHER: The last time the President and President Putin
spoke, they both talked about continued consultation.
Q And does -- the diplomatic push that the President is
personally involved in now, does his role in that extend to, you know,
carrying the lobbying campaign, the diplomatic campaign, himself
directly to New York, to the U.N. this week to meet with other
leaders?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, the President has no plans to travel. And you
should not expect that. When the vote is taking place, the vote will
take place at the normal levels of discussion for the United States
government.
Q A follow? Ari, you said again today, as you did, I think
originally last week, that if the U.N. fails to act, Iraq will be
disarmed by another international organization.
MR. FLEISCHER: Correct.
Q Namely, the coalition that the United States has put
together. You seem to be equating an ad hoc coalition that the United
States has been able to form around one issue and one task with
permanent bodies like the U.N. and NATO, which have charters formed by
treaties, have charters and structures. Does the President believe
that international affairs can be conducted entirely through ad hoc
bodies like the one he's putting --
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, clearly the coalition of the willing will be
a coalition assembled for the purpose of using force to disarm Saddam
Hussein. So the answer is obviously yes. But the point I'm making
here is that there are many ways to form international coalitions. The
United Nations Security Council is but one of them. There are not the
only group that can speak well about international organizations and
international efforts. And that is why that if the decision is made to
use force to disarm Saddam, it will be through a large coalition of the
willing, through many other nations, not just the United States.
Q But ad hoc coalitions don't have formal rules and structures
to make decisions. They make it up as they go along, as the United
States is doing here with this coalition. Doesn't that play into
criticisms that other countries and other people in other countries
have made about the United States, that we are making up the rules as
we go along?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not aware of anybody saying making up the rules
as we go along. I think the President has been overt. The mission is
to disarm Saddam Hussein.
Q Ari, given all the difficulty of pursuing the U.N. routes,
the speech in September, the vote in November, now another vote, is
there any second guessing going on in the White House among those who
say that we should have not done this --
MR. FLEISCHER: You know, I've talked to the President about that,
and the answer is, no. The President thought this was the right thing
to do and thinks that it remains the right thing to do, for the same
reasons he gave in his September 12th speech.
Now if the vote ultimately does not come out the way the President
hoped it would, because of a veto, then I think that the President will
remind the world about what he said in that September 12th speech,
about the need to have international organizations that are effective
in fighting
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. As I said earlier,
that if the United Nations does not act, that there are other
proliferators down the line who will celebrate the United Nations
Security Council's failure to back up its own resolutions.
And that's why the President went to the United Nations. The
President still is working hard to make the United Nations Security
Council the organization that enforces its own resolutions calling for
immediate disarmament.
Q Ari, another follow on the cluster bombs and the drone, if I
may. Aside from the U.N. disclosure, does the United States have
information of its own, independent, about either of these potential
weapons systems?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, if you're asking me to discuss anything of a
classified nature, I, of course, cannot do that.
Q More so that -- in other words, beyond what we know from
the appendix.
MR. FLEISCHER: On the topic of the drones, if you recall, the
President raised that in his speech in Cincinnati, last fall, which was
a subject of concern that Iraq has been working to develop these.
What is notable here, that came out the very end of last week from
the United Nations, is that they may have discovered something.
Q Yes, but he said the intelligence showed that we had those.
Or they did.
MR. FLEISCHER: Dick.
Q Ari, can I just have an unrelated follow-up? Just an update
on the status of Osama bin Laden. We had some breathless reports
towards the end of last week that people were closing in on him. Can
you give us an idea where we are on that right now?
MR. FLEISCHER: Nothing different from what I said before. And,
you know, I think that somebody said to me, are you close to getting
Osama bin Laden, and my response then, my response today is, I don't
know how to measure close. Either he is captured or he is not.
Q Do we still have a specific search going on in a specific
region of --
MR. FLEISCHER: You may have to talk to DOD about anything
operational.
Dick.
Q The President has been reluctant to put forward any cost
estimates on what the war might cost. But the Congressional Budget
Office did so on Friday, suggesting the first month might cost $10
billion, and then $8 billion a month from there on out, until it's
completed.
But, surely, since the President has been talking so much about
reconstruction and making sure that a proper democratic government is
allowed to take hold in Iraq, that schools will be rebuilt, that kind
of thing -- the government must have some idea what the after cost
might be?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, just as the President said at the news
conference last week, that in the event hostilities begin, a
supplemental will be sent up to the Congress that takes into account
best estimates at that time about what costs could be. They would
include various areas of reconstruction, as well as military
operations.
But unless that happens, I'm not in a position to speculate about
what the cost could be.
Q Why not?
Q Why not? I mean, every time --
MR. FLEISCHER: For all the reasons I've been --
Q No, every time you guys put together --
MR. FLEISCHER: For all the reasons we've been giving for weeks on
the same question.
Q Every time you guys put together a domestic policy
initiative, there's a cost estimate attached -- even in its most
preliminary phases.
MR. FLEISCHER: Because the variables of war are totally different
from the variables of a domestic cost estimate. If Saddam Hussein
surrenders and Iraq disarms on the first day in the first hour, that
has one dramatic impact on the price.
Q Well, why not share the range?
MR. FLEISCHER: If it appears to be a lengthier price, then we
would be in a position to know at that time. Until we have more
information, it's very hard to make all these assessments with
finality.
Q Ari, the March 17th date, does that have significance only in
the U.N. context? Or is that a date that we're prepared to enforce?
Or is -- are all bets off once the U.N. acts? If it doesn't approve
that date, is the war on immediately?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think the best way to look at the March 17th date
and say, what is this -- at this point, that is the date that has
been given by the United Nations as part of the resolution that's been
tabled. And so it's part of the diplomatic process about when the
diplomacy will be brought to an end. In the event that the President
decides to authorize a use of force, we have not indicated what the
date may or may not be. Anything of that nature would come from the
President, himself.
Q If the United Nations -- if the President's efforts are
unsuccessful and the United Nations does not accept that March 17th
date, is the message to those who want more time, that there is no more
time as of that moment?
MR. FLEISCHER: As the President said, there would be warning to
inspectors, to journalists, to others to get out. And in the event
that there is anything further to be said about a date, it would come
from the President, himself. So I can't speculate about whether this
would or would not happen, or what the date may or may not be. The
date of March 17th has been set by the resolution that would be tabled
-- has been tabled per the diplomacy.
Q Ari, two follow-ups, one on Russia. In the President's
recent phone call with Mr. Putin, did he get at all the impression that
while they may not be with us, but at least they're not going to be
against us, like -- which has been quoted in the press? Did he get
that impression? And, secondly, on the cost estimate, why is it not
appropriate now to have those cost estimates released, given that the
Pentagon has made those estimates already? You said he would do it at
an appropriate time, but why is now not an appropriate time?
MR. FLEISCHER: On your first question, again, it's the place of
other nations to characterize their positions, it's not my place to --
Q But I'm talking about the President's impression, not what
-- actually what Putin said.
MR. FLEISCHER: The President's impression is that if Russia has
something conclusive to report, they will report it.
On the second part of your question, I've been answering it the
same way for weeks -- that in the event that a supplemental is sent,
we'll have information at that time, based on the numbers that are as
accurate as final.
Q If the U.N. Security Council and the weapons inspectors
maintain their present attitude or pattern, is the Bush administration
committed to maintaining its present U.N. dues at the current high
level?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not aware of anything that would indicate
otherwise.
Q Why not?
MR. FLEISCHER: Because I think that this will require a period of
assessment to determine, when the President talked about the relevance
of the United Nations Security Council, and if it is not able to act
and be relevant or effective, then I think that people would look at
that issue, in terms of relevance and effectiveness. I have just not
heard any discussion about that, dealing with dollars.
Q Ari, given the seriousness of a military operation against
Iraq, and the feeling in the international community against such a
war, even in those countries which have given support to the U.S. on
this question, why is the President so averse of going to the United
Nations himself, as is proposed by the French, to present -- to make
his case personally? Is he not the best person to do that?
MR. FLEISCHER: Because the case will be made, and what will happen
up in New York as the votes will be cast. The case will be made in the
days and the moments leading up to the vote, not the show of hands,
itself. And I think that all, but for maybe an extremely small number
of leaders, when you look around the world, very few responded
favorably to the French proposal to have a summit meeting to cast a
vote. That really did not fall on very receptive ears in any pockets
of the Security Council, with some exception. But very, very few.
Q Ari, you've said today that the United Nations Security
Council doesn't have a monopoly on the organization of international
bodies. But what it does offer is a certain international legitimacy.
I'm wondering where a coalition outside of that would derive its
legitimacy from in the international conscience?
MR. FLEISCHER: It would derive its legitimacy from, first of all,
the legality is of course, as I said, expressed in resolution 678 of
the United Nations resolutions. It's also expressed in the
Constitution of the United States of America and the President's role
as Commander-in-Chief. And of course, also, there is a vote in the
Congress on the question of force, in the form of a resolution.
It also is derived from the will of the world to disarm Saddam
Hussein, so that security around the world can be preserved. That,
itself, derives a moral legitimacy.
Q Given what we know about the September 11th hijackers, what
progress has been made in the INS of keeping track with Middle Eastern
men and their getting student visas?
MR. FLEISCHER: As you know, the Department of Justice, working
with other agencies, has been implementing a program to tighten
security at the borders, not only in terms of air transit coming in,
but in terms of the land entries into the United States. And there has
been significant increase in security and in protecting the country
since September 11th. The situation involving actions at the borders
is dramatically different from what it was prior to September 11th.
Q Ari, haven't you, in your response to Bob's question and
Ken's earlier questions declared the U.N., in effect, to be irrelevant
already?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think that's a -- as the President said on
September 12th, he hopes it will be relevant. And one of the ways the
President will measure this, it's not only relevance, as I said, it's
also, is it effective in enforcing its own resolutions about immediate
disarmament.
And I think the vote, as far as the President is concerned, will be
instructive.
Q As you point to other international organizations,
coalitions, so forth, as a substitute for the U.N., why shouldn't that
be taken as an official administration policy that the U.N. is
irrelevant?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President has not reached that conclusion,
that's why. A vote will take place, and if the President has anything
further as far as in forming his opinions, he may have something to say
about that. But at this point, what is happening is even with the
United Nations Security Council vote, of course, there will be members
of the Security Council who may vote "yes," who will not be providing
combat troops, for example. So regardless of what the vote is, there
will be other nations as part of the coalition of the willing, that
provide the force to disarm Saddam Hussein.
Q You've repeatedly affirmed the President's commitment to the
First Amendment. But when Trent Lott made offensive remarks, he
denounced them. Why has he not commented on the equally offensive
remarks of Democratic Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur, who likened Osama bin
Laden to our founding fathers?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think those remarks were reprehensible and I know
of no basis for anybody to have said that or to believe in it.
Q Ari, on Mexico, this morning you seemed very confident that
President Bush is going to get the support of the government of Mexico
for the resolution. Why is that? Do you think President Fox already
has buy the argument that it's a moral issue that is just -- or is it
because he's afraid to get some actions against --
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, you know, if you go back weeks, I've always
said that this is one of those issues -- Secretary Powell has said
this, as well -- that the votes, we will know where the votes are the
day the vote is cast. This is the United Nations process. It is not
atypical for member states of the Security Council to withhold their
final vote until the day of the vote. That is part and parcel of the
democratic process of the Security Council. The President respects it,
and that's why he is working this issue and making phone calls to the
various nations, calling undecided nations, calling other nations, for
example, and urging them to call members of the Security Council. And
so there's a whole round of diplomacy that's underway as nations --
sovereign nations like Mexico exercise their rights to think carefully,
and then vote.
Q -- Prime Minister Koizumi of Japan, how has the President
expressed about Japan's approach? Particularly, did the President ask
Prime Minister Koizumi to make financial contribution of Iraq?
MR. FLEISCHER: Any type of involvement from other nations who are
allied in this, they will speak for themselves about whether they will
make any type of contributions toward reconstruction of Iraq, or to the
future of Iraq. Those are issues for those nations to announce, not
for the United States.
Q How concerned is the President over Iran's apparent progress
with their nuclear program, and what is the U.S. response going to be
to that?
MR. FLEISCHER: We have long made clear our concerns about Iran's
pursuit of nuclear weapons, as well as other weapons of mass
destruction. Iran now openly says that it is pursuing a complete
nuclear fuel cycle. We completely reject Iran's claim that it is doing
so for peaceful purposes. After all, Iran has been in possession of a
great amount of energy of a non-nuclear nature as a result of their gas
and oil supplies.
Iran attempted to construct in secret a uranium enrichment plant
and heavy water plant. The first could by used to produce highly
enriched uranium for weapons; the second could support a reactor for
producing weapons-grade plutonium. Iran admitted the existence of
these facilities only after it had no choice, only because they had
been made public by an Iranian opposition group. There is no economic
justification for this, and it does remain a matter of great concern.
And it is also worth noting that, despite the best efforts of the
international community -- in this case, the IEA -- to verify that
they had it, Iran was far, far ahead of where they were believed to be
in the development of this. And if it had not been for the Iranian
opposition group, this, too, may have gone unnoticed, which is a
notable reflection on the abilities of international organizations to
actually know what is happening on the ground when one nation decides
to build nuclear programs in secret.
Lester.
Q Ari, this morning, The Washington Post had a half-page as the
latest in a number of huge and horrendous reports in papers and TV,
radio, of at least 56, and what Air Force Secretary Roche says may be
156, rapes of women cadets at the Air Force Academy. Since this could
be stopped by the Commander-in-Chief of the Air Force with either an
order to stop the idiocy of coed barracks, or have a separate academy
for all females, my question is, why won't the President be merciful
enough to these women by issuing such an order?
MR. FLEISCHER: Lester, this is a serious matter and this is a
matter that the President has concern about, in making certain that
throughout our society, including at the Air Force Academy and other
places, that every step is taken to preserve the liberty and security
of people who attend these institutions, and to put protections in
place for women at these institutions.
The President is confident that the Department of the Air Force is
handling this properly; that they are charged with looking into this
and they are exercising that responsibility seriously.
Q Does the President believe that Hamas is not a terrorist
organization and did not deserve to have its leader killed, just like
the CIA killed Abu in Yemen?
MR. FLEISCHER: There's no question Hamas is a terrorist
organization.
David.
Q This March 17th date, is that part of the negotiation
process? Could that be pushed back in order to get votes on the
Security Council?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, clearly, the date was chosen because the
drafters believed it was the most appropriate and the best date. As I
indicated, there are consultations underway, and I'm not going to get
into every shade of those consultations because they're fluid. These
are consultations that are going to continue.
Q -- negotiation?
MR. FLEISCHER: I would just leave it at the date was selected
because the drafters viewed it as the most appropriate date.
Q On what basis?
Q Ari, do you have any hope that the revelation on the UAV will
sway any votes on the Security Council? And, secondly, what's the
nature of that threat that the UAV that you're now pointing to poses to
the United States?
MR. FLEISCHER: One, I made no predictions about outcomes at the
Security Council based on any of this late-breaking evidence. Two, the
risk is not only potentially to the United States. As a result of the
manner in which these drones can be assembled, can be disassembled, can
be easily transported, can be launched from a variety of places, that
does present a threat to the United States if it comes in that form.
In the region, of course, it presents a threat to the United States
because we have some 200,000 troops in the region. We have friends in
the region. We have allies in the region. And even absent the
build-up that is taking place now, we had American troops previously
stationed in the region. So it does present a threat to America.
Q Ari, the Times editorial over the weekend quoting
intelligence sources as saying al Qaeda is apparently moving assets
into Iraq. Do you have any evidence of new al Qaeda movement there?
MR. FLEISCHER: There is nothing that has been reported to me. I
have nothing new on that topic.
Q Ari, coming at this U.N. slightly differently, in spite of
the optimistic words by you and Secretary Powell, it does seem that the
second resolution is going to be stillborn. And going back to the 17
resolutions passed against Iraq, none of which have been enforced, it
does seem now that the United Nations -- particularly the Security
Council -- is impotent when it comes to taking action. And it
appears it could go the way of the League of Nations. Is anybody
advising the President for the United States to withdraw from the U.N.
if it becomes, in his view, irrelevant?
MR. FLEISCHER: Did you say to withdraw from the U.N.? Was that
the question? No, I have not heard any discussion about that.
Q Ari, has the President spoken with President Fox from Mexico,
or is he planning to do that today? You mentioned the President is
planning to speak with different leaders. And also, during the
weekend, Ms. Rice mentioned the possibility to travel to the
non-permanent members countries of the Security Council if necessary to
convince each of them. Is there any plans for any high rank official
to travel to Mexico? Any chance --
MR. FLEISCHER: As you can see from the Secretary's efforts and the
President's efforts, they are both actively working the diplomacy, both
in person and on the phone. Secretary Powell, of course, entertained a
leading official from Guinea today. And I think you will be able to
anticipate continued in-person diplomacy, as well as phone diplomacy.
On President Fox, as you know, our longstanding pattern is, if a
phone call is made, we will do our best to report it to you. And so
I've given you the ones that have taken place so far today. And as I
indicated earlier -- and don't take this to be he will or will not
get a call today or the next day -- but as calls or made, later this
afternoon we'll give you a readout, after the next tranche of phone
calls are made.
Q Travel?
MR. FLEISCHER: I said no plans.
Q Ari, would you tell us how long the United States can wait
for North Korea's response to reach a peaceful solution?
MR. FLEISCHER: The question is, how long will the United States
wait for a North Korea response? The United States is pursuing this as
a diplomatic matter, and that means, diplomacy by nature takes an
amount of time. And the President is going to continue to work this,
just as he talked with President Jiang Zemin about and with Prime
Minister Koizumi this morning in the diplomatic fashion, to bring
together the region, where the region can be most effective in
convincing North Korea to dismantle its weapon programs.
Jacobo.
Q Ari, is the U.S. more optimistic now that there's been some
political changes in Turkey, getting Turkish approval for the troops we
base there?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, it remains to be seen. I don't want to
presume the outcome of anything involving Turkey. We will see what
Turkish leaders decide to do. This remains an issue that is important
for the Turkish government to resolve.
Q Ari, a second question. There's been a lot of talk about
trying to get the vote of the U.N. tomorrow. Is that a possibility, or
do you think we'll -- negotiations?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think at some point this week, I'm not going
to predict dates at this point. I'm not indicating it will be
tomorrow, it certainly well could be any day later than tomorrow.
Paula, did I miss you? Did you have your hand up?
Q Does he know the CBO had deficit forecast last week that was
even higher than a few months before? Is the administration at all
rethinking it's attack policy, given that this does not even factor in
the President's tax cut, nor does it factor in any possible costs of a
war with Iraq?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, and the reason the answer is no is because the
President views the tax policy as one of the best ways to get the
economy growing. And as last Friday's increase in unemployment shows,
we have a need to pass legislation in both the House and the Senate to
get the economy growing, and the best way to do that is through the
President's tax proposal.
Q Thank you, Ari.
MR. FLEISCHER: Thank you.
END 2:10 P.M. EST
|