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
March 4, 2003
Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
12:46 P.M. EST
MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. Let me give you a report on the
President's day. Then I have two statements to make. The President
began this morning with a phone call to Prime Minister Vajpayee of
India. They spoke and agreed about the need for Iraq to fully disarm
and comply with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441. They
also discussed the need for calm along the Line of Control, and decided
to remain in close consultation.
The President, also this morning, spoke with President Mubarak of
Egypt. They talked about the recent Arab League Summit in Cairo and
the forthcoming Islamic Conference Summit in Doha. They also discussed
the situation regarding Iraq. Finally, the President told President
Mubarak about his recent speech where he reiterated his commitment to
move forward on seeking peace between Israelis and Palestinians.
President Bush told President Mubarak of his personal commitment to
dedicated time and energy to this goal as they discussed developments
in that area.
After the phone calls the President had his intelligence briefing
and FBI briefing. The President gave a speech this morning at the
American Medical Association about a series of new health care
initiatives designed to deal with medical liability suits that have
driven doctors and patients away from each other depriving people of
the health care they need, as well as a new proposal to get
prescription drugs to seniors.
Later this afternoon, the President will meet the leaders of the
digital freedom initiative. This is a program to promote economic
growth by transferring the benefits of information communication
technology to entrepreneurs and small businesses in the developing
world. Under this program, 100 volunteers will be mobilized to be sent
to Senegal as the first country to benefit from this program, designed
to promote growth.
Later this afternoon, the President will meet with the President of
Rwanda in the Oval Office.
Two statements for you: One, the President extends his condolences
to the people of the Philippines and to President Arroyo for the lives
lost and those injured in today's attack. The President condemns the
wanton terrorist act and pledges cooperation and assistance to ensure
that those who are responsible are brought to justice.
The President notes that the bombing underscores the seriousness of
the terrorist threat in the southern Philippines, and he emphasizes
that the Philippines have been a stalwart partner of the United States
in the war against terror. The President notes that we will continue
to work closely with President Arroyo to assist her and her
government's campaign to defeat the terrorists, and we will continue to
do so.
Finally, the President is announcing today that the Department of
Health and Human Services will release $150 million in Low Income Home
Energy Assistance funding -- otherwise known as LIHEAP. This
additional funding will provide much needed help for families
struggling with rising heating costs. This new money, combined with
emergency funds released in January, will help keep many Americans warm
during this cold winter.
And with that, I'm happy to take your questions. And hearing none,
I say thank you. (Laughter.)
Q Can you give us a little more information on the Musharraf
-- I'm sorry, the phone call this morning, and specifically whether or
not they talked about the second new resolution? Did the President ask
for help in that regard?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President congratulated President Mubarak on
the recent conference, wished him well at the upcoming conference.
They talked about their shared view that it's important for Saddam
Hussein to comply with Resolution 1441 and to disarm.
Q On the peace process, did they talk more specifically on what
the road map or what the time frame is?
MR. FLEISCHER: They did not. It was a general discussion about
the importance of focusing on this issue, as the President pointed out
from his recent speech. He wanted to be sure to bring it to the
attention personally of President Mubarak.
Q Does the enhanced Medicare plan have traditional
fee-for-services prescription drug coverage?
MR. FLEISCHER: Under the proposal the President made today,
seniors will have more choices and better benefits. The choices
available to seniors are whatever seniors want, including traditional
fee-for-service; including preferred provider organizations, if they so
desire; including managed care, if they so desire. It will have what
seniors want. It will give seniors the same options that members of
Congress have in the private plan available to members of Congress.
Q -- include prescription drug coverage?
MR. FLEISCHER: And under all those plans, seniors will be eligible
for prescription drug coverage. What's notable about the plan is, by
providing to seniors the exact coverage that members of Congress have,
it means that this plan would be available in all 50 states; it would
be available in the most rural areas across America -- because
members of Congress and their staffs receive the same coverage. That
includes, under fee-for-service, prescription drugs. It includes,
under a variety of programs, prescription drug coverage, including a
fee-for-service, which is defined as when you need medical attention,
you visit the doctor or the hospital of your choice.
Q In the call with Mubarak, did the President mention anything
about the need for democratic reforms?
MR. FLEISCHER: I've given you all the info I've got on the call.
Q So, after the big speech last week where he talked about the
importance of democracy, here he's talking to the leader of a very
repressive regime in the Arab world and he mentions not a word about
the need for democracy?
MR. FLEISCHER: I've given you the information on the call. The
President, of course, makes that a point of all his focus. And I think
when you take a look at the actions of Egypt, what you see is Egypt is
a regime that is being very helpful to the United States, and being
very helpful to Israel, and being helpful to the Palestinians. They,
after all, are a moderate Arab country that has entered into a peace
treaty with Israel. And the President --
Q So if they serve our interest, democracy for Egyptians
doesn't matter?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think that Egypt is a nation that is working it's
way forward with reforms to the greatest degree that they can. This is
something the President has supported. And it is also a state that has
entered into a peace treaty with Israel, which serves the world's
needs, not America's needs.
Q All right. Just quickly on timing. Does the administration
intend to call for a vote at the United Nations, whether or not it
looks as if the U.S. has lined up the necessary votes? Will there be a
vote on the resolution that the U.S. and the U.K. have tabled --
MR. FLEISCHER: What the President has said is that he believes
that a vote is desirable, it is not mandatory. The President has said
that we want to move forward to listen to the Blix report, and then
give members the opportunity to say what they think and to act. And
so, from the President's point of view, we are consulting with nations
around the world, as you know, talking to them about the second vote.
The timing of it cannot yet be predicted with certainty. But that's
the President's view.
Q So it's possible --
Q But there will be vote?
Q You're backing off it?
Q You're backing off.
Q That's different from what you said this morning.
MR. FLEISCHER: No, the President has -- I've reiterated what the
President has always said -- I've reiterated what the President has
always said, which is that the vote is desirable, it is not mandatory.
We seek --
Q -- you said this morning.
Q Where did he say that \?
MR. FLEISCHER: We seek a vote --
Q Where did he say that?
MR. FLEISCHER: You know I have said to you that the resolution is
desirable, not mandatory. The President has on multiple occasions --
in Cross Hall and in photo ops, that you all have been there -- the
President has said that it is desirable, that we are doing it to work
with our friends on this issue, that we seek the support on a second
vote, and that's speaks for itself.
Go ahead, Ron.
Q The President said a resolution is desirable, not mandatory.
You, from that podium both this morning and last week, said there will
be a vote, regardless of what the outcome is going to be. Now, if
you're going to back off, that's fine. But just -- concede it to us
and let us know why.
MR. FLEISCHER: Do not interpret this as any change in position.
The President has always said, and I reiterate it today --
Q You're changing the position.
MR. FLEISCHER: No, no, no, let me -- let's work through this.
What I am saying to you is the President has made clear that the
outcome, whether the United Nations votes or does not vote, that we
will disarm Saddam Hussein with a coalition of the willing. That
depends on the actions that the United Nations takes. We are
proceeding with all the plans for the vote. And so I don't see any
difference here. We'll continue to consult with our allies and
friends, listen to the Blix report and then the members will have their
opportunity to be heard --
Q Last week you said there will be a vote. This morning you
said there will be a vote regardless of whether or not -- how it
turns out. Do you stand behind those words? Or are you changing your
--
MR. FLEISCHER: My words exactly this morning were that, shortly
after the Blix report members will have the opportunity to be heard at
the Security Council, members will have the opportunity to vote.
That's what I said.
Q You were specifically knocking down a story that --
Q That's when you said there would be a vote.
Q -- if there were not nine votes, the U.S. would not ask for
a vote.
MR. FLEISCHER: And I continue to say that story has no basis.
Q But you can't guarantee there will be a vote at the U.N.
You're leaving the option open that if we can't get the support, we'll
pull the resolution and go to war anyway.
MR. FLEISCHER: I've said exactly what I've continued to say the
way I've said it --
Q Try it one more time.
MR. FLEISCHER: -- which is, this morning -- take a look at the
transcript of what I said this morning -- with certainty, what I said
was that shortly after the Blix report, members will be given the
opportunity to vote.
Q The U.S. won't do anything to impede a vote, even if it
appears that there are not the necessary nine votes to pass the
resolution?
MR. FLEISCHER: We are proceeding. Now, if you're asking me if all
of a sudden support around the world crumbles and there is absolutely
no one for it, I can't predict with metaphysical certitude every
eventuality. But I'm telling you what the President is doing and how
he's focused on it and what the plan is.
Q Ari, one last try.
MR. FLEISCHER: We'll get there, Elizabeth.
Q Thank you, Ari. Are you willing to offer Turkey a more
generous package, and how much time do they have?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, we continue to talk to Turkey. Turkey is a
NATO ally. The particular package that we've been talking to them
about was predicated on assistance and cooperation in any plan for the
use of force against Iraq. Obviously, it is predicated on that
assistance and cooperation. We'll continue to talk to them as we move
forward.
Q Are you willing to increase the amount in the package, or is
that package pretty much the final offer?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, as I indicated, the particular package that we
have talked to them about was predicated on their assistance and
cooperation.
Q Ari, one last try on the vote. I asked you this morning,
will there be a vote, without question, and you said, yes. And now
you're --
MR. FLEISCHER: You need to read exactly what I said on the
transcript. What I said on the transcript I'll repeat again right
now. What I said is, that the plan is that shortly after the Blix
report, members will be given their opportunity to vote.
Q I just -- do we have the transcript?
MR. FLEISCHER: Sure you have the transcript.
Q Last week -- we'll check his transcript, as well, but
didn't you last week say there will be a vote, period?
MR. FLEISCHER: You can check the transcript on it, Ron, but I've
indicated all along that what the President has said is we are
continuing to talk to our allies in advance of the second vote. And I
see nothing that has changed the President's confidence in the ultimate
outcome of the second vote, which is the 18th vote.
Elizabeth, a follow-up, and then we're going to go to Goyle.
Q On North Korea, would you consider what the President said
yesterday about North Korea in the interview, that he for the time
mentioned military action explicitly, is that a ratcheting up of
pressure on North Korea?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President has always said that we leave our
options on the table and that he continues to believe this can be
settled diplomatically, but we leave all our options on the table.
That's what the President has always said.
Q Is that a difference in what he said this morning and what he
said yesterday?
MR. FLEISCHER: Goyle.
Q Ari, as part of the phone conversation between the President
and the Prime Minister of India, does that have anything to do with
what Prime Minister Vajpayee said yesterday in Parliament that India is
very much frustrated with -- in Washington because they both failed
to caught Pakistan terrorism into India. And also he said that now we
don't know who to believe because President Bush pledged including
General Musharraf that within a year it will be all stopped, but it has
not, and he was saying that as far as Iraq is concerned, India is with
the United States, just like on Afghanistan.
MR. FLEISCHER: As you know, the President and Prime Minister
Vajpayee talk from time to time. It's not predicated on any one event
or another; it's part of what allies do. And the situation involving
Kashmir and the Line of Control has long been a contentious issue and
an issue that involves tension on both sides. And so this is a matter
of ongoing diplomacy by the United States. That was the tenor of the
conversation that they talked about.
Q Ari, one on Iraq and one on Medicare. If the President makes
a decision to send in the troops, go to combat, would he first, in one
last effort to avoid war, issue some sort of ultimatum to Saddam
Hussein, say, you have 24, 48, 72 hours to leave the country?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think it's too soon to say. The President
continues to hope, one, that this can be settled peacefully; but two,
let's see what the outcome is up in New York. Let's see what happens
in the Blix report. Let's see what happens after the second vote takes
place -- or the 18th vote takes place. And I cannot predict the
future more than that.
Q Is the President's decision to offer a blueprint today on
Medicare, as opposed to a detailed piece of legislation, a reflection
of the requests, the entreaties from congressional Republicans to not
send up thousands of pages that have "White House" stamped on the front
page, which they thought would be essentially political suicide for
them because the Democrats were going to rally against it because it
had the President's name on it, on an issues the obviously is very
political?
MR. FLEISCHER: There's no question that if you take a look at the
trend in Congress for years on Medicare, both parties talk about
getting prescription drugs to seniors, but then it never happens. And
so what the President wanted to do was find a new way to work with
Congress so that whatever plan was proposed in getting prescription
drugs to seniors would have the most likelihood of actually getting
enacted into law. And so, following the State of the Union, the
President listened to members of Congress and heard their different
thoughts about how to proceed, and what you see today is reflected in
the consultations we've had with members of Congress.
Q If I could refine the question about the vote. The U.S.,
obviously, has the power to call for a vote. The sponsors have the
power to call for a vote. So how about if we just ask simply, does the
U.S. intend to call for a vote, come what may, on a second
resolution?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, obviously, when I keep referring to the fact
that after the second vote takes place -- after the 18th vote takes
place -- you're hearing very clearly our plan how to proceed. I'm
saying we will continue to keep our ear to the ground, but all plans,
all intentions are indeed to proceed. And that's why I'm having a hard
time understanding how there can be seen as any type of shift or change
here. We'll listen to the Blix report, and then, I cannot predict to
you the timing, but the President has always said that he is confident
in the outcome of this.
Q Yes, I mean, the question we all have, I think, is fairly
simple, which is, if the situation did not change from where it is
today, and there were five votes, and the whole purpose of this was to
find an expression of support for our allies, and voting on a second
resolution wasn't going to do that, would the U.S. decide not to call
for a vote?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, as you know, I've often told you, too, that
this vote is one of these votes where it's kind of hard to tell exactly
how many votes you're going to have, often until the day the vote is
called, isn't it? And so, I think this means that a lot of the
guessing about how many votes will there be, this far out from a vote
that hasn't even been called yet, are just that, guesses. And this is
why I went through the exercise of reading to you, in 1990 similar
statements made, threatening vetoes by China, by France, by Russia, in
terms of the resolution.
And so we've seen this pattern before where people believe that
it's impossible, or that it's a very uphill fight for the President to
achieve a United Nations outcome. And we saw that that speculation was
wrong in 1990. We saw it was wrong in the fall of 2002. And I believe
you'll see again that it's wrong in 2003. And that's why the President
has expressed his confidence in the ultimate outcome of a vote.
Q Okay, one quick thing on North Korea, if I may. Were the
President's remarks in this interview, should we interpret those as a
simple restatement of administration policy which always leaves
military options on the table, or as a warning to North Korea after its
provocations of yesterday?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think you should see it as a restatement of
American policy that the President continues to believe that this
matter can be handled through diplomacy. We are in consultation as we
speak with the Republic of Korea and our other allies about this
incident, and we are consulting with them on how we will protest this
incident in the most appropriate way to lodge the protest.
Q Where would you lodge a protest?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's what we're in consultations with them
about. There actually are -- there are several places it can be
done.
Q Two quick ones. On Medicare, some even moderate Republicans
on the Hill are saying, while this is a step in the right direction, it
still doesn't go far enough. How much is the White House willing to
negotiate, particularly on the benefits that the President outlined for
those who stay within traditional Medicare?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President wants very much to work with
Congress on this issue. And it's important to listen to the points of
view of all those who approach this in the same spirit the President
does, which is, to summarize the President's approach, let's make this
the year that seniors actually get the prescription drugs they've been
promised. So the President wants to work with Democrats and
Republicans to find a way to make that happen.
Q So he's willing to negotiate and beef up those benefits if
that's the will of Congress?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President has proposed this, and now it's
important for Congress to take it up. And the President is confident
they will take it up in a good spirit, and move it forward so seniors
can get the prescription drugs. In terms of its generosity, this is a
generous plan. The President has proposed $400 billion over 10 years,
with additional assistance to low-income seniors to help them with
their costs. Last year, when this was being debated, Democrats had
been talking about a plan in the range of $300 billion. So the
President thinks that this is the ultimate test of, if there's a will,
there's a way. And he wants to see that happen.
Q On -- just to follow really quickly on North Korea. As
much as this is a restatement of policy, surely the President knew that
his remarks would be provocative. So why did he --
MR. FLEISCHER: The President thought that his remarks would be
provocative?
Q Well, to become more specific -- I mean, why didn't he just
restate what you have always said, I keep all my options on the table,
which is sort of a benign way of not closing off options, but also it
doesn't move the ball anywhere?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, first of all, I just want to differ with the
premise of it, because I think when you take a look at the action that
was taken, the President is not being provocative. But the President
has said in different formulations the same statement, and he said what
he said yesterday. And I was asked earlier about that question, and
it's a restatement of what he has said, all options remain on the
table. He continues to believe, as he said yesterday, that this can be
handled diplomatically.
Q Ari, two quick ones on Medicare. One, seniors would join the
exact same plan that members of Congress have, that very plan, not a
parallel, comparable plan, is that right? They'd have that option.
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes. The President has proposed -- I brought
this with me. The President has proposed giving senior citizens the
identical coverage that is available to members of Congress and their
staffs. It's called the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan. And in
the 2003 book, which is given to all members of Congress, on pages 12
through 14, it describes a dozen or so fee-for-service insurance
policies, all of which mean that when you need medical attention, you
visit the doctor or hospital of your choice.
This is not managed care; this is member of Congress care. This is
the same care that's available to members of Congress, and the
President thinks if it's good enough for members of Congress, it should
be good enough for our nation's seniors.
Q It's not like equal coverage, it's that very plan? They will
become part of the members of Congress plan?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm really not sure I follow the question. This
means that the same coverage that is made available to members of
Congress will be made available --
Q You can have two different plans that provide similar
coverage. I'm simply trying to understand whether it's --
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, there are a variety of choices and options
and plans. That's why when you look at 12 through 14 here, you'll see
that it lists a whole series of plans, private plans that are available
in all 50 states across the country, all congressional districts across
the country, rural and urban, that are available to members and their
staffs. And what members or the staffs do is they go through and they
make a selection about this co-payment, this premium, this level of
coverage, that's what suits me and my family the best.
The President is proposing a way to build this into Medicare on an
enhanced basis for Medicare so that a senior citizen could look through
it and say, this is the plan that works best for me. This is the
amount of co-payment I'd like to pay. This is the amount of premium
I'd like to pay. And they'll have assistance from the government in
paying these costs because the federal government will be subsidizing
$400 billion.
Q So they'll get that same booklet, in effect, to choose from?
That very same booklet?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's the gist, that's correct.
Q And anybody in any level of Medicare, old, new, whatever,
could use the doctor and hospital they choose, although depending on
what coverage you picked, you might pay more or less for it, is that
right?
MR. FLEISCHER: It depends on the choice that a senior makes.
Under what members of Congress have, it does say that when you need
medical attention, you visit the doctor or hospital of your choice.
That's for the nationwide fee-for-service plans. So if a senior
decided what they wanted to do was pick a plan where they could go to
any doctor, any time that they wanted to go to, the doctor of their
choice, they could have that available to them. If they decided that
they prefer a provider organization, they could have that choice. If a
senior decided they wanted managed care, that, too, would be their
choice, just as it's the choice for members of Congress today.
Q The President see -- envisions a prescription drug benefit
as part of a very comprehensive plan of reforming Medicare. Does he
keep on the table the idea that maybe you could just provide
prescription drug benefit and come back to revisit Medicare reform
later on?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, of course, under the proposal the President
has made, people who stay in traditional Medicare will have
prescription drug coverage. So that is covered. But the President
does look at this as a issue of taking a system that was designed in
1965, when health care was essentially just hospitals and doctors,
making a 21st century Medicare that is more helpful to seniors.
One way to perhaps think of this is if a senior citizen works for a
private company, is 64 years and 364 days old, they receive a booklet
from the private company that describes a whole series of plans that
are available to them. And when they're 64 years old, they can choose
among those plans the option they think is best, the best benefits, the
right price. The day they turn 65, under Medicare, all those choices
are taken away from them. They're not given those choices. And that's
why they don't have prescription drugs under Medicare.
The President thinks that many people who are like that, and who
have been working for years and who are in Medicare, will be familiar
and comfortable with this. But there are going to be seniors, perhaps,
who are older than that, octogenarians, who want absolutely no
changes. They want prescription drugs. They'll get that. They don't
have to make any changes to get the prescription drug coverage. But
there are going to be younger seniors who are used to having choices
and options who are probably going to be more inclined to take a look
and have an enhanced Medicare program.
Q The Democrats don't like this. How do you get them on
board? How are you going to convince them it's a good idea?
MR. FLEISCHER: If -- first of all, I don't agree with the
premise that all Democrats don't like it. Senator John Breaux, for
example, this morning, said that this is a combination of the best of
the government has to offer with the best of what the private sector
provides. It's a good combination in Senator Breaux's opinion, and he
often is a key indicator of whether or not there will be a centrist
coalition that can do this.
Of course, there are going to be liberal Democrats who only want
government-run health care. This is an alternative to government-run
health care. This provides people with options and better benefits.
So there may be some element of that, but that's why the President
thinks that there can be, indeed, a center built around this plan that
can get prescription drugs to seniors.
Q Ari, two questions, please. Today, on the occasion of the
Muslim New Year, Iraqi television read a speech of President Saddam
Hussein in which he had extremely harsh words for President Bush. And
I think -- I may be paraphrasing, but I think he accused him of trying
to enslave the people of Iraq.
MR. FLEISCHER: That's just further nonsense. And when you talk
about the conditions of the people of Iraq, Saddam Hussein is the one
who has created a brutal, totalitarian dictatorship in which people
cannot speak, people are not free to exercise their rights. Saddam
Hussein has created one of the worst totalitarian, most violent states
-- after all, he has gassed his own people -- imaginable on this
Earth. I think that it's a fair thing to say that if Saddam Hussein is
removed from power, the people of Iraq will, for the first time in a
generation, be free.
Q Next question, Ari, please -- recently The Washington Post
had an editorial in which it expressed its worries about some of the
latest steps taken by President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, and asking
the United States to get more involved with a group of friends trying
to find a democratic solution --
MR. FLEISCHER: The United States is deeply involved in the Mission
of the Secretary General of the Organization of American States. They
have formed this group of friends that is working very hard to bring
solutions to the problem in Venezuela based on a constitutional
solution and based on a peaceful model. We're a deeply integral part
of that.
Q I'm still unclear on Medicare, why the President was willing
to
send up only a framework that left the details up to Congress, but
on something like tax cuts, he set up a detailed proposal with price
tags for each provision.
MR. FLEISCHER: Right.
Q Why not get as specific on something so important?
MR. FLEISCHER: Because it's the President's judgment that what's
important is at the end of the day to get things done for the American
people, and in this case, to get taxes cut, so that the economy can
grow, and then also to get prescription drugs to seniors. And it's
entirely appropriate, in the President's opinion, to have different
tactics to a common -- to accommodate those objectives or accomplish
those objectives.
The President's judgment was, on an issue where Congress has
engaged in such heated partisanship as they have in the past on
Medicare, which stopped anything from getting done on Medicare, it is
more appropriate, more helpful and more bipartisan to send up a
framework and to let members of Congress work their will with the
framework. Taxes has proved itself to be an issue where people have
been able to forge majorities, people have been able to get taxes cut.
And so it's not a similar issue to Medicare.
Q So on his tax proposal, he doesn't anticipate that heated
partisanship that you see on --
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, there may be some heated partisanship, but I
don't think it's going to stand in the way of actually getting it done;
2001 is an indication of that. But after all, the Senate last year
wasn't even able to pass a Medicare proposal. They weren't even able
to pass in the Senate -- of course it was under different control at
that time, but they couldn't even pass through the Senate a plan to get
prescription drugs to seniors.
Q Ari, the North Korean intercept over the weekend. A, is it
your impression that this incident over international waters, a lock on
an American plane over international waters, takes things up a notch to
a new level, if you will, of tension? But beyond that, there's also a
report that we have now suspended those reconnaissance flights. Is
that true?
MR. FLEISCHER: One, I can't comment on anything operational. You
need to talk to DOD about that. But, two, this is exactly as I
indicated. This is a matter that we will protest. And we're talking
to our allies about the best manner in which to do that.
Q Ari, Newsweek, which has a cover story headlined, "Bush and
God," also reports as did WorldNet Daily, that Saudi Arabia will once
again not be, "a country of particular concern in the State
Department's annual list of systematic, ongoing and egregious violators
of religious freedom." And my question: How can the President, as a
born-again Christian, tolerate the State Department doing this, when
there is obviously and undeniably no religious freedom in Saudi
Arabia?
MR. FLEISCHER: One, Lester, any judgments the President makes are
based on his role as the President of all the people, not on the basis
of what his individual religion happens to be. Two, there is a careful
review process that the State Department can walk you through about all
their criteria about how they conduct their reports, and you can talk
to them to get that.
Q He doesn't -- wait a minute.
MR. FLEISCHER: Go ahead.
Q The overwhelming majority of the quarter of a million of our
Armed Forces who are now poised Iraq are men. Most of these are aware,
well aware of the extensive media coverage of the male and married
commander of the Kitty Hawk battle group being relieved of command for
having an affair with a female Naval officer whose identity the Navy is
concealing. And my question is, when our Armed Forces see that,
instead of speaking to this gender discrimination, you buck the
question back to the Pentagon, but won't talk, would you deny, Ari,
that this does not -- this doesn't suggest the Commander-in-Chief
doesn't care?
MR. FLEISCHER: Lester, I review you to my previous buck. You need
to talk to DOD. (Laughter.)
MR. FLEISCHER: Sarah. Happy birthday.
Q You wouldn't let me --
MR. FLEISCHER: Lester, you're interrupting Sarah's celebration of
her birthday.
Q Happy birthday.
MR. FLEISCHER: Happy birthday, Sarah.
Q Oh, my gosh. Thank you, thank you, very much. That's very
nice. That's what you like, right?
Q Happy birthday, my dear.
MR. FLEISCHER: I hear no question. We'll move on. (Laughter.)
You're speechless, Sarah. Do you have a question?
Q I have a question. This is something for the books, though.
Now the question, just -- thank you. After today's bombing in the
Philippines, does the President believe he will now get the okay from
the Philippine government to send combat troops to the southern
Philippines to go after the Abu Sayyaf and the Islamic Liberation
Front?
MR. FLEISCHER: One, the President -- as I indicated at the
beginning of the briefing -- does view this as an act of terrorism.
And we stand ready and able to help the people of the Philippines. The
Philippines are a sovereign government, and we continue to talk to
them. Their Defense Minister was just here meeting with the American
Secretary of Defense about how best to accomplish this assistance. And
that will be a subject of these talks.
Q Thank you. Does the administration still consider Saddam
Hussein to be a terrorist?
MR. FLEISCHER: Does the administration consider Saddam Hussein to
be a terrorist?
Q Right.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, certainly, he is the dictator of a state that
is on the terrorist list, so I see nothing that would indicate he is
anything but a terrorist.
Q Why doesn't the U.S. go after him overtly, the way we have
Osama bin Laden?
MR. FLEISCHER: You asked me that the other day and the answer
remains the same. If force is used, I think you can assume that we
will not carve out a safety zone for Saddam Hussein.
Q And also, was a bounty paid on the people in Pakistan who
helped with the arrest of Sheik Mohammed?
MR. FLEISCHER: You would have to talk to Justice Department about
that. I don't have that information.
Q Ari, the man that President Bush has appointed to be the
civilian head of Iraq after military operations, retired General Jay
Garner, is one of about --
MR. FLEISCHER: The President has not appointed anybody to be the
civilian head of Iraq.
Q -- the man who was appointed, maybe it was Elliott Abrams
or somebody else who appointed him -- at any rate, General Jay Garner
is going to be the one heading the civilian administration. Now,
General Garner, with an impressive military career nevertheless, is one
of about a couple dozen generals who are closely associated with JINSA
and have worked very closely with the Israeli military, among other
things, I believe on the Arrow missile program. Is it really
appropriate, with these kind of credentials, to place him as the face
of American democracy in Iraq? And wouldn't that create the wrong
impression?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President has not made any appointments about
the face of American democracy in Iraq. I just dispute the premise of
your question. If there are any people who are going to be involved in
any ways about this, you can talk to DOD about some of the various
people who are going to be involved in DOD's operation.
Q Is this not true, then, that General Garner will be the head
of the civilian side of Iraq in a post, in an occupation --
MR. FLEISCHER: As I indicated, the President has made no
appointments about a "civilian head of Iraq."
Q What's the President going to tell the Papal Emissary
tomorrow?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President looks forward to receiving and
greeting the Papal Emissary tomorrow to find out what the message of
the Pope is on this topic. The President has said previously that he
hopes that this matter can be resolved peacefully, and that the best
way for this to be resolved peacefully is through the actions of Saddam
Hussein. We will see what happens in the meeting tomorrow, what the
message is, and I'll have a report for you tomorrow.
Q Ari, the Pope has already said there's no moral or legal
justification for war. What are the legal and moral justifications in
the President's mind?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, I will have more to say on this after the
meeting takes tomorrow. And I don't want to presume what a message may
be, or what the meeting will be. But if there are those who differ
with the President on this, the President respects their opinion and
respects their ideas and respects their thoughts. He listens. He
listens carefully. In the end, the President will make the judgment
that he thinks is best needed to protect our country.
Q Does he see a moral/legal justification for war?
MR. FLEISCHER: Clearly, the fact that Saddam Hussein has violated
the United Nations Security Council resolutions means he is not
following the legal path that the world has set out to preserve peace.
And the President thinks the most immoral act of all would be if Saddam
Hussein were to somehow transfer his weapons to terrorists who could
use them against us. So the President does view the use of force as a
matter of legality, as a matter of morality, and as a matter of
protecting the American people.
Q This is about Iraq. On Saturday, I interviewed Aziz al-Taee,
Chairman of the Iraqi-American Council. He detailed a compelling body
of evidence about the holocaust being waged against the Iraqi people.
Why hasn't the administration focused on this aspect of Saddam's regime
to justify intervention without U.N. approval? After all, it was the
Clinton administration that used ethnic cleansing as a pretext to bomb
and send troops into Kosovo.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the administration has frequently pointed
that out. And Secretary Powell, in his presentation up in New York,
described at some length the crimes committed by Saddam Hussein against
his own people. And this is something the President remarks about from
time to time. What about the cries on the basis of human rights for
the people of Iraq who are suffering under the hand of Saddam Hussein?
That is an important issue for the world to face, as well, as the
consequences of allowing Saddam to have weapons of mass destruction.
Q Ari --
| Printer-Friendly Version |
| Email this page to a friend |