For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
September 19, 2002
Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
1:15 P.M. EDT
MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. I want to update you on the President's day, and then I have a statement I'd like to make
in reaction to the speech that was given at the United Nations by the Iraqi Foreign Minister.
The President began his day today by calling the Prime Minister of Japan. He spoke with Prime Minister Koizumi early
this morning. The Prime Minister briefed the President on his visit to North Korea, and the President expressed his
support for the Prime Minister's visit. The two leaders also discussed Iraq and Prime Minister Koizumi's support for
U.S. efforts to establish the necessary resolutions in the United Nations Security Council.
The President also today called President Arroyo of the Philippines. They spoke early this morning. The President
thanked her for her government's strong support for the United States approach on Iraq. In addition, the two discussed
counterterrorism efforts around the world, including in Southeast Asia.
The President also today called President Kwasniewski of Poland. They talked about the upcoming NATO summit, as well as
Iraq. And the President thanked the President of Poland for their government's support on Iraq.
The President had his usual intelligence briefings and FBI briefings. Then he met with members of Congress, particularly
a bipartisan group from the House of Representatives that is going to work as a team to help the administration with the
resolution that has been sent up to the Hill concerning Iraq. And this group will help the administration to secure the
votes and to work closely with us, in addition to the leadership of the House of Representatives in both parties, so
that the administration's proposal can be well received and moved forward to a vote.
Later this afternoon, the President will visit with employees of the Department of Homeland Security, where the
President is going to try to make progress to help the Senate break the logjam that the Senate finds itself in, to bring
action to homeland security so that the matter can be voted on.
And this evening, the President will make remarks to the Republican Governors Association Fall Reception.
Finally, in regard to the speech at the United Nations by the Iraqi Foreign Minister, in the speech, Iraq failed to
accept the truth and engaged in additional deceptions, and showed no willingness to change attitude or behavior. Sadly,
the speech presented nothing new and was more of the same.
It was a disappointing failure in every respect. The speech is an attempt to lure the world down the same dead-end road
that the world has traveled before, and in that it represents a disappointing failure by Iraq.
Q Ari, what specifically was deceptive in the White House view about what the Foreign Minister said?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, number one, Iraq said in the speech that they have not rejected the resolutions of the United
Nations. If that was true then why did the United Nations pass 16 of them? The reason is because Iraq has not complied.
Iraq said in the speech they are clear of all nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. As we know from the arms
inspectors who have been to Iraq, that is categorically a lie.
Iraq also accused President Bush of engaging in lies and falsehoods. And finally, they are already putting up conditions
for the weapons inspectors that they said only two days ago they would accept unconditionally. When Iraq talks about
sovereignty and independence, history has shown that those are code words for thwarting the inspectors.
Q Do you get the sense, or are you concerned that this diplomatic offensive from Saddam Hussein might convince members
of the Security Council, other world leaders, to say, well, preferable to war, give him one more chance?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think the United Nations has no desire to travel down the same dead-end road again. They have spent
10 years traveling down that dead-end road. And as the President said this morning, and the speech doesn't change
anything for the President, that he has confidence that the members of the Security Council will face up to their
obligations. He thinks it's terribly important that they do so.
Q Is there any way to avoid war, and if so, how?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President, in his speech to the United Nations, laid out the important decisions that Iraq has to
make, in terms of destroying its weapons of mass destruction, stopping its repression of minorities, returning
prisoners, renouncing involvement with terrorism and ceasing its violations to the oil-for-food program. The President
believes what has to happen next is for the United Nations to act in a strong and meaningful way. The President thinks
it's important for Congress to act, and that the world's voice be heard by the Iraqi people and by the leaders of Iraq.
Q The President was very explicit about what he is asking for from Congress, authorization to use force to bring about
regime change. Is that the same thing he's looking for from the U.N.?
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't think you can assume that what we are asking of the Congress is the same that we are asking from
the United Nations. They are separate organizations, of course. In terms of what's being asked of the Congress, late
this morning, early this afternoon, a resolution to authorize the use of force was sent up to Capitol Hill for its
consideration. This is a draft, and the President looks forward to working with members of both parties on this
resolution. He thinks it's very important for the Congress and the White House to work together, without regard to
party. That way the nation sees the Congress and the President can work together on something as important as this.
There will be meetings on Capitol Hill about this, and the President believes and expects that the Congress will vote on
this before they leave.
Q Why the difference then? Why not ask the U.N. for the same thing? You can't get it -- I mean, is there a feeling that
you can't possibly convince the world that regime change --
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the world is not the Congress. The world has other concerns and other issues. For example, the work
that the Secretary is doing, along with other members of the Permanent Five and other members of the Security Council
will keep going on. Obviously, there are still consultations and negotiations underway with the members of the Security
Council. And we will see exactly what the U.N. does, and we'll see what the language is at the appropriate time.
Q Ari, can I deviate just for a second, Ari, to the 9/11 hearings on the Hill. Why has the White House sought to not
declassify information that the President received about intelligence prior to 9/11?
MR. FLEISCHER: If you're referring to -- I think there's been some confusion on that point. The final report recognizes
that the principle of information that is provided to the President per the advisory capacity of his staff is not
subject to revelation in terms of the President was briefed on this, the President was briefed on that. That's a
well-known and accepted principle that the Congress has recognized in this report.
But the substance of the information is in the report. Nothing was withheld in the final document about the substance of
the information that was received. But the question of what -- did this go to the President or to anybody else, et
cetera, that's a long-regarded principle in the advisory capacity of the President and the staff.
Q Ari, are U.S.-German relations being threatened by the tone of the Iraq debate in the political campaign there? That's
including the Justice Minister's equating President Bush's tactics with Hitler, and Chancellor Schroeder's ruling out
German involvement in any Iraq war.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, let me say I've noted the report out of Berlin where the German Justice Minister likened President
Bush's actions to those of Adolf Hitler. And the United States and Germany have had a very long and valuable
relationship, and the relations between the people of the United States and the people of Germany are very important to
the American people. But this statement by the Justice Minister is outrageous and is inexplicable.
Q And if I could go back to Iraq for a minute, the resolution sent to Congress doesn't specifically mention regime
change in the operative portion of the resolution. But it does mention regional stability --
MR. FLEISCHER: How do you know that? It hasn't been released yet.
Q Well, it got released somewhere. But are we to interpret the --
MR. FLEISCHER: I think you could not have read the entire resolution. Let me just say --
Q I said the operative portion -- after all the "whereas"-es.
MR. FLEISCHER: Let me just say that the resolution will be provided, but, of course, first we want to make sure the
members of Congress have it. The press will have it in its entirety, but first things first. We want members of Congress
to be able to have this, to be able to take a look at this. And that is underway as we speak. And then you will be able
to see the resolution in its entirety.
And I think it's safe to say that given the fact that in 1998, four years ago, when Congress spoke and expressed its
support for regime change, the only thing that's happened since 1998 is that the situation has grown worse, because Iraq
has continued to develop its weapons and the inspectors are no longer there. And so you should expect that this
resolution will build on the 1998 resolution, which includes regime change.
Q You mentioned the phone call to Prime Minister Koizumi. I was just wondering if you -- you didn't talk about any
economic programs. Was there any discussion of that, including the Japanese government's decision to purchase up
equities -- an unusual move?
MR. FLEISCHER: No.
Q No discussion of any economic matters?
MR. FLEISCHER: No. The phone call was on the two issues I described to you.
Q Ari, I just want to clarify. Is the President asking the Congress for the authority to use military force to bring
about regime change in Iraq?
MR. FLEISCHER: The resolution makes clear that regime change needs to be the objective. And this is a resolution in
draft form that would authorize the use of force to achieve the objectives of the resolution. And when you look at all
the "whereas" clauses, there can be no mistaking that the purpose of the authorization to use military force will be to
protect the peace by changing the regime.
Q If I can follow, because also, according to the draft resolution that some of us have, it also talks about authorizing
the use of force to restore international peace and security in the region. So does this authority solely cover Iraq, or
could it cover other regional threats -- Lebanon, Syria, Iran? Should any country pose a threat to the international
peace and security, the President would have authority?
MR. FLEISCHER: You need to see this in the context of the conversations the President is having about Iraq.
Q Solely about Iraq.
MR. FLEISCHER: Those are all the conversations that are being had.
Q Ari, as you know, the inspectors are going to try and finalize arrangements to get back into Iraq late next week. But
you and others in the administration have made it clear there's a degree of skepticism over the offer in general from
Saddam. Can you share with us any indication that the United States has received that Saddam will have some conditions
regarding certain sites?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, when you hear what the Iraqi Foreign Minister said today, how can you not come to the conclusion
that there's anything but a repeat of conditions? The word "sovereignty" have a meaning in one part of the world that
are totally different when it comes to Iraq. Iraq uses the word "sovereignty" in an effort to thwart the inspectors.
Iraq uses the word "sovereignty" in an effort to get around the very resolutions that they have been called on by the
world to comply with. That is a code word for deception, for deceit and for thwarting the inspectors.
And this is why the President thinks it's so important for the world to speak clearly and strongly, so that Iraq again
cannot dishonor its obligations to the world. And again, the bottom line has to be disarmament.
Q Should Iraq have specific concerns about inspections at what they're referring to as presidential sites, what would
the administration's position be on that?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, on the question of presidential sites, number one, there is no negotiating with Iraq. Iraq has to
comply with the terms of the world to disarm, and that is not a matter that is subject to negotiations. On the question
of so-called presidential residences, Iraq, by various reports, has some -- I've seen some accounts of 17 presidential
palaces, some 30 presidential palaces. I don't know very many people who need that many places to live. I don't think he
spends much time at all of those places. Something is going on there other than Saddam Hussein sleeping there. And yet,
he does not want the world to even visit those sites. There's probably a reason why.
Q Ari, you have asked the Congress for this resolution expecting to have it passes as soon as possible. Do you have a
calendar for getting the U.N. to approve something that you would be comfortable --
MR. FLEISCHER: No, there's no hard and fast calendar, other than to say what the President has said, which is this can
be a matter of days and weeks, and not months. It's important for the United Nations to move quickly on this. And the
United Nations is a deliberative body, and we will continue to work closely and cooperatively with the United Nations as
they proceed sooner.
Q And a follow-up. The Foreign Minister of Iraq and Tariq Aziz use always the word "oil," saying that the U.S. is trying
to get any excuse possible to get its hands or control Iraqi oil. Is that a valid point?
MR. FLEISCHER: The United States is working to protect the peace in the region and to stop Saddam Hussein from
endangering the peace in the region, as he has shown in his willingness to use the weapons that he's developed for the
purpose of attacking others. That's what this is about.
Q A couple of questions. First of all, in using the word "sovereignty," and in other remarks that he made, it's
suggesting that Iraq is looking to put some conditions on inspectors, or to bar off some areas. Doesn't that work to the
U.S. advantage as you all try to persuade the U.N. to take more aggressive stands? Are they -- will that, in fact, give
you all an argument to take to some wavering allies?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I don't think it's uncommon for Iraq to see things in a way that nobody else in the world sees
things. And that's the problem. And that's why Iraq has been in such defiance of the Security Council resolutions. I
think it's important for the world to listen carefully to what Iraq's Foreign Minister said. The more the world listens
to the Iraqi Foreign Minister, the more the world will be convinced of the dangers that Iraq poses through their
attempts to deceive and to distort.
Q Now, also, on the domestic resolution, two quick questions. First of all, are you all going at this from -- like, do
you view this as a bit of a negotiating session? Because you have indicated that Congress is going to want to put its
stamp on it. So is that how you approach it, that you know there will be some give and take on this language? And then
secondly, what do you expect from these members that met with the President? Was there a real strategic plan for what
you want them to do to help build the vote?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, on the first point, what we want to do is work together with the Congress to get agreement on the
language. And that means the importance of consultation and discussion, to listen to any ideas Congress may have, and to
be receptive, and Congress to be receptive to the President's ideas. I don't think anybody is talking about any
fundamental changes in the core of what the President is asking for. I think you're starting to hear a rather large
coming together of members of Congress in both parties behind the essence of what the President has proposed.
In terms of the meeting with the members today, in the past, in 1991, for example, there was a similar working group
that was set up in a bipartisan way. That way they could help the administration to work with members of Congress to
address any questions that they have, to take up any concerns that members of Congress have, so that when the day comes
for a vote, the vote can be as large as possible.
Not everybody will support this. Certainly people in good principle will vote against this. But we want to work
cooperatively with everybody, and that's why this has been put together.
Q Will you be meeting regularly with this group?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think as events warrant, Jean, as events warrant.
Q The Russian Foreign and Defense Ministers are in town today, and the Foreign Minister is coming here tomorrow. The
stated purpose is to discuss the implementation of the Treaty of Moscow.
MR. FLEISCHER: Right.
Q Will Iraq also be on the agenda?
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, I said that yesterday. The purpose is to discuss the Treaty of Moscow, and that certainly will be a
topic. But it would not surprise me if the topic of Iraq came up, as well.
Q And will the situation in the Pankisi Gorge in Georgia also be part of --
MR. FLEISCHER: Ken, I can't predict everything that's going to happen in a meeting that will take place 24 hours from
now. But I'll try to give you a report after the meeting.
Q President Putin, I believe it was last week, attempted to equate the situation in the Pankisi Gorge and the Russian
attempts to drive out terrorists from that area with the United States effort in Afghanistan and other places. What's
your assessment of that argument?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President does not equate the two. There -- it's important to fight terrorism and to respect the
sovereignty of the Republic of Georgia. Unlike what's happening with the United Nations; the United Nations has
expressed itself 16 times in its resolutions that Iraq has violated. The United Nations has called on Iraq to disarm.
Iraq has failed to do so. While there are other hot spots in the world, none -- none -- are like Iraq, and none present
the danger to the region and to the world that Iraq presents.
Q Another bomb in Israel, another bomb in Kashmir, innocent people have been killed every day by the same people linked
with al Qaeda. And now there's a new book -- from Dheli, linking Saddam Hussein also for these al Qaeda links, and Jihad
and the conflict between Islam and Christianity -- and the book is calling that there is no democracy anywhere in the
Islamic world, and Pakistan is the only Islamic country with nuclear weapons, and they may spread in other part of the
Islamic world. The question is that why we are not pressing for democracy in --
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, there is democracy in the Islamic world. Turkey is an example of it, and there are others, as well.
Q But the war on terrorism comes from the Muslim countries, Islamic countries. And in order to have a peace or end of
terrorism, I think democracy in those countries may be the answer.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, if you ask the President, the President believes that democracy is always the answer, everywhere.
And democracy is not something that the United States uniquely possesses or imposes. Democracy is God-given. All you
need to do is read our Declaration of Independence, and you see that inalienable rights come from the Creator. And that
applies to everybody, everywhere around the world, regardless of the color of their skin, their ethnic background, or
their national circumstances. It's the rights of man, and people are entitled to it everywhere.
Q Is Iraq?
MR. FLEISCHER: Absolutely, Iraq.
Q Just to follow, Ari, when the President meets world leaders, Islamic leaders, the Prime Ministers and Presidents here
at the White House, does this question come between the two leaders?
MR. FLEISCHER: The question of democracy does come up. It is something the President speaks about, and he speaks about
it exactly as I just talked to you about. It's something the President says -- this does not come from any American
invention, this comes from the inalienable rights that apply to people around the world. And he continues to see a world
in which democracy is on the march. More and more nations are becoming democratic.
Q Given what the President has heard from Iraq so far, how optimistic is he that Iraq will eventually respond in a way
that can avert war?
MR. FLEISCHER: Keith, I think where the President is really focused is on what he would like to hear from the United
States Congress and from the United Nations. I don't think it surprises anyone that Iraq would respond in a way that one
day they say unconditional inspections, and then two days later they take it back; that they respond with more
deceptions about what it is they complied with when they haven't. That's what the world has come to expect of Iraq,
unfortunately, and hence the problem.
What's important now is for the United Nations to make sure that it does play a productive role to keep the peace, and
is relevant, and for Congress to continue its good efforts with the administration.
Q Again on that topic, given that the President today is going to endorse the Miller-Gramm bill to create a department
of homeland security, a largely partisan bill, does that mean he has ended efforts to sort of broker a deal with
Democrats, and he's just going to try to push this bill through?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, clearly, in the Senate it takes 50 votes in order for something to have majority support. And the
President will hope to get the biggest possible majority support, but it's important in the Senate that, frankly, has
failed to even be able to vote, to put something on the floor so 50 votes can be arrived at.
What's important is to protect the country and to pass homeland security. And the President will welcome support from as
many Democrats as possible. And in one of the key test votes on this issue, there was a sizable block of Democrats who
joined with Republicans on a test vote, to make certain that the White House Office of Homeland Security would not be
Senate-confirmable. That's what the President asked for, and a bipartisan block developed, supported the President. And
we'll see what happens in the final outcome on this when they take it to the floor.
Q -- compared to the bill. I mean, what I hear you saying is that basically he's going to push for this bill, and this
is where we're at now. Correct?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President today is going to announce his support for a bipartisan compromise, the Miller-Gramm
Q Are you going to meet with members of the Senate on getting support in the Senate for the resolution? And why weren't
they here today?
MR. FLEISCHER: He will have meetings with the Senate as well.
Q Just not --
MR. FLEISCHER: Just not scheduled today. We'll fill you in when it is.
Q And given the Iraq statement that the United States is working to protect the Zionist entity -- you didn't have any
reaction to that.
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes. Obviously, Iraq is seeking to distract attention from the issues that the world is confronted with,
which is Iraq's behavior.
Q Yes, former arms inspector Richard Butler described the Iraqi letter as "snaky." And you clearly characterized their
statement so far in somewhat the same way. We have not been able to get a clear answer from the Iraqis on the question
of unfettered access. I mean, it seems clear that they're fuzzing things up. But wouldn't it be useful, and isn't it
possible, for someone, somewhere, to ask Iraq if their offer includes unfettered access for inspectors to go anywhere,
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, this is not a matter for Iraq to negotiate. Iraq has proven, by its past behavior for a decade,
and by its very change of approach in two days in the speech to the United Nations today, that what they say really
doesn't matter, does it? Their actions speak louder, and their actions are to thwart the inspectors at every turn they
can, because they do not support the core, which is disarmament.
Q Well, the real question is whether or not it's clear that they thwart them before the inspectors go in, or after the
inspectors go in. What I'm asking you is, is there some way to smoke them out, if you will, and determine for sure that
they do not intend to cooperate with the inspectors, before we go through this whole rigmarole of sending them in there
and going through all the motions for two, four, six months?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think what's important next, in the President's opinion, is for the United Nations to act, not for Iraq
to once again be given a platform for them to engage in such deceptions.
Their speech undercut the offer to unconditionally accept inspectors. There was no mention in the speech of complete
cooperation or full, free, unfettered access by anybody, any time, anywhere. The speech placed the Iraqi leadership in
direct opposition to the United Nations, the United Nations Security Council, the message of the President of the United
States -- all of whom have been clear that the Iraqi government is in fundamental violation of international
Q One more small thing, if I may. How did you choose the group that came up here today?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think that group was developed as a result of the congressional office here at the White House talking
to the leadership about the very best group that could be put together to help people in both parties get answers to
their questions, and then to, as the vote gets closer, to help convince members of Congress to work closely with the
White House so that this vote can proceed.
Q Thank you. I mean this with the utmost respect, but to help the American people and the world better understand, can
you make a clear, explicit link between terrorist attacks against the United States and the regime of Saddam Hussein?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, obviously, the President is very worried about -- and he says this in every speech -- the worst
thing he thinks could happen would be for the world's worst dictators, as he puts it, including Saddam Hussein --
principally Saddam Hussein -- to join up with a group like al Qaeda and to provide any weapons that then the terrorist
groups would use against the United States. It is a clear worry that we have.
Q But do we know that they've done it in the past? I think Condoleezza Rice --
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, we clearly do know that Iraq has supported terrorism in the Middle East, yes.
Q Thank you. The United States could have trouble with Colombia and Mexico getting a strong resolution through the
Security Council. Is the President getting the support of his friend, Vicente Fox? And is he asking Fox to help with the
support of Colombia?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President and Secretary Powell think it's very important to have the support of all members of the
United Nations, particularly those on the United Nations Security Council. Obviously, if people on the Security Council
don't support a resolution, the resolution won't pass. The President is confident that that will not be the case, and
that's why the consultations are underway with all nations on the Security Council.
Q Ari, at the U.N., the President said the goal is to disarm Iraq. Here, in Washington, he said the goal is regime
change. Are you setting the bar, and is the White House setting the bar, at two different points? And if that's the
case, why is that?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the position that has been taken in the United Nations up to this point is disarmament. The point
the President made in his speech to the U.N. is, here, U.N., is what you called for. It did not happen. Saddam Hussein
has violated what you, yourselves, called for. You need to demonstrate that you are relevant. The question of regime
change is not a question that the United Nations had previously dealt with. That's why the President didn't raise that
at the United Nations. The United States Congress, of course, in 1998, did speak differently from the United Nations
when it passed regime change.
Q Would you seek U.N. agreement or support for regime change?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think you just have to allow the Secretary to continue his consultations, and we'll see ultimately what
the U.N. does.
Q Following on Bob's question, in the President's thinking, is there then any realistic way to achieve the objective of
regime change without military action?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President has said repeatedly that military options, military action is his last choice. But
given what Saddam Hussein has done, and given the threat that he presents, the President thinks it's very important for
the world to face up to its obligations to protect the peace.
Q It's certainly not the administration's intent -- I'm just curious -- is there anything in the wording of the proposed
resolution that's going up to the Hill today that could be construed as flashing some kind of a green light in other hot
spots, contested parts of the world -- India, Pakistan, China, Taiwan?
MR. FLEISCHER: No. I addressed that earlier. Everything that I've heard about this is related solely to the question of
Iraq. And as I indicated earlier, while there are hot spots around the world, none of them, none of them, none of them
are like Iraq.
Q On the Koizumi phone call, Prime Minister Koizumi said after the meeting in North Korea that Kim Jung-Il asked him to
convey a message to
President Bush about resuming dialogue. Can you say whether that message was conveyed, and was there any reaction to it?
Secondly, there have been some reports that the United States is a bit dissatisfied with the way the discussions went in
North Korea, because not enough concern was given to shared U.S.-Japan concerns toward North Korea -- i.e., human
rights, conventional weapons. Is the United States satisfied with the way the discussion went?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, as I indicated to you, the President told the Prime Minister that he supported his efforts vis-a-vis
North Korea. The President thinks it is important to have that dialogue. And if you recall, in July of this year, the
United States was prepared to enter into dialogue with North Korea. We had said, any time, anywhere, anyplace. North
Korea responded by seeking a South Korean submarine. And that led to difficulties in setting up any type of dialogue.
Secretary Powell met with the North Korean Foreign Minister during one of the Secretary's recent trips abroad, and the
American position remains clear that we are prepared to talk to North Korea. And what we want to talk to them about is
to focus on peace on the Peninsula, to urge North Korea to reduce its conventional weapons that are focused on South
Korea, to stop proliferating of missiles, to stop starving its people. There's a lot to talk to North Korea about.
Q Was there a message conveyed this morning in the phone call from Kim Jung-Il?
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't remember if there was a formal message or even an informal one passed. I think we -- but I've
addressed to you what the United States position is.
Q On homeland security, the Gramm-Miller bill, does it contain a provision in it that would give the President authority
to exclude all department workers from union representation for national security reasons?
MR. FLEISCHER: This bipartisan proposal will provide the President with the same authority that Presidents have in
current law with other departments. It certainly would not provide a President in time of war with less ability to deal
with threats than the President currently has with other departments.
Q And also, yesterday the Office of Management and Budget Director Mitch Daniels, when he was asked about stock market
incentives and what the status of the review was with the administration, indicated that as of yet the President has not
seen any measure or any package that meets this criteria for approval. Is that correct?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President continues to take a look at his options and to hold them open, and will continue to
do so. And clearly, and Mitch is reflecting on this, the time is running out for the Congress to act, particularly
before this fiscal year is over. But the President retains his options.
Russell. Welcome, welcome back.
Q You said earlier that democracy is God-given. Didn't Thomas Jefferson have something to do with it?
MR. FLEISCHER: I cited the Declaration of Independence as the author of our inalienable rights, written by --
Q He's the author of --
MR. FLEISCHER: That's why I said it. Thomas Jefferson.
Q I thought you said democracy is God-given.
MR. FLEISCHER: Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independent Rights that we hold our truths -- the
self-evident truths that these rights and liberties are created by -- given by the Creator. That's what our Declaration
of Independence says.
Q Has the Bush administration estimated how many American soldiers and Iraqi civilians will be killed in the event of an
MR. FLEISCHER: I think the question that the President worries about, and much of the world worries about, is how many
people will be killed if Saddam Hussein is allowed to develop nuclear weapons, which he has a history of showing that
once he has his hands on a weapon, he uses it.
Q But that's a fair question. -- how many American soldiers and Iraqi civilians will be killed if we invade?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not aware of anything like that, Russell. I don't know; I'm not aware.
Q Last Monday at a Pentagon briefing, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld mentioned for the first time that North Korea has
nuclear weapons. Does the United States think that North Korea is now one of -- with the nuclear power?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President has labeled North Korea as part of the axis of evil because of their efforts to develop
weapons and also their proliferation efforts. That is a clear worry and a clear concern.
Q A question on the timing. You sort of addressed this at the gaggle -- I think you said you were going to try to get
more information on inspectors. If they are going ahead with this and they set up a meeting in Vienna, and let's say
it's three weeks before they'd be on the ground, does the President want to have the resolution done before they are on
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, on the terms of the time of the U.N., what I indicated just a few minutes ago was that the U.N. is a
deliberative body and I would be hard-pressed to pinpoint the exact date that the U.N. would vote. The President hopes
that they will move sooner --
Q You would want it before the inspectors --
MR. FLEISCHER: I've heard no discussion one way or another vis-a-vis before or after any events like that.
Q I mean, is that -- you keep saying the inspectors are basically useless unless you have this tough new resolution to
back them up. So what's the point of sending them --
MR. FLEISCHER: The President is really looking at the United Nations. He thinks that's where the action is. The Security
Council's vote is very important. And his focus is on getting the Security Council to honor its obligations, to express
in a very clear and strong way the importance of Iraq living up to the resolutions they have agreed to, and doing so
very quickly, soon.
Q Since you condemned the suicide attacks in Israel this morning, Israeli tanks have moved on Arafat's compound. Do you
condemn the Israeli action, or admonish it?
MR. FLEISCHER: Ron, that information -- I'm aware of the reports, I've seen the media accounts immediately before I came
out here. I do not have anything at this moment for you on that. We'll continue to monitor the situation and let you
know if we do.
Q Can I follow on that? Are you calling on the Israelis, though, to exercise any restraint in responding to --
MR. FLEISCHER: Kelly, again, this all happened immediately prior to my coming out here. I was focused on the speech at
the United Nations. So, again, if there's anything that further develops on that, I'll try to let you know.
Q Can you post a reaction to it?
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, if there's anything to announce, I will, Ron.
Q Has the administration also seen anything in these back-to-back bombings, any evidence that there could be Palestinian
terrorists who are trying to derail the administration's plans for Iraq by inciting violence --
MR. FLEISCHER: Nobody has brought anything like that to my attention. I think that the violence in the Middle East and
the terrorist attacks on Israel have a history of standing strongly on their own -- even though they are aided by Saddam
Hussein in many ways.
Q Ari, Interior Secretary Norton said yesterday she'd recommend a veto of any energy bill that did not have ANWR in it.
Is that the White House position also? And, secondly, a comment on OPEC's decision to keep -- to not act to lower oil
MR. FLEISCHER: One, the President is continuing to work with the conference in the Congress that is meeting on this. The
President thinks it's even more important now than ever for the Congress to pass legislation that maximizes America's
And, along those lines, there was a party-line vote that was cast just this morning on the energy conference that is a
disappointment, and that is a reversal of a position the Senate had taken. The Senate, by an overwhelming vote
previously, had voted to allow the Department of Transportation to require that they take safety into account as the
Department of Transportation sets new standards to increase energy efficiency with vehicles. And the vote in the
conference, along party lines, denied the administration request to have the Department of Transportation consider
safety in establishing higher fuel standards.
And the President supports increasing fuel efficiency, and doing it in a way that protects lives and jobs. And we do not
think the message from the Congress should be that safety doesn't count. Safety always counts. So that was a
disappointment in their vote earlier today on that.
On OPEC -- I've been asked this now, this is the third day in a row -- I do not talk specifically about any one OPEC
action. But again, the very fact that people wonder what the impact of OPEC will be on America underscores the need for
America to develop more of its own resources and energy, to do more conservation. And that way America can have better
protection for its energy independence.
Q Ari, at what point in the President's thinking did Iraq become a greater threat to the world than, say, the Middle
East conflict, the Koreas, tensions in the Koreas, India-Pakistan? Was it September 11th? Did that change it?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think there's no question September 11th changed a lot of people's points of view about how vulnerable
the United States is, and how determined people are, particularly terrorists and others like Saddam Hussein, to kill
American people. And so there's no question that that was an event that, as the President said, we were going to focus
first on the people who carried out this act -- the Taliban, al Qaeda -- but then to make sure that we continue to take
every action possible to protect the country. And that's also married up with the realization that Saddam Hussein's
means, his seeking ways of acquiring new weapons, and his determination to use them.
Q Ari, now that you've formally -- now that the White House has formally sent up the language for what it envisions,
what it would like to see a resolution say, what is the position regarding two resolutions from Capitol Hill -- one that
says support the U.N., and then having to go back later for military action?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's the first I've heard of any two resolutions coming from the Congress. So --
Q There are no fears, then, that that's something that --
MR. FLEISCHER: I think when you listen to the members of the Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike, there is really
a gathering consensus that what the President has asked for needs to be provided. We want to talk about the exact
language, but I think you're seeing a gathering momentum in both parties behind what the President has asked for.
Q Thank you.
MR. FLEISCHER: Thank you.
END 1:54 P.M. EDT