*EPF302 05/15/2002
Transcript: White House Daily Briefing, May 15
(President's day, Russia/NATO, Cuba/embargo, trade promotion authority,
Middle East/Arafat, Republican donors/briefings, FBI report/September 11
attacks, Pakistan/CBS showing of Daniel Pearl tape, same-sex
marriages/constitutional amendment) (5760)
White House Press Secretary
Ari Fleischer briefed.
Following is the White House transcript:
(begin transcript)
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press
Secretary
May 15, 2002
PRESS BRIEFING BY ARI FLEISCHER
INDEX
-- President's schedule for the day
-- Statement on Russia-NATO
-- Cuba/embargo
- President's reaction to Carter speech
-- Trade
promotion authority
-- Middle East/Arafat
-- Republican donors/briefings
-- FBI report/September 11th attacks
-- CBS showing of Daniel Pearl tape
-- Same-sex marriages/constitutional amendment
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
May 15, 2002
PRESS BRIEFING BY ARI
FLEISCHER
The James S. Brady Briefing Room
1:22 P.M. EDT
MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. Let me give you a report on the
President's day, then I have two announcements. One, the President began this
morning at 7:00 a.m. with a breakfast with the congressional leaders, Democrats
and Republicans, to discuss the congressional agenda. They spent particular time
on trade, and also they discussed the budget and the need to make progress on
the budget.
The President then, later in the morning, met with members
of the United Jewish Communities who gather here at the White House. This is a
group that focuses mainly on domestic issues in terms of helping the poor and
the needy. And the President talked to them about the importance of Congress
passing the CARE Act, or the faith-based act. Many of them are in town for the
purpose of going up to discuss the importance of passing this legislation with
members on the Hill. They also talked about events in the Middle East.
Then the President went up to the United States Capitol where he
concluded a meeting with the House Republican Conference. He spoke to members of
the House, gave them a war update, talked to them about the importance of
funding our nation's defenses. He also talked about the importance of corporate
responsibility and making sure that corporate leaders were good citizens in our
community. He talked about passage of Medicare reform that includes a
prescription drug benefit for seniors. He talked about welfare reform and
education.
Then the President is just finishing his remarks, or has just
finished his remarks at the Annual Peace Officers Association Memorial Service
to pay tribute to those killed in the line of duty. And then he will return to
the White House. Later this afternoon, the President will sign the No Fear Act.
This is a piece of civil rights legislation that increases government
accountability by requiring federal agencies to pay from their own budget for
settlements or judgments resulting from discrimination cases. It also requires
employees to be notified of their rights under all discrimination laws, and it
enforces the agencies to report to the Congress information pertaining to civil
rights abuses. The President will be pleased to sign that.
Two last
items: The President, also this morning, called Prime Minister Vajpayee of India
to express condolences for the 33 people killed in the May 14th terrorist attack
in Jammu and Kashmir, and to offer sympathy to the families -- the victims'
families. The President condemned the terrorist activity and said he was working
very hard to end terrorism and to find a peaceful solution to the bilateral
tensions between India and Pakistan.
Finally, also on foreign policy,
President Bush, since the very beginning of this administration, has worked hard
to initiate a new era in relations between the United States and Russia. The
President sees this as a new era, goes beyond, obviously, the Cold War, and
ushers in a new way with Russia, a way where Russia works with the West. In both
Washington, D.C. and Crawford, President Bush and President Putin agreed to
build a new constructive NATO relationship in conjunction with other members of
NATO.
Yesterday, the President saw the wonderful results of this effort.
The President was pleased that NATO took a major step yesterday in Reykjavik
toward integrating Russia with the European Atlantic Community of nations with
the establishment of the NATO-Russia Council. This council's agenda will include
counterterrorist cooperation, crisis management, nonproliferation, search and
rescue at sea, military-to-military cooperation, and civil emergency situation
response and management. The council allows for joint discussion, joint
decision, and joint action, while protecting NATO's prerogatives at 19.
As a member of NATO, the United States looks forward to building on this
initial agenda as the council develops a track record of cooperation.
And just more broadly on that, I think one of the more notable
developments over the 14, 15 months of President Bush's term in office has been
the strengthening of U.S.-Russia ties; the cordial, cooperative relationship
that is really flourishing between the United States and Russia; Russia's
movement toward the West.
These are important sea changes that could go
down as sea changes in history. These changes begin, it's important that they
grow; time will tell, but the beginning has been marked by great success between
the United States and Russia, particularly if you remember how relations began
with Russia in the wake of a spy issue of a very serious nature. Since Slovenia
and the President's meeting with President Putin, there has been a lot to herald
in terms of strong and tangible results in U.S.-Russia relations, in reductions
of offensive weapons, and of course, this event, with -- who could have believed
it as we were children growing up, at least -- Russia now as a partial member of
NATO -- NATO at 20.
Helen.
Q: Ari, why doesn't it get full
membership? And, short of that, does the President ever contemplate the time
when Russia will become a member of NATO? And why not? I mean a full-fledged.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, this is the beginning. And as I indicated, that we
look forward to building on the initial agenda, as they develop a track record
of cooperation. And we welcome Russia into this new arrangement with NATO. It is
an historic break. This is a rather remarkable event for people who grew up in
the Cold War, and even watching what took place in the '90s, as Russia's
communism died in Russia -- what is emerging is a new Russia that's looking
westward, that is strong and is proud, is independent, and Russia finding a
friend in the United States, a friend in NATO.
Q: Does he foresee a full
membership?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think, Helen, at this point, it's notable
and remarkable that Russia has this role in NATO. And over time, other
assessments will be made -- that's going to depend on cooperation, it's going to
depend on events. And this is a garden that will be watered and that will grow.
And that's very cooperative.
Q: Ari, the Senate Majority Leader this
morning on Cuba said, we can democratize Cuba with greater trade and greater
outreach, as we have attempted to do with other countries in the world. How does
that statement sit with where this administration --
MR. FLEISCHER: Who
did you say said that?
Q: Senate Majority Leader Daschle. Where does
that statement sit with where this administration is going with its Cuba policy?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President very strongly believes that the trade
embargo with Cuba is a very important ongoing part of America's policy, because
trade with Cuba only benefits the repressive government of Cuba; it does not get
into the hands of the people. That's been the experience of the nations that
have traded with Cuba. And trade with Cuba, unlike trade with any other nation
in the world -- almost any other nation in the world -- does not help the people
of Cuba. And that's the heart of the problem with the trade issue with Cuba.
Q: So if I could just follow that, in terms of the embargo and the Cuba
review, I take it it's safe to say that we're not looking at loosening anything
up.
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think -- I've indicated already on the record,
the President will, of course, continue to enforce the embargo against Cuba
because he believes it does not help the people of Cuba to trade with Cuba, it
only gives money to the government that the government then uses as part of its
repression of its people.
Q: Are you even going to tighten up on Cuba
even more?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President will give a speech on
Monday where he will talk about the importance of freedom and democracy in Cuba,
and the President will address that himself.
Campbell.
Q: Not
everybody in the administration, though, is on board. I mean, there are a lot of
people who don't believe these sanctions are working. Vice President Cheney, on
Meet The Press, said, "Sanctions, frankly, haven't worked very well in Cuba."
Why then is the President so unwilling to try something new?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I think what the Vice President was saying in that entire interview
was that the problem in Cuba is you have a repressive dictator who it doesn't
matter what efforts are made by outsiders; his only interest is to continue the
repression, to continue to keep himself in power, to continue to deny his people
the same civil liberties that have broken out across the hemisphere.
Cuba is the last tyrant left on Earth -- let me re-phrase that -- Cuba
is one of the last great tyrants left on Earth. And that's the problem with
these typical devices that do help improve relations with other nations, that
wouldn't work with a nation like Cuba because of the repressive nature of the
regime.
Q: Can I follow up? How much of this has to do with politics in
Florida? We all know what happened in Florida, and there are adamant positions
held there that we should never even consider.
MR. FLEISCHER: Given the
fact that this has been the President's position and it's been the position of
many people in the United States prior to the 2000 election, I think it shows it
has to do with merits, not politics.
John.
Q: Can you reiterate
-- this issue has received a lot of attention, obviously, because of President
Carter's trip and the President's planned speech -- President Bush's planned
speech on Monday. Can you reiterate then to the American people the distinction?
If you read the State Department's human rights report, a lot more ink given to
China and what the State Department would say is a repressive regime that denies
its people the right to vote, the right to speak freely -- than Cuba, a similar
government, from the State Department's view. Why then the distinction of a
President saying, engagement is a good idea with China?
MR. FLEISCHER:
Absolutely. The President has been asked that numerous times, and so you can
roll your tape and get it directly from the President. But what the President
believes is that trade with China means trade with a totally different system,
with different economic values, than Cuba. And trade with China has been
dispersed widely throughout the people of China. Trade with China has led to a
broader group of citizenry who have benefited and, therefore, are pushing China
for democratic reforms. And interestingly, China has been moving in the area of
democratic reforms, particularly in the country.
Q: Why would the State
Department --
MR. FLEISCHER: Cuba is not doing that. Cuba has traded
with other nations. It's not just the United States -- the United States has an
embargo, but other nations don't. And trade with Cuba has not gotten to the
people of Cuba. The money that Cuba has gotten has remained firmly in the hands
of the repressive government.
Q: And it has nothing to do with the size
of the Chinese market, which is what a lot of critics say?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, that's a factor, too, but even with the size of the market, if
a government insists on keeping the money bottled up at the top and not getting
it to its population, no matter whether the population is small or large, the
people won't benefit.
Terry.
Q: What was the President's
reaction to Jimmy Carter's speech last night?
MR. FLEISCHER: The
President's reaction to President Carter's speech last night was twofold: One,
as the President indicated in the Oval Office yesterday, the President thinks
that President Carter talking on human rights is important and helpful. Two,
we've already discussed it, the President disagrees when it comes to the
importance of the trade embargo.
Q: Well, one of the things that
President Carter did was link them. And it is clear that one of the reasons he
was able to say those remarkable things to the Cuban people is because he was
also willing to say that the embargo wasn't working. And so my question is, has
the embargo advanced the cause of human rights anywhere near as much as Jimmy
Carter did last night, by calling for its end and demanding freedom for the
Cuban people?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think the only way to tell whether
the people of Cuba get freedom and human rights is in time. And that will be
watched and measured. But the President does believe --
Q: How does the
embargo help that?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President believes that trade with
Cuba ends up giving the government more resources to repress its people. Because
history has shown that when Cuba receives the benefits of trade from other
nations, those benefits are not passed on to the Cuban people, unlike China,
where the trade benefits are indeed passed on to the people of China. And that's
a very important economic distinction that's a result of a different type of
political leadership at the top.
Yes, the United States has human rights
problems with China, particularly in the area of religion. And the United States
has expressed that. But that's what makes the trade issue with China a different
issue with Cuba.
Q: One more on this.
MR. FLEISCHER: Terry.
Q: Is there no way that the President could agree essentially with what
Jimmy Carter was proposing, which is, the embargo would only be lifted, the door
would only be opened, as far as human rights were achieved, as far as freedom
was achieved, and that maybe that could force change there?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Terry, I've described to you accurately the President's position.
Q: Ari, how could you say that it has not been passed down to the
people? I mean, they have a repressive society, so does China. But you have
people with a high literacy rate, better health care, health care available to
other people. I mean, I think that's a pretty broad statement. How do you say
that?
MR. FLEISCHER: Because the fact of the matter is that -- the
question was why China, why not Cuba? China does have a very interesting mix of
a quasi-capitalist system, where they involve trade, where they involve some
elements of open market economics. That's a big --
Q: Now they have a
reason
MR. FLEISCHER: Absolutely. But there's no inclination by the
Cuban government to engage in the same liberalizations.
Q: Does the
President want Carter to report to him when he comes back from Cuba?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I imagine that when President Carter comes back, he'll talk to the
appropriate people at the Department of State or the National Security Council.
Q: How about the President himself? He makes these foreign policy
decisions.
MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, typically, when it comes to these trips
by former Presidents, they talk to the administration prior to going, just as
President Carter did, and when he returns, he'll talk probably to the same
people he talked to.
Q: Why can't he talk to the President?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I've never ruled anything out, but I'm just telling you that's
typically how trips work. And I think you know that.
Q: If in 43 years
the U.S. embargo against Cuba has not brought about a change in regime and
freedom and democracy, what else does the President think needs to be done to
bring -- to put pressure on Castro to bring about that change?
MR.
FLEISCHER: You will be at his speech Monday. I'm sure you will hear carefully.
Q: Ari, I have two questions. One has to do with fast track. The
amendment yesterday offered in the Senate is going to -- far more difficult to
achieve the purposes the President wants with fast track authority. I understand
it's been approved, and it's going to be voted upon. How do you expect in the
conference between the House and the Senate bills that you can be able to
eliminate this or dilute it?
MR. FLEISCHER: That was an issue that came
up at the meeting this morning with the President and the congressional leaders.
And I think that the congressional leaders have a very good understanding that
that's a provision that needs to be removed at conference in order to get this
agreed to. The President views that provision as a real show stopper, an
anti-trade provision that can harm the cause of free trade, not help the cause
of free trade. The President urges all members of Congress to resist the siren
call of protectionism.
And that is always the risk on trade legislation.
That's why trade legislation has been, typically, hard to get passed, and is
often controversial. But the United States now does stand on the verge of
getting, for the first time since 1994, trade promotion authority enacted that
will allow the United States to enter into more trade agreements around the
world, creating jobs for the American people, as well as helping bolster the
economy of a lot of developing countries. So it's a hard job, and that's why
nobody has come as close as President Bush has had this year since '94. And the
President will continue at it, and that's his message to the conferees.
Q: My second question, Ari, has to do with the Middle East. Chairman
Arafat has announced that he wants reforms in government. A few days ago he
spoke in Arabic, and asked for an end to the violence. Does this mean that the
administration is seeing a new Arafat, or at least a new venue in what the
United States has been asking -- including Israel has been asking for the
Palestinian to do?
MR. FLEISCHER: Yasser Arafat's words in his speech
were positive. But what's most important to President Bush is to see action more
than words. And so the President will wait to see whether or not Yasser Arafat
and other in the Palestinian Authority actually take action that lead to a
better life for the Palestinian people and actions that lead to a region that
can live in more stability and security.
Ken.
Q: Ari, more and
more American business people are saying that not only are they losing money by
not being able to get into the Cuban market -- growers, tourism, as a couple of
examples -- but they're also beginning to make the case that if you want to move
toward human rights, by letting us in there we can provide jobs to people and
that will be a step in that right direction. To get to the question, they say
that the President is not hearing this message. What's your response to that?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think I've addressed it all. You keep asking the same
question about why does the President believe in the trade embargo, and he
believes in it for exactly the reasons I mentioned several times previously.
Q: Let me try it this way, then. They say that they don't have the same
access right now that the Cuban American community does on the other side to the
White House on this whole message. What's your response to that claim?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President makes these decisions based on the merits.
He understands people's points of view and he believes in this issue and
believes in it strongly.
Q: Has he met with business people who want to
get into that market?
MR. FLEISCHER: I imagine that's a message people
around here have heard. People here keep their ears open.
Peter.
Q: Ari, we asked you this morning about the briefings that Republican
donors received from administration officials. What were you able to find out on
that?
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes. The Washington Post, for example, this morning
reported Mary Matalin, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Evans, Secretary Paige,
Administrator Whitman, Karl Rove, Ken Mehlman, they all participated in
briefings for several of the Republicans who were here in conjunction with
yesterday's events.
Q: So where were these briefings held?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I think at various hotels around town. Some of these were different
meetings or receptions that they attended. I'm not sure every one was a
briefing; people attended different meetings that were being held, or
receptions.
Q: Well, what were the -- what kind of access did they get
to information at these meetings or briefings, however you care to --
MR. FLEISCHER: Very much the same things you're hearing right here. The
President thinks it's important to pass trade promotion authority; the President
thinks it's important to pass welfare reform. They conveyed the message of the
President.
And just to be clear, the reason that people in the White
House meet with people who support the President's agenda is because the White
House and people broadly in our American democrat political system -- democratic
political system -- believe that it's appropriate and right to work with the
parties so the parties can elect people who support the agendas of the leaders
of the parties -- in this case, President Bush, for the Republicans. And I don't
think that's a surprise to anybody. It's part of our democratic process which
relies on individual private participation. And that's done to help elect people
who believe in the same agenda that the President does.
Q: One more.
What does a donor have to pay for this kind of access?
MR. FLEISCHER:
You'd have to talk to the RNC about all the fundraising structures of it; I
don't know.
Q: And didn't the Republicans call that purchasing access? I
mean, you just gave a very eloquent civics defense of why party building and the
President and the White House as the leader of the party is important. Why
during the Clinton administration did the President and many other Republicans
-- many of whom now serve in the administration -- call that purchasing access?
MR. FLEISCHER: Terry, I don't believe the President ever said that.
Wendell.
Q: Ari, we now know that at least one FBI agent raised
concerns in a memo about Middle Eastern people enrolling in flight schools prior
to the 9/11 attacks. FBI Director Mueller said that even -- and also raised in
this memo Osama bin Laden's name. Director Mueller said that that information
might not necessarily have prompted action that would have prevented 9/11. My
question is, do you agree with that? Should someone be held responsible here for
what looks more and more like a failure of intelligence?
MR. FLEISCHER:
Well, I think -- to be fair, I think you have to, before you reach any
conclusions, Director Mueller has said, and the President agrees, that that
information in that memo, in and of itself, would not have led to the prevention
of the September 11th attacks.
What took place in America was a sneak
attack, an attack on our country while we were at a moment of peace. And now we
are a nation that is firming up our defenses to prevent future attacks. The fact
of the matter is, prior to September 11th the FBI was doing the job it had been
doing for decades, which was working very hard and diligently to catch
criminals, mostly domestically, who committed crimes in the United States or
abroad. And then the FBI gathered evidence to build cases that could then be
prosecuted in a court of law. The FBI also worked very hard on breaking up spy
organizations that may have operated in the United States.
September
11th changed all that. As a result of September 11th, the FBI has reoriented
itself, and the FBI is working now diligently to be a preventive agency, to try
to look over the horizon, to look through intelligence, to work in a more
analytical fashion to be able to, with other agencies, prevent attacks. And the
fact of the matter is we were a different nation prior to September 11th, and
what we thought could possibly happen to our country.
So, but be careful
as you describe what is in that memo, because the Director has stated -- and you
stated it yourself, Wendell -- the Director has stated clearly that -- and he
said this in open testimony to the Congress -- the information in that memo, had
we known about it, given what we know since September 11th, would not have
enabled us to prevent the attacks of September 11th.
Q: So no one should
be held responsible, there was no failure of intelligence?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, there's a review up on the Hill to determine what events took
place prior to September 11th. As you know, that's being conducted by the
Intelligence Committees. The administration is working closely with the Hill on
that, and we will continue to do that. It's important to look into these issues.
Les, I know your hand is up. We will eventually get to you.
Findley.
Q: Last week Chairman Thomas scolded a group of
corporate executives for not working hard enough on fast track, on trade
promotion authority. Does the President share the Chairman's disappointment with
the corporate effort behind that bill?
MR. FLEISCHER: I have not heard
the President talk about that. I do know that this is an issue that has been
brought to the Congress before and was unsuccessful. And as I indicated, it now
has its best prospects for passage since 1994, in large part thanks to Chairman
Thomas's hard work in the House of Representatives. It passed by a one-vote
margin, if you recall, in the House of Representatives. Previously, despite
President Clinton's very valiant efforts on this issue, it failed by scores of
votes.
And so progress has been made, but it's not done yet. And the
President hopes that all people, whether they are from the business community or
from other sectors of our society that care about creating jobs for American
workers, will help to get an agreement so that the Senate can pass it and so
that it can be agreed to in a conference committee.
Q: Why do you think
the bill has become so Christmas tree?
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't know that
I can guess why. I think that trade is an issue that, historically, going back
to the 1920s, has been a very difficult issue for politicians. Trade, on the one
hand, opens up great opportunities to create jobs at home and to help other
nations abroad; while, on the other hand, it lends itself, by definition, to
protectionism. And that's been the yin and the yang of American trade policy for
decades.
What is helpful here is the President, working with an
overwhelming number of Republicans and many Democrats, has been working to put a
coalition together that recognizes the benefits of trade. The President took on
his own party in the Republican primaries, if you recall. There were a group of
Republicans who strongly opposed trade, particularly with China, if you remember
that. The President fought against that. So that's the history of trade. It's
the way that issue has always been.
Q: Ari, on that one vote margin --
Q: Ari, what is reaction here to CBS' showing part of a videotape of
Daniel Pearl's murder?
MR. FLEISCHER: The State Department spoke with
CBS about that matter and expressed concerns about that being shown. I know that
Mrs. Pearl has very strong feelings about the damage that can be done as a
result of showing that video. And the administration has great sympathies for
what Mrs. Pearl has said.
Q: Does that mean the White House does not
think that it shouldn't be shown?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, again, as I
indicated, the State Department made a phone call to express our opinions.
Q: Can I follow up on the --
Q: Does the President have any
reaction to this?
MR. FLEISCHER: I've expressed the administration's
position on it.
Q: It was reported in Athens that President Bush sent a
letter to the U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan on Cyprus. Any comment?
MR. FLEISCHER: I never discuss any private communications the President
has with foreign leaders in the form of letters.
Q: It was reported
extensively in Athens that a White House senior official, on condition of
anonymity, would like to see the replacement of the Greek Prime Minister
Simitis, by the Greek Foreign Minister Papandreau. Any comment on this unusual
involvement?
MR. FLEISCHER: I have nothing to offer on that.
You
only get two. Dick. You only get two. There are many people with their hand up,
and we have Les who is patiently waiting. I said patiently, Les.
Q:
Getting back to China and Cuba for a moment. There have been and continue to be
great concerns about human rights issues in China, just like in Cuba. You said a
few moments ago that because of China's quasi-capitalist society, it's
advantageous for us to do business there. Is capitalism and the presence of it
more important than human rights issues when it comes to doing business with a
foreign country?
MR. FLEISCHER: They both are important, and that's why
the President, in his meetings with China, has raised both issues on a regular
basis, as you know.
Q: Ellen Weintraub is the Democrats' recommendation
to be on the FEC. And Senator McCain said today he thought that out of fairness,
the President should move that as a recess appointment, just like he did Michael
Tonor for the FEC. Is the President open to doing that?
MR. FLEISCHER:
As you know, when it comes to personnel, I don't speculate about who the
President may or may not name.
Q: Can I just ask about terrorism
insurance, and if it came up at the breakfast this morning, and if the President
is concerned about Senate Republicans holding that back?
MR. FLEISCHER:
I don't know if that came up. That was not part of the brief that I got from the
President on it. But I just don't know.
Yes, and then Les. Yes.
Q: Ari, this morning, several members of the House introduced a
constitutional amendment which would prohibit same-sex marriage. I was wondering
if the President has any position on that constitutional amendment?
MR.
FLEISCHER: All I know is, that's already law of the land, signed by President
Clinton. And the President supports the law of the land in this case.
Q:
Ari, first, in former President Carter's calling last night on the United States
to take the first step by lifting the embargo on Cuba, can President Bush find
anything at all about Fidel Castro to indicate that if he -- if we took this
first step, Castro would take the second by, among other things, allowing the
first free national elections in almost half a century?
MR. FLEISCHER:
Les, I think we've exhausted this topic. I have addressed it already in my
earlier statement after statement after statement.
Q: You don't believe
that if we do the first, he's going to do the second, do you?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Les, I think I've addressed it.
Q: In Hyde Park, New York,
yesterday afternoon, the Franklin D. Roosevelt Library archivist said that on
July 20, 1944, President Roosevelt accepted his nomination for reelection by
broadcasting to the Democratic political convention in Chicago from the U.S.
naval base in San Diego. And on August 12th of that year, he began campaigning
with another speech from the deck of the destroyer USS Cummings. But the
archivist said he knew of no Republican criticism of these widely photographed
uses of the U.S. Navy for a political purpose. And my question is this, Ari, do
you believe that Gore, McAuliffe and all those furious, furious critics of the
use of the Air Force One photograph of President Bush were just unaware of this
Roosevelt political use of the Navy? Or do you think they believe in a double
standard? (Laughter.)
Q: Here's the wind-up. (Laughter.)
Q:
Thirty-six questions yesterday about blood money and so forth, and I just
wondered, do you think they believe in a double standard or --
MR.
FLEISCHER: Les, let me just say that the I think the President believes that at
all times Franklin Delano Roosevelt did his job in defending and protecting our
country and was reelected. And this President is focused, too, on doing his job
to defend and protect our country, and working hard for all the citizens.
Q: So there's a good comparison about pictures of Roosevelt on the deck
of the destroyer campaigning, and George Bush on Air Force One? There's a great
comparison, isn't there, Ari? Wouldn't you say?
MR. FLEISCHER: Are you
done? (Laughter.)
Q: That's a good comparison.
MR. FLEISCHER: I
do think it's fair to point out there were a couple, at least, newspapers this
morning that did point out just what you said.
Q: Ari, on the trade
legislation, you mentioned a one-vote margin last time. And as you know, some of
the conservative Republicans have since backed off of the trade bill because, as
you said, the conservatives are not -- these conservatives are not usually for
trade. But what I fail to understand is how you expect to pick up any votes when
--
MR. FLEISCHER: The legislative process is never easy. The legislative
process, when it comes to trade, is seldom easy. And the democratic process,
when the legislative -- when it comes to trade involving a 50-50 Senate and
50-50 House is harder still. Nevertheless, because of the importance of the
issue, this President is going to put his shoulder to the wheel and hope to get
a bill out of conference that can be signed. He thinks it's important.
Q: Thank you.
MR. FLEISCHER: Thank you.
END 1:51 P.M.
EDT
(end White House transcript)
(end transcript)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
Return to
Public File Main Page
Return
to Public Table of Contents