Japan
12:39 P.M. EDT
MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. The President began
his day this morning with a phone call to
Prime Minister Balkenende of the Netherlands. The two
spoke for approximately 15 minutes. They discussed the situation
in Iraq. The President thanked President Balkenende for the
Netherlands' strong support as expressed in a recent speech that
was given to the United Nations by Netherlands.
The President also this morning called President Putin, of
Russia. The two spoke for approximately 30 minutes. They discussed
the situation in Iraq. The President talked about the need to make
certain that the United Nations pass resolutions that are firm,
that accomplish the goals of disarmament and don't let Iraq avoid
responsibility.
Following the meeting, the President met with a group of
Republican governors who are in town visiting Washington. And then
the President had a meeting with the Russian Foreign Minister and
Defense Minister in the Oval Office. During that meeting, the two
discussed -- or the three discussed the ABM treaty, the situation
in Georgia, as well as the situation in Iraq.
And then the President had a meeting with Senator Phil Gramm
and Senator Zell Miller, a bipartisan group that is working to get
passed homeland security in the Senate.
The President will later depart for Camp David, where he will
spend the weekend.
With that, if I can take your questions. Ron.
Q Is Russia still opposed to the President's
proposed U.N.resolution?
MR. FLEISCHER: Ron, I think you need to address any questions
about Russian policy to Russians. I can share with you a little
bit more what the President said during this meeting.
The President was encouraged by the meeting. The President made
clear on his phone call with President Putin his desire to work
with President Putin. He said that President Putin is a world
leader and that he wants to make certain that the United States
and Russia work together, so that whatever comes out of the United
Nations is different from the resolutions of the past. And that
was the emphasis of the conversation from the President.
Q Did the President hear anything that would indicate he's
closed the gap between the two nations?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, as I said, the President is encouraged and
I think you're going to continue to see ongoing diplomacy between
now and whenever the vote takes place in the United Nations -- not
only with Russia, but with other nations. It's entirely
appropriate for nations to think carefully about the votes that
they will take, and the exact language that will be offered.
And this is precisely what the President said he was going to
do when he said he would go to the United Nations. This is the
consultative process. This is how United Nations votes take place.
And the President is part of the diplomatic efforts that are
underway to talk to Russia and other nations.
Q -- one more shot at it. Do you know why he was encouraged?
Specifically what gave him reason for encouragement?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, you know, the President is confident that
the ultimate outcome of what the action that will be taken in the
United Nations. The President just cannot imagine the United
Nations making the same mistake twice. The President cannot
imagine the United Nations again allowing an inspection regime
that will not allow the world to know that Saddam Hussein is
disarmed.
The President thinks that would be a grave mistake, and that's
something the President does not think the world would do.
Q Well, let's try one more time. Did the President find any
change, however subtle, in the Russian position as publicly
expressed?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I can only, again, describe to you what
the President said in the course of these meetings. In the
meetings with the Foreign Minister and Defense Minister of Russia,
the President talked about how the status quo was not acceptable;
that what the objective was is to make sure that Saddam Hussein
has destroyed the weapons that he has.
I can also tell you that in the course of the meeting, the
President cited what took place on September 11th, and the
President reminded the Russian Foreign and Defense Ministers that
the oceans that used to divide the United States from the world no
longer protect our country the way they used to. He said that it's
come home to America, and he cited his responsibility to make
certain that he protects the American people, and people around
the world, so, as President Bush said, we can make the world a
more peaceful place. That's what the President said in his meeting
with the ministers.
You heard Igor -- the Foreign Minister, when he left the White
House, Igor Ivanov walk out to the driveway, and he said that the
Russians have agreed to exchange views on how to make
the inspectors more effective. So you heard that
yourselves.
Q Yes, but this isn't about inspections, I understand. I hear
it's about disarmament.
MR. FLEISCHER: The point being how to make inspectors more
effective, so that we know that disarmament has taken place.
Q You didn't say that.
Q And you mentioned that the President wants a firm resolution,
one that doesn't let Iraq avoid responsibility. Does that mean
that the President is seeking, in this resolution, authorization
to use force if Iraq does not comply?
MR. FLEISCHER: Terry, I'm not going to get into the specific
language; this is still something that is being discussed
privately among the diplomats on the Security Council. And I think
it's important to allow them the opportunity to do their work. And
the exact language will be a continued point of discussion.
But the point the President is making is he wants to make
certain that it is different from the past. Why would anybody want
to support doing the same thing all over again? What good did it
do for the world for the last ten years? And that's the point the
President is making.
Q Well, it sounds, if I may, like there's agreement -- as the
Russian Minister said -- on inspections, trying to find the answer
quickly and thoroughly -- and maybe disagreement on what the
United States is seeking authorization to use force if there is
noncompliance.
MR. FLEISCHER: No, that's -- you were not in the meetings and
no discussions along those lines came up, Terry.
Q Ari, the Ivanov comment on how to make inspections more
effective, does that suggest to you the Russians now would support
a new resolution?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, I think it's up to the Russians to
categorize their position. I will not do so. But it's fair to say
that the consultative process is continuing. The diplomacy you
would expect to take place is taking place. And nations are going
to continue to think about this, it's an important issue; I think
they're hearing the President's message loud and clear.
And the President wanted to make certain that they understood
how strongly he feels about this issue and what is at stake --
because the President feels what's at stake is peace around the
world and the need to protect Americans and the people in the
region and elsewhere from the threats that Saddam Hussein
presents, which are real and are growing.
Q And what did he tell them regarding Georgia?
MR. FLEISCHER: On the question of Georgia, the President
stressed the importance of Russia protecting the sovereignty and
the territorial integrity of Georgia. The President talked about
the United States' desire to work closely with the Georgian
government, we have a program to train and equip the Georgian
military so they can take action against the terrorists in
Georgia. That was the extent of the conversation.
Lester.
Q In view of the announced intentions of the anti-capitalist
convergence to shut down the city of Washington next friday, D.C.
Police Chief Charles Ramsey has advised the public, including
thousands of federal workers, to "bring a sandwich and a good CD."
And my question is, the head of the federal government, for whom
this city of Washington was created, doesn't agree that the city
should be allowed to be closed down; does he, Ari?
MR. FLEISCHER: Lester, I think this is an issue where we have
seen before in Washington, D.C., and in many other cities as there
are international gatherings, and the federal government is
working very closely with the District of Columbia government and
police to make certain that two things happen: one, the American
people's right to peaceful protest is honored and respected; and,
two, that the city can function and function well and function
smoothly. That's the efforts of our government and we hope that
will be the case.
Q On October 2nd, the President is scheduled to speak in
Baltimore at a fundraiser for Congressman Bob Ehrlich for
Governor, who has announced he will not raise taxes, while his
rival, Lieutenant Governor Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, has refused
to say she won't raise taxes if she is elected, while new polls
indicate that Ehrlich is now ahead. And my question: is the
President glad that Congressman Ehrlich will not raise taxes, and
has experienced nothing from the Maryland Republicans like Mrs.
Townsend has suffered from her fellow Maryland Democrats, who have
furiously questioned her whole campaign?
MR. FLEISCHER: There is no question that there are a group of
people who want to raise taxes on the American people. And the
President is very supportive of those who want to lower taxes and
prevent people from increasing taxes.
Q So he's happy with Ehrlich, isn't he?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think the President is supporting him in the
campaign, you can absolutely count on that.
Goyal.
Q Ari, a couple of questions. One, do you have any comments on
this week, Mir Qazi, a Pakistani national who
was sentenced to death in connection with killings of two CIA
employees, lost his appeals and all that, and he will be -- he
will die on November 7th. And if you have any comment on what --
because he was also connected with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda.
And another question is that most of these terrorists,
according to the Washington Post and other reports, that they were
based in Pakistan, they came from Pakistan, and after committing
the crime, they fled to Pakistan. Now, according to the -- also,
that Pakistan is still a help for terrorists. And another
Pakistani man who sent a letter to President Bush, he wanted to
kill President Bush and other government members, and he was in
D.C. jail, and he was released this week and fled to Pakistan.
MR. FLEISCHER: Okay. On your first point, I have nothing
specific to report on that one individual matter. But more
broadly, as you know, the President met at the United Nations with
the leaders of Pakistan and India, and he stressed in his meetings
the importance of ending cross-border infiltration. This remains a
very important topic, and one that's constantly discussed at the
highest levels of the administration repeatedly.
Suzanne.
Q Foreign Minister Ivanov said that he would like to continue
exchanging views on how to make weapons inspections
more effective. Is it the position of the administration
that this might reflect a greater openness from Russia, in terms
of perhaps tougher inspections, or a U.N. resolution that would
reflect some changes?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, there really is nothing new I can add beyond
what I shared with you on what the President said in these
meetings. The President stressed in the meetings the importance of
making certain that the United Nations doesn't make the same
mistake twice, and that it's important to have a different type of
inspection -- one that is effective, one that will make certain
that Iraq has disarmed.
That's what this is about. This is not about inspections, this
is about disarmament.
Q And does the President plan on speaking with Chinese
officials, as well?
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, we'll keep you as routinely updated as I
can on all the phone calls the President makes. He has completed
his foreign phone calls for today. He has made the two that I
mentioned.
Q Ari, U.N. officials are saying that it might take from nine
months to a year for the weapons inspectors, assuming they get
full cooperation, to assess the state of Saddam's compliance. Is
that kind of a timeline comfortable? Are U.S. officials, and/or
the President, comfortable with that kind of projected timeline?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, this is another illustration of why the
focus, in the President's judgment, needs to be on the resolution
the United Nations is going to pass, as well as the importance of
destruction of weapons.
The inspection process is not the end result of what the
President is focused on. The end result is destruction of weapons,
and we'll see what the United Nations does when it votes.
Q Ari, the Washington Times had a story this morning that the
U.S. authorities are holding a Sudanese pilot
who was intending to attack -- kidnap a plane and attack the White
House. Any merit to that story?
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, as you know, I have a long-standing policy
of just not commenting on anything alleged to be intelligence
information. I'll just leave it at that.
Q Well, are they holding at least some Sudanese detainees?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'll just leave it where I left it.
Q Ari, given that the Miller/Gramm proposal on the
Department of Homeland Security, if it does pass, it's
going to pass by a very narrow margin. Is the President concerned
at all that it might be the wrong way to do it, on such an
important legislation, to have a fairly partisan vote passing a
Department of Homeland Security?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President hopes it won't be a fairly
partisan vote and he hopes that more Democrats will join with
their colleague, Senator Miller, so that won't be the case. But
what's important is for the Senate to act. If the Senate doesn't
vote, it doesn't matter -- the country won't benefit from having
the creation of a Department of Homeland Security.
But in the end, the President is interested in action, because
the nation needs to be protected and it can be protected through
the result of a vote to create the department. So whether the vote
is 99-1 or the vote is 50-50, with the Vice President casting the
tie-breaking vote, the result is what matters and the result is
creation of the department.
Q Okay. And on another topic, given also that the economy is
still sluggish, why hasn't the President proposed
these tax cuts that he has talked about? And apparently
he's not going to do that. Isn't he -- given that he thinks that
tax cuts would stimulate the economy, isn't he being remiss is not
at least putting them forward?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, there are many tax cuts that the President
has proposed that remain pending on Capitol Hill. And the
President reserves the option of proposing additional ones. But
certainly judging by what Congress has done, the Senate, for
example, has failed to take action on a number of the tax relief
proposals and other stimulative proposals the President has made
that he hopes will bring additional strength to the economy.
But he will continue to work with the Congress and hope that
something can get done.
Q He's not worried that those tax cuts, if he does propose
them, could prove politically unpopular for Republicans?
MR. FLEISCHER: No. No, the President thinks that --
Q Because they would --
MR. FLEISCHER: There are a number of items that are pending in
Congress that can bring help to people -- not only to help
stimulate the economy, but to help protect people's pensions, for
example. That's another issue where the Senate has not yet acted,
where the House has.
The President was glad the Congress passed trade promotion
authority, which can help create jobs. But terrorism insurance is
another issue that is pending in the Congress, where jobs can be
created in an immediate sense if the Senate and the House can get
together and pass terrorism insurance.
So there remains a number of items that are economically
important to the country, and the President hopes Congress can get
those done. Congress does not have a lot of time left; they are
getting ready to leave, and leave for good.
Q I have a question to national security
strategy, and the shifting to the preemptive strikes. If
America declares that it will never be challenged internationally
again, how would that go down internationally?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think that what the world has seen in
the 20th century is a benevolent America that uses its strength
for good around the world. And as a result of America's
reluctance, which became an eventual use of strength throughout
the 20th century, the world became a safer, better place for it.
Democracies flourished in places where democracy previously did
not exist; Germany and Japan are the most recent examples. And
democracy is on the march around the world thanks in good part to
the United States' efforts.
And so the United States' role as a military power has been --
we are a nation that is very reluctant, extremely reluctant to use
that power. But we do use our influence that can be backed up by
power through a way that I think has led to a better world.
Q Since you mentioned Germany, can you give us a
sentence on the German-American relations regarding the --
well, whatever the Minister of Defense said in Germany. I mean,
she refused to resign today. So do you think --
MR. FLEISCHER: Minister of Justice.
Q Justice, sorry, Minister of Justice. She refused to resign.
Do you think the relations between America and Germany are damaged
permanently?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, relations between the American people and
the German people have been very strong. And it goes back 50
years. It's a very important tie.
Having said that, the statements made by the Justice Minister
were outrageous and inexplicable, and nothing has changed since
that was noted yesterday. The President continues to view this as
a troubling event.
Q So if Schroeder wins, what then?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not going to speculate about the outcome of
any elections, and I can just answer your question about what the
Justice Minister said.
Q Can I follow up on that? Do you know that she's claimed she
has been misquoted. Does that alter your opinion?
MR. FLEISCHER: From everything that has been reported in
Germany today, the newspaper that originally reported her remarks
stands by their reporting, as well as people who were at the event
say that it was, indeed, said.
Q Are you looking for an apology from the German government?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think that -- I can only express to you how
strongly the President feels about this. And I've expressed that,
and anything beyond that is up to the German authorities.
Q Ari, I have another question -- I kind of want to follow up
on that. But being compared to Hitler is a very strong statement.
Has the President said anything to you or anyone here about that
-- from his words?
MR. FLEISCHER: I've expressed the President's feelings.
Q Okay. Now, on the question I wanted to ask -- China, France
and Russia are not in support of an attack on
Iraq. And some are saying that the United States military
is already stretched thin because of protecting the United States
against terrorism, as well as fighting in Afghanistan. If America
does not get support militarily from China, Russia and France, how
thin will the United States be in fighting this war against
Saddam?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, taking your second question first, it's
been made very clear, and similar questions were put to Secretary
Rumsfeld and others who have testified up on the Hill, there is no
question that the United States has the ability to deal with more
than one threat around the world at one time. No question about it
whatsoever.
On your first point, again, these nations have not spoken yet.
The speaking of these nations, or the final declarations of these
nations will take place in a vote of the Security Council. And the
President has begun a process that he knew would not be an
overnight process, that would be a process that would take some
time. And that time is -- we're in the middle of that time right
now, as the consultations and discussions continue.
Q So, in essence, what I'm getting, the United States can go it
alone, they don't need China, Russia or France?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think we will find out what happens when these
nations vote at the United Nations. This remains still a test of
the United Nations' relevance, to see if they intend to enforce
the resolutions that they've passed. So I think you're a little
hasty in your judgments about where these three countries are.
Q Has Russia made it known what they want to do?
MR. FLEISCHER: Connie.
Q Thank you. On this security document,
can you give us some background on it? Is this something
that's produced every year? And is there any consultation with the
allies or any input by them into the document?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the document is required under the law.
This is the Goldwater-Nichols Defense Department Reorganization
Act, which dates back to 1986. And that's why it was produced. And
this has been discussed in a great many places, with a great many
people. And it's a very long preparation time to prepare a
document like this. And I think on any more specific information
about exactly who was consulted, you'll probably be able to get
more detailed answers at a background briefing that an
administration official will be giving early this afternoon.
Q Ari, what incentive is the President using to try and get
Russia's support for a strong Security Council
resolution? Is he offering to pay Russia the $7 billion or
$8 billion Iraq owes?
MR. FLEISCHER: The incentive the President is offering is logic
and a straight, direct, from-the-heart talk about the risks that
Russia faces and the rest of the world faces, and in addition the
American people face, from Saddam Hussein and his relentless quest
for weapons of mass destruction. That's what the President
stresses in his phone call with President Putin, as well as in his
meetings today with the Defense and Foreign Minister.
Q But is the U.S. making any commitments concerning those Iraqi
debts to Russia?
MR. FLEISCHER: No.
Q Yes, on that --
MR. FLEISCHER: Jim, in a different seat?
Q Yes. I was trying to shake you from this geographical hang-up
that you have. (Laughter.)
MR. FLEISCHER: But you haven't changed rows; you've just
changed sides in the same row.
Q I wanted to ease it in on you. I didn't want to shock you too
much --
MR. FLEISCHER: Horizontal move, not a vertical move?
(Laughter.)
Q Left to right. (Laughter.)
Q The President's -- the phone call with President Putin and
his talks with the two Ivanovs, did they talk about the details of
how to make the inspections more effective? Or merely that they need to be effective?
MR. FLEISCHER: They did not get into details of how to make it
more effective. I think these are some of the discussions that are
taking place at other levels, including at the United Nations.
Q Now, the Russians also mentioned that they have been granted
the right to go and question five Russian citizens who are
currently at Guantanamo, who were recently arrested. What can you
tell us about that?
MR. FLEISCHER: That did not come up in the meeting in the Oval
Office. I would refer you to the Department of Defense; I think
that was a conversation between the Defense Minister and America's
Secretary of Defense.
Q Okay. One other point. On the National Security Strategy,
would you just describe a little bit for us the new concern that
has prompted this talk of a preemptive
strategy? It appears to be that the concern now -- the
concern used to be against governments that were military strong.
Now it is against groups or governments that have little military
strength and decide to use other means.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, it used to be, particularly in the 20th
century, that the threats to America came mostly from states that
were strong. And the 21st century is seeming to be a century where
the threats to America come from states that are crumbling and are
weak. That's where terrorists find homes, and that's where the
strongest threats to America has come from.
September 11th has changed substantially America's way of
viewing how vulnerable we are. That attack did not come from a
former superpower or a former rival; it came from a crumbling
regime that is a parasite, that had a parasite of the terrorists
take over that country, in Afghanistan, and bring the threat to
us.
The Strategy states that the safety and the security of America
is the first and fundamental commitment of our government. And the
President will be realistic in assessing where those threats come
from.
Q Can I follow up on that?
MR. FLEISCHER: We'll come back, Bill. Paula?
Q Despite the somewhat controversial analogy that was used by
the German Minister of Justice, I believe her criticism was
directed at the President focusing on foreign policy at the
expense of domestic priorities. Does the administration feel that
there are any domestic priorities on its
agenda that cannot be given the attention you would like
because of all the attention that's directed in the foreign policy
area? Other than blaming --
MR. FLEISCHER: Paula, I think that premising that question by
again likening back to anything even close to what the German
Justice Minister said does not do regard to the seriousness of
this debate -- domestic issues and foreign issues. It bears no
comparison whatsoever to what the German Justice Minister said.
Q Mr. Fleischer, it was reported recently in Athens that
President Bush sent two letters to the good Prime Minister Costas
Simitis. I was wondering what prompted the President to send those
two letters?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'll have to take a look at that. I have not
gotten any information on that.
Q Ari, two questions. First, this week marks the 20th
anniversary of the massacre in Sabra and Shatila, 1,700
Palestinians were killed. And Ariel Sharon was found by an Israeli
commission of inquiry to be personally responsible for that event.
Also the 20th anniversary of the slaughter in Hama, Syria, of
20,000 Syrians by the Assad regime. And my question is, why aren't
we seeking regime changes in those two countries, given the nature
of those leaders?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I said yesterday that no nation, no nation on earth is like Iraq. And that's why
the United Nations has spoken out as often as it has and as
repeatedly as it has for more than a decade about asking Iraq to
comply with the U.N. resolutions that have been passed, and they
have failed to do so. No nation represents a threat to peace on
earth the way Iraq does, because of its attempt to get weapons of
mass destruction, and because of its militaristic recent history,
where it has shown a willingness and an ability to invade its
neighbors and attack its neighbors. No other nation is like that.
And so I reject any other comparisons to those nations.
Q Well, if I could follow up, Israel itself has reportedly 20
to 40 nuclear weapons. So it has weapons, and its leader -- the
current leader has been found personally responsible for slaughter
in Lebanon.
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, I don't think you can compare any other
nation on earth to Iraq. I think any comparison is faulty.
Q Ari, I just wanted to get back with you on the
Lackawanna suspects. Based on what you found out, is the
door now closed to designating them enemy combatants and putting
them in --
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, this is moving through the criminal
justice system under the purview of the Department of Justice. As
an overall matter, the President will always reserve his rights to
make a designation if he thinks as a result of any new information
that's obtained he would need to act differently. But this
remains, in this case, the specific people you asked about, this
remains under the purview of the Department of Justice.
Q But he does reserve the right to review it and intervene, if
necessary?
MR. FLEISCHER: Of course, and that's as a general statement
about any arrests from anybody. In the case of Mr. Padilla, of
course, he did come to a different conclusion, and that's a result
of the President being advised of any new information that could
change a previous determination. So don't confuse the two. I'm
making a generalized principle, but to answer your question
specifically, DOJ.
Q The national security document says in part that the lessons
of history are clear in the point that market economies and not
command and control economies are the path to prosperity and
peace, and so on. How do you square that statement with recent
political and economic events in Latin
America?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not sure I follow your premise. Are you
saying that it's inconsistent?
Q The growth of Latin America during the '90s was less than it
was in the '60s and '70s. And there's now a wave sweeping across
Latin America that's both political and economic in nature, that
seems to represent a repudiation of this statement.
MR. FLEISCHER: Actually, I think it's an exact proof of this
statement. If you take a look at what's happened in Latin America,
the advent of democracy in those countries, as well as the advent
of free trade, which many nations in Central and Latin America
seek to get into
more trade agreements not only with the United States, but
other nations around the world -- Latin America and Central
America are real success stories in many cases.
That's why the President visited El Salvador in March or
February of this year. He went to Peru as well, if you recall.
These are success stories that are a result of the free flow of
capital and the free flow of ideas, openness, transparency,
resulting in democracy.
Q Then why are the economies stagnant?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think economies can always be stagnant.
In capitalist countries, and in free and democratic countries,
there's growth and there's recession and there's retraction. That
still is not command and control. It's not as if command and
control communist-style governments are exactly coming back into
vogue. Democracy and free trade are the trends that are sweeping
the world.
Dick.
Q Ari, the Bank of Japan has taken the
unprecedented step of beginning to buy stocks in the effort -- of
companies over there in an effort to prop up an ailing economy.
Does the President have any views on this? And has anyone from the
administration shared any --
MR. FLEISCHER: I have not had any conversations with the
President about it, and I don't think that would be the type of
thing the United States would comment on.
Bill.
Q Ari, the version of the National Security
Strategy published this morning says that "The President
has no intention of allowing any foreign power to catch up with
the huge lead the U.S. has opened up since the fall of the Soviet
Union." But that sentence doesn't appear in the final version that
we were given. Was it dropped because of the fear that it sounded
arrogant?
MR. FLEISCHER: Let me go back and take a look at the entire
document, Bill, just to see if that is, in fact, right. I have to
take a look to make that determination.
Q Was there concern about the tone of the document?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think the tone of the document speaks for
itself and it represents how America's values have served the
world well, and will continue to serve the world well, and that we
will, indeed, have a military that is capable of protecting the
peace.
Q You don't intend it, obviously, for it to be surpassed by
anybody, but then why not say it?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, again, I'm going to take a look at the
exact language in there before I comment on that.
Thank you.
END 1:10 P.M. EDT