Transcript: White House Daily Briefing, October 10, 2002

(Iraq/reaction to congressional vote, Iraq/resolution, Commission on


September 11, Zawahiri videotape, Pakistan/elections, President's


travel schedule, FBI/FISA court, homeland security, trade promotion


authority, International Criminal Court) (7740)





White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer briefed.





Following is the White House transcript:





(begin transcript)





THE WHITE HOUSE


Office of the Press Secretary


October 10,





PRESS BRIEFING BY ARI FLEISCHER





INDEX


-- Statement on the congressional vote on Iraq


-- Iraq/congressional vote on resolution


   - Invitation for inspectors to come


   - Aftermath/unifying the government


   - Daschle statement


   - United Nations endorsement


   - Coalition building


-- Commission on September 11


-- Zawahiri videotape


-- Pakistan elections


-- President's travel schedule


-- FBI/FISA court


-- Homeland security


-- Trade promotion authority


-- International Criminal Court





THE WHITE HOUSE


Office of the Press Secretary


October 10, 2002





PRESS BRIEFING BY ARI FLEISCHER





James S. Brady Press Briefing Room





12:53 P.M. EDT





MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. I'd like to begin with two


announcements. One, the President appreciates the strong showing of


support in the House and the Senate that is shaping up for what


appears to be the final votes on the resolution to authorize the use


of force against Iraq. The President hopes that this vote will send a


strong message to Iraq and to the world that if Iraq does not comply


with the United Nations resolutions, the United States and her allies


are prepared to use force to make certain that Iraq does comply, so


that the peace can be kept.





In addition, as Congress gets ready to adjourn, the President has


repeatedly urged the Senate to complete its work on the department of


homeland security. We continue to work hard to make that happen. In


the event it does not, the homeland security legislation currently


carries the legislation required to create a commission to look into


what took place on September 11th. The President thinks it is so


important that Congress create this commission, that if they are not


able to work on homeland security, the President hopes they will find


another way to pass the commission and send it to him before they


leave.





We have been working very closely with Senator Lieberman and McCain


and other members on the commission. Great progress has been made and


we are very close to reaching an agreement on it. We look forward to


hearing back from the Senate about the offer that has been sent up to


the Senate on this important matter. The President thinks it would be


a great disappointment to the families and to the nation if the


Congress left without creating the commission on September 11th.





Helen.





QUESTION: If the President gets the same kind of a vote from the


Senate, does he feel that he can immediately or at any point have a


free hand to go to war?





MR. FLEISCHER: Well, under the Constitution, Helen, the President, of


course, does have the authority --





Q:  -- or even with or without allies.





MR. FLEISCHER: Under the Constitution, the President does have the


authority as Commander-in-Chief to make those determinations. The


President has asked -- said he would ask the Congress to weigh in on


this matter, and the Congress is doing so and doing it today. And the


President thinks that will be very helpful in keeping the peace. The


President has made no decisions about what the next step will be.


Clearly, we will continue to talk to the United Nations about the


inspection process, and that's where the matter currently stands.





Q: But he would never go back to Congress again for another go-ahead?


I mean, he considers this the green light?





MR. FLEISCHER: The Congress is speaking today about authorization of


the use of force. Today's vote by the Congress is an important vote.





Q: Ari, on that commission you just mentioned, is the President


supportive of the idea that the intelligence agencies, intelligence


community would also fall under the review of that commission?





MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, the commission would have a broad range of issues


to look into and intelligence would be included, of course. They would


build upon what was already done, but it would include intelligence,


just as the President said when he wrote to the Congress about this


matter a couple of weeks ago. Beyond intelligence, it would also


include issues dealing with aviation matters, border matters, things


of that nature.





Q:  So you're not putting anything off-limits to this commission.





MR. FLEISCHER:  No, the scope would be broad-range.





Q: On Iraq, the Iraqi government is taking reporters around to al


Furat manufacturing facility and the Nassr engineering facility. These


were mentioned obliquely by the President Monday night, the White


House released satellite photographs of them, and the Iraqis I guess


are taking reporters around to show that everything is hunky-dory


there. You got any reaction to that?





MR. FLEISCHER: I think that reporters are seeing the same cat and


mouse games get played with themselves, and they walk away scratching


their heads, wondering what it is they just saw and what was


concealed. I think Iraq has shown a 10-year-long history of being able


to take guests into Iraq, having moved facilities around, having


mobile facilities available, hiding information, allowing things to be


seen that only they want to be seen. And so it's very hard, I think,


for anybody, unless they are a real independent expert with the proper


equipment, to walk into a facility and have a clear understanding of


what it is that is either taking place there, used to take there, or


may be taking place on another side of a wall through which they


cannot see.





Q: Ari, it's clear from the satellite photos that the White House


provided to us on Monday that there has been new construction at those


two facilities. But do you have any way of legitimately knowing what's


inside those buildings?





MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the best way to know what is inside those


buildings is either through intelligence, which I will not discuss, or


through the return of inspectors, who have the authority to go into


those buildings any time, anyplace, anywhere, with any equipment and


get their job done.





But your assessment is accurate. The photos that were released showed


the rebuilding of a building. People can make their own


interpretations about what's going on inside those buildings, but the


point is that facilities that were associated with these weapons of


mass destruction that we knew were used for the purpose of creation of


weapons of mass destruction have been destroyed and then these same


facilities rebuilt. The best way to know what's going on is through


the other two means I said.





Q: But to your point that Iraq is paying a cat and mouse game with


reporters, you really don't have any legitimate idea what's in that


building, so you can't really say that they're playing a cat and mouse


game, can you?





MR. FLEISCHER: I think if you want to take Saddam Hussein's word for


it, people are free to do that. And his word hasn't proven very good.





Q: Ari, the President in Cincinnati said that if he makes a decision


to go to war, that he would, in the aftermath, support a unified Iraq,


which is a significant statement. So what evidence can the


administration point to now that there is a viable alternative to


Saddam Hussein, an opposition that is capable of leading in his


absence? Especially given the fact that Americans have a lot of


information to chew on about the Northern Alliance as a viable


alternative to the Taliban prior to that --





MR. FLEISCHER: It's a very interesting question, and I think the


easiest way to express it, David, is the President has a universal


faith in mankind that mankind does not want to be governed by despots,


that people are capable of self-government around the world. That's


particularly true in an educated, relatively advanced nation like


Iraq. No people choose to have a leader who engages in the type of


dictatorial, despotic, tyrannical types of actions that Saddam Hussein


has taken.





Another way to say it is when Saddam Hussein has been such a brutal


dictator, he has no shortage of people who would like to see him gone,


and who could do a much better job governing once he is gone. More


specifically then, we will continue, the United States government will


continue to work with people both inside and outside Iraq who have an


interest in advancing the cause of government that is representative


of the people. I don't think anybody thinks that Saddam Hussein is


representative of the Iraqi people.





Q: But -- okay, well, tell us about that. What are we doing? Don't the


American people have the right to chew over what the alternatives are


here, and know what the government is doing to pave the way toward


dealing with the aftermath of invasion, should it come to that?





MR. FLEISCHER: I don't think -- it's impossible to predict with


certainty what type of government would replace Saddam Hussein. It's


fair to say that whatever it is, it will be an improvement. Whatever


it is, it will also represent what the President has said about a


government that represents the people. And that's why there are


various groups, both inside and outside Iraq, who are dedicated to


that.





Q:  Well, what right do you have to say --





Q: What are we doing? What are we doing to work with these groups to


support them?





MR. FLEISCHER: Through the -- okay, through the 1998 Iraq Liberation


Act funds were made available to work with Iraqi opposition groups.


They've been having gatherings to discuss types of government that


could possibly replace Saddam Hussein. There's not unanimity within


those groups about how to proceed, but --





Q: But you still don't have any evidence to present to the public that


there is a viable alternative as we stand here today?





MR. FLEISCHER: If you're suggesting that because there is no known


immediate successor to Saddam Hussein, that until one can be known,


Saddam Hussein is a risk that should be left in place, the President


does not agree with that approach.





Q: Obviously, I didn't say that. But what I'm asking you is, do you


have anything beyond faith in mankind to tell people that the


government is preparing to pave the way toward an alternative


leadership?





MR. FLEISCHER: It's the issues I mentioned. And also, I think that


it's fair to say if you look at Afghanistan as a model -- and this is


where the -- faith in mankind, don't misinterpret what I'm saying


here, this is something that we hold dearly as Americans, the


universal value that be believe is God-given for people to be free,


for people to have a government that represents themselves, not a


government that controls, not a government that is dominant over them.


That is a powerful force throughout the world. That is a force for


freedom and that is a force for good government.





Saddam Hussein has used his powers in a ruthless manner to oppress the


people of Iraq. And as I said, the President will continue to work


through, and the United States will continue to work through these


groups. And Afghanistan has shown that when despots are thrown out,


there are a great many good people who would like to take their place


and who can make for a better day for the people of that country. That


is the case with President Karzai of Afghanistan and many other people


who participate in the loya jirga there.





Q:  Can I just ask --





MR. FLEISCHER:  Terry, go ahead.





Q: -- on the record here, are you then putting the administration


behind a commitment that should regime change happen in Iraq, the


United States will commit to a democracy in Iraq? Not support a strong


man, not support some kind of interim general, but that the United


States will commit to trying to establish a democracy in Iraq.





MR. FLEISCHER: I think if you look at the history of the United


States, and President Bush is dedicated to this, the fact of the


matter is that after a military operation, the United States has been


a marvelous, wonderful force for democracy around the world. That is


the case with Japan, that is the case with Germany, that was the case


with Afghanistan. And while not everything can immediately and fully


move to democracies around the world, and we understand that, the


United States has been a wonderful, powerful force pushing toward


democracy around the world. Central and Latin America are the most


recent, now 10-year-long examples of that trend around the world, with


the help of the United States.





Q: After a many-decade history where we were not supporting democracy


in that part --





MR. FLEISCHER: You can take that up with many decades ago. But the


point remains the same, and what I said is a government that


represents the people, and the President will continue to push for the


direction of a government that represents the people.





Q: Ari, would you expect the votes today in the House will serve to


provide some momentum in any way to the developments within the U.N.


and the efforts to get a resolution there?





MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President hopes so. The President thinks that


there is a good possibility that Congress, having spoken and spoken


strongly, the American people coming together, and our nation speaking


in one voice, will send a signal to the United Nations and United


Nations Security Council that President Bush and our people are united


in the belief that a strong resolution is the most effective way to


keep the peace, and that the United States and her allies are prepared


to take action if the United Nations will not.





Q: And today, what is he doing today, specifically on Iraq? He spoke


with Chirac yesterday. Is he going to reach out to any other --





MR. FLEISCHER: Well, he's been watching -- he's monitoring the vote


and keeping informed about the vote, and we look forward to the


conclusions of the vote. And I'll keep you filled in if there will be


any additions to the President's schedule later on. We're looking at


the timing of what's happening in both the House and the Senate. It


remains unclear I think even to the people who will do the voting,


particularly in the Senate, about what time their vote may take place.





Q: Ari, now that the President is sure to get what could be called a


mandate from both Houses on the Iraq situation, does he have a


timetable for the U.N. to issue a new resolution? Or is he just


willing to wait until they come around? Or does he have a time frame?





MR. FLEISCHER: The timetable is exactly as the President said on


September 12th in his speech to the United Nations. The President said


-- he urged the United Nations to act in a matter of days and weeks,


not months. Clearly, now, it's been a matter of some weeks. It is not


yet a matter of months. So it still was in the timetable that the


President originally established.





Q: And a second question, Ari. You keep referring to the United States


and its allies --





MR. FLEISCHER:  Correct.





Q: -- will use force. Well, as far as we hear, allies -- I guess the


United Kingdom is one ally, but do you mean, by "allies" and "force",


do you mean permission for overflights, refueling, use of bases, or


storing weapons? What do you mean -- military help?





MR. FLEISCHER: I think it can be all of the above. The President has


said in many of his public events that the United States and a


coalition of allies will act if the United Nations does not act.





And this is why I've made the point before that this notion of somehow


the United States would do something unilateral is just as wrong as


wrong can be. The only question is will the multilateral action come


thanks to the United Nations, or will the multilateral action come as


a result of a large coalition that the United States will assemble


because the United Nations failed to act? The President hopes that


will not be the case, but he is prepared if that is the case.





Q: Ari, how did the President react to Senator Daschle's statement of


support on the floor of the Senate this morning?





MR. FLEISCHER: The President appreciates Senator Daschle's decision to


vote with the President on this matter.





Q:  Have they spoken today, or since Senator Daschle's previous --





MR. FLEISCHER: I'll have to go back and ask the President. I don't


know if they've spoken today or not.





Q: On the audio tape of Ayman Zawahiri, how concerned is the


administration? Do they see the threats as being credible when he says


that there will be future attacks against the United States? And is


so, is it cause for perhaps raising the threat level? Has it come to


that point?





MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the FBI last night did issue a notice to law


enforcement communities around the country that as a result of that


audio tape and other information that it was important for local


jurisdictions and authorities to review their plans, to make certain


that all precautions have been taken. The possibility is still,


unfortunately, with us, that there are terrorists -- al Qaeda


terrorists -- who, seeking to regroup, still want to bring harm to the


United States and to our interests abroad. So it is a source of


concern. And that's why the FBI acted.





The alert level remains at its current elevated level. No changes have


been made to it. We continue to review that every day, but within the


current alert status, notices went out to people to say, we have this


information, we do take it seriously, and you need to review your


plans.





Q: And on Pakistan's elections, Musharraf calling it a historical


juncture today, but Human Rights Watch out of Asia calling it a


consolidation of military power, not really a move towards democracy.


Also, an independent human rights commission out of Pakistan saying


that this was engineered to show the results basically favoring


Musharraf. How confident is the administration in the credibility of


that process?





MR. FLEISCHER: Well, we're going to continue to watch the process very


closely. We are committed to remaining engaged with Pakistan


throughout this transition to democracy. In New York, when President


Bush met with President Musharraf, he stressed the importance of


adhering to democracy in Pakistan. It is important and the United


States takes it seriously and will monitor it closely. We welcome the


holding of the multi-party national and provincial elections in


Pakistan today. This is an important milestone in Pakistan's ongoing


transition to democracy. And we welcome President Musharraf's


assurance to the people of Pakistan today that he intends to hand over


executive powers to the new Prime Minister by early next month.





Q: Ari, if I can just go back to your statement just a moment ago that


the President would act not unilaterally, but with a coalition; the


only question is, does the coalition have U.N. endorsement or not. If


that's the President's position, does the exact wording of that U.N.


endorsement become less important? In other words, do you necessarily


need "all necessary means" or something, if he's committed that he can


-- he's going to act to enforce it, basically no matter what the U.N.


-- final U.N. resolution says?





MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President went to the United Nations because


the President thinks it's important for the United Nations to have a


role in keeping peace around the world. That's why he went. He didn't


have to go. He made the judgment and the decision that it was


important for the U.N. that an American President go there and remind


the U.N. about the resolutions that it passed, and the fact that


Saddam Hussein has violated them with impunity, and raised the


question to the U.N., what do you intend to do about it. And he hopes


that the U.N. will not leave that question unanswered.





That's why he chose to go. But the President is also saying that if he


decides to take any further action, it's clear now that it would not


be unilateral, it will be with a coalition. And the only question is,


does the U.N. play a role on that coalition.





Now, on the language that is currently being discussed at the United


Nations, what's important, David -- and the President has stressed


this in his conversations with world leaders, and this is what our


diplomats are focusing on in their negotiations -- the resolution must


describe that there will be consequences if Iraq fails to act. It must


be, the resolution must include that. And the reason for the President


saying that and thinking it's so important is because if it's not in


there, then Saddam Hussein is free to play his games once again. And


the President thinks the best way to keep the peace is for Saddam


Hussein to understand that the world this time is serious.





Within that, there is room for diplomacy about how to exactly phrase


what those consequences are, and that's what the diplomats are


currently working on, the exact phraseology of it. I'm not -- to get


specifically now to your very question, I'm not going to negotiate


that in public, what the exact words could or could not be. Don't take


that as a reading that something may be in or out; obviously, that's


something the diplomats will do and do in private.





Q: I'm sorry, if you say that it must describe there will be


consequences, is it sufficient to say there will be consequences? Or


in the President's mind, does the resolution have to describe exactly


what those consequences would be?





MR. FLEISCHER: The President thinks the more clearly the consequences


are stated, and the more -- and the stronger they are, the better the


chance of keeping the peace, because Saddam Hussein will know that


this time the world is serious.





Q: Ari, can you talk to us about the President's plans over the next


few weeks to campaign for Republicans, and how this reflects his


priorities over that period?





MR. FLEISCHER: Sure. Between now and the election, the President will


have several items on his travel agenda. This will include traveling


around the country to support candidates who support his agenda.


Obviously, with the Congress as closely divided as it is -- a Congress


that has failed to act on a great many priorities for the American


people, including helping the economy to recover and grow by creating


jobs, passage of homeland security -- every vote in the Congress


counts. And so he will spend some time on the road working to build


support for candidates who share his vision.





He also has, of course, a summit with the President of China coming up


at his ranch in Crawford. He will travel to Mexico, where he'll take


part in the APEC Summit of leaders from the Pacific Ocean countries,


including leaders from Japan and China, again, and Russia, as well as


Mexico and Canada and other nations. So the President will have quite


a bit of business to conduct between now and the election. He'll


conduct much of it on the road.





Q: But you're not minimizing the fact that he's going to be pretty


much solidly campaigning for his party's candidates for the last


couple weeks running up to the election?





MR. FLEISCHER: I think I just described to you what the President's


agenda is. It consists of travel on behalf of candidates across the


country, a summit meeting with the President of China, an


international meeting outside the country in Mexico and, of course,


other business.





Q: Is that the proper thing for him to be doing when he's trying to


prepare the nation for war?





MR. FLEISCHER: I think, particularly -- let me put it to you this way.


In all times, whether our nation is at war or our nation is at peace,


what makes us strong is our democratic process. And everybody, in both


parties, should proudly stand up and participate in our democratic


process.





Q:  So when's he having a news conference?





Q: The FISA court chastised the FBI for misrepresenting a lot of what


they're doing with wiretaps, et cetera. There were 75 occurrences. Now


there is a memo that has been -- is in Congress. And the question is,


the President meets with the FBI pretty much every day; has he decided


to take an active interest in this, or is he going to take an active


interest in some of the over-reaches of the FBI?





MR. FLEISCHER: The President has made it clear, and he believes the


FBI is doing this, about the importance of doing two things and doing


the well. One is protecting the American people from the risks that we


face from terrorists who would use our open system to come here and


bring harm to people, and, secondly, to do it within the Constitution,


because it is the Constitution, after all, that fundamentally gives us


our greatest protections. And that is the challenge that law


enforcement faces at all times. And the President is confident the FBI


is doing it well.





Q: Somewhat off of Suzanne's question, as America is preparing for war


overseas, how does the White House propose to keep peace and a


prevention of war here as there are threats from Saddam Hussein, if


there is an invasion there? Can we wage war here? Are we going through


homeland security, first responders, local law enforcement? Are we


going through military and first responders? What -- and what should


America do to prepare for this?





MR. FLEISCHER: Again, there is, unfortunately, some recent history to


this issue. And if you go back to 1991 and then go back to 2001 when


there has been military conflict that the United States has been


involved in, there were talk about potential consequences at home and,


fortunately, nothing materialized. That's as a result of the strong


military actions that we took, helped negate any possibility of any


operations to harm the American people here and abroad, our buttoning


up of embassies that takes place, other acts of protection that we


engage in.





The office -- the Department of Homeland Security has been working


very closely with local governments and first responders to continue


to harden up America's infrastructure, particularly the critical


infrastructure. And those efforts are continuing.





But it is another remind to Congress, Iraq separate and apart, that


Congress must pass legislation to create a department of homeland


security so we can take every step possible to protect the country.


The various agencies are doing a good job of doing it where they are,


but the President thinks it can be done better. And that's why he


wants the department.





Q: But, Ari -- but after 9/11 we've had -- the 9/11 attacks we've had


anthrax, the shooter outside of Washington. You've got a lot of things


going on. How can the average American, let's hit and bring it home,


protect themselves if something were to happen? How would they go


against situations that could happen? I mean, what are we talking


about?





MR. FLEISCHER: I think you're speaking very hypothetically about


protect. And the point I was making is through the first responders


and through the communities that we have, whose whole job it is to be


paid to protect the population, they are working through the first


responders -- local police, local firemen. They have plans that they


work on as a matter of increasing routine to train and prepare for any


eventualities.





But again, I just want to remind you to keep this in perspective. We


have heard previously about if the United States engages in military


action, the likelihood would increase about threats to people here in


the United States. That did not turn out to be the case in either 1991


or 2001. But we are concerned. The risks remain. And, for example,


just last night the FBI put out the notice to law enforcement. But the


message is, really, the American people have hired the law enforcement


community to worry about these issues. And the law enforcement


community is working very hard on those matters.





Q: On the subject of the 9/11 commission, Senator Lieberman and some


others on the Hill say that talks with the White House on that issue


have broken down completely as a result of an ultimatum that the White


House issued regarding several points of contention in the


legislation. In particular, the White House demand that the commission


sunset after one year; also a dispute over how many members of the


commission the White House would be able to appoint. Could you respond


to that?





MR. FLEISCHER: No, the talks have been going very well. We have an


offer up to the Hill now. We're waiting to hear back from the Hill and


we hope that this matter can be brought to fruition. There's no reason


that it can't. This issue, the President thinks, is too important for


Congress not to get it done. And we're working hard to work with the


Congress on it. And we expect that we -- there's no reason that it


should be not be successful.





Q: Is the White House demanding that the commission sunset after one


year, go out of business?





MR. FLEISCHER: Again, I'm not going to get into any of the public


provisions and negotiate those publicly. I specifically am not aware


of every detail that is being reviewed in it. But it's not surprising


that at the end of a negotiation things like the membership on the


commission, things of that nature -- one of the -- always, every time


I've been involved in any commission legislation in the Congress, one


of the most difficult issues is always the composition and membership


of commissions. You have a lot of people who want to be on


commissions. You have a lot of people who want to make the


appointments to commissions. You have important balancing, to make


sure the commission is representative and doesn't tilt toward any one


party or another. These typically do become last-minute, difficult


issues to be worked through on commissions. The point is none of this


should stop the commission from coming into being.





Q: Is it true that the White House issued a take-it-or-leave-it


ultimatum to the senators to --





MR. FLEISCHER: No. This is a two-way street, and we continue to travel


it, and it's important to travel it together.





Q: So you didn't issue an ultimatum saying agree to this by this


afternoon or it's over?





MR. FLEISCHER: No, I have not heard anything about that, Ken, so I


can't say that we have. I haven't heard that, I don't believe that's


the case.





Q: Although it appears the President plans to be campaigning on the


idea that homeland security has not been addressed, Senator Daschle


has indicated he wants to stay in town until that and defense


appropriations and other matters are passed. In addition today, he


announced a four-point plan on the economy, which includes extending


unemployment insurance, providing assistance to states, in addition,


holding an economic summit that has a variety of opinions, not just


those that are in support of the President's agenda. And lastly, his


fourth point was to get rid of the White House economic team and clean


house. And I just wondered if you have a response to that.





MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think the final point makes clear that this is


not a substantive proposal by Senator Daschle. This is just more


political posturing at a time when the American people don't want


anybody pointing fingers; they want help to get the economy going.





But you know, it does seem odd to make all these proposals as Congress


is walking out the door. Why didn't these things get done earlier in


the year? Where was -- the economic packages passed earlier? This is a


Senate that hasn't even passed a budget. So it seems a little late to


start talking about economic issues that the Senate wants to do, when


they fail to act on the ones they have before them right now, and have


had for a year.





Q: And also, in light of the assault -- the high-powered rifle


assaults that are occurring in the Washington area right now, does the


White House have any position on establishing a national ballistic


fingerprint system that would require gun manufacturers to provide


authorities with spent shell casings that could track or trace the


original gun owner?





MR. FLEISCHER: Let me take a look at that. I'm just not aware at that


level of specificity.





Q: You mentioned the summit with the Chinese leader. Can you comment


at all on what the President's expecting out of that meeting?





MR. FLEISCHER: I'll have more for you a little closer to it. The


meeting is some two weeks away. But the President looks forward to


talking about the status of U.S.-China relations, trade between the


United States and China, as a very important matter that has been very


helpful to the American economy. Depending on the international


situation, we'll see what is discussed vis a vis Iraq. I think there


could be a great many matters that are discussed at that meeting. The


President often, when he talks to leaders of China, too, talks about


the importance of religious freedom. That's also a topic that could


possibly come up. We'll see.





Q: Thank you. On another topic, tomorrow there's going to be a very


large Christian Coalition pro-Israeli rally. Does the White House plan


to participate or send any message to them?





MR. FLEISCHER: That's the first I've heard about it, so I don't know.


I'll take a look into it.





Q:  If you can come back --





MR. FLEISCHER:  I'll be sure to look out the window.





Q: A moment ago you praised Senator Daschle's speech on the floor, but


just after he came off the floor he told reporters that he was not


confident that the administration would not view the Iraq resolution


as an absolute green light. Now, if there can be degrees of a green


light, is there anything you could say to him to suggest that his


concerns are unfounded?





MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not sure what that means, about shades of green


lights. The fact of the matter is, the United States Congress will


have spoken rather emphatically today to authorize the use of force


against Iraq if the Commander-in-Chief decides that that is a step


that needs to be taken to protect the country and to preserve the


peace. So Congress is expressing its opinions today, and the President


appreciated the Senator's vote.





Q:  Would you consider it an absolute green light?





MR. FLEISCHER: As I said earlier, in a question earlier, the


President, under the Constitution, has the authority, as


Commander-in-Chief, to exercise military options if he deems it's


necessary. Today the Congress, on behalf of the people, will also


speak and will send a very powerful message around the world that the


Congress agrees with the President and is passing a resolution to


authorize the use of force.





Q: Ari, several of the Democrats who supported this resolution have


stressed that they're not comfortable with it because there are a


number of outstanding questions. Gephardt said last week, we're all


looking through a glass darkly. Daschle today listed five questions


that he has outstanding. I'm wondering, how does the President assess


the quality of the debate that's been on the Hill this week? And does


he think the White House bears any responsibility for unanswered


questions at this point, or does he think that's sort of the nature of


the subject matter?





MR. FLEISCHER: It clearly is the nature of the subject matter. It's


impossible for everybody to know every answer. I think before World


War II people could have made the same case, how can we know the


answer to every question being asked. What the President thinks it's


very, very healthy for the nation is that people are asking these


questions. It's the right thing to do, they ask the questions. But at


the end of the day, the questions are answered to the greatest degree


possible based on all information available, and then the voting


begins, and the people's representatives speak. And that's what's


happening today.





And the President thinks this is part of a great democracy that has


served our country very well for 225 years, because the executive and


the legislature address each other and work together, especially at


times like this. Listen, not a lot is happening in this Congress, not


a lot is getting passed. But today the Congress is speaking with one


voice in support of the President. And the President thinks that sends


a powerful message around the world.





Q: Can I follow and ask you on trade promotion authority, a very


important vote for the President. He worked the phones very hard.


Several of his senior aides worked the phones. I'm wondering, A,


whether that's happened I this case, and B, whether the President is


planning some sort of ceremony where he brings in supporters to mark


the passage of these resolutions.





MR. FLEISCHER: As I indicated earlier, we're observing the timing of


the votes in both the House and the Senate. And if we have any


additions to the schedule, we will keep you apprised.





This vote is not like the trade promotion authority vote. There --


early on, as you know, the President brought many members of the


Congress down to meet with him here at the White House, and I think


that the President's message, the President's leadership, and the


President's strength have helped create an environment where members


of Congress agreed with the arguments the President was making, and


that's showing up in the votes they are casting. And the President


appreciates that.





Typically where Presidents work the phones and get involved in the


last-minute lobbying is when a vote like trade promotion authority


would be a razor-thin margin. That's not the case here. But the


President has repeatedly -- and you've seen the meetings -- talked to


the leaders of the Congress about this, held his weekly breakfasts


with Congressman Gephardt and Senator Daschle, Senator Lott and


Congressman Hastert. And these meetings -- I said "weekly", these are


sometimes once every two or three weeks -- that's been helpful in the


process.





But I think that what fundamentally has happened here is the


President's speech to the United Nations, the arguments that the


President made, and the determinations of members of Congress to


protect the American people from the gathering threat that Saddam


Hussein poses led to today's vote.





Q: Ari, you said that the consequences for failure to comply must be


included in any U.N. resolution. Does that suggest that the U.S. has


decided that it will only accept one resolution, and that the only


question is what the language may be within it?





MR. FLEISCHER: Jim, nothing has changed. Our position remains one


resolution. We are urging them to act on one resolution in which the


consequences are made clear should Saddam Hussein fail to comply.





Q: But you're not suggesting there's any change in position that you


would not accept two? You're not ruling out that, you're not saying


that the U.S. is now saying that it could not accept anything other


than its own position?





MR. FLEISCHER: I can only tell you what we are advocating, and that is


one resolution that has that clause in it.





Q: And in the U.S. view -- the U.S. view is that it should be


included, not that it must be included.





MR. FLEISCHER: The consequence clause? No, the consequence clause must


be in it. The President has made that clear.





A resolution that was passed that failed to say that there were any


consequences is another excuse for Saddam Hussein to play games with


the world. That's why the President thinks it's so important for


consequences to be in there. After all, if the U.N. again says to


Saddam Hussein, you are in violation, we call on you to come into


compliance, and there's nothing else we have to say -- Saddam Hussein


would say, again, they're giving me more time to build up my weapons;


thank you. The President thinks the best way to make sure Saddam


Hussein understands the world is serious is for the world to be


serious. And to be serious, there must be an expression of


consequences.





Q: Iraq threw out today some notion of inviting the U.S., some U.S.


delegation to come over and take a look at things. What do you make of


that?





MR. FLEISCHER:  Say this again?





Q: Iraq threw out some offer today to have a U.S. delegation come over


and do inspections.





MR. FLEISCHER: Oh. Well, again, this matter is not up to Iraq. Iraq


had its say in 1991, when it signed an agreement to end the war and


pledged the conditions for the war's end. And those pledge conditions


included the destruction of its weapons of mass destruction. And this


is why, after 10 years of defiance by Saddam Hussein, it is not up to


Iraq to decide. It is, hopefully, up to the United Nations to decide,


so that the world can know that Saddam Hussein has disarmed.





Q: One last thing if I may. Homeland security doesn't look like it's


going to -- as you indicated. What can you do -- since this was a


fairly high priority for the administration -- what can you do in the


absence of new legislation creating the department to work on homeland


security in a way that not having a department wouldn't allow you to


do? I mean, where do you go from here?





MR. FLEISCHER: Well, it will be a setback if Congress doesn't pass


legislation to create the department of homeland security. It will


make it harder to protect the country. As I indicated, there are a


great many people in the existing agencies in their existing roles,


who are doing all they can to protect the country. What will be


missing is the ability to bring them all together under one roof, so


they can work off of each other to make us stronger. And that's what


would be lost.





Unfortunately, there is nothing that can be done to bring these


agencies together in a legal sense without congressional action. You


can always have intergovernmental working groups, which we currently


have. Those are effective, but they can be made stronger. So it would


be a setback if Congress failed to act.





Q: Ari, according to a published report, 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers


were issued visas that should have been denied under the current U.S.


law. Is this true, and is the President furious about it? And what is


he planning to do about it?





MR. FLEISCHER: I'd have to take a look at that report. If I recall, of


the hijackers that came into the country, most were able to arrive


into the country legally because we are an open system.





Q: The Europeans have offered a deal on International Criminal Court


that would exempt U.S. military personnel and diplomats. Why is that


not enough?





MR. FLEISCHER: The United States continues to feel very strongly that


the International Criminal Court is not in the interests of the United


States, that as we learned in the aftermath of the Serbian attacks on


-- into Kosovo and to Bosnia, that there are existing mechanisms that


can be set up to make certain that people who engage in criminal


wrongdoing can be brought to justice. But under the ICC's charter,


people can be brought before a court even if they do not subscribe to


the International Criminal Court treaty. And the President thinks that


is a way that Americans will ultimately be targeted, often for


political reasons. And we will not and we do not support that.





Q: But the President's objections were that soldiers or diplomats


could be dragged before this court. If they are covered, who else --


what other Americans do you want covered under the -- exempted,


rather?





MR. FLEISCHER: There should be no American who would be subject to an


arbitrary court that could act for capricious reasons.





Q:  No Americans whatsoever?





MR. FLEISCHER:  That's correct.





Q: Can I just ask a question about coalition building? There was a


sense a few weeks ago that the U.S. was willing to act against Iraq.


Then in the last few days we've seen that there would be no way that


the U.S. would act unilaterally because it had an ally in the U.K. And


now today you say that it would have a large coalition. Who else is


there that's going to be part of this large coalition if it doesn't go


the U.N. route?





MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think that I'll let various nations speak for


themselves. There was a description earlier of the types of things


that people are hearing that other nations around the world may engage


in as part of a military coalition. But I think it's fair to say that


it would not be small, a coalition, that -- a coalition of the willing


to protect freedom. And the United States, the United Kingdom and


others have been working to talk to other nations about this. Again,


we hope that this will be done because the United Nations will act.


But there's no assurance. And so to assure the peace, the President


has said that if the U.N. fails to act, we will work with our


coalition.





Q:  You can't give us any more sense of who these others are?





MR. FLEISCHER: I think it's only proper to let other nations speak for


themselves. It's not the role of the American spokesman to do that for


other countries.





THE PRESS:  Thank you.





MR. FLEISCHER:  Thank you.





END      1:32 P.M. EDT





(end transcript)