13 March 2002
Bush Says Israeli Actions Not Helpful in Peace Effort
(President holds White House press conference March 13) (8230)
President Bush says settlement of the Middle East conflict depends on
creation of "conditions for peace," and recent Israeli actions, while
undertaken to defend themselves and fight terror, are "not helpful."
At a March 13 press conference at the White House, Bush said U.S.
Middle East envoy General Anthony Zinni has been sent back to the
region to work to help create those conditions for peace, and "he's
got a lot of work to do. But if I didn't think he could make progress,
I wouldn't have asked him to go." Bush said many phone conversations
with people in the Middle East have led the administration to believe
there is a chance for progress.
Asked about the linkage between the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and
other Middle East issues, Bush said the policy of seeking a settlement
"stands on its own." The need, he said, "is to help save lives. And
we're going to stay involved in the Middle East, and, at the same
time, continue to talk about Iraq and Iran and other nations, and
continue to wage a war on terror."
On Iraq, Bush said he is consulting widely with allies on how to deal
with Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, "but one thing I will not allow is a
nation such as Iraq to threaten our very future by developing weapons
of mass destruction."
He added: "This is a nation run by a man who is willing to kill his
own people by using chemical weapons; a man who won't let inspectors
into the country; a man who's obviously got something to hide. And he
is a problem, and we're going to deal with him. But the first stage is
to consult with our allies and friends, and that's exactly what we're
doing."
Asked about the recently leaked Pentagon review of the U.S. nuclear
weapons strategy, Bush emphasized the deterrent role of the U.S.
nuclear arsenal, and his administration's commitment to reducing the
number of nuclear warheads. At the same time, he said, "we've got all
options on the table, because we want to make it very clear to nations
that you will not threaten the United States or use weapons of mass
destruction against us, or our allies or friends."
Bush said there remains a long struggle ahead against terrorism, but
"I can assure you, I am not going to blink. And I'm not going to get
tired. Because I know what is at stake. And history has called us to
action, and I am going to seize this moment for the good of the world,
for peace in the world and for freedom."
Following is a transcript of the press conference:
(begin transcript)
Office of the Press Secretary
March 13, 2002
Press Conference by the President
The James S. Brady Briefing Room
THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon. Tomorrow the Senate Judiciary Committee
will vote on the nomination of Charles Pickering to serve on the
United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. Judge Pickering is
a respected and well-qualified nominee who was unanimously confirmed
12 years ago to the District bench. His nomination deserves a full
vote, a vote in a full Senate. I strongly urge his confirmation.
While tomorrow's vote is about one man, a much larger principle is
also at stake. Under our Constitution, the President has the right and
responsibility to nominate qualified judges, and the Legislative
Branch has the responsibility to vote on them in a fair and timely
manner. This process determines the quality of justice in America, and
it demands that both the President and Senate act with care and
integrity, with wisdom and deep respect for the Constitution.
Unfortunately, we are seeing a disturbing pattern, where too often
judicial confirmations are being turned into ideological battles that
delay justice and hurt our democracy. We now face a situation in which
a handful of United States senators on one committee have made it
clear that they will block nominees, even highly-qualified,
well-respected nominees, who do not share the senators' view of the
bench, of the federal courts. They seek to undermine the nominations
of candidates who agree with my philosophy that judges should
interpret the law, not try to make law from the bench.
And because these senators fear the outcome of a fair vote in the full
Senate, they're using tactics of delay. As a result, America is facing
a vacancy crisis in the federal judiciary. Working with both
Republicans and Democrats, I have nominated 92 highly-qualified,
highly-respected individuals to serve as federal judges. These are men
and women who will respect and follow the law. Yet the Senate has
confirmed only 40 of these 92 nominees, and only 7 of the 29 nominees
to the circuit courts, the courts of last resort in a vast majority of
cases.
This is unacceptable. It is a bad record for the Senate. The Senate
has an obligation to provide fair hearings and prompt votes to all
nominees, no matter who controls the Senate or who controls the White
House. By failing to allow full Senate votes on judicial nominees, a
few senators are standing in the way of justice. This is wrong, and
the American people deserve better.
I will now be glad to answer a few questions, starting with Fournier.
Q: Thank you, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: You are Fournier, aren't you?
Q: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: I'm looking at my chart here. (Laughter.) Yes?
Q: The Pentagon is calling for the development of low-yield nuclear
weapons that could be used against China, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North
Korea, Russia, and Syria. Can you explain why the United States is
considering this new policy, and how it might figure into the war on
terrorism?
THE PRESIDENT: I presume you're referring to the nuclear review that
was recently in the press. Well, first of all, the nuclear review is
not new. It's gone on for previous administrations. Secondly, the
reason we have a nuclear arsenal that I hope is modern, upgraded, and
can work, is to deter any attack on America. The reason one has a
nuclear arsenal is to serve as a deterrence.
Secondly, ours is an administration that's committed to reducing the
amount of warheads, and we're in consultations now with the Russians
on such a -- on this matter. We've both agreed to reduce our warheads
down to 1,700 to 2,200. I talked with Sergey Ivanov yesterday, the
Minister of Defense from Russia, on this very subject.
I think one of the interesting points that we need to develop and
fully explore is how best to verify what's taking place, to make sure
that there's confidence in both countries. But I'm committed to
reducing the amount of nuclear weaponry and reducing the number of
nuclear warheads. I think it's the right policy for America, and I
know we can continue to do so and still keep a deterrence.
Q: Why a policy, though, that might go after a country like Libya or
Syria?
THE PRESIDENT: First of all, we've got all options on the table,
because we want to make it very clear to nations that you will not
threaten the United States or use weapons of mass destruction against
us, or our allies or friends.
Q: Do you agree with Kofi Annan that Israel must end the illegal
occupation of Palestinian lands? And how is the Israeli offensive
going to complicate General Zinni's mission?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, it is important to create
conditions for peace in the Middle East. It's important for both sides
to work hard to create the conditions of a potential settlement. Now,
our government has provided a security plan that has been agreed to by
both the Israelis and the Palestinians called the Tenet plan. And
George Mitchell did good work providing a pathway for a political
settlement, once conditions warranted.
Frankly, it's not helpful what the Israelis have recently done in
order to create conditions for peace. I understand someone trying to
defend themselves and to fight terror. But the recent actions aren't
helpful. And so Zinni's job is to go over there and work to get
conditions such that we can get into Tenet. And he's got a lot of work
to do. But I didn't think he could make progress, I wouldn't have
asked him to go.
During the announcement of the Zinni mission, I said there was -- we
had a lot of phone conversations with people in the Middle East which
led us to believe that there is a chance to create -- to get into
Tenet, or at least create the conditions to get into Tenet. And I've
taken that chance, and it's the right course of action at this point,
Steve.
Q: Mr. President, let me look at what happened Monday with the INS
visa approvals for Atta and Alshehhi, and ask the requisite three-part
question. Let me ask you, first of all, how high did the hair on the
back of your neck rise when you heard about that? How can the American
people have any faith in the credibility of the INS and its
anti-terrorist efforts? And what can you do, both immediately and for
the long-term, to assure nothing like that ever happens again?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it got my attention this morning when I read
about that. I was stunned, and not happy. Let me put it another way --
I was plenty hot. And I made that clear to people in my
administration. I don't know if the Attorney General has acted yet
today or not, I haven't seen the wire story, but -- he has. He got the
message. And so should the INS.
The INS needs to be reformed. And it's one of the reasons why I called
for the separation of the paperwork side of the INS from the
enforcement side. And, obviously, the paperwork side needs a lot of
work. It's inexcusable. So we've got to reform the INS and we've got
to push hard to do so. This is an interesting wake-up call for those
who run the INS. We are modernizing our system, John, and it needs to
be modernized, so we know who's coming in and who's going out and why
they're here.
Q: What does this say, sir, about the credibility of the INS and its
anti-terrorism --
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it says they've got a lot of work to do. It says
that the information system is antiquated. And having said that, they
are -- they got the message, and hopefully, they'll reform as quickly
as possible. But, yes, it got my attention in a negative way.
Q: Mr. President, there's a growing crisis in the Catholic Church
right now, involving pedophilia. And the crisis is exploding in
Boston, under the watch of Cardinal Law, who you know. Do you think
the archdiocese there is acting swiftly enough to deal with the issue
of pedophilia among the ranks of priests?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I know many in the hierarchy of the Catholic
Church; I know them to be men of integrity and decency. They're
honorable people. I was just with Cardinal Egan today. And I'm
confident the Church will clean up its business and do the right
thing. As to the timing, I haven't, frankly -- I'm not exactly aware
of the -- how fast or how not fast they're moving. I just can tell you
I trust the leadership of the Church.
Q: Do you think Cardinal Law should resign?
THE PRESIDENT: That's up to the Church. I know Cardinal Law to be a
man of integrity; I respect him a lot.
Q: Vice President Cheney is on the road now trying to build support
for possible action against Iraq. If you don't get that, down the road
you decide you want to take action, would you take action against Iraq
unilaterally?
THE PRESIDENT: One of the things I've said to our friends is that we
will consult, that we will share our views of how to make the world
more safe. In regards to Iraq, we're doing just that. Every world
leader that comes to see me, I explain our concerns about a nation
which is not conforming to agreements that it made in the past; a
nation which has gassed her people in the past; a nation which has
weapons of mass destruction and apparently is not afraid to use them.
And so one of the -- what the Vice President is doing is he's
reminding people about this danger, and that we need to work in
concert to confront this danger. Again, all options are on the table,
and -- but one thing I will not allow is a nation such as Iraq to
threaten our very future by developing weapons of mass destruction.
They've agreed not to have those weapons; they ought to conform to
their agreement, comply with their agreement.
Yes, John.
Q: It seems to me -- you seem to be saying, yes, you would consult
with the allies and others, including in the Mideast, but if you had
to, you'd go ahead and take action yourself.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you're answering the question for me. If I can
remember the exact words, I'll say it exactly the way I said it
before. We are going to consult. I am deeply concerned about Iraq. And
so should the American people be concerned about Iraq. And so should
people who love freedom be concerned about Iraq.
This is a nation run by a man who is willing to kill his own people by
using chemical weapons; a man who won't let inspectors into the
country; a man who's obviously got something to hide. And he is a
problem, and we're going to deal with him. But the first stage is to
consult with our allies and friends, and that's exactly what we're
doing.
Everybody here on the front row? John?
Q: Mr. President, on the question of Iraq, how does the increased
violence between the Israelis and the Palestinians affect what Vice
President Cheney is trying to do, and affect the case you're trying to
make with our Arab allies for a regime change, or just unconditional
inspections?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I understand that the unrest in the Middle East
creates unrest throughout the region, more so now than ever in the
past. But we're concerned about the Middle East, John, because it's
affecting the lives of the Palestinians and our friends, the Israelis.
I mean, it's a terrible period of time, when a lot of people are
losing their lives, needlessly losing life. And terrorists are holding
a potential peace process hostage.
And so while I understand the linkage, for us the policy stands on its
own. The need for us to involved in the Middle East is to help save
lives. And we're going to stay involved in the Middle East, and, at
the same time, continue to talk about Iraq and Iran and other nations,
and continue to wage a war on terror, which is exactly what we're
doing.
I want to reiterate what I said the other day. Our policy is to deny
sanctuary to terrorists anyplace in the world, and we will be very
active in doing that.
Q: But on the question of the Palestinians, Sharon has said that he
shares your concern for those not involved in terror. Do you still
think that's the case?
THE PRESIDENT: I do. But, unlike our war against al Qaeda, there is a
series of agreements in place that will lead to peace. And, therefore,
we're going to work hard to see if we can't, as they say, get into
Tenet and eventually Mitchell. I do -- I certainly hope that Prime
Minister Sharon is concerned about the loss of innocent life. We
certainly -- I certainly am. It breaks my heart and I know it breaks
the heart of a lot of people around the world to see young children
lose their life as a result of violence -- young children on both
sides of this issue.
This is an issue that's consuming a lot of the time of my
administration. And we have an obligation to continue to work for
peace in the region and we will. We will. The two are not mutually
exclusive.
Q: Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention
Osama bin Laden. Why is that? Also, can you tell the American people
if you have any more information, if you know if he is dead or alive?
Final part -- deep in your heart, don't you truly believe that until
you find out if he is dead or alive, you won't really eliminate the
threat of --
THE PRESIDENT: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's
alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't
heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person
is -- really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the
mission.
Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's
now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been
destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited
it, and met his match. He is -- as I mentioned in my speech, I do
mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit
youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide -- if, in
fact, he's hiding at all.
So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much
time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. I'm more worried about
making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is
clear; that the coalition is strong; that when we find enemy bunched
up like we did in Shahikot Mountains, that the military has all the
support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did.
And there will be other battles in Afghanistan. There's going to be
other struggles like Shahikot, and I'm just as confident about the
outcome of those future battles as I was about Shahikot, where our
soldiers are performing brilliantly. We're tough, we're strong,
they're well-equipped. We have a good strategy. We are showing the
world we know how to fight a guerrilla war with conventional means.
Q: But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't
truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I
wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure.
And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I
truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was
concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned
about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling
the shots for the Taliban.
But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he
became -- we shoved him out more and more on the margins. He has no
place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore. And if we -- excuse me
for a minute -- and if we find a training camp, we'll take care of it.
Either we will or our friends will. That's one of the things -- part
of the new phase that's becoming apparent to the American people is
that we're working closely with other governments to deny sanctuary,
or training, or a place to hide, or a place to raise money.
And we've got more work to do. See, that's the thing the American
people have got to understand, that we've only been at this six
months. This is going to be a long struggle. I keep saying that; I
don't know whether you all believe me or not. But time will show you
that it's going to take a long time to achieve this objective. And I
can assure you, I am not going to blink. And I'm not going to get
tired. Because I know what is at stake. And history has called us to
action, and I am going to seize this moment for the good of the world,
for peace in the world and for freedom.
Mike Allen. I'm working my way back, slowly but surely. Michael.
Q: Mr. President, a bipartisan group of lawmakers has asked Governor
Ridge to testify about the administration's domestic homeland security
efforts. Why has the White House said that Governor Ridge will not
testify?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, he's not -- he doesn't have to testify; he's a
part of my staff, and that's part of the prerogative of the Executive
Branch of government. And we hold that very dear.
Q: Mr. President, that's another area, along with the war and the
development of the energy policy --
THE PRESIDENT: This wasn't a trick question, Mike -- get me to say
that and then kind of have a quick follow-up? But go ahead.
Q: No, sir. But that's an area where Congress has said members of both
parties have told us they're not getting enough information from the
White House.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, Mike, Mike, we consult with Congress all the time.
I've had meaningful breakfasts with the leadership in the House and
the Senate. I break bread with both Republicans and Democrats right
back here in the Oval Office, and have a good, honest discussion about
plans, objectives, what's taking place, what's not taking place. We
have members of our Cabinet briefing. Condoleezza Rice is in touch
with the members of the Congress. We are in touch with -- we
understand the role of the Congress. We must justify budgets to
Congress. And so I don't buy that, to be frank with you.
Q: Mr. President, given --
THE PRESIDENT: Mike, this is the third. Two follow-ups is a record.
Keep trying.
Q: Given that you've not convinced everyone in your own party of that,
to what degree are you trying to recalibrate the power between
Congress and the presidency?
THE PRESIDENT: Mike, I'm just doing my job. We'll let all the kind of
legal historians figure all that out, you know.
First of all, I'm not going to let Congress erode the power of the
Executive Branch. I have a duty to protect the Executive Branch from
legislative encroachment. I mean, for example, when the GAO demands
documents from us, we're not going to give them to them. These were
privileged conversations. These were conversations when people come
into our offices and brief us. Can you imagine having to give up every
single transcript of what is -- advised me or the Vice President? Our
advice wouldn't be good and honest and open.
And so I viewed that as an encroachment on the power of the Executive
Branch. I have an obligation to make sure that the presidency remains
robust and the Legislative Branch doesn't end up running the Executive
Branch. On the other hand, there's plenty of consultation, Mike. I
don't know what single Republican you're referring to. But if you'd
give me the name afterwards, I'll be glad to have him over for another
consultation, if you know what I mean. (Laughter.)
Q: Mr. President, when you endorsed the Saudi plan on the Middle East,
or the Saudi vision, it called, of course, for full normalization of
relations between Israel and the Arab states. You've seen some backing
away from that now by some other Arab countries and, in fact, by the
Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia. Can you imagine endorsing a plan
that calls for anything other than full normalization, anything less
than full normalization?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think the thing -- in order for there to be a
plan that is acceptable to all parties, it must recognize the right of
Israel to exist. And that's what I thought was very encouraging from
the Saudi declaration. It was the first such declaration, if I'm not
mistaken -- David, you probably know that better than me -- but that
the Crown Prince said there ought to be an independent state, but that
recognizes Israel. That's how I interpreted it -- Israel's right to
exist. And I think that's a very important declaration. That's why we
seized on that. I have said the same thing myself, but it obviously
didn't have nearly the same weight as the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia
in saying that.
Q: Normalization means something a little deeper than that.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, but, first of all, there's nothing more deep than
recognizing Israel's right to exist. That's the most deep thought of
all. After all, there are some skeptics who think that nations in that
part of the world don't want Israel to exist. The first and most
important qualification, it seems like to me, for there to be peace is
for people in the region to recognize Israel's right to exist. And,
therefore, policies ought to follow along those lines. I can't think
of anything more deep than that right, that ultimate and final
security.
And when the Crown Prince indicated that was on his mind, we embraced
that, strongly embraced that.
Go ahead --
Q: I was about to say, just a moment ago, you said that many of your
allies are joining you in the war on terrorism. You do have a number
of countries right now that seem to be right in the middle --
Indonesia, Somalia -- places that you've been worried about, but that
have not asked for our training, our help. Would you consider going
into a country that did not seek your aid?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that's one of those pretty cleverly worded
hypotheticals. Let me put it to you this way, David: We will take
actions necessary to protect American people. And I'm going to leave
it at that. That's a good question, however.
Yes?
Q: Mr. President, back to nuclear issues, the Russian Defense Minister
expressed the hope today that agreements on the New Strategic
Framework could be signed by the time of your visit next May in
Moscow. Is it realistic? And second, are you ready to sign documents
in a treaty form? And third, have you made progress on the issue of
destroying versus storing nuclear warheads?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I share the Minister's optimism that we can get
something done by May. I'd like to sign a document in Russia when I'm
there, I think it would be a good thing. And, therefore, we've got to
make sure that those who are interested in making sure that the Cold
War relationship continues on are kind of pushed in the background. In
other words, we've got to work hard to establish a new relationship.
I also agree with President Putin that there needs to be a document
that outlives both of us. What form that comes in, we will discuss.
There is a -- I think David asked me this question, as a matter of
fact, back in Slovenia, if I'm not mistaken, about storage versus
destruction. We'd be glad to talk to the Russians about that. I think
the most important thing, though, is verification, is to make sure
whatever decision is made, that there is open verification so as to
develop a level of trust.
There is a constraint, as well. I mean, the destruction of nuclear
warheads requires a lot of work and a lot of detailed work, and that,
in itself, is going to take time, and that's got to be a part of the
equation, as well.
But those are all issues we're discussing. I had a good -- very good
discussion with Sergey Ivanov yesterday. I'm confident that President
Putin is interested in making a deal, coming up with a good
arrangement that will codify a new relationship. The more Russia --
the more we work with Russia, the better the world will be. And we've
got a good, close relationship with them. We've got a few sticking
points. We've got an issue on chickens, for example, that some of you
have followed. We made it pretty darned clear to them that I think
we've got to get this chicken issue resolved and get those chickens
moving from the United States into the Russian market. We laugh, but
nevertheless it is a problem -- that we must honor agreements. But I
believe we're going to have great relations with Russia and we're
going to work hard to achieve them.
Q: Mr. President, can I ask about the debt limit, sir? And,
specifically, about the Treasury Secretary's plan to borrow cash from
the federal retirement funds. Can you justify that to the American
people, sir?
THE PRESIDENT: I'm not going to comment on the Secretary of Treasury's
plan. I'll tell you what I think ought to happen. I think Congress
ought to pass a clean bill that raises the debt ceiling, and I'll sign
it. I think it's important. I hope we can get that kind of spirit out
of Congress. If they do that, it will solve the problem. We don't need
to be playing politics with the debt ceiling, particularly now that
we're at war.
And we're working with the Congress on that. I've had pretty good
discussions with the leadership about the need to get a clean bill
coming. And I hope they do. I hope they listen, I hope they respond.
Q: There are those who will say that borrowing from the federal
retirement funds is also a form of playing politics --
THE PRESIDENT: Well, if the Congress passes the bill, we're fine. And
we've got to get that done. It's their responsibility to get the debt
ceiling raised. I hope they do it quickly and soon. And we're going to
work with them to get it done.
Q: Mr. President, what do you make of the dust-up over the nuclear
review? And have you made any decisions about its recommendations? In
particular, what is your view about building smaller nuclear weapons,
which some people believe would make them more likely to be used?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, I view our nuclear arsenal as a
deterrent, as a way to say to people that would harm America, don't do
it. That's a deterrent, that there's a consequence. And the President
must have all options available to make that deterrent have meaning.
That's how I view the review.
Q: But what is your thinking, sir, on smaller nuclear weapons, which
some analysts believe would be a major departure and would make them
more likely --
THE PRESIDENT: My interest is -- Jim, my interest is to reduce the
threat of a nuclear war, is to reduce the number of nuclear warheads.
I think we've got plenty of warheads to keep the peace. I'm interested
in -- and that's what I told President Putin and told the country. If
need be, we'll just reduce unilaterally to a level commiserate with
keeping a deterrence and keeping the peace.
So I'm interested in having all -- having an arsenal at my disposal,
or at the military's disposal, that will keep the peace. We're a
peaceful nation and moving along just right and just kind of having a
time, and all of a sudden, we get attacked and now we're at war, but
we're at war to keep the peace.
And it's very important for people in America to understand that at
least my attitude on this is that we're not out to seek revenge. Sure,
we're after justice. But I also view this as a really good opportunity
to create a lasting peace.
And so, therefore, the more firm we are and the more determined we are
to take care of al Qaeda and deal with terrorism in all its forms,
particularly that of global reach, that we have a very good chance of
solving some difficult problems -- including the Middle East, or the
subcontinent. But it's going to require a resolve and firmness from
the United States of America.
One of the things I've learned in my discussions, and at least
listening to the echo chamber out there in the world, is that if the
United States were to waver, some in the world would take a nap when
it comes to the war on terror. And we're just not going to let them do
that. And that's why you hear me spend a lot of time talking to the
American people -- at least, I hope I'm talking to them, through you
-- about why this is going to take a long period of time, and why I'm
so determined to remain firm in my resolve. And -- anyway.
Q: Mr. President, could I --
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, sir? You asked the softest. (Laughter.)
Q: I'd like to ask you about the public service component of your
initiative as it --
THE PRESIDENT: The what, now?
Q: The public service initiative of yours as it relates to the war,
which you've just said again, that could go on for quite a while. As
we all know, 18-year-old men in this country, when they turn 18,
they're required to register with the draft, which is now dormant, but
could be activated again. At this time, and we're looking at sort of
an unlimited situation with this war, should the country expect the
same of women in this country?
THE PRESIDENT: You mean in terms of the draft? Well, the country
shouldn't expect there to be a draft. I know they're registering. But
the volunteer army is working. Particularly when Congress passes my
budget, it's going to make it more likely to work. There's been a pay
raise and then we'll have another pay raise. And the mission is clear,
the training is good, the equipment is going to be robust. Congress
needs to pass this budget.
So I don't worry about, and people shouldn't worry about a draft. We
do have women in the military and I'm proud of their service. And
they're welcome in the military; they make a great addition in the
military.
Q: You don't think --
THE PRESIDENT: Pardon me?
Q: -- that the military will be stretched too thinly, as some people
have feared?
THE PRESIDENT: Ed, I don't think so. I think we're in pretty good
shape right now. It's -- there's no question we have obligations
around the world, which we will keep. If you went to -- did you go to
Korea with us?
Q: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: There's a major obligation there of 37,000 troops, an
obligation that is an important obligation, one that I know is
important and we will keep that obligation. But we've got ample
manpower to meet our needs.
Plus we've got a vast coalition of nations willing to lend their own
manpower to the war. And as I mentioned the other day in my speech
there on the South Lawn, 17 nations are involved in this first theater
in Afghanistan. And we had Canadians and Danish and Germans and
Australians -- I'm probably going to leave somebody out -- Brits,
Special Forces troops on the ground, boots on the ground, as they say,
willing to risk their lives in a dangerous phase of this war. And men
going cave to cave, looking for killers. These people don't like to
surrender, they don't surrender. But we've been able to count on
foreign troops to help us.
And so, Ed, I think we're in good shape, I really do. And, if not,
we'll -- I'll address the nation. But I don't see any need to right
now.
Q: Will you take one on Mexico?
THE PRESIDENT: Si.
Q: You are going to my country next week.
THE PRESIDENT: Es la verdad.
Q: Besides what President Fox presented to you last year, you haven't
acted in favor of the Mexican proposal by the President of Mexico. You
haven't presented anything to Congress.
THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me a second, what proposal are you talking
about?
Q: The one the President Fox mentioned --
THE PRESIDENT: In specific. I don't mean to interrupt you.
Q: The regularization of --
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, the immigration issue?
Q: Yes, the immigration issue. So when are you going to present any
concrete steps in that direction for Mexico?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, we are working closely with Mexico.
We've had many of our administration officials down there. Tom Ridge
just came back; he had a very good dialogue with President Fox. John
Ashcroft has been very much involved with the Mexican government. We
have had wide-ranging discussions as to how to make the border work
better, how to make the border more secure for both countries. We've
had a really good dialogue.
Some of what needs to be done didn't require law. I'm glad you brought
that up. We just got 245(I) passed in the House of Representatives.
Hopefully, that will come out of the Senate quickly. That's a step
toward -- that's a good reform, is one that I support. I also
cautioned President Fox at the time that there will be no blanket
amnesty in America. I don't think the will of the American people are
for blanket amnesty. I think he understands that.
And so, therefore, the thing we've got to do is figure out how to make
sure willing employers are able to match up with willing employees.
And so we'll work -- we're making progress; 245(I) is good progress.
Q: Mr. President, do you believe there is an American pilot from the
Gulf War still alive in Iraq? And if so, how might that complicate any
actions you consider --
THE PRESIDENT: Well, let me just say this to you. I know that the man
has got an MIA status. And it reminds me once again about the nature
of Saddam Hussein, if, in fact, he's alive. And, therefore, it's just
another part of my thinking about him, my, I guess, lack of respect is
a good way to define it.
Q: Does it complicate any action you might take, you might consider
taking against Iraq in the war on terror?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that's where we're -- this is the old
hypothetical again. And let me just put it this way: It doesn't change
my opinion about him. Matter of fact, it reinforces the fact that
anybody who would be so cold and heartless as to hold an American
flyer for all this period of time without notification to his family
just -- I wouldn't put it past him, given the fact that he gassed his
own people.
Q: Mr. President --
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, ma'am?
Q: Okay, thank you. Do you officially recognize the Zimbabwe
elections? And what are your thoughts about Mugabe? And also on
Pickering, what are your thoughts --
THE PRESIDENT: Wait, whoa, whoa. (Laughter.) Wait a minute. This is
all over the lot. (Laughter.) Wait a minute; all over the lot.
Q: Mr. President, when I get a chance with you, I have to take it.
THE PRESIDENT: You talk about somebody taking the liberty of a --
Q: When I get a chance with you, I have to take it.
THE PRESIDENT: I can see that. (Laughter.) Go ahead, take it.
Q: Okay.
THE PRESIDENT: Is this a six-part question?
Q: No, it's only three.
THE PRESIDENT: Three, okay. (Laughter.) Let me start writing them
down. First one is Zimbabwe -- go ahead.
Q: Yes, and with Pickering --
THE PRESIDENT: Pickering --
Q: -- what are your thoughts about many of your nominees who are
opposed have issues with racial bias, including Pickering?
THE PRESIDENT: Yeah, okay. That's two.
Q: Okay.
THE PRESIDENT: You're going to limit it to two? Thank you very much.
Q: Yes, you're welcome.
THE PRESIDENT: That's a good break.
First on Pickering -- Pickering has got a very strong record on civil
rights. Just ask the people he lives with. I had the honor of meeting
the Attorney General of Mississippi, Moore, Attorney General Moore.
Fine Democrat, elected statewide in the state of Mississippi. A man
who, I suspect, is a man who got elected because he cares deeply about
the civil rights of his citizens, came up and sat in the Oval Office
and said, Judge Pickering has had a fine record on civil rights and
should be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. I hope the senators hear that.
I hope they listen to Moore. Or Al Gore's brother-in-law, or the
former governor of Mississippi, Winters.
Zimbabwe. We do not recognize the outcome of the election because we
think it's flawed. And we are dealing with -- and we are dealing with
our friends to figure out how to deal with this flawed election.
Q: What are the options then?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we're dealing with our friends right now to
figure out how to deal with it.
Q: The House is voting on class action reform this evening. Given the
current political atmosphere, do you want to enact new legal reforms
into law this year? And, if so, which ones are you going to --
THE PRESIDENT: Well, here's the thing. I am for reducing the number of
lawsuits in our society. I think everybody will have their day in
court, but I think a society that is so kind of litigious-oriented is
one that is bad for jobs, bad for the creation of jobs. And if any
reform -- I will support reforms which reduce lawsuits and at the same
time provide -- give people the opportunity to take their case to
court.
Q: Are there any ones you want to pursue?
THE PRESIDENT: Stretch. Super Stretch, Little Stretch. Regular
Stretch. (Laughter.)
Q: Last week, sir, you announced an ambitious set of changes to make
it easier for the government to crack down on corporate wrongdoing.
Yet Republicans in Congress and your own SEC Chairman says,
essentially, a lot more money than you proposed will be needed to do
the job effectively. I'm talking about the --
THE PRESIDENT: You're talking about when I called on the SEC to enact
laws to make sure that corporate CEOs take responsibility for their
books, make sure that when somebody says they've got X amount in
liabilities, that X equals X and not X equals Y, or something less
than X. Yes, I strongly believe that, and the SEC needs to get after
it. And I don't use the excuse of not enough money in the budget,
frankly. I need to know the numbers. But we need action. And we need
reasonable action, without causing a plethora of lawsuits.
Q: I wanted to ask about the second phase of the war. As a member of
the Vietnam generation, do you worry as you send these military
advisors all over the world, typically to chaotic places, that they
may get involved in direct conflict and the situation could escalate?
And are you prepared to do that?
THE PRESIDENT: Interesting question. Hutch, let me tell you something,
I believe this war is more akin to World War II than it is to Vietnam.
This is a war in which we fight for the liberties and freedom of our
country.
Secondly, I understand there's going to be loss of life and that
people are going to -- and the reason I bring that up is because for a
while, at least for a period it seemed to be that the definition of
success in war was nobody lost their life. Nobody grieves harder than
I do when we lose a life. I feel responsible for sending the troops
into harm's way. It breaks my heart when I see a mom sitting on the
front row of a speech and she's weeping, openly weeping for the loss
of her son. It's -- it just -- I'm not very good about concealing my
emotions. But I strongly believe we're doing the right thing.
And, Hutch, the idea of denying sanctuary is vital to protect America.
And we're going to be, obviously, judicious and wise about how we
deploy troops. I learned some good lessons from Vietnam. First, there
must be a clear mission. Secondly, the politics ought to stay out of
fighting a war. There was too much politics during the Vietnam War.
There was too much concern in the White House about political
standing. And I've got great confidence in General Tommy Franks, and
great confidence in how this war is being conducted. And I rely on
Tommy, just like the Secretary of Defense relies upon Tommy and his
judgment -- whether or not we ought to deploy and how we ought to
deploy.
Tommy knows the lessons of Vietnam just as well as I do. Both of us --
he was a, he graduated from high school in '63, and you and I
graduated in '64. We're of the same vintage. We paid attention to what
was going on. And so -- I think it was '64, wasn't it?
Q: No, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh. (Laughter.) You're not that old. You're not that
old.
I'll give you an interesting fact -- I don't know if you all know this
or not, speaking about Tommy. But Tommy Franks went to Midland Lee
High School, class of '63. Laura Bush went to Midland Lee High School,
class of '64. That's an interesting thing for the social columns.
(Laughter.) For those of you who allow for your news-gathering to slip
into social items. (Laughter.) Or social gossip, which sometimes
happens -- it doesn't happen that much.
Q: Did they know each other?
THE PRESIDENT: No. (Laughter.)
Elizabeth?
Q: Mr. President, who do you hold responsible for the failure of the
INS this week? I see the Attorney General said he was going to hold
individuals responsible --
THE PRESIDENT: Going to do -- hold --
Q: Hold individuals responsible.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, let's see what the Inspector General comes back
with. But obviously, I named a good man to run it, Zigler, and he's
held accountable. His responsibility is to reform the INS; let's give
him time to do so. He hasn't been there that long. But he now has got
another wake-up call. The first wake-up call was from me; this agency
needs to be reformed. And secondly, he got another one with this
embarrassing disclosure today that, as I mentioned, got the
President's attention this morning. I could barely get my coffee down
when I opened up my local newspaper. Well, a newspaper. (Laughter.)
Q: Mr. President, back on the Middle East, sir, can you tell us what
was behind the timing of pursuing a U.N. resolution at this point
regarding a future Palestinian state?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, there was a -- sometimes these resolutions just
get a life of their own. And sometimes we have to veto them, and
sometimes we can help -- help the message. This time, we felt like we
were able to make the message a clear message that we agreed with. If
it was a message that tried to isolate or condemn our friend, I'd have
vetoed it. In this case, it was a universal message that could lead to
a more peaceful -- a peaceful world. And so we supported it. As a
matter of fact, we helped engineer it; we were a part of the process.
And, as to the timing, I don't know the timing. All I know is the
things start showing up on my desk. And --
Q: When did it start showing up on your radar screen, sir?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, desk or radar screen, same thing. About 24 hours
ago. And I heard from the Secretary of State and Condoleezza Rice that
there was a little movement afoot there at the Security Council. And
so we made a decision, a conscious decision to try to send a statement
that it was a hopeful statement. It turned out to be a good statement,
by the way. It was one of those statements that was embraced by all
the parties except for one that couldn't bring themselves to vote for
it, Syria.
But, again, we are working hard to create the conditions for a
security arrangement that will then enable the Mitchell process to
kick in. I know you all are tired of hearing me say that. But unlike
other parts of the world, in this part of the world, Tenet and
Mitchell have been agreed to by both parties, which means there is a
hopeful process if we can get people into the process. And so our
mission is to do that. And that's why Zinni is over there.
Listen, I want to thank you very much. I've enjoyed this press
conference. I hope you have, as well. Thank you.
(end transcript)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
