14 January 2003
White House Press Briefing Transcript
(President's schedule, personnel announcements, North Korea, Iraq,
affirmative action case, welfare reform, civil rights/President's
philosophy, dividend tax cut/Secretary O'Neill's remarks, news
organizations/policy on election results, tax cut/economic indicators)
(6270)
White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer briefed.
Following is a transcript of the briefing:
(begin transcript)
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
January 14, 2003
PRESS BRIEFING BY ARI FLEISCHER
INDEX
President's schedule
Personnel announcements
North Korea
Iraq
Affirmative action case
Welfare reform
Civil rights/President's philosophy
Dividend tax cut/Secretary O'Neill's remarks
News organizations/policy on election results
Tax cut/economic indicators
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
10:45 A.M. EST
MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon -- or good morning. Thank you, that's
right. It's not our usual practice here to have these early briefings.
Because of the President's meeting with the President of Poland, and
then the lunch, I wanted to move it all up today. So what I'd like to
do is give you a combination gaggle/briefing, so I'll get into in some
length on the President's schedule today. A couple personnel
announcements I typically do in the gaggle, and then we'll take your
questions, as usual.
The President began this morning with his intelligence briefing,
followed by an FBI briefing. He will meet shortly with the President
of Poland in the Oval Office, to be followed by a lunch with the
President of Poland. I anticipate that the topic of conversation will
include the strength and the importance of the warm bilateral
relationships that we share with Poland. I think there will be some
discussion of trade, NATO expansion, as well as discussions of the
ongoing efforts in the war against terror.
Later this afternoon, in the East Room -- that will be a pool event at
the top in the Oval. In the East Room, the President will make remarks
to welfare-to-work graduates. The President will congratulate the
welfare-to-work graduates on their success, highlight the importance
of work and family, and then announce his support for bipartisan
congressional action on a welfare reform package that the President
will announce today.
Fact sheets will be available to you to walk you through the specifics
of what the President is proposing. And I want to describe to you,
too, the women that the President is going to meet with today who are
real success stories when it comes to helping people make it in
America who were previously on welfare.
Pamela Hedrick will join the President. She was on public assistance
for eight years when she lived in Columbus, Ohio's notorious public
housing development, the Greenbriar Apartments complex, which was
often there referred to as "Uzi Alley." She's a single mother on
welfare. She was determined to help clean up her community, and she
organized her neighborhood block watch.
She volunteered at the Greenbriar Enrichment Center, a faith-based
program started in the public housing development where she lived, and
she helped organize a woman's support group. The program offered
training and volunteer work opportunities around the city. And she
volunteered at the United Way and was also hired as a receptionist
there. She eventually was hired by Ohio's First Lady Hope Taft, and
has been working as an assistant in her office for the past two years.
She participated in the Habitat for Humanity program, and earned
enough money to purchase a house, which she lives in with her husband,
Martia Jackson, and their two children, Dante and Darius. She attends
the Columbus Community College, with a major in political science. And
she hopes one day to run for elected office.
Another person the President is going to be greeting as a sign of
welfare success is Lorey Wilson, who grew up in a household that
received welfare, and as a teenage mother she became welfare-dependent
following high school graduation. She tried several times to find
work, and was hired in 1989 by Cellular One. She had to leave her job
and enroll in TANF and take care of health care needs of her children.
And then she later found a new job at a private sector company, but
was laid off when the factory she worked at shut down.
She turned to a community center in Indianapolis, where she received
counseling and access to training and resources that helped improve
her employability. And she eventually found a part-time job with a
private company. And through a job-training program, she currently
obtained a job as an office manager and has been working now full-time
for a private sector company. She's used her success and her funds to
purchase a home and her vehicle. And she's very proud, and she will
report to the President that her two children are A students.
The reason I go through this at great length is because this is, to
the President, the essence of what welfare reform is all about. It is
not just a program involving government numbers and federal spending.
It's how to improve the lives of some of our neediest fellow citizens.
And it's something the President cares deeply about. And the President
will look forward to being with these people this afternoon.
The personnel announcements -- and then I'll be happy to take your
questions. Susan Neely, currently the communications director for the
White House Office of Homeland Security, has been named Assistant
Secretary for Public Affairs for the Department of Homeland Security.
Gordon Johndroe, who I know is familiar to many of you, will be
joining the new Department of Homeland Security as Press Secretary.
And then some internal press housekeeping information for you --
Rachael Sunbarger will move to the Department of Homeland Security as
Assistant Press Secretary. And she will be replaced here at the White
House by Liz Donnan, who many of you know has been an intern here in
the press office, who will come on board at the White House and work
in our lower press office.
So congratulations to the people who are moving on from our press
office, though I suspect they won't be far. And congratulations to the
new people.
Q: Somewhere out in Virginia, I understand.
MR. FLEISCHER: The gaggle is now over. This now can be an on-camera
briefing.
Q: Ari, what can you tell us about the diplomatic efforts going on
with North Korea? The Russians and the Chinese, apparently, envoys are
going to be acting in some fashion as an intermediary here?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, we welcome this step. We think it's appropriate
for these officials to talk. And we believe that the message that will
be given has been very unified as far as our approach to North Korea.
The world has condemned North Korea's actions in stepping out of its
international obligations. And we anticipate that North Korea will
hear that message.
Q: Are we asking them to pass on any specific messages or offers?
MR. FLEISCHER: There's nothing that's been brought to my attention. I
think that they, in their own rights, are going to express their
thoughts about the situation. You've heard many of them yourself, when
it comes to -- North Korea has put itself in a situation increasingly
itself from the world, from Russia, from China, from South Korea, from
Japan.
Q: Is it a step toward a solution?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's up to North Korea. We'll find out. We hope so.
Q: Any reaction to Blix's comments that he regards the January 27th
report as simply another interim report, and that it will take him
well into March to finish the inspections or to proceed to a point
where he can make a so-called comprehensive report? Does this delay
the timetable?
MR. FLEISCHER: From the beginning, the President has made very clear
that the burden is on Saddam Hussein to comply and to disarm. Nothing
has changed that. The burden remains with Saddam Hussein. The issue is
not how long the inspections will last; the issue is whether Saddam
Hussein this time is finally willing to disarm. He's been given a
final chance to disarm. And, regrettably, we've seen no evidence that
he has made the strategic choice to disarm and to come into compliance
with the United Nations. We first saw this is in the Iraqi
declaration, which the world agreed was inadequate, and Saddam has not
complied and, therefore, time is running out.
Q: So that means that you'll wait until the inspectors have finished
their work?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, as I indicated yesterday, the President has not
put any specific date on how long he thinks the inspectors will do
their job. But as I've made plain today and as the President has said
repeatedly, Saddam Hussein is not disarming and, therefore, time is
running out.
Q: Well, what do you mean by "time is running out"? How long can you
let 200,000 U.S. troops sit in the sand?
MR. FLEISCHER: The question is how long will it take for Saddam
Hussein to come clean and to prove to the world that he's disarming.
Q: Why do you go so far out of your way to say that the burden is not
on the inspectors? I mean, does the President think that the
inspectors are doing any good? Does he care what they say or what they
conclude? Or does he simply believe either Saddam Hussein puts up or
shuts up and the U.S. gets ready to go to war?
MR. FLEISCHER: Of course, the President thinks that they're doing
good, and that's why he wanted them to go there. But the fact of the
matter is if Saddam Hussein is hiding his weapons from them, it makes
it very hard for them to fulfill their mission. And this is why the
inspectors will be the first to tell you, if Iraq fails to cooperate,
it makes their mission very, very difficult to prove whether Saddam
Hussein does or does not have the so-called smoking gun. Because
smoking guns, as we know, can be hidden.
Q: Well, then, what is the United States doing specifically to help
the do a good job? What's the evidence of that good job that they're
doing, and what specifically is Saddam Hussein holding out on?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the question is Saddam Hussein has had a history
of failing to cooperate with the inspectors. He has the ability and
the means to hide the weapons that he has developed and that he is
developing. I think the declaration that he made is proof positive
that he has withheld information about his weapons of mass destruction
program, programs that these previous inspectors said were there when
they were forced out of the country in 1998. And now Saddam Hussein
still has failed to account for the weapons that's there. And these
are statements that come from Hans Blix and Dr. ElBaradei about what
is -- the gaps that are in the declaration.
Q: What help are giving, if we know about all this?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, as Dr. Blix said yesterday, that he is satisfied
with the help that he has been getting from the United States
government.
Q: But Dr. Blix and Dr. ElBaradei are the experts. They're the --
that's why they're there. They're the experts. They say they need
months to get that proof positive, to get the answer to the question.
Why does the President think he knows better?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President has made plain that the burden does
not fall on the inspectors; the burden falls on Saddam Hussein to
comply with the inspectors. And that's the judgment of the President,
having judged Iraq's past behavior, their ability to fool the
inspectors, to deceive the inspectors, to hide things from the
inspectors, and Saddam Hussein's motives, moving forward, in terms of
whether he has indeed changed and is at this time cooperating. The
President has seen no proof that this time he is complying and willing
to disarm.
Q: But the inspectors aren't saying they're being fooled, they're
being duped. Does the President think that he knows better than they
do as to how effective their work can be?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think the inspectors have raised a number of concerns
that they have, and they have said they don't believe they're getting
full cooperation and compliance from Saddam Hussein. They have found
problems that they have cited. And the President is content to let
them continue in their work, of course. And the President is looking
forward to the January 27th date. He believes it will be an important
date. And as I said yesterday, the President hasn't put a specific
date on when he believes the inspections will come to some type of
conclusion or not. But the President's message is clear to Saddam
Hussein, that he needs to comply.
Q: It's not up to the inspectors to judge how effective their own work
is and can be; it's up to the President to say if their work is over
--
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think it's something that we're going to continue
to work together on.
Q: But it seems like you've already decided.
MR. FLEISCHER: Patsy.
Q: Everything you say makes it suggest that you've already decided
that the answer is that they haven't cooperated.
MR. FLEISCHER: But they haven't cooperated.
Q: No matter what the inspectors say?
MR. FLEISCHER: Patsy.
Q: No matter what.
Q: If the North Koreans agreed to talk about rolling back their
nuclear program, will the agreed framework still be on the table,
including the completion of two nuclear reactors that the United
States, Japan and South Korea promised to build?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think it's impossible to speculate about what
may be the result, but the fact is it begins with North Korea
dismantling its programs. I think nobody in the world wants to repeat
the pattern where North Korea has the ability to put the world through
blackmail once again. And the most effective way to maintain a
denuclearized North Korea, Korean Peninsula, is by North Korea moving
forward on that which they promised the world, which is that they
would not have -- develop weapons of mass destruction or nuclear
weapons, and that now, having seen their patterns of behavior, it's
important for them to dismantle the programs that they have so the
world doesn't have to go through this again.
Q: So you haven't already decided to scrap the 1994 agreed framework
and negotiate another agreement?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the 1994 agreed framework has been nullified as a
result of North Korea's actions. As Secretary Powell made clear in an
interview yesterday, it's a question of some type of new arrangement
that would replace that.
Q: Has the President now decided to file an amicus brief in the
Michigan affirmative action case?
MR. FLEISCHER: The matter remains under review. The deadline is still
Thursday. And it's something the President has continued to focus on.
He focused on it again yesterday. He'll likely focus on it some more,
and it remains a question of under review.
Q: Has he instructed the Justice Department to draft a brief that he
is considering?
MR. FLEISCHER: That would be answering the question about has the
President made a decision about whether there would be or would not be
a brief. You're saying, does this mean the administration will
definitely get involved.
Q: Has he asked them to draft one if he's considering whether to file?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, I want to leave -- I think, at this point, the
best thing is the deadline is Thursday and this would be a matter
that, as the events get closer, they'll express themselves in some
form or another.
Q: Ari, yesterday Assistant Secretary of State Kelly said that if
North Korea agrees to set aside its nuclear program in a verifiable
way, there would be opportunities to discuss energy aid. Secretary
Powell is quoted in that interview you just referred to as saying that
it is possible down the road to discuss not a formal treaty probably,
but some sort of language on a nonaggression agreement between the
United States and North Korea. Is it not fair to describe these public
comments by senior diplomats of the United States government as
inducements to try to get North Korea to the table?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, given the fact that the administration has always
said that North Korea knows what it needs to do -- it needs to come
back into compliance, it needs to dismantle its programs -- that's the
first step in anything that is potential one way or another. That's a
sine qua non. It must happen. Without that happening, nothing else
will flow. And that's as a result of the actions that North Korea has
taken and put itself in this position.
So I don't think these can accurately be described as any type if
inducement when the statement remains identical to what you've heard
for weeks. North Korea has got to put itself back into compliance.
Q: But there's public discussion of those possibilities now, in days
after senior administration officials say there will be no incentives,
no concessions, no quid pro quo. Is there not some inconsistency
there?
MR. FLEISCHER: I fail to see it. If North Korea does what it promised
to do, then, in effect, then we would be back at the relations with
North Korea the way they were prior to them breaking their word. The
important issue here is that North Korea take that action, and do so
in a real way, in a verifiable way, and in a way that is dismantling
of the facilities. Otherwise, the world can right away be in this same
position again, where the world takes North Korea at its word, North
Korea sees if it can get anything, and then North Korea plays this
blackmail game again. This is a road the world has traveled down
before, which is a dead-end road. And we have no interest in traveling
back down that path.
Q: Well, then, would it be fair to say there is little or no price to
pay for North Korea for breaking its word, if, after a period of
standoff and confrontation, if it says, oh, never mind, we can go back
to the way things were the day before?
MR. FLEISCHER: There is a price to be paid by North Korea and the
price has been that they're only hurting their own people. It's the
people of --
Q: They don't seem to care about that.
MR. FLEISCHER: -- it's the people of North Korea who suffer the most.
Q: What's your understanding of what the Chinese and the Russians are
offering in terms of mediating the dispute with North Korea? And do
the talks replace the U.S. offer for technical talks at the United
Nations?
MR. FLEISCHER: The ball remains in North Korea's court when it comes
to talking with the United States. The statement that you've heard
that came out saying the United States will talk to North Korea about
them getting back into compliance remains. And we have not heard back
from North Korea on that point.
As I indicated, we welcome any of the conversations our allies have
with North Korea. And I think you have to allow the conversations to
take place before you can determine anything that may be said about
them. I'm not in a position to give you all the details of talks
between two sovereign nations.
Q: It's my understanding that what the Chinese are offering is to
mediate talks between Washington and Pyongyang. Is that not the case?
MR. FLEISCHER: We've already made it plain that we're not looking to
negotiate, that we're willing to talk to North Korea about their
dismantling their programs.
Q: One on Iraq and one on welfare reform. On Iraq, you say today that
time is running out. But many of our allies are saying that the
inspectors need more time. How is the White House going to manage that
disconnect of expectations by the rest of the world?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the inspectors have more time. But time is
running out. This is a question of not allowing Saddam Hussein to
string the world along forever. And I don't think the two are at all
hard to understand or incompatible.
Q: But I think that some of our allies would consider into mid-March
if that's what the inspectors feel they need some time, that that
would not be stringing along the world forever.
MR. FLEISCHER: And I said yesterday the President has not put a
specific date on this. And the President will, of course, continue to
consult and talk with our allies and friends about the situation in
Iraq, as he regularly does. But it's fair to say that, just like I
said, time is running out.
Q: On welfare reform -- the fact sheets and program he'll unveil today
or talk about today, is it the same one that he did last summer? Or is
there news in it?
MR. FLEISCHER: The House of Representatives took action last year on
passage of welfare reform. This is one of the issues that did not come
up in the Senate last year. And what the President will announce today
will be what the House -- similar to what the House passed last year
in terms of helping move people from welfare to work, strengthening
the work requirements in the welfare law, and encouraging other
programs in giving support to welfare families.
Q: So he's not going to deviate from the guidelines and priorities he
outlined?
MR. FLEISCHER: No. You'll see that on the fact sheet it's similar to
that.
Q: Ari, the last couple of weeks, there have been many issues of race
that's hit the desk of the President. And in the midst of all of these
controversies, many Americans still want to know what the President's
philosophy is as it relates to civil rights.
MR. FLEISCHER: I've said this to you repeatedly. The President's
philosophy when it relates to civil rights is the President believes
it's important to give people every opportunity, to be sensitive to
the needs of minorities in this country, and to be cognizant of the
fact that all deserve an equal shot, and he wants to find a way to
help people to make it in America. And the President through a variety
of this policies has put programs forward to do just that: the
education bill that the President has proposed; the economic recovery
package the President has proposed; and specifically when it comes to
issues of civil rights, the election reform legislation that the
President signed is one of the most effective measures of helping
improve civil rights in America. Many leading black organizations have
cited that legislation as an important issue in civil rights. And the
President was proud to sign it.
Q: Will his decision for Thursday reflect what you're saying?
MR. FLEISCHER: We'll ultimately find out.
Q: Ari, just to clarify, there's been at least one report that I've
seen that says the President has made a decision. You're clearly
saying that's not true, he has not made a decision regarding
admissions --
MR. FLEISCHER: That matter, as I indicated, remains under review. And
I've seen numerous reports saying the President has made contradictory
decisions. If you read different accounts in different papers, you see
the President has decided different things. So I think it's fair to
say people who have such reports don't have all the facts, because,
obviously, if they did they couldn't report things that are
contradictory.
Q: Also to follow on something you said earlier, you said yesterday
the President focused on this. Who is he working with on this matter?
MR. FLEISCHER: Just as I indicated yesterday, he is working with White
House staff and Department of Justice.
Q: Before going into any war, does the President feel, as a matter of
policy, that it's his obligation to tell the American people how many
casualties that they should expect?
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't know that there's any possibility of predicting
how many casualties may be expected in the event the President makes a
decision to go to war.
Q: Shouldn't there be some type of discussion of that, though? Given
that we've heard a lot about the risks of not acting, shouldn't there
be some discussion of the risks of war, as well?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, it's a hypothetical about something that hasn't
happened yet, and so I don't know how I can answer that other than to
say that, as I said yesterday, in the event the President makes the
determination that the best way to preserve the peace and to protect
the American people is to move forward to disarm Saddam Hussein, he
will, of course, and at some length, discuss this with the American
people in great detail.
Q: Ari, is the President disappointed with his former Treasury
Secretary's public comments that he wouldn't have done the dividend
tax cut? And secondly, does that make it more difficult for him to
sell the tax cut, because we knew that it wasn't a secret that there
was a difference of opinion?
And, on an unrelated matter, what does the President think about the
major news organizations' decision to go to market-oriented policies
for election result predictions?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, on the first question, it's no surprise and
nothing new. It's been heard repeatedly both in public and in private.
So there was nothing different here.
Q: Does it make it more difficult to sell it in the closely divided
Senate?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I don't think so. I think that's an opinion that
the previous Treasury Secretary stated repeatedly, on the record and
in private, so everybody was well aware of it.
On the second question about the decision, obviously, the 2000
election was an election in which the previous system broke down. And
so I don't think, from the President's point of view, these are
decisions that are being made by officials in the media about how best
to be accurate. And the President welcomes any focus by the media on
how best to be accurate.
Q: Is the President considering any kind of a speech on affirmative
action? Yesterday you talked about what an important issue it is in
this case, it's risen to his attention, and has the impact to -- has
the potential to impact a lot of Americans, black and white. Is it
something that's important enough for him to -- aside from any legal
brief -- to speak out on to the American people?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, again, as I indicated the deadline remains a
Thursday deadline on the Michigan case that -- that's the deadline for
whether or not the federal government will file a brief involving this
case in any way. And the administration has a variety of different
means to communicate whatever decision the President makes on this,
and we'll let you know whatever that means will be.
Q: The comparison I keep going back to is stem cell debate. A lot of
people thought that no matter what he said he would offend half the
population. They're saying the same thing about this. He seemed to
portray the issue of stem cell research in a way that satisfied more
than half the population. Is there a way to do that with affirmative
action? Or is it such a polarizing issue that you're going to
automatically --
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't think the President approaches this as an issue
on which it would offend half the population. I think the President
looks at this as any great nation that wants to make the best of life
for all Americans would look at this as an issue for how to unite our
country around common ideals and common goals. Because as much as
there can be differences when it comes to racial issues in America, in
the President's judgment, there is so much more that unites us on
racial issues than divides us. And that's the approach the President
brings to this issue.
Q: Ari, the framework agreement required that the plutonium facility
at Yongbyon be frozen. But I think what you were saying today with the
emphasis on dismantling is that the position has hardened, that now
that facility must actually be destroyed. Is that correct?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, as I indicated I think there is nobody who wants
to repeat what we're going through now by allowing North Korea to do
this once again to some future President. North Korea has a history of
engaging in a blackmail playbook for the purpose of getting more out
of its neighbors and other nations. And this is a tactic North Korea
has used in the past. And it's something the President thinks, for the
good of peace around the world, any actions taken by North Korea have
to, this time, fundamentally represent a different way to go and
assures the peace, so North Korea cannot later flip a switch and turn
on nuclear weapons.
Q: So it must be dismantled?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's what I said yesterday. That's correct
Q: Irreversible?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, certainly we wouldn't want anything to be
dismantled that could immediately be mantled.
Q: And, Ari, does the same apply to the uranium enrichment centrifuge
-- the same?
MR. FLEISCHER: The purpose is to make certain that North Korea comes
into compliance with its international obligations not to produce
nuclear weapons.
Q: But in both cases, dismantlement is the standard?
MR. FLEISCHER: The principle is what I said, and dismantlement is the
means.
Q: You mentioned that the President, should he decide that war is the
only option, would speak at length to the American people. Given a
rising tide in Europe of anti-war sentiment, would he also feel the
need to go to Europe and talk directly to allies who potentially we
might need in that kind of war?
MR. FLEISCHER: I need not remind anybody in this room that when the
President talks to the media, the media these days has ways of
covering it around the world. So when the President -- if it reaches
the point where the President makes the judgment that he will go to
the American people, that, of course, will be a message heard around
the world.
Q: Ari, another question on the timing. How can there not be a
timetable? How can time be running out if there's not a timetable? I
don't get it.
MR. FLEISCHER: Because as you repeatedly asked me in the past, what
exactly is the timetable? And I've said in the past, that's something
Saddam Hussein will have to figure out.
Q: Right, but now you say that time is running out.
MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct.
Q: There's no timetable, but time is running out.
MR. FLEISCHER: I said there's no timetable for how long the inspectors
have to be in their jobs with a specific date. Yesterday the questions
were about 12-month specifics. And I said, I have not heard a specific
timetable from the President, which is exactly how I said it
yesterday. And I don't think it's -- I think it's perfectly consistent
to say that while there's not a specific timetable, the President has
made clear that time is running out. You're asking for a date, a
month, a number of months, how much time, and that's an undefined
matter. The President has simply said that time is running out.
Q: Speaking of dates, you say now that January 27th is an important
date. Has it taken on some new meaning as a milepost in this whole
situation?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think that's consistent with what everybody in
the government has been saying about January 27th, since January 27th
became a well-known date late last year, per the U.N. resolutions.
Q: Can I just go back to the question of public opinion? Yesterday you
mentioned that the administration was going to send out senior members
of the Cabinet to talk to the American people about the tax cut
package. Is there a similar plan on Iraq, in terms of reaching out to
people to explain to them the case that the U.S. is making and --
MR. FLEISCHER: As I indicated, that in the event that the President
makes a determination that the best way to protect the peace is to
disarm Saddam Hussein through a coalition of the willing, the
President will, of course, make that case. But I don't want to get
ahead of where the President is on this. But the President understands
that that is a matter that the President of the United States has a
singular responsibility to take on to communicate with the country and
the world in the event he comes to that conclusion.
Q: Do you think these polls out today that show that the President's
personal approval rating has dropped into the 50s, and the disapproval
--
MR. FLEISCHER: Did you say, polls, plural?
Q: I said, poll.
MR. FLEISCHER: Plural?
Q: Poll.
MR. FLEISCHER: There you go.
Q: But all I wanted to know is, does this tell us anything about the
way in which the White House is communicating convinced the American
people of the case against Iraq? Is this something that's of any
concern to you?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I hardly think that at all. I think, frankly, that
there are a number of news organizations, well represented in this
room, who have shown the President to be at such a consistent high
popularity level that you've stopped even reporting those facts to
your readers or viewers. Actually, viewers. And so there's all kinds
of numbers of polls out there.
Q: Could you try to explain again to the world why North Korea is less
of a threat than Iraq to the United States and to the --
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President's judgment about why diplomacy can
be successful in North Korea and why he is less optimistic that that
is the case with Iraq is borne by the behavior of the leader of North
Korea versus the leader of Iraq. Iraq has a recent history of
acquiring weapons of mass destruction and then using them to kill its
neighbors, to invade countries, to bring attacks to others -- Saudi
Arabia, Kuwait, Israel, Iran. There's virtually not a neighbor left
for Iraq that they have not attacked in the past 10 to 15 years.
That is not the case with North Korea. You have to go back to the
Korean War to find examples where North Korea has physically, actually
launched military assaults against its neighbors or the region. And so
the President does view the two as different levels of threat or risk.
And those are the judgments the President makes. And I think those
judgments are borne out by the successful way he's working with the
allies around the Korean Peninsula.
Q: On economics, Ari, once the Congress acts on the President's tax
cut proposals, what are the economic indicators to watch over time to
judge whether they're working or not?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, there are a variety of factors that will
influence that. I think the one that means much to the American people
is unemployment, because the President cares very much about anybody
who can't work. When you take a look at statistics, the most
meaningful one in the lives of the American people is, do they hold a
job, are they working, and is it a good paying job. And that's
something the President is keenly interested in.
Having said that, the fact of the matter is, unemployment is typically
a lagging indicator of growth. And so there are a variety of factors
that also get looked at, which is, the growth of the economy as
commonly expressed through GDP. GDP, as you know, is recovering from
the recession, from the attack on our country. We've gone from a
position of recession into low growth, and the President would like to
make it into higher growth.
And actually, I should even hesitate before I call it low growth. I
think 2002 is going to be low to moderate growth. And the President
would like to push it to even higher levels of growth. But there are a
number of other factors that go into it: low inflation; high
productivity; low interest rates, which allow the American people to
refinance their homes, which puts more money into their pockets, which
has been happening to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars
throughout the economy. All of those are causes for optimism about the
state of the economy. But because of unemployment, the President wants
to make sure that we're taking every step possible to help protect the
economy and provide jobs for people.
Q: So those numbers --
MR. FLEISCHER: We're going to have to call this off in just a minute
or two because I've got to get in for the Poland meeting.
Q: If those indicators -- if the numbers were all up, that's a fair
-- that's a fair sign that the proposals of the President were
working. If they're down, is it a fair sign that they failed?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think that those are the leading factors that
influence the economy. And I think there's no question that over time
Presidents get judged by that and that's something this administration
understands.
Q: Ari, let me ask you a question on dates.
MR. FLEISCHER: Thank you.
(end transcript)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
