*EPF101 08/26/2002
Transcript: White House Press Briefing, August 26
(Iraq, Congress, Cheney, Baker, Saddam Hussein, doctrine of preemption, White House Counsel's Office, Bush to meet with Prince Bandar, Saudi Ambassador to U.S., Department of Justice/war on terrorism) (5230)

White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer briefed at the Crawford Elementary School Crawford, Texas, August 26.

(begin transcript)

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary (Crawford, Texas)
August 26, 2002
PRESS GAGGLE WITH ARI FLEISCHER

Crawford Elementary School Crawford, Texas

MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. Under our 5-minute rule, let's go right to questions first. Happy to take questions. Mark.

Q: Ari, does the President believe that he has all the congressional authorization that he needs to launch a military strike on Iraq?

MR. FLEISCHER: Mark, the White House lawyers have given their opinion about the constitutional prerogatives that the President enjoys when it is a matter of exercising military authority. They have done so, in keeping with the longstanding bipartisan traditions all administrations since the War Powers resolution, even prior to that, have expressed vis a vis the relationship between the executive and the legislature.

As for the President, the President knows that any decision he makes on a hypothetical congressional vote will be guided by more than one factor, more than legal factors alone. The President, if this were ever to come to this point, would consider a variety of legal, policy and historical factors in making up his mind about this, if it, again, becomes a relevant matter. In all cases, the President will consult with the Congress because Congress has an important role to play.

Q: Does consult mean ask permission?

MR. FLEISCHER: The President will consult with Congress because Congress has an important role to play.

Randy.

Q: Vice President Cheney is in Nashville today arguing for preemptive action against Iraq. Does that speech reflect the official administration position now on Iraq?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think it's important to characterize what he said precisely. The Vice President echoed what the President has said about American doctrine of preemption, given the fact that we can face enemies who, in an age of terrorism, can unleash attacks on us and it would be too late for us to respond. And he did not make the case for preemptive attack; he made the case for the preemptive doctrine. And it's an important difference, but of course, he's representing the administration.

Q: Ari, the Vice President seemed to suggest in his speech, too, that even if the inspectors were to go in again, that that may not be enough. Is that a fair --

MR. FLEISCHER: The President is focused on the bottom line, and that is, does Iraq, yes or no, possess weapons of mass destruction. And inspections is a means to an end, but what is important is the end, to ascertain whether or not they have obtained weapons of mass destruction.

Q: Who was the Vice President talking about when he said that we must not -- what we must not do in the face of a mortal threat is to give into wishful thinking or willful blindness? Who is guilty of wishful thinking or --

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, those remarks echo what the President said when he addressed the Bundestag in Germany, if you recall, when the President himself talked about wishful thinking. And the President has said that time is not on your side; we will continue to be patient and deliberative, but there are those who simply think we can wish our problems away. And the President and the Vice President are much more realistic than that.

John.

Q: Yesterday in an op-ed piece, former Secretary of State Baker said it was necessary, or it would be advisable for the United States to get yet another U.N. resolution, even though there's already one out there, regarding Saddam, to get another U.N. resolution to back up the international community. How do you feel about that?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President welcomed Secretary Baker's opinions yesterday. The President has said that he welcomes a variety of thoughts from a diversity of people, and Secretary Baker has laid out a very thoughtful case. It's a matter that the President has made no decisions about, about what next steps will be. But Secretary Baker echoed the President's concerns about the threat that Saddam Hussein poses. He laid out one way, his way of thinking about it, and the President will take that into account.

Q: Ari, the Vice President in his speech this morning seemed to say that -- did say that Saddam Hussein definitely has weapons of mass destruction --

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, there's no question that Saddam Hussein possesses chemical weapons. We know that he's used them on his own people. We have an ongoing concern about whether or not Saddam Hussein will be able to acquire nuclear weapons. There's no question that he is in pursuit of them. And this is why the Secretary -- I'm sorry -- the Vice President was making the case this morning that some would argue that the best policy is to let him obtain weapons that make him stronger. And the President and the Vice President do not share that approach.

Q: Ari, is the President still, as he said earlier, willing to go it alone without the U.N., without Congress? Does he -- you said he may consider talking to those folks, but is he still willing to go alone without them?

MR. FLEISCHER: The President will continue to consult with our allies abroad; the President will continue to consult with Congress. That's a sine qua non. The President knows that in a democracy it's vital to have the support of the public, if he reaches any points where he makes decisions about military action. He has not made those decisions at this time, but the President understands the fundamental importance in a democracy of public support. And of course, every time the President has made the case to the American people, the American people have rallied.

Q: Ari, the Vice President made clear in his speech when he essentially said, you're right, we're going to consult with everybody, but the world needs to understand we are ready to go it alone if they are not willing to back us up. Is that --

MR. FLEISCHER: I think what the Vice President has said and what the President has said is that we will consult with our allies and we will also demonstrate leadership, and the two go together. It's often the case that when America leads, the world follows. When America does things because of the moral high ground in which we represent, because of the safety that we can provide for other nations, and because of America's special ability because of our power militarily and diplomatically and politically to lead the world, we have done so, and the world for decades has been better off as a result. So the two go hand in hand, leadership and consulting.

Q: Ari, with calls on the President from many quarters urging him to make his case on Iraq more clearly and forcefully, why doesn't he in a forum, like the Vice President is at now, making such a focused speech on Iraq, why isn't he giving the Vice President's speech today?

MR. FLEISCHER: The President gave a speech at West Point. The President gave a speech in the Bundestag. The President gave a speech at Fort Drum. You have many times in which the President has given a speech. And the administration will continue to speak out about the threat that Saddam Hussein possesses.

Bill.

Q: Ari, there's a newspaper report this morning that says, "Administration officials say privately that military strikes against Hussein's regime are virtually inevitable." Are military strikes against Iraq virtually inevitable? Regardless of the timing.

MR. FLEISCHER: What newspaper report is this? I read a lot of papers this morning; I didn't see that one.

Q: The Washington Post.

MR. FLEISCHER: There's an administration official saying that?

Q: Third paragraph -- administration officials say privately that military strikes against Hussein's regime are virtually inevitable, although all the specifics have not been decided and action is not imminent. Is that a true statement?

MR. FLEISCHER: The President has not made any decisions.

Campbell.

Q: Ari, can you confirm that the President has consulted with Gonzales about the legal requirements in terms of whether or not he would need congressional approval --

MR. FLEISCHER: Let me confirm that the lawyers, the White House Counsel's Office is of the opinion, it is their determination that there are three factors which give the President the authority to engage in military action if he were to make that decision. And those are, one, the Constitution of the United States which vests in the President authorities as Commander in Chief; the 1991 Persian Gulf War resolutions; and three, the 2001 resolutions in the Congress pertaining to the war against terrorism. That is the determination of the White House Counsel.

As I indicated earlier, the President, aware of their determination, will make -- if he makes a decision about the use of force, will make a decision about a congressional vote, if it comes to that, on more than legal factors alone. And --

Q: But did the President say that he wanted to -- I mean, he was the one who said, let's have the White House Counsel's Office look at this so that we're clear on what --

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, let me refer you -- this is not a new debate. The debate between the executive branch and the legislature about war powers is nothing new to our republic. It's been hundreds of years old. Particularly since the War Powers resolution was passed, it's become even more prominent.

This is a position, for example -- as I say, this is not restricted to this administration alone. In the Persian Gulf War in 1991, then President Bush, 41, received a similar determination from his counsel's office that the President did not need congressional authority to engage in his constitutionally given powers as Commander in Chief. Nevertheless, Congress did vote and President Bush welcomed the vote.

Similarly, in 1999, when President Clinton authorized the bombing mission in Kosovo, President Clinton, in a letter to the Congress on March 26, 1999, stated, "I have taken these action pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive. In doing so, I have taken into account the views and support expressed by Congress in the resolutions Congress passed."

Joe Lockhart at the time that was passed was asked about this, and he said that, "While President Clinton once again said he had no plans for ground troops and promised he would seek congressional 'support,' if he changed that stance, but the President would not seek congressional approval," his spokesman, Joe Lockhart said, arguing that such a step would raise a host of constitutional questions." That's from the New York Times, April 29, 1999.

And finally, on December 19, 2001, President Bush received a letter from some -- 2, 4, 6, 8 -- some 15 of the most liberal members of the House of Representatives, making their case to the President that if he were to exercise military force anywhere outside the immediate theater involving the al Qaeda, that he would need to come to the Congress to seek additional authorization. That was the case they made in a December 19th letter.

Judge Gonzales wrote back to these members of Congress on April 18th, and said, "The President has broad constitutional authority as Commander in Chief and as the sole organ of the federal government in foreign affairs to deploy armed forces of the United States, especially to defend American citizens from attacks and threats by foreign terrorist organizations."

The letter continued, "A formal declaration of war or other authorization from the Congress is not required to enable the President to undertake the full range of actions that may be necessary to protect our national security." And the letter concluded, "The President is committed to continuing to work closely with the Congress, however, to ensure that we have all the tools we need to fight and win the war on terrorism."

So you can isolate this into a longstanding legal determination about the proper powers of the President under the Constitution as Commander in Chief, and then there are a host of other issues that the President will consider, including policy matters, historical matters, relationship with Congress matters, public support matters. That broadens the question from a legal one to a larger one, and the President will take all those factors into account if it reaches that point.

John.

Q: Ari, only a -- go ahead.

Q: So then you consider the Iraq theater as part of the war on terrorism?

MR. FLEISCHER: Under the Constitution, under the Persian Gulf War resolution of 1991, and under the authorization given to use force in 2001, the Counsel's Office conclusion is, from a legal point of view, the President, under the Constitution, has authority.

And I don't think that should come as any surprise to anybody. You've seen that previously in other administrations. That's why I cited the case of President Clinton in Kosovo, the statements by the President -- former President Clinton in his letter to the Congress, his spokesman; going back to former President Bush's administration. That's not new. I think that's to be expected between executives and legislatures, and that should not, probably, come as a surprise.

Q: Will Iraq be at the top of the agenda with the Saudi Prince tomorrow? And what else will be on the agenda?

MR. FLEISCHER: The Saudi Ambassador will visit the President tomorrow. He'll bring his family, as well, and then they'll all have lunch. But I think the agenda is going to focus on more steps to bring about peace in the Middle East, where Saudi Arabia has been a constructive partner in bringing peace to the Middle East; the war on terrorism. I'll try to let you know more after the meeting tomorrow about what exactly comes up, vis a vis the war on terror, whether it did or did not include Iraq. I can't make any predictions, but they're going to talk about the war on terror. That could lead to a discussion of Iraq. But I'll give you a read on it tomorrow.

Q: Who else will be -- like Condi or --

MR. FLEISCHER: It will just be the President, Condi, and the Ambassador.

Q: Ari, why the urgency about this meeting with Bandar? For one ambassador to come to the President's ranch while he's on a working vacation, it certainly seems to have more urgency than just a routine meeting.

MR. FLEISCHER: No, I disagree with that characterization of it. The President extended an invitation to Prince Bandar and his family quite some time ago to visit the ranch. The President enjoys the Prince. Prince Bandar is a very seasoned diplomat. He is the dean of ambassadors in Washington, D.C. He is ambassador to a very important country, a country that the United States has worked closely with both in bringing peace to the Middle East and in the war on terror. The President enjoys his time with Prince Bandar. He's a very affable fellow, very good humor, speaks English better than most Americans. The President looks forward to visiting with him tomorrow.

Q: Does the President believe, or should we construe from this meeting that there's concern in the administration that relations between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia are in jeopardy?

MR. FLEISCHER: No, just the opposite. The President meets with the Ambassador from Saudi Arabia because relations are strong.

Q: Ari, are you confident that Saudi Arabia would -- keep the oil markets stable in the event of an action against Iraq?

MR. FLEISCHER: Saudi Arabia has made it clear that the days of using oil as a weapon are over. They have said that repeatedly, they have said it publicly. And Saudi actions are evidence that that's more than rhetoric; they have carried that out.

Q: And you expect that --

MR. FLEISCHER: We have no reason to think it won't.

Q: Ari, there are some -- Wall Street and the oil markets, if there were U.S. action against Iraq, Saddam might strike out at neighboring Arab oil producers. Would the President take this opportunity tomorrow to try and reassure the Ambassador that the United States will do all in its power to protect the Saudi oil fields?

MR. FLEISCHER: John, I'm not going to speculate about what will be discussed tomorrow. Let the meeting take place and I'll try to fill you in afterwards.

Q: What about the lawsuit? Does the President feel he needs to reach out at all in any way to smooth things over? I understand that didn't go over very well in Saudi Arabia. People are pretty upset about it.

MR. FLEISCHER: Again, let the meeting take place and anything they talk about, I'll do my best to try to fill you in. It's scheduled for tomorrow.

Q: Will there be a photo op?

MR. FLEISCHER: No, we'll probably have a White House photo release.

Q: There was one of the Navy officers that was killed at the Pentagon on September 11th, his mother-in-law from Italy came over here afterwards to mourn his passing, et cetera. And the Immigration and Naturalization Service said she has to go back on September 15th, even though she wants to stay a little longer. Are you aware of this, and is there anything that the White House can do?

MR. FLEISCHER: Not aware. I'd refer you to the appropriate officials who handle those type matters. That's across my radar.

Q: Considering what the President said to us last week about questions about Iraq and I ask this seriously is there concern that the Cheney speech today might churn up this frenzy the President is concerned about?

MR. FLEISCHER: No. I think the President understands that there is a focus on Iraq. I think the President's comments that day were limited to a day in which the President was having a meeting about missile defense. And as I've repeatedly indicated, there have been meetings about Iraq, there will be meetings about Iraq, questions about it are certainly appropriate. But, on that day, the President had a missile a meeting on missile defense.

Anything else?

Q: Yes, your answer to Randy, were you confirming the Wall Street Journal report that the Saudis have actually told the administration that they will act to make up any shortfall?

MR. FLEISCHER: No, I did not confirm that. I spoke I spoke generally.

Q: Ari, had the President met Prince Bandar prior to becoming President? I mean, is it like

MR. FLEISCHER: Did the President meet Prince Bandar prior to becoming President? Patsy, let me try and find out. I don't know.

Q: You've sort of painted them as friends and, you know, good friends. How many times have them met, you know

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, Prince Bandar has been to the Oval Office to see the President previously. He has come in by himself to see the President. He has come in with the meeting of the three foreign ministers from Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia when they visited with the President some three months ago. But the President and the Prince have spent time together on other occasions.

This will be the Prince's second visit to the ranch. When the Crown Prince was here early this year, he was joined by his Ambassador.

Q: Ari, is the White House concerned, in light of the -- ruling last week that the Attorney General and the FBI may be going too far in this war on terrorism?

MR. FLEISCHER: The President is confident that the Department of Justice will at all times act appropriately. He has full faith in the Attorney General and the FBI Director's judgments and the difficult calls they are faced with making in the war on terror. In fairness, many of the cases cited by Judge Lamberth in his ruling went back prior to this administration. And so I think that summarizes where the President is.

Q: When does Bandar arrive at the ranch, Ari?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the meeting is in the morning and followed by a lunch. I don't know his modalities, as Steve Hadley would say. I don't know if he's getting in tonight, staying at the Hilton or Residence Inn. I don't know. (Laughter.) Or if he's arriving tomorrow.

Q: Will you consider any coverage, even a still photo release or something?

MR. FLEISCHER: No, there won't be coverage.

Q: What time does he leave?

MR. FLEISCHER: What time does he leave? After the lunch. The President will probably take him on a tour of the ranch, if I know the President. Then he'll head back to the Residence Inn.

Q: When will you brief?

MR. FLEISCHER: When will I brief? Let's see, if I brief at 11:00 a.m., I can tell you "let the meeting take place." (Laughter.) No, I'll brief after the meeting. So I probably won't come back until early afternoon or I won't come here until early afternoon, so later than the usual 12:45 p.m. That way, I can get my arms around it.

Want me to find out what they had for lunch?

Q: Seriously, yes.

MR. FLEISCHER: I know today's lunch is chicken-fried steak here at the press filing center, which I'd just like to add, as somebody who had a snack to fortify myself for this briefing, it was very good.

Q: Ari, the Vice President today seemed particularly concerned about those who were saying that there must be proof that Saddam has nuclear weapons. And, of course, there are a lot of critics of unilateral action by the United States who do not point to that. Who Cheney I'm sorry -- Baker and Scowcroft did not talk about a nuclear threshold. Who is the Vice President talking about there when he talks about those who say we should wait until the Saudis (sic) reach the nuclear threshold? Who are those people, do you know?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, he didn't -- he didn't name them, so I don't think I'm in a position to divine that on his behalf. But I think there's clearly -- there are clearly people in this country who question the President's doctrine of preemption to protect this country. There are people who still think it's a 20th century world in which our enemies have the same motivations that were found in our enemies during the Cold War, where they can be deterred as a result of America's doctrine of deterrence.

In an age of terrorism, the calculation is entirely different because we have enemies who are trying to acquire nuclear weapons who don't possess a country, who have little regard for whether or not the United States has the ability to deter, because they don't seek to defend any land, they don't seek to defend their own people; they only seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction to kill Americans.

And that's why the war on terrorism presents our country and our people with a very different set of reflections, a very different calculus about when it's appropriate for the United States to use force than we previously were confronted in the wars that our country had been used to, and the deterrence that our country was used to that kept the peace through the Cold War. It does put things in a very different perspective in the 21st century than it was in the 20th century.

Q: Would you accept then that the something that other folks have been saying, that this policy of preemption, preemptive strike, rewrites the rules, rewrites century-old treaties? Would you accept that that would happen and is that a plus or a minus in the 21st century?

MR. FLEISCHER: Bob, I think it reinforces the fundamental and moral precepts of America's foreign policy, which has kept the world free and safe, which is an American doctrine that at its core and in its heart is guided by peace, in an effort to protect lives, and to protect lives especially against those who we saw on September 11th will use whatever means they have at their disposal to kill American citizens.

Q: Ari, for this to be a doctrine, I presume it has to apply broadly, not just to the example of Iraq. What other countries fit the doctrine? I mean, you must have come up you must have looked at the world map and said

MR. FLEISCHER: When the President announced this doctrine at West Point, he announced it as a general doctrine; he did not make it specific to any country.

Q: Ari, did you respond to the Michigan appeals court ruling today?

MR. FLEISCHER: Holly, you've got to talk a little louder.

Q: -- Michigan appeals court ruling that the policy of closing all terror-related immigration hearings violates the Constitution? Do you have any response to that?

MR. FLEISCHER: I still can't hear you. Say again?

Q: A Michigan

Q: -- appeals court ruling --

Q: A Michigan appeals court ruling --

Q: -- that the policy of closing all terror-related immigration hearings violates the Constitution?

MR. FLEISCHER: I don't have anything on that. I would refer you to Justice.

Okay, anything else?

Q: Thank you.

MR. FLEISCHER: Okay, thank you everybody.

END 1:15 P.M. CDT

(end transcript)

(end transcript)

(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)

Return to Public File Main Page

Return to Public Table of Contents