'The President Does Not Typically Watch A Lot Of TV'

'The President Does Not Typically Watch A Lot OfTV'

Press Briefing by official White House spokesman. March 21, 2003

President's daily schedule
Military campaign
Camp David this weekend
Post-war Iraq
- Reference B
Turkey
- Reference B
Supplemental
- Reference B
Congressional leaders meeting
- Reference B
India
Iran and North Korea
Tax bill

2:31 P.M. EST

Ari Fleischer: Good afternoon. Let me fill you in on the President's day.

I want to begin, the President this morning, in his remarks with congressional leaders, noted the sacrificethat the brave men and women of our military are making. Particularly, the President extends his sympathy andcondolences to the families of those who lost their lives -- the Americans and the British -- in events in thePersian Gulf.

The President also honors the sacrifice of all the family members who are at home as their sons anddaughters, husbands and wives are in the Persian Gulf fighting for the disarmament of the Iraqi regime.

The President this morning had his intelligence briefing, followed by an FBI briefing. He convened ameeting of the National Security Council. Then he had a meeting with the Secretary of Defense.

The President this morning also, as part of a consultation with members of Congress, met with the Speakerof the House, the Majority Leaders, Leader Daschle, Leader Pelosi and Leader DeLay, to inform them of thelatest situation in the Gulf.

The President then taped his radio address, and he has departed for Camp David.

With that, I'm happy to take your questions. Helen.

Can you say whether Iraq is the end goal here? Some of the President's advisors have said they thought it would be good to go on to other countries inthe region, to democratize or liberate. What is it? Can you clarify for the American people --

Ari Fleischer: Who has suggested that?

Perle, for one. Richard Perle.

Ari Fleischer: I'm not aware of anybody who works for the President who has said that. There may be outsidepeople who have some thoughts.

But Iraq is the sole goal?

Ari Fleischer: The President has made repeatedly clear to the American people, as he said in his address tothe nation the other night, that the purpose of this is the disarmament of the Iraqi regime.

Terry.

Ari, has the President watched any of this, the unfolding events in Baghdad, do you know?

Ari Fleischer: Obviously, the President, having authorized the mission, was aware of the mission, knew whenit would begin, et cetera. And I don't think he needs to watch TV to know what was about to unfold.

I was wondering if he had any comment on the impact of it?

Ari Fleischer: No, the President's approach is to gather the information about what is happening in itstotality. He receives the information from his advisors, people who have a sight on all areas of what isunderway. The President is aware, of course, the American people as they watch these events unfold; but hegets his information in a totality.

To follow up on that, the President has spoken many times of the special burden and the specialresponsibility he has as Commander-in-Chief of sending young Americans into harm's way. And has he ever spokenof -- he's also talked about liberating the Iraqi people from this brutal regime. But have you heard him talkabout this other responsibility which may weigh on him heavily today, and that is for the death of innocents,for Iraqi moms and dads and children who may, despite our best efforts, be killed?

Ari Fleischer: There's no question about that. And I think the President worries about it from two pointsof view -- one, in terms of the present mission. This is why the President and the Department of Defense workso carefully, and we have such a modern military that is capable of engaging in precision strikes, so that thetargets are indeed the military targets. As always in war, there is risk, there will be innocents who arelost. And the President deeply regrets that Saddam Hussein has put innocents in a place where their lives willbe lost.

The other portion of what the President remembers when he thinks about the innocents are the 3,000innocents who lost their lives on September 11th in the United States. And if it were not for the worries thatthe President had about an Iraqi regime, in defiance of the United Nations, possessing weapons of massdestruction, which he fears could again be used against the United States, you might not see this developing.

Campbell.

Just to clarify Terry's question. You said the President doesn't need to watch TV to know what's going onin Iraq, but you're telling me -- these are pretty astounding images -- he doesn't have a television onsomewhere, he's not watching what's going on?

Ari Fleischer: The President, again, understands the implications of the actions that he has launched tosecure the disarmament of the Iraqi regime to liberate the people.

Right, right, right. The question, though, is he watching TV, or not?

Ari Fleischer: The President may occasionally turn on the TV, but that's not how he gets his news or hisinformation.

I'm not suggesting it is; but we just want to try to get an image of --

Ari Fleischer: From time to time, he might.

Can I ask on a different subject. There was a humanitarian crisis in Iraq even before the bombing began,in terms of food shortages. After what we saw today, this massive attack on Baghdad, that situation is clearlygoing to be much, much worse beginning tomorrow. What, specifically, is the administration planning to do whenthe sun comes up?

Ari Fleischer: Well, one, that's not necessarily true. The destruction of a palace of Saddam Hussein's, thedestruction of a military facility may not have anything to do with the feeding of the Iraqi people. In allcases, the United States is leading the effort, and along with the military come massive waves of humanitarianrelief in the form of food, in the form of medicine, in the form of everything that may be necessary to helpprotect and to feed the Iraqi people.

We will see if any of that is, indeed, necessary to the degree that has been anticipated and planned for.But you should not necessarily leap to that conclusion based on what you saw on TV today.

Just one final question. President Chirac, of France, said today that he would not support a U.N.resolution that would give the U.S. and Britain the authority to administrate in Iraq. What's your reaction?

Ari Fleischer: Well, as was said at the statement in the Azores, we will continue to work with the UnitedNations. The President does believe the United Nations has a role in the future of Iraq and the reconstructionof Iraq. The President would hope that nobody would stand in the way of the humanitarian reconstruction ofIraq.

Mark.

Ari, Secretary Rumsfeld made mention of the surrender discussions that are going on. And he also mademention of third parties being involved. Is there anything you can tell us about that in terms -- you know,what level they're going on?

Ari Fleischer: No, I think Secretary Rumsfeld addressed it. I think you heard him say that much of this isthe unit-to-unit type of communication. The President made his message clear in a way that was unequivocal. Hegave Saddam Hussein 48 hours to leave the country, to avoid military conflict. The President wishes SaddamHussein had left the country so that this would not have come to pass. Saddam Hussein made his choice.

Speaking of Saddam Hussein, can we just go over the tape one more time, and just give us your best readon what -- what the tape tells us and what it does not tell us, and what you know and can tell us about SaddamHussein's fate?

Ari Fleischer: Yes. The tape has been analyzed by the Central Intelligence Agency. And their analysis hasled them to believe that the tape is, indeed, the voice of Saddam Hussein, but no conclusions have beenreached about whether it was canned ahead of time or not. There is insufficient information for anybody todraw a conclusion about that.

The larger question, does that tell us anything about where he is, how much control he's got?

Ari Fleischer: No. The fact that Iraq released a tape doesn't tell anybody anything about where SaddamHussein is or is not.

Can I ask one additional question about Camp David this weekend. The President is going to be spending the weekend there. Can you describe what his plansare for the weekend? Will he be able to keep in touch?

Ari Fleischer: There will be a meeting of the National Security Council tomorrow morning. The principals --the Vice President, Secretary Powell, Secretary Rumsfeld, Director Tenet and others, of course, Dr. Rice --will be joining the President at Camp David for participation in the NSC meeting. Camp David, as you canimagine, has every modern communication. It's a Marine facility. It has everything that anybody needs.

Let me first follow on Campbell's question. The resolution that --

Ari Fleischer: I thought you were going to ask about watching TV.

I may. The resolution that the U.S. would propose in the U.N. would do what? Would turn over the administration of Iraq's oil monies to the U.N., or to the U.S. and the U.K.?

Ari Fleischer: Well, I think the exact form of any resolution is still a matter of discussion. The exactrole of the United Nations is a matter that people have to talk about.

You've been talking about it; you have a pretty good idea.

Ari Fleischer: Well, it all deals with the Oil for Food program, for example. The Oil for Food program is aprogram administered through the United Nations. We are in discussions now about the administration. We hopethe United Nations will act on the Oil for Food program so that the revenues can continue to go and be used tofeed the Iraqi people. That will result from Iraqi oil. That's important. That's a United Nations program.

But will the U.S. and the UK control it, or would the U.N.?

Ari Fleischer: That's a United Nations program, I just said. Oil for Food has long time been a UnitedNations program.

Ari, the President has been very -- had very limited visibility over the last couple of weeks. He's comeand addressed the American people twice. We've seen him once or twice -- twice this past week, in verycarefully regulated sessions where he has chosen not to take questions. Is he deliberately going out of hisway to avoid putting his personal stamp on the leadership of this war, perhaps because his father wascriticized for personalizing the war with Saddam too much?

Ari Fleischer: No, but I think from the President's point of view, particularly in the early stage, thevery onset of a military operation, the President thinks that it is most appropriate to let the DefenseDepartment officials, who have direct supervision and responsibility for all aspects of the military plan, totake the questions, to answer the military operational questions, because they are the most expert in it.

The President has spoken out today, he spoke out yesterday. If your question is, when will he take yourquestions, I assure you he looks forward to doing it. You may have your opportunity soon.

My question really is, is he trying to avoid becoming too identified with the war?

Ari Fleischer: I think that the American people will make their judgments about what role the Presidentplays. And I think they understand very clearly that this is a President who has made the decision to disarmSaddam Hussein through the use of force, after having tried to do it through the United Nations. They watchedthat whole discussion play out for the last six months. He is the President, he's made his decisions and theAmerican people are watching him.

Is the President satisfied with the progress thus far in the war?

Ari Fleischer: He is, Steve. The President believes that progress is being made. The President hastremendous confidence in the men and women of our military, and the leadership of the military, and in theplan that has been written to disarm Saddam Hussein's regime and to liberate the people of Iraq.

Ari, the Senate appears ready to pass a budget resolution tonight. Has the President delayed sending upthe emergency request for funds for this war until after that resolution passes?

Ari Fleischer: No, it's exactly as I indicated for the last several weeks on it. The President has reviewedvarious estimates about the possibility, the possible cost of action, involving military costs and othercosts, and the President has said that at the appropriate time he would send it up. And I think that time iscoming, but it's just not here yet.

And can I ask one more question about television, just a very direct question? Did the President not seethe pictures on television this morning, the very dramatic pictures of the bombs and the explosions overBaghdad? He did not see those?

Ari Fleischer: I was with the President just as the operation was beginning, at about 1:00 p.m., and he wasnot watching TV at that time. I wasn't with him for the duration of it, so I couldn't answer in all instancesabout it. I probably shouldn't answer a question like this in this room, but the President does not watch alot of TV.

No, but they were very, very dramatic pictures. It's hard to imagine the President of the United Stateswho had ordered this attack did not see any evidence of it.

Ari Fleischer: Elizabeth, I don't know that the President needed to watch TV to understand what it means toauthorize military force and to know that the mission has begun and the mission is underway.

So the answer is unclear, we don't know if he saw them?

Ari Fleischer: I've just described to you where I was with him, but I wasn't with him for the entireduration of what you all saw on TV.

Mike.

Ari, how does the administration expect allied forces to be greeted in Baghdad?

Ari Fleischer: That remains to be seen. The President believes, as a result of much of the information thathe has heard, that the Iraqi people are yearning to be free and to be liberated. The Iraqi people have livedunder a brutal dictatorship led by Saddam Hussein, and the history of mankind shows that people want to befree. And given the chance to throw off a brutal dictator like Saddam Hussein, people will rejoice.

And may I ask if the administration expects the allied forces to find evidence or remnants of chemical orbiological weapons, or a reconstituted nuclear program?

Ari Fleischer: Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons ofmass destruction, biological and chemical particularly. This was the reason that the President felt sostrongly that we needed to take military action to disarm Saddam Hussein, since he would not do it himself.

As the military effort continues, I think you will see information develop for yourself, firsthand. This isone of the reasons that there are so many reporters present with the military. In many ways, you will havethese answers yourselves. You are there, you are on the ground. And you will find the answers and they willspeak volumes themselves.

So you expect the weapons will be found?

Ari Fleischer: There's no question. We have said that Saddam Hussein possesses biological and chemicalweapons, and all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.

John.

Two questions on Saddam. First, without disclosing any intelligence sources or methods or anything, sincethe first strike Wednesday night on that compound in Baghdad, has the United States seen any evidence thateither Saddam Hussein or either of his two sons are issuing orders, in command of the government, in commandof the military, actually in charge of the government?

Ari Fleischer: We don't know.

Is that a "no," you've seen no evidence? Or you don't know. Are you -- again, communicationscould be intercepted --

Ari Fleischer: We do not have any concrete facts to report. There are all kinds of rumors about what hashappened to Saddam Hussein and his sons, but there are no concrete facts to report.

Earlier today, Secretary Rumsfeld said there were unit-to-unit, U.S. unit to Iraqi unit contacts aboutsurrender and the like. But Secretary Powell said that there were channels open through third parties, itseemed to imply to higher level people in the Iraqi government. Can you expand on that for us?

And is there still an option on the table -- whether it be Saddam Hussein or Tariq Aziz or other seniorofficials in the government -- is there an option on the table for them to leave? Or, as one official here putit last night, is the only question for Saddam Hussein and presumably those around him now justice?

Ari Fleischer: Well, let me put it to you this way. One, I'm not in a position, I'm not going to be able toshed light on every communication that may or may not be taking place. But, two, the President continues tohope that this can be settled in the most peaceful way possible. And the use of force is being pursued to helpmake this get settled in the most peaceful way possible. We shall see what the ultimate outcome is.

The "most peaceful way possible" suggests, then, that you would not -- would the United Statesgovernment allow Saddam Hussein or somebody at a very high level near Saddam Hussein, at this point, to leavethe country and to go into safe haven? Is that still an option for, say, the top 25 people in the Iraqiregime?

Ari Fleischer: I will just leave it the way I said it. The President continues to hope that this can besettled with the least amount of violence possible. And we shall see exactly what takes place on the ground inIraq.

The Turkish parliament has voted to permit troops into Northern Iraq. What is U.S. policy on that and what actions do we intend to take in order to see that that doesn'thappen?

Ari Fleischer: Well, there have been numerous conversations had with Turkish officials. The message hasbeen expressed directly to Turkish officials, and that message still stands. But we see no evidence that theyhave taken that step. I saw some wire reports immediately before I came out here saying -- quoting anonymousTurkish officials as saying that the hiccups that had developed in the overflight rights have been resolved. Icannot confirm that.

We have important allies inside Northern Iraq who are very much afraid of the entrance of Turkish troops.Would we actually use military force to prevent Turkish troops from entering Northern Iraq?

Ari Fleischer: You're asking me to speculate about a hypothetical, and I'm not prepared to do that.

Jim.

I want to talk again about the President's decision making. Was he -- obviously there was some delay between when the war began and when the military began the"shock and awe" campaign. Was that a presidential decision, or was this something he left up tomilitary commanders?

Ari Fleischer: No, the President leaves these matters up to the military commanders. The President hassigned off on the war plan. And the President leaves it to the members of the military, the leadership, tomake the determinations about what the exact right time it is. They make those on a variety of militaryfactors. And the President believes the best way to be successful in winning a war is to let the experts runthe war.

He will, of course, continue to supervise it, to oversee it, and to be deeply involved, but he believesthat the military planners need to make those decisions.

The initial idea, of course, "shock and awe", was to sort of hit the whole country and to shockand awe the military, as well as those loyal to Saddam. Instead, what we've done -- because of the opportunityearlier this week -- was to sort of start from a top-down to work on Saddam, and then on those who are mostloyal to him. Is that the kind of decision the President was involved in? Would he have been engaged indiscussions about whether or not there was a shift in strategy here?

Ari Fleischer: Well, clearly -- and I think that's been made very plain to everybody here -- is that as aresult of a meeting that took place on Wednesday, there was new information received and it was acted upon.And I think what you're seeing is in many ways something similar to what you saw in Afghanistan -- with theUnited States ability not only to be effective, to be accurate, but to be nimble. And this is the part of thetransformation of the military; this is a part of the 21st century thinking about how to be effective in theconduct of military affairs.

Can you tell us now if we're at the point that we would have been without that target of opportunity onWednesday? Is this --

Ari Fleischer: I don't think that it's appropriate for me to get into that type of operational detail andany plans as they may have once existed somewhere.

Greg.

Looking ahead to the supplemental, which I gather -- next week, can you talk a little bit about what you would expect the parameters that the President would like toplace on consideration of the bill when it's on the Hill? How much flexibility does he need in terms ofmanaging the money? How wide can that bill written by Congress to include other domestic issues?

Ari Fleischer: Well, the supplemental's primary purpose is to fund military operations. Obviously, thebuild-up of forces in the region and then the actual engagement in combat incurs additional costs above andbeyond what had previously been budgeted. That's the purpose of the supplemental.

The President has also let it be known that there will be money in there for homeland security -- that willbe in there. And we'll see the exact nature and extent of what is in there at the time that the Presidentauthorizes it.

Ken.

Is the President trying to send a message either to the American people or to the Iraqi leadership bygoing to Camp David this weekend in the middle of a war?

Ari Fleischer: No, there's no message being sent to anybody in Iraq about that; no.

How about to the American people or to the world in general? Is he trying to convey a message of relativenormality in his life?

Ari Fleischer: I think one thing is clear. For the American people, as much as they participate, watch whatis happening, follow the debate and follow the military action, their life goes on. And that's vital. That'sterribly important to the country.

And as I mentioned earlier, the President has every -- every -- bit of communication available andnecessary, as well as has the personnel available and necessary with him at Camp David this weekend.

So to follow, just to put a -- by following his normal routine, by going to Camp David, he's trying tosuggest to the American people that they should follow their normal --

Ari Fleischer: I suggest to you the President is following his normal routine.

Richard.

Ari, in the congressional leaders meeting this morning, how would you characterize the relations between Senator Daschle and the President? Did the subject ofhis criticism of the President come up?

Ari Fleischer: This was a serious, serious briefing, a classified briefing about military operations. Andthis is an important obligation of the executive branch, working with the legislative branch, which has animportant role to play in this matter. That's what the briefing focused on.

Did the subject of his criticism come up at all?

Ari Fleischer: I wasn't there for every bit of it. I'd be very, very surprised.

Getting back to the supplemental, Ari. What is the President's message to those senators who would liketo link any kind of tax cuts or even the size of tax cuts to the question of the cost of the war?

Ari Fleischer: Well, the President believes that no matter what happens in the pursuit of a war, it isvital that jobs are available for the soldiers and the Marines and all the servicemen and women when they comehome from the war. And that means it's important for Congress to pass an economic growth package that gets theeconomy growing again, faster than it was already growing.

And so the President hopes that the package that he sent up to the Congress will be the package that theCongress agrees to. Clearly, the House of Representatives did pass the President's -- largely passed thePresident's proposals into the budget resolution they just passed. It's pending in the Senate. There are aseries of debates underway and votes underway in the Senate as we speak. And so far, so good.

The homeland security money that will be in the supplemental, my understanding is the White House isconcerned that risk assessment, in terms of the cities and locations that should get that money is not beingconsidered enough by appropriators. What's the White House view on that?

Ari Fleischer: The President does think for homeland security funding to be the most effective, it needs tobe the most flexible. It should not be earmarked to specific cities, not on the basis of the threat to thatcity or to that state, but rather on the basis of some other, more parochial factor or legislative factor. Sothe President believes that the purpose of taxpayers sending money to Washington for the purpose of protectingthe homeland is to protect the homeland where the threat is the greatest.

Ari, yes or no, has Saddam Hussein lost his last opportunity to leave Iraq?

Ari Fleischer: Well, certainly he didn't take up the opportunity that the President provided him. And Isaid that that would be his final mistake, and indeed he has made a mistake that looks final. So I can'tanswer every instance. But the President gave him the opportunity to leave, he did not take it.

No further discussions on that point? You've said several times today, pointedly, that the Presidenthopes this can be concluded in -- with as little loss of life as possible, as little damage to Iraq'sinfrastructure, which certainly leaves open the possibility that even at this late date, he could escape thecountry and go into exile and the hostilities --

Ari Fleischer: I do not know, we do not know enough about the status of Saddam Hussein to know if that's anoption. We don't know.

Would it be an option --

Ari Fleischer: We don't know. April.

Ari, two things. What do you say to these Americans who say they are patriotic, who want disarmament, butdon't want war for the examples that we're seeing now -- death and destruction in Iraq? It's being laid outfor you in your front yard right now and around the country. What do you say to these people?

Ari Fleischer: Well, the President's message to those people is, they're just as patriotic as anybody whohas a different view of how best to achieve disarmament. There is no question about that. What there is aquestion is, how to effectively disarm Saddam Hussein. And on that point, the President and much of thecountry respectfully disagree.

And on another subject, back onto the television watching. You say President Bush doesn't watch muchtelevision. Is he not watching the "shock and awe" today because he's getting military video, U.S.video of the events there?

Ari Fleischer: April, he is not doing anything differently today than he would typically do. The Presidentdoes not typically watch a lot of TV, to get his news from TV. I know I shouldn't say it in this room, butthat's not what he does.

The President receives briefings that give him the information he needs to do his job in totality. ThePresident approaches this in a very serious fashion about receiving the best, most up-to-date briefings fromthe best, most expert officials. And that's how he approaches his job.

But isn't it understandable that as the American public is watching the bombardment, turning to nighttimesky into light and seeing the gravity of the situation, that he might need to understand what America isseeing and see it with them so he can speak effectively to the American public?

Ari Fleischer: The President of the United States did not need to watch TV to understand what the Americanpeople think about the decision to use force to disarm the Iraqi regime. He understands what the Americanpeople understand, that there are risks involved, that lives may be lost -- but the cause is right, the causeis just, the goal is disarmament to protect our people. And he has a deep understanding of all that.

Goyal.

Ari, the President has spoken with the Indian Prime Minister three to four times in a month continuously. What they have been talking about? Is this Iraq only? And whatPresident has been asking India to do in this war, or what the Prime Minister is asking the President?

Ari Fleischer: Well, typically, in the conversations with the President the two discuss, most recently, thesituation in Iraq. They also talk frequently about the need to peacefully resolve any of the disputes alongthe line of control. That's typically the two subjects they'll talk about.

-- line of control there was a -- the President has spoken and the Prime Minister mentioned to thePresident that there was a legislation in New Hampshire -- legislators passed a resolution on Kashmir. AndIndia is saying that in the parliament that this is internal affairs and local --

Ari Fleischer: This is something that was passed into legislature in New Hampshire? I can't speak to that.

Joe.

In the meeting this morning, did the President talk about keeping his domestic agenda on track?

Ari Fleischer: The meeting with the congressional leaders, to the degree that I heard about it, was focusedentirely on the military mission.

Has the U.S. government engaged in any disinformation this week in order to get the leaders of Iraq tomove from one place to another? And what do you, personally, think about this information?

Ari Fleischer: I think, given the fact that you have as many reporters as you have on the ground and areable to watch events live, with

your own eyes, I think you know that any attempts to do anything that would be said to be lies would notpossibly work and should not be done.

Connie.

Thank you. A few questions. First of all, please, to the President, he can get everything he needs fromradio, he doesn't need TV. Seriously --

The Wall Street Journal. (Applause.)

What are you doing here at the White House to make certain that Iran or North Korea or any other countries are not taking advantage of the situation while we're so heavily engaged inIraq?

Ari Fleischer: Well, our nation is a large one and is able to honor its commitments globally, even with theaction that is taking place in Iraq. The message to North Korea, as you well know, has been a diplomaticmessage, a message that is being pursued in a multilateral fashion. And that will continue to be the case.

Foreign affairs are being conducted in all corners of the world at the same time events are unfolding inIraq. The United States carries out its messages daily, not only to North Korea and to Iran, but to othernations, on a host of issues, with whom we have important trade obligations. The President continues to havemeetings with his staff on domestic matters. The Trade Representative continues to be engaged around the worldin promoting trade around the world. The business of the United States of America across the globe goes on.

One more on Turkey, sir. Given Turkey's inconsistent behavior, does the President still think it's entitled to the same billionsof dollars worth of aid?

Ari Fleischer: Well, there's nothing new to report on that front. I've shared with you before about thetotal aid package that had previously been offered to the Turks, and that total package is not on the table.

Ari, the President may not watch the war on TV, may not need to watch it on TV, but a lot of peoplearound the world will. And is this the image that he wanted them to see, of the "shock and awe"campaign, of the war? And did he weigh the possible effect on public opinion that those images might have?

Ari Fleischer: Well, have you seen an effect on public opinion? I'm not sure -- are you saying it's -- whateffect have you seen?

I'm offering that as a possibility. But they are pictures that a lot of people will use to judge how thewar is going, how it's being carried out.

Ari Fleischer: Let me make sure everybody understands what I have said about the President's TV watching habits. Iexplained that the President does watch, but he does not depend on TV for his source of all news that hereceives. He will watch things, from time to time, as I made clear. I was asked specifically, where was thePresident at 1:00 p.m. today, was he watching TV from 1:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. or so. And I explained that I waswith the President at the beginning, he was not watching it at that time, and I can't speak for what he didwhen I was not in the room with him.

In terms of the public, the President believes that the public understands what is at stake here whenmilitary force is used. The public has seen the use of military force before. And the American people arealways regretful if it has come that force must be used to achieve an objective. And in this case, asregretful as the American people are that our military has to be engaged in combat -- risking the lives ofAmericans, let alone anybody else -- the American people understand what is at stake is protecting theAmerican people from Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction.

The American people also saw September 11th on TV, and the American people and their President never wantto see a scene like that again on our shores. One of the best ways, in the President's judgment, to makecertain that that scene is no longer -- is never seen again is to make certain that enemies who would gatheracross oceans are not able to gather, in the form of receiving weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqiregime that they could then bring to attack us once again.

Ari, with Secretary Rumsfeld and others today saying that the Iraqi regime is losing control, how and when would the U.S. anticipate filling the power vacuum?

Ari Fleischer: Well, I think events on the ground will dictate the pace of all future events involving thereconstruction of Iraq. The principles that are going to guide reconstruction of Iraq, at whatever time itbecomes operative, will be the protection of the territorial integrity of Iraq, and that Iraq shall begoverned from both within and without by the Iraqi people. That's the principles that the administration ispursuing.

We've been in touch of a great number of Iraqis, both within and without, and we will continue to pursuethose endeavors.

What's going to be done in the short term, assuming this prediction is fulfilled that control is lost, toprevent anarchy there?

Ari Fleischer: First of all, I think it's important, as exactly what the Secretary said, we're watching thescene unfold in Iraq. This continues to be the early stages of a military operation of whose length no one canpredict. So before people can make actual predictions about the next government, this military campaign willcontinue to be pursued. Once the military campaign has pursued point of success, of course we will maintainthe presence to protect the security of the Iraqi people. We want to make certain that if there are any oldscores to settle, if there are any internecine conflicts, we can help to protect the security of the Iraqipeople.

In addition, we will continue to have a presence for, as Campbell talked about earlier, the humanitarianaspects, the distribution of food and other programs. I can share with you that already, as part of our effortto help jump start the United Nations Oil for Food program, we have provided already $40 million to the WorldFood Program, for logistic preparations, and will soon provide an additional $20 million.

We're prepared to provide approximately half a million metric tons of food if there is an extended break inthe Oil for Food program deliveries. We are undertaking an enormous humanitarian program of our own, includingcontributions to U.N. agencies and our own food donation. We hope the United Nations and other nations willquickly be able to join us. Secretary Veneman at the Department of Agriculture announced yesterday the releaseof some 600,000 metric tons of wheat for the Iraqi people.

Do you view as troubling at all President Chirac's statements today, though, that the U.S. and the UKshould not be in charge of oversight of the post-war --

Ari Fleischer: We will continue -- the goal is worthy, you can be certain that the humanitarian needs ofthe Iraqi people are met. And we will continue to do everything necessary to meet those humanitarian needs. Wewill work through the United Nations. We have our own abilities in the region to protect and provide for thehumanitarian needs, and we will pursue those both.

Has the list grown of nations that are backing --

Ari Fleischer: The last update I have is 46. So that would be an indication of growth by two.

And one last question, if you'd be so kind. Does the President feel the close resolution, the one that was approved by the Senate and the House, finally putan end to any political bickering on the war?

Ari Fleischer: That's not up to the President, that's up to anybody who would politically bicker.

Ari, the administration made clear in Afghanistan that this was not -- that that war was not about oneman, Osama bin Laden. But isn't it the case that this war is, in fact, about one man, Saddam Hussein? And isit possible for the U.S.-UK to declare victory if they can't account for a dead or exiled Saddam Hussein?

Ari Fleischer: That's an interesting question. And there are, indeed, differences. As you can see, thePresident kept referring to the war in Afghanistan as a different kind of war because of the nature of the alQaeda organization, or loosely knit group of terrorists who don't operate out of any set, fixed positions.They had bases that they would operate in Afghanistan, they then would disperse around the world -- as we sawon September 11th -- blend into our society and to other societies to carry out their acts of terror, makingit a different kind of war.

In many ways, this is a more traditional type of military conflict that people can witness. The key to thismilitary conflict is to make certain that Saddam Hussein, his sons and the leaders around them are not in aposition to do to the world again what they have done now, which is arm themselves with weapons of massdestruction, particularly biological and chemical weapons, which then could be used against the people of theUnited States. That's the objective of the military campaign, is to disarm the regime and make sure thatnobody can take power in the regime who -- and have to make this a repeat event for a future AmericanPresident.

So I hope that answers your question.

One quick one -- does that mean, then, we need some definitive proof of his demise before we can declarea victory here?

Ari Fleischer: I think what's most important is that Iraq be governed by people who are able to govern Iraqin a manner that it becomes -- that all nations on earth should be become nations that are dedicated to peace,not to the development of weapons of mass destruction for the purpose of using them against their neighbors,as Iraq has done in the past.

Ari, you speak of Iraqis embracing us as liberators. But a recent poll by Zogby International of all theArab world -- countries around there show a very negative perception of the United States -- 95 percent inSaudi Arabia have a negative view of the United States. Why would Iraqis be different? Why would they havesuch a more positive view? And with this "shock and awe" campaign, which could result in civiliandeaths, why are they suddenly going to become enamored of --

Ari Fleischer: Well, you just said something about all these civilian deaths. As Secretary Rumsfeldexplained earlier, this is targeted at the military targets. If there are civilian casualties, of course, andthere are no guarantees in war, as we said, but every step is being taken to protect the civilians and thecitizens of Iraq.

You know, I don't know that I need to answer that question. I think events on the ground will provethemselves out. You'll have the answers yourselves. You are on the ground there; you will witness it yourself.From everything the President has heard, his belief is that the Iraqi people will welcome the throwing off ofthe repression that they have suffered under. It is mankind's nature to want to be free. And the Iraqisdeserve that, just as much as anybody else on this earth deserves that. And events on the ground will provethemselves out; we shall see exactly what unfolds.

Anne.

You said earlier that you don't know whether Saddam Hussein is in control. Is that to say you don't know, and the administration does not know, whether he's alive? Is thataccurate?

Ari Fleischer: I've been asked the question any number of ways, people trying to find out what the statusof Saddam Hussein is. The fact of the matter is we don't know. We do not know how Saddam Hussein is feelingtoday.

But is it safe to assume that, given that the bombs are still falling, that you're operating on theassumption that he is still alive and that you will operate on that assumption until it's proven otherwise?

Ari Fleischer: There's a military campaign that is underway. The purpose of the campaign is to disarm theregime, to target the military facilities of a wide variety of natures. And anything beyond that, you need totalk to the Pentagon about. I have no more answers on that.

Ari, some former Presidents have come to the West Wing, like, in the middle of the night when they'vebeen conducting wars. You said yesterday that President Bush does not feel like he should be micromanagingthis war. Can you expand on that a little bit and tell us why he feels that way?

Ari Fleischer: Because the President believes that the best way to carry out a military operation is tovery carefully, thoroughly review the plans in advance; to ask the hard questions of the planners as the planis being developed; to have a team in whom he has confidence; to have a military on the ground that issuperbly trained, well equipped, and well paid. The President is satisfied that those criteria have been met.He would not have authorized action had he not been satisfied that those criteria were met. And that is thePresident's approach to it.

Throughout the process, the President will continue to monitor it. He will continue to watch. He willcontinue to be very adaptable as events require. I think you saw that on Wednesday.

Ari, thank you. Part of my question has been answered already, but I am going to ask you anyway.

Ari Fleischer: I thought you might. (Laughter.)

If Saddam Hussein is injured bad, or wounded, and if at least one of his sons was killed in Wednesday'snight air strike, who is in charge in Iraq, and who are we dealing with, if anybody?

Ari Fleischer: It's not a question of who are we dealing with. There's a military operation underway todeal with their weapons of mass destruction and their top leaders and their military targets. That's with whomwe're dealing. And the President gave Saddam Hussein his opportunity to leave the country, and he did notavail himself of it. It couldn't have been any clearer. If he did not, the President said, leave within 48hours, he could have -- military conflict would result. Military conflict has resulted.

Finlay.

A couple of years ago, the President traveled to key states to influence, you know, wavering senators in the vote on the tax bill. By staying so close to the home front rightnow, isn't he, in effect, disarming himself in the current fight over the tax bill?

Ari Fleischer: Well, I think, number one, you have to give credit where the Congress has acted. The Houseof Representatives, in a narrow margin, passed the President's budget last night. I can point out that themargin by which they passed his budget was triple the margin by which they passed trade promotion authority,which is now law of the land. A narrow margin, but narrow margins become laws of lands.

In the Senate, they're continuing to discuss the budget. It is being voted on as we speak. Many of theamendments that sought to defeat the President's budget have not been accepted. Some have, at least for themoment, whittled down the size of the tax cut that the President proposed. We'll see if that's the final wordor not in the Senate. It may or may not be. But then it goes to the conference. The Ways and Means Committeehas already started taking action on the tax plan, which can only follow after the overall budget is passed.So whether the President is in Washington or travelling the country this year, progress is being made and thePresident is heartened by the progress.

But, Ari, among the senators that are in opposition to the size of the tax cut this year and want to atleast cut it in half, there are those among them that supported the President's tax cut in 2001. Is theadministration at all concerned about this?

Ari Fleischer: Well, of course we're going to continue to be engaged in the legislative process, but if youwatch the legislative process, you'll see it's working -- working rather nicely. The House just passed thePresident's budget. The Senate is still in the middle of it. So different members of Congress, of course, aregoing to have different opinions at different times.

And the President will continue to work with them, because the bottom line remains, passage of a budget andan economic growth plan that creates jobs for the American people. That's the final end that the President isseeking.

Ari, back to the supplemental. You said that the President -- the time for the President to act is coming, but we're not there yet. Whatpiece of the puzzle is he waiting for that he doesn't have yet? For instance, is he waiting to see if the waris going to be over quickly or drag on?

Ari Fleischer: I think one thing we've made clear all along is the President was reserving the finaljudgments about what the appropriate numbers or range of numbers would be to present to the Congress until wecould express it to the Congress with the greatest precision. And a certain amount of passage of time helps toarrive at that precision.