Ari Fleischer served as White House Press Secretary during the first three years of George W. Bush's presidency. During his tenure, Fleischer spent several hours each day with President Bush and delivered daily White House press briefings. He fielded reporters' questions during numerous crises, including the 9/11 terrorist attacks and two wars.

Fleischer talks with us very candidly about his intense days in the crucible of power, his relationships with the president and the white house press corps. He also tells us about his book on his White House years, Taking Heat.

Interview by MARGARET BETTS and ALVINA COLLARDEAU

As official White House Press Secretary, speaking on behalf of President Bush, how much time did you spend with the President each day?

ARI FLEISCHER: As Press Secretary the only way to speak to the President is to listen to him. So, I typically spent about a quarter, sometimes a third of my days in meetings with the President, hearing what he heard, listening to him. I watched him as he formulated his mind, as he got briefed on the pros and cons of different issues. That's the only way to do the job, as you don't speak for yourself, you don't speak for anybody else—you represent him.

In terms of your relationship with the president, who advised the other more on how to represent the administration to the media and the public at large?

In terms of setting policy, he's got a lot more expert people than me — people who have spent their careers in the health field; or in social security, or Condoleezza Rice in foreign policy. So my post is not to give policy advice, per se, but I'll often chime up and say, "If you do this, here are the communications problems you are going to have."

Mayor Giuliani's Press Secretary once explained that 90% of his job was more about keeping things out of the papers, than about getting stories into the papers. Do you agree: is 90% of the job of a Press Secretary to prevent stories from making it into the press?

My job was to try to lend a perspective or a reflection to the news that represents what the President is thinking. So, I didn't look at it as to "keep things out." I looked at it as to try to put the President's point of view in.

If you had to pick, which of the following two statements is more the function of a White House Press Secretary; To protect the image of the administration or to disseminate information to the public?

The two just blend. You know, I think the French word for a spokesman is "porte-parole". Literally, you carry the words of somebody else. My job is to carry his words. But, in so doing, I would deal with how reporters would go on to shape the story. And, so my duty as spokesperson was always to get his point of view across. It is like a chess game. I mean, I would know long before I took the podium that they're going to ask "A". And I was thinking, I'm going to answer "B". My "B" is going to prompt their "C," you know, and their "C" is going to prompt my "D."

You often used to say at press conferences, "I can't speculate on this." Is that a phrase a Press Secretary has to have handy? It seems these were your most used or overused words.

Yeah... I did that a few times! You know, I can't speculate—and it drove reporters crazy. But you shouldn't speculate in my job. It would have been wrong and irresponsible. It would have been what the press loved. And that's why the press criticizes you if you don't do it. They put pressure on you to do so. But you have to be disciplined, if you're going to be the Press Secretary. You have to know what you want to say on behalf of the president and I would try to find a line, because my job is to also help the press. So, I tried to help them get more access to individuals, get more interviews, be able to see the President more often. But, it didn't mean that I was going to blab about things I shouldn't talk about.

What were your primary sources of news, when you were Press Secretary? Any favorite papers?

Well, my primary source was the president himself. That's really it. You listen to him and say what he thought. That's why I would sit in on his meetings. My secondary source was the staff: Dr. Rice, Andy Card, or whoever I need to go to for clarification or more information.

What do you think of the quote from President Bush when he said that; "he doesn't read the papers. He gets the news from his staff only." This drew wide comment.

I think he's being a little cute when he says that. Because he reads the papers. But he doesn't get his news from the papers. When you're the President, you basically know what the news is, and then you read it the next day. But he reads the papers to keep up with what reporters are thinking. He would always be asking me how the press is. He didn't consume himself with it. He had a healthy distance from it, but he also had a healthy sense of keeping a close eye on it.

On September 11th, you were by the President's side most of the day.

Right.

Can you please give us a personal, step by step description of what really happened on that day, in the inner presidential circle?

Well, typically, when I boarded Air Force One , there's a staff cabin about half way back, and that's where I would usually go sit with the other staff. But on that day, I went straight into the President's Cabin on Air Force One and just stayed there and took notes on everything he did and said.

What did you witness?

Two things jumped at me. One was the terrible confusion and lack of facts. We had reports when we were still in the air about a car bombing at the State Department, that the mall was on fire. When the plane went down in Pennsylvania, the first report that the President got on the plane was that the plane went down near Camp David. There was a swirl of information that wasn't always accurate. He also got a report that an unidentified aircraft was heading toward his ranch. That turned out to be bogus.

How can the President of the United States receive such unchecked reports?

You know, it's part of the fog of war. In a moment like that information is just flooding in. And you have to sort through it to see what's accurate or not. So, I think that's what it was. Whatever the object was, heading for his ranch, was probably a police helicopter, or, you know, something that should have been there, but the reports came in otherwise. So that was one.

And?

The second thing, though, was the President instantly said to those of us who were in the airplane, that, "This is war." And he said to the Vice-President, "I heard about the plane that hit the Pentagon and when I find out who did this, they're not going to like me as President." And he said to Donald Rumsfeld, "Pretty soon, Don(ald), the ball will be in your court and in General Myers' court [The Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff] to clean this up. We will be patient, but it's not going to be a slap on the wrist." And what most struck me is, he instantly put the mission to his top people that, "This is war." I think this is why he was successful so quickly and with so little loss of life in Afghanistan. We didn't even know it was Al Quaeda, at that moment. I think another president could have said, "We're going to begin with an international meeting. We're going to begin with sanctions. We'll slowly ratchet this up." And I don't know that our nation would have rallied as quickly as we did, and supported war [in Afghanistan].

And that's what a difference of leader can make. In retrospect, it is easy to think that, of course, it was war. The next morning at a meeting with congressional leaders, a very prominent Democrat chided the president for using the word "war." And he said, "You should be cautious in your rhetoric. ‘War' is such an emotional word." In fact, I have to say that President Chirac, when he visited, he said to the president that it's best not use the word "war." Because he didn't think that it was a "conventional" war in that sense—but a different type of war. So different people had different reactions. But I think all in all, it was the confusion and the resolve that I saw on September 11th.

You were in the classroom that morning when the president was reading to school children.

Yes.

In his documentary, Fahrenheit 911, Michael Moore shows the President remaining seated in a kindergarten classroom for 12 minutes, where he was reading a book titled My Pet Goat to the schoolchildren, after he had already been told (by Chief of Staff Andrew Card) that "America is under attack." What happened in that room? What do you make of this?

Well, I was struck by, one, how calm the President was when he received the news—which to me is a mark again of a leader. Can you imagine if the President had acted shaken up on camera? If the President had been spooked or scared, he would have jumped from his chair and run out of the room. It would have panicked our nation. His calm set a tone of reassurance that I think helped protect the country that day, to the opposite of what Mr. Moore describes. And as a factual matter, he didn't know about the third plane, until it hit the Pentagon. Nobody did.

And so, if the President had left seven minutes earlier, it wouldn't have changed the events. It wouldn't have done anything differently. At that very moment everybody was just still talking of just the two planes in New York.

So I think this is one of the most unfair attacks by anybody I could ever imagine. My only hope is that Europe and Spain are fortunate enough not to have Michael Moores who, after the train attack, would have made a movie about Spanish leaders and suggest that somehow they were incompetent. That they didn't do enough. It is sad. But, part of free America is that people have the right to engage in whatever they want to do. I think it's [Michael Moore's film] unfortunate.

A persistent question during your tenure, as Press Secretary, obviously, concerned Iraq. During your White House Press briefings, every day you were talking about the weapons of mass destruction.

Right.

You said in January 2003, "We know for a fact that there are weapons there. This war is about protecting the American people from Saddam Hussein, who has weapons that kills millions." If you could rephrase today, what would you say?

Well, it doesn't matter what you do in life, whether you're the President's spokesman or whether you are talking to your wife or to your children or to your co-workers. Whatever you say has to be based on what is known at the time. Everybody in our government, and the United Nations, the French government, the German government, thought at the time that he did in fact have weapons of mass destruction. I was told by everybody in our government that he did have chemical and biological weapons—so my job was to say it. Press Secretaries aren't the "finders of fact." We are the reporters of the facts as they are known to the government. That's my obligation. So I accurately and dutifully said what we thought.

What do you make of the fact that no weapons of mass destruction were found?

Well, I think the reason we went to war was that because Saddam was a threat. He was a threat because, in addition to his willingness to use force, we thought he had WMDs and that he would use that force. David Kay, our arms inspector who went to Iraq after the war—an honest man, said, "We may all be wrong. We did not find any." David Kay also said, "This is what we have found." And he reported to the Congress that while U. N. inspectors were in Iraq in the fall of 2002, Saddam had dispersed clandestine programs in the homes of Iraqi scientists. And in these homes was an ongoing research and development effort to make biological and chemical weapons. They never stopped trying. This is what was found after the war. So to me, even if we didn't find them, how safe would we have been if one day we did find them before he used them. Whether we removed Saddam before he used them, it was only a question of time. What was he doing with clandestine programs hidden in homes, developing, if not for the purpose of eventually using them?

So do I feel bad about what we did? Absolutely not. I sleep better at night knowing that we removed this threat. Because if we didn't do it in 2003, it would have to be done in 2005, or 2006, or 2007. It was only a matter of time... he was developing these weapons. That was good enough.

Again quoting from your White House press briefings, you set an ultimatum, when you said "Either Saddam Hussein disarms within weeks or the US is prepared to use military force." Wasn't it an ambiguous ultimatum? How could he disarm if there were no arms per se?

Well, at the time, yes. You can only make decisions based on the information that has been presented to you. I think that this president, if he had been told, "Here is what we know: he does not have any weapons. None. But what we do know…

Well, isn't it what Hans Blix and many other U.N. weapons inspectors were saying, were questioning?

They just reported they hadn't found any. They didn't say, "He doesn't have them." They just said, "We haven't found them."

France was saying, "How about taking containment and the diplomacy route while leaving time for the inspectors to finish their jobs"? Why was it so "pressing," such an "imminent threat," as you then put it?

Okay. Because I think just the opposite was going to happen. I think that Saddam was coming very close to having the sanctions removed—actually France and Russia both at the United Nations wanted to remove sanctions three or four years earlier. I think that the future of Iraq would have been—if the sanctions were removed, Saddam would have had more wealth, more money with which to pursue weapons programs.

And if President Bush had been told, "Here's what we know. No weapons. But what we did find…"—'cause now we know this is true, "that he has an ongoing research and development program hidden inside these homes." I think any American President, after September 11th, who would have allowed Saddam to have ongoing research and development efforts, would not have protected our country. Saddam Hussein should have been removed from power. And he was. And I think the world is better and safer for it.

The President, before making up his mind about whether to go to war or not, met with Nobel Peace Prize winner Elie Wiesel. Wiesel said to the President, "If only Europe had taken action in 1938 or 1939, the Holocaust and World War II could have been avoided." I think the entire history of Europe would have been better and safer and stronger if the United States and Europe in '38 or '39 would have taken action against Hitler. We'll never know—because we took action against Saddam. If Elie Wiesel had been listened to, we would never have known if Elie Wiesel was right. I think he was right and in retrospect President Bush was right, at the time.

Many criticize the Iraq invasion as a "misguided effort." President Bush's message after September 11th was to "Bring terrorists to justice. Bring our enemies to justice." The U.S. went into Afghanistan but also into Iraq. Some 500 billion dollars is expected to be spent, mainly in Iraq, compared to the 40 billion on Homeland Security (a 1-to-12 ratio, according to CNN). Do you still think that this is the right direction and NOT a "misguided effort?"

Well, I don't know what the financial numbers are, so assuming that's right... the cost of a military operation overseas is massive, compared to the cost of paying for policemen and firemen at home. It's just a disproportion of costs. It doesn't mean your priorities are different. It means that the expense of flying somebody to Iraq, arming them in Iraq, housing them in Iraq, doesn't compare to having somebody in America, who wakes up every morning in their own home and shows up to do their jobs. So the financial comparison isn't an indication of one priority over another.

And I do think, just as the cost of the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe after WWII has paid the world many times over, the cost of rebuilding Iraq and building a democracy in the Arab world will repay the world many times over. Japan and Germany had no history of being democracies or capitalistic until after WWII. Same thing with Afghanistan and Iraq, I have high hopes that they will slowly emerge as examples to the rest of the world, just as Japan and Germany did.

Tell us about the critical moments you have included in your book Taking Heat: the President, the Press and my Years at the White House.

It tells the whole tale of the time I was there. It walks through September 11th. It walks through the Anthrax attacks. The war in Afghanistan, the process with the United Nations, the war in Iraq. The US/French relations. I was a French minor. And so that whole thing just about US/Franco relations, also, because I'm kind of a secret Francophile. (LAUGHTER) I love French culture and speaking French when I can. So that's in there as well.

 And it's also a lot about the press corps; how the reporters do their job, and what it was like to stand at that podium and take their questions all day long.

Very few people could do it — get up every morning and have a room full of journalists fire questions at you left and right.

I mean, you shouldn't go into this line of work if you're uncomfortable taking hard questions from reporters. It's our system. But you gotta believe, because if you don't believe it, it will wear you down. But you know, one of the most important reasons I left is because it did start to wear me down. It really did. I was starting to burn out. And I never wanted to burn out. I wanted to leave before I did.

What type of constitution does it take to do your job?

I work out. Running helps. But I think I just have a nature where I let things just roll off my back. The most important thing is you gotta believe in your boss. Doesn't matter—if Senator Kerry [had won], his press secretary would just have to have it in their heart to believe in Senator Kerry. Because reporters' jobs are to ask from the opposite side of the issue.

How do you find the transition into the private sector?

It's great! I can wake up, when I want to wake up. I can see my little girl. So that's nice. But... I miss the President. He called in to the hospital when Liz was born. And he talked to me and then he talked to my wife, and he talked to my mother. And, you know, I miss him. I don't miss the stress and the pressure, though.

Is mastering a room full of journalists comparable to being a conductor in front of his orchestra?

No, I thought it was more like a piñata standing there.(LAUGHTER) Conductors usually have members of the band follow them. (LAUGHTER) Reporters never follow.

You've done that for so long, did you have favorite reporters, and ever think; "Okay, I'd rather take his or her question"?

No, I went in order. I hate people going, "Here, here." Whoever gets the loudest voice gets the question. I just go in order. So I could never do what you were saying. I couldn't do that.

The hardest days I had were when there was really nothing going on because I'd get questions on 20 different topics. That's hard to prepare for. When there was a big rage or controversy, that's when it's a lot easier actually to brief because I knew the press was just gonna harp on it. They'd stay on one topic and rephrase each other's questions in 17 different ways, hoping I would answer differently the next time.

Did you give any advice to your successor, Scott McClellan?

What I told Scott was; always let the truth be your guide. Do your homework and take the time to be with your family. He was engaged at the time. He got married I guess six months into the job.

Did you have much family time yourself? Or did you put your personal life aside?

I got married while [I was] in the White House. I met my wife working at the White House. So we met there and carved it out. You don't have a lot of time. But what little time I had I dedicated it to her. She worked at the White House and then she worked at the Department of Education.

While at the White House, what was your greatest press conference blunder?

Oh, probably the one where I said, "The Iraqi people took it on themselves to have one bullet to get rid of Saddam Hussein." People thought I was advocating assassination. And it's certainly not the type of things you should talk about if you're speaking for the government.

What did you mean when you said that?

I was asked a question about the cost of war—how much it would cost. And I said that the cost of a one way ticket if Saddam Hussein was to leave Iraq would be less than the cost of war. And the cost of a bullet if the Iraqi people took it on themselves would be even less than that. And so, what I was saying is that if the Iraqi people got rid of Saddam there wouldn't have to be a war. But if you're speaking on the behalf of the government, it's certainly not how you should speak. It is quite inappropriate.

Do you think you ever will go back into public life? Are you considering it?

You know, it's all I've done my whole life, 21 years. So I want to be in the private sector for now.

NOTE: Fleischer currently heads his own company, Fleischer Communications, a Washington consulting firm that advises corporate executives on handling the news media. Joining the likes of Al Gore, Madeleine Albright and Rudolph W. Giuliani, Fleischer is also a very in-demand keynote speaker represented by the Washington Speakers Bureau.

©2005 EXCLUSIVE PRESS
 

©2005 EXCLUSIVE PRESS