President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference
The East Room
8:02 P.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. I'm pleased to take your questions
tonight, and to discuss with the American people the serious matters
facing our country and the world.
This has been an important week on two fronts on our war against
terror. First, thanks to the hard work of American and Pakistani
officials, we captured the mastermind of the September the 11th attacks
against our nation. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed conceived and planned the
hijackings and directed the actions of the hijackers. We believe his
capture will further disrupt the terror network and their planning for
additional attacks.
Second, we have arrived at an important moment in confronting the
threat posed to our nation and to peace by Saddam Hussein and his
weapons of terror. In New York tomorrow, the United Nations Security
Council will receive an update from the chief weapons inspector. The
world needs him to answer a single question: Has the Iraqi regime
fully and unconditionally disarmed, as required by Resolution 1441, or
has it not?
Iraq's dictator has made a public show of producing and destroying
a few missiles -- missiles that violate the restrictions set out
more than 10 years ago. Yet, our intelligence shows that even as he is
destroying these few missiles, he has ordered the continued production
of the very same type of missiles.
Iraqi operatives continue to hide biological and chemical agents to
avoid detection by inspectors. In some cases, these materials have
been moved to different locations every 12 to 24 hours, or placed in
vehicles that are in residential neighborhoods.
We know from multiple intelligence sources that Iraqi weapons
scientists continue to be threatened with harm should they cooperate
with U.N. inspectors. Scientists are required by Iraqi intelligence to
wear concealed recording devices during interviews, and hotels where
interviews take place are bugged by the regime.
These are not the actions of a regime that is disarming. These are
the actions of a regime engaged in a willful charade. These are the
actions of a regime that systematically and deliberately is defying the
world. If the Iraqi regime were disarming, we would know it, because
we would see it. Iraq's weapons would be presented to inspectors, and
the world would witness their destruction. Instead, with the world
demanding disarmament, and more than 200,000 troops positioned near his
country, Saddam Hussein's response is to produce a few weapons for
show, while he hides the rest and builds even more.
Inspection teams do not need more time, or more personnel. All
they need is what they have never received -- the full cooperation
of the Iraqi regime. Token gestures are not acceptable. The only
acceptable outcome is the one already defined by a unanimous vote of
the Security Council -- total disarmament.
Great Britain, Spain, and the United States have introduced a new
resolution stating that Iraq has failed to meet the requirements of
Resolution 1441. Saddam Hussein is not disarming. This is a fact. It
cannot be denied.
Saddam Hussein has a long history of reckless aggression and
terrible crimes. He possesses weapons of terror. He provides funding
and training and safe haven to terrorists -- terrorists who would
willingly use weapons of mass destruction against America and other
peace-loving countries. Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct
threat to this country, to our people, and to all free people.
If the world fails to confront the threat posed by the Iraqi
regime, refusing to use force, even as a last resort, free nations
would assume immense and unacceptable risks. The attacks of September
the 11th, 2001 showed what the enemies of America did with four
airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states
could do with weapons of mass destruction.
We are determined to confront threats wherever they arise. I will
not leave the American people at the mercy of the Iraqi dictator and
his weapons.
In the event of conflict, America also accepts our responsibility
to protect innocent lives in every way possible. We'll bring food and
medicine to the Iraqi people. We'll help that nation to build a just
government, after decades of brutal dictatorship. The form and
leadership of that government is for the Iraqi people to choose.
Anything they choose will be better than the misery and torture and
murder they have known under Saddam Hussein.
Across the world and in every part of America, people of goodwill
are hoping and praying for peace. Our goal is peace -- for our
nation, for our friends and allies, for the people of the Middle East.
People of goodwill must also recognize that allowing a dangerous
dictator to defy the world and harbor weapons of mass murder and terror
is not peace at all; it is pretense. The cause of peace will be
advanced only when the terrorists lose a wealthy patron and protector,
and when the dictator is fully and finally disarmed.
Tonight I thank the men and women of our armed services and their
families. I know their deployment so far from home is causing hardship
for many military families. Our nation is deeply grateful to all who
serve in uniform. We appreciate your commitment, your idealism, and
your sacrifice. We support you, and we know that if peace must be
defended, you are ready.
Ron Fournier.
Q Let me see if I can further -- if you could further
define what you just called this important moment we're in, since
you've made it clear just now that you don't think Saddam has disarmed,
and we have a quarter million troops in the Persian Gulf, and now that
you've called on the world to be ready to use force as a last resort.
Are we just days away from the point of which you decide whether or not
we go to war? And what harm would it do to give Saddam a final
ultimatum? A two- or three-day deadline to disarm or face force?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we're still in the final stages of
diplomacy. I'm spending a lot of time on the phone, talking to fellow
leaders about the need for the United Nations Security Council to state
the facts, which is Saddam Hussein hasn't disarmed. Fourteen
forty-one, the Security Council resolution passed unanimously last
fall, said clearly that Saddam Hussein has one last chance to disarm.
He hasn't disarmed. And so we're working with Security Council members
to resolve this issue at the Security Council.
This is not only an important moment for the security of our
nation, I believe it's an important moment for the Security Council,
itself. And the reason I say that is because this issue has been
before the Security Council -- the issue of disarmament of Iraq
-- for 12 long years. And the fundamental question facing the
Security Council is, will its words mean anything? When the Security
Council speaks, will the words have merit and weight?
I think it's important for those words to have merit and weight,
because I understand that in order to win the war against terror there
must be a united effort to do so; we must work together to defeat
terror.
Iraq is a part of the war on terror. Iraq is a country that has
got terrorist ties. It's a country with wealth. It's a country that
trains terrorists, a country that could arm terrorists. And our fellow
Americans must understand in this new war against terror, that we not
only must chase down al Qaeda terrorists, we must deal with weapons of
mass destruction, as well.
That's what the United Nations Security Council has been talking
about for 12 long years. It's now time for this issue to come to a
head at the Security Council, and it will. As far as ultimatums and
all the speculation about what may or may not happen, after next week,
we'll just wait and see.
Steve.
Q Are we days away?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we're days away from resolving this issue at
the Security Council.
Q Thank you. Another hot spot is North Korea. If North Korea
restarts their plutonium plant, will that change your thinking about
how to handle this crisis, or are you resigned to North Korea becoming
a nuclear power?
THE PRESIDENT: This is a regional issue. I say a regional issue
because there's a lot of countries that have got a direct stake into
whether or not North Korea has nuclear weapons. We've got a stake as
to whether North Korea has a nuclear weapon. China clearly has a stake
as to whether or not North Korea has a nuclear weapon. South Korea, of
course, has a stake. Japan has got a significant stake as to whether
or not North Korea has a nuclear weapon. Russia has a stake.
So, therefore, I think the best way to deal with this is in
multilateral fashion, by convincing those nations they must stand up to
their responsibility, along with the United States, to convince Kim
Jong-il that the development of a nuclear arsenal is not in his
nation's interest; and that should he want help in easing the suffering
of the North Korean people, the best way to achieve that help is to not
proceed forward.
We've tried bilateral negotiations with North Korea. My
predecessor, in a good-faith effort, entered into a framework
agreement. The United States honored its side of the agreement; North
Korea didn't. While we felt the agreement was in force, North Korea
was enriching uranium.
In my judgment, the best way to deal with North Korea is convince
parties to assume their responsibility. I was heartened by the fact
that Jiang Zemin, when he came to Crawford, Texas, made it very clear
to me and publicly, as well, that a nuclear weapons-free peninsula was
in China's interest. And so we're working with China and the other
nations I mentioned to bring a multilateral pressure and to convince
Kim Jong-il that the development of a nuclear arsenal is not in his
interests.
Dick.
Q Mr. President, you have, and your top advisors --
notably, Secretary of State Powell -- have repeatedly said that we
have shared with our allies all the current, up-to-date intelligence
information that proves the imminence of the threat we face from Saddam
Hussein, and that they have been sharing their intelligence with us, as
well. If all these nations, all of them our normal allies, have access
to the same intelligence information, why is it that they are reluctant
to think that the threat is so real, so imminent that we need to move
to the brink of war now?
And in relation to that, today, the British Foreign Minister, Jack
Straw, suggested at the U.N. that it might be time to look at amending
the resolution, perhaps with an eye towards a timetable like that
proposed by the Canadians some two weeks ago, that would set a firm
deadline to give Saddam Hussein a little bit of time to come clean.
And also, obviously, that would give you a little bit of a chance to
build more support within the members of the Security Council. Is that
something that the governments should be pursuing at the U.N. right
now?
THE PRESIDENT: We, of course, are consulting with our allies at
the United Nations. But I meant what I said, this is the last phase of
diplomacy. A little bit more time? Saddam Hussein has had 12 years to
disarm. He is deceiving people. This is what's important for our
fellow citizens to realize; that if he really intended to disarm, like
the world has asked him to do, we would know whether he was disarming.
He's trying to buy time. I can understand why -- he's been
successful with these tactics for 12 years.
Saddam Hussein is a threat to our nation. September the 11th
changed the strategic thinking, at least, as far as I was concerned,
for how to protect our country. My job is to protect the American
people. It used to be that we could think that you could contain a
person like Saddam Hussein, that oceans would protect us from his type
of terror. September the 11th should say to the American people that
we're now a battlefield, that weapons of mass destruction in the hands
of a terrorist organization could be deployed here at home.
So, therefore, I think the threat is real. And so do a lot of
other people in my government. And since I believe the threat is real,
and since my most important job is to protect the security of the
American people, that's precisely what we'll do.
Our demands are that Saddam Hussein disarm. We hope he does. We
have worked with the international community to convince him to
disarm. If he doesn't disarm, we'll disarm him.
You asked about sharing of intelligence, and I appreciate that,
because we do share a lot of intelligence with nations which may or may
not agree with us in the Security Council as to how to deal with Saddam
Hussein and his threats. We have got roughly 90 countries engaged in
Operation Enduring Freedom, chasing down the terrorists.
We do communicate a lot, and we will continue to communicate a
lot. We must communicate. We must share intelligence; we must share
-- we must cut off money together; we must smoke these al Qaeda types
out one at a time. It's in our national interest, as well, that we
deal with Saddam Hussein.
But America is not alone in this sentiment. There are a lot of
countries who fully understand the threat of Saddam Hussein. A lot of
countries realize that the credibility of the Security Council is at
stake -- a lot of countries, like America, who hope that he would
have disarmed, and a lot of countries which realize that it may require
force -- may require force -- to disarm him.
Jim Angle.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Sir, if you haven't already made
the choice to go to war, can you tell us what you are waiting to hear
or see before you do make that decision? And if I may, during the
recent demonstrations, many of the protestors suggested that the U.S.
was a threat to peace, which prompted you to wonder out loud why they
didn't see Saddam Hussein as a threat to peace. I wonder why you think
so many people around the world take a different view of the threat
that Saddam Hussein poses than you and your allies.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, first, I -- I appreciate societies in
which people can express their opinion. That society -- free
speech stands in stark contrast to Iraq.
Secondly, I've seen all kinds of protests since I've been the
President. I remember the protests against trade. A lot of people
didn't feel like free trade was good for the world. I completely
disagree. I think free trade is good for both wealthy and impoverished
nations. But that didn't change my opinion about trade. As a matter
of fact, I went to the Congress to get trade promotion authority out.
I recognize there are people who -- who don't like war. I
don't like war. I wish that Saddam Hussein had listened to the demands
of the world and disarmed. That was my hope. That's why I first went
to the United Nations to begin with, on September the 12th, 2002, to
address this issue as forthrightly as I knew how. That's why, months
later, we went to the Security Council to get another resolution,
called 1441, which was unanimously approved by the Security Council,
demanding that Saddam Hussein disarm.
I'm hopeful that he does disarm. But, in the name of peace and the
security of our people, if he won't do so voluntarily, we will disarm
him. And other nations will join him -- join us in disarming him.
And that creates a certain sense of anxiety; I understand that.
Nobody likes war. The only thing I can do is assure the loved ones of
those who wear our uniform that if we have to go to war, if war is upon
us because Saddam Hussein has made that choice, we will have the best
equipment available for our troops, the best plan available for
victory, and we will respect innocent life in Iraq.
The risk of doing nothing, the risk of hoping that Saddam Hussein
changes his mind and becomes a gentle soul, the risk that somehow --
that inaction will make the world safer, is a risk I'm not willing to
take for the American people.
We'll be there in a minute. King, John King. This is a scripted
-- (laughter.)
Q Thank you, Mr. President. How would -- sir, how would
you answer your critics who say that they think this is somehow
personal? As Senator Kennedy put it tonight, he said your fixation
with Saddam Hussein is making the world a more dangerous place. And as
you prepare the American people for the possibility of military
conflict, could you share with us any of the scenarios your advisors
have shared with you about worse-case scenarios, in terms of the
potential cost of American lives, the potential cost to the American
economy, and the potential risks of retaliatory terrorist strikes here
at home?
THE PRESIDENT: My job is to protect America, and that is exactly
what I'm going to do. People can ascribe all kinds of intentions. I
swore to protect and defend the Constitution; that's what I swore to
do. I put my hand on the Bible and took that oath, and that's exactly
what I am going to do.
I believe Saddam Hussein is a threat to the American people. I
believe he's a threat to the neighborhood in which he lives. And I've
got a good evidence to believe that. He has weapons of mass
destruction, and he has used weapons of mass destruction, in his
neighborhood and on his own people. He's invaded countries in his
neighborhood. He tortures his own people. He's a murderer. He has
trained and financed al Qaeda-type organizations before, al Qaeda and
other terrorist organizations. I take the threat seriously, and I'll
deal with the threat. I hope it can be done peacefully.
The rest of your six-point question?
Q The potential price in terms of lives and the economy,
terrorism.
THE PRESIDENT: The price of doing nothing exceeds the price of
taking action, if we have to. We'll do everything we can to minimize
the loss of life. The price of the attacks on America, the cost of the
attacks on America on September the 11th were enormous. They were
significant. And I am not willing to take that chance again, John.
Terry Moran.
Q Thank you, sir. May I follow up on Jim Angle's question? In
the past several weeks, your policy on Iraq has generated opposition
from the governments of France, Russia, China, Germany, Turkey, the
Arab League and many other countries, opened a rift at NATO and at the
U.N., and drawn millions of ordinary citizens around the world into the
streets in anti-war protests. May I ask, what went wrong that so many
governments and people around the world now not only disagree with you
very strongly, but see the U.S. under your leadership as an arrogant
power?
THE PRESIDENT: I think if you remember back prior to the
resolution coming out of the United Nations last fall, I suspect you
might have asked a question along those lines -- how come you can't
get anybody to support your resolution. If I remember correctly, there
was a lot of doubt as to whether or not we were even going to get any
votes, much -- well, we'd get our own, of course. And the vote
came out 15 to nothing, Terry. And I think you'll see when it's all
said and done, if we have to use force, a lot of nations will be with
us.
You clearly named some that -- France and Germany expressed
their opinions. We have a disagreement over how best to deal with
Saddam Hussein. I understand that. Having said that, they're still
our friends and we will deal with them as friends. We've got a lot of
common interests. Our transatlantic relationships are very important.
While they may disagree with how we deal with Saddam Hussein and his
weapons of mass destruction, there's no disagreement when it came time
to vote on 1441, at least as far as France was concerned. They joined
us. They said Saddam Hussein has one last chance of disarming. If
they think more time will cause him to disarm, I disagree with that.
He's a master at deception. He has no intention of disarming --
otherwise, we would have known. There's a lot of talk about
inspectors. It really would have taken a handful of inspectors to
determine whether he was disarming -- they could have showed up at
a parking lot and he could have brought his weapons and destroyed
them. That's not what he chose to do.
Secondly, I make my decisions based upon the oath I took, the one I
just described to you. I believe Saddam Hussein is a threat -- is
a threat to the American people. He's a threat to people in his
neighborhood. He's also a threat to the Iraqi people.
One of the things we love in America is freedom. If I may, I'd
like to remind you what I said at the State of the Union: liberty is
not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to each and every
person. And that's what I believe. I believe that when we see
totalitarianism, that we must deal with it. We don't have to do it
always militarily. But this is a unique circumstance, because of 12
years of denial and defiance, because of terrorist connections, because
of past history.
I'm convinced that a liberated Iraq will be -- will be
important for that troubled part of the world. The Iraqi people are
plenty capable of governing themselves. Iraq is a sophisticated
society. Iraq's got money. Iraq will provide a place where people can
see that the Shia and the Sunni and the Kurds can get along in a
federation. Iraq will serve as a catalyst for change, positive
change.
So there's a lot more at stake than just American security, and the
security of people close by Saddam Hussein. Freedom is at stake, as
well, and I take that very seriously.
Gregory.
Q Mr. President, good evening. If you order war, can any
military operation be considered a success if the United States does
not capture Saddam Hussein, as you once said, dead or alive?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I hope we don't have to go to war, but if we
go to war, we will disarm Iraq. And if we go to war, there will be a
regime change. And replacing this cancer inside of Iraq will be a
government that represents the rights of all the people, a government
which represents the voices of the Shia and Sunni and the Kurds.
We care about the suffering of the Iraqi people. I mentioned in my
opening comments that there's a lot of food ready to go in. There's
something like 55,000 oil-for-food distribution points in Iraq. We
know where they are. We fully intend to make sure that they're --
got ample food. We know where their hospitals are; we want to make
sure they've got ample medical supplies. The life of the Iraqi citizen
is going to dramatically improve.
Q Sir, I'm sorry, is success contingent upon capturing or
killing Saddam Hussein, in your mind?
THE PRESIDENT: We will be changing the regime of Iraq, for the
good of the Iraqi people.
Bill Plante.
Q Mr. President, to a lot of people, it seems that war is
probably inevitable, because many people doubt -- most people, I
would guess -- that Saddam Hussein will ever do what we are
demanding that he do, which is disarm. And if war is inevitable, there
are a lot of people in this country -- as much as half, by polling
standards -- who agree that he should be disarmed, who listen to
you say that you have the evidence, but who feel they haven't seen it,
and who still wonder why blood has to be shed if he hasn't attacked
us.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Bill, if they believe he should be disarmed,
and he's not going to disarm, there's only one way to disarm him. And
that happens to be my last choice -- the use of force.
Secondly, the American people know that Saddam Hussein has weapons
of mass destruction. By the way, he declared he didn't have any --
1441 insisted that he have a complete declaration of his weapons; he
said he didn't have any weapons. Secondly, he's used these weapons
before. I mean, this is -- we're not speculating about the nature
of the man. We know the nature of the man.
Colin Powell, in an eloquent address to the United Nations,
described some of the information we were at liberty of talking about.
He mentioned a man named Al Zarqawi, who was in charge of the poison
network. He's a man who was wounded in Afghanistan, received aid in
Baghdad, ordered the killing of a U.S. citizen, USAID employee, was
harbored in Iraq. There is a poison plant in Northeast Iraq. To
assume that Saddam Hussein knew none of this was going on is not to
really understand the nature of the Iraqi society.
There's a lot of facts which make it clear to me and many others
that Saddam is a threat. And we're not going to wait until he does
attack. We're not going to hope that he changes his attitude. We're
not going to assume that he's a different kind of person than he has
been.
So, in the name of security and peace, if we have to -- if we
have to -- we'll disarm him. I hope he disarms. Or, perhaps, I
hope he leaves the country. I hear a lot of talk from different
nations around where Saddam Hussein might be exiled. That would be
fine with me -- just so long as Iraq disarms after he's exiled.
Let's see here. Elizabeth.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. As you said, the Security Council
faces a vote next week on a resolution implicitly authorizing an attack
on Iraq. Will you call for a vote on that resolution, even if you
aren't sure you have the vote?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, first, I don't think -- it basically says
that he's in defiance of 1441. That's what the resolution says. And
it's hard to believe anybody is saying he isn't in defiance of 1441,
because 1441 said he must disarm. And, yes, we'll call for a vote.
Q No matter what?
THE PRESIDENT: No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for
the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is
about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security
Council. And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards,
to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam.
Mark Knoller.
Q Mr. President, are you worried that the United States might
be viewed as defiant of the United Nations if you went ahead with
military action without specific and explicit authorization from the
U.N.?
THE PRESIDENT: No, I'm not worried about that. As a matter of
fact, it's hard to say the United States is defiant about the United
Nations, when I was the person that took the issue to the United
Nations, September the 12th, 2002. We've been working with the United
Nations. We've been working through the United Nations.
Secondly, I'm confident the American people understand that when it
comes to our security, if we need to act, we will act, and we really
don't need United Nations approval to do so. I want to work -- I
want the United Nations to be effective. It's important for it to be a
robust, capable body. It's important for it's words to mean what they
say, and as we head into the 21st century, Mark, when it comes to our
security, we really don't need anybody's permission.
Bill.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Even though our military can
certainly prevail without a northern front, isn't Turkey making it at
least slightly more challenging for us, and therefore, at least
slightly more likely that American lives will be lost? And if they
don't reverse course, would you stop backing their entry into the
European Union?
THE PRESIDENT: The answer to your second question is, I support
Turkey going into the E.U. Turkey's a friend. They're a NATO ally.
We will continue to work with Turkey. We've got contingencies in place
that, should our troops not come through Turkey -- not be allowed
to come through Turkey. And, no, that won't cause any more hardship
for our troops; I'm confident of that.
April. Did you have a question, or did I call upon you cold?
Q Oh, I have a question. (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: Okay. I'm sure you do have a question.
Q Mr. President, as the nation is at odds over war, with many
organizations like the Congressional Black Caucus pushing for continued
diplomacy through the U.N., how is your faith guiding you? And what
should you tell America -- well, what should America do,
collectively, as you instructed before 9/11? Should it be "pray?"
Because you're saying, let's continue the war on terror.
THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate that question a lot. First, for those
who urge more diplomacy, I would simply say that diplomacy hasn't
worked. We've tried diplomacy for 12 years. Saddam Hussein hasn't
disarmed, he's armed.
And we live in a dangerous world. We live in new circumstances in
our country. And I hope people remember the -- I know they
remember the tragedy of September the 11th, but I hope they understand
the lesson of September the 11th. The lesson is, is that we're
vulnerable to attack, wherever it may occur, and we must take threats
which gather overseas very seriously. We don't have to deal with them
all militarily. But we must deal with them. And in the case of Iraq,
it is now time for him to disarm. For the sake of peace, if we have to
use our troops, we will.
My faith sustains me because I pray daily. I pray for guidance and
wisdom and strength. If we were to commit our troops -- if we were
to commit our troops -- I would pray for their safety, and I would
pray for the safety of innocent Iraqi lives, as well.
One thing that's really great about our country, April, is there
are thousands of people who pray for me that I'll never see and be able
to thank. But it's a humbling experience to think that people I will
never have met have lifted me and my family up in prayer. And for that
I'm grateful. That's -- it's been -- it's been a comforting
feeling to know that is true. I pray for peace, April. I pray for
peace.
Hutch.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. As you know, not everyone shares
your optimistic vision of how this might play out. Do you ever worry,
maybe in the wee, small hours, that you might be wrong and they might
be right in thinking that this could lead to more terrorism, more
anti-American sentiment, more instability in the Middle East?
THE PRESIDENT: Hutch, I think, first of all, it's hard to envision
more terror on America than September the 11th, 2001. We did nothing
to provoke that terrorist attack. It came upon us because there's an
enemy which hates America. They hate what we stand for. We love
freedom and we're not changing. And, therefore, so long as there's a
terrorist network like al Qaeda, and others willing to fund them,
finance them, equip them -- we're at war.
And so I -- you know, obviously, I've thought long and hard
about the use of troops. I think about it all the time. It is my
responsibility to commit the troops. I believe we'll prevail --
I know we'll prevail. And out of that disarmament of Saddam will come
a better world, particularly for the people who live in Iraq.
This is a society, Ron, who -- which has been decimated by his
murderous ways, his torture. He doesn't allow dissent. He doesn't
believe in the values we believe in. I believe this society, the Iraqi
society can develop in a much better way. I think of the risks,
calculated the cost of
inaction versus the cost of action. And I'm firmly convinced, if
we have to, we will act, in the name of peace and in the name of
freedom.
Ann.
Q Mr. President, if you decide to go ahead with military
action, there are inspectors on the ground in Baghdad. Will you give
them time to leave the country, or the humanitarian workers on the
ground or the journalists? Will you be able to do that, and still
mount an effective attack on Iraq?
THE PRESIDENT: Of course. We will give people a chance to leave.
And we don't want anybody in harm's way who shouldn't be in harm's
way. The journalists who are there should leave. If you're going, and
we start action, leave. The inspectors -- we don't want people in
harm's way. And our intention -- we have no quarrel with anybody
other than Saddam and his group of killers who have destroyed a
society. And we will do everything we can, as I mentioned -- and I
mean this -- to protect innocent life.
I've not made up our mind about military action. Hopefully, this
can be done peacefully. Hopefully, that as a result of the pressure
that we have placed -- and others have placed -- that Saddam
will disarm and/or leave the country.
Ed.
Q Mr. President, good evening. Sir, you've talked a lot about
trusting the American people when it comes to making decisions about
their own lives, about how to spend their own money. When it comes to
the financial costs of the war, sir, it would seem that the
administration, surely, has costed out various scenarios. If that's
the case, why not present some of them to the American people so they
know what to expect, sir?
THE PRESIDENT: Ed, we will. We'll present it in the form of a
supplemental to the spenders. We don't get to spend the money, as you
know. We have to request the expenditure of money from the Congress,
and, at the appropriate time, we'll request a supplemental. We're
obviously analyzing all aspects. We hope we don't go to war; but if we
should, we will present a supplemental.
But I want to remind -- remind you what I said before. There
is a huge cost when we get attacked. There is a significant cost to
our society -- first of all, there is the cost of lives. It's an
immeasurable cost -- 3,000 people died. This is a significant cost
to our economy. Opportunity loss is an immeasurable cost, besides the
cost of repairing buildings, and cost to our airlines. And so, the
cost of an attack is significant.
If I thought we were safe from attack, I would be thinking
differently. But I see a gathering threat. I mean, this is a true,
real threat to America. And, therefore, we will deal with it. And at
the appropriate time, Ed, we will ask for a supplemental. And that
will be the moment where you and others will be able to recognize what
we think the dollar cost of a conflict will be.
You know, the benefits of such a -- of such a effort, if, in
fact, we go forward and are successful, are also immeasurable. How do
you measure the benefit of freedom in Iraq? I guess, if you're an
Iraqi citizen you can measure it by being able to express your mind and
vote. How do you measure the consequence of taking a dictator out of
-- out of power who has tried to invade Kuwait? Or somebody who may
some day decide to lob a weapon of mass destruction on Israel --
how would you weigh the cost of that? Those are immeasurable costs.
And I weigh those very seriously, Ed. In terms of the dollar amount,
well, we'll let you know here pretty soon.
George Condin.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. If I can follow on Steve's
question, on North Korea. Do you believe it is essential for the
security of the United States and its allies that North Korea be
prevented from developing nuclear weapons? And are you in any way
growing frustrated with the pace of the diplomacy there?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think it's -- I think it's an issue.
Obviously, I'm concerned about North Korea developing nuclear weapons,
not only for their own use, but for -- perhaps they might choose to
proliferate them, sell them. They may end up in the hands of
dictators, people who are not afraid of using weapons of mass
destruction, people who try to impose their will on the world or
blackmail free nations. I'm concerned about it.
We are working hard to bring a diplomatic solution. And we've made
some progress. After all, the IAEA asked that the Security Council
take up the North Korean issue. It's now in the Security Council.
Constantly talking with the Chinese and the Russians and the Japanese
and the South Koreans. Colin Powell just went overseas and spent some
time in China, went to the inauguration of President Roh in South
Korea; spent time in China. We're working the issue hard, and I'm
optimistic that we'll come up with a diplomatic solution. I certainly
hope so.
Bob.
Q Thank you, sir. Mr. President, millions of Americans can
recall a time when leaders from both parties set this country on a
mission of regime change in Vietnam. Fifty thousand Americans died.
The regime is still there in Hanoi, and it hasn't harmed or threatened
a single American in the 30 years since the war ended. What can you
say tonight, sir, to the sons and the daughters of the Americans who
served in Vietnam to assure them that you will not lead this country
down a similar path in Iraq?
THE PRESIDENT: That's a great question. Our mission is clear in
Iraq. Should we have to go in, our mission is very clear:
disarmament. And in order to disarm, it would mean regime change. I'm
confident we'll be able to achieve that objective, in a way that
minimizes the loss of life. No doubt there's risks in any military
operation; I know that. But it's very clear what we intend to do. And
our mission won't change. Our mission is precisely what I just
stated. We have got a plan that will achieve that mission, should we
need to send forces in.
Last question. Let's see who needs one. Jean.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. In the coming days, the American
people are going to hear a lot of debate about this British proposal of
a possible deadline being added to the resolution, or not. And I know
you don't want to tip your hand -- this is a great diplomatic
moment -- but from the administration's perspective and your own
perspective, can you share for the American public what you view as the
pros and cons associated with that proposal?
THE PRESIDENT: You're right, I'm not going to tip my hand.
(Laughter.)
Q But can you help us sort out the --
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you for -- thank you. Anything that's
debated must have resolution to this issue. It makes no sense to allow
this issue to continue on and on, in the hopes that Saddam Hussein
disarms. The whole purpose of the debate is for Saddam to disarm. We
gave him a chance. As a matter of fact, we gave him 12 years of
chances. But, recently, we gave him a chance, starting last fall. And
it said, last chance to disarm. The resolution said that. And had he
chosen to do so, it would be evident that he's disarmed.
So more time, more inspectors, more process, in our judgment, is
not going to affect the peace of the world. So whatever is resolved is
going to have some finality to it, so that Saddam Hussein will take us
seriously.
I want to remind you that it's his choice to make as to whether or
not we go to war. It's Saddam's choice. He's the person that can make
the choice of war and peace. Thus far, he's made the wrong choice. If
we have to, for the sake of the security of the American people, for
the sake of peace in the world, and for freedom to the Iraqi people, we
will disarm Saddam Hussein. And by we, it's more than America. A lot
of nations will join us.