|
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.
[to top of second column in
this article] |
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.
Thank you
for your questions. Good night.
[News
release (unedited)
from the White House
website] |
