George
Bush's press conference of March 6, 2003
along with comments by
Outpost of Freedom
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 11th attacks against our
nation.
Khalid Shaikh 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.
[Interestingly, our intelligence – which has, to say the
least, been rather dismal in the recent past – is, apparently a well kept
secret. No evidence has been provided to the public, and, presumably, to other
nations, which would demonstrate the veracity of this claim. After all, the
other nations have not come to the same conclusion – assuming that the
intelligence has been shared. opf]
Iraqi operatives continue to hide biological and chemical
agents to avoid detection by inspectors.
[Same comment as above. opf]
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.
[Same comment as above. opf]
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.
[After the recent events regarding Chinese heritage
scientists in the American Nucear Program, I would suspect that the US
government would require wires, in many cases. After all, scientific technology
is, in every nation, a well protected asset. opf]
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.
[This flies in the face of logic. If weapons were destroyed,
we would not see them. If they existed, we would, with our technology, see
them. The US government has claimed, over and over, to have proof. They have, however,
failed to provide demonstrable proof of these allegations. opf]
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.
[Bush’s insistence on asserting “fact”, throughout this
speech. demonstrate “the King can do no wrong” mentality of the government. Any
proper judicial forum would allow both evidence and consideration by a number
of parties (jury) to determine a violation. Bush has chosen to act as accuser,
prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner. He has no regard for any
interpretation of the evidence by other than himself. He has set himself up as
dictator of the world. opf]
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’s “long history” includes to episodes. First was the
war against Iran. In this incident, the US government back him, funded him and
turned a blind eye toward his attacks on Iraqi Kurd’s After all, it was known
that they supported the Iranian side of the conflict and could be considered as
a source of opposition – so, the US government tacitly supported Saddam’s
actions. The second event was Kuwait. In this incident, George Bush’s emissary,
April Glaspie, told Hussein that as long as any conflict remained “in the
region”, the US would have no problem with it. This could best be described as
an invitation. As far has providing “safe haven’, this has not been proven,
though it has been estimated by the FBI that as many as 6,000 Al Qaida
operatives may be at large (harbored) in the United States. opf]
Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this
country, to our people and to all free people.
[This is an outrageous lie. There is no way that Saddam
Hussein, even with Al Samoud missiles, is a “direct” threat against the United
States. Instead, the US government posses a greater threat to many “free
people” in the Middle-East. opf]
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
the myths and unacceptable risks.
[This sounds like the same irrational (and ultimately
disproved) theory that lead us into Vietnam. The presumption of this conclusion
is not supported by any evidence or actions of the past. opf]
The attacks of
[Here is the very broad leap of September 11 being tied to
Saddam Hussein, notwithstanding the interpretation of “weapons of mass
destruction. opf]
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.
[Have we been left at the “mercy of the Iraqi dictator”? Or,
are we at the mercy of the American dictator? opf]
In the event of conflict, America also accepts our
responsibility to protect innocent lives in every way possible.
[Conflict will increase risk. Much as when Hitler invaded
Austria and Holland, the risk grew as a powerful nation extended its reach into
the lands of other sovereign nations. These actions create a discomfort on the
part of nations who stand by and wonder if they are next and it heightens the
confidence of the real aggressor – who will continue to increase his aggression
id successful in the first few instances. opf]
We will bring food and medicine to the Iraqi people. We will
help that nation to build a just government after decades of brutal
dictatorship.
[It appears that the true intentions of the US government
may be coming clear. There is little doubt that contracts will be let – to
American companies, or their friends, to provide food and medicine. Though the
quality may be poor and the food incompatible with the tastes and culture (as
in Afghanistan), there is little doubt that surpluses will be sold, at great
profit, to provide these commodities. There is also little doubt that those who
administer the Iraqi oil will sell to their friends, make a great profit and
leave little, in terms of profit, for the Iraqi people. This will result in
reducing the return from Iraqi oil to the Iraqi people and enrich the friends
of the King (Bush). opf]
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.
[Have they not chosen, already? Or, are we the only judge as
to what is acceptable to the Iraqi people? It is incumbent upon them, not the
US government, \to decide who will lead them. The Iraqi people’s inaction can
only be described as their acquiescence to the government in power. If it is
not satisfactory, then it is up to the Iraqi people to cast of that government
that it chooses not to maintain. opf]
Across the world and in every part of America people of good
will 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.
[Thos argument is obscene, at least. We will start a war so
as to assure peace. There is peace, now. There will not be peace after the US
government starts the war. Those who will die as a result of the war that the
US government intends to start will no peace only after they are killed by
American bombs. opf]
People of good will 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.
[Does the US government posses no weapons of mass
destruction (say MOAB)? Do not smart bombs create as much terror in peoples
minds as truck bombs? opf]
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 made it
clear just now that you don't think that 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 at 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?
BUSH: 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.
1441, the Security Council resolution passed unanimously
last fall, said clearly that Saddam Hussein has one last chance to disarm.
He hasn't disarmed. 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. And 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 of the speculation about what
may or may not happen after next week, we'll just wait and see.
Steve?
Q: (Inaudible)
BUSH: 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?
BUSH: This is a regional issue. I say 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 that 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 interests, 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 enforced, North Korea was
enriching uranium. In my judgment the best way to deal with North Korea is to
convince the 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 interests.
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.
Dave?
Q: Mr. President, you and your top advisers, notably
Secretary of State Powell, have repeatedly said that we have shared with our
allies all of 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 as well. If all of 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 toward 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 with any
members of the Security Council.
Is that something that the governments should be pursuing at
the U.N. right now?
BUSH: 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 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
are 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 will 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've got roughly 90 countries engaged in Operating 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 a recent demonstration many of the
protesters 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.
BUSH: Well, first, I -- you know, 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.
I recognize there are people 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
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
inaction will make the world safer, is a risk I'm not willing to take for the
American people.
King -- John King?
(Crosstalk)
BUSH: This is unscripted.
Q: Thank you, Mr. President. 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
advisers have shared with you about worst-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?
BUSH: My job is to protect America and that's exactly what
I'm going to do.
People can describe 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 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 crisis in terms of ...
BUSH: No, thanks.
Q: ... for the economy, terrorism.
BUSH: The price of doing nothing exceeds the price of taking
action if we have to. We will 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 11th were enormous. They were significant. And I'm 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 into anti-war protests.
May I ask what went wrong that so many governments and
peoples around the world now not only disagree with you very strongly, but see
the U.S. under your leadership as an arrogant power?
BUSH: 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. We would get our own, of course.
And the vote came out 15 to nothing, Terry. And I think you
will see when it's all said and done, if we have to use force, a lot of nations
will be with us.
You clearly name some that -- France and Germany express
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'll deal
with them as friends. We've got a lot of common interests. Our trans-Atlantic
relationships are very important.
And while they may disagree with how we deal with Saddam
Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction, there was no disagreement when it
came time to vote on 1441, as 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 of deception. He has no intention of disarming.
Otherwise, we would have known.
There's a lot of talk about inspectors. It would have taken
a handful of inspectors to determine whether he was disarming. They could've
showed up at a parking lot and he could've 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 important for
that troubled part of the world. The Iraqi people are plenty capable of
governing themselves. Iraq's 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"?
BUSH: 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 the 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've 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's going to dramatically
improve.
Q: Is success contingent upon capturing or killing Saddam
Hussein in your mind?
BUSH: 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.
BUSH: Well, Bill, if they believe he should be disarmed and
he's not going to disarm, there's only way to disarm him. And that is going 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.
And secondly, he's used these weapons before. I mean, 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 is in charge of the poison network. It'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, you know, he is 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 votes?
BUSH: Well, first, I don't think -- it basically says that
he is in defiance of 1441. That's what the resolution says.
And it's hard to believe anybody 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?
BUSH: 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,
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.?
BUSH: 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 who took the issue to
the United Nations
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 its
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?
BUSH: The answer to your second question is I support Turkey
going into the EU.
Turkey's a friend. They're a NATO ally. We'll 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: No, I have a question.
BUSH: OK, 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 prayer? Because you are saying, "Let's continue
the war on terror."
BUSH: 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 that we're vulnerable to attach 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 is that
there are thousands of people who pray for me who 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. It's
been a comforting feeling to know that is true.
I pray for peace, April. I pray for peace.
Hutch?
Q: 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?
BUSH: I think, first of all, it's hard to envision more
terror on America than
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 of 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 costs 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?
BUSH: 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.