UNITED24 - Make a charitable donation in support of Ukraine!

Military

23 January 2003

Transcript: Rumsfeld, Myers Briefing at FPC, January 22, 2003

(Iraq/Broadcast of U.S. Defense briefings within Iraq; Need for
disarmament; Compliance with U.N. resolution; No decision to use
force; viewpoint of foreign media; Requirements to avoid war; Recall
of forces in case of no hostilities; Links to terrorism; Magnitude of
casualties if conflict occurs; U.S. warning to Iraqi officers on use
of WMD; Coalition of the willing to join U.S. if necessary; European
opinion; time extension for inspections, Myers/trip to NATO, Italy and
Turkey, North Korea/Contrast in U.S. policy compared to Iraq,
Iran/role in case of war with Iraq, Turkey/cooperation with U.S.
Japan/deployment of destroyer to Persian Gulf, Islam/hijacking by
extremists, WMD/Proliferation) (6310)
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Air Force General Richard Myers,
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, briefed at the Washington
Foreign Press Center
Following is the Pentagon transcript:
(begin transcript)
DoD News Briefing
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld
Wednesday, January 22, 2003 - 1:30 P.M. EST
(Briefing at the Foreign Press Center, also participating, Air Force
Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff)
Moderator:  Mr. Secretary, welcome.
Rumsfeld:  Thank you very much.  Good afternoon.
Starting today, the Department of Defense will be broadcasting the
Pentagon weekly press briefing to the Iraqi people through Commando
Solo radio broadcasts. We're doing so because the truth matters, and
it's important, we believe, that the Iraqi people know the truth and
hear the truth.
To all Iraqis who are listening today for the first time, I say that
this is democracy in action, it is freedom in action. Every week,
General Myers and I stand in the Pentagon in front of independent
journalist professionals and answer their questions -- try to answer
their questions. Some of the questions are tough, some of the
questions -- many of the questions are insightful and all of them add
to the information available to the American people and the people of
the world. And when they leave, none of these journalists will worry
at all about what will happen to them for what they said or what they
asked. They know that they and their families will not be threatened
and that no one will be beaten or punished. The truth is important; it
matters; it is the foundation of justice.
By contrast, Saddam Hussein's regime is built on terror, intimidation
and lies. A decade ago, Saddam Hussein promised to give up his weapons
of mass destruction, weapons he has used to kill thousands of innocent
Iraqis. At the end of the Gulf War, he agreed to disarm. Yet, for more
than a decade, his regime has refused to live up to its promises.
Instead, they have fed the world a steady diet of untruths and
deception.
Last year, the countries of the United Nations came together to give
Saddam Hussein one last chance to come clean, to give up his chemical,
biological weapons and his nuclear weapon programs and to prove to the
world that he was doing so by inviting inspectors in. The United
Nations passed a unanimous resolution requiring Saddam Hussein to
submit to -- a currently accurate, full and complete declaration of
his WMD programs. He again said he would comply, but when he submitted
his declaration it was not complete. There were numerous omissions,
and it was characterized by many who reviewed it as fraudulent.
It's a strange situation. You know, in real life if someone in your
community is caught lying over and over and over again, at some point
that person develops a reputation for not telling the truth, and
eventually, that person's no longer believed. And when someone says,
"Well, Liar Joe just came around the corner but you can't believe
him," people don't believe him. The same should be true in
international affairs. The burden of proof is not on the United States
or the United Nations to prove that Iraq has these weapons. We know
they do. The United Nations put the burden of proof on Saddam
Hussein's regime to prove that it is disarming and to show the
inspectors where the weapons are. Thus far, he has not done so.
Contrary to what Saddam Hussein told the Iraqi people, America is not
the enemy. Our goal is peace, not war. We continue to hope that the
Iraqi regime will change course and disarm peacefully and voluntarily.
But the choice between war and peace will not be made in Washington,
D.C. It will not even be made at the United Nations. It will be made
in Baghdad by Saddam Hussein. Either he decides to cooperate or he
decides to continue not cooperating. We hope he will choose wisely.
General Myers?
Myers:  Good afternoon.  And thank you, Mr. Secretary.
I just returned Monday from a trip that began in Stuttgart, Germany,
to participate in the change-of-command ceremonies for the U.S.
European Command commander and the Supreme Allied Commander Europe,
General Joe Ralston, who gave -- passed the command on to General Jim
Jones, former commandant of the Marine Corps.
While in the region, I took the opportunity to visit my Italian
counterpart in Rome, General Moschini, and to visit some of our troops
in Vicenza, Italy.
After that, I had the opportunity to visit our forces at Incirlik Air
Base in Turkey and to reciprocate a November visit with my Turkish
counterpart, General Ozkok, in Ankara. While in Ankara, I had very
good meetings with the chief of defense and with senior members of his
staff, as well as a very good meeting with the minister of defense.
Turkey has long been a trusted ally, and the friendship continues in
these difficult times. The relationship with Turkey has been an
important one for both our countries, as well as for the region and
NATO, and it's been that way for decades.
In both Rome and Ankara meetings, we discussed a wide variety of
important military issues that are on all of our plates. It was also
an opportunity to thank both of these allies for their support of our
operation against terrorism, Operation Enduring Freedom. This
cooperation has proven invaluable to our overall effort on this war on
terrorism.
With that, I think we're ready to take questions.
Moderator:  Okay.  Let's -- (off mike).
Yes, sir?
Q: My name is -- (off mike). My name is -- (off mike). I'm with --
(off mike).
Rumsfeld:  With what?
Q: (Off mike.) Sir, do you believe that the level of support -- (off
mike) -- that the United States has already crossed the point of no
return? And does that make war imminent?
And second, sir, will the United States use its --
Rumsfeld: Is this the follow-up that's piling on top of the original
one?
Q:  Yeah, yeah.  I thought I'd do it all in one.
Rumsfeld:  I see.
Q: Okay. And second, sir, will the U.S. use its might to enforce other
U.N. Security Council resolutions that have been flouted by other
countries, such as Israel? And are you for the Raiders or Tampa Bay,
sir? (Laughter.)
Rumsfeld:  What --
Myers:  (Chuckles.)
Rumsfeld:  That's the third question.
First, the answer's no, absolutely not. The president has not made a
decision on the final use of -- whether it will finally be necessary
to use force.
And as to the question whether or not, therefore, war is inevitable,
it's not inevitable. We have been flowing forces to support the
diplomacy that is taking place in the United Nations. There is no
question but that if one looks at Iraq's behavior, it's very clear
that their behavior has been altered substantially since the president
went to the United Nations. They have not started cooperating, but
they have at least allowed some inspectors in. And they are going
through, at least thus far, some pretense as to whether -- indicating
-- trying to indicate that they will cooperate, although their
declaration, as I said, was not as complete as it might have been.
With respect to the other question, that's a matter for the Department
of State and the president.
Moderator:  Sir?
Rumsfeld: I think this fellow right here. Are there mikes? Well, why
don't the -- if I point to somebody and you stand back there, what do
I do?
(Laughter.)
Q:  Don't panic!
Rumsfeld:  Okay.  I'm not prone to.  (Laughter.)
Q: Mr. Secretary, Jesus -- (last name inaudible) -- from the Mexican
News Agency. I have a question regarding the foreign media. Why do you
think that the majority of the foreign media is not getting the
message of the United States in terms that -- to see that really what
you say is the real truth, that Saddam Hussein is a threat for the
rest of the world? We haven't seen any proof of the arguments. You say
that he has weapons of mass destruction.
And secondly, why is the U.S. government trying to have a dichotomy on
foreign policy in terms of North Korea --
Rumsfeld: I'm sorry, I didn't understand. Why is the U.S. government
--
Q:  A dichotomy.  Yeah, I mean --
Rumsfeld:  Oh, a dichotomy.
Q:  Yeah, with North Korea.
Rumsfeld:  Okay.
Q: They have a nuclear weapon, and they say, "We have it." And you are
going -- we went to diplomacy with this country, and we want war with
Iraq.
Rumsfeld: Good. I'd like to overrule the gentleman who opened the
meeting and suggest there are so many people here. The second
questions are second questions instead of follow-up questions. And it
seems to me that we'll get a lot more people included if we have a
question, and then, if it's appropriate, a follow-up question that
follows up, as opposed to being on a totally different subject. Seems
reasonable to me.
But the -- first of all, I don't know that you're correct. The premise
of your question was why is the majority of the foreign media x, y or
z? I don't know that you or I are in a position to judge what the
foreign media says. Maybe in your country. But there are many, many
countries that are very supportive of the United States. There are 90
nations supporting the global war on terrorism. There are many, many
handfuls of countries who have come to us, told us they are ready,
willing and able to participate in the use of force, in the event that
it becomes necessary and Iraq is not cooperative.
If one looks across the globe, I think that it's very difficult to
make the case that you made that the foreign media is x, y or z. I
think the foreign media tends to be all across the lot, just like
people are. They have different opinions in different parts of the
world for different reasons.
We don't see it as a dichotomy between the approaches that have been
taken for Iraq and North Korea. In the case of North Korea, we're at a
-- in a diplomatic path. The United States, working with China and
Russia and South Korea and Japan, are attempting to persuade North
Korea that it ought not to go forward with its nuclear programs.
Whether they'll be successful on the diplomatic path, I don't know.
Conversely in the case of Iraq, it's been 10 or 11 years. The world
community has, in fact, been using every conceivable approach. They've
used diplomacy. They've used economic sanctions. They've used carrots,
with the oil-for-food program. They've used limited military activity,
in the Northern and Southern no-fly zones. They've had 16 resolutions.
Here's a country that has used chemical weapons against its own
people, used chemical weapons against its neighbors, fired ballistic
missiles into three or four countries. This is a distinctively
different situation.
Here is a -- both have weapons of mass destruction. Both are
dictatorial regimes. Both are treating their people in a way that
anyone who's interested in human rights has to feel a great deal of
compassion for those people. But there are distinctive differences.
Myers:  May I?
Rumsfeld:  You bet.
Myers: On the first part of your question, on the rest of the world
aligning with U.S. opinion on this, it's not U.S. opinion, it's the
United Nations opinion. They're the ones that came -- 15 to zero,
Security Council voted on 1441 that says, "Iraq, this is your last
chance to come clean with weapons of mass destruction." I mean, the
facts are pretty clear on that. And so this is -- I would say it's
world opinion, it's not U.S. opinion. Now the rest of it, I guess, is
up to your judgment, but those are the facts as I see them.
Rumsfeld:  Yes?  Right there.
Q: Lukman Ahmed (ph) with the NBC Middle East Broadcasting Center. Mr.
Secretary, till today, you are not satisfied with the Iraqi
cooperation. At the same time, you are expressing a hope for a
peaceful solution. As today, what are the one, two, three, four
requirements for Iraqi side to avoid the war?
Rumsfeld: There are several things that could happen. Number one, the
Iraqi regime could read the resolution of the United Nations, which,
as General Myers said, was passed unanimously, and comply with it. It
has a variety of requirements. One requirement was to file a full and
complete declaration of their WMD holdings. They have not done so.
Another is to supply a list of scientists that can be taken outside
the country with their families and questioned as to the location and
extent of the Iraqi WMD program. Another is to allow full and free
access anywhere and any time. They're not doing that. So I would say
that that would be the first thing they could do.
The second thing they could do to avoid war would be for Saddam
Hussein to leave.
Q:  Can I follow up on that?  Can I follow up?
Rumsfeld: No. You only can follow up your own. (Laughter.) (Laughs.)
Oh, we make up the rules as we go along. What the heck. (Light
laughter.)
Yes, I got criticized for only calling on ladies last time. And this
time I've only called on men. So -- right here. I don't want to get
beat up on again.
Q: Hi. My name is Mata Farid (sp) from Radio Fadah (sp). And Mr.
Secretary, in the case that United States goes to war to Iraq, do you
expect Iran to play any role to cooperate, or are you planning to have
any kind of dialogue for strategic plans?
Rumsfeld: Well, I have to begin every response by saying of course, no
decision's been made with respect to the use of force, and it has not.
What role Iran would play I would guess would be a role that would be
not considered harmful to the effort to remove that regime.
Yes, right here. Yes. Just -- right there. No -- yeah, right there.
(Laughter.) I don't know how to do it.
Q:  Irmit Engensol (sp) with Turkey's NTV Television.
Rumsfeld:  Yes.
Q: Has there been progress recently in your military talks about
Turkish-U.S. military cooperation on Iraq, and are you happy with the
level of Turkish support regarding your request to base or deploy
troops on Turkish territory? Thanks.
Rumsfeld: Well, I'll just -- Dick Myers, General Myers was just there.
But we have -- two things I would say. One is we think it's best, and,
in fact, we know it's best, to let other countries characterize
specifically what it is they're doing with respect to cooperation with
the United States. From my standpoint, I think Turkey's been quite
cooperative.
Myers: Absolutely. We had -- we had good discussions, my discussions
with my counterpart, General Ozkok, later -- earlier this week were
very frank and very open. One of the things we do share is a common
vision of wanting an Iraq that is peaceful and without weapons of mass
destruction. Again, I'll go back to the secretary's comments; we'll
let Turkey characterize the sort of support that they're willing to
provide. But it was described to me that, "Gee, General Myers, you're
impatient. We're told the United States is impatient about Turkey's
help," and so forth. That's not the case.
We've been a strategic ally, as I mentioned in my earlier remarks, for
a long time, and we've been allies because we have a common vision of
what kind of security and stability we want not only in NATO, but in
the region that Turkey lives in. And that will continue.
Rumsfeld:  The lady behind the man in the blue shirt right here.
Q:  Oh --
Rumsfeld:  No, no.  Behind him.  I'm sorry.
Myers:  The other blue shirt.
Q:  Thank you.
Rumsfeld:  Oh.  I see.  There are two blue shirts!  My apologies!
Q:  Thank you.
Rumsfeld:  We'll alternate and then come back to you.  How's that?
Q: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. This makes it even because I am from
Turkey, a lady from Turkey. My name is -- (inaudible). I am with the
Public Television, TRT. My question is, what is the possibility of
opening a second front on the north? And where are we at this stage
concerning the different -- view differences between Ankara and
Washington? Is it only a matter of number of troops, or are there any
other differences on this opening up a second front in the north?
Thank you.
Rumsfeld: We don't talk about plans of that type at all. And General
Myers has already responded to the question as to how we feel about
the cooperation and the relationship with Turkey. It's been good.
Yes? Just seize the moment and stand up. Don't hesitate! (Laughter.)
Q: Take the opportunity! Mike Levalle (sp) from Tokyo Broadcasting
System. Just wondering for Japan, they have decided to send an Aegis
destroyer to the Persian Gulf for the Afghanistan situation. And
wondering how that limits capabilities or abilities in Northeast Asia
in terms of North Korea. And with that situation and the Gulf War in
'91, the Kitty Hawk was sent. With the current situation in Northeast
Asia, would it be possible to send the Kitty Hawk in case of any
military decision this time?
Rumsfeld: The Kitty Hawk's already there. (Scattered laughter.) Isn't
it? Where is it? (Laughter.)
Myers:  It's -- well, it's in Japan right now, yeah.
Rumsfeld:  Japan's in Northeast Asia.
Q:  No, would it be possible to send the Kitty Hawk to the Gulf?
Rumsfeld:  Oh, to the Gulf.  Ah!
Q:  Sorry.
Rumsfeld: I misunderstood. It's hard to lose an aircraft carrier.
(Laughter.)
The answer is no. The movement of the ship that Japan has thoughtfully
sent over to the Central Command area with respect to Afghanistan, is
a helpful thing they're doing, and it does not change our robust
capabilities in Northeast Asia.
Second, with respect to what we might do with carrier battle groups,
we don't announce it.
The lady behind the man in the blue shirt. (Laughter.) In front of the
man in the blue shirt!
Q: (Name inaudible) -- with Television Spain. The question is: You
said war may not be inevitable. So let's assume there would be a
best-case scenario: There will not be a war. What happens to the
troops that are in the region?
Rumsfeld: Well, needless to say, it's -- you adjust your forces
appropriately. To the extent that there is not a good reason for
having people away from their homes and ships deployed and people
deployed to different parts of the world, why, your first choice is to
have them back where they're home-based.
Q:  Mr. Secretary?
Rumsfeld: Yes, thank you. (Pause.) This is for General Myers, right?
(Laughter.)
Q: It's for you and General Myers, because both of you are in a way
the boss of my son, who joined the U.S. Marines; he's European.
Rumsfeld:  Tell him thank you.  We appreciate his doing that.
Q:  Yeah.  Parents are concerned.
Rumsfeld:  Yeah.
Q: They would like to know on his behalf -- one thing is he joined
because of September 11th and because you and others in the
administration made him believe that Iraq had a lot to do with that.
And he was wondering where that stands.
And the other question that he has is how many casualties would you
take?
Rumsfeld: There's been a good deal of material information that's been
presented on an open basis, both by the United States and by the
United Kingdom, with respect to Iraq's role in weapons of mass
destruction; its role as a terrorist state, its relationship with
terrorist organizations. The president and his administration will --
which has not made a final conclusion as to what may need to be done
because we're still watching the process in the United Nations --
will, if the president decides it's in -- necessary to use force
because of a lack of cooperation on the part of Iraq, would very
likely present to the world some additional information; information
relating to the president's -- correction: to Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction, its relationship with terrorist organizations. And the
world already knows through all kinds of open sources its -- the
extent to which it denies the Iraqi people their rights.
There is no way to know in a conflict -- war is so unpredictable --
whether it would last four days or four weeks or four months. And
there's no way to know precisely what the Iraqi regime might do. In
the last conflict, in -- 10 years ago, tens of thousands of Iraqi
soldiers switched sides. They just surrendered and said they did not
want to support the Iraqi regime. To the extent that's the case, and
one would think it could very well be, then obviously the casualties
are much less.
The president today, I believe, indicated to the Iraqi regime and to
the Iraqi people, and particularly to Iraqi military, that they -- any
orders they receive with regard to the use of weapons of mass
destruction, they should disobey. And in the event force has to be
used, any person who is in any way connected with the use of weapons
of mass destruction would be treated and tried as a war criminal.
Myers: I would only add to that that you should be assured that your
son or anybody that could be possibly involved in conflict has been
trained well, is properly equipped, and has the resources to conduct
whatever mission we might ask them to do. And that's what we work on
on a daily basis, many times a day. And I would also add that they're
under very good leadership and that any potential plan has been
reviewed, re-reviewed, worked on to the point where we want to give
our forces all the advantage we can give them, for the reasons that
you are, as a parent, concerned about.
Rumsfeld:  Right in the middle.
Q: Mr. Secretary, Carl Hanlon, Global Television, Canada. Sir,
Canada's foreign minister stated again today that the United States
must get United Nations approval to go to war with Iraq. Are you still
hoping that Canada would support President Bush's so-called "coalition
of the willing" if you end up going to war with Iraq without the U.N.?
Rumsfeld: You know, the United States and Canada are close friends and
allies and neighbors, and we've participated together in so many
activities across the globe, currently are with respect to the global
war on terror, allies in NATO. It's up to Canada to decide what it
wishes to do. Each country has a somewhat different circumstance, a
somewhat different history, a somewhat different perspective, and I
think each country is inevitably going to do that which they feel is
appropriate to them.
I can say this: that there are a very large number of countries who
have said, regardless of whether there is a second resolution in the
United Nations, that they are anxious and willing and ready to join a
coalition of the willing. There is a very large number of countries
also that are prepared in the event there is a second resolution
regardless -- almost regardless of what it says. It might simply say
that in fact the Iraqis have not been cooperative, or it might go the
extra step and say that they haven't been cooperative and therefore
the United Nations recommends the use of all appropriate force. I
don't know what -- how that will play out; it's not knowable.
But it seems to me it's asking a lot for other countries to step
forward publicly and say where they are on this until and unless the
case has been fully made, and the president has indicated that he's
concluded that force must be used. And at that moment, people then
will be making their judgments and participating or not, as they and
their people feel is appropriate. And as far as I'm concerned, I think
that's the way it ought to work. Every country is a sovereign nation.
Standing up on the side there. You've got the mike. Use it!
(Laughter.)
Q: Thank you. This is Hasan Hazar, Turkey Daily. Mr. Secretary,
although the United States does very intensive diplomacy campaigns to
the Islamic world --
Rumsfeld:  What did you say?
Q: Although the United States does very intensive public diplomacy
campaigns to the Islamic world, anti-Americanism is growing all over
the world. What is the reason, what is the reaction of that?
Rumsfeld: Well, I would have to say that the United States is not very
effective in public diplomacy. We have wonderful people working on it,
and they work hard on it, and they're talented and they do a good job.
But what they're up against is a flow of information that's coming out
of these extremists that are trying to hijack that religion, and
feeding people in the madrassas schools a line that the West and other
religions are against them and that, therefore, they should engage in
terrorist acts.
And it seems to me that we have a task, not just the United States,
but the world. I would think -- you cast it as though it's the United
States and the Moslem world, or the United States and people who are
anti-United States. I think that's a bit of an oversimplification. I
think there's a real struggle taking place in the Moslem faith. There
are an awful lot of people who are unhappy that extremists and small
groups of clerics are teaching young people things that aren't true;
teaching people that the best thing they can do is not learn a
language, not learn mathematics, not learn how they can provide for
themselves in the world, instead, filling their heads with hate
against the West and against progress, and encouraging them to conduct
suicide campaigns.
Now, that religion needs to take back its religion from people who are
teaching that. The whole world is part of this process; it's not just
the United States.
Let me just say something that I feel very deeply. It's the year 2003.
Here we are, we're all sitting here and we're safe and sound. And
there isn't anybody when they walk out of this place who is afraid
they're going to get shot, or blown up, or face a biological attack,
or a chemical attack or a nuclear attack. What's taking place in the
world today in -- with the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction, biological weapons, nuclear weapons, is so pervasive that
as you look out over the horizon --you guess -- five years? ten years?
-- there are going to be three, four, five more nuclear powers, and
they're not going to be countries like the United Kingdom or France or
the United States; they're going to be countries like North Korea;
they're going to be terrorist states; and they're going to be states
that have relationships with terrorist organizations. The ease of
transporting and developing biologicals that can kill hundreds of
thousands of human beings is easy; it does not take a genius to do
that. They're easy to make, they're easy to transport and they're easy
to deliver. And that's the kind of a world we're living in.
Now, that is not a problem for the United States only. It's a problem
for the whole world. And at some point, the people of the world are
going to be so shocked and jarred by events like 9/11 that they're
going to make a judgment that they need to do something differently;
that they can't sit back and say, "Oh, what about all this
anti-Americanism? Or what about all this stuff? Or why doesn't the
United States do this or that?"
They're going to be deeply concerned because they're going to have
every right in the world to be deeply concerned. And the time to get
ahead of that is now, before it all happens, not after. Let there be
no doubt.
Q:  Sir?  (Laughter.)
Rumsfeld: I tell you, I hate to do this. I'd love to call on
everybody, but it's a dirty job and somebody has to do it.
Myers:  It's a dirty job.
Rumsfeld:  Right.
Q:  But you've got to do it.
Rumsfeld:  Next time you pick.
Q: Sir, a question about the mood among European allies. You were
talking about the Islamic world a second ago. But now the European
allies. If you look at, for example, France, Germany, also a lot of
people in my own country -- I'm from Dutch public TV, by the way -- it
seems that a lot of Europeans rather give the benefit of the doubt to
Saddam Hussein than President George Bush. These are U.S. allies. What
do you make of that?
Rumsfeld:  Well, it's -- what do I make of it?
Q:  They have no clerics.  They have no Muslim clerics there.
Rumsfeld: Are you helping me? (Laughter.) Do you think I need help?
(Laughter.)
What do I think about it? Well, there isn't anyone alive who wouldn't
prefer unanimity. I mean, you just always would like everyone to stand
up and say, Way to go! That's the right to do, United States.
Now, we rarely find unanimity in the world. I was ambassador to NATO,
and I -- when we would go in and make a proposal, there wouldn't be
unanimity. There wouldn't even be understanding. And we'd have to be
persuasive. We'd have to show reasons. We'd have to -- have to give
rationales. We'd have to show facts. And, by golly, I found that
Europe on any major issue is given -- if there's leadership and if
you're right, and if your facts are persuasive, Europe responds. And
they always have.
Now, you're thinking of Europe as Germany and France. I don't. I think
that's old Europe. If you look at the entire NATO Europe today, the
center of gravity is shifting to the east. And there are a lot of new
members. And if you just take the list of all the members of NATO and
all of those who have been invited in recently -- what is it?
Twenty-six, something like that? -- you're right. Germany has been a
problem, and France has been a problem.
Q:  But opinion polls --
Rumsfeld: But -- just a minute. Just a minute. But you look at vast
numbers of other countries in Europe. They're not with France and
Germany on this, they're with the United States.
Now, you cite public opinion polls. Fair enough. Political leaders
have to interest themselves in where the public is, and talk to them,
and think about that, and then -- and provide leadership to them. And
you're quite right. You can find polls --
I can remember a poll -- I won't -- it was back in 1964. I watched it
over something like a three-month period. It went from zero in favor
of a certain topic to 55 percent in favor of it, down to 13 percent,
all in three months. Now, does that suggest that polls can be fickle
and rise and fall, depending on facts, depending on circumstances? Of
course they can.
And that's -- that's what political leaders are supposed to do, is to
lead. And they -- they're responsible for engaging facts and making
assessments and then going out before their people and telling them
their honest conviction as to what their country ought to do. And if a
country doesn't agree with us, heck, that's happened lots of times in
history.
Q:  Mr. Secretary --
Moderator:  Mr. Secretary, that about does it for you now.
MR.    :  (Off mike.)
Moderator:  You want to take one more quick one?
Q:  Mr. Secretary --
MR.    :  Thank you.
Myers:  I get to pick.
Rumsfeld:  You get to pick.
Myers:  Yeah.
Q:  Sir, he picked me already.  (Laughter, cross talk.)
Rumsfeld:  No, he picks.  He picks.  He picks.
Myers: One last question. The man in the blue shirt, red tie, right in
the middle.
Q:  Blue shirt --
(Cross talk.)
Rumsfeld:  Aren't we a little heavy on blue shirts?
Myers:  It's a popular saying in --
Q: Matt Fox from the BBC. Thank you, sir. Thanks for picking me,
General Myers. I'm actually going to ask Secretary Rumsfeld a
question. (Laughter.)
Rumsfeld:  Even better!
Myers:  As far as I'm concerned -- no --
Q:  I'm doing the dirty on you.
Secretary Rumsfeld, the weapons inspectors at the U.N. have asked for
many more months to continue their task. Should they be given that
extra time or not?
Rumsfeld: Well, I'm not a participant in the U.N. process. That's a
judgment that the president will make.
I will put it this way. If you believe that the reason the inspector's
there is not to inspect the weapons of a cooperative country, but
rather to go out and discover and find things that that country is
trying to hide, then you could add months or years. I mean, look at
the size of the place. Look at the number of underground bunkers and
tunnels. There isn't any way in the world the so-called inspectors
could go out and find things that that country is determined not to
show them.
So I can understand if someone has it in their mind that they're not
inspectors, and we misnamed them, it's a big mistake; we're very
sorry; we really meant to call them "discoverers" and "finders." Then
I can understand someone thinking that's a good idea.
If, on the other hand, you read the U.N. resolution carefully and
decided that, gee, that unanimous vote was not for discovers or
finders; it was for inspectors -- and we know what an inspector's for.
Inspector goes into a country that has made a conscious decision that
it is in their interest to get the world community to believe what
they're seeing, namely, that they do not have something. Kazakhstan
did it. Ukraine did it. South Africa did it. The world's got
experience with inspectors going in. And they opened the thing up, and
they let people talk to their scientists, and they did all the
perfectly rational things you do if you are cooperating. But that is
not what's going on.
Now it wouldn't take a few more months. It would take years of -- and
only -- and my guess is, the only way you'd ever find anything of any
note would be if there were defectors, if you got people out, could
talk to them, and they told you where to go, and you were able,
somehow or other, to evade the surveillance of the Iraqi minders who
tend these inspectors, and get to some place before the Iraqis got
there to move things. And that's a very difficult thing to do.
So my feeling is, the test ought not to be have they found anything
and how many more years will it take to do that; the test ought to be
are the Iraqis cooperating. That's what's being debated. That's what
should be being debated. That's what the resolution said should be
being considered. And that's what this period has been about. This
period has been about not finding things, but going in and conducting
a series of activities and inspections and discussions so that the
world can judge the extent to which Iraq is or is not cooperating.
Q:  Can I have a follow-up, please?
Rumsfeld: I was told -- yeah, the boss said you could get a follow-up.
Q:  For General Myers.
Rumsfeld:  Is it a real follow-up?
Q:  For General Myers --
Rumsfeld:  Is it a real one?
Q:  It is a real one yes.
Rumsfeld:  I'm not sure I'm going to like to hear this. (Laughter.)
Q:  General Myers, one --
Myers: That was a very good answer. I can't imagine there would be
anything left to discuss here.
Q: Secretary Rumsfeld, are you thus saying that the whole role of the
inspectors has been misinterpreted and misconstrued right from the
beginning?
Rumsfeld: Well, I'm sure some people have misconstrued it. I certainly
haven't. The president hasn't. Most of the people we talk to
understand what -- you talk to the prior inspectors, what they -- they
recognize the difficulty of that job. I think the press has kind of
liked following the inspectors around in a mob and seeing where
they're going and taking pictures and saying, "Oh, my goodness, they
didn't find anything; what a surprise." But I don't know that the
world's misconstrued it. Do you feel you misconstrued it?
Q:  General Myers --
Rumsfeld: I mean, I didn't misconstrue it. I'm sure all these bright
people here didn't misconstrue it.
Q:  General Myers.  One more.  General Myers --
Rumsfeld:  It's over, I'm told.
Q:  General Myers?
Moderator:  Yes, sir. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary --
Rumsfeld:  Thank you.
Moderator:  -- and General Myers.
Rumsfeld:  Thank you.  Nice to see you all.
(end transcript)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)



NEWSLETTER
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list