10 February 1998
[EXCERPTS] TRANSCRIPT: WHITE HOUSE DAILY BRIEFING, FEBRUARY 10, 1998
White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry briefed. Following is the White House transcript: (begin transcript) THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary February 10, 1998 PRESS BRIEFING BY MIKE MCCURRY The Briefing Room ............ Q: Mike, the nation may be days away from war and, yet, in the Rose Garden today the President turned and didn't take any questions on any subject. Is that the sort of thing we're going to be seeing in the future, the President -- MCCURRY: Well, he had a press conference Friday, Scott, so he obviously takes questions from time to time, and he was late to get down to see members of the House of Representatives from the Democratic Party at their retreat. Q: So you're saying that that's not a standard that we're going to be seeing in future days? MCCURRY: He just had a press conference, Scott. Obviously, we do different things on different days. Q: Mike, granted the President is very happy with all of his support lately. But Reverend Jesse Jackson, just now in Africa, said that the Clinton administration should push for as much diplomacy and war should be a last resort. What are you saying about that? MCCURRY: We certainly agree with that. We are pushing very hard for a diplomatic resolution to the standoff, but the diplomatic string is running out. Q: Mike, today the French and members of the Arab League led by the Egyptians, are trying to put through the Security Council some formal resolution where there will be a compromise, where Saddam Hussein will open up all the sites, including the nine palaces for a period of time in exchange for setting a date for lifting the sanctions. How does the U.S. -- MCCURRY: The United States believes that the purpose of all diplomatic efforts ought to be to ensure total access by the U.N. Special Commission inspectors as they do their business in Iraq, and measures which protect the basic integrity of UNSCOM's ability to do the work it's been assigned by the U.N. Security Council. In short, unfettered access to those sites which the U.N. Commission, the experts, the scientific people who know what they are looking for, the ability for them to do their work in a free and unfettered manner. That's what the purpose of any diplomacy on this at this moment. Q: Would the U.S. be prepared to set a date for lifting the sanctions if such unfettered access were -- MCCURRY: The only road to sanctions relief for Saddam Hussein is to see that UNSCOM certifies that Iraq had destroyed its weapons of mass destruction. U.N. sanctions are going to remain in place until the world community is satisfied that he has no capacity to reconstitute weapons of mass destruction programs. ................ Q: Mike, a French oil company -- which signed a contract recently with Iran is also talking about signing a contract with Iraq to develop its oil fields. Will the U.S. consider that a violation of the U.N. sanctions and do you plan to protest? MCCURRY: I believe that there are existing U.N. economic sanctions that prohibit develop of oil and gas resources within Iraq beyond those that are authorized by the oil for food resolutions, which we support and acknowledge we support. I think it would depend on whether it was within the confines and boundaries of the carefully supervised U.N. program that allows Iraq to sell oil so it can take care of suffering Iraqi people, people suffering at the hands of Saddam Hussein. ................ Q: Do you think that the Monica Lewinsky controversy affects in any way the President's prospects for getting action on the Hill on his legislative agenda? MCCURRY: I do not believe we've seen any evidence that there is an impact. To the contrary; there is a strong desire on the part of the members of Congress that we've talked to and, in some cases, both sides of the aisle, to work on the agenda that the American people expect both Congress and the President to pursue. Q: Or does it affect his ability in the Iraqi crisis to marshal world opinion and help? You know what Saddam Hussein is saying. MCCURRY: Clearly not, since we are working very effectively to marshal exactly that support through the work the President is doing, the work the Secretary is doing, Secretary of Defense in the region now, others. We are building support for a very determined effort by the world community to address this provocation by Saddam Hussein and to pursue whatever options are necessary to meet the simple objectives we have. Q: Well, how do you deal with the allegation that exists in much of the Middle East, in much of the developing world, that the President is simply seeking to distract attention from his own problems by going to war against Iraq? MCCURRY: Well, we have addressed that question numerous times here. We have for six years now been working to assure the world community that Saddam Hussein no longer poses a threat to his neighbors; is not in a position to reconstitute his programs in biological, chemical warfare. We have from time to time had to repel aggressive threats by Saddam Hussein as he feints towards his neighbors, specifically Kuwait, as he violates the no-fly zone that has been in place. So dealing with the provocations of Saddam Hussein has been a constant for six years, and dealing specifically with the question of whether or not the United Nations will be able to do its work to assure the world that he is in no position to reconstitute his programs of weapons of mass destruction has been ongoing over the course of the last six months, long before the world ever heard the name Monica Lewinsky. So that is obviously a fallacious and ill-begotten charge. Q: Can you explain why Saudi Arabia has been reticent to have the United States -- offensive strikes -- Q: Fallacious -- MCCURRY: Stop that. Q: You said it. MCCURRY: I can tell you that we've had very good consultations with King Fahd; as you have heard a number of us say that we have got commitments in place which will provide all the support we need within the region should military action be required. Q: Yes, but that's not my question. My question is why -- if the American people are supposed to believe that he's a threat right now to the region, why wouldn't a country that would presumably be most at threat not want us to act offensively from their boundaries? MCCURRY: Well, that country can address that question specifically. But I think the American people know that our force presence in that region would not be possible without the support of Saudi Arabia -- and for that matter, Kuwait, Bahrain, the Gulf States, the government of Turkey and others who have been supportive and who have provided bases, use of air space, other logistical support that give our sanctions that are in place -- give them teeth and make possible the forward deployment of resources in that region that allow us to be confident that we can deal with whatever threat exists. There has been strong support for the last six years for the forward deployed presence we have in the Gulf and for the effort we make to assure that Saddam remains in the box in which he has been placed by the international community. And the support of Saudi Arabia on that score has been unwavering. Q: Mike, if the United States can't say for sure how many weapons of mass destruction Iraq because it can't get the U.N. weapons inspectors in, after a military strike how will we know if our objectives have been met? MCCURRY: Well, our objective will have been met if we have substantially diminished Iraq's capacity to reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction program. Q: Right, but how will we know that if right now we -- MCCURRY: We've got a variety of ways in which we can gather information on that, and hopefully, one way in which we would do that would be to return to a direct inspections regime that would allow us to see that there was not any further effort by Iraq to both violate U.N. Security Council resolutions and attempt to go back and reconstitute anything that he has lost as a result of military action. Q: But you're saying that even without weapons inspectors we have ways of knowing -- is that what you're saying? Because if so, why do we need weapons inspectors? MCCURRY: We have ways of gathering information there. We not long ago in this room were talking a lot about U-2 flights and things like that. But going into all those is something I obviously can't do. What is best and what is preferable and what is mandated by the world community is direct inspections by scientific and technical experts working under the auspices of the United Nations who can go on site and look point-blank at the facilities they need to see. Q: Can I sum up a little bit of what you've been saying? You're saying that -- MCCURRY: No. I can only put words in my mouth. Q: -- that the President's foreign policy is not weakened, not affected at all by the scandals, even though the Middle Eastern leaders went back and seemed to be buying time because of it. And you also are saying the President is telling the Democrats to forget the newspapers, forget all these headline stories day after day after day, and we're just carrying on as usual -- business as usual. MCCURRY: Well, you may have inferred those words, but I think I chose my words boldly and correctly to reflect what I wanted to say. ............... Q: On Friday the President said that he established a standard that was simply to reduce or delay Saddam Hussein's capacity to build weapons of mass destruction. Isn't that a pretty low standard? Couldn't you drop one bomb and say that you've reduced or delayed? MCCURRY: It depends on where you drop it. But I think that we will have a variety of things that we will be looking at to satisfy the United States and others in the world community that we have met our objectives. And remember, these objectives do not only extend to the prospect of military action -- they are currently the purpose of the diplomatic efforts we have underway, since the President hasn't made any decision on the use of force. And what we want to make absolutely sure of is that we have diminished his capacity to reconstitute the programs that he clearly has had, that he has clearly tried to conceal, that he has lied about, that he has used on past instances against his own people and others. And we have to make sure that he is not in a position to use what he has used before, and not in a position to further threaten neighbors or intimidate neighbors or try to gain some advantage through the programs that he clearly has pursued in the past. Q: About two or three years ago there was -- case happened and 5,000 people in Tokyo had gassed down in the subway. When the police get into the compound most of the weapons -- I mean, sarin gas, gas, all were gone. And it's still hard for us to believe that a surgical air strike can eliminate the whole danger. And if the United States is going to have more counterterrorism measures inside of America, inside of New York City, Los Angeles and Washington, is there any way that this can be -- MCCURRY: Well, we have not suggested that you could eliminate wholly, entirely programs that he may have constituted in biological and chemical weapons through use of air power. That has not been a suggestion made by anyone that I'm aware of in our government. However, remember that we have done significant work, partly because of the tragedy that occurred in the Tokyo subways, on working on an international basis to combat terrorism, to discover ways in which we can coordinate the work of law enforcement officials, and finding ways that we can share expertise so that we understand better how we can both deter and prevent any threatened terrorist attacks. We had a training exercise here in Washington, D.C. not too long ago, so that civilian defense officials could look at exactly how to respond when we have a situation that needs emergency attention. We do work all the time with other governments around the world and within the United States, cooperating at our various levels of government to assure that we have taken all measures that we can to attempt to prevent and deter any type of terrorism. Q: Mike, regarding the support, King Hussein this morning has said that he's opposing military action. The Chinese foreign minister today gave the strongest warnings against military action against Iraq. It seems like the only people who have really given the support are Britain, Australia, Canada. Will this not be viewed as something of an Anglo conspiracy -- MCCURRY: That's not a fair characterization. There were statements today, based on Secretary Cohen's work in the region, by the government of Oman. The Kuwaitis have said things. We are confident that should we need to move to use of military force we will have the support we need to accomplish the mission assigned. And we have commitments in place that we think are satisfactory to be confident when we say we will be successful. Q: Mike, in the State of the Union address the President said the nation was determined to deny Saddam Hussein that capability. Now we're saying "diminish." How did the policy change? MCCURRY: It's not a change in policy. I think that we are addressing the threat that we see in that region and talking realistically about what we think we can achieve as we pursue our diplomacy, as we contemplate other measures that might be necessary. Q: So the statement in the State of the Union address was not realistic, you're saying? MCCURRY: It was both realistic and very clear and aimed at the person who needs to hear the message, Saddam Hussein. Q: You acknowledge that these strikes, if you took military action in Iraq, would not be of a surgical nature, that that could only go so far. You say the goal of military action in Iraq is to reinstitute the inspections and so forth. So that makes it sound like that you intend to bomb Iraq until Saddam says uncle or until he -- MCCURRY: I'm not going to speculate on how we would use force, if there's a need to resort to use of force. I think there have been others that are higher ranked than me in this government that have addressed that question and addressed it authoritatively. Q: Mike, are you saying that when you say we will have the support we need, meaning that Britain, Australia, Canada, Kuwait is the support we need, or there are people who are supporting us but just aren't saying so? MCCURRY: We have been doing extensive work in the region talking to our allies, talking to all those that I mentioned that have been supportive of the work that we have done in the last six years since the Desert Storm War. And I think the President is confident that we need to continue that work and continue to pursue these high level consultations that have been underway. But he's also convinced that we would be able to get the job done if we need to do that job. Q: Does the President have any private sessions when he goes to the Hill Thursday, or is that strictly a public event? MCCURRY: I believe that's a public event of a rally nature, but I'll let you know if there are any additional appointments. Q: He is meeting foreign policy people tonight? MCCURRY: That's the current plan, correct. We'll see what time he gets back and what the schedule is when he gets back. Q: Have you received a commitment from Spain to use the bases, and how useful -- MCCURRY: I think it's better for individual governments to talk about the kinds of commitments and the kinds of levels of support that they wish to offer. And the government of Spain I believe has addressed some of that publicly already. Q: How useful would that be? MCCURRY: I'm not going to comment about specific military plans, but we always appreciate the support of any of our allies, especially our NATO allies, as we contemplate additional measures that might be necessary to achieve our larger geostrategic purposes. Q: If U.S. forces needed to use the Saudi air bases during a military operation are we confident the Saudis would agree to that? MCCURRY: I'm not going to go beyond what I've already said. We've had extensive consultations with them. The Secretary of Defense has been engaged, as has the President. And we're confident we can get the job done if we need to do that job. Q: Mike, the meeting tonight, is that supposed to include the President? MCCURRY: Yes, I think it is. I think that they have been meeting often here on the subject of Iraq, and from time to time briefing the President. And he will be engaged in coming days on and off with his senior policy advisors as they are here. ....................... ................ Q: Mike, if and when the President decides that the diplomatic options have run out vis-a-vis Iraq, would he feel the need to address the American people about this, or does he feel that he's said enough at this juncture already? MCCURRY: He will be addressing the situation with respect to Iraq, as he did today, in future occasions -- I won't speculate about which format, nor what time, nor what course events will take. The best thing would be for the President to be able at some point to tell the American people that we're fully satisfied that Saddam Hussein will now do what he is required to do by the international community so that there would be no need for the use of force. But failing to have any guarantee of that and, frankly, seeing some evidence to the contrary, we have to very carefully, prudently address other potential courses of action. Q: Mike, I'm just not up to speed. Are all of the inspectors out of Iraq, or are there still some inspections going on? MCCURRY: I think I just saw the day before yesterday, 12 inspections occurred. The problem has been access to the sensitive sites that have been identified by Chairman Butler of the U.N. Commission. Those sites that have not -- access to have been blocked by the government of Iraq or the ability of UNSCOM to visit them has been thwarted. And that's why what we have said there needs to be unconditional, unfettered access to all the sites that the U.N. Special Commission deems necessary to see in order to satisfy itself about weapons of mass destruction. Q: We would bomb while they're there? Q: Something related to David's question -- what's the thinking here about some big, final warning to Saddam when military action was fairly imminent, maybe a la a deadline or something? MCCURRY: I'm not going to speculate on big final warnings. I'm going to tell you day by day what we are doing to address the problem and what we're doing to try and get the right outcome. What happens tomorrow and the days beyond in a large measure depends on what decision Saddam Hussein makes. ................ .................. Q: Mike, General Schwarzkopf the other day alluded to the possibility that maybe Saddam Hussein wants a U.S. attack in order to shore up support from an Arab world that would be upset about the attacks on Iraqi citizens. Has that been taken into your calculations, that maybe you're going to jump into a briarpatch? MCCURRY: There is a lot of very sophisticated analysis that goes into our management of this crisis, of course. Q: Mike, when the President uses the word "delay," regarding the reconstitution of Saddam Hussein's ability to develop and launch weapons of mass destruction, is he forecasting a repeat of this whole process at some point in the future? MCCURRY: No. We obviously want to substantially diminish his capacity to reconstitute any programs he's had underway. We can't guarantee 100 percent success when it comes to eliminating those programs. If there was ever any effort to reconstitute them he would get another taste of the same bad medicine. THE PRESS: Thank you. (end transcript)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
