• Military

• WMD Menu                           

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

07 November 2002

Bush "Optimistic" U.N. Security Council Will Vote on Iraq November 8

(Says he is "serious" about holding Saddam accountable) (7880)
President Bush expects the United Nations Security Council to vote
November 8 on the "tough, new" draft disarmament resolution on Iraq
presented to it November 6 by the United States and Great Britain.
Speaking with reporters at a White House news conference November 7,
Bush said he had spoken earlier in the day with the Presidents of
France and Russia and was "optimistic we'll get the resolution vote
tomorrow."
The resolution, Bush said, is "a statement of intent to, once and for
all, disarm Saddam Hussein."
"And so that's why you'll see us with a different inspection regime,
one that works to see to it that Saddam Hussein disarms. It's his
responsibility to disarm. I don't put timetables on anything. But for
the sake of peace -- sooner, better.
"And we'll see. But you must know that I am serious -- so are a lot of
other countries -- serious about holding the man to account. I was
serious about holding the U.N. to account.
"And when they pass this resolution, which I hope they do tomorrow, it
shows that the U.N. is beginning to assume its responsibilities to
make sure that 11 years of defiance does not go unanswered," Bush
said.
The key point of the new draft resolution, he said, "is that there are
serious consequences," if Saddam does not disarm. "And that's one of
the key elements to make sure that everybody gets the picture that we
are serious about a process of disarming him in the name of peace.
Hopefully, he'll choose to do so himself."
But if Saddam again defies United Nations weapons inspectors, then the
United States and its friends "will move swiftly to do the job," Bush
said, "in order to make the world a more peaceful place.
"And some people aren't going to like that, I understand. But some
people won't like it if he ends up with a nuclear weapon and uses it.
We have an obligation to lead, and I intend to assume that obligation,
to make the world more peaceful."
Asked about why his policy towards Iraq is different from his policy
towards North Korea, Bush said that in the war against terrorism "each
threat requires a different type of response. You've heard my strategy
on dealing with Iraq. I've been very clear on the strategy all along.
And tomorrow it looks like part of that strategy is coming to
fruition.
"With North Korea, we're taking a different strategy initially, and
it's this; that we're going to work with countries in the neighborhood
to convince North Korea that it is not in the world's interests that
they develop a nuclear weapon through highly enriched uranium."
Discussing the November 5 midterm elections, Bush refused to take
credit for how well the Republican Party did, saying it was the
candidates themselves who deserve the credit.
Bush also told reporters that if he decides to run for a second term
as President, he would again choose current Vice President Dick Cheney
as his running mate, and is "confident" Cheney would agree to be on
the ticket.
Following is the White House transcript:
(begin transcript)
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
November 7, 2002
Press Conference by the President
Presidential Hall
Dwight D. Eisenhower Executive Office Building
2:00 P.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Good afternoon. Thanks for coming. This is
an important week for our country and for the world. The United
Nations will vote tomorrow on a resolution bringing the civilized
world together to disarm Saddam Hussein. Here at home, our citizens
have voted in an election that I believe will strengthen our ability
to make progress for all the American people.
I congratulate the men and women, Republicans and Democrats, who were
elected this week to public office all across America. I appreciate
their willingness to leave their private lives and to serve their
communities and to serve our nation.
I also commend the millions of voters across America, and across the
political spectrum, who went to the polls. At a time when our freedoms
are under attack, it is more important than ever that our citizens
exercise the rights and responsibilities of our democracy.
Now that the voters have spoken, I urge the members of both political
parties to come together to get things done for the American people.
I've talked to leaders of both parties and assured them I want to work
with them. I talked to Senator Daschle yesterday and said that,
although the Republican Party now leads the Senate, I still want to
work with him to get things done for the American people. I talked to
Leader Gephardt, as well.
I look forward to working with members of the Congress and the
newly-elected governors to make America's families safer in their
homes and their communities, to make our economy stronger so people
can find work, to make our country a better and more compassionate
place. Members of the new Congress will take office in January and
they'll have a full agenda. The current Congress, however, will return
in just a few days to take up some unfinished business. We have a
responsibility to protect the American people against threats from any
source.
I'm grateful to the members of the Congress, both Republicans and
Democrats, that came together to support the war against terror, and
authorize, if need be, the use of force to disarm Iraq. We must bring
the same spirit of bipartisan cooperation to the urgent task of
protecting our country from the ongoing threat of terrorist attack.
The single most important item of unfinished business on Capitol Hill
is to create a unified department of homeland security that will
vastly improve our ability to protect our coasts and our borders and
our communities.
The election may be over, but a terrorist threat is still real. The
Senate must pass a bill that will strengthen our ability to protect
the American people. And they must pass a bill that preserves the
authority every President since John Kennedy has had to act in the
interest of national security. It's imperative that the Congress send
me a bill that I can sign before the 107th Congress ends.
We have a responsibility to strengthen the economy so people can find
work. We're working to keep this economy moving. And one immediate
thing Congress should do to help people put -- back to work is to pass
legislation so that construction projects can get insurance against
terrorism. This will spur construction and create thousands of good
hard-hat jobs that are currently on hold because projects without
insurance cannot be built.
Although it's late in the process, Congress must show fiscal
discipline. At a time when we're at war and a time we need to
strengthen our economy, Congress must be wise with the people's money,
fund the nation's priorities and control wasteful spending. The
workers of America deserve our action on these important issues, which
have been stalled, yet, when approved will strengthen our economy.
Many of the fundamental economic indicators are good. Interest rates
are low, so Americans can buy more homes. Inflation is low, so
paychecks go further in buying groceries and gas. The productivity of
our workers is high. The economy has come out of a recession and is
growing, but I'm not satisfied because I know we can do better. We
must have an economy to grow at a faster and stronger pace so
Americans can find a job. And so I'll work with new Congress to pass
new growth and jobs packages early next year.
I look forward to welcoming a new Congress. And I look forward to
working with the current Congress to finish some very important work.
And now it's my privilege to take some of your questions, starting
with Sandra.
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. Do you believe that Tuesday's
election gave you personally a mandate? And now that you have the
Republican Congress, what will you do specifically, beyond terrorism
insurance and government spending restraints, to address the real
anxieties -- of everyday Americans --
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. First, I think candidates win elections because
they're good candidates, not because they may happen to have the
President as a friend -- or a foe, for that matter. Races that were
won were won because people were able to convince the voters they
could trust their judgment, convince the voters they care deeply about
their circumstances. I believe if there is a mandate in any election,
at least in this one, it's that people want something to get done.
They want people to work together in Washington, D.C. to pass
meaningful legislation which will improve their lives.
The best way to win an election is to -- is to earn the trust of the
voters, and that's what happened in state after state after state. We
had some really good candidates who overcame some pretty tough odds.
They were running against incumbents, in a lot of cases, and they ran
great races. And they were reassuring people. And I really attribute
the successes to the nature of their candidacies, and the hardworking
people that turned out the vote. There were some really effective
voter turnout organizations around the country.
And I think the way to look at this election is to say the people want
something done. They see the risks are high, the risk of being able to
find a job or the risk of keeping the homeland secure. And they want
people to come together to work on it, and that's what I intend to do.
Helen.
Q: The specifics of your --
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, sorry, yes. Well, I'll let you know at the right
time. For right now, we got to get through a lame duck session. A lame
duck session, for people who don't know what that means, it means the
Senate is coming and the House is coming back between now and
Christmas and they've got a few days to get some big things done. And
the most important thing to get done, I want to emphasize, is get a
department of homeland security finished.
Some rumors moving around that we may not be too keen on getting that
done. I want it done. It is a priority. We got a good bill out of the
House, and they need to get a bill out of the Senate and to
conference, and to my desk. I don't know how much time that's going to
take, but having watched the debate prior to the election, it may take
some time. But it doesn't matter how long it takes, they need to get
it done.
Secondly, they need to get a budget done. We need to get the bills,
the appropriation bills done. And I mentioned, they've got to get the
terrorism insurance bill done.
Now, given the amount of time they're likely to be here, that's a
pretty big agenda. And in terms of afterwards, I'll let you know. But
there are some issues, of course, that I intend to work with the
Congress on, and one of them is to get prescription drug benefits to
our seniors. That's an important issue. It's an issue that I talked
about at every speech. The candidates, I'm sure both political
parties, talked about it. And that's something that we need to get
done.
But let's get this -- get out of this lame duck session first.
Steve.
Q: Mr. President, how confident are you that the Security Council will
approve the tough new resolution on Iraq? And if that happens, what
happens next; what's the next step? Is war inevitable?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, the resolution we put down is a
tough new resolution. It talks about material breach and inspections
and serious consequences if Saddam Hussein continues to defy the world
and not disarm. So, one, I'm pleased with the resolution we put down.
Otherwise, we wouldn't have put it down.
I just talked to Jacques Chirac, and earlier today I talked to
Vladimir Putin. I characterize our conversation -- I'm loathe to put
words in somebody else's mouth. That's, evidently, not the case with a
lot of people in Washington, but nevertheless, I am. And I'm
optimistic we'll get the resolution vote tomorrow -- let me put it to
you that way.
And, Steve, the resolution is a disarmament resolution; that's what it
is. It's a statement of intent to, once and for all, disarm Saddam
Hussein. He's a threat. He's a threat to the country, he's a threat to
people in his neighborhood. He's a real threat. And it's now time for
the world to come together and disarm him. And when this resolution
passes, I will -- we'll be able to say that the United Nations has
recognized the threat, and now we're going to work together to disarm
him.
And he must be cooperative in the disarmament. So the job of
inspectors is to determine his level of cooperation, see. He has got
to be the agent of disarming; he's got to agree that what we're doing
is what he said he we do. And just like the United Nations has agreed
that it is important to disarm him, for the sake of peace, and so the
next step will be to put an inspection regime in there to -- after all
the declarations and after all the preamble to inspections, that he's
got to show the world he's disarming. And that's where we'll be next.
Let's see here. Helen.
Q: I have a follow-up --
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I have a list. (Laughter.) I don't want to be so
discriminatory that people will say that I haven't thought this
through. After all, the new arrangement -- and by the way, we're here
in honor of Ari Fleischer; otherwise we'd be in his house. But since
he's getting married this weekend, I thought it appropriate to leave
the podium that he occupies empty, in honor of the fact that he's
getting married. I hope you all have sent your gifts to him.
(Laughter.)
Ari, I did what you asked me to do. (Laughter. I'm sure he's on C-SPAN
right now.
Helen.
Q: Mr. President, what is the logic of your insistence on invading
Iraq at some point, which may someday have nuclear weapons, and not
laying a glove on North Korea, which may have them or may produce
them? Both of which, of course, would be against international law.
And I have a follow-up. (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I may decide to let you have that follow-up or
not depending upon -- (laughter) -- depending on whether I like my
answer. (Laughter.)
I am insistent upon one thing about Iraq, and that is that Saddam
Hussein disarm. That's what I'm insistent on. He agreed to do that, by
the way. Saddam Hussein said he would disarm. And he hasn't. And for
the --
Q: And you don't --
THE PRESIDENT: Is that the follow-up? (Laughter.) Okay, that is the
follow-up. I do care about North Korea. And as I said from the
beginning of this new war in the 21st century, we'll deal with each
threat differently. Each threat requires a different type of response.
You've heard my strategy on dealing with Iraq. I've been very clear on
dealing with the strategy all along, and tomorrow it looks like part
of that strategy is coming to fruition.
With North Korea, we're taking a different strategy, initially, and
it's this -- that we're going to work with countries in the
neighborhood to convince North Korea that it is not in the world's
interest that they develop a nuclear weapon through highly enriched
uranium.
We know they've got the capacity through plutonium; we have IAEA
inspectors there watching carefully their plutonium stockpile. And
then we discovered that, contrary to an agreement they had with the
United States, they're enriching uranium, with the desire of
developing a weapon. They admitted to this. And so, therefore, we have
worked with our Japanese friends and South Korean friends, with the
leadership in China -- I will talk with Vladimir Putin about this
after my trip to the NATO summit -- to remind North Korea that if they
expect to be a -- welcomed into this family of peaceful nations, that
they should not enrich uranium.
I thought it was a very interesting statement that Jiang Zemin made in
Crawford, where he declared very clearly that he wants a nuclear
weapons-free Korean Peninsula. That was, in my judgment, an important
clarification of Chinese policy that I hope the North Koreans listen
to. Believe we can achieve this objective, Helen, by working closely
with this consortium of nations, which have got a valid interest in
seeing to it that North Korea does not have nuclear weapons.
Terry.
Q: Mr. President, can I have a follow-up --
THE PRESIDENT: Of course, you can. Yes, it's fine. (Laughter.) If the
elections had gone a different way, I might not be so generous.
(Laughter.)
Q: You are leaving the impression that Iraqi lives, the human cost
doesn't mean anything --
THE PRESIDENT: Say that again?
Q: You are leaving the impression that you wouldn't mind if you go to
war against Iraq, but you deal with another nation which may have
weapons in a different way. But there are two other impressions
around. One, that you have an obsession with going after Saddam
Hussein at any cost. And also that you covet the oil fields.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, I'm -- some people have the right
impressions and some people have the wrong impressions.
Q: Can you --
THE PRESIDENT: Well, those are the wrong impressions.
Q: Okay.
THE PRESIDENT: I have a deep desire for peace. That's what I have a
desire for. And freedom for the Iraqi people. See, I don't like a
system where people are repressed through torture and murder in order
to keep a dictator in place. It troubles me deeply. And so the Iraqi
people must hear this loud and clear, that this country never has any
intention to conquer anybody. That's not the intention of the American
people or our government. We believe in freedom and we believe in
peace. And we believe the Iraqi dictator is a threat to peace. And so
that's why I made the decisions I made, in terms of Iraq.
Now, Terry Moran.
Q: Thank you, sir. On Iraq, you've said many times that if Saddam
Hussein does not disarm, he will be disarmed militarily, if necessary,
by the U.N. or the U.S. and others. There's a school of thought that
says that going to war against Iraq would be a dangerous and misguided
idea because it would generate a tremendous amount of anger and hatred
at the United States, and out of that you'd essentially be creating
many new terrorists who would want to kill Americans. What's wrong
with that analysis?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that's like saying we should not go after al
Qaeda because we might irritate somebody and that would create a
danger to Americans. My attitude is you got to deal with terrorism in
a firm way. And if they see threats you deal with them in all
different kinds of ways. The only way, in my judgment, to deal with
Saddam Hussein is to bring the international community together to
convince him to disarm.
But if he's not going to disarm, we'll disarm him, in order to make
the world a more peaceful place. And some people aren't going to like
that -- I understand. But some people won't like it if he ends with a
nuclear weapon and uses it. We have an obligation to lead. And I
intend to assume that obligation to make the world more peaceful.
Terry, listen, there's risk in all action we take. But the risk of
inaction is not a choice, as far as I'm concerned. The inaction
creates more risk than doing our duty to make the world more peaceful.
And obviously, I weighed all the consequences about all the
differences. Hopefully, we can do this peacefully -- don't get me
wrong. And if the world were to collectively come together to do so,
and to put pressure on Saddam Hussein and convince him to disarm,
there's a chance he may decide to do that.
And war is not my first choice, don't -- it's my last choice. But
nevertheless, it is a -- it is an option in order to make the world a
more peaceful place.
Let's see here. King. John King, that is.
Q: Sir, in referring to the elections, you're being quite humble about
the results and your role. But many conservative lawmakers and many
more conservative groups are saying, seize the moment. They say early
in the new Congress, you should push your plan to partially privatize
Social Security; you should push for new restrictions on abortion; you
should push and re-nominate the judges that were rejected by the
Senate; and that you should push a total overhaul of the tax code.
What are your views on that?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I appreciate all the advice I'm getting.
(Laughter.) One of the things about this job, if you listen carefully,
you get a lot of advice. And I -- it's important for a President to
set priorities, and the two biggest priorities are the protection of
the American people -- that's why I wanted to get this homeland
security department done -- and the other one is people being able to
find jobs. And we'll work on those. And tax relief or tax reform,
however you want to describe it, is part of, in my judgment, of
creating economic vitality.
But there are other things we can work on. Obviously, I'd like to see
some of my judges get a good -- a fair hearing and get approved; and
Medicare, prescription drugs is a very important issue, needs to get
done. Terrorism insurance is an important issue; energy bill is an
important issue. I mean, there's a lot of things we can do and should
do when they come back. And I can't remember the litany of things --
listen, there's going to be a huge laundry list of things people want
to get done, and my job is to set priorities and get them done. And
job creation and economic security -- job creation and economic
security, as well as homeland security, are the two most important
priorities we face.
Q: Social Security and any new restrictions --
THE PRESIDENT: No, I think the Social Security debate is an incredibly
important debate. And we call them personal savings accounts, John, so
that people have the option, at their choice, to manage their own
money. That would be younger workers. Obviously, we've got to assure
older workers that the promises we have made will be kept.
And the danger, really, is for young workers. That's the threat, as to
whether Social Security will be around for young workers without some
massive tax increase. And I still strongly believe that the best way
to achieve security in Social Security for younger workers is to give
them the option of managing their own money through a personal savings
account. Yes, it's an important issue, as well.
Listen, there's a lot of important issues. The budget is an important
issue. The budget is an important issue coming out of the lame duck
session. And the budget, as you know -- you're an old hand around here
-- is always an important issue in the next session. So that's always
an issue, too. There are some practical matters, as well, that will
occupy time here in Washington, D.C.
Roberts. John Roberts, that is.
Q: I'm wondering, sir, is Harvey Pitt, the Chairman of the SEC, just
the first member of your economic team to go? And a separate question:
Will you ask William Webster to resign?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, let me start with Pitt. Harvey Pitt did some very
good things at the SEC, and it's important for the American people to
know that. Right after 9/11, he did a lot to get the markets opened.
He really was -- played a major role in that, and received good credit
for that. And I want to thank Harvey Pitt for that, and the American
people should, as well.
He has done a lot to make it clear to corporate Americans that think
they can -- don't have to be responsible in their positions -- a lot
of enforcement, more so than ever in the history; he's enforced the
corporate responsibility ethos. He has disbarred more people, more
money has been disgorged as a result of illegal activity. And that's
positive, what Harvey has done, as well.
And under his watch, CEOs now must verify their returns, and that's
good. All that's positive. He made the decision himself that he
thought that he couldn't be as effective as he needed to be. I
received his letter. I appreciate his service.
William Webster, the -- there's a IG investigation going on there at
the SEC; we'll see what that says. But I will tell you, William
Webster is a fine man. He is a decent, honorable public servant who
has served our country well.
Q: -- with respect to --
THE PRESIDENT: Is this a three-part question?
Q: No. I'm just kind of reiterating the first. He is just the first
member of your economic team to go? The implication is -- do you have
--
THE PRESIDENT: Listen, my economic team came in during very difficult
times. There was a recession; there was a terrorist attack; there were
corporate scandals. We have done a lot to return confidence and to
provide a -- provide stimulus through tax cuts. My economic team
developed a tax cut package, sold the tax cut package, is implementing
the tax cut package. And for that, they deserve a lot of credit. They
made good -- we're making good progress on the economy. There's still
work to do. And I appreciate the hard work of the economic team.
Campbell.
Q: Thank you, Mr. President. You were very gracious earlier, giving
credit in this last election to the individual candidates. But a lot
of those candidates say they have you to thank. Given the fact that
your own election for President was so close it had to be decided by
the Supreme Court, do you now feel personally reassured that these
midterm elections validated your presidency?
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you for that loaded question. (Laughter.) Look,
sometimes you win them, and sometimes you lose elections. That's just
the way it is. And I was pleased with the results. I was more
particularly pleased for the candidates who worked so hard, and their
families and their workers. That's how I feel about it. I really don't
put this in personal terms.
I know people in Washington like to do that. You know, George Bush
won, George Bush lost. That's the way they do it here. Zero sum, in
Washington. And I know that. But if you're really interested in what I
think, I think the fact that Norm Coleman ran a very difficult race in
difficult circumstances and won speaks volumes about Norm Coleman. The
fact that John Thune ran a difficult race against difficult
circumstances and at this point is still short, nevertheless, speaks
volumes about his desire and his intention to serve the country.
There's case after case of people who have put their reputations on
the line, who spent a lot of time away from their homes and their
families, shaking a lot of hands and putting their hearts and souls --
in both parties. They deserve the credit. Thank you for trying to give
it to me, but they deserve the credit.
I know what it's like to run for office. I know the strains it puts on
families. I know the tired -- the endless hours you spend campaigning,
and all the wonderful questions you have to answer as part of a
campaign. I know all that. And these candidates deserve all the
credit.
And I was proud to help some of them the best I could. But the way you
win a race is you convince the people of your state or your district
that they can trust your judgment and they can trust your character
and they can trust your values. And it takes a lot of work to do that,
and these candidates get the credit. And I -- I appreciate you
pointing out that some people have given me credit. The credit belongs
to people in the field.
Yes, sir, Wendell.
Q: Mr. President, thank you very much. You have put a lot of effort
toward getting the United Nations to rally the world to disarm Saddam
Hussein. And yet you and your aides have expressed a great deal of
skepticism about whether Saddam Hussein will actually comply. Can you
give us an idea, sir, how long you think it might take for the world
to know whether Saddam Hussein actually intends to go along with the
call of the world to disarm? Will it be a matter of days or weeks,
months, or perhaps a year, sir?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Wendell, this much we know -- it's so far taken
him 11 years and 16 resolutions to do nothing. And so we've got some
kind of history as to the man's behavior. We know he likes to try to
deceive and deny, and that's why this inspection regime has got to be
new and tough and different. The status quo is unacceptable, you know,
kind of send a few people in there and hope maybe he's nice to them
and open up the baby milk factory -- it's unacceptable.
And so that's why you'll see us with a different inspection regime,
one that works to see to it that Saddam Hussein disarms. It's his
responsibility to disarm. I don't put timetables on anything. But for
the sake of peace -- sooner, better.
And we'll see. But you must know that I am serious -- so are a lot of
other countries -- serious about holding the man to account. I was
serious about holding the U.N. to account. And when they pass this
resolution, which I hope they do tomorrow, it shows that the U.N. is
beginning to assume its responsibilities to make sure that 11 years of
defiance does not go unanswered. It's very important that the U.N. be
a successful international body because the threats that we face now
require more cooperation than ever. And we're still cooperating with a
lot of nations.We're still sharing intelligence and cutting off money
the best we can. And there's still law enforcement efforts taking
place all around the world.
And that's why the international -- this international body called the
U.N. is an important body for keeping the peace. And it's very
important that they're effective. And we'll see tomorrow -- starting
tomorrow.
And then the key on the resolution, I want to remind you, is that
there are serious consequences. And that's one of the key elements to
make sure that everybody gets the picture that we are serious about a
process of disarming him in the name of peace. Hopefully, he'll choose
to do so himself.
Sammons, Super Stretch.
Q: Thank you, Mr. President. (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: You and I are eye-to-eye, right? (Laughter.)
Q: Now that the 2004 presidential campaign has unofficially begun, can
you tell us whether Vice President Cheney will be your running mate
again? Or will you, instead, choose someone who might harbor greater
presidential ambitions to, perhaps, succeed you one day?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, I'm still recovering from the '02
elections. And we got plenty of time to deal with this issue. But
should I decide to run, Vice President Cheney will be my running mate.
He's done an excellent job. I appreciate his advice. I appreciate his
counsel. I appreciate his friendship. He is a superb Vice President,
and there's no reason for me to change.
I also want to thank him for all his hard work during the campaign. He
was out there toiling along, working hard and turning out the vote,
and I want to thank him for the hours he put out there, as well.
Please, yes.
Q: If I may follow? Last time you had --
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you for not standing up, you block the cameras.
(Laughter.)
Q: Last time you had to kind of convince him to take the job. Have you
talked to him this time, whether he is interested in serving another
term?
THE PRESIDENT: I'm confident that he will serve another term.
Judy.
Q: Thank you, Mr. President. You said this afternoon that the U.N.
Security Council vote tomorrow would bring the civilized world
together against Iraq. But broad opposition remains all over the world
to your policy. Will you continue to try to build support and, if so,
how will you do that? Or do you think that a Security Council vote
would be all the mandate you need?
THE PRESIDENT: First of all, broad opposition around the world not in
support of my policy on Iraq?
Q: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think most people around the world realize that
Saddam Hussein is a threat. And they -- no one likes war, but they
also don't like the idea of Saddam Hussein having a nuclear weapon.
Imagine what would happen. And by the way, we don't know how close he
is to a nuclear weapon right now. We know he wants one. But we don't
know. We know he was close to one at one point in time; we have no
idea today. Imagine Saddam Hussein with a nuclear weapon. Imagine how
the Israeli citizens would feel. Imagine how the citizens in Saudi
Arabia would feel. Imagine how the world would change, how he could
alter diplomacy by the very presence of a nuclear weapon.
And so a lot of people -- serious people around the world are
beginning to think about that consideration. I think about it a lot. I
think about it particularly in the regard of making the world a more
peaceful place.
And so it's very important for people to realize the consequences of
us not taking the case to the U.N. Security Council. People need to
think about what would happen if the United States had remained silent
on this issue and just hoped for a change of his attitude, or maybe
hoped that he would not invade somebody again, or just hoped that he
wouldn't use gas on his own people when pressure at home began to
mount.
I'm not willing to take those kind of risks. People understand that. I
think a lot of people are saying, you know, gosh, we hope we don't
have war. I feel the same way, I hope we don't have war. I hope this
can be done peacefully. It's up to Saddam Hussein, however, to make
that choice.
I also want to remind you that, should we have to use troops, should
it become a necessity in order to disarm him, the United States, with
friends, will move swiftly with force to do the job. You don't have to
worry about that. We will do -- we will do -- we will do what it takes
militarily to succeed.
I also want to say something else to people of Iraq, that the generals
in Iraq must understand clearly there will be consequences for their
behavior. Should they choose, if force is necessary, to behave in a
way that endangers the lives of their own citizens, as well as
citizens in the neighborhood, there will be a consequence. They will
be held to account.
And as to the Iraq people, what I said before -- the Iraqi people can
have a better life than the one they have now. They can have a --
there are other alternatives to somebody who is willing to rape and
mutilate and murder in order to stay in power. There's just a better
life than the one they have to live now.
I think the people of the world understand that too, Judy. I don't
take -- I don't take -- I don't spend a lot of time taking polls
around the world to tell me what I think is the right way to act; I've
just got to know how I feel. I feel strongly about freedom. I feel
strongly about liberty. And I feel strongly about the obligation to
make the world a more peaceful place. And I take those
responsibilities really seriously.
Elizabeth.
Q: Thank you, sir. You just said you've reached out to Democrats. Does
this mean that you will be governing more from the center and taking
fewer cues from the conservative arm of your party?
THE PRESIDENT: I don't take cues from anybody, I just do what I think
is right. That's just the way I lead. And what's right is to work to
stimulate the economy. I strongly believe the tax relief was the right
thing to do. If people are really interested in job creation, they
ought to join me in my call to make the tax cuts permanent. It's an
important part of sending a signal that there is certainty in the tax
code; that all the benefits from tax relief don't go away after 10
years.
As I like to say -- you might have heard me once or 10 times or a
hundred times -- the Senate giveth and the Senate taketh away. That
means there's uncertainty when that happens. And you've got to have
certainty in a system that requires risk. And making the tax cuts
permanent is an essential part. I mean -- and so that is a
common-sense drive, to create jobs.
I will just tell people what I think about how to solve the problems
we face. And I ran on a political philosophy; I'm not changing my
political philosophy. I am who I am prior -- the say guy after the
election that I was prior to the election. That's just who I am and
how I intend to lead this country.
Jean Cummings. I'm having such a good time. (Laughter.) Jean Cummings
-- there she is, yes.
Q: Thank you, Mr. President. Getting back to the question of Harvey
Pitt.
THE PRESIDENT: Pitt, yes.
Q: What kind of person are you looking for to fill that position now?
And how quickly do you want to move on that? And then also, as much as
you said that Mr. Webster is a well-respected and quality person, do
you think that the chairman -- whoever that new chairman is -- should
have a chance to select their own person and have a fresh start?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think -- that's kind of the double-whammy
hypothetical there, Jean. I think that the -- on Webster, first, let's
find out what the facts are so that everybody knows. That's why
they're doing this investigation. And it's -- one fact is irrefutable,
he's a decent man. He's served the country well. And I know he can do
that job.
Secondly, as soon as possible, for the SEC nominee, and somebody who
is going to continue to fulfill the obligation that -- of holding
people to account. In other words, holding wrongdoers to account and
making sure the numbers are fair and open and transparent, and
everybody understands the facts when it comes to -- to accounting, so
we continue to regain confidence in our system. That people, when they
invest based upon the numbers of a particular stock, are confident in
that which they read. And that's an essential part of the SEC job, and
I'm confident we can find somebody soon to be able to do that.
Hutch.
Q: Thank you. I wanted to go back to your earlier point about the risk
of an action versus the risk of inaction.
THE PRESIDENT: Where would that be, in the Congress or at the U.N.?
Q: With Iraq.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, okay.
Q: Your CIA Director told Congress just last month that it appears
that Saddam Hussein "now appears to be drawing a line short of
conducting terrorist attacks against the United States." But if we
attacked him he would "probably become much less constrained." Is he
wrong about that?
THE PRESIDENT: No. I think that -- I think that if you would read the
full -- I'm sure he said other sentences. Let me just put it to you, I
know George Tenet well. I meet with him every single day. He sees
Saddam Hussein as a threat. I don't know what the context of that
quote is. I'm telling you, the guy knows what I know, that he is a
problem and we must deal with him.
And, you know, it's like people say, oh, we must leave Saddam alone;
otherwise, if we did something against him, he might attack us. Well,
if we don't do something, he might attack us, and he might attack us
with a more serious weapon. The man is a threat, Hutch, I'm telling
you. He's a threat not only with what he has, he's a threat with what
he's done. He's a threat because he is dealing with al Qaeda. In my
Cincinnati speech, I reminded the American people, a true threat
facing our country is that an al Qaeda-type network trained and armed
by Saddam could attack America and leave not one fingerprint. That is
a threat. And we're going to deal with it.
The debate about whether we're going to deal with Saddam Hussein is
over. And now the question is how do we deal with him. I made the
decision to go to the United Nations because I want to try to do this
peacefully. I want Saddam to disarm. The best way to convince him to
disarm is to get the nations to come together through the U.N. and try
to convince him to disarm.
We're going to work on that. We've been spending a lot of time -- I
wouldn't exactly call it gnashing of teeth, but working hard on the
U.N. resolution. It took a while, but we've been grinding it out,
trying to bring a consensus, trying to get people together, so that we
can say to the world the international community has spoken through
the Security Council of the United Nations and now, once again, we
expect Saddam to disarm.
This would be the 17th time that we expect Saddam to disarm. This time
we mean it. See, that's the difference -- I guess. This time it's for
real. And I say it must not have been for real the last 16 times
because nothing happened when he didn't. This time something happens.
He knows -- he's got to understand that. The members of the U.N.
Security Council understand that. Saddam has got to understand it so
he, so, in the name of peace, for a peaceful resolution of this, we
hope he disarms.
Jackson, from Texas. You got anything -- a Texas question?
Q: As a matter of fact, I do. (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
Q: Do you intend to resuscitate the nomination of Priscilla Owen and
Charles Pickering? And, also, how bloody do you think the next Supreme
Court nomination will be?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, first, I want the new chairman of the Senate
Judiciary Committee to understand that I am very serious about the
reforms that I suggested in the East Room, about how to get this
process of nominating judges and approving judges on the right course,
not only for this administration, but future administrations; not only
for this Senate, but future Senates. And so step one on the judiciary
process, I believe there needs to be reform. I would be glad to
reprise the reforms if you can't remember them.
Q: Owen and Pickering, are they going to --
THE PRESIDENT: I'll be there in a minute. (Laughter.) I'm using this
as an opportunity to make a point on judicial reform. And that is that
if a judge thinks he's going to retire, give us a year's notice, if
possible. And then we will act -- "we," the administrative branch,
will nominate somebody and clear them within 180 days. And then the
Senate judiciary has got 90 days to go through the process and then
get the person's name to the floor, and 180 days for an up or down
vote. To me that would be a needed and necessary reform.
So step one on the nomination process is to work with Senator Hatch --
and Senator Leahy -- to put these reforms in place; is to convince
members of the Senate we're serious about a process that will get rid
of the old bitterness of the judicial process.
This is probably not to your liking, by the way. You love those court
fights. I'm confident it makes great covering and great stories.
I also said at the time of Priscilla Owen's being -- not being put to
the floor of the Senate that I would hope that the judiciary committee
would let her name out to the Senate floor at some point in time. We
don't have to recommit them, they never -- they're there. Pickering
and Owen are still there at the committee level. They just weren't
ever -- their names were never let to the floor for a vote.
By the way, if they had been let to the floor for a vote, we believe
they would have won the vote -- perhaps the reason why they were never
let to the floor for a vote. But -- so, I hope that judiciary
committee will let their names out and they get a fair hearing.
I thought you were going to talk about the Texas elections. But that's
okay. (Laughter.)
April, last question.
Q: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: How's your child, April?
Q: She's wonderful.
THE PRESIDENT: Georgia W? (Laughter.)
Q: My husband is watching, and the name is Ryan Tyler James.
(Laughter.).
THE PRESIDENT: You might as well turn to the camera when you say that.
(Laughter.)
Q: Well, Mr. President, some critics contend there is a racial
disparity in how immigrants are handled here, and speaking of the
Haitians versus immigrants, the other immigrants. Do you support the
current law on the books about Haiti, and why, either way?
THE PRESIDENT: April, first of all, the immigration laws ought to be
the same for Haitians and everybody else -- except for Cubans. And the
difference, of course, is that we don't send people back to Cuba
because they're going to be persecuted. And that's why we've got the
special law on the books as regards to Cubans. But Haitians and
everybody else ought to be treated the same way. And we're in the
process of making sure that happens.
It's been an enjoyable experience.
END 2:47 P.M. EST
(end transcript)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)