    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George H. W. Bush (1991, Book I)]
    [January 12, 1991]
    [Pages 31-36]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    The President's News Conference
    January 12, 1991

        The President. I have a brief statement, and then I'll be glad to
    take a few questions.
        First, let me just say that I am gratified by the vote in the
    Congress supporting the United Nations Security Council resolutions.
    This action by the Congress unmistakably demonstrates the United States
    commitment to the international demand for a complete and unconditional
    withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait. This clear expression of the Congress
    represents the last, best chance for peace.
        As a democracy we've debated this issue openly and in good faith.
    And as President I have held extensive consultation with the Congress.
    We've now closed ranks behind a clear signal of our determination and
    our resolve to implement the United Nations resolutions. Those who may
    have mistaken our democratic process as a sign of weakness now see the
    strength of democracy. And this sends the clearest message to Iraq that
    it cannot scorn the January 15th deadline.
        Throughout our history we've been resolute in our support of
    justice, freedom, and human dignity. The current situation in the
    Persian Gulf demands no less of us and of the international community.
    We did not plan for war, nor do we seek war. But if

    [[Page 32]]

    conflict is thrust upon us we are ready and we are determined. We've
    worked long and hard, as have others including the Arab League, the
    United Nations, the European Community, to achieve a peaceful solution.
    Unfortunately, Iraq has thus far turned a deaf ear to the voices of
    peace and reason.
        Let there be no mistake: Peace is everyone's goal. Peace is in
    everyone's prayers. But it is for Iraq to decide.

    Persian Gulf Crisis

        Q. Mr. President, does this mean now that war is inevitable----
        The President. No----
        Q. ----and have you made the decision in your own mind?
        The President. No, it does not mean that war is inevitable. And I
    have felt that a statement of this nature from both Houses of the United
    States Congress was, at this late date, the best shot for peace. And so,
    let us hope that that message will get through to Saddam Hussein.
        Q. Have you made the decision in your mind?
        The President. I have not, because I still hope that there will be a
    peaceful solution.
        Q. Mr. President, there's only 3 days left until the deadline, which
    isn't enough time for Saddam Hussein to pull out his troops. In fact,
    you, yourself, wouldn't let Jim Baker go to Baghdad on this date because
    there wouldn't be enough time. Do you see the possibility of anything
    happening in these last few days that could avert war or any chance that
    he will pull his troops out?
        The President. Well, in terms of the chance, I'd have to say I don't
    know. And in terms of what could avert war, you might say an instant
    commencement of a large-scale removal of troops with no condition, no
    concession, and just heading out could well be the best and only way to
    avert war, even though it would be, at this date, I would say almost
    impossible to comply fully with the United Nations resolutions.
        Q. Sort of a followup: Have you heard from the U.N. Secretary-
    General Perez de Cuellar today, and is there any hope on that front?
        The President. No--well, I don't know whether there is hope on it
    because I haven't heard from him today.
        Q. Mr. President, are you satisfied that countries in the
    international coalition like France, Syria, and Egypt will take part in
    offensive operations in the event of hostilities in the Gulf?
        The President. Yes.
        Q. The second part of that question, sir, you've said that if
    hostilities come it will not be another Vietnam. What kind of
    assumptions are you making about the duration of a conflict, and can you
    assure the American people that hostilities would not expand beyond the
    current theater of operations?
        The President. Well, I am not making any assumptions in terms of
    numbers of days, but I have said over and over again that the
    differences between what is happening in the Gulf and what happened in
    Vietnam are enormous in terms of the coalition aligned against the
    Iraqis, in terms of the demographics, in terms of the United Nations
    action and, I am convinced, in terms of the force that is arrayed
    against Iraq. So, I just don't think there is a parallel.
        But I would like to say that I have gone over all of this with our
    Secretary of Defense and with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs; and all
    three of us, and everybody else involved in this, are determined to keep
    casualties to an absolute minimum. And that's one of the reasons that I
    authorized Secretary Cheney to move the additional force several weeks
    ago.
        Q. What about firebreaks to keep the war from expanding?
        The President. Well, I don't worry too much about the war expanding.
    I have said very clearly, and I'd like to repeat it here, that we will
    hold Saddam Hussein directly responsible for any terrorist action that
    is taken against U.S. citizens, against citizens of others in the
    coalition. So, I must confess to some concern about terrorism. It's not
    just that it relates to this crisis because I've always felt that way.
    But if it is related to the crisis, if the terrorist acts are related to
    it, Saddam Hussein will be held directly responsible for that, and the
    consequences will be on him.
        Q. Mr. President, the pendulum of hope has swung back and forth, and
    you, yourself, have said you didn't hold out tremendous hope for the
    last-minute diplomatic ef-

    [[Page 33]]

    forts. What do you do on midnight on January 15th?
        The President. Well, Ann [Ann Compton, ABC News], I can't tell you I
    know on midnight, but I do feel that the action taken by the United
    States Congress today is a very important step in, hopefully, getting
    Saddam Hussein to realize what he's up against--the determination of the
    American people. I have felt that the support is there from the people,
    but I think now with the Congress--the representatives of the people--on
    record, it makes it much, much clearer to Saddam Hussein.
        Q. The polls have shown people support moving fairly quickly after
    the 15th. Would that be your intention?
        The President. I have said--and without trying to pin it down or in
    any sense go beyond what I'm about to say--sooner rather than later. And
    I got into a discussion--I know that's perhaps not of much help, but I
    think the worst thing you'd want to do is, if a determination was made
    to use force, to signal when you might be inclined to act. That would,
    in my view, put the lives of coalition forces needlessly at risk.
        Q. Sir, I'm sure you're doing all these scenarios that are coming
    out, the various peace scenarios. One has it that Saddam Hussein will
    wait until after the 15th--we get into this face-saving again--wait
    until the 16th or the 17th possibly and then start to withdraw--say,
    look, I stood up to George Bush, but I'm willing in order to avoid war
    to pull my troops out now. Is that the type of thing that will go into
    your calculations? Would that be important to you? Would you say, well,
    let's give the guy a couple of days and see if, indeed, that scenario is
    true?
        The President. I don't want to give any indication to Saddam Hussein
    that we will be interested in anything that looks like delay or trying
    to claim victory. It isn't a question of winning or losing. It's a
    question of his getting out of Kuwait rapidly without concession. And
    so, I'd have to know a lot more about the situation, the scenario, as
    you say, before I could give you a more definitive response.
        But I don't want anything here to be interpreted by him as
    flexibility on our part. We have not been flexible. We have been
    determined, and we are still determined to see that he complies fully
    with the resolutions. Now, Rita [Rita Beamish, Associated Press] raised
    the question, is it logistically possible to fully comply? At this
    moment, I'm not sure that you could--logistically possible to fully
    comply. But if he started now to do that what he should have done weeks
    ago, clearly, that would make a difference. And I'm talking about a
    rapid, massive withdrawal from Kuwait. But I still worry about it
    because it might not be in full compliance. So, the standard full
    compliance with all these resolutions--now, some can't be complied with
    fully before the 15th. One of them relates to reparations. And
    reparations is a very important part of this. It's a very important part
    of what the United Nations has done. So, I don't think the whole
    question of reparations can be resolved before the 15th.
        Q. Sir, can you explain why sooner is better than later?
        The President. Yes, because I think that's been a major part of the
    debate on the Hill. And I think it is very important that he knows that
    the United States and the United Nations are credible. I don't want to
    see further economic damage done to the Third World economies or to this
    economy. I don't want to see further devastation done to Kuwait. This
    question of when was debated in the United Nations, and these countries
    came down saying this is the deadline. And I don't want to veer off from
    that for one single iota. And I certainly don't want to indicate that
    the United States will not do its part in the coalition to fulfill these
    resolutions.
        Q. Mr. President, you spoke of the debate. It was a very somber day
    up there.
        The President. Yes.
        Q. People talked about the cost of war. I wondered if you watched it
    and what effect it had on you.
        The President. That's a good question. On the parts of it I saw I
    couldn't agree more. It was somber, properly somber. It was, I thought,
    with very little ancor. I thought it was conducted for the most part--
    not entirely--in a very objective manner in terms of the subject, and
    yet subjective in terms of the individual speaking. The compassion

    [[Page 34]]

    and the concern, the angst of these Members, whether they agreed with me
    or not, came through loud and clear.
        And so, I guess I shared the emotion. I want peace. I want to see a
    peaceful resolution. And I could identify with those--whether they were
    on the side that was supporting of the administration or the other--with
    those who were really making fervent appeals for peace. But I think it
    was historic. I think it was conducted showing the best of the United
    States Congress at work. And I keep feeling that it was historic because
    what it did and how it endorsed the President's action to fulfill this
    resolution--when you go back and look at war and peace I think
    historians will say this is a very significant step. I am pleased that
    the Congress responded. I'm pleased that they have acted and therefore
    are a part of all of this.
        But I didn't sense--you know, when you win a vote on something you
    work hard for, sometimes there's a sense of exhilaration and joy,
    pleasure. I didn't sense that at all here. I was grateful to the Members
    that took the lead in supporting the positions that I'm identified with.
    I could empathize with those who didn't vote for us. So, I guess my
    emotion was somber itself. I didn't watch the whole thing--I didn't
    watch the whole debate. But what I saw I appreciated because there was
    very little personal rancor, assigning motives to the other person, or
    something of that nature. So, it was quite different than some of the
    debates that properly characterize the give-and-take of competitive
    politics.

    Soviet Military Intervention in Lithuania

        Q. Sir, the crackdown was still going on today in Lithuania. What is
    your answer to those who say you are putting the Lithuanians and the
    Baltics under Iraq because of the Persian Gulf?
        The President. I don't think that's true. I've had an opportunity to
    express myself directly to President Gorbachev on that. We had a
    statement on it. I have talked to him not just in this last phone call
    but in others, and the Soviets know our position clearly. So, I don't
    think that's a fair charge at all.
        A couple more. I think I've been a little lengthy here, and we
    didn't get as many as we want.
        Q. How about the back of the room?
        The President. Not this time, Sarah [Sarah McClendon, McClendon
    News], not this time, okay?

    Persian Gulf Crisis

        Q. Mr. President, it must now be absolutely clear to Saddam Hussein,
    perhaps for the first time, that you've got the domestic and the
    international support you need to use force to drive him out of Kuwait.
    Wouldn't this be a prudent time to give him an avenue out of this mess,
    perhaps through something Perez de Cuellar could offer him today or
    tomorrow?
        The President. Well, let's wait and see what Perez de Cuellar--how
    those talks go. I talked to him beforehand, and he is properly, I would
    say, confined to operating within the U.N. resolutions. He must do that.
    We're talking about the United Nations Security Council and, indeed, of
    the General Assembly--the will of the entire world against Saddam
    Hussein. But I've always felt, Gerry [Gerald Seib, Wall Street Journal],
    that the best way, the best way is to make Saddam Hussein understand
    that we have the will to do what the Congress I think has now suggested
    I should do, or can do. And secondly, that if force is used, Saddam
    Hussein simply cannot prevail. And my hope is that the mission of the
    Secretary-General, added to what the Congress has done here today, added
    to the many other initiatives taken by Arab League people or by EC
    people or--will convince him.
        So, if your question is, should we now compromise, give him
    something in order to do that which he should have done long ago, the
    answer is, absolutely not.
        I'm going to take two more here, and then I really do have to run.
        Q. Mr. President, let me follow Gerry's question because the reports
    persist that the U.N. Secretary-General, when he meets with Saddam
    Hussein, will lay out steps beyond compliance with the resolutions to
    include a U.N. peacekeeping force, to include an eventual Mideast peace
    conference. Given the demand for absolute com-

    [[Page 35]]

    pliance, are those within the Secretary-General's mandate to advance
    further steps?
        The President. What were the two?
        Q. Well, two of several that are out there are a U.N. peacekeeping
    force, also a timetable for your withdrawal, and then a Mideast peace
    conference.
        The President. Well, my view is that a withdrawal to the status quo
    ante is not satisfactory and thus there will have to be a peacekeeping
    force of some kind. In other words, Saddam Hussein will not simply be
    able to go back to square one if he started that today. There would have
    to be further compliance with other resolutions and there would have to
    be a peacekeeping force. Secondly, I have said I don't want U.S. ground
    forces to stay there a day longer than necessary. So, I am not troubled
    with that.
        On the other question, I simply want to see us avoid what is known
    as linkage. And I think the American people more clearly see now what I
    mean by linkage because they watched the `Aziz press conference where
    the whole question was shifting--trying to shift the onus away from the
    aggression and brutality against Kuwait and move it over and try to put
    the blame on Israel or try to shift the onus to the Palestinian
    question.
        So we have, along with the United Nations--other participants in the
    U.N. Security Council process--have avoided linkage. And so, I guess I'd
    say it depends how it is put forward. I, myself, at the United Nations
    when I presented the U.S. position this fall, spoke up against--
    eventually wanting to see this question solved. And, indeed, everyone
    knows that Jim Baker tried very hard to have us be catalytic in bringing
    that age-old question to solution.
        So, I just think whatever is done, it has to be done in a way to
    preserve the U.S. position that there be no linkage.
        Q. Would it be fair to extrapolate then that you have discussed
    these additional steps with Mr. Perez de Cuellar and endorsed them?
        The President. No, Charles [Charles Bierbauer, Cable News Network],
    I read before this meeting here with you all some five-point proposal,
    and I can tell you that was not discussed, and I'm not sure it is a
    proposal. In this complicated situation in which all countries that want
    to see peace come about, we hear a lot of things that eventually prove
    not to have been correct. And I don't know of any five-point proposal.
    And just to clear the record, Perez de Cuellar did not discuss with me
    any five-point proposal.
        This is the last one, Dan.
        Q. Mr. President, you have said on a number of occasions there is no
    secret diplomacy, no backroom diplomacy, no side-door diplomacy. Are you
    prepared at this point, given the conversations you had yesterday with
    Mr. Gorbachev and the meetings you had with the Soviet Ambassador, that
    there is now still nothing else out there other than the Perez de
    Cuellar mission that might lead to a diplomatic solution to this?
        The President. Well, I'd say that is the main initiative out there
    right now and the only one that I know of, although you hear rumors that
    others may go. President Gorbachev may want to send somebody. The EC may
    decide after the Perez de Cuellar mission to send somebody. But I don't
    know of that for a fact certain. And if Perez de Cuellar finds no
    flexibility and, indeed, is faced with the rhetoric that we heard coming
    out of Iraq as recently as a few hours ago, that I think will be a sign
    of--I'll put it this way, a discouraging sign. And I think it will
    frustrate the understandably noble intentions of countries all around
    the world that would like to think that at the last minute this man
    would come to his senses.
        Q. If I could follow on that: If the Soviets or the EC or someone
    else decides they want to send someone to Baghdad after the Perez de
    Cuellar mission, does that in any way tie your hands in the use of
    military force after the 15th if these are bumping up against the 15th
    deadline or slightly thereafter?
        The President. I would not leave the door open on slightly
    thereafter. I think we have sent out an advisory--certainly to American
    citizens, and I would enlarge that to everybody--that the 15th is a very
    real deadline. Your question, if I answer it, I want to be sure I don't
    answer it in leaving the door

    [[Page 36]]

    open for any activity after midnight on January 15th because that is
    what is called for under the U.N.--the U.N. resolutions set that date.
    And so, I don't want to suggest that one last visit could take place
    after that and have the approval of the United Nations Security Council,
    which has stood solidly against that kind of--some would say
    flexibility, but I would say breach of the United Nations resolutions.
        So please, to anyone who might be listening in countries around the
    world, let me simply say there is no flexibility on our part. And I
    sense none on the part of the other members of the coalition that is
    arrayed against Saddam Hussein; nor have I found any flexibility, and
    I'm glad about that, on the part of other members of the Security
    Council or other countries whose leaders I have spoken to.
        So, the coalition is together. The United Nations is strongly
    together. I think the vote in the United States Congress today shows
    that the United States position is strongly firmed up by what happened
    in Congress today and by what appears to be the will of the American
    people. And it's in keeping with my will and how I feel about this.
        So, let us just pray that we will make the necessary contribution
    through the action that was taken today to bring this man to his senses,
    because it is a critical moment in history. And what the Congress did
    today was indeed historic. And I will conclude here by once again
    thanking them for coming to grips with the question, obviously thanking
    them for backing the position that is so strongly held by so many
    countries around the world.
        Thank you all very much.

                        Note: President Bush's 69th news conference began at
                            4 p.m. in the Briefing Room at the White House.
                            In his remarks, he referred to President Saddam
                            Hussein of Iraq; Secretary of State James A.
                            Baker III; United Nations Secretary-General
                            Javier Perez de Cuellar de la Guerra; Secretary
                            of Defense Dick Cheney; Colin L. Powell,
                            Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; President
                            Mikhail Gorbachev of the Soviet Union; Foreign
                            Minister Tariq `Aziz of Iraq; and Aleksandr
                            Bessmertnykh, Soviet Ambassador to the United
                            States. H.J. Res. 77, approved January 14, was
                            assigned Public Law No. 102-1.