    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George H. W. Bush (1991, Book I)]
    [February 5, 1991]
    [Pages 103-111]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    The President's News Conference
    February 5, 1991

        The President. After this statement I'll be glad to take some
    questions.
        This morning, I spoke with President Salinas, and Prime Minister
    Mulroney of Canada, and together we intend to pursue a trilateral free
    trade agreement that would link our three economies in bold and far-
    reaching ways.
        Successful conclusion of the free trade agreement will expand market
    opportunities, increase prosperity, and help our three countries meet
    the economic challenges of the future. A free trade area encompassing
    all three countries would create a North American market of 360 million
    people, with annual production of more than $6 trillion. This agreement
    would be a dramatic first step toward the realization of a hemispheric
    free trade zone stretching from Point Barrow in Alaska to the Straits of
    Magellan.
        I've informed the Congress of this decision and notified them of my
    intent to use the fast-track procedure for this North American free
    trade zone. In cooperation with Mexico and Canada, we will work actively
    to conclude these negotiations expeditiously.
        And I am--let me shift to the budget for a sec--I am very pleased at
    the generally constructive reception that our budget is receiving and in
    particular am pleased at the positive receptions that the Governors gave
    yesterday concerning our budget proposal for transferring 15 billion
    dollars' worth of government programs to the States--fully funded, I
    might add.
        It will put the States at the forefront of problem-solving and
    provide the necessary flexibility for administrating government
    programs. And I believe this can open up a whole new era of cooperation
    as well as State responsibility that can only have a beneficial impact.
        This morning I also spoke with President Ozal of Turkey regarding
    the coalition ef-

    [[Page 104]]

    forts in the Persian Gulf. We're nearing the end of the third week of
    Operation Desert Storm--almost 21 days to the hour. And I'm pleased to
    report that we remain on course and on schedule.
        U.S. and coalition forces continue to perform their assigned
    missions with great professionalism and, thankfully, with only modest
    casualties on our side. And I'd like to emphasize that we're going to
    extraordinary and, I would venture to say, unprecedented lengths to
    avoid damage to civilians and holy places.
        We do not seek Iraq's destruction, nor do we seek to punish the
    Iraqi people for the decisions and policies of their leaders. In
    addition, we are doing everything possible--and with great success--to
    minimize collateral damage, despite the fact that Saddam is now
    relocating some military functions such as command-and-control
    headquarters in civilian areas such as schools.
        I'd also emphasize that our goals have not changed. We continue to
    seek Iraq's full compliance with the 12 relevant United Nations Security
    Council resolutions.
        And our soldiers have performed with courage and bravery that should
    make all Americans proud. And I believe our country is giving them the
    support that they need and deserve. As we move into the fourth week of
    this conflict, I ask all Americans to continue their prayers for our
    valiant men and women in the Gulf.
        And just let me end with this--that I have asked Dick Cheney, the
    Secretary of Defense, and General Powell to travel to Saudi Arabia late
    this week to meet directly with Norm Schwarzkopf and his staff. The
    purpose of this trip, which will be a short one, will be for them to get
    a firsthand status report. And I would then look forward to their
    returning here quickly and meeting with me and my other senior advisers.
        So, with no further ado, who has the first? Terry [Terence Hunt,
    Associated Press]?

    Persian Gulf Conflict

        Q. Mr. President, your new budget contains relatively little money
    for the Persian Gulf war, which some analysts think could cost as high
    as $1 billion a day if it goes into a ground conflict. If the war goes
    on for months, how will you pay for it with an economy that's in a
    recession and a deficit that's climbing past $300 billion?
        The President. Well, I think that in the budget some $15 billion is
    included. And I think what people that are concerned about this have not
    realized is that we are getting significant support committed from
    overseas. And I'm confident that what we have in there will take care of
    it--will be testimony on this up on the Hill, but we're talking about
    having commitments of close to, I think it's $50 or $51 billion from
    others added to the $15 billion that we have budgeted. That's $66
    billion, and we believe it should be sufficient.
        Q. Would you under any circumstances consider a surtax to pay for
    the war if it goes on?
        The President. Too hypothetical, but I can see no reason for a war
    surtax. I don't think it's necessary, and I've heard very little call
    for that, as a matter of fact, because I think people realize that these
    cost estimates are pretty accurate.
        Q. Mr. President, I think that you showed today that you are a
    little disturbed that people might think the goals have changed. But you
    don't deny, do you, that in addition to driving the Iraqis out of Kuwait
    there is a sort of systematic destruction of the infrastructure, the
    essentials of daily living in Iraq? I mean, and that may be----
        The President. No, that's not what we're doing. No, we are not
    trying to systematically destroy the functions of daily living in Iraq.
    That's not what we're trying to do--or are we doing it.
        Q. No water, no electricity, no fuel.
        The President. Well, I would say that our effort, our main goal, is
    to get this man to comply with the resolutions. But we are not trying to
    systematically destroy the infrastructure or to destroy Iraq. For
    example, I can tell you about--on targeting petroleum resources, we're
    not trying to wipe out all their ability to produce oil. We're not
    trying to wipe out all their ability to refine oil. We are trying to
    wipe out and keep them from resupplying their military machine.
        Q. May I follow up?
        The President. Yes.

    [[Page 105]]

        Q. You say everything is on schedule, on course. What is the
    schedule for ending this war?
        The President. Well, we'll have to just wait and see, Helen [Helen
    Thomas, United Press International]. That's a very complicated question.
        Q. Is it all a secret?
        The President. But the war has been going on for something less than
    21 days now, fully, and I think it is going very well, indeed. And so we
    will keep going, and I will avoid making----
        Q. Do you have an end in sight?
        The President. I will avoid making predictions as to when it will
    end, but it won't be--I've said this over and over again--it will not be
    a Vietnam. I don't believe it's going to be long and drawn-out. And it
    is going as we planned. It is going on schedule. It is going very well.
        Q. Mr. President, does the Cheney-Powell visit over there signal
    that a decision is at hand on the commencement of a ground war?
        The President. No, it doesn't signal that.
        Q. Well, let me follow by asking you: There is a perceptible
    increase in anti-American sentiment in the streets of a number of
    capitals in the Middle East. Does this add to the pressure on you to
    wrap this war up and get it over with?
        The President. No, it doesn't, because what we overlook when we see
    the demonstrations on the television is the fact that there's strong
    support in many Arab countries. And I am staying in very close touch
    with our coalition partners, and I am always encouraged when I talk to
    them about the support in their countries and in other parts of the Arab
    world for what we're doing. Yes, it's divided, and yes, I've seen the
    demonstrations in Amman; I've seen some of the demonstrations in the
    Magreb. But to get back to your question, they will not influence my
    decisionmaking on the timing involved, say, for the use of ground
    forces.
        Saddam Hussein will not set the timing for what comes next. We will
    do that. And I will have to make that decision if we go to ground
    forces, and I will do it upon serious consideration of the
    recommendations of our military, including our Secretary of Defense and
    the Chairman, of course, but also of our commanders in the field.
        But I see those demonstrations and I understand that some look at
    this and--some more in the fundamentalist, particularly--differently.
    But I also am gratified with the support in the Arab world, and I think
    it's strong. I think a lot of them want to see this man comply with
    these resolutions fully and not see this aggression rewarded, no matter
    what's happening in the streets.
        Q. Sir, the White House and the State Department were cool, even
    indifferent, to the Iranian peace initiative. Why so? Why would you not
    encourage an initiative which called for the full withdrawal from Kuwait
    by Saddam?
        The President. I don't think that there was an initial--I don't
    think there is an Iranian proposal, John [John Cochran, NBC News]. I
    have not seen it. I just hung up talking to President Ozal of Turkey,
    and he doesn't think there is a specific Iranian proposal because--and I
    think the reason is that people realize that this man has to comply with
    these resolutions without equivocation; that he has to go forward, no
    concession, no compromise, and do what the world has called on him to
    do. And at that point, then there can be some cessation of hostilities.
    But I have not seen a specific five-point program out of Tehran.
        Q. Well, there are reports from Tehran that do give several points.
    But beyond that----
        The President. They did what?
        Q. There are reports out of Tehran that, in fact, do include several
    points which do include the withdrawal from Iraq. But the problem----
        The President. Let me stop you there if I could, and then I'll get
    back to your question. If that were the case, it would seem to me that
    Iran would have conveyed such a proposal to the United States, and that
    is not the case.
        Q. The problem seems to be, sir, an impression is being given that
    you will be disappointed if the war ends with Saddam Hussein still in
    power.
        The President. I see. No, I don't think that's the case, but the war
    will not end with Saddam Hussein standing with his
    view that he will not withdraw from

    [[Page 106]]

    Kuwait. I believe one of the things we'll see that came out of these
    recent meetings with the Iraqi Hadami [Sa`dun Hammadi, Deputy Prime
    Minister of Iraq] in Iran is that Iraq is showing no flexibility
    whatsoever in terms of withdrawing from Kuwait. So, we get right back to
    square one. There's nothing to negotiate about. There's nothing to be
    conciliatory about when you have a person who is steadfast in his
    refusal to comply with the fundamental purpose, and that is to get him
    out of Kuwait. But we haven't shifted our objectives on this.
        Now, would I weep? Would I mourn if somehow Saddam Hussein did not
    remain as head of his country? I thought Prime Minister Major spoke very
    well about it, spoke very convincingly about it, and he reflected my
    view that there will be no sorrow if he's not there. In fact, it would
    be a lot easier to see a successful conclusion because I don't believe
    anybody other than Saddam Hussein is going to want to continue to
    subject his army to the pounding they are taking, or his people to the
    pounding that is going on. So, I would like to think that somehow, some
    way, that would happen. But I have no evidence that it will.
        Q. Mr. President, back on the timing of the ground offensive. You
    said last week at Fort Stewart, Georgia, and again here today that the
    United States and its allies--and not Saddam Hussein--would determine
    that. Three weeks into the war, what are the prospects for avoiding
    ground warfare in the Gulf?
        The President. Well, I think one of the things that I look forward
    to hearing from General Powell and Dick Cheney is the answer to that
    question. And I guess you could rephrase it and say, would air power
    alone get the job done? My own view is I'm somewhat skeptical that it
    would, but I'm very interested to hear from our Secretary of Defense and
    the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
        Q. Well, we've heard conflicting reports about what happened in
    Khafji last week. Some reports have it that it was a skirmish, others
    that it was a major engagement, some that the Iraqis fought very poorly,
    and some that they put up quite a bit of resistance. What is your
    reading of that?
        The President. My reading is to refer to General Schwarzkopf and the
    Pentagon briefing on that, which I thought were very clear. And
    obviously, there were devastating losses on the Iraqi side--no question
    about the amounts of armor that were killed and, regrettably, the loss
    of life. But there's no question that this was a humiliating defeat. But
    I'd rather leave the details of that to the Pentagon briefers or to the
    briefers out in Saudi Arabia--who, incidentally, both of whom are doing
    a superb job of keeping the American people informed, keeping the world
    informed. And they have my full support for the way in which they're
    briefing.
        Q. Sir, you just mentioned the pounding that these Iraqi troops are
    taking. And I wonder how you have approached the decision where you
    obviously, if you continue this aerial bombardment like this, run the
    chance of slaughtering, literally, tens of thousands of Iraqi troops.
    The two-part question is, first, do you draw any conclusion that Saddam
    is either out of control of that decision or lost his senses?
        The President. On what decision?
        Q. On allowing the United States, basically, to pound his troops who
    are virtually defenseless from the air.
        The President. I'm not sure he has the full--I've never known for
    fact certain how much he's told. You mentioned Khafji--the question was
    raised. I don't know how much information he has about what happened
    there in spite of the full coverage that takes place. But let me be very
    clear. What concerns me are the lives of our troops. What concerns me
    are the lives of our coalition forces, the Saudi and the Qatar forces
    that went into Khafji very courageously. And my first worries are about
    them. And Saddam Hussein should be concerned about the Iraqi forces. But
    how concerned he is, I don't know. Because when you shove people into
    battle, pushing them from behind to be defeated clearly and surely, or
    when you send your airplanes up and the score is totally one-sided--in
    fact, every engagement in the air, the Iraqi planes and pilots have gone
    down--you have to wonder how he looks at what you're asking about, how
    he feels about that.

    [[Page 107]]

        But here's a man that used chemical weapons on his own people.
    Here's a man that gassed the Kurds. Here's a man who has no hesitancy to
    recklessly throw city-busting Scuds, population-killing Scuds, into
    Israel or into Saudi Arabia. Here's a man that brutally parades
    prisoners of war. Here's a man that has launched environmental
    terrorism. I can't figure out what he's thinking, and neither do the
    coalition partners with whom I am in touch; neither can they figure it
    out.
        But we're going to pursue this to achieve our objectives. And
    clearly, I want those objectives achieved with the most limited loss of
    life possible. It works on my mind every day. And I want to be sure that
    we pursue our ends with that in mind. But we are going to prevail, and
    I'm going to do whatever is necessary to be sure that we do and be sure
    we do it in relatively timely fashion.
        Q. It's already been suggested, though, that he is willing to suffer
    that level of casualties to his forces to increase a wave of anti-
    American sentiment in the region after the war, to hurt you politically
    after the war. Is that a consideration?
        The President. I wouldn't be surprised if that's what he's trying to
    do. But I think that after the war, when we prevail--and we will--and
    when the coalition prevails--and it will--there will be a renewed
    credibility for the United States, a renewed credibility for the United
    Nations. And thus, I worry far less about that than about other things
    because I think we then have an enormous potential to join with others
    in being the peacemakers.
        Q. Mr. President, on the question that John posed about Iran, is the
    problem with any Iranian peace effort simply the fact that it is Iran
    and your relations with Iran themselves are not good?
        The President. No, not at all. And there are other--let's be fair
    about it, there are other countries that have offered up a willingness
    to try to bring peace to the area. I think of my friend Chadli Bendjedid
    of Algeria; I think of what the Arab League early on tried to do; I
    think of the Secretary-General of the United Nations. There's a lot of
    people who are obviously concerned about peace, would like to find a way
    to bring this to a conclusion.
        So, the fact that Iran would like to see the war end is encouraging.
    And Iran is conducting itself, in my view, in a very credible way here.
    They've said that those airplanes that come in there are going to be
    impounded, and we take them at their word on that. They have not been
    violators of the sanctions that we're aware of. They have wanted to
    remain neutral. They are concerned about continued U.S. ground force
    presence in the Gulf, and I keep saying, not just to reassure Iran but
    to everybody else, we have no intention of leaving forces in that area.
    We are there as part of a coalition under the United Nations resolutions
    to get this job done.
        So, I have no argument with the way Iran is conducting itself. The
    only thing I was disputing with John a little is whether there was a
    specific peace proposal. And I don't think there is because I think Iran
    knows that Saddam has to comply fully with these resolutions and start a
    credible, visible withdrawal; then the new regime of legitimate leaders
    comes back to Kuwait.
        And that's the way it could end if Saddam could come to his senses.
    But I keep coming back to the point that in all these talks there is no
    indication that he is prepared to get out of Kuwait. It's always the
    bottom line. They talk and talk and talk--and then, ``But this is
    Province 19; we're going to stay there.''
        Q. If I could follow quickly, just to touch on a second neighbor.
    The reports are that Syria is now engaged in fighting and shelling on
    the ground. Do you have a full commitment from Syria to go with you on a
    ground war, and is that representative----
        The President. Well, I again would refer that out. I have no reason
    to be dissatisfied with the commitment there, but I just can't tell
    you--I'm not going to go into the game plan as to who is supposed to be
    doing what.
        Q. Mr. President, you sound very much like you've come to the
    conclusion in your own mind that Saddam Hussein will never surrender--
    never. Have you come to that conclusion, and what does that mean about
    the length of the war and ferocity of his fighting forces?

    [[Page 108]]

        The President.  No, I haven't put it in terms of surrender; I've
    been putting it in terms of compliance with the resolutions. But I don't
    know. As I've said, it is very difficult to read somebody who is doing
    these horrible things that he is doing to civilian populations, to
    prisoners, to the environment, and to many other things. So, I just
    can't predict it, but all I know is, we are going to prevail. The
    coalition will prevail. He will comply with the United Nations
    resolutions, and that means he will be totally out of Kuwait one way or
    another. But I don't know--I can't give you a clear picture of exactly
    which way will achieve that result.
        Q. Well, there has been quite a lot of denigrating of his forces
    early in this war. That is, they won't fight. If they're not supplied in
    time, they'll give up in large numbers. Have you changed your view of
    his ground forces?
        The President. No. The one serious engagement on the ground forces
    is they've been obliterated. So, I haven't changed my view on it. But
    having said that, we will conduct ourselves in such a way as to
    minimize--I mean, to see that the risk to coalition forces is minimum.
    And that is what I've asked our Chairman and our Secretary to do and to
    look into when they go out there.
        Q. Mr. President, I'm wondering if you could tell us the latest
    you've heard from the International Red Cross or anyone else who is
    trying to find out the fate of the POW's and the personnel who are
    missing there?
        The President. So far all I've heard is a frustrating silence of his
    willingness to permit people to do what should be done, and that is to
    inspect and talk to the people involved. That's all I've heard.
        Q. Sir, as a followup, do you, following your experience in World
    War II, feel any personal kinship with these pilots who were shot down?
        The President. Well, it doesn't have anything to do with my
    experience, particularly, many, many years ago. It has a lot to do with
    the fact that they are courageous Americans. And the answer to your
    question is, yes, I feel very strongly about it. And I had a chance to
    say that to some of the spouses and I--but it's not some kind of a
    psychological tie-in to the fact that 50 years ago I was flying
    airplanes. It's the fact that I'm just--you see that, and you see these
    prisoners paraded, and it just turns my stomach. It just says something
    about the brutality of this person. And that's what really motivates me.

    Soviet Union

        Q. Mr. President, I'd like to change the subject briefly and ask you
    about the Soviet Union--whether you feel that Mikhail Gorbachev is still
    in charge and is still a person with whom the United States should be
    dealing and placing its trust?
        The President. Well, he is still in charge, and he is still the
    President of the Soviet Union; and thus we will deal with the President
    of the Soviet Union. He has enormous problems at home, and we've
    discussed them. His new Foreign Minister was here and said they were
    going to do certain things. We're watching to see if they will all be
    done. Some have been done. And so it's a very troubling situation inside
    the Soviet Union right now. But he's the President, and I'm the
    President of this country, and of course we will deal with the
    authorities there. You don't set up 25 other diplomatic initiatives with
    a country; it's not the way you treat somebody. You deal in normal ways.
    And I'm going to do that. But we are looking for--that does not diminish
    my desire to see the people of the Baltics, for example, fulfill their
    destiny.
        Q. If I could follow, do you feel the era of glasnost and
    perestroika is over?
        The President. The era of it? No. I think it will never go back, no
    matter what happens, to the totalitarian, closed-society days of the
    cold war.

    Persian Gulf Conflict

        Q. Mr. President, you've made the point many times that the world
    needs to stop Saddam now, unlike in the 1930's when it failed to stop
    Hitler. In retrospect, do you ever think that this war might have been
    avoided if the U.S. had been tougher with Saddam long before he invaded
    Kuwait?
        The President. Yes, yes.
        Q. Is there any lesson to be drawn from

    [[Page 109]]

    that, in other words?
        The President. Well, we tried the peaceful route. We tried working
    with him and changing through contact. I don't know what the lesson is.
    The lesson is clear in this case that that didn't work. But whether
    there's a lesson in the future that you reach out to regimes--I think it
    was proper that we have reached out to the Soviet Union, when you look
    at the dramatic changes in Eastern Europe, you look at the changes in
    the unification of Germany, you look at the withdrawal of Soviet forces
    from a lot of Eastern Europe. I mean, at times you want to try to go
    forward with regimes. I think Nixon's going to China was a very
    appropriate and courageous diplomatic move that has made the world a
    little better in spite of setbacks. That's the way I approach it.
        Q. Mr. President, Saddam Hussein has not yet used chemical weapons
    on the battlefield, but some analysts believe that may be something that
    we will face in the future. Have you made a decision on what the U.S.
    response would be if he does turn to chemical weapons? And have you
    ruled out the idea that the United States might in turn use weapons of
    mass destruction?
        The President. Well, I think it's better to never say what option
    you may be considering or may or may not do. But, yes, he has used
    chemical weapons on his own people, so the only way I would like to take
    the opportunity in responding to your question to say he ought to think
    very carefully about doing that--very, very carefully. And I will leave
    that up to a very fuzzy interpretation because I would like to have
    every possible chance that he decides not to do this.
        And you talk about turning world opinion further against this brutal
    man, that would do it. But how we will respond or something, I would
    wait for recommendations and I would not discuss options ahead of time
    one way or another.
        Q. I understand that you're not going to tell us what you would do,
    but have you in your own mind made a decision on what you would do, even
    though you can't reveal it?
        The President. No.
        Q. Mr. President, can you say with 100-percent Presidential
    guarantee that you will not reinstate the draft?
        The President. I have absolutely no intention of reinstating the
    draft. I've heard no discussion from any of our people about the need to
    reinstate the draft. We have an all-volunteer army that is totally
    capable of getting this job done.
        Q. So the answer is no, you will not?
        The President. No, I will not what? [Laughter]
        Q. Reinstate the draft?
        The President. You're right--no, I will not reinstate the draft.
        Q. Mr. President, in an interview published this morning, General
    Schwarzkopf spoke rather eloquently of the emotional burden he carries
    sending--giving orders to troops that may cause combat casualties. As
    Commander in Chief, is that a nagging concern of yours that might lead
    you to extend the air war longer before committing land troops?
        The President. Well, I would think--in the first place--and Norm
    Schwarzkopf understands, Powell understands, Cheney understands--that
    that's a decision the President has to make. But I don't feel any
    loneliness about that or--the loneliness at the top. I have very able
    people to depend on. And it is a decision that I'm perfectly prepared to
    make upon recommendation of these people in whom I have so much
    confidence.
        But I wouldn't go against sound military dogma--or doctrine, I
    mean--in order to just delay for the sake of delay, hoping that it would
    save lives.
        Q. There seems to be an increasing----
        The President. I said at the beginning--let me finish, John [John
    Mashek, Boston Globe], just one more thought and then I'll get back--I
    said at the beginning I am not going to second-guess. Now, there may be
    times when I have to say we're not going to do it this way or we may
    have to do something that way, but I don't think that this would be one
    of those cases at all. And I would bear the full responsibility for that
    very difficult decision. But I feel rather calm about it because we have
    a game plan, and we've stayed with the game plan, and we are on target.
    And unless I get recommendations from these men in whom I

    [[Page 110]]

    have so much trust, we're going to remain on the plan.
        Q. There seems to be an increasing feeling on the Hill among
    Republicans as well as Democrats that we should wait longer; some say
    even up to June. What's the down-side of waiting that long and
    continuing to pound away at targets?
        The President. I would simply say that I want to let this be
    determined by people that understand the military plan and that are
    prepared to implement it. And I remember before January 16th there was
    the same feeling--please let the sanctions work. I mean, I can
    understand the feeling on the Hill. I can understand those who say let
    air power do it alone.
        But I'm going to make these calls. These are the responsibilities of
    the Commander in Chief--that kind of decision. And I will make that
    decision after full consultation with the chief out there and the two
    main military people upon whom I depend here--Secretary of Defense and
    Chairman of the Chiefs.
        So, I'm not trying to say it wouldn't be a difficult decision, but I
    am saying, one, I'm prepared to make it, and two, I have total
    confidence that this decision will not be recommended to me unless the
    people that I've just mentioned know that it's the right thing to do.
        Q. Mr. President, there are some reports circulating that if Saddam
    Hussein were to begin a withdrawal from Kuwait you would still continue
    to prosecute this war at least for a while until you were satisfied
    certain conditions were met. Now, obviously, this is semihypothetical.
    He hasn't gotten out, of course. But could you tell us something about
    your conditions for agreeing to a cease-fire in the event that he did
    begin a withdrawal?
        The President. It would have to be a credible, visible, totally
    convincing withdrawal. There would be other things that I will not state
    here that I would want to see happen. That would mean immediate
    supervision of the withdrawal. It would mean a return of the legitimate
    government right away. And so, there are several things. But the reason
    I want to pull back a little and not give you a 10-point program is that
    he's got to say: I'm going to get out of Kuwait now, and I'm going to
    get out fast, and I'm going to do it so everybody knows that I'm not
    making this up, that I'm going to go forward. No trust, no concession--
    ``I'll get out if you'll get out''--we've passed that. We tried that,
    diplomatic effort after diplomatic effort.
        Now we're in a war with this man. And he will comply with these
    resolutions fully, without concession. And then we can determine what
    niceties or what little details need to be done. But what has to happen
    to begin with is a credible withdrawal from Kuwait without concession,
    without condition. And all the rest of this then can fall into place.
        Last one.
        Q. Mr. President, we've heard from your wife recently that you
    haven't been sleeping so well, and we've also heard that the drums
    outside are keeping you awake. My question is, if you could just share
    with us what kind of personal toll this war has taken on you as far as
    your routine, your moods, your emotions?
        The President. Maureen [Maureen Dowd, New York Times], look, my
    wife--normally I stick by everything she says, but I'm sleeping very
    well. The drums have ceased, oddly enough. And there was a slight
    hyperbole there because the drums could only be heard from one side of
    the White House. However, when they got up over the 60-decibel count
    limit, a protest was raised by a hotel over here because they were on
    the wrong side and they heard the drums. And, lo, people went forth with
    decibel count auditors--[laughter]--and they found the incessant
    drummers got to over 60, and they were moved out of there. [Laughter]
    And I hope they stay out of there because I don't want the people in the
    hotel to not have a good night's sleep. I'm sleeping quite well, as a
    matter of fact. And I say this not frivolously because you ask a more
    serious question. And I can't tell you that I don't worry a lot about
    our families of the troops.
        I'll tell you what was emotional for me--and I don't think I've had
    a press conference since then--was this visit down to the three bases I
    went to. It was very, very moving. But what I came back with was this
    sense of wonder at the way these

    [[Page 111]]

    spouses stand together, totally supportive of their spouses across the
    way. So, when I said I got lifted up, my morale was not down; it's been
    good. And I'm just so confident of how this thing is going to work out.
    But it was better, my morale was better, when I saw these families. And
    when I talked to some who had loved ones missing or held prisoner, I
    just wondered at their strength.
        And I have had some other contacts with people that are in that
    description--one most beautiful letter from a wife of a pilot who was
    killed in action. And her spirit and the way she approached this whole
    conflict over there in the face of her own loss has been inspiring--it
    has been totally inspiring to me.
        So, my own feeling is I know what I've got to do. I've got very good
    people helping me do it. I really don't lose sleep. I can't tell you I
    don't shed a tear for families and for those that might be lost in
    combat. We've had very few losses, and yet I've got to tell you I feel
    each one. But we're going to continue this, and we're going to prevail.
        And I think Marlin said that was the last question.
        Thank you very much.

                        Note: President Bush's 71st news conference began at
                            11:35 a.m. in the Briefing Room at the White
                            House. In his remarks, he referred to President
                            Carlos Salinas de Gortari of Mexico; Prime
                            Minister Brian Mulroney of Canada; President
                            Turgut Ozal of Turkey; President Saddam Hussein
                            of Iraq; Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney; Gen.
                            Colin L. Powell, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
                            Staff; Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf, commander of
                            the U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf; Deputy
                            Prime Minister Sa`dun Hammadi of Iraq; Prime
                            Minister John Major of the United Kingdom;
                            President Chadli Bendjedid of Algeria; United
                            Nations Secretary-General Javier Perez de
                            Cuellar de la Guerra; President Mikhail
                            Gorbachev and Foreign Minister Aleksandr A.
                            Bessmertnykh of the Soviet Union; former
                            President Richard M. Nixon; and Marlin
                            Fitzwater, Press Secretary to the President.