[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.