[Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George H. W. Bush (1992-1993, Book II)]
[August 26, 1992]
[Pages 1429-1432]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]



Remarks on Hurricane Andrew and the Situation in Iraq and an Exchange 
With Reporters
August 26, 1992

    The President. First this morning, I want to express our continued 
concern and support for the people of Florida and Louisiana as they 
recover from this dreadful hurricane, Hurricane Andrew. I want to go to 
Louisiana as soon as possible today to communicate this directly to the 
people of that State, and I'm clearing my schedule to do just that.
    As we saw in Florida 2 days ago, the destruction from this storm 
goes beyond anything we've known in recent years. It will test the 
resources of all volunteer organizations, private sector help, and 
State, local, and Federal governments. Damage is in the billions of 
dollars, and deaths already in double digits. Literally millions of 
American citizens today find themselves in the midst of personal 
devastation.
    We're committing all the resources available to assist in this 
recovery. But just in terms of the number of people affected, our 
country must pull together to help. We've directed the military to 
provide over 2,000 MRE's, meals, to the people of Florida, and public 
health medical teams are there on the ground. Federal Emergency 
Management Centers are established in Florida and Louisiana, and they 
will focus all of the Government's assets on this problem.
    Finally, I'm establishing a high-level task force under the 
direction of the Secretary of Transportation Andy Card to coordinate 
Federal efforts. We're making available today $10 million to create 
5,000 short-term jobs for Floridians to clean up and restore public 
services in the aftermath of the hurricane. This grant will be dispersed 
by the Florida Governor's office and may be used to employ workers left 
without jobs from the hurricane.
    Governor Chiles has worked very closely with Federal authorities, 
and we are both pleased by the initial response. He said so himself, and 
certainly I feel that way.
    During my trip to Louisiana today we will be assessing similar needs 
in that State. In addition, we will be asking the private sector of our 
country to help in every way possible. As I said earlier, this disaster 
threatens to overwhelm the resources of all public and private 
institutions, so we must all chip in and help.
    Now I want to turn to the situation in Iraq. In recent weeks and 
months we have heard and seen new evidence of harsh repression by the 
government of Saddam Hussein against the men, women, and children of 
Iraq. What emerges from eyewitness accounts, as well as from the 
detailed August 11th testimony before the United Nations Security 
Council of U.N. human rights envoy Max van der Stoel, is further

[[Page 1430]]

graphic proof of Saddam's brutality.
    We now know of Saddam's use of helicopters and, beginning this 
spring, fixed-wing aircraft to bomb and strafe civilians and villages 
there in the south, his execution last month of merchants in Baghdad, 
and his gradual tightening of the economic blockade against the people 
of the north. These reports are further confirmation that the Government 
of Iraq is failing to meet its obligations under United Nations Security 
Council Resolution 688.
    This resolution, passed in April of 1991, demands that Saddam 
Hussein end repression of the Iraqi people. By denying access to U.N. 
human rights monitors and other observers, Saddam has sought to prevent 
the world from learning of his brutality. It is time to ensure the world 
does know.
    Therefore, the United States and its coalition partners have today 
informed the Iraqi Government that 24 hours from now coalition aircraft, 
including those of the United States, will begin flying surveillance 
missions in southern Iraq, south of the 32 degrees north latitude, to 
monitor the situation there. This will provide coverage of the areas 
where a majority of the most significant recent violations of Resolution 
688 have taken place.
    The coalition is also informing Iraq's Government that in order to 
facilitate these monitoring efforts it is establishing a no-fly zone for 
all Iraqi fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft. This new prohibition will 
also go into effect in 24 hours over this same area. It will remain in 
effect until the coalition determines that it is no longer required.
    It will be similar to the no-fly zone the coalition imposed on 
northern Iraq more than a year ago. I want to emphasize that these 
actions are designed to enhance our ability to monitor developments in 
southern Iraq. These actions are consistent with longstanding U.S. 
policy toward Iraq. We seek Iraq's compliance, not its partition.
    The United States continues to support Iraq's territorial unity and 
bears no ill will towards its people. We continue to look forward to 
working with a new leadership in Baghdad, one that does not brutally 
suppress its own people and violate the most basic norms of humanity. 
Until that day no one should doubt our readiness to respond decisively 
to Iraq's failure to respect the no-fly zone.
    Moreover, the United States and our coalition partners are prepared 
to consider additional steps should Saddam continue to violate this or 
other U.N. resolutions.
    Now, Ed Djerejian is going to brief on the details. There will be a 
briefing on the military aspects of this--I believe it's over at the 
Pentagon--as soon as we're finished.
    Yes, I'll take two or three questions. Then I must run.

Bosnia

    Q. Mr. President, are you planning similar action to save the people 
of Bosnia who are also being slaughtered?
    The President. We are in close consultation on Bosnia. As you know, 
the conference is going on right now. Acting Secretary Eagleburger is 
there, and we are discussing a wide array of things regarding Bosnia. I 
have expressed my concerns about use of U.S. force, certainly ground 
forces, in that area. But there's a lot of consultation going on right 
now, and I hope that that conference can come forth with productive 
answers that will encourage the people in that area to find peaceful 
means of solving these questions. The conference is off, I'm told by 
Secretary Eagleburger, to a pretty good start.

Iraq

    Q.  Mr. President, obviously, these violations to which you refer 
have been going on for some time. So the question naturally arises as to 
why this action now and not before, or not later.
    The President. Well, one peg is the report from this U.N. official, 
Mr. van der Stoel, and I think that gets things in focus. Then the other 
side of it is we've had rather intensive consultations on this to be 
sure that we are operating in the coalition. I still think that's very 
important.
    Q. How concerned are you that Saddam Hussein's regime may retaliate 
against U.N. inspectors on the ground?
    The President. Well, they've already taken some steps there. That is 
a matter of concern because I think that just further antagonizes, 
properly so, the United Na-

[[Page 1431]]

tions against them. But whether there's any steps, I don't know that 
he'd be foolish enough to take any steps as it relates to this no-fly 
zone.
    Q. Mr. President, what if the Iraqis keep their planes on the 
ground, yet continue to suppress the Shiites with ground forces? What 
does this coalition do in that case?
    The President. Well, we are not--that's hypothetical, and I just 
hope that that doesn't occur. But quite obviously, we would be 
extraordinarily concerned about that because that would be in violation 
of 688, as this use of these planes is. So we just have to wait and see 
what further action might be taken.

Iran-Contra Investigation

    Q. Mr. President, yesterday in proceedings involving the Iran-contra 
trial of Caspar Weinberger, there was a memo released, a memo from then-
Secretary of State Shultz concerning a telephone conversation he had 
with Cap Weinberger. It appeared to indicate that you knew about the 
diversion of arms sales, monies to Iran, to the contras, before the time 
that you acknowledge. Could you address that, sir?
    The President. No, I don't know about that. I've told very openly 
everything I have to say about it. I don't know about that memo. I find 
nothing--I see no reason to contradict myself at all. I think what I've 
done is give the facts as I've seen them. I saw a story on it, and to be 
honest with you, I didn't read it.
    Q. Do you know what they're talking about----
    The President. No.
    Q. ----this conversation that they had?
    The President. No.

Tax Cuts

    Q. Mr. President, we haven't had a chance to talk to you since your 
convention address in which you proposed tax cuts. Will you be 
specifying which tax cuts you're talking about and how you plan to pay 
for it? And if you don't, how do you expect the American people to--are 
they supposed to take this on faith?
    The President. Well, I think what we're talking about here is a 
fundamental difference. And the difference is going to be whether you 
think you can--whether people can have lower taxes to pay and less 
spending, or the opposition says they want to raise taxes and raise 
spending. Much more important than the detail of it, which I would 
obviously have to support in the budget, would be the philosophy: Which 
approach are you taking?
    We already have specific spending cuts recommended up there in the 
Congress, and so how specific I'll be, I'm not sure. I've already made 
specific recommendations on cutting taxes that have been up before the 
Congress. Whether I elaborate on that or not, I'm not sure. Right now my 
goal is to make sure people know the fundamental difference. One side 
wants to raise taxes and raise Government spending. My view is that we 
must cut taxes and cut Government spending. So I want to keep it in that 
perspective and not get all bogged down in a lot of detail.

Iraq

    Q. How dire will the consequences be if Iraq is partitioned into 
three parts? Does the United States support that partition?
    The President. No. And as I said in my statement, we do not.
    Q. Sir, it seems one reason we didn't defend the Shiites after the 
war was we were concerned about this partition. Now have you had a 
different read on the Shiites? We hear stories about the Shiites not 
being considered a threat; in fact, they're more Iranian--rather, more 
Iraqi than they are pro-Iranian and Shiite. Is that true? Is that your 
latest intelligence read on them? Are you concerned that you're now 
doing this solely in a political year that this simply is going to look 
funny to the American people?
    The President. Well, do you think it looks funny to the British 
people, the French people, the Saudi people? The answer is no. I'm not 
concerned about that in the least. I don't think the other side will try 
to put a political spin on this. We're talking about something that's 
very serious here. General Scowcroft notified Governor Clinton of what 
it is we're doing. I'm not worried about the politics of it at all.
    On the separation, I'd like to leave that

[[Page 1432]]

question to Ed to answer as to whether these Shiites are pro-Iran. 
They're Iraqi, and we do not want to see the partition of Iraq.
    Yes, John [John Mashek, Boston Globe]. This is the last question.

Presidential Campaign

    Q. Mr. President, since the convention, another development is that 
the Democrats are saying that you've replaced patriotism of 1988 with 
love of God and family values in '92. Are those code words this year?
    The President. Well, I was very pleased with something. I noticed 
that Governor Clinton was proclaiming there at the American Legion his 
pride in the fact that they had passed in Arkansas an anti-flag-burning 
resolution. That was in the litany of things he talked to the American 
Legion about. I think that's very good. So I don't think that one side 
is more patriotic than the other.
    I'm going to continue to talk about the values that I think are 
very, very important. But I don't think we can say one--what was the 
rest of your question?
    Q. Well, that both the love of God and family values are code words, 
that the Democrats aren't as strong as the Republicans on those two 
issues.
    The President. Well, I think we'll just say what we're for and let 
them reply as to what they're for. I noticed a rather vigorous response. 
I didn't hear--the press didn't ask me about it, but when Governor Cuomo 
equated us with Nazis, front page of one of the New York papers 2 days 
ago, it was--you know, we're in a funny year when people can say those 
things. So they've got their hot shooters out there; we've got some. 
What I'm trying to do is spell out what I think is fundamental. We're 
not going to stop talking about family values. If they want to talk 
about that, that's fine.
    Q. Is Chief of Staff Baker prepared now to agree to three 
Presidential debates with Governor Clinton?
    The President. I suggest, John, that you address that to--I was 
going to see whether to punt that ball into Baker's end zone--
[laughter]--but I think the answer to your question, though, is no. But 
we'll see. We'll see. We haven't discussed it.

                    Note: The President spoke at 10:48 a.m. in the 
                        Briefing Room at the White House. In his 
                        remarks, he referred to Edward P. Djerejian, 
                        Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern 
                        and South Asian Affairs.