    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George W. Bush (2003, Book I)]
    [March 6, 2003]
    [Pages 244-254]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    The President's News Conference
    March 6, 2003

        The President. Good evening. I'm pleased to take your questions
    tonight and to discuss with the American people the serious matters
    facing our country and the world.
        This has been an important week on two fronts on our war against
    terror. First, thanks to the hard work of American and Pakistani
    officials, we captured the mastermind of the September the 11th attacks
    against our Nation. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
    Sheik conceived and planned the hijackings and directed the
    actions of the hijackers. We believe his capture will further disrupt
    the terror network and their planning for additional attacks.
        Second, we have arrived at an important moment in confronting the
    threat posed to our Nation and to peace by Saddam Hussein and his weapons of terror. In New York
    tomorrow, the United Nations Security Council will receive an update
    from the chief weapons inspector. The world needs him to answer a single
    question: Has the Iraqi regime fully and unconditionally disarmed, as
    required by Resolution 1441, or has it not?
        Iraq's dictator has made a public show of
    producing and destroying a few missiles--missiles that violate the
    restrictions set out more than 10 years ago. Yet our intelligence shows
    that, even as he is destroying these few missiles, he has ordered the
    continued production of the very same type of missiles.
        Iraqi operatives continue to hide biological and chemical agents to
    avoid detection by inspectors. In some cases, these materials have been
    moved to different locations every 12 to 24 hours or placed in vehicles
    that are in residential neighborhoods.
        We know from multiple intelligence sources that Iraqi weapons
    scientists continue to be threatened with harm should they cooperate
    with U.N. inspectors. Scientists are required by Iraqi intelligence to
    wear concealed recording devices during interviews, and hotels where
    interviews take place are bugged by the regime.
        These are not the actions of a regime that is disarming. These are
    the actions of a regime engaged in a willful charade. These are the
    actions of a regime that systematically and deliberately is defying the
    world. If the Iraqi regime were disarming, we would know it because we
    would see it. Iraq's weapons would be presented to inspectors, and the
    world would witness their destruction. Instead, with the world demanding
    disarmament and more than 200,000 troops positioned near his country,
    Saddam Hussein's response is to produce

    [[Page 245]]

    a few weapons for show, while he hides the rest and builds even more.
        Inspection teams do not need more time or more personnel. All they
    need is what they have never received, the full cooperation of the Iraqi
    regime. Token gestures are not acceptable. The only acceptable outcome
    is the one already defined by a unanimous vote of the Security Council--
    total disarmament.
        Great Britain, Spain, and the United States have introduced a new
    resolution stating that Iraq has failed to meet the requirements of
    Resolution 1441. Saddam Hussein is not
    disarming. This is a fact. It cannot be denied.
        Saddam Hussein has a long history of
    reckless aggression and terrible crimes. He possesses weapons of terror.
    He provides funding and training and safe haven to terrorists--
    terrorists who would willingly use weapons of mass destruction against
    America and other peace-loving countries. Saddam Hussein and his weapons
    are a direct threat to this country, to our people, and to all free
    people.
        If the world fails to confront the threat posed by the Iraqi regime,
    refusing to use force even as a last resort, free nations would assume
    immense and unacceptable risks. The attacks of September the 11th, 2001,
    showed what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not
    wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with weapons of
    mass destruction.
        We are determined to confront threats wherever they arise. I will
    not leave the American people at the mercy of the Iraqi
    dictator and his weapons.
        In the event of conflict, America also accepts our responsibility to
    protect innocent lives in every way possible. We'll bring food and
    medicine to the Iraqi people. We'll help that nation to build a just
    government, after decades of brutal dictatorship. The form and
    leadership of that government is for the Iraqi people to choose.
    Anything they choose will be better than the misery and torture and
    murder they have known under Saddam Hussein.
        Across the world and in every part of America, people of good will
    are hoping and praying for peace. Our goal is peace for our Nation, for
    our friends and allies, for the people of the Middle East. People of
    good will must also recognize that allowing a dangerous
    dictator to defy the world and harbor weapons
    of mass murder and terror is not peace at all. It is pretense. The cause
    of peace will be advanced only when the terrorists lose a wealthy patron
    and protector and when the dictator is fully and finally disarmed.
        Tonight I thank the men and women of our armed services and their
    families. I know their deployment so far from home is causing hardship
    for many military families. Our Nation is deeply grateful to all who
    serve in uniform. We appreciate your commitment, your idealism, and your
    sacrifice. We support you, and we know that if peace must be defended,
    you are ready.
        Ron Fournier [Associated Press].

    United Nations and Iraqi Disarmament

        Q. Let me see if I can further--if you could further define what you
    just called this important moment we're in, since you've made it clear
    just now that you don't think Saddam has disarmed, and we have a quarter
    million troops in the Persian Gulf, and now that you've called on the
    world to be ready to use force as a last resort. Are we just days away
    from the point of which you decide whether or not we go to war? And what
    harm would it do to give Saddam a final ultimatum, a 2- or 3-day
    deadline to disarm or face force?
        The President. Well, we're still in the final stages of diplomacy.
    I'm spending a lot of time on the phone, talking to fellow leaders about
    the need for the United Nations Security Council to state the facts,
    which is Saddam Hussein hasn't disarmed.
    Fourteen forty-one, the Security Council resolution passed unanimously
    last fall, said clearly that Saddam Hussein has one last

    [[Page 246]]

    chance to disarm. He hasn't disarmed, and so we're working with Security
    Council members to resolve this issue at the Security Council.
        This is not only an important moment for the security of our Nation;
    I believe it's an important moment for the Security Council, itself. And
    the reason I say that is because this issue has been before the Security
    Council--the issue of disarmament of Iraq--for 12 long years. And the
    fundamental question facing the Security Council is, will its words mean
    anything? When the Security Council speaks, will the words have merit
    and weight?
        I think it's important for those words to have merit and weight,
    because I understand that in order to win the war against terror there
    must be a united effort to do so. We must work together to defeat
    terror.
        Iraq is a part of the war on terror. Iraq is a country that has got
    terrorist ties. It's a country with wealth. It's a country that trains
    terrorists, a country that could arm terrorists. And our fellow
    Americans must understand, in this new war against terror, that we not
    only must chase down Al Qaida terrorists, we must deal with weapons of
    mass destruction as well.
        That's what the United Nations Security Council has been talking
    about for 12 long years. It's now time for this issue to come to a head
    at the Security Council, and it will. As far as ultimatums and all the
    speculation about what may or may not happen, after next week, we'll
    just wait and see.
        Steve [Steve Holland, Reuters].
        Q. Are we days away?
        The President. Well, we're days away from resolving this issue at
    the Security Council.

    North Korea

        Q. Thank you. Another hot spot is North Korea. If North Korea
    restarts their plutonium plant, will that change your thinking about how
    to handle this crisis, or are you resigned to North Korea becoming a
    nuclear power?
        The President. This is a regional issue. I say a regional issue
    because there's a lot of countries that have got a direct stake into
    whether or not North Korea has nuclear weapons. We've got a stake as to
    whether North Korea has a nuclear weapon. China clearly has a stake as
    to whether or not North Korea has a nuclear weapon. South Korea, of
    course, has a stake. Japan has got a significant stake as to whether or
    not North Korea has a nuclear weapon. Russia has a stake.
        So therefore, I think the best way to deal with this is in
    multilateral fashion, by convincing those nations that they must stand
    up to their responsibility, along with the United States, to convince
    Kim Chong-il in a good-faith effort,
    entered into a framework agreement. The United States honored its side
    of the agreement; North Korea didn't. While we felt the agreement was in
    force, North Korea was enriching uranium.
        In my judgment, the best way to deal with North Korea is to convince
    parties to assume their responsibility. I was heartened by the fact that
    Jiang Zemin, has had 12 years to disarm. He is deceiving people.
    That's what's important for our fellow citizens to realize, that if he
    really intended to disarm, like the world has asked him to do, we would
    know whether he was disarming. He's trying to buy time. I can understand
    why. He's been successful with these tactics for 12 years.
        Saddam Hussein is a threat to our Nation.
    September the 11th changed the strategic thinking, at least as far as I
    was concerned, for how to protect our country. My job is to protect the
    American people. It used to be that we could think that you could
    contain a person like Saddam Hussein, that oceans would protect us from
    his type of terror. September the 11th should say to the American people
    that we're now a battlefield, that weapons of mass destruction in the
    hands of a terrorist organization could be deployed here at home.
        So therefore, I think the threat is real, and so do a lot of other
    people in my Government. And since I believe the threat is real, and
    since my most important job is to protect the security of the American
    people, that's precisely what we'll do.
        Our demands are that Saddam Hussein
    disarm. We hope he does. We have worked with the international community
    to convince him to disarm. If he doesn't disarm, we'll disarm him.
        You asked about sharing of intelligence, and I appreciate that,
    because we do share a lot of intelligence with nations which may or may
    not agree with us in the Security Council as to how to deal with Saddam
    Hussein and his threats. We have got roughly
    90 countries engaged in Operation Enduring Freedom, chasing down the
    terrorists. We do communicate a lot, and we will continue to communicate
    a lot. We must communicate. We must share intelligence. We must share--
    we must cut off money together. We must smoke these Al Qaida types out
    one at a time.
        It's in our national interest as well that we deal with Saddam
    Hussein. But America is not alone in this
    sentiment. There are a lot of countries who fully understand the threat
    of Saddam Hussein, a lot of countries realize
    that the credibility of the Security Council is at stake, a lot of
    countries, like America, who hope that he would have disarmed, and a lot
    of countries which realize that it may require force--may require
    force--to disarm him.
        Jim Angle [FOX News].

    Antiwar Demonstrations/Iraqi Disarmament

        Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Sir, if you haven't already made the
    choice to go to war, can you tell us what you are waiting to hear or see
    before you do make that decision? And if I may, during the recent
    demonstrations, many of the protesters suggested that the U.S. was a
    threat to peace, which prompted you to wonder out loud

    [[Page 248]]

    why they didn't see Saddam Hussein as a threat to peace. I wonder why
    you think so many people around the world take a different view of the
    threat that Saddam Hussein poses than you and your allies?
        The President. Well, first, I--I appreciate societies in which
    people can express their opinion. That society--free speech stands in
    stark contrast to Iraq.
        Secondly, I've seen all kinds of protests since I've been the
    President. I remember the protests against trade. A lot of people didn't
    feel like free trade was good for the world. I completely disagree. I
    think free trade is good for both wealthy and impoverished nations. But
    that didn't change my opinion about trade. As a matter of fact, I went
    to the Congress to get trade promotion authority out.
        I recognize there are people who don't like war. I don't like war. I
    wish that Saddam Hussein had listened to the
    demands of the world and disarmed. That was my hope. That's why I first
    went to the United Nations to begin with, on September the 12th, 2002,
    to address this issue as forthrightly as I knew how. That's why, months
    later, we went to the Security Council to get another resolution, called
    1441, which was unanimously approved by the Security Council, demanding
    that Saddam Hussein disarm.
        I'm hopeful that he does disarm. But in
    the name of peace and the security of our people, if he won't do so
    voluntarily, we will disarm him. And other nations will join him--join
    us in disarming him.
        And that creates a certain sense of anxiety. I understand that.
    Nobody likes war. The only thing I can do is assure the loved ones of
    those who wear our uniform that if we have to go to war, if war is upon
    us because Saddam Hussein has made that
    choice, we will have the best equipment available for our troops, the
    best plan available for victory, and we will respect innocent life in
    Iraq.
        The risk of doing nothing, the risk of hoping that Saddam
    Hussein changes his mind and becomes a gentle
    soul, the risk that somehow--that inaction will make the world safer, is
    a risk I'm not willing to take for the American people.
        We'll be there in a minute. King, John King [Cable News Network].
    This is a scripted--[laughter]----
        Q. Thank you, Mr. President. How would--sir, how would you answer
    your critics who say that they think this is somehow personal? As
    Senator Kennedy put it tonight, he said your fixation with Saddam
    Hussein is making the world a more dangerous place. And as you prepare
    the American people for the possibility of military conflict, could you
    share with us any of the scenarios your advisers have shared with you
    about worst-case scenarios, in terms of the potential cost of American
    lives, the potential cost to the American economy, and the potential
    risks of retaliatory terrorist strikes here at home?
        The President. My job is to protect America, and that's exactly what
    I'm going to do. People can ascribe all kinds of intentions. I swore to
    protect and defend the Constitution. That's what I swore to do. I put my
    hand on the Bible and took that oath, and that's exactly what I am going
    to do.
        I believe Saddam Hussein is a threat to
    the American people. I believe he's a threat to the neighborhood in
    which he lives, and I've got a good evidence to believe that. He has
    weapons of mass destruction, and he has used weapons of mass destruction
    in his neighborhood and on his own people. He's invaded countries in his
    neighborhood. He tortures his own people. He's a murderer. He has
    trained and financed Al Qaida-type organizations before, Al Qaida and
    other terrorist organizations. I take the threat seriously, and I'll
    deal with the threat. I hope it can be done peacefully.
        The rest of your six-point question?

    Price of Inaction

        Q. The potential price in terms of lives and the economy, terrorism.

    [[Page 249]]

        The President. Oh, yes. The price of doing nothing exceeds the price
    of taking action if we have to. We'll do everything we can to minimize
    the loss of life. The price of the attacks on America, the cost of the
    attacks on America on September the 11th were enormous. They were
    significant, and I am not willing to take that chance again, John.
        Terry Moran [ABC News].

    International Reaction/Stakes of Iraq Policy

        Q. Thank you, sir. May I follow up on Jim Angle's question? In the
    past several weeks, your policy on Iraq has generated opposition from
    the governments of France, Russia, China, Germany, Turkey, the Arab
    League, and many other countries; opened a rift at NATO and at the U.N.;
    and drawn millions of ordinary citizens around the world into the
    streets in antiwar protests. May I ask, what went wrong that so many
    governments and peoples around the world now not only disagree with you
    very strongly but see the U.S. under your leadership as an arrogant
    power?
        The President. I think if you remember back prior to the resolution
    coming out of the United Nations last fall, I suspect you might have
    asked a question along those lines: How come you can't get anybody to
    support your resolution? If I remember correctly, there was a lot of
    doubt as to whether or not we were even going to get any votes, much--
    well, we'd get our own, of course. The vote came out 15 to nothing,
    Terry. And I think you'll see when it's all said and done, if we have to
    use force, a lot of nations will be with us.
        You clearly named some that--France and Germany expressed their
    opinions. We have a disagreement over how best to deal with Saddam
    Hussein. I understand that. Having said that,
    they're still our friends, and we will deal with them as friends. We've
    got a lot of common interests. Our transatlantic relationships are very
    important. While they may disagree with how we deal with Saddam Hussein
    and his weapons of mass destruction, there's no disagreement when it
    came time to vote on 1441, at least as far as France was concerned. They
    joined us. They said Saddam Hussein has one last chance of disarming. If
    they think more time will cause him to disarm, I disagree with that.
        He's a master at deception. He has no
    intention of disarming. Otherwise, we would have known. There's a lot of
    talk about inspectors. It really would have taken a handful of
    inspectors to determine whether he was disarming. They could have showed
    up at a parking lot and he could have brought his weapons and destroyed
    them. That's not what he chose to do.
        Secondly, I make my decisions based upon the oath I took, the one I
    just described to you. I believe Saddam Hussein is a threat--is a threat to the American people. He's
    a threat to people in his neighborhood. He's also a threat to the Iraqi
    people.
        One of the things we love in America is freedom. If I may, I'd like
    to remind you what I said at the State of the Union: Liberty is not
    America's gift to the world; it is God's gift to each and every person.
    And that's what I believe. I believe that when we see totalitarianism,
    that we must deal with it. We don't have to do it always militarily, but
    this is a unique circumstance, because of 12 years of denial and
    defiance, because of terrorist connections, because of past history.
        I'm convinced that a liberated Iraq will be important for that
    troubled part of the world. The Iraqi people are plenty capable of
    governing themselves. Iraq is a sophisticated society. Iraq's got money.
    Iraq will provide a place where people can see that the Shi'a and the
    Sunni and the Kurds can get along in a federation. Iraq will serve as a
    catalyst for change, positive change.
        So there's a lot more at stake than just American security and the
    security of people close by Saddam Hussein.
    Freedom is

    [[Page 250]]

    at stake as well, and I take that very seriously.
        Gregory [David Gregory, NBC News].

    Regime Change in Iraq

        Q. Mr. President, good evening. If you order war, can any military
    operation be considered a success if the United States does not capture
    Saddam Hussein, as you once said, dead or alive?
        The President. Well, I hope we don't have to go to war, but if we go
    to war, we will disarm Iraq. And if we go to war, there will be a regime
    change. And replacing this cancer inside of Iraq will be a Government
    that represents the rights of all the people, a Government which
    represents the voices of the Shi'a and Sunni and the Kurds.
        We care about the suffering of the Iraqi people. I mentioned in my
    opening comments that there's a lot of food ready to go in. There's
    something like 55,000 oil-for-food distribution points in Iraq. We know
    where they are. We fully intend to make sure that they're--got ample
    food. We know where their hospitals are; we want to make sure they've
    got ample medical supplies. The life of the Iraqi citizen is going to
    dramatically improve.
        Q. Sir, I'm sorry, is success contingent upon capturing or killing
    Saddam Hussein, in your mind?
        The President. We will be changing the regime of Iraq, for the good
    of the Iraqi people.
        Bill Plante [CBS News].

    Public Support/Nature of Iraqi Threat

        Q. Mr. President, to a lot of people, it seems that war is probably
    inevitable, because many people doubt--most people, I would guess--that
    Saddam Hussein will ever do what we are demanding that he do, which is
    disarm. And if war is inevitable, there are a lot of people in this
    country--as much as half, by polling standards--who agree that he should
    be disarmed, who listen to you say that you have the evidence but who
    feel they haven't seen it, and who still wonder why blood has to be shed
    if he hasn't attacked us.
        The President. Well, Bill, if they believe he should be disarmed, and he's not going to disarm,
    there's only one way to disarm him. And that happens to be my last
    choice, the use of force.
        Secondly, the American people know that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction. By the way, he
    declared he didn't have any; 1441 insisted that he have a complete
    declaration of his weapons; he said he didn't have any weapons.
    Secondly, he's used these weapons before. I mean, this is--we're not
    speculating about the nature of the man. We know the nature of the man.
        Colin Powell, in an eloquent address to
    the United Nations, described some of the information we were at liberty
    of talking about. He mentioned a man named Al Zarqawi, knew none of this was going on is not
    to really understand the nature of the Iraqi society.
        There's a lot of facts which make it clear to me and many others
    that Saddam is a threat. And we're not going
    to wait until he does attack. We're not going to hope that he changes
    his attitude. We're not going to assume that he's a different kind of
    person than he has been.
        So, in the name of security and peace, if we have to--if we have
    to--we'll disarm him. I hope he disarms. Or
    perhaps, I hope he leaves the country. I hear a lot of talk from
    different nations around where Saddam Hussein might be exiled. That
    would be fine with me, just so long as Iraq disarms after he's exiled.
        Let's see here. Elisabeth [Elisabeth Bumiller, New York Times].

    [[Page 251]]

    U.N. Security Council Resolution on Iraq

        Q. Thank you, Mr. President. As you said, the Security Council faces
    a vote next week on a resolution implicitly authorizing an attack on
    Iraq. Will you call for a vote on that resolution, even if you aren't
    sure you have the vote?
        The President. Yes. Well, first, I don't think--it basically says
    that he's in defiance of 1441. That's what
    the resolution says, and it's hard to believe anybody is saying he isn't
    in defiance of 1441, because 1441 said he must disarm. And yes, we'll
    call for a vote.
        Q. No matter what?
        The President. No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for
    the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is
    about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the
    United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It's time for people
    to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it
    comes to Saddam.
        Mark Knoller [CBS Radio].

    United Nations/Military Action Against Iraq

        Q. Mr. President, are you worried that the United States might be
    viewed as defiant of the United Nations if you went ahead with military
    action without specific and explicit authorization from the U.N.?
        The President. No, I'm not worried about that. As a matter of fact,
    it's hard to say the United States is defiant about the United Nations,
    when I was the person that took the issue to the United Nations,
    September the 12th, 2002. We've been working with the United Nations.
    We've been working through the United Nations.
        Secondly, I'm confident the American people understand that when it
    comes to our security, if we need to act, we will act, and we really
    don't need United Nations approval to do so. I want to work--I want the
    United Nations to be effective. It's important for it to be a robust,
    capable body. It's important for its words to mean what they say. And as
    we head into the 21st century, Mark, when it comes to our security, we
    really don't need anybody's permission.
        Bill [Bill Sammon, Washington Times].

    Turkey-U.S. Relations

        Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Even though our military can certainly
    prevail without a northern front, isn't Turkey making it at least
    slightly more challenging for us and, therefore, at least slightly more
    likely that American lives will be lost? And if they don't reverse
    course, would you stop backing their entry into the European Union?
        The President. The answer to your second question is, I support
    Turkey going into the E.U. Turkey's a friend. They're a NATO Ally. We
    will continue to work with Turkey. We've got contingencies in place
    that, should our troops not come through Turkey--not be allowed to come
    through Turkey. And no, that won't cause any more hardship for our
    troops. I'm confident of that.
        April [April Ryan, American Urban Radio Networks]. Did you have a
    question, or did I call upon you cold?
        Q. I have a question. [Laughter]
        The President. Okay. I'm sure you do have a question.

    Lessons of September 11/President's Faith

        Q. Mr. President, as the Nation is at odds over war, with many
    organizations like the Congressional Black Caucus pushing for continued
    diplomacy through the U.N., how is your faith guiding you? And what
    should you tell America--well, what should America do, collectively, as
    you instructed before 9/11? Should it be ``pray,'' because you're
    saying, let's continue the war on terror.
        The President. I appreciate that question a lot. First, for those
    who urge more diplomacy, I would simply say that diplomacy hasn't
    worked. We've tried diplomacy for 12 years. Saddam Hussein hasn't disarmed; he's armed.

    [[Page 252]]

        And we live in a dangerous world. We live in new circumstances in
    our country. And I hope people remember the--I know they remember the
    tragedy of September the 11th, but I hope they understand the lesson of
    September the 11th. The lesson is, is that we're vulnerable to attack,
    wherever it may occur, and we must take threats which gather overseas
    very seriously. We don't have to deal with them all militarily. But we
    must deal with them, and in the case of Iraq, it is now time for
    him to disarm. For the sake of peace, if we
    have to use our troops, we will.
        My faith sustains me because I pray daily. I pray for guidance and
    wisdom and strength. If we were to commit our troops--if we were to
    commit our troops--I would pray for their safety, and I would pray for
    the safety of innocent Iraqi lives as well.
        One thing that's really great about our country, April, is there are
    thousands of people who pray for me who I'll never see and be able to
    thank. But it's a humbling experience to think that people I will never
    have met have lifted me and my family up in prayer. And for that I'm
    grateful. That's--it's been--it's been a comforting feeling to know that
    it's true. I pray for peace, April. I pray for peace.
        Hutch [Ron Hutcheson, Knight Ridder].

    Military Action Against Iraq

        Q. Thank you, Mr. President. As you know, not everyone shares your
    optimistic vision of how this might play out. Do you ever worry, maybe
    in the wee, small hours, that you might be wrong, and they might be
    right in thinking that this could lead to more terrorism, more anti-
    American sentiment, more instability in the Middle East?
        The President. Hutch, I think, first of all, it's hard to envision
    more terror on America than September the 11th, 2001. We did nothing to
    provoke that terrorist attack. It came upon us because there's an enemy
    which hates America. They hate what we stand for. We love freedom, and
    we're not changing. And therefore, so long as there's a terrorist
    network like Al Qaida and others willing to fund them, finance them,
    equip them, we're at war.
        And so I--you know, obviously, I've thought long and hard about the
    use of troops. I think about it all the time. It is my responsibility to
    commit the troops. I believe we'll prevail. I know we'll prevail. And
    out of that disarmament of Saddam will come a
    better world, particularly for the people who live in Iraq.
        This is a society, Ron, who--which has been decimated by his
    murderous ways, his torture. He doesn't allow
    dissent. He doesn't believe in the values we believe in. I believe this
    society, the Iraqi society, can develop in a much better way. I think of
    the risks, calculated the cost of inaction versus the cost of action.
    And I'm firmly convinced, if we have to, we will act, in the name of
    peace and in the name of freedom.
        Ann [Ann Compton, ABC News].
        Q. Mr. President, if you decide to go ahead with military action,
    there are inspectors on the ground in Baghdad. Will you give them time
    to leave the country, or the humanitarian workers on the ground or the
    journalists? Will you be able to do that and still mount an effective
    attack on Iraq?
        The President. Of course. We will give people a chance to leave. And
    we don't want anybody in harm's way who shouldn't be in harm's way. The
    journalists who are there should leave. If you're going, and we start
    action, leave. The inspectors--we don't want people in harm's way. And
    our intention--we have no quarrel with anybody other than
    Saddam and his group of killers who have
    destroyed a society. And we will do everything we can, as I mentioned--
    and I mean this--to protect innocent life.
        I've not made up our mind about military action. Hopefully, this can
    be done peacefully. Hopefully, that as a result of the pressure that we
    have placed--and others have

    [[Page 253]]

    placed--that Saddam will disarm and/or leave
    the country.
        Ed [Ed Chen, Los Angeles Times].
        Q. Mr. President, good evening. Sir, you've talked a lot about
    trusting the American people when it comes to making decisions about
    their own lives, about how to spend their own money. When it comes to
    the financial costs of the war, sir, it would seem that the
    administration, surely, has costed out various scenarios. If that's the
    case, why not present some of them to the American people so they know
    what to expect, sir?
        The President. Ed, we will. We'll present it in the form of a
    supplemental to the spenders. We don't get to spend the money, as you
    know. We have to request the expenditure of money from the Congress, and
    at the appropriate time, we'll request a supplemental. We're obviously
    analyzing all aspects. We hope we don't go to war, but if we should, we
    will present a supplemental.
        But I want to remind you what I said before. There is a huge cost
    when we get attacked. There was a significant cost to our society. First
    of all, there was the cost of lives. It's an immeasurable cost. Three
    thousand people died. A significant cost to our economy--opportunity
    loss is an immeasurable cost, besides the cost of repairing buildings
    and costs to our airlines. And so the cost of an attack is significant.
        If I thought we were safe from attack, I would be thinking
    differently. But I see a gathering threat. I mean, this is a true, real
    threat to America. And therefore, we will deal with it. And at the
    appropriate time, Ed, we will ask for a supplemental. And that will be
    the moment where you and others will be able to recognize what we think
    the dollar cost of a conflict will be.
        You know, the benefits of such a effort, if, in fact, we go forward
    and are successful, are also immeasurable. How do you measure the
    benefit of freedom in Iraq? I guess if you're an Iraqi citizen, you can
    measure it by being able to express your mind and vote. How do you
    measure the consequence of taking a dictator out of power who has tried
    to invade Kuwait or somebody who may some day decide to lob a weapon of
    mass destruction on Israel? How would you weigh the cost of that? Those
    are immeasurable costs. And I weigh those very seriously, Ed. In terms
    of the dollar amount, well, we'll let you know here pretty soon.
        George Condon [Copley News Service].

    North Korea

        Q. Thank you, Mr. President. If I can follow on Steve's question on
    North Korea. Do you believe it is essential for the security of the
    United States and its allies that North Korea be prevented from
    developing nuclear weapons? And are you in any way growing frustrated
    with the pace of the diplomacy there?
        The President. Well, I think it's--yes, I think it's an issue.
    Obviously, I'm concerned about North Korea developing nuclear weapons,
    not only for their own use but for--perhaps they might choose to
    proliferate them, sell them. They may end up in the hands of dictators,
    people who are not afraid of using weapons of mass destruction, people
    who try to impose their will on the world or blackmail free nations. I'm
    concerned about it.
        We are working hard to bring a diplomatic solution. And we've made
    some progress. After all, the IAEA* asked that the Security Council take
    up the North Korean issue. It's now in the Security Council--constantly
    talking with the Chinese and the Russians and the Japanese and the South
    Koreans. Colin Powell just went overseas and
    spent some time in China, went to the inauguration of President Roh disarms. The whole purpose of the debate is for Saddam
    to disarm. We gave him a chance. As a matter of fact, we gave him 12
    years of chances. But recently we gave him a chance, starting last fall.
    And it said, last chance to disarm. The resolution said that. And had he
    chosen to do so, it'd would be evident that he's disarmed.
        So more time, more inspectors, more process, in our judgment, is not
    going to affect the peace of the world. So whatever is resolved is going
    to have some finality to it, so that Saddam Hussein will take us seriously.
        I want to remind you that it's his choice to make as to whether or
    not we go to war. It's Saddam's choice. He's
    the person that can make the choice of war and peace. Thus far, he's
    made the wrong choice. If we have to, for the sake of the security of
    the American people, for the sake of peace in the world, and for freedom
    to the Iraqi people, we will disarm Saddam Hussein. And by ``we,'' it's
    more than America. A lot of nations will join us.
        Thank you for your questions. Good night.

    Note: The President's news conference began at 8:02 p.m. in the East
    Room at the White House. In his remarks, he referred to Khalid Sheikh
    Mohammed, senior Al Qaida leader responsible for planning the September
    11, 2001, terrorist attack, who was captured in Pakistan on March 1,
    2003; President Saddam Hussein of Iraq; Chairman Kim Chong-il of North
    Korea; President Jiang Zemin of China; senior Al Qaida associate Abu
    Musab Al Zarqawi; and President Roh Moo-hyun of South Korea.