    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George W. Bush (2005, Book I)]
    [February 17, 2005]
    [Pages 241-251]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    The President's News Conference
    February 17, 2005

    Nomination of John D. Negroponte To Be
    Director of National Intelligence

        The President. Thank you very much. I appreciate you here--coming
    here. I'm pleased to announce my decision to nominate Ambassador John
    Negroponte as Director of National Intelligence. The Director's
    responsibility is straightforward and

    [[Page 242]]

    demanding. John will make sure that those whose duty it is to defend
    America have the information we need to make the right decisions. John
    understands America's global intelligence needs because he spent the
    better part of his life in our Foreign Service and is now serving with
    distinction in the sensitive post of our Nation's first Ambassador to a
    free Iraq.
        John's nomination comes at an historic moment for our intelligence
    services. In the war against terrorists who target innocent civilians
    and continue to seek weapons of mass murder, intelligence is our first
    line of defense. If we're going to stop the terrorists before they
    strike, we must ensure that our intelligence agencies work as a single,
    unified enterprise. And that's why I supported and Congress passed
    reform legislation creating the job of Director of National
    Intelligence.
        As DNI, John will lead a unified intelligence community and will
    serve as the principle adviser to the President on intelligence matters.
    He will have the authority to order the collection of new intelligence,
    to ensure the sharing of information among agencies, and to establish
    common standards for the intelligence community's personnel. It will be
    John's responsibility to determine the annual budgets for all national
    intelligence agencies and offices and to direct how these funds are
    spent. Vesting these authorities in a single official who reports
    directly to me will make our intelligence efforts better coordinated,
    more efficient, and more effective.
        The Director of the CIA will report to John. The CIA will retain its
    core of responsibilities for collecting human intelligence, analyzing
    intelligence from all sources, and supporting American interests abroad
    at the direction of the President.
        The law establishing John's position preserves the existing chain of
    command and leaves all our intelligence agencies, organizations, and
    offices in their current departments. Our military commanders will
    continue to have quick access to the intelligence they need to achieve
    victory on the battlefield. And the new structure will help ensure
    greater information sharing among Federal departments and agencies and
    also with appropriate State and local authorities.
        John brings a unique set of skills to these challenges. Over the
    course of a long career, John Negroponte has served his Nation in eight
    countries spanning three continents. He's held important leadership
    posts at both the State Department and the White House. As my
    representative to the United Nations, John defended our interests
    vigorously and spoke eloquently about America's intention to spread
    freedom and peace throughout the world. And his service in Iraq during
    these past few historic months has given him something that will prove
    an incalculable advantage for an intelligence chief: an unvarnished and
    up-close look at a deadly enemy.
        Today I'm pleased as well to announce that joining John as his
    Deputy will be Lieutenant General Michael Hayden. As a career Air Force intelligence officer, General Hayden
    now serves as Director of the National Security Agency, America's
    largest intelligence service, and Chief of the Central Security Service.
    In these critical roles, Mike has already demonstrated an ability to
    adapt our intelligence services to meet the new threats of a new
    century.
        I appreciate the willingness of these men to take on these tough new
    assignments in an extraordinary moment in our Nation's history. I'd like
    to thank the thousands of men and women already serving in our
    intelligence services. These are people who go to work each day to keep
    Americans safe. We live in a dangerous world, and oftentimes, they take
    great risk to their own lives. These men and women are going to be
    pleased to have leaders such as Ambassador John Negroponte and General
    Mike Hayden.
        John, I want to thank you for being here today. Congratulations.
    Godspeed.

    [[Page 243]]

    [At this point, Ambassador Negroponte made brief remarks.]

        The President. I'll be glad to take some questions. Jennifer
    [Jennifer Loven, Associated Press].

    Syria/Assassination of Rafiq Hariri

        Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Can you tell us if you believe that
    Syria is linked to the assassination of Mr. Hariri? And further, how far
    are you willing to go to expel Syria from Lebanon and stop its
    involvement in Iraq?
        The President. First, we support the international investigation
    that is--will be going on to determine the killers of Mr. Hariri. We've
    recalled our Ambassador, which indicates
    that the relationship is not moving forward, that Syria is out of step
    with the progress being made in a greater Middle East, that democracy is
    on the move, and this is a country that isn't moving with the democratic
    movement.
        And we've talked clearly to Syria about, one, making sure that their
    territory is not used by former Iraqi Ba'athists to spread havoc and
    kill innocent lives. We expect them to find and turn over former
    regime--Saddam regime supporters, send them back to Iraq. We've made it
    very clear from the beginning of my administration that Syria should not
    use its territory to support international terrorist groups. We expect
    them to adhere to 1559--U.N. Security Council Resolution 1559, which
    calls for the removal of troops from Lebanon. And we expect them to help
    free and fair elections to take place in Lebanon.
        These are very reasonable requests, the requests all aimed at making
    the world more peaceful. I look forward to working with our European
    friends on my upcoming trip to talk about how we can work together to
    convince the Syrians to make rational decisions.

    Iran

        Q. Thank you, Mr. President. The Europeans want more support from
    the U.S. in their negotiations with Iran. Would the U.S. consider
    joining these talks?
        The President. Well, first, a couple of points. One, we are a party
    to the talks or a party to the process, as a result of being a member of
    the IAEA. In other words, we're on the IAEA board, one of some 30-odd
    nations. So we've been very much involved with working with the Iranians
    and the world to achieve a goal that we share with the Europeans, and
    that is for Iran not to develop a nuclear weapon.
        I look forward to, again, on this trip, to discussing strategies,
    ways forward with the Europeans to make sure we continue to speak with
    one voice, and that is, Iran should not have a nuclear weapon, and how
    to work together to make sure they don't.
        Wendell [Wendell Goler, FOX News Channel].

    Syria/Assassination of Rafiq Hariri

        Q. Mr. President, in your answer to Jennifer's question, I heard
    several reasons for recalling the Ambassador from Syria but not an
    indication of whether you believe Syria bears some responsibility for
    the assassination.
        The President. I can't tell you that. I don't know yet, because the
    investigation is ongoing. And so I'm going to withhold judgment until we
    find out what the facts are. Hopefully, by the time I get overseas,
    we'll have a clearer understanding of who killed Mr. Hariri, and it will
    be an opportune time to talk with our friends, to determine what to do
    about it.
        But it's important that this investigation go on in a thoughtful
    way, and I'm convinced it will. We supported the international----
        Q. Would you like it to be an international investigation, sir?
        The President. Yes, we support the international investigation.
        Yes, John [John Roberts, CBS News].

    [[Page 244]]

    Iran and Israel

        Q. Mr. President, I recall a conversation a small group of us had
    with a very senior administration official about a year ago, and in that
    conversation the subject of Iran and Israel came up. And I'm just
    wondering, what's your level of concern that if Iran does go down the
    road to building a nuclear weapon, that Israel will attack Iran to try
    to prevent that from happening?

        The President. Well, of course the--well, first of all, Iran has
    made it clear they don't like Israel, to put it bluntly. And the
    Israelis are concerned about whether or not Iran develops a nuclear
    weapon, as are we, as should everybody.

        And so the objective is to solve this issue diplomatically, is to
    work with friends, like we're doing with France, Europe, and--I mean,
    France, Germany, and Great Britain, to continue making it clear to the
    Iranians that developing a nuclear weapon will be unacceptable.

        But clearly, if I was the leader of Israel and I listened to some of
    the statements by the Iranian ayatollahs about--that regarded my
    security of my country, I'd be concerned about Iran having a nuclear
    weapon as well. And in that Israel is our ally and in that we've made a
    very strong commitment to support Israel, we will support Israel if--if
    there's--if their security is threatened.

        Q. Do you believe there's a real possibility Israel could attack?

        The President. Oh, I--John, I think that there's a--the need for us
    to work together to convince the Iranians not to develop a nuclear
    weapon. And we will work with Europeans and the Israelis to develop a
    strategy and a plan that is effective. And that's one of the reasons I'm
    going to Europe.

        Let's see here. I've got to make sure I go to the TV people. Norah
    [Norah O'Donnell, NBC News].

    Social Security Reform

        Q. Mr. President, you've made clear that Social Security reform is
    your top legislative priority. The top Republican leader in the House
    has said you cannot jam change down people's throats. And in your
    interviews with the regional newspapers, you made very clear that you
    would not rule out raising the cap on payroll taxes. If you were to do
    that, why would that not be seen as going back on your pledge not to
    raise taxes?

        The President. Well, I--a couple of questions there. One, I agree,
    you can't cram an issue down people's throats. As a matter of fact, the
    best way to get this issue addressed in the Halls of Congress is for the
    American people to say, ``Why don't we come together and do something?''
    And so the first priority of mine is to convince the people we have a
    problem. And I'm going to do that a lot. As a matter of fact, I enjoy
    traveling the country, and I hope you do too, because I'm going to be
    doing a lot of it. I fully understand, Norah, that nothing will happen
    if the Members of Congress don't believe there's a problem that needs to
    be solved, and so you'll see a lot of travel.

        And the problem is plain to me. You've got baby boomers getting
    ready to retire. They've been promised greater benefits than the current
    generation. They're living longer, and there's fewer people paying into
    the system. And the system goes negative starting in 2018 and continues
    to do so. There's the problem. Nothing will happen, I repeat, unless the
    Congress thinks there's a problem.

        Once the Congress--once the people say to Congress, ``There's a
    problem. Fix it,'' then I have a duty to say to Members of Congress,
    ``Bring forth your ideas.'' And I clarified a variety of ideas that
    people should be encouraged to bring forth, without political
    retribution. It used to be, in the past, people would step up and say,
    ``Well, here's an interesting idea,'' and then

    [[Page 245]]

    they would take that idea and clobber the person politically.
        What I'm saying to Members of Congress is that, ``We have a problem.
    Come together, and let's fix it. And bring your ideas forward, and I'm
    willing to discuss them with you.'' And so that's why I said what I said
    and will continue to say it. And it's not--I've got some ideas of my
    own. Obviously, I think personal accounts are an important part of the
    mix and want to continue working with Members of Congress to understand
    the wisdom of why personal accounts makes sense for the long term, to be
    a part of a long-term solution for Social Security.
        John [John Cochran, ABC News].

    Director of National Intelligence/Budget Process for Intelligence

        Q. Sir, thank you. Regarding the Director of National Intelligence,
    in this town power is often measured in a couple of ways, by who
    controls the money and how close that person is to the President,
    sometimes physically. So let me ask you about that. You said that Mr.
    Negroponte will determine the budgets for all intelligence agencies. A
    lot of people feel the Pentagon is going to fight that, that the
    Pentagon wants to control its intelligence money. Would you address
    that? And also, where is Mr. Negroponte going to work? Will he be in the
    White House complex, close to you? Will he give you your intelligence
    briefings every day?
        The President. I think your assessment is right. People that can
    control the money, people who have got access to the President generally
    have a lot of influence. And that's why John Negroponte is going to have
    a lot of influence. He will set the budgets.
        Listen, this is going to take a while to get a new culture in place,
    a different way of approaching the budget process. That's why I selected
    John. He's a diplomat. He understands the--and he's an experienced
    person; he understands the power centers in Washington. He's been a
    consumer of intelligence in the past, and so he's got a good feel for
    how to move this process forward in a way that addresses the different
    interests.
        Now, as to where his office is, I don't know. It's not going to be
    in the White House. Remember the early debate about, should this man be
    a--or person be a member of the Cabinet. I said no, I didn't think so. I
    thought it was very important for the DNI to be apart from the White
    House. Nevertheless, he will have access on a daily basis in that he'll
    be my primary briefer. In other words, when the intelligence briefings
    start in the morning, John will be there. And John and I will work to
    determine how much exposure the CIA will have in the Oval Office. I
    would hope more rather than less. The relationship between John and the
    CIA Director is going to be a vital relationship; the relationship
    between the CIA and the White House is a vital relationship.
        John and I both know that change can be unsettling, and so
    therefore, I'm sure there's some people out there wondering right now
    what this means for their jobs and the influence of a particular agency
    into the White House. And the answer is, everybody will be given fair
    access, and everybody's ideas will be given a chance to make it to
    John's office. And if he thinks it's appropriate I see it, I'll see it.
    And if he thinks it's a waste of my time, I won't see it. And
    obviously--therefore, the conclusion is, I trust his judgment. And I'm
    looking forward to working with him. It's going to be an interesting
    opportunity.
        Yes, John [John McKinnon, Wall Street Journal].
        Q. Will you back him if he goes up against Don Rumsfeld--Rumsfeld
    wants a certain amount of money for his intelligence budget and
    Negroponte says, ``I don't think so''?
        The President. I don't think it necessarily works--I know that's how
    the press sometimes likes to play discussions inside the

    [[Page 246]]

    White House--X versus Y and butting of heads and sharp elbows.
    Generally, it works a little more civilly than that. People make their
    case; there's a discussion; but ultimately John will make the decisions
    on the budget.
        ``Backing'' means it's kind of zero-sum. That's not the way our team
    works. It's not a zero-sum attitude in the White House. It is--people
    have strong opinions, by the way, around here, which is--I would hope
    you'd want your President to have people around who have got strong
    opinions, people who are willing to stand up for what they believe,
    people who say, ``Here's what I think is right, and it may not be what
    so-and-so thinks is right.'' Then the question is, do I have the
    capacity to pick the right answer, to be able to make a decision? I
    think people have seen that I'm capable of making decisions. And one
    reason why I feel comfortable making them is because I get good advice.
    And John is going to be a great adviser.
        Suzanne [Suzanne Malveaux, Cable News Network].

    U.S. Relations With European Allies/Environment

        Q. A top European Union official said that Dr. Rice's trip,
    Secretary Rice's trip to Europe was very positive. He described it as
    ``romance blossoms once two are determined to get married.'' [Laughter]
    He also said that he did not expect that there would be any kind of
    substantive differences in U.S. policy on your own trip to Europe, but
    he hoped that it would help increase the sense of trust between the
    United States and European allies. What do you have to offer or say to
    European allies to help restore that trust, particularly the trust in
    U.S. intelligence?
        The President. Yes, you know, my first goal is to remind both
    Americans and Europeans that the transatlantic relationship is very
    important for our mutual security and for peace, and that we have
    differences sometimes but we don't differ on values, that we share this
    great love and respect for freedom.
        September the 11th was an interesting phenomenon in terms of our
    relations. For some in Europe, it was just a passing terrible moment.
    And for us, it was a change of--it caused us to change our foreign
    policy--in other words, a permanent part of our foreign policy. And
    that--those differences, at times, frankly, caused us to talk past each
    other. And I recognize that, and I want to make sure the Europeans
    understand I know that and that, as we move beyond the differences of
    the past, that we can work a lot together to achieve big objectives.
        There's also a concern in Europe, I suspect, that the only thing I
    care about is our national security. And clearly, since we have been
    attacked--and I fear there's a terrorist group out there thinking about
    attacking us again or would like to--that national security is at the
    top of my agenda. That's what you'd expect from the President of the
    United States. But we also care deeply about hunger and disease, and I
    look forward to working with the Europeans on hunger and disease.
        We care about the climate. Obviously, the Kyoto Protocol had been a
    problem in the past. They thought the treaty made sense. I didn't, and
    neither did the United States Senate when it rejected the Kyoto concept,
    95 to nothing. And so there's an opportunity now to work together to
    talk about new technologies that will help us both achieve a common
    objective, which is a better environment for generations to come.
        And the Methanes to Markets project is an interesting opportunity. I
    spoke to my friend Tony Blair the other day, and
    I reminded him that here at home, we're spending billions on clean coal
    technology where we could have--it's conceivable and hopeful we'll have
    a zero-emissions coal plan, which will be not only good for the United
    States but it would be good for

    [[Page 247]]

    the world. This isn't a question on environment, but I was hoping
    somebody would ask it. I asked myself.
        Anyway, let me--so I'm looking forward--[laughter]--thank you,
    Dickerson [John Dickerson, Time]--I'm looking forward to discussing
    issues that not only relate to our security, that not only relate to how
    we work together to spread freedom, how we continue to embrace the
    values we believe in, but also how we deal with hunger and disease and
    environmental concerns.
        Let's see, have I gone through all the TV personalities yet?
        Q. Yes. [Laughter]

    Syria

        The President. Herman [Ken Herman, Austin American-Statesman].
        Q. Mr. President, good morning.
        The President. A face made for radio, I might add.
        Q. Thank you. My mother appreciates it. [Laughter] You offer a long
    list of things you expect Syrian leaders to do. What are the
    consequences if they don't do those things?
        The President. The idea is to continue to work with the world to
    remind Syria it's not in their interest to be isolated.
        Mark [Mark Knoller, CBS Radio].

    Social Security Reform

        Q. Mr. President, if I could go back to Social Security.
        The President. Sure.
        Q. You spoke about your desire to have a plan that includes private
    retirement accounts. Chairman Greenspan yesterday, although supportive
    of those accounts, expressed two concerns, that he was worried about
    rushing something into print, if you will, and also about the borrowing,
    the transition costs that would be required, trillions. He was
    especially worried about the latter. What is your response to that?
        The President. Well, I presume the reason he was talking about Social Security at all is because he
    understands that we've got about $11 trillion of debt owed to future
    generations of Americans. Therefore, we've got to do something about it
    now. And the longer we wait, the more difficult the solution becomes.
        The--you asked about the transition cost, and what was the other?
        Q. And that he wanted to do it slowly.
        The President. Oh, slowly. Well, as you might remember in my State
    of the Union, when I expressed my desire that Congress ought to think
    about personal accounts, I did say they ought to be phased in.
        And so--and that's part of the transition cost issue. And we look
    forward to working with Congress to come up with ways to make sure that
    the personal accounts, if Congress so chooses, and I hope they do, can
    be financed. And that's part of the issue. And that's part of the dialog
    that is going to be needed once Congress understands we have a problem.
        Let me repeat what I said before--and I fully understand this--that
    this idea is going nowhere if the Congress does not believe there is a
    problem. Why should somebody take the hard path if they don't believe
    there's a problem? And so I'm going to spend a lot of time reminding
    people there is a problem.
        Once the people figure out there's a problem--and I think they're
    beginning to understand that--then the question to ask to those of us
    who have been elected is, ``What are you going to do about it?'' And
    that's an important question. And when people start answering that
    question, I have said, ``Bring your ideas forward.'' We welcome any
    idea--except running up the payroll tax rate, which I've been consistent
    on. And so bring them up. And I look forward to hearing their ideas.
        And part of the ideas is going to be to, one, understand the
    benefits of personal accounts as well as how to pay for the transition
    costs. We've started that process, Mark, by talking about a phase-in
    program. And one of the reasons we do is because

    [[Page 248]]

    we wanted to indicate to the Congress, ``We understand there's an issue.
    We want to work with you on it.''
        Let's see here--let's see here, John.
        Q. Sir, can you talk a little bit----
        The President. If you don't raise your hand, does that mean you
    don't have a question?
        Q. Not necessarily, sir.
        The President. Okay, good, because you didn't raise your hand.

    President's Goals in the Middle East

        Q. Could you talk a little bit about how you would like to see the
    landscape of the Middle East change over the next year? Can you talk
    about the specific changes you'd like to see across the region?
        The President. Yes. You know, a year is a really short period of
    time when it comes to working on--working with nations to encourage
    democracy, so there's not a kind of a universal answer. But let me try
    to answer it this way, because it's not--in other words, you can't apply
    the same standard for every country as they move toward democracy, I
    guess is what I'm saying. In other words, there's kind of not a blanket
    answer.
        I'll give you kind of a general thought. I would like to see the
    following things happen. We make progress on the development of a
    Palestinian state, so there can be peace with Israel. And notice I put
    it that way: There needs to be progress for democracy to take--firmly
    take hold in the Palestinian Territory. It is my belief that that--when
    that happens, that we've got a very good chance for peace. That's why I
    said in my State of the Union, it's within reach. What's in reach is to
    work with leadership that appears committed to fighting terror to
    develop the institutions necessary for democracy.
        That's why the conference Tony Blair has
    called is an important conference. It's a conference that we'll be
    working with the world--with countries from around the world to say,
    ``How can we help you develop a democracy?'' And so I'd like to see that
    move forward.
        Obviously, I'd like to see the Iraqi Government continue to make the
    progress it is making toward providing its own security as well as begin
    the process of writing the constitution. We will continue to work with
    the international community to make it clear that some of the behavior
    in the Middle East is unacceptable. The development of a nuclear weapon
    is unacceptable. Harboring terrorists or providing safe haven for
    terrorists is unacceptable. And so there's a lot of progress that can be
    made.
        I was pleased to see that Saudi had municipal elections. And I think
    Crown Prince Abdullah's vision of
    moving toward reform is coming to be. Every speech I've given on
    democracy is--I fully recognize that democracy will advance at a pace
    that may be different from our own expectations and obviously reflect
    the cultures of the countries in which democracy is moving. But there's
    progress being made, and so it's kind of hard to have a summary because
    there's different countries, different places. But if I try to come up
    with one, I'd like to see more advance toward a free and--free and
    democratic states.
        What's interesting--and surely hasn't crept into your writing or
    reporting--but for a while there was a period that people said, ``It's
    an impossible mission to have freedom take hold. I mean, what was he
    doing? How can he possibly think that these people can possibly accept
    democracy?'' I don't know if you remember that period of reporting or
    not. I vaguely do. And then look what's happening. And that's why I can
    say, John, that I'd like to see more progress because progress is being
    made.
        Afghanistan elections were a remarkable achievement in the march of
    history. The elections that John was involved in in Iraq, and was--it
    must have been fantastic to be there. It was--to think of the millions
    who defied the terrorists. And you remember the reporting that went on--
    first of

    [[Page 249]]

    all, democracy may not be the kind of system that people agree to in
    Iraq. It's kind of a foreign concept to them, and coupled with the fact
    there's a lot of terrorists there who are getting ready to blow anybody
    up who goes and votes. And yet millions--I think it's over 8 million
    now, I think we've calculated, went to the polls.
        And what's interesting to me in Iraq is to see the posturing that's
    going on, kind of the positioning. It's not exactly like the Social
    Security debate, but it's posturing. It's politics. People are jockeying
    for position. And I say it's not like the Social Security debate because
    their, obviously, democracy isn't as advanced as ours. But nevertheless,
    there's--people are making moves here and there. And you hear about the
    conferences and the discussions. To me, that's healthy. It's inspiring
    to see a fledgling democracy begin to take wing, right here in the 21st
    century in a part of the world where people didn't think there could be
    progress. I think there can be progress, and we'll continue to work that
    progress.
        Part of my reason I'm going to Europe is to share my sense of
    optimism and enthusiasm about what's taking place and remind people that
    that's--that those values of human rights, human dignity, and freedom
    are the core of our very being as nations. And it's going to be a great
    experience to go there.
        Let's see, yes, Hillman [G. Robert Hillman, Dallas Morning News].
        Q. Yes----
        The President. I had to call on Hillman, because--to balance the
    thing here with the competing Texas newspapers.

    Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States
    Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction

        Q. Yes, Mr. President, have you, by any chance, received any sort of
    interim or preliminary report from the Robb Commission that's
    investigating intelligence failures? And did you seek the Commission's
    counsel on the scope of the duties for the new Intelligence Director?
        The President. I haven't--that's--no, I have not had an interim
    report. Maybe the national security people have--or not. Hadley said he hasn't either. We have--our people have
    gone to talk to the Robb-Silberman Commission when asked. But I've got
    great confidence in both those leaders to bring forth a very solid
    report. And so we haven't been involved in the process other than when
    asked to share opinion.
        Q. When might they report back?
        The President. Don't know yet. Do we have any idea?
        National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley. Sometime next month.
        The President. Yes, Hadley said, ``Try
    to work me in the press conference,'' and I did. [Laughter]
    Congratulations. ``Sometime next month,'' he said.
        It's an important report. And it's a relevant question today because
    of the announcement of Ambassador Negroponte. He will take and I will
    take the findings of the Robb-Silberman Commission very seriously. And I
    look forward to their conclusions and look forward to working with the
    leaders and the Commission members to not only deal with the conclusions
    but to address whatever conclusions they have in concrete action. And I
    appreciate the work.
        But in terms--no, and then I did not consult with either person and/
    or members as to whether or not--the nature of the pick. I did it
    independently from the Commission.
        Yes, sir. Mark [Mark Silva, Chicago Tribune].

     Iran and North Korea

        Q. Thank you, Mr. President. If, as you say, the development of
    nuclear weapons is unacceptable and if the administration's concern for
    weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which proved out to be unfounded,
    drove an invasion to seek regime change,

    [[Page 250]]

    how concerned should Americans and, for that matter, the world be that
    the true identification of weapons in Iran or North Korea might not lead
    to the same sort of attack?
        The President. Well, first, Iran is different from Iraq--very
    different. The international community was convinced that Saddam
    Hussein had weapons of mass destruction--not
    just the United States but the international community--and had passed
    some 16 resolutions. In other words, diplomacy had--they tried diplomacy
    over and over and over and over again. John was at the United Nations
    during this period. And finally, the world, in 1441--U.N. Resolution
    1441--said, ``Disclose, disarm, or face serious consequences.'' This was
    not a declaration by the United States of America; it was a declaration
    by the United Nations Security Council--and a 15-to-nothing vote, as I
    recall. And we took that resolution very seriously.
        As you know, the Iranian issue hasn't even gone up to the Security
    Council yet. And so there's more diplomacy, in my judgment, to be done.
    And we'll work very closely with our European friends and other nations.
    As I mentioned before, we're an active member of the IAEA board, which
    will give us an opportunity to continue to say to the Iranians, ``You've
    got to be transparent with your program and adhere to protocols that you
    have signed.''
        Remember, this all started when they--we found them enriching
    uranium in an undeclared fashion. And it happened because somebody told
    on them. There was an Iranian group that brought forth the information,
    and it was clear that they were enriching. And yet they hadn't told
    anybody, which leads you to wonder why they hadn't told anybody. And so
    you can understand our suspicions.
        And we'll work with nations. And in terms of Korea--North Korea,
    again, it's not Iraq. It's a different situation. But I'm--I remember
    being with Jiang Zemin in Crawford, and as a
    result of that meeting, we issued a joint declaration that said that the
    Korean Peninsula should be nuclear-weapons-free. Since then I've--that
    policy has been confirmed by President Hu Jintao.
    And the other day the leader of North Korea declared they had a nuclear
    weapon, which obviously means that if he is--if he's correct, that the
    peninsula is not nuclear-weapons-free. So now is the time for us to work
    with friends and allies who have agreed to be a part of the process to
    determine what we're jointly going to do about it. And that's where we
    are in the process right now.
        Thank you all very much for your attention and questions. Appreciate
    it.

    Note: The President spoke at 10 a.m. in Room 450 of the Dwight D.
    Eisenhower Executive Office Building. In his remarks, he referred to
    former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri of Lebanon, who was assassinated on
    February 14 in Beirut; former President Saddam Hussein of Iraq; Prime
    Minister Tony Blair of the United Kingdom; Crown Prince Abdullah of
    Saudi Arabia; former President Jiang Zemin and President Hu Jintao of
    China; and Chairman Kim Chong-il of North Korea. The Office of the Press
    Secretary also released a Spanish language transcript of these remarks.

    [[Page 251]]