[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 39, Number 10 (Monday, March 10, 2003)]
[Pages 295-305]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
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 Sheik Mohammed 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

[[Page 296]]

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 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

[[Page 297]]

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].

Diplomacy/U.N. Effectiveness on Iraq

    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 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].

Timing of Diplomacy/North Korea

    Q. Are we days away?
    The President. Well, we're days away from resolving this issue at 
the Security Council.
    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 that the development of a nuclear arsenal is not in his 
nation's interest and that should he want help in easing the suffering 
of the North Korean people, the best way to achieve that help is to not 
proceed forward.
    We've tried bilateral negotiations with North Korea. My predecessor, 
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.

[[Page 298]]

    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, when he came to Crawford, Texas, made it very clear to me, 
and publicly as well, that a nuclear weapons-free peninsula was in 
China's interest. And so we're working with China and the other nations 
I mentioned to bring a multilateral pressure and to convince Kim Chong-
il that the development of a nuclear arsenal is not in his interests.
    Dick [Richard Keil, Bloomberg News].

More Time for Iragi Regime/Cooperation in War on Terror

    Q. Mr. President, you have, and your top advisers, notably Secretary 
of State Powell, have repeatedly said that we have shared with our 
allies all the current, up-to-date intelligence information that proves 
the imminence of the threat we face from Saddam Hussein and that they 
have been sharing their intelligence with us as well. If all these 
nations, all of them our normal allies, have access to the same 
intelligence information, why is it that they are reluctant to think 
that the threat is so real, so imminent that we need to move to the 
brink of war now?
    And in relation to that, today, the British Foreign Minister, Jack 
Straw, suggested at the U.N. that it might be time to look at amending 
the resolution, perhaps with an eye towards a timetable like that 
proposed by the Canadians some 2 weeks ago, that would set a firm 
deadline to give Saddam Hussein a little bit of time to come clean. And 
also, obviously, that would give you a little bit of a chance to build 
more support within the members of the Security Council. Is that 
something that the governments should be pursuing at the U.N. right now?
    The President. We, of course, are consulting with our allies at the 
United Nations. But I meant what I said, this is the last phase of 
diplomacy. A little bit more time? Saddam Hussein 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].

[[Page 299]]

Anti-War Demonstrations/Decision on Iraq

    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 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]----

Reasons for Action Against Iraq

    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 300]]

    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 anti-war 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 Shia 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 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

[[Page 301]]

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 Shia 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, who was in charge of the poison 
network. He's a man who was wounded in Afghanistan, received aid in 
Baghdad, ordered the killing of a U.S. citizen, USAID employee, was 
harbored in Iraq. There is a poison plant in northeast Iraq. To assume 
that Saddam Hussein 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].

Vote on New U.N. Security Council Resolution

    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

[[Page 302]]

show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes 
to Saddam.
    Mark Knoller [CBS Radio].

Allied Action Following U.N. Vote

    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.
    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].

[[Page 303]]

Aftermath and Justification of Action

    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].

Efforts To Protect Innocent Lives

    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 placed--that Saddam will disarm and/or 
leave the country.
    Ed [Ed Chen, Los Angeles Times].

Costs and Benefits of Action Against Iraq

    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 is a significant cost to our society: First 
of all, there is 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 cost 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

[[Page 304]]

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 in South Korea, spent time in 
China. We're working the issue hard, and I'm optimistic that we'll come 
up with a diplomatic solution. I certainly hope so.
    * White House correction.
    Bob [Bob Deans, Cox Newspapers].

Mission in Action Against Iraq

    Q. Thank you, sir. Mr. President, millions of Americans can recall a 
time when leaders from both parties set this country on a mission of 
regime change in Vietnam. Fifty thousand Americans died. The regime is 
still there in Hanoi, and it hasn't harmed or threatened a single 
American in the 30 years since the war ended. What can you say tonight, 
sir, to the sons and the daughters of the Americans who served in 
Vietnam to assure them that you will not lead this country down a 
similar path in Iraq?
    The President. That's a great question. Our mission is clear in 
Iraq. Should we have to go in, our mission is very clear: disarmament. 
In order to disarm, it will mean regime change. I'm confident we'll be 
able to achieve that objective in a way that minimizes the loss of life. 
No doubt there's risks in any military operation; I know that. But it's 
very clear what we intend to do. And our mission won't change. Our 
mission is precisely what I just stated. We have got a plan that will 
achieve that mission, should we need to send forces in.
    Last question. Let's see who needs one. Jeanne [Jeanne Cummings, 
Wall Street Journal].

British Proposal of a Deadline for Iraq

    Q. Thank you, Mr. President. In the coming days, the American people 
are going to hear a lot of debate about this British proposal of a 
possible deadline being added to the resolution, or not. And I know you 
don't want to tip your hand--this is a great diplomatic moment--but from 
the administration's perspective and your own perspective, can you share 
for the American public what you view as the pros and cons associated 
with that proposal?
    The President. You're right, I'm not going to tip my hand. 
[Laughter]
    Q. But can you help us sort out the----
    The President. Thank you for--thank you. Anything that's debated 
must have resolution to this issue. It makes no sense to allow this 
issue to continue on and on in the hopes

[[Page 305]]

that Saddam Hussein 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 Sheik 
Mohammed, senior Al Qaida leader responsible for planning the September 
11 attack, who was captured in Pakistan on March 1; 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.