SERGEANT
AT ARMS(VOICEOVER):Mr. Speaker, The President of the United States. [APPLAUSE]
PRESIDENT
GEORGE W. BUSH:Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward
America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax
and nerve gas and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has
already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens, leaving the
bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children.
States
like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to
threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these
regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They can provide these arms to
terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our
allies or attempt to blackmail the United States.
In
any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic. We’ll be
deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events while
dangers gather. I will notstand
by as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not
permit the world’s most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world’s most
destructive weapons. [APPLAUSE]
REPORTER:But is military action imminent? That’s the real thing. He was
suggesting it would be military action, as opposed to something else.
SECRETARY
OF DEFENSE DONALD RUMSFELD:He said exactly what he said. He said it well. He
didn’t suggest anything. If there was anything about last night’s speech, it
was that it had near-perfect clarity.
REPORTER:But a senior administration official after the speech said he didn’t
necessarily mean to say “military action,” but it could be other action.
RUMSFELD:What do you mean, “necessarily mean to say”? He didn’t say. He not
only didn’t necessarily say, he did not say. He said exactly what he said.
REPORTER:He seemed to suggest, and therefore, perhaps it isn’t that clear. You
see, if it’s perfect clarity, it isn’t clear, is it?
JIM
LEHRER:You made a speech last week, in which you said, “The
best, in some cases, the only defense is a good offense.” Now that’s a major
change of U.S. defense policy, is it not? Have we ever taken a preemptory
strike against another country without them first attacking us?
RUMSFELD:If you think about it, we have no choice. A terrorist can attack at
any time, at any place, using a range of techniques. It is physically
impossible to defend, at every time, in every location, against every
conceivable technique of terrorism. Therefore, if your goal is to stop it, you
cannot stop it by defense. You can only stop it by taking the battles to the
terrorists where they are, and going after them.
PRESIDENT
BUSH:Good morning. Thank you all for coming. We just had
a breakfast with Vice President Cheney who, as you all know, has returned from
a lengthy and successful trip to the Middle East.
INTERVIEWER:Mr. Vice President, on Iraq, you said we have a lot of allies out
there. But I haven’t noticed any of the Arab states supporting strong action
against Iraq. They seem to want diplomacy to be given a chance. What kind of
response did you get?
VICE
PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY:Well I think just the way I would characterize it,
is that they are uniformly concerned about the situation in Iraq, in particular
about Saddam Hussein’s failure to live up to the U.N. Security Council
resolutions that said he’d get rid of all of his weapons of mass destruction.
PRESIDENT
BUSH:I think one other point that the Vice President
made, which is a good point, is that this is an Administration that, when we
say we’re going to do something, we mean it, that we are resolved to fight the
war on terror. This isn’t a short-term strategy for us, that we understand
history has called us in action. And we’re not going to miss this opportunity
to make the world more peaceful and more free.
JIM
LEHRER:Vice President Cheney came back from his trip. He
said that many Arab leaders could share the concern about weapons of mass
destruction, but did not share the U.S. desire to get rid of Saddam Hussein,
said it would cause instability in the region. How do you read that?
DEPUTY
SECRETAARY OF DEFENSE PAUL WOLFOWITZ:I would not expect Saddam’s
neighbors to be the first people to raise their hands to say, “You’ve got to
take tough action against them.” I think they look to the United States to
lead, and I think the President is leading very clearly.
TIM
RUSSERT:The Arab League announced today that at their
meeting on Wednesday, they will say the United States should not preemptively attack Iraq, to take out any weapons
of mass destruction. Reports from your trip around the Middle East: that Arab
country after Arab country said to you, “Don’t do that, Mr. Vice President. Don’t
you dare attack Iraq.”
VICE
PRESIDENT CHENEY:That’s not the way that I would describe, first of
all, their opinions. I had private confidential meetings at nearly every stop.
And those meetings, obviously, were andneed to remain confidential. They’re all very concerned about Iraq. They
live in the neighborhood. They know Saddam Hussein better than we do. Many of
them know that right after us, they’re high on his list of governments he’d
like to do in.
BOB
SCHIEFFER:Did you leave that region feeling that Arab leaders
would basically oppose an American action against Saddam Hussein?
VICE
PRESIDENT CHENEY:No, not at all. What I came away with, Bob, is the
sense that they share our concern.
BOB
SCHIEFFER:I ask that because the public reaction was, if one
just read what those leaders said in public, it was “We’re unified against any
kind of action against Saddam Hussein. Is that a correct interpretation of the
public reactions?
VICE
PRESIDENT CHENEY:It was mixed, I think, in terms of their public
reactions.
WOLF
BLITZER:On your most recent trip to the region, most of the
moderate Arab leaders with whom you met were not very enthusiastic about a U.S.
strike against Iraq. King Abdullah of Jordan said, “To attack Baghdad now would
be a disaster.” Crown Prince Abdullah said, “I do not believe it is in the
United States’ interest, or the interest of the region or the world’s interest,
to do so.”
VICE
PRESIDENT CHENEY:What I would say is that our friends in the region
are equally concerned about the problems we see in Iraq, specifically the
development of weapons of mass destruction by Saddam Hussein.
This
is a man of great evil, as the President has said. And he is actively pursuing
nuclear weapons at this time. And we think that’s cause for concern for us and
for everybody in the region. And I found, during the course of my travels, that
it is, indeed, a problem of great concern.
ROBERT
NOVAK:General Myers, Kenneth Adelman has written that if
the United States were to go into Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein, militarily, it
would be a “cakewalk.” Is that the view here at the Pentagon?
GENERAL
RICHARD MYERS:When we put our young sons and daughters of this
country in harm’s way, I don’t think you can ever call that a “cakewalk.” But
what we know is that the situation since Desert Storm and today has changed
dramatically, both for U.S. and coalition forces, and for Iraqi forces. The
Iraqi armed forces is about 40%, in terms of numbers, of what it was in the
Gulf War.
WOLFOWITZ:In hindsight, one might
have wished we might have done more to anticipate a September 11th and prevent it. Although if we’d gone to war against Afghanistan before
September 11th, people would have said we had no justification. We
can’t wait for a nuclear, chemical or biological attack to go and find the
people who did it.
ASHLEIGH
BANFIELD:Is it fair to say Saddam Hussein’s days are
numbered?
BLITZER:There doesn’t seem to be a whole lot of support among the allies in
Europe for another U.S. military strike at Iraq, with the aim of regime change
or getting rid of Saddam Hussein. Can you go it alone?
RUMSFELD:I’m not going to get into that. You can be sure the United States isn’t
going to do anything that it’s not capable of doing. And if we do something, we’ll
be capable of doing it. But it’s not for me to make those judgments.
BLITZER:You saw the story in today’s USA Today on the front page, suggesting that your military
chiefs are not enthusiastic about going after Iraq right now, that the military
might be stretched too thin already in Afghanistan.
RUMSFELD:I
meet with those folks all the time. I have no reason to give credence to that.
PRESIDENT
BUSH:For much of the last century, America’s defense
relied on the Cold War doctrines of deterrence and containment. In some cases,
those strategies still apply. But new threats also require new thinking.
Containment is not possible when unbalanced dictators with weapons of mass
destruction can deliver those weapons on missiles or secretly provide them to
terrorists’ allies.
We
must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans, and confront the worst
threats before they emerge. [APPLAUSE]
In
the world we have entered, the only path to safety is the path of action. And
this nation will act.
REPORTER:Mr.
Secretary, what do you make of the statement made by the Iraqi government
yesterday that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction, and is not developing
any?
REPORTER:We
continue to see reports on the state of planning to get rid of Saddam Hussein
in Iraq. I know it’s unlikely that you’ll share any details with us, though we’d
be delighted to hear them, sir.
PRESIDENT
BUSH:Somebody else thinks they are.
[LAUGHTER]
REPORTER:But I
wonder, Mr. President, regardless of when or how, is it your firm intention to
get rid of Saddam Hussein in Iraq?
PRESIDENT
BUSH:Yes.
REPORTER:And
how hard do you think it will be?
PRESIDENT
BUSH:It’s the stated policy of this government to have
regime change, and it hasn’t changed. And we’ll use all tools at our disposal
to do so.
PRESS
SECRETARY ARI FLEISCHER:When Saddam Hussein violates his word
that he gave when the Persian Gulf War ended, by saying he would allow for
unfettered inspections by international inspectors and does not keep his word,
that’s a real cause of concern for the United States and for the United
Nations.
REPORTER:It’s
a cause of concern, but is it a cause to go to war and kill a lot of people?
FLEISCHER:I’m
not going to speculate about what the future may or may not hold.
REPORTER:Is
there evidence? What kind of evidence is there that the government of Iraq is,
in any way, hosting, supporting, sponsoring Al Qaeda or any other terrorists
inside Iraq?
RUMSFELD:Well,
I suppose at some moment, it may make sense to discuss that publicly. And it
doesn’t today. But what I have said is a fact, that there are Al Qaeda in a
number of locations in Iraq. And the suggestion that those people who are so
attentive in denying human rights to their population aren’t aware of where
these folks are or what they’re doing, is ludicrous.
REPORTER:One
thing that has to factor in is the growing number of U.S. allies-- Russia,
Germany, Bahrain, now Canada, who say that if you go to war with Saddam, you’re
going to go alone. Does the American military have the capability to prosecute
this war alone?
PRESIDENT
BUSH:Are you asking about Iraq? The subject didn’t come up in
this meeting. But having said that, we take all threats seriously. And we will
continue to consult with our friends and allies. I know there’s this, kind of,
intense speculation that seems to be going on. I don’t know how you would
describe it, it’s kind of a churning.
RUMSFELD:Frenzy--
PRESIDENT
BUSH:Frenzy is how the Secretary would describe it. But
the subject didn’t come up. The American people know my position and that we
will look at all options, and we will consider all technologies available to
us, and diplomacy, and intelligence. But one thing is for certain, is that this
administration agrees that Saddam Hussein is a threat.
VICE
PRESIDENT CHENEY:9/11 and its aftermath awakened this
nation to danger, to the true ambitions of the global terror network, and to
the reality that weapons of mass destruction are being sought by determined
enemies who would not hesitate to use them against us. Under the Bush doctrine,
a regime that harbors or supports terrorists will be regarded as hostile to the
United States.
As
President Bush has said, time is not on our side. Saddam has perfected the game
of cheat and retreat, and is very skilled in the art of denial and deception. A
return of inspectors would provide no assurance whatsoever of his compliance
with the U.N. resolutions.
On
the contrary, there is a great danger that it would provide false comfort that
Saddam was somehow back in his box.
Armed
with an arsenal of these weapons of terror and seated atop 10% of the world’s
oil reserves,. Saddam Hussein could then be expected to seek domination of the
entire Middle East and subject the United States or any other nation to nuclear
blackmail.
Simply
stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass
destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our
friends, against our allies, and against us.
The
Middle East expert, Professor Fouad Adjani, predicts that after liberation, the
streets in Basra and Baghdad are sure to erupt in joy, in the same way throngs
in Kabul greeted the Americans.
REPORTER:In
Vice President Cheney’s speech a week ago today, he said inspection was
actually dangerous, because it would create a false sense of comfort. So which
is it? Do we believe that inspections should go forward, even though they are
dangerous? Or are we supposed to believe that they are dangerous; and
therefore, they shouldn’t go forward?
FLEISCHER:Well,
the history of the inspections, when they took place, did lead to a lot of
question marks. That’s why I said that inspections in and of themselves,
inspectors in and of themselves, are not a guarantee that Saddam Hussein is not
developing weapons of mass destruction.
REPORTER:Does
the President think inspectors should go into Iraq, or not?
FLEISCHER:The
President does.
REPORTER:If
Saddam does allow those inspectors in, does he avoid regime change?
FLEISCHER:The
policy of the United States is regime change, with or without inspectors.
REPORTER:Tariq
Aziz said this morning -- he characterized you and several other people in the
Bush administration as warmongers, as using the issue of inspections as a
pretext to try to topple the regime. And he said he is willing to sit down and talk about all of the
issues involving Iraq.
RUMSFELD:Well
I’ve met with Tariq Aziz a number of times, both in Baghdad and in Washington
and elsewhere. And clearly, he does the bidding of his master, Saddam Hussein.
They have, over a good many years, demonstrated wonderful talent and skill at
manipulating the media, and international organizations in other countries.
When it’s the right moment to lean forward, they lean forward. When it’s the
right moment to lean back, they lean back. And it’s a dance, it’s a dance they
engage in.
TONY
BLAIR:The point that I would emphasize to you is that the threat
from Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction-- chemical, biological,
potentially nuclear weapons capability-- that threat is real. We only need to
look at the report from the International Atomic Energy Agency this morning,
showing what has been going on at the former nuclear weapons sites to realize
that. And the policy of inaction is not a policy we can responsibly subscribe
to do.
GEORGE
BUSH:We just heard the Prime Minister talk about the new report.
I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and finally
denied access, a report came out of the Atomic-- the IAEA-- that they were six
months away from developing a weapon. I don’t know what more evidence we need.
BLITZER:Is
Iraq’s regime of President Saddam Hussein a clear and present danger to the
United States?
CONDOLEEZZA
RICE:There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein’s regime is a danger
to the United States and to its allies, to our interests. It is also a danger
that is gathering momentum. And it simply makes no sense to wait any longer to
do something about the threat that is posed here. As the President has said,
the one option that we do not have is to do nothing.
RUMSFELD:The
President has, I think, put it exactly right. He has said that the one choice
we don’t have is to do nothing.
COLIN
POWELL:As the President has said, and as Prime Minister Blair said
yesterday, doing nothing is no longer an option.
VICE
PRESIDENT CHENEY:He has aggressively sought to acquire
chemical, biological and nuclear weapons over the years.
RICE:This
is a man who has attacked his neighbors twice, who represses his own people.
VICE
PRESIDENT CHENEY:He used chemical weapons, both against
the Kurds, and against the Iranians during the 1980s.
RUMSFELD:--
Who is continuing to develop weapons of mass destruction, has not disarmed--
VICE
PRESIDENT CHENEY:He’s launched ballistic missiles
against four of his neighbors over the years.
RICE:--
Who’s tried to assassinate a former American President, who pays $25,000
dollars to Hamas bombers, by the way, some of whom blew up a Hebrew university
and with it, five Americans.
VICE
PRESIDENT CHENEY:Before the Gulf War, back in 1990, we
had reason to believe then that he had establish a program to try to produce a
nuclear weapon.
RUMSFELD:We
went in and were able to find out that they were within six months to a year of
having a nuclear weapon.
RICE:History
shows that you are always surprised about how quickly someone acquires a
terrible weapon. We were surprised that the Soviet program was as far along as
it was. We thought it would be 1955, it was 1949.
VICE
PRESIDENT CHENEY:We have to assume there’s more there
than we know. What we know is just bits and pieces we gather through the
Intelligence system. But nobody ever mails you the entire plan.
GENERAL
RICHARD MYERS:Our intelligence is always imperfect,
and we usually find out that what we don’t know is the most troublesome.
VICE
PRESIDENT CHENEY:He now is trying, through his illicit
procurement network, to acquire the equipment he needs to be able to enrich
uranium to make the bombs--
TIM
RUSSERT (OFF SCREEN):-- Aluminum tubes--
VICE
PRESIDENT CHENEY:-- Specifically aluminum tubes. There
was a story in The New York Times this morning.
POWELL:--
Reporting just this morning that he is still trying to acquire, for example,
some of the specialized aluminum tubing one needs to develop centrifuges that
would give you an enrichment capability.
BLITZER:Scott
Ridder, a former United Nations weapons inspector, today addressed the Iraqi
National Assembly and basically made the point that there are no problems, as
far as Iraq is concerned. Listen specifically to what he said.
SCOTT
RITTER (VIDEO):The rhetoric of fear that is disseminated by my
government and others has not, to date, been backed up by hard facts that
substantiate any allegations that Iraq is, today, in possession of weapons of
mass destruction or has links to terror groups responsible for attacking the
United States.
POWELL:We
have facts, not speculation. Scott is, certainly, entitled to his opinion. But
I’m afraid that I would not place the security of my nation and the security of
our friends in the region on that kind of an assertion by somebody who is not
in the Intelligence chain any longer.
BLITZER:Is
there any hard evidence directly linking the Iraqi government to Al Qaeda and
the 9/11 terror attacks against the United States?
RICE:There
is certainly evidence that Al Qaeda people have been in Iraq.
VICE
PRESIDENT CHENEY:We’ve seen, in connection with the
hijackers, of course, Mohammed Atta, who was the lead hijacker,did apparently travel to Prague on a
number of occasions. And on at least one occasion, we have reporting that
places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official a few months
before the attack on the World Trade left.
RICE:It’s
just more of a picture that is emerging, that there may well have been contacts
between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s regime. There are others, and we will be
laying out the case.
VICE
PRESIDENT CHENEY:Again, I want to separate out 9/11 from
the other relationships between Iraq and the Al Qaeda organization. But there
is a pattern of relationships, going back many years.
GENERAL
MYERS:One of the things we learned from September 11th was that the intent of the terrorists, and those who would supply them with
weapons of mass destruction, is very, very clear. They’re to wipe out our way
of life.
RICE: The problem here is that there will always be some
uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don’t want
the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.
PRESIDENT
BUSH:Our generation has now heard history’s call, and we will
answer it. America has entered a great struggle that tests our strength, and
even more, our resolve. Our nation is patient and steadfast. We continue to
pursue the terrorists in cities and camps and caves across the earth. We are
joined by a great coalition of nations to rid the world of terror. And we will
not allow any terrorist or tyrant to threaten civilization with weapons of mass
murder.
PRESIDENT
BUSH:The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority
of the United Nationsand a threat
to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance.
If
the Iraqi regime wishes peace it will immediately and unconditionally
foreswear, disclose and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction.
If
Iraq’s regime defies us again the world must move deliberately, decisively, to
hold Iraq to account. But the purposes of the United States should not be
doubted. The Security Council resolutions will be enforced. The just demands of
peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable.
REPORTER:Mr.
President, are you going to send Congress a proposed resolution today?
PRESIDENT
BUSH:I am.
REPORTER:Are
you asking for a blank check, sir?
PRESIDENT
BUSH:I am sending suggested language for a resolution.
I’ve
asked for Congress’s support to enable the administration to keep the peace.
And we look forward to a good, constructive debate in Congress. I appreciate
the fact that the leadership recognizes we’ve got to move before the elections.
And I look forward to working with them.
AIDE:Okay,
thank you all.
REPORTER:How
important is it that the resolution give you an authorization for use of force?
PRESIDENT
BUSH:That will be part of the resolution, the authorization to
use force. If you want to keep the peace, you’ve got to have the authorization
to use force.
PRESIDENT
BUSH:I didn’t hear it. I didn’t hear it. Let me guess. The United
States is guilty. The world doesn’t understand. We don’t have any weapons of
mass destruction. It’s the same old song and dance that we’ve heard for 11 long
years. And the United Nations Security Council must show backbone, must step
up, and hold this regime to account. Otherwise, the United States and some of
our friends will do so.
REPORTER:Mr.
President, do you believe that Saddam Hussein is a bigger threat to the United
States than Al Qaeda?
PRESIDENT
BUSH:That is a interesting question. I’m trying to think of
something humorous to say. [LAUGHTER]
But
I can’t when I think about Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. They’re both risks,
they’re both dangerous. Now the difference, of course, is that Al Qaeda likes
to hijack governments. Saddam Hussein is a dictator of a government. Al Qaeda
hides. Saddam doesn’t.
But
the danger is, is that they work in concert. The danger is, is that Al Qaeda
becomes an extension of Saddam’s madness and his hatred, and his capacity to
extend weapons of mass destruction around the world. Both of them need to be
dealt with. The war on terror, you can’t distinguish between Al Qaeda and
Saddam when you talk about the war on terror.
MARGARET
WARNER:Secretary Rumsfeld, in Europe today, when asked if there was
evidence tying Iraq to Al Qaeda, said, “Yes.” He did not elaborate. Are you
prepared to elaborate?
RICE:Several of the detainees, in particular, some high-ranking detainees,
have said that Iraq provided some training to Al Qaeda in chemical weapons
development. So yes, there are contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda. We know that
Saddam Hussein has a long history with terrorism, in general. And there are
some Al Qaeda personnel who found refuge in Baghdad.
No
one is trying to make an argument at this point that Saddam Hussein somehow had
operational control of what happened on September 11th. So we don’t
want to push this too far. But this is a story that is unfolding. And it is
getting clearer, and we’re learning more.
REPORTER:If an
inspection team goes in now and finds nothing because, perhaps, Iraq is very
good at hiding it or, perhaps, they have nothing, but you all are of the belief
that they have it, if they find nothing, does it make your job more difficult,
in trying to assemble in your national coalition?
RUMSFELD:Goodness, gracious. That is, kind of, like looking down the road for
every conceivable pothole you can find, and then driving into it. I just don’t--
I don’t get up in the morning and ask myself that. We know they have weapons of
mass destruction. We know they have active programs. There isn’t any debate
about it. So the idea that if you had an appropriate inspection regime, that
they’d come back and say you were wrong, is so far beyond anyone’s imagination,
that it’s not something I think about.
PRESIDENT
BUSH:We’ve just concluded a really good meeting with members of
the United States Congress, to discuss our national security and discuss how
best to keep the peace. We are moving toward a strong resolution. And all of
us, and many others in Congress, are united in our determination to confront an
urgent threat to America.
According
to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or
chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes, after the order were given.
REPORTER:Is
the U.S. in any way exaggerating or misleading the American public, in regard
to the potential threat posed by Iraq?
RUMSFELD:Is
the U.S. government-- You mean the senior members of the administration? Not to
my knowledge. And if I knew of an instance, I would certainly correct it.
PRESIDENT
BUSH:Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to
weapons of mass destruction.
We
agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the
world with horrible poisons, and diseases, and gasses, and atomic weapons.
We’ve
also discovered, through intelligence, that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned
and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disburse chemical or
biological weapons across broad areas. We’re concerned that Iraq is exploring
ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States.
Saddam
Hussein has held numerous meetings with the Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group
he calls his “Nuclear Mujahadim,” his nuclear holy warriors.
If
the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy or steal an amount of highly-enriched
uranium a little larger than a single softball, he could have a nuclear weapon
in less than a year.
Facing
clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun,
that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.
The
dictator of Iraq is a student of Stalin, using murder as a tool of terror and
control-- within his own Cabinet, within his own army, and even within his own
family. On Saddam Hussein’s orders, opponents have been decapitated. Wives and
mothers of political opponents have been systematically raped as a method of
intimidation. And political prisoners have been forced to watch their own
children being tortured.
Failure
to act would embolden other tyrants, allow terrorists access to new weapons and
new resources, and make blackmail a permanent feature of world events.
Later
this week, the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have asked
Congress to authorize the use of America’s military if it proves necessary to
enforce U.N. Security Council demands.
POWELL:I
hope the United States Congress will act promptly on its resolution, because
that will show that America is united behind this effort. And with that Congressional
resolution, then I think our efforts to get a U.N. resolution are strengthened.
And I hope that this will all come about in the not-too-distant future, within
a matter of days, or perhaps a week or two.
PRESIDENT
BUSH:The resolution I’m about to sign symbolizes the united
purpose of our nation, expresses the considered judgment of the Congress and
marks an important event in the life of America. The 107th Congress
is one of the few called by history to authorize military action to defend our
country and the cause of peace.
Congress
has now authorized the use of force. I have not ordered the use of force. I
hope the use of force will not become necessary, yet confronting the threat
posed by Iraq is necessary of whatever means that requires.
POWELL:Any
resolution that comes out of the United Nations, I’m sure, will contain an
indictment against Iraq, which we asked for. It will contain a new tough
inspection regime, and it will make clear that Iraq will face consequences if
they frustrate and violate this new inspection regime.
PRESIDENT
BUSH:You know, I laid out a doctrine. You just got to know it
still stands. It says, “Either you’re with us, either you love freedom, and
with nations which embrace freedom, or you’re with the enemy.” There’s no in between,
and that doctrine still stands. [APPLAUSE]
If
we get any kind of hint, any evidence whatsoever that somebody might be
thinking about doing something to America, we’re moving. We’re disrupting. We’re
denying. We’re doing everything we can to protect the homeland. . [APPLAUSE]
It
doesn’t matter how long it takes. When it comes to the defense of our freedoms,
we will stay the course. . [APPLAUSE]
I
believe, I believe, out of the evil done to America, is going to come some
incredible good. I believe that we can achieve peace if we are strong, and
focused, and diligent. If we stay tough when we need to be tough, stay strong
when we need to be strong, speak clearly about good and evil-- I know that if
we remember our values, remember that freedom is not America’s gift to the
world, freedom is a God-given gift to the world-- if we remember that values. .
[APPLAUSE]
And
that’s why I went to the United Nations. I said to that August body, for the
sake of keeping the peace, we want you to be effective. For the sake of keeping
the world free, we want you to be an effective body. It’s up to you, however.
You can show the world whether you’ve got the backbone necessary to enforce
your edicts, or whether you’re going to turn out to be just like the League of
Nations, your choice to make.
