Bush’s Statement: ‘We Are Not Alone. . . . It Is Iraq Against the World’

WASHINGTON —  Here is the text of President Bush’s statement Friday on the Persian Gulf crisis, followed by highlights from a question-and-answer session with reporters:

I have a statement, an opening statement, that is a little longer than normal, and I’d ask your indulgence. And then I will be glad to respond to questions.

We’re in the gulf because the world must not and cannot reward aggression. And we’re there because our vital interests are at stake. And we’re in the gulf because of the brutality of Saddam Hussein.

We’re dealing with a dangerous dictator all too willing to use force, who has weapons of mass destruction and is seeking new ones, and who desires to control one of the world’s key resources--all at a time in history when the rules of the post-Cold War world are being written.

Our objectives remain what they were since the outset. We seek Iraq’s immediate and unconditional withdrawal from Kuwait. We seek the restoration of Kuwait’s legitimate government. We seek the release of all hostages and the free functioning of all embassies. And we seek the stability and security of this critical region of the world.

We are not alone in these goals and objectives. The United Nations, invigorated with a new sense of purpose, is in full agreement. The United Nations Security Council has endorsed 12 resolutions to condemn Iraq’s unprovoked invasion and occupation of Kuwait, implement tough economic sanctions to stop all trade in and out of Iraq, and authorize the use of force to compel Saddam to comply.

Saddam Hussein has tried every way he knows how to make this a fight between Iraq and the United States, and clearly, he has failed. Forces of 26 other nations are standing shoulder to shoulder with our troops in the gulf. The fact is that it is not the United States against Iraq, it is Iraq against the world, and there’s never been a clearer demonstration of a world united against appeasement and aggression.

Yesterday’s United Nations Security Council resolution was historic. Once again, the Security Council has enhanced the legitimate peacekeeping function of the United Nations. Until yesterday, Saddam may not have understood what he’s up against in terms of world opinion, and I am hopeful that now he will realize that he must leave Kuwait immediately.

I’m continually asked how effective are the U.N. sanctions--those put into effect on Aug. 6--and I don’t know the answer to that question. Clearly, the sanctions are having some effect, but I can’t tell you that the sanctions alone will get the job done.

And thus I welcome yesterday’s United Nations action. The fledgling democracies in Eastern Europe are being severely damaged by the economic effects of Saddam’s actions. The developing countries of Africa and in our hemisphere are being victimized by this dictator’s rape of his neighbor, Kuwait. Those who feel that there is no down side to waiting months and months must consider the devastating damage being done every day to the fragile economies of those countries that can afford it the least.

And, as (Federal Reserve) Chairman Alan Greenspan testified just the other day, the increase in oil prices resulting directly from Saddam’s invasion is hurting our country too. And our economy, as I said the other day, is at best in a serious slowdown. And if uncertainty remains in the energy markets, the slowdown will get worse.

I’ve spelled out once again our reasons for sending troops to the gulf. Let me tell you the things that concern me most.

First, I put the immorality of the invasion of Kuwait itself. No nation should rape, pillage and brutalize its neighbor. No nation should be able to wipe a member state of the United Nations and the Arab League off the face of the Earth. And I’m deeply concerned about all the hostages, innocent people held against their will in direct contravention of international law.

And then there’s this cynical and brutal policy, forcing people to beg for their release, parceling out human lives to families and traveling emissaries like so much chattel.

I’m deeply concerned about our own embassy in Kuwait. The flag is still flying there; a handful of beleaguered Americans remain inside the embassy, unable to come and go. This treatment of our embassy violates every civilized principle of diplomacy. And it demeans our people, it demeans our country. And I am determined that this embassy, as called for under Security Council Resolution 674, be fully replenished and our people free to come home.

What kind of precedent will these actions set for the future if Saddam’s violation of international law goes unchallenged? I’m also deeply concerned about the future of Kuwait itself.

The tales of rape and assassination, of coldblooded murder and rampant looting, are almost beyond belief. The whole civilized world must unite and say this kind of treatment of people must end and those who violated the Kuwaiti people must be brought to justice.

I’m deeply concerned about Saddam’s efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. Imagine his ability to blackmail his neighbors, should he possess a nuclear device. We’ve seen him use chemical weapons on his own people. We’ve seen him take his own country, one that should be wealthy and prosperous, and turn it into a poor country, all because of insatiable appetite for military equipment and conquest.

I’ve been asked why I ordered more troops to the gulf. I remain hopeful that we can achieve a peaceful solution to this crisis. But if force is required, we, and the other 26 countries who have troops in the area, will have enough power to get the job done.

In our country, I know that there are fears about another Vietnam. Let me assure you, should military action be required, this will not be another Vietnam. This will not be a protracted, drawn-out war. The forces arrayed are different; the opposition is different; the resupply of Saddam’s military would be very different; the countries united against him in the United Nations are different; the topography of Kuwait is different, and the motivation of our all-volunteer force is superb.

I want peace. I want peace, not war. But if there must be war, we will not permit our troops to have their hands tied behind their backs, and I pledge to you there will not be any murky ending. If one American soldier has to go into battle, that soldier will have enough force behind him to win and then get out as soon as possible, as soon as the U.N. objectives have been achieved. I will never, ever agree to a halfway effort.

Let me repeat. We have no argument with the people of Iraq. Indeed, we have only friendship for the people there. And, further, I repeat that we have no desire to keep one single American soldier in the gulf a single day longer than is necessary to achieve the objectives set out above.

No one wants to see a peaceful solution to this crisis more than I do. And at the same time, no one is more determined than I am to see Saddam’s aggression reversed.

And lastly, people now caution patience. The United States and the entire world have been patient. I will continue to be patient, but yesterday’s U.N. resolution, the 13th by the Security Council, properly says to Saddam Hussein: “Time is running out. You must leave Kuwait, and we’ve given you time to do just exactly that.”

Many people have talked directly to Saddam Hussein and to his foreign minister, Tarik Aziz. All have been frustrated by Iraq’s ironclad insistence that it will not leave Kuwait.

However, to go the extra mile for peace, I will issue an invitation to Foreign Minister Tarik Aziz to come to Washington at a mutually convenient time during the latter part of the week of Dec. 10 to meet with me. And I’ll invite ambassadors of several of our coalition partners in the gulf to join me at that meeting.

In addition, I am asking Secretary (of State) Jim Baker to go to Baghdad to see Saddam Hussein, and I will suggest to Iraq’s president that he receive the secretary of state at a mutually convenient time between Dec. 15 and Jan. 15 of next year.

Within the mandate--within the mandate of the United Nations resolutions--I will be prepared, and so will Secretary Baker, to discuss all aspects of the gulf crisis. However, to be very clear about these efforts to exhaust all means for achieving a political and diplomatic solution, I am not suggesting discussions that will result in anything less than Iraq’s complete withdrawal from Kuwait, restoration of Kuwait’s legitimate government and freedom for all hostages.

Thank you very much, and I will be glad to respond to a few questions.

Question: Mr. President, now that you have a clear-cut U.N. resolution on use of force, doesn’t that force you into a position, if these talks between the secretary of state break down . . . , of having to use force on Jan. 15 if Saddam Hussein hasn’t left? And if not, won’t we be seen as the one that blinked first?

Answer: No, the date was not a date at which point force had to be used. . . .

Q: Are you going to ask Congress for approval of this--this resolution? Would you like to see Congress pass the same kind of resolution as the U.N.?

A: I’d love to see Congress pass a resolution enthusiastically endorsing what the United Nations has done, yes. But we’re in consultation on that, and I have no plans to call a special session. I’m not opposed to it. But we are involved in consultations right now. . . .

Q: Mr. President, you say you’re confident that American troops will prevail against Saddam if called upon.

A: Oh, absolutely.

Q: But at what price? How many Americans?

A: Well, I can’t give you that--I can’t give you that, any figures, of course. But I can say that the movement of this additional force safeguards the lives of every American and every one of our allies in the gulf. . . .

Q: Mr. President, in recent days, senior members of the Administration have emphatically rejected the idea of any special emissaries or diplomatic envoys to or from Iraq to discuss this on your part. What changed your mind, sir?

A: The United Nations resolution, I think, has a good chance of making Saddam Hussein understand what it is he’s up against. I have not felt that he got the message. I hope this will do it. But I am convinced that these two direct meetings that I’ve discussed here will guarantee to all the people of the world, certainly to the American people, that Saddam Hussein not misunderstand, not misinterpret. . . .

. . . And so, it’s just going the extra step. . . . It’s a decision that I personally made.

Q: You indicate that this date is not actually a deadline for the use of force, merely a date after which force would be permissible. How do you avoid the impression, should that date come and go without military action, that the U.S.-led coalition has, in fact, blinked?

A: Well, we’ve got to look at events at the time. But I don’t think there will ever be a perception that the United States is going to blink in this situation. . . .

Q: Mr. President, you’ve just spoken about the weapons of mass destruction and nuclear weapons, and also that one of your goals is to try to reach stability in the region. Can you reach stability in the region with Saddam Hussein in power?

A: I think most countries--members of the United Nations--feel that there have to be some safeguards put into effect in terms of guaranteeing the security and stability of the gulf. And so, I would think that the status quo ante will not be enough, and I think there will be--there are sanctions in place now, and I think it would be very proper to discuss what those safeguards should be after there has been a total compliance with the United Nations resolutions. . . .

Q: Now this morning you said this would not be a long, protracted Vietnam-type war. However, Gen. (William E.) Odom--former head of the NSA (National Security Agency), testified just this morning before the Senate Armed Services that in fact we’d have to be there for decades. . . . Do you see our commitment there to extend that far?

A: No, I don’t.

Q: Mr. President, your announcement about Tarik Aziz and Secretary Baker--have you had any signals, any indications from the Iraqis, that they would welcome this, that they are indeed looking for this kind of communication?

A: No. The only thing I’ve heard is that they want to talk. There’s an opportunity, but no, I have not had any--even diplomatic signals or signals of other kinds.

Q: Thank you, Mr. President. The Soviet Union did indeed vote on our side as far as the resolution, allowing force if it’s necessary. Are we going to offer the Soviet Union any compromise on export credits? . . .

A: The matters are totally separate and unrelated, but I am concerned about this, and I’ve talked about--with Mr. Gorbachev--of a willingness to entertain proposals for food, particularly if the reports prove to be accurate in terms of the severe winter and the hardship that this will inflict on the Soviet people.

Q: Mr. President, Arab experts suggest that Saddam Hussein has hinted in his remarks that he would like to have some sort of deal, but he wouldn’t necessarily hold to his demands. Now you’re saying you’re willing to meet with him. Are you willing to offer him anything in these meetings in return for a pullout, such as a conference on the Middle East?

A: No. Those two items are totally separate. We’ve made that very, very clear. And what I have said is that . . . these discussions will be done within the U.N. mandate. I’m not all that hopeful that we’ll get big results out of all of this.

Q: Mr. President, you mentioned the damage that high oil prices are doing to the world economy. Should Saudi Arabia and other producers share more of their windfall?

A: I think they’re doing a pretty good job in underwriting the costs to various countries and helping third-party countries that have been hurt by all of this. But I think everybody should go the extra mile to help others.

Q: Mr. President, if you ultimately feel that you have to ask Americans to support the use of force, what that, of course, means is that you have to ask some parents to give up the lives of their children.

A: I know it.

Q: And what I was wondering was: We all know how important your children are to you. Do you feel that this issue is important enough to you that you could conceive of giving up one of their lives for it?

A: You know, Maureen, you’ve put your finger on a very difficult question. People say to me, “How many lives, how many lives can you expend?” Each one is precious. And I don’t want to reminisce, but I’ve been there. I know what it’s like to have fallen comrades and see young kids die in battle. . . .

And it’s only the President that should be asked to make the decision: Is it worth it? How many lives is it worth? Is it worth it to commit one life, put one life in harm’s way to achieve these objectives? And that’s why I want to get a peaceful resolution to this question.

You ought to read my mail. It is so heart moving. Supportive, and yet: “Please bring my kid home. Please bring my husband home.” And it’s a tough question, but the President has to make the right decision, and these are worldwide principles of moral importance.

And I will do my level best to bring those kids home without one single shot fired in anger. . . .

And that’s why--because of that question that weighs on my mind--I added that language this morning about how this will not be a Vietnam. They can criticize me for moving force, and if we’ve got one kid that’s apt to be in harm’s way, I want him backed up to the hilt by American firepower and others as well.

And that’s why I’m working as hard as I am, not only to hold this coalition together, but to strengthen it.

And the best way to safeguard the lives of Americans is for Saddam Hussein to do that which he should have done long ago. And if force has to be used, the best way to safeguard lives is to see that you’ve got the best and you’re willing to use it. And that’s my posture. . . .