Rumsfeld Pentagon briefing - taking on the Media on "torture" Live thread
REMARKS BY PRESIDENT BUSH
WHITE HOUSE
October 14, 2002
Excerpts
THE PRESIDENT:
. . .
And the war on terror is just not al Qaeda. There are other terrorists around. There are other threats to our country with which we must deal. And that means -- and one place is Iraq. I want to -- let me share with you some thoughts, a serious, serious, subject. It's one that's got a lot of folks debating in the coffee shops or in the homes about Iraq. I want to remind you of a couple of things.
First of all, 11 years ago this leader of Iraq, the dictator of Iraq, made a pledge that he would not have weapons of mass destruction, he promised the world after he got whipped that he wouldn't have weapons of mass destruction. And the Security Council of the United Nations passed a resolution which said, you wont have weapons of mass destruction. Since that time, he has lied, he has deceived, he has not listened to the U.N. Security Council resolutions. Since that time we now recognize as a country that oceans no longer protect us like they used to. A new reality set in, in America. It used to be we could kind of sit back and look at a threat from afar and say, well, that may affect somebody else, but it doesn't affect us.
Prior to September the 11th, we had the comfort of realizing or looking back in history and saying that we're pretty safe here in America. Others may be threatened -- after all, he attacked two in his neighborhood, he gassed his own people -- but not us. September the 11th changed the equation, changed our thinking. It also changed our thinking when we began to realize that one of the most dangerous things that can happen in the modern era is for a deceiving dictator who has gassed his own people, who has weapons of mass destruction to team up with an organization like al Qaeda.
As I said -- I was a little more diplomatic in my speech, but we need to -- we need to think about Saddam Hussein using al Qaeda to do his dirty work, to not leave fingerprints behind. I went to the United Nations. I did so because I wanted to challenge that body. Sixteen resolutions, sixteen defiances. They passed resolution after resolution after resolution, and 16 times Saddam Hussein has defied those resolutions. For the sake of keeping peace, it's important that there be an international body that has backbone, that can work to keep the peace in this new era we're in. And now is the time for choice. The United Nations can decide whether it's the League of Nations or whether or not it is a United Nations capable of keeping the peace. (Applause.)
There is universal agreement that Saddam Hussein poses a serious threat. He's a threat to the neighborhood, he's a threat to our allies. There is universal understanding that right after the Gulf War he was close to having a nuclear weapon. He still wants to have a nuclear weapon. For the sake of peace, for the sake of our security, now is the time to make sure that Saddam says what he said he would do. He must disarm. It's his choice to make. He said he would disarm. He must disarm. The U.N. said he must disarm. They can disarm him.
But for the sake of security of our country, their choice to make. I hope it's done peacefully. I hope we never use a military -- one military troop in Iraq. But for the sake of the peace and security of the United States, Saddam Hussein must disarm, or the United States, with friends and allies, will disarm him.
BRIEFING BY ARI FLEISCHER
PRESS SECRETARY
WHITE HOUSE
September 25, 2002
Excerpts
. . .
Q: We can go back to that in a minute. I have another question. Yesterday in the briefing, you said that the information you have has said al Qaeda is operating in Iraq. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was asked about linkages between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein this morning. He said very definitively that, yes, he believes there are. And then the President said, talking about al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, the danger is that they work in concert. Is the President saying that they are working in concert, that there is a relationship? Do you have evidence that supports that?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, the President is saying that's the danger. The President has repeatedly said that the worst thing that could happen is for people -- the world's worst dictators with the world's worst weapons of mass destruction to work in concert with terrorists such as al Qaeda, who have shown an ability to attack the United States. And that's what the President has said.
Q: So why -- when Rumsfeld was saying, yes, there is a linkage between the two, what is he talking about?
MR. FLEISCHER: Clearly, al Qaeda is operating inside Iraq. And the point is, in the shadowy world of terrorism, sometimes there is no precise way to have definitive information until it is too late. And we've seen that in the past. And so the risk is that al Qaeda operating in Iraq does present a security threat, and it's cause for concern. And I think it's very understandably so.
If you're searching, Campbell, again, for the smoking gun, again I say what Secretary Rumsfeld said -- the problem with smoking guns is they only smoke after they're fired.
Q: I'm not looking for a smoking gun. I'm just trying to figure out how you make that conclusion, because the British, the Russians, people on the Hill that you all have briefed about all this stuff say that there isn't a linkage, that they don't believe that al Qaeda is there working in conjunction in any way with Saddam Hussein. And there is a mountain of comments, both public and private statements that Osama bin Laden has made about Saddam, calling him a bad Muslim, suggesting that there would be no way that the two would ever connect. So I just -- if there's something, if you have some evidence that supports this, I'm just wondering why --
MR. FLEISCHER: What supports what I just said is that the President fears that the two can get together. That's what the President has said, and that's one of the reasons that he feels so strongly about the importance of fighting the war on terror.
Q: So does Rumsfeld have some information that the President doesn't, that they are, in fact, working together now?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I'm going to take a little more detailed look at anything that you've got there. I haven't seen a verbatim quote, so I'll take a look at that.
Q: It seems that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is ignoring the recently passed Security Council resolution, and he is maintaining his siege around Yasser Arafat's headquarters. Why does the President continue to support Israel, even though tacitly saying that he condemns Israel, but in short, on the bottom line, he continues to support Israel -- why does he continue to support him when Iraq is being blamed by the President for doing exactly the same thing, for violating the Security Council resolutions?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think you have to be very careful when you equate Iraq with any other nation, and say Israel and Iraq are the same, when they are not. If you look at Resolutions 242 and 338, Resolution 242 and 338 explicitly call for a political settlement, a political dialogue as the underpinning of all the resolutions that subsequently followed that refer back to 242 and 338. Not the case in Iraq. In Iraq's decade of defiance of the U.N. resolutions which explicitly called on Iraq not to have a political settlement with their weapons of mass destruction, but disarm and destroy them. You cannot equate the two.
The President does feel strongly, however, about the need for Israel to listen and to heed the call and to make certain that its efforts don't hurt the cause of reform in Palestinian Authority. The President has spoken out about that, directly in opposition to Israel on that matter.
. . .
Q: Senator Inouye and Senator Byrd also responded to these remarks today. Senator Inouye said he was saddened by them, and Senator Byrd said he was disgusted and accused the President of making a bumper-sticker slogan out of the war on Iraq. Did they misunderstand, as well, or is this political opportunism --
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, the President's remarks were not about the Democratic Senate, as people may have been led to believe. The President's remarks were not even about the war in Iraq. The President's remarks were about homeland security. So, again, the President urges everybody to take a deep breath and remember why we're here, and that's to work together.
Q: Could I follow, sir? Both of these men suggested -- Byrd said there are a lot of serious questions out there that haven't been answered. "We here in the Senate have an obligation to investigate those questions before we vote on the resolution." Inouye said just as much. He said it's American to question the President, it's American to raise these questions. Does the President think there's something wrong with the Senate asking questions about this policy?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's why the President invited leaders of the House and the Senate down to the White House in early September, as soon as the Senate returned from its recess, as soon as the House returned from its recess, to meet with them, to talk to them, to get their ideas and thoughts and to say that he was going to work with them on this. And the process has been a very productive one and the resolution is moving along and we'll see what the language says. But it's been a very collaborative process.
. . .
The media is intentionally distorting the 9/11 commission report. I am certain they are following DNC faxes "explaining" their point of view, and being sympathetic, that's how they are reporting it.
For example, I heard Peter Jennings and Terry Moran on ABC radio news at 2pm my time (5pm eastern) start off the news with the lie that the commission says Iraq and Al Qaeda had no connection. I listened carefully for them to differentiate between a "connection" or Iraq having a role in 9/11--which this administration has never said they have evidence of and the commission did not find (I'll add a "yet", but that's my own expectation of what may be found in time), but Peter and Terry clearly said the commission found no relationship at all between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
And then full circle I see the fruits of this deceit, John Kerry, video clip shown on Fox, denouncing this administration for "lying" about the connection. Of course Kerry bases his comments on the media reports that are, at best, misleading.
BUMP for later!
What the article does NOT state is that comment of the overblown gas-bag and limousine liberal Chairman, alleged Republican Tom Kean, that the Commission wouldn't "quibble" with the President's language.
Mr. Kean, long time RINO, is, I believe, angling for a Judgeship in the Kerry Administration.
Imagine this joker on the Supreme Court!!
His e-mail at Drew University - the College where he is President and where he invited his "old friend" Bill Clinton to speak during the campaign with Bush I, is
tomkean@drew.edu