Transcript of Bush Press Conference

March 7, 2003 -- In a prime-time news conference tonight, President Bush said that Saddam Hussein has defied orders to disarm, diplomacy has failed, and that refusing to use force to disarm Iraq would present an unacceptable risk for the United States.

Here is the full, unedited transcript of the news conference.

BUSH: Good evening. I'm pleased to take your questions tonightand to discuss with the American people the serious matters facing ourcountry and the world.

This has been an important week on two fronts — on our waragainst terror. First, thanks to the hard work of American andPakistani officials, we captured the mastermind of the Sept. 11attacks against our nation.

Khalid Shaikh 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 thethreat posed to our nation and to peace by Saddam Hussein and hisweapons of terror.

In New York tomorrow, the United Nations Security Council willreceive an update from the chief weapons inspector. The world needshim to answer a single question: Has the Iraqi regime fully andunconditionally disarmed as required by Resolution 1441 or has it not?

Iraq's dictator has made a public show of producing anddestroying a few missiles, missiles that violate the restrictions setout more than 10 years ago.

Yet our intelligence shows that even as he is destroying thesefew missiles, he has ordered the continued production of the very sametype of missiles.

Iraqi operatives continue to hide biological and chemical agentsto avoid detection by inspectors.

In some cases, these materials have been moved todifferent locations every 12 to 24 hours or placed in vehicles thatare in residential neighborhoods.

We know from multiple intelligence sources that Iraqi weaponsscientists continue to be threatened with harm should they cooperatewith U.N. inspectors.

Scientists are required by Iraqi intelligence to wear concealedrecording devices during interviews, and hotels where interviews takeplace are bugged by the regime.

These are not the actions of a regime that is disarming. Theseare the actions of a regime engaged in a willful charade. These arethe actions of a regime that systematically and deliberately isdefying the world.

If the Iraqi regime were disarming, we would know itbecause we would see it. Iraq's weapons would be presented toinspectors and the world would witness their destruction.

Instead, with the world demanding disarmament, and more than200,000 troops positioned near his country, Saddam Hussein's responseis to produce a few weapons for show, while he hides the rest andbuilds even more.

Inspection teams do not need more time or more personnel.All they need is what they have never received, the full cooperationof the Iraqi regime.

Token gestures are not acceptable. The only acceptable outcomeis the one already defined by a unanimous vote of the SecurityCouncil: total disarmament.

Great Britain, Spain and the United States have introduced a newresolution stating that Iraq has failed to meet the requirements ofResolution 1441. Saddam Hussein is not disarming. This is a fact.It cannot be denied.

Saddam Hussein has a long history of reckless aggression andterrible crimes. He possess weapons of terror. He provides fundingand training and safe haven to terrorists, terrorists who wouldwilling use weapons of mass destruction against America and otherpeace-loving countries.

Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to thiscountry, to our people and to all free people.

If the world fails to confront the threat posed by the Iraqiregime, refusing to use force even as a last resort, free nationswould assume... unacceptable risks.

The attacks of Sept.11, 2001, show what theenemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to seewhat terrorists or terrorist states could do with weapons of massdestruction.

We are determined to confront threats wherever they arise. Iwill not leave the American people at the mercy of the Iraqi dictatorand his weapons.

In the event of conflict, America also accepts our responsibilityto protect innocent lives in every way possible.

We will bring food and medicine to the Iraqi people. We willhelp that nation to build a just government after decades of brutaldictatorship.

The form and leadership of that government is for theIraqi people to choose. Anything they choose will be better than themisery and torture and murder they have known under Saddam Hussein.

Across the world and in every part of America people of good willare 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 dangerousdictator to defy the world and harbor weapons of mass murder andterror is not peace at all, it is pretense.

The cause of peace will be advanced only when theterrorists lose a wealthy patron and protector, and when the dictatoris fully and finally disarmed.

Tonight I thank the men and women of our armed services and theirfamilies.

I know their deployment so far from home is causinghardship for many military families. Our nation is deeply grateful toall 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 areready.

(Bush takes questions from reporters)

QUESTION: Let me see if I can further — if you could furtherdefine what you just called this important moment we're in. Since youmade it clear just now that you don't think that Saddam has disarmedand we have a quarter million troops in the Persian Gulf and now thatyou've called on the world to be ready to use force as a last resort,are we just days away from the point at which you decide whether ornot we go to war? And what harm would it do to give Saddam a finalultimatum, a two- or three-day deadline to disarm or face force?

BUSH: Well, we're still in the final stages of diplomacy. I'mspending a lot of time on the phone talking to fellow leaders aboutthe need for the United Nations Security Council to state the facts,which is Saddam Hussein hasn't disarmed.

1441, the Security Council resolution passed unanimously lastfall, said clearly that Saddam Hussein has one last chance to disarm.

He hasn't disarmed. So we're working with SecurityCouncil members to resolve this issue at the Security Council.

This is not only an important moment for the security of ournation, I believe it's an important moment for the Security Councilitself. And the reason I say that is because this issue has beenbefore the Security Council, the issue of disarmament of Iraq, for 12long years.

And the fundamental question facing the Security Council is willits words mean anything; when the Security Council speaks, will thewords have merit and weight? I think it's important for those wordsto have merit and weight, because I understand that in order to winthe war against terror, there must be a united effort to do so. Andwe must work together to defeat terror.

Iraq is a part of the war on terror. Iraq is a country that hasgot terrorist ties, it's a country with wealth, it's a country thattrains terrorists, a country that could arm terrorists. And ourfellow Americans must understand, in this new war against terror, thatwe not only must chase down Al Qaida terrorists, we must deal withweapons of mass destruction as well.

That's what the United Nations Security Council has been talkingabout for 12 long years.

It's now time for this issue to come to a head at theSecurity Council, and it will.

As far as ultimatums and all of the speculation about what may ormay not happen after next week we'll just wait and see.

Steve?

QUESTION: (off microphone)

BUSH: Well, we're days away from resolving this issue at theSecurity Council.

QUESTION: Thank you. Another hot spot is North Korea. If NorthKorea restarts their plutonium plant, will that change your thinkingabout how to handle this crisis? Or are you resigned to North Koreabecoming a nuclear power?

BUSH: This is a regional issue. I say regional issue becausethere's a lot of countries that have got a direct stake into whetheror not North Korea has nuclear weapons. We've got a stake as towhether North Korea has a nuclear weapon. China clearly has a stakeas to whether or not North Korea has a nuclear weapon. South Korea,of course, has a stake. Japan has got a significant stake as towhether or not North Korea has a nuclear weapon. Russia has a stake.

So, therefore, I think the best way to deal with this isin multilateral fashion by convincing those nations that they muststand up to their responsibility, along with the United States, toconvince (North Korean leader) Kim Jong Il that the development of a nuclear arsenal is notin his nation's interests, and that should he want help in easing thesuffering of the North Korean people, the best way to achieve thathelp is to not proceed forward.

We've tried bilateral negotiations with North Korea. Mypredecessor, in a good-faith effort, entered into a frameworkagreement. The United States honored its side of the agreement; NorthKorea didn't.

While we felt the agreement was enforced, North Korea wasenriching uranium. In my judgment the best way to deal with NorthKorea is to convince the parties to assume their responsibility.

I was heartened by the fact that (Chinese President) Jiang Zemin, when he came toCrawford, Texas, made it very clear to me and publicly, as well, thata nuclear weapons-free peninsula was in China's interests.

And so we're working with China and the other nations I mentionedto bring a multilateral pressure and to convince Kim Jong Il that thedevelopment of a nuclear arsenal is not in his interests.

QUESTION: Mr. President, you and your top advisers, notablySecretary of State Powell, have repeatedly said that we have sharedwith our allies all of the current, up-to-date intelligenceinformation that proves the imminence of the threat we face fromSaddam Hussein and that they have been sharing their intelligence aswell. If all of these nations, all of them our normal allies, haveaccess to the same intelligence information, why is it that they arereluctant to think that the threat is so real, so imminent that weneed 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 atamending the resolution perhaps with an eye toward a timetable, likethat proposed by the Canadians some two weeks ago, that would set afirm deadline to give Saddam Hussein a little bit of time to comeclean. And also, obviously, that would give you a little bit of achance to build more support with any members of the Security Council.

Is that something that the governments should be pursuing at theU.N. right now?

BUSH: We, of course, are consulting with our allies at theUnited Nations.

But I meant what I said. This is the last phase ofdiplomacy. A little bit more time: Saddam Hussein has had 12 yearsto disarm. He is deceiving people. This is important for our fellowcitizens to realize that if he really intended to disarm like theworld 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 tacticsfor 12 years.

Saddam Hussein is a threat to our nation. September the 11thchanged the strategic thinking, at least as far as I was concerned,for how to protect our country. My job is to protect the Americanpeople.

It used to be that we could think that you could contain a personlike Saddam Hussein, that oceans would protect us from his type ofterror.

Sept. 11 should say to the American people that we arenow a battlefield, that weapons of mass destruction in the hands of aterrorist organization could be deployed here at home.

So therefore I think the threat is real. And so do a lot ofother people in my government. And since I believe the threat is realand since my most important job is to protect the security of theAmerican people, that's precisely what we will do.

Our demands are that Saddam Hussein disarm. We hope he does. Wehave worked with the international community to convince him todisarm. If he doesn't disarm, we'll disarm him.

You asked about sharing of intelligence, and I appreciatethat, because we do share a lot of intelligence with nations which mayor may not agree with us in the Security Council as to how to dealwith Saddam Hussein and his threats.

We've got roughly 90 countries engaged in Operating EnduringFreedom, chasing down the terrorists. We do communicate a lot. Andwe 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 typesout one at a time.

It's in our national interest as well that we deal with SaddamHussein.

But America is not alone in this sentiment. There are a lot ofcountries who fully understand the threat of Saddam Hussein. A lot ofcountries realize that the credibility of the Security Council is atstake; a lot of countries, like America, who hope that he would havedisarmed, and a lot of countries which realize that it may requireforce, may require force to disarm him.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. Sir, if you haven't already made the choice to go to war, can youtell us what you are waiting to hear or see before you do make thatdecision?

And if I may, during a recent demonstration many of theprotesters suggested that the U.S. was a threat to peace, whichprompted you to wonder out loud why they didn't see Saddam Hussein asa threat to peace.

I wonder why you think so many people around the world take adifferent view of the threat that Saddam Hussein poses than you andyour allies.

BUSH: Well, first, I — you know, I appreciate societies inwhich people can express their opinion. That society — free speechstands in stark contrast to Iraq.

Secondly, I've seen all kinds of protests since I've been thepresident.

I remember the protests against trade. A lot of people didn'tfeel 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, Iwent to the Congress to get trade promotion authority.

I recognize there are people who don't like war. I don't likewar.

I wish that Saddam Hussein had listened to the demands of theworld and disarmed. That was my hope.

That's why I first went to the United Nations to begin with onSept.12, 2002, to address this issue as forthrightly as Iknew how.

That's why, months later, we went to the Security Council to getanother resolution, called 1441, which was unanimously approved by theSecurity 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 hewon't do so voluntarily, we will disarm him, and other nations willjoin 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 whowear our uniform that if we have to go to war, if war is upon usbecause Saddam Hussein has made that choice, we will have the bestequipment available for our troops, the best plan available forvictory, and we will respect innocent life in Iraq.

The risk of doing nothing, the risk of hoping that Saddam Husseinchanges his mind and becomes a gentle soul, the risk that somehowinaction will make the world safer, is a risk I'm not willing to takefor the American people … John King?

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. Sir, how would you answeryour critics who say that they think is somehow personal? As SenatorKennedy put it tonight, he said your fixation with Saddam Hussein ismaking the world a more dangerous place.

And as you prepare the American people for thepossibility of military conflict, could you share with us any of thescenarios your advisers have shared with you about worst-casescenarios, in terms of the potential cost of American lives, thepotential cost to the American economy and the potential risks ofretaliatory terrorist strikes here at home?

BUSH: My job is to protect America and that's exactly what I'mgoing to do.

People can describe all kinds of intentions. I swore to protectand defend the Constitution, that's what I swore to do. I put my handon the Bible and took that oath. And that's exactly what I am goingto do.

I believe Saddam Hussein is a threat to the American people. Ibelieve he's a threat to the neighborhood in which he lives.

And I've got good evidence to believe that. He has weapons ofmass destruction, and he has used weapons of mass destruction in hisneighborhood and on his own people. He's invaded countries in hisneighborhood. He tortures his own people. He's a murderer. He hastrained and financed Al Qaida-type organizations before -- Al Qaidaand other terrorist organizations.

I take the threat seriously, and I'll deal with the threat. Ihope it can be done peacefully.

The rest of your six-point question?

(LAUGHTER)

QUESTION: The potential crisis in terms of … the economy, terrorism.

BUSH: The price of doing nothing exceeds the price of takingaction if we have to. We will do everything we can to minimize theloss of life.

The price of the attacks on America, the cost of theattacks on America on September 11th were enormous. They weresignificant. And I'm not willing to take that chance again, John. … Terry Moran?

QUESTION: 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 thegovernments of France, Russia, China, Germany, Turkey, the Arab Leagueand many other countries, opened a rift at NATO and at the U.N. anddrawn millions of ordinary citizens around the world into the streetsinto anti-war protests.

May I ask what went wrong that so many governments and peoplesaround the world now not only disagree with you very strongly, but seethe U.S. under your leadership as an arrogant power?

BUSH: I think if you remember back prior to the resolutioncoming out of the United Nations last fall, I suspect you might haveasked a question along those lines: How come you can't anybody tosupport your resolution? If I remember correctly, there was a lot ofdoubt as to whether or not we were even going to get any votes. Wewould get our own, of course.

And the vote came out 15 to nothing, Terry. And I think you willsee when it's all said and done, if we have to use force, a lot ofnations will be with us.

You clearly name some that — France and Germany expresstheir opinions. We have a disagreement over how best to deal withSaddam Hussein. I understand that.

Having said that, they're still our friends, and we'll deal withthem as friends. We've got a lot of common interests. Our trans-Atlantic relationships are very important.

And while they may disagree with how we deal with Saddam Husseinand his weapons of mass destruction, there was no disagreement when itcame time to vote on 1441, as least as far as France was concerned.They joined us. They said Saddam Hussein has one last chance ofdisarming.

If they think more time will cause him to disarm, I disagree withthat. He's a master of deception. He has no intention of disarming.Otherwise, we would have known.

There's a lot talk about inspectors. It would have taken ahandful of inspectors to determine whether he was disarming. Theycould've showed up at a parking lot and he could've brought hisweapons and destroyed them.

That's not what he chose to do.

Secondly, I make my decisions based upon the oath I took, the oneI just described to you. I believe Saddam Hussein is a threat — athreat to the American people. He's a threat to people in hisneighborhood. He's also a threat to the Iraqi people.

One of the things we love in America is freedom. If I may, I'dlike to remind you what I said at the State of the Union: Liberty isnot America's gift to the world; it is God's gift to each and everyperson. And that's what I believe.

I believe that when we see totalitarianism, that we must dealwith it. We don't have to do it always militarily.

But this is a unique circumstance because of 12 years ofdenial and defiance, because of terrorist connections, because of pasthistory.

I'm convinced that a liberated Iraq will be important for thattroubled part of the world. The Iraqi people are plenty capable ofgoverning themselves. Iraq's a sophisticated society. Iraq's gotmoney. Iraq will provide a place where people can see that the Shiaand the Sunni and the Kurds can get along in a federation. Iraq willserve as a catalyst for change -- positive change.

So there's a lot more at stake than just American security andthe security of people close by Saddam Hussein. Freedom is at stake,as well. And I take that very seriously.Gregory ?

QUESTION: Mr. President, good evening.

If you order war, can any military operation be considered asuccess if the United States does not capture Saddam Hussein, as youonce said, "Dead or alive?"

BUSH: Well, I hope we don't have to go to war. But if we go towar we will disarm Iraq. And if we go to war there will be a regimechange. And replacing this cancer inside of Iraq will be a governmentthat represents the rights of all the people, a government whichrepresents the voices of the Shia and the Sunni and the Kurds.

We care about the suffering of the Iraqi people. I mentioned inmy opening comments that there's a lot of food ready to go in.There's something like 55,000 Oil-for-Food distribution points inIraq.

We know where they are. We fully intend to make sure thatthey've got ample food. We know where their hospitals are. We wantto make sure they've got ample medical supplies.

The life of the Iraqi citizen's going to dramatically improve.

QUESTION: Is success contingent upon capturing or killing SaddamHussein in your mind?

BUSH: We will be changing the regime of Iraq for the good of theIraqi people.

Bill Plante (ph)?

QUESTION: Mr. President, to a lot of people it seems that war isprobably inevitable, because many people doubt — most people I wouldguess — that Saddam Hussein will ever do what we are demanding thathe do, which is disarm.

And if war is inevitable, there are a lot of people in thiscountry — as much as half by polling standards — who agree that heshould 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 hasto be shed if he hasn't attacked us.

Well, Bill, if they believe he should be disarmed and he'snot going to disarm, there's only way to disarm him. And that isgoing to be my last choice: the use of force.

Secondly, the American people know that Saddam Hussein hasweapons of mass destruction.

By the way, he declared he didn't have any. 1441 insisted thathe have a complete declaration of his weapons. He said he didn't haveany weapons.

And secondly, he's used these weapons before. I mean, we're notspeculating about the nature of the man. We know the nature of theman.

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-Zachari (ph) who is in charge of thepoison network. It's a man who was wounded in Afghanistan, receivedaid in Baghdad, ordered the killing of a U.S. citizen — USAIDemployee — was harbored in Iraq.

There is a poison plant in northeast Iraq.

To assume that Saddam Hussein knew none of this was going on isnot to really understand the nature of the Iraqi society. There's alot of facts which make it clear to me and many others that Saddam isa threat. And we're not going to wait until he does attack. We'renot going to hope that he changes his attitude. We're not going toassume that, you know, he is a different kind of person than he hasbeen.

So in the name of security and peace, if we have to — if we haveto, we'll disarm him. I hope he disarms, or perhaps I hope he leavesthe country. I hear a lot of talk from different nations around whereSaddam Hussein might be exiled. That would be fine with me, just solong as Iraq disarms after he's exiled.

Let's see here, Elizabeth (ph)?

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.

As you said, the Security Council faces a vote next week on aresolution implicitly authorizing an attack on Iraq. Will you callfor a vote on that resolution, even if you aren't sure you have thevotes?

BUSH: Well, first, I don't think — it basically says that he isin defiance of 1441. That's what the resolution says.

And it's hard to believe anybody saying he isn't in defiance of1441 because 1441 said he must disarm.

And yes, we'll call for a vote.

QUESTION: No matter what?

No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for thevote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion isabout Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations SecurityCouncil.

And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, letthe world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam.

Mark Knoller (ph)?

QUESTION: Mr. President, are you worried that the United Statesmight be viewed as defiant of the United Nations if you went aheadwith military action without specific and explicit authorization fromthe U.N.?

BUSH: No, I'm not worried about that.

As a matter of fact, it's hard to say the United States isdefiant about the United Nations when I was the person who took theissue to the United Nations September the 12th, 2002.

We've been working with the United Nations. We've beenworking through the United Nations.

Secondly, I'm confident the American people understand that whenit comes to our security, if we need to act, we will act. And wereally 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 importantfor its words to mean what they say. And as we head into the 21stcentury, Mark (ph), when it comes to our security, we really don'tneed anybody's permission.

Bill (ph)?

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.

Even though our military can certainly prevail without a northernfront, isn't Turkey making it at least slightly more challenging forus, and therefore at least slightly more likely that American liveswill be lost? And if they don't reverse course, would you stopbacking their entry into the European Union?

BUSH: The answer to your second question is I support Turkeygoing into the EU.

Turkey's a friend. They're a NATO ally. We'll continue to workwith Turkey. We've got contingencies in place that should our troopsnot come through Turkey — not be allowed to come through Turkey. Andno, that won't cause any more hardship for our troops; I'm confidentof that.

April (ph), did you have a question, or did I call upon you cold?

QUESTION: No, I have a question.

BUSH: OK.

(LAUGHTER)

BUSH: I'm sure you do have a question.

QUESTION: Mr. President, as the nation is at odds over war, withmany organizations like the Congressional Black Caucus pushing forcontinued diplomacy through the U.N., how is your faith guiding you?And what should you tell America? Well, what should America docollectively as you instructed before 9/11? Should it be pray?Because you are saying, "Let's continue the war on terror."

BUSH: I appreciate that question a lot.

First, for those who urge more diplomacy, I would simplysay 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 circumstancesin our country, and I hope people remember the — I know they rememberthe tragedy of September the 11th, but I hope they understand thelesson of September the 11th.

The lesson is that we're vulnerable to attack wherever it mayoccur, and we must take threats which gather overseas very seriously.We don't have to deal with them all militarily, but we must deal withthem.

And in the case of Iraq, it is now time for him to disarm. Forthe sake of peace, if we have to use our troops, we will.

My faith sustains me, because I pray daily. I pray for guidanceand wisdom and strength.

If we were to commit our troops — if we were to commit ourtroops I would pray for their safety, and I would pray for the safetyof innocent Iraqi lives as well.

One thing that's really great about our country is that there arethousands of people who pray for me who I'll never see and be able tothank. But it's a humbling experience to think that people I willnever have met have lifted me and my family up in prayer. And forthat I'm grateful. It's been a comforting feeling to know that istrue.

I pray for peace, April (ph). I pray for peace.

Hutch (ph)?

QUESTION: As you know, not everyone shares your optimisticvision of how this might play out. Do you ever worry, maybe in thewee, small hours, that you might be wrong and they might be right inthinking that this could lead to more terrorism, more anti-Americansentiment, more instability in the Middle East?

BUSH: I think, first of all, it's hard to envision more terroron America than September the 11th, 2001. We did nothing to provokethat terrorist attack. It came upon us because there is an enemywhich 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 AlQaida and others willing to fund them, finance them, equip them, we'reat war.

And so I — you know, obviously I've thought long and hardabout the use of troops. I think about it all of the time. It is myresponsibility 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 society, Ron, who — which has been decimated by hismurderous ways, his torture. He doesn't allow dissent. He doesn'tbelieve in the values we believe in.

I believe this society — the Iraqi society can develop in a muchbetter way. I think of the risks, calculated the costs of inactionversus 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 (ph)?

QUESTION: Mr. President, if you decide to go ahead with militaryaction, there are inspectors on the ground in Baghdad. Will you givethem time to leave the country, or the humanitarian workers on theground, or the journalists? Will you be able to do that and stillmount an effective attack on Iraq?

BUSH: Of course, we will give people a chance to leave. And wedon't want anybody in harm's way who shouldn't be in harm's way.

The journalists who are there should leave. If you'regoing 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 thanSaddam and his group of killers who have destroyed a society.

And we will do everything we can, as I mentioned — and I meanthis — to protect innocent life. I've not made up our mind aboutmilitary action. Hopefully, this can be done peacefully. I believethat, as a result of the pressure that we have placed, and others haveplaced, that Saddam will disarm and/or leave the country.

Ed (ph)?

QUESTION: Mr. President, good evening.

Sir, you've talked a lot about trusting the American people whenit comes to making decisions about their own lives, about how to spendtheir own money.

When it comes to the financial costs of the war, sir, it wouldseem that the administration surely has costed out various scenarios.If that's the case, why not present some of them to the Americanpeople so they know what to expect, sir?

BUSH: Ed (ph), we will. We'll present it in the form of asupplemental to the spenders. We don't get to spend the money; as youknow, 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 towar, 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's asignificant cost to our society.

First of all, there's the cost of lives. It's an immeasurablecost. Three thousand people died. Significant cost to our economy.Opportunity loss is an immeasurable cost. Besides the cost ofrepairing buildings and cost to our airlines. And so, the cost of anattack is significant.

If I thought we were safe from attack, I would be thinkingdifferently. But I see a gathering threat. I mean, it's a true, realthreat to America. And therefore, we will deal with it.

And at the appropriate time, Ed (ph), we will ask for asupplemental. And that'll be the moment where you and others will beable 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 goforward and are successful, are also immeasurable. How do you measurethe benefit of freedom in Iraq? I guess if you're an Iraqi citizenyou can measure it by being able to express your mind, though. How doyou measure the consequence of taking a dictator out of power who hastried to invade Kuwait, somebody who may someday decide to lob aweapon of mass destruction on Israel? How would you weigh the cost ofthat?

Those are immeasurable costs. And I weigh those very seriously.

In terms of the dollar amount, we'll let you know here prettysoon.

George Condon (ph)?

QUESTION: If I can follow on Steve's (ph) question on NorthKorea, do you believe it is essential for the security of the UnitedStates and its allies that North Korea be prevented from developingnuclear weapons? And are you in any way growing frustrated with thepace of the diplomacy there?

BUSH: Yes, I think it's an issue. Obviously I'm concerned aboutNorth 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 afraidof using weapons of using weapons of mass destruction, people who tryto impose their will on the world or blackmail free nations —concerned about it.

BUSH: We are working hard to bring a diplomatic solution.

And we've made some progress. After all, the IAEA asked that theSecurity Council take up the North Korean issue. It's now in theSecurity Council.

Constantly talking with the Chinese and the Russians and theJapanese and the South Koreans. Colin Powell just went overseas andspent some time in China, went to the inauguration of President Roh inSouth Korea and spent time in China. And we're working the issuehard, and optimistic that we'll come up with a diplomatic solution.

I certainly hope so.

(inaudible)?

QUESTION: Thank you, sir.

Mr. President, millions of Americans can recall a time whenleaders from both parties set this country on a mission of regimechange in Vietnam. Fifty-thousand Americans died. The regime isstill there in Hanoi and it hasn't harmed or threatened a singleAmerican in 30 years since the war ended.

What can you say tonight, sir, to the sons and the daughters ofthe Americans who served in Vietnam to assure them that you will notlead this country down a similar path in Iraq?

BUSH: It's a great question.

Our mission is clear in Iraq. Should we have to go in, ourmission is very clear: disarmament.

In order to disarm, it will mean regime change. I'm confidentthat we'll be able to achieve that objective in a way that minimizesthe loss of life.

No doubt there's risks with any military operation. I know that.But it's very clear what we intend to do. And our mission won'tchange. The mission is precisely what I just stated. We've got aplan that will achieve that mission should we need to send forces in.

Last question. Let's see, who needs one? Jean (ph)?

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.

In the coming days, the American people are going to hear a lotof debate about this British proposal of a possible deadline beingadded to the resolution or not. And I know you don't want to tip yourhand; this is a great diplomatic moment.

But from the administration's perspective and your ownperspective, can you share for the American public what you view asthe pros and cons associated with that proposal?

BUSH: You're right, I'm not going to tip my hand.

(LAUGHTER)

QUESTION: But could you help them sort out the debate...

BUSH: Thank you.

(LAUGHTER)

Anything that's debated must have resolution to this issue.We're not going to — it makes no sense to allow this issue tocontinue on and on in the hopes that Saddam Hussein disarms. Thewhole purpose of the debate is for Saddam to disarm.

We gave him a chance. As a matter of fact, we gave him 12 yearsof chances. But recently, we gave him a chance starting last fall,and it said, "last chance to disarm." The resolution said that. Andhad he chosen to do so, it would be evident that he disarmed. And somore time, more inspectors, more process, in our judgment is not goingto affect the peace of the world.

So whatever is resolved is going to have some finality to it, sothat Saddam Hussein will take us seriously.

I want to remind you that it is his choice to make as to whetheror not we go to war. It's Saddam's choice. He's the person that canmake the choice of war and peace. Thus far, he's made the wrongchoice. If we have to, for the sake and the security of the Americanpeople, for the sake of peace in the world and for freedom to theIraqi people, we will disarm Saddam Hussein. And by we, it's morethan America. A lot of nations will join us.

Thank you for your questions.

Good night.