'History Of Deception'

Rumsfeld: Good afternoon.

The president made clear that he is determined to confront the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and that ifhe does not disarm, he will be disarmed by a coalition of willing countries. And I believe that if such adecision were to be made, it would prove to be a large coalition. We hope to see the United Nations act. Thecredibility of the U.N. is important to the world. But if the Security Council fails this test of resolve, acoalition will be ready to act nonetheless.

The question before the United Nations is clear: Is Saddam Hussein taking this final opportunity that wasoffered by Resolution 1441 to disarm or not? And the answer to the question, it strikes me, is increasinglyobvious. He makes a show of destroying a handful of missiles; missiles which he claimed in his declaration didnot violate U.N. restrictions, but now admits that they do violate U.N. restrictions. Yet even as he destroysthose missiles, he's ordered the continued production of the very same types of missiles. He claims to have nochemical or biological weapons, yet we know he continues to hide biological and chemical weapons, moving themto different locations as often as every 12 to 24 hours, and placing them in residential neighborhoods.

He is an accomplished deceiver, or else why would so many in the world community continue to be deceived solong? If it becomes necessary to use military force, we know he will stop at nothing to deceive the world byspreading lies. We are taking extraordinary measures to prevent innocent casualties. Hussein, by contrast,will seek to maximize civilian deaths and create the false impression that coalition forces target innocentIraqis, which of course is not the case.

Before any conflict begins, we should look back and recall his history of deception: What he said and whathe did during the Gulf War conflict. During that war, the Iraqi regime went to great lengths to convince theworld that coalition forces had targeted innocent civilians and Muslim holy sites.

For example, on February 13th, 1991, coalition forces fired precision guided bombs at the Amiriyah bunkerin Baghdad. The bunker had originally been constructed as an air raid shelter during the Iran-Iraq war. Butwhen -- the latter was converted into a military command and control center.

Unbeknownst to coalition forces, the Iraqi regime had told civilians that it was an air raid shelter, andadmitted them to the top floors in the evening. Right beneath them was a military command and control centerthat was being used by senior Iraqi officials for military communications. We later learned that SaddamHussein had decreed that all Iraqi military bunkers would also house civilians.

Another example. During the gulf war on February 11th, 1991 the Iraqi regime deliberately removed the domeof the al-Bushra mosque and dismantled it in an attempt to make it appear that coalition forces haddeliberately struck a mosque. Which was not the case. Satellite photos later revealed that while the dome wasgone, there was no damage to the minaret, the courtyard buildings, or the dome foundation, which would havebeen the case had coalition forces struck the building.

There are many other examples. But the point is this: he does not tell the truth, he lied during the Gulfwar, and if there is to be another war, he will lie again. Indeed, he already is. The only question is whetherhe will be believed despite his record.

We know from recent intelligence that he has ordered uniforms that are virtually identical to those of U.S.and British forces for his Fedayeen Saddam troops, who would theoretically wear them while committingatrocities against innocent Iraqis. His regime may be planning to use weapons of mass destruction against itsown citizens, and then blame coalition forces. When his regime begins claiming once again that coalitionforces have targeted innocent Iraqi civilians, if that's to be the case, we need to keep his record in mind.

General Myers.

Myers: Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

We are continuing to flow troops into the Iraqi theater of operations. Our numbers now exceed 225,000troops. If the President makes the decision to do so, they stand ready to disarm Iraq.

Our presence continues to support the diplomatic efforts of the President, and in order to keep thepressure on the Iraqi regime to disarm we have stepped up Southern Watch operations. We are now flying severalhundred sorties a day, with 200 or 300 over the Southern no-fly zone. During these operations we respondedtwice yesterday to repeated firings on coalition aircraft.

Next, I'd like to show you a slide .

You'll see three little bursts down here -- I'll talk about the Easternmost two first.

FA-18s and F-16s dropped precision- guided weapons against the cable repeater sites as marked, theEasternmost ones on the map. These sites are part of the air defense communications network and system inIraq. Concerning the Westernmost mark out there where it says H-3 Airfield, in an earlier response, F-15Esdropped munitions against a Flat Face air defense radar near that airfield in western Iraq, and we have avideo of that.

So if you'd roll the video , please.

Looks like it might have started a little bit late, there. But we can rewind it. We'll roll it again.

Earlier this week --

Myers: I'm sorry?

Earlier this week, not today?

Staff: Yesterday.

Were those secondary explosions, General?

Myers: No. And you would not expect them with that kind of target.

That's it. You can see the revetment that it was sitting in.

And finally, in Afghanistan, a four-man team -- three Afghans and one U.S. soldier -- were in a vehiclethat struck a mine about 60 miles north of Asadabad. Early reports indicate the vehicle flipped over, killingone of the Afghan personnel; one Afghan was injured, and a third Afghan national, plus the U.S. soldier, weretreated and then released.

And with that, well take your questions.

What day was that?

Myers: That was yesterday. It was just early this morning.

Rumsfeld: Charlie?

Mr. Secretary, you cited earlier saving civilian lives, and you also mentioned the uniform charge again.In this war of words with Iraq, ahead of what appears to be a looming war, you keep citing intelligencesources. For instance, Defense officials are saying today that the Iraqi regime is warning civilians insouthern Iraq that they'll either have to kill U.S. paratroopers that land there or that their families willbe killed after the war, and if they cooperate with U.S. forces, their families would be murdered.

Could you tell us, number one, the source of that, and how you get such intelligence information? Howare these charges credible if you don't say how you're getting them?

Rumsfeld: I suppose it would be clearly not in our interest to describe the sources and methods of intelligencegathering. It would dry up intelligence. So we're not going to do it. Whether or not you consider themcredible is your choice. In the event ground truth is gleaned at some point in the future, you'll find theywere accurate.

Is in fact the regime threatening Iraqis in the south and warning them not --

Rumsfeld: The regime is one of the most repressive regimes on the face of the earth. They threaten all of their peopleevery day. That's how they live in that country, under threat of the government.

Are they directly telling civilians in the south to kill U.S. troops when they land, or face possibledeath themselves?

Rumsfeld: I do not have in my possession a piece of intelligence that says that, but it may very well be true. And Ihave seen other similar things that involved different circumstances in different parts of the country that Idid see the intelligence on. I just happen not have that.

Mr. Secretary, the Air Force --

Could you tell us about what you can tell us about the circumstances of the aborted U-2 missions todayin Iraq; what the circumstances were and under what conditions you would recommend they would be resumed?

Rumsfeld: Well, we want them resumed because UNMOVIC wants them resumed, and Mr. Blix has asked us to do that. I don'treally know precisely. We've asked that it be run down. We believe that we had clearance through theDepartment of State that deals with UNMOVIC. So DOD talks to State, State talks to UNMOVIC, UNMOVIC talks tothe Iraqis. Where the breakdown occurred is not clear to me, but we don't believe it was between DOD andState. It may have been between State and UNMOVIC or UNMOVIC or the Iraqis, or it may have been us. I justdon't happen to know. We're trying to sort it through.

In any event, the Iraqis asked UNMOVIC -- UNMOVIC asked us for the flights, for the U-2 flight. We suppliedthe aircraft and were ready, and at some moment the Iraqis asked the UNMOVIC to cancel them because there weretwo instead of one or something. If you go back to 1441, the Iraqis' requirement was to be cooperative whatwhatever it was that UNMOVIC wanted and to cooperate fully in disarming. And clearly, by advising UNMOVIC thatthey wanted those flights cancelled, it's not -- I wouldn't put that on the cooperation side of the ledger forIraq.

Were they directly threatened in the air?

Rumsfeld: No.

Mr. Secretary, the Air Force --

This morning, sir, the Turkish ambassador to the United States, among other things, said that the UnitedStates has not yet -- General Myers, you may know this as well, sir -- the United States has not yet acquiredpermission to over fly Turkey in the event of conflict with Iraq. This is a separate issue, of course, ofbasing troops, ground troops, in Turkey. My question -- my broader question is, what progress is the UnitedStates making to secure those rights? And he specifically said also the planes now at Incirlik, in thenorthern no- fly zone, could not be used in an offensive capacity should there be a war with Iraq.

My question is, what steps are being taken to secure those over flight permissions? And if indeed it'snot granted, how does that complicate, if it does, any war with Iraq.

Rumsfeld: Well, first, my understanding of the situation is it's not in any way inconsistent with what you said theambassador said. My recollection is that Turkey and all NATO countries, I believe, provided over flight rightsfor Operation Enduring Freedom, which is separate.

Yes.

Rumsfeld: Second, needless to say, as you point out, we have Northern no-fly zone aircraft there that are performingthat function. All of the requests for -- from Turkey -- of us, of Turkey, in -- whether it's ground or air orover flight, are all wrapped up in parliamentary approval, as I understand that.

If I may, sir, he explained to us that they are -- could be distinctive requests, in other words, thatthe legislation that was not approved last weekend on ground troops did not specifically or does not have tospecifically include over flights. Is it possible to go for the over flights and not the ground troops?

Rumsfeld: The Department of State's working these things with the Turkish government, and General Myers and I talk tothem, and other officials from the White House do. How -- what model will end up being appropriate for Turkeyremains to be seen, and I don't know that trying to overanalyze every day's events makes an awful lot ofsense. At least it doesn't serve any purpose we have.

Mr. Secretary, the Air Force --

Myers: Can I make one comment on that?

Rumsfeld: You bet.

Myers: The other part, on --

The complications.

Myers: -- complications, the fact is that we will have a northern option, whether or not we -- Turkey fully supportsall our requests. And I'm --

Mr. Secretary --

Myers: I'm not going to talk about the operational ways of doing it, but just be assured there will be aNorthern option.

Mr. Secretary, a question for either you or General Myers or both, whichever you prefer. The Air Forceis testing today the biggest bomb in the U.S. arsenal, a 21,000-pound behemoth which has 18,000 pounds of highexplosives. And really two issues here -- one, collateral damage and how you're going to use it againstbunkers or troops. And if you want to show the devastation of this weapon to the troops -- I understand thetest is being videotaped -- would you like to do that, under Psychological Operations, PsyOps? And if so, howwould you do that? (Scattered and very subdued laughter.)

Is that the Rumsfeld smile? I mean, Al-Jazeera -- (off mike).

Rumsfeld: We have weapon tests all the time.

But this is a monster.

Rumsfeld: This is not small. (Laughter.)

Yes?

Sir, support for a possible war is shrinking rapidly in Great Britain. Would the -- two questions. Wouldthe United States go to war without Great Britain? And two, would the role of the British in an initialassault be scaled back?

Rumsfeld: This is a matter that most of the senior officials in the government discuss with the U.K. on a daily orevery- other-day basis. And I had a good visit with the Minister of Defense of the U.K. about an hour ago.Their situation is distinctive to their country, and they have a government that deals with a parliament intheir way, distinctive way. And what will ultimately be decided is unclear as to their role; that is to say,their role in the event that a decision is made to use force. There's the second issue of their role in apost- Saddam Hussein reconstruction process or stabilization process, which would be a different matter. And Ithink until we know what the resolution is, we won't know the answer as to what their role will be and to theextent they're able to participate in the event the President decides to use force, that would obviously bewelcomed. To the extent they're not, there are workarounds and they would not be involved, at least in thatphase of it.

We would consider going to war without our closest ally, then?

Rumsfeld: That is an issue that the President will be addressing in the days ahead, one would assume.

Yes?

Mr. Secretary, you haven't had an opportunity to address this, and neither has General Myers. I wonderwhat your reaction is to the reports of alleged sexual abuse at the Air Force Academy and the response to itso far?

Rumsfeld: The -- any time there are allegations of that kind, it is, needless to say, just enormously disappointing toanyone connected with the Department. I personally believe that Secretary Roche and Chief of Staff of the AirForce General Jumper are dealing with it aggressively and are attentive to the issues and doing a good job.And one would hope that as they proceed, why, we'll be able to have Service Academies where charges like thatare not made.

Do you have anything to add to that, General Myers?

Myers: Nothing to add from that. I think it's a service issue and I think the Air Force is handling it well.

Rumsfeld: Yes?

I have a question on the Boeing tanker lease deal. You were briefed on that yesterday, and I'm wonderingif you can tell us your thoughts about both the IDA analysis that the per unit cost was too high, as well aswhen you anticipate making a decision?

Rumsfeld: I did get briefed. And my conclusion from the briefing is that it is not surprising that it has taken so longfor the folks working on this to work their way through it. It is complex and they don't agree. We had peopleof one mind and people of another mind, and then as you properly point out, the IDA has still a thirdapproach. And General Myers and I both listened attentively, and I've asked for some more information. Andit's something that I guess I'll decide when I decide. But I don't need to set arbitrary deadlines as to whenthat might be.

Mr. Secretary, how is the diplomatic wrangling at the U.N. delaying any decisions or preparations forthe U.S. military to engage in any possible war with Iraq?

Rumsfeld: I mean, what it's doing to the President's decision process is something he'd have to answer. But from ourstandpoint, it's expected once the decision was made by the President to go to the United Nations -- first tothe Congress and then the United Nations -- that that path was clear. And anyone knows that in that body ittakes some time to have these discussions. And Secretary Powell and the President are both working thetelephones and having meetings and looking at various aspects of resolutions as to how this might be sortedout in the days immediately ahead. But I wouldn't think that it would make an enormous difference to thisDepartment in terms of what they're doing up there.

Because any possible delay would only be a short delay, or because the preparations for possible warcontinue apace?

Rumsfeld: Well, obviously, we're continuing to flow forces and support the diplomacy and demonstrate to the Iraqi peoplethe seriousness of purpose that the president has -- and other countries, I mean, other countries are flowingforces as well, it's not just the United States.

Mr. Secretary, according to UNMOVIC, the Iraqis expressed surprise and concern about this second U-2flight and said that they would consider it hostile and provocative and couldn't assure its safe passage. Doyou see this as another material breach? And what's your perception of this?