'This Is The Last Phase Of Diplomacy'

Good evening. I'm pleased to take your questions tonight, and to discuss with the American people theserious matters facing our country and the world.

This has been an important week on two fronts on our war against terror. First, thanks to the hard work ofAmerican and Pakistani officials, we captured the mastermind of the September the 11th attacks against ournation. Khalid Sheikh 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 the threat posed to our nation and to peaceby Saddam Hussein and his weapons of terror. In New York tomorrow, the United Nations Security Council willreceive an update from the chief weapons inspector. The world needs him to answer a single question: Has theIraqi regime fully and unconditionally disarmed, as required by Resolution 1441, or has it not?

 Iraq's dictator has made a public show of producing and destroying a few missiles -- missiles thatviolate the restrictions set out more than 10 years ago. Yet, our intelligence shows that even as he isdestroying these few missiles, he has ordered the continued production of the very same type of missiles.

Iraqi operatives continue to hide biological and chemical agents to avoid detection by inspectors. In somecases, these materials have been moved to different locations every 12 to 24 hours, or placed in vehicles thatare in residential neighborhoods.

We know from multiple intelligence sources that Iraqi weapons scientists continue to be threatened withharm should they cooperate with U.N. inspectors. Scientists are required by Iraqi intelligence to wearconcealed recording devices during interviews, and hotels where interviews take place are bugged by theregime.

These are not the actions of a regime that is disarming. These are the actions of a regime engaged in awillful charade. These are the actions of a regime that systematically and deliberately is defying the world.If the Iraqi regime were disarming, we would know it, because we would see it. Iraq's weapons would bepresented to inspectors, and the world would witness their destruction. Instead, with the world demandingdisarmament, and more than 200,000 troops positioned near his country, Saddam Hussein's response is to producea few weapons for show, while he hides the rest and builds even more.

Inspection teams do not need more time, or more personnel. All they need is what they have never received-- the full cooperation of the Iraqi regime. Token gestures are not acceptable. The only acceptable outcome isthe one already defined by a unanimous vote of the Security Council -- total disarmament.

Great Britain, Spain, and the United States have introduced a new resolution stating that Iraq has failedto meet the requirements of Resolution 1441. Saddam Hussein is not disarming. This is a fact. It cannot bedenied.

Saddam Hussein has a long history of reckless aggression and terrible crimes. He possesses weapons ofterror. He provides funding and training and safe haven to terrorists -- terrorists who would willingly useweapons of mass destruction against America and other peace-loving countries. Saddam Hussein and his weaponsare a direct threat to this country, to our people, and to all free people.

If the world fails to confront the threat posed by the Iraqi regime, refusing to use force, even as a lastresort, free nations would assume immense and unacceptable risks. The attacks of September the 11th, 2001showed what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists orterrorist states could do with weapons of mass destruction.

We are determined to confront threats wherever they arise. I will not leave the American people at themercy of the Iraqi dictator and his weapons.

In the event of conflict, America also accepts our responsibility to protect innocent lives in every waypossible. We'll bring food and medicine to the Iraqi people. We'll help that nation to build a justgovernment, after decades of brutal dictatorship. The form and leadership of that government is for the Iraqipeople to choose. Anything they choose will be better than the misery and torture and murder they have knownunder Saddam Hussein.

Across the world and in every part of America, people of goodwill are hoping and praying for peace. Ourgoal is peace -- for our nation, for our friends and allies, for the people of the Middle East. People ofgoodwill must also recognize that allowing a dangerous dictator to defy the world and harbor weapons of massmurder and terror 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 dictator is fully and finally disarmed.

Tonight I thank the men and women of our armed services and their families. I know their deployment so farfrom home is causing hardship for many military families. Our nation is deeply grateful to all who serve inuniform. We appreciate your commitment, your idealism, and your sacrifice. We support you, and we know that ifpeace must be defended, you are ready.

Ron Fournier.

Let me see if I can further -- if you could further define what you just called this important momentwe're in, since you've made it clear just now that you don't think Saddam has disarmed, and we have a quartermillion troops in the Persian Gulf, and now that you've called on the world to be ready to use force as a lastresort. Are we just days away from the point of which you decide whether or not we go to war? And what harmwould it do to give Saddam a final ultimatum? A two- or three-day deadline to disarm or face force?

Well, we're still in the final stages of diplomacy. I'm spending a lot of time on the phone, talking tofellow leaders about the need for the United Nations Security Council to state the facts, which is SaddamHussein hasn't disarmed. Fourteen forty-one, the Security Council resolution passed unanimously last fall,said clearly that Saddam Hussein has one last chance to disarm. He hasn't disarmed. And so we're working withSecurity Council members to resolve this issue at the Security Council.

This is not only an important moment for the security of our nation, I believe it's an important moment forthe Security Council, itself. And the reason I say that is because this issue has been before the SecurityCouncil -- the issue of disarmament of Iraq -- for 12 long years. And the fundamental question facing theSecurity Council is, will its words mean anything? When the Security Council speaks, will the words have meritand weight?

I think it's important for those words to have merit and weight, because I understand that in order to winthe war against terror there must be a united effort to do so; we must work together to defeat terror.

Iraq is a part of the war on terror. Iraq is a country that has got terrorist ties. It's a country withwealth. It's a country that trains terrorists, a country that could arm terrorists. And our fellow Americansmust understand in this new war against terror, that we not only must chase down al Qaeda terrorists, we mustdeal with weapons of mass destruction, as well.

That's what the United Nations Security Council has been talking about for 12 long years. It's now time forthis issue to come to a head at the Security Council, and it will. As far as ultimatums and all thespeculation about what may or may not happen, after next week, we'll just wait and see.

Are we days away?

Well, we're days away from resolving this issue at the Security Council.

Thank you. Another hot spot is North Korea. If North Korea restarts their plutonium plant, will thatchange your thinking about how to handle this crisis, or are you resigned to North Korea becoming a nuclearpower?

This is a regional issue. I say a regional issue because there's a lot of countries that have got a directstake into whether or not North Korea has nuclear weapons. We've got a stake as to whether North Korea has anuclear weapon. China clearly has a stake as to whether or not North Korea has a nuclear weapon. South Korea,of course, has a stake. Japan has got a significant stake as to whether or not North Korea has a nuclearweapon. Russia has a stake.

So, therefore, I think the best way to deal with this is in multilateral fashion, by convincing thosenations they must stand up to their responsibility, along with the United States, to convince Kim Jong-il thatthe development of a nuclear arsenal is not in his nation's interest; and that should he want help in easingthe suffering of the North Korean people, the best way to achieve that help is to not proceed forward.

We've tried bilateral negotiations with North Korea. My predecessor, in a good-faith effort, entered into aframework agreement. The United States honored its side of the agreement; North Korea didn't. While we feltthe agreement was in force, North Korea was enriching uranium.

In my judgment, the best way to deal with North Korea is convince parties to assume their responsibility. Iwas heartened by the fact that Jiang Zemin, when he came to Crawford, Texas, made it very clear to me andpublicly, as well, that a nuclear weapons-free peninsula was in China's interest. And so we're working withChina and the other nations I mentioned to bring a multilateral pressure and to convince Kim Jong-il that thedevelopment of a nuclear arsenal is not in his interests.

Mr. President, you have, and your top advisors -- notably, Secretary of State Powell -- have repeatedlysaid that we have shared with our allies all the current, up-to-date intelligence information that proves theimminence of the threat we face from Saddam Hussein, and that they have been sharing their intelligence withus, as well. If all these nations, all of them our normal allies, have access to the same intelligenceinformation, why is it that they are reluctant to think that the threat is so real, so imminent that we needto 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 itmight be time to look at amending the resolution, perhaps with an eye towards a timetable like that proposedby the Canadians some two weeks ago, that would set a firm deadline to give Saddam Hussein a little bit oftime to come clean. And also, obviously, that would give you a little bit of a chance to build more supportwithin the members of the Security Council. Is that something that the governments should be pursuing at theU.N. right now?

We, of course, are consulting with our allies at the United Nations. But I meant what I said, this is thelast phase of diplomacy. A little bit more time? Saddam Hussein has had 12 years to disarm. He is deceivingpeople. This is what's important for our fellow citizens to realize; that if he really intended to disarm,like the world has asked him to do, we would know whether he was disarming. He's trying to buy time. I canunderstand why -- he's been successful with these tactics for 12 years.

Saddam Hussein is a threat to our nation. September the 11th changed the strategic thinking, at least, asfar as I was concerned, for how to protect our country. My job is to protect the American people. It used tobe that we could think that you could contain a person like Saddam Hussein, that oceans would protect us fromhis type of terror. September the 11th should say to the American people that we're now a battlefield, thatweapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terrorist organization could be deployed here at home.

So, therefore, I think the threat is real. And so do a lot of other people in my government. And since Ibelieve the threat is real, and since my most important job is to protect the security of the American people,that's precisely what we'll do.

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

You asked about sharing of intelligence, and I appreciate that, because we do share a lot of intelligencewith nations which may or may not agree with us in the Security Council as to how to deal with Saddam Husseinand his threats. We have got roughly 90 countries engaged in Operation Enduring Freedom, chasing down theterrorists.

We do communicate a lot, and we will continue to communicate a lot. We must communicate. We must shareintelligence; we must share -- we must cut off money together; we must smoke these al Qaeda types out one at atime. It's in our national interest, as well, that we deal with Saddam Hussein.

But America is not alone in this sentiment. There are a lot of countries who fully understand the threat ofSaddam Hussein. A lot of countries realize that the credibility of the Security Council is at stake -- a lotof countries, like America, who hope that he would have disarmed, and a lot of countries which realize that itmay require force -- may require force -- to disarm him.

Thank you, Mr. President. Sir, if you haven't already made the choice to go to war, can you tell us whatyou are waiting to hear or see before you do make that decision? And if I may, during the recentdemonstrations, many of the protestors suggested that the U.S. was a threat to peace, which prompted you towonder out loud why they didn't see Saddam Hussein as a threat to peace. I wonder why you think so many peoplearound the world take a different view of the threat that Saddam Hussein poses than you and your allies.

Well, first, I -- I appreciate societies in which people can express their opinion. That society -- freespeech stands in stark contrast to Iraq.

Secondly, I've seen all kinds of protests since I've been the President. I remember the protests againsttrade. A lot of people didn't feel like free trade was good for the world. I completely disagree. I think freetrade is good for both wealthy and impoverished nations. But that didn't change my opinion about trade. As amatter of fact, I went to the Congress to get trade promotion authority out.

I recognize there are people who -- who don't like war. I don't like war. I wish that Saddam Hussein hadlistened to the demands of the world and disarmed. That was my hope. That's why I first went to the UnitedNations to begin with, on September the 12th, 2002, to address this issue as forthrightly as I knew how.That's why, months later, we went to the Security Council to get another resolution, called 1441, which wasunanimously approved by the Security 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 he won't doso voluntarily, we will disarm him. And other nations will join 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 dois assure the loved ones of those who wear our uniform that if we have to go to war, if war is upon us becauseSaddam Hussein has made that choice, we will have the best equipment available for our troops, the best planavailable for victory, and we will respect innocent life in Iraq.

The risk of doing nothing, the risk of hoping that Saddam Hussein changes his mind and becomes a gentlesoul, the risk that somehow -- that inaction will make the world safer, is a risk I'm not willing to take forthe American people.

We'll be there in a minute. King, John King. This is a scripted -- (laughter.)

Thank you, Mr. President. How would -- sir, how would you answer your critics who say that they thinkthis is somehow personal? As Senator Kennedy 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 the possibility ofmilitary conflict, could you share with us any of the scenarios your advisors have shared with you aboutworse-case scenarios, in terms of the potential cost of American lives, the potential cost to the Americaneconomy, and the potential risks of retaliatory terrorist strikes here at home?

My job is to protect America, and that is exactly what I'm going to do. People can ascribe all kinds ofintentions. I swore to protect and defend the Constitution; that's what I swore to do. I put my hand on theBible and took that oath, and that's exactly what I am going to do.

I believe Saddam Hussein is a threat to the American people. I believe he's a threat to the neighborhood inwhich he lives. And I've got a good evidence to believe that. He has weapons of mass destruction, and he hasused weapons of mass destruction, in his neighborhood and on his own people. He's invaded countries in hisneighborhood. He tortures his own people. He's a murderer. He has trained and financed al Qaeda-typeorganizations before, al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. I take the threat seriously, and I'll dealwith the threat. I hope it can be done peacefully.

The rest of your six-point question?

The potential price in terms of lives and the economy, terrorism.

The price of doing nothing exceeds the price of taking action, if we have to. We'll do everything we can tominimize the loss of life. The price of the attacks on America, the cost of the attacks on America onSeptember the 11th were enormous. They were significant. And I am not willing to take that chance again, John.

Thank you, sir. May I follow up on Jim Angle's question? In the past several weeks, your policy on Iraqhas generated opposition from the governments of France, Russia, China, Germany, Turkey, the Arab League andmany other countries, opened a rift at NATO and at the U.N., and drawn millions of ordinary citizens aroundthe world into the streets in anti-war protests. May I ask, what went wrong that so many governments andpeople around the world now not only disagree with you very strongly, but see the U.S. under your leadershipas an arrogant power?

I think if you remember back prior to the resolution coming out of the United Nations last fall, I suspectyou might have asked a question along those lines -- how come you can't get anybody to support yourresolution. If I remember correctly, there was a lot of doubt as to whether or not we were even going to getany votes, much -- well, we'd get our own, of course. And the vote came out 15 to nothing, Terry. And I thinkyou'll see when it's all said and done, if we have to use force, a lot of nations will be with us.