9/11 Changed Everything. NOT!

Bush: Secondly, that I think it’s important to reach out to moderate Arab nations, like Jordan and Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. It’s important to be friends with people when you don’t need each other so that when you do there’s a strong bond of friendship. And that’s going to be particularly important in dealing not only with situations such as now occurring in Israel, but with Saddam Hussein. The coalition against Saddam has fallen apart or it’s unraveling, let’s put it that way. The sanctions are being violated. We don’t know whether he’s developing weapons of mass destruction. He better not be or there’s going to be a consequence should I be the president. But it’s important to have credibility and credibility is formed by being strong with your friends and resoluting your determination. One of the reasons why I think it’s important for this nation to develop an anti-ballistic missile system that we can share with our allies in the Middle East if need be to keep the peace is to be able to say to the Saddam Husseins of the world or the Iranians, don’t dare threaten our friends. It’s also important to keep strong ties in the Middle East, credible ties, because of the energy crisis we’re now in. After all, a lot of the energy is produced from the Middle East, and so I appreciate what the administration is doing. I hope to get a sense of should I be fortunate to be the president how my administration will react to the Middle East.
<snip>
MODERATOR: People watching here tonight are very interested in Middle East policy, and they are so interested they want to base their vote on differences between the two of you as president how you would handle Middle East policy. Is there any difference?
GORE: I haven’t heard a big difference in the last few exchanges.
BUSH: That’s hard to tell. I think that, you know, I would hope to be able to convince people I could handle the Iraqi situation better.
MODERATOR: Saddam Hussein, you mean, get him out of there?
BUSH: I would like to, of course, and I presume this administration would as well. We don’t know — there are no inspectors now in Iraq, the coalition that was in place isn’t as strong as it used to be. He is a danger. We don’t want him fishing in troubled waters in the Middle East. And it’s going to be hard, it’s going to be important to rebuild that coalition to keep the pressure on him.

The sanctions are being violated. We don’t know whether he’s developing weapons of mass destruction. He better not be or there’s going to be a consequence should I be the president.

The resolution (1441) makes clear that Iraq will face “serious consequences” if it does not comply with the resolution’s demands.

A leader also understands that the United States must be strong to keep the peace. Saddam Hussein still is a threat in the Middle East. Our coalition against Saddam is unraveling. Sanctions are loosened. The man who may be developing weapons of mass destruction, we don’t know because inspectors aren’t in. So to answer your question, it requires a clear vision, a willingness to stand by our friends, and the credibility for people both friend and foe to understand when America says something, we mean it.

On the afternoon of January 30, ten days after his inauguration as the forty-third president, George W. Bush met with the principals of his National Security Council for the first time.

<Snip>

All assumed their seats around the table according to longstanding ritual; at the head, the President; to his right, the Vice-President; then O’Neill, CIA director George Tenet, and Condoleeza Rice at the table’s far end; to the President’s left, Powell, Rumsfield, and Joint Chiefs of Staff General Hugh Shelton.  Andy Card was there, and each principal had brought a top deputy, a backbencher, these assumed seats directly behind their boss.

<Snip>

He (Bush) turned to Rice. “So Condi, what are we going to talk about today?  What’s on the agenda?” “How Iraq is destabilizing the region, Mr. President,” Rice said, in what several observers understood was a scripted exchange. She noted that Iraq might be the key to reshaping the entire region.

Rice said the CIA director Tenet would offer a briefing on the latest intelligence on Iraq.  Tenet pulled out a long scroll, the size of an architectural blueprint, and flattened it on the table.

It was a grainy photograph of a factory.  Tenet said that surveillance planes had just taken this photo.  The CIA believed the building might be “a plant that produces either chemical or biological materials for weapons of manufacture.”

<snip>

Cheney motioned to the deputies, the backbenchers, lining the wall.  “Come on up,” he said with uncharacteristic excitement, waving his arm.  “You have to take a look at this.”

<snip>

Those present who had attended NSC meetings of the previous administration – and there were several – noticed a material shift.  “In the Clinton administration, there was an enormous reluctance to use American forces on the ground; it was almost a prohibition,” one of them recalled.  “That prohibition was clearly gone, and that opened options, options that hadn’t been opened before.”
The hour almost up, Bush had assignments for everyone.  Powell and his team would look to draw up a new sanctions regime.  Rumsfield and Shelton, he said, “should examine our military options.”  That included rebuilding the military coalition from the 1991 Gulf War, examining “how it might look” to use US Ground forces in the north and south of Iraq and who could help challenge Saddam Hussein. Tenet would report on improving our current intelligence. O’Neill would investigate how to financially squeeze the regime. Meeting adjourned.
Ten days in, and it was about Iraq.

John.

Q: Sir, the Secretary of State is departing for the Middle East tomorrow. One of the things that he will be discussing with Middle East leaders is the possibility of modifying sanctions on Iraq, and I’m wondering what message he will take from this administration to leaders in the Middle East in the area of sanctions that matter, sanctions that are effective on the regime, but do not carry with them the same level of criticism that current sanctions have had in that they affect the Iraqi civilian population more than they do the regime, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: We’re reviewing all policy in all regions of the world, and one of the areas we’ve been spending a lot of time on is the Persian Gulf and the Middle East. The Secretary of State is going to go listen to our allies as to how best to effect a policy, the primary goal of which will be to say to Saddam Hussein, we won’t tolerate you developing weapons of mass destruction and we expect you to leave your neighbors alone.
I have said that the sanction regime is like Swiss cheese. That meant that they weren’t very effective. And we’re going to review current sanction policy, and review options as to how to make the sanctions work. But the primary goal is to make it clear to Saddam that we expect him to be a peaceful neighbor in the region and we expect him not to develop weapons of mass destruction. And if we find him doing so, there will be a consequence.
We took action last week, and it may be on your mind as to that decision I made. The mission was twofold –one was to send him a clear message that this administration will remain engaged in that part of the world. I think we accomplished that mission. We got his attention.

And secondly, the mission was to degrade his capacity to harm our pilots who might be flying in the no-fly zone. And we accomplished that mission, as well.

Q: Sir, if I could follow up —

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, John, go ahead.

Q: How would you characterize sanctions that work, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: Sanctions that work are sanctions that when a — the collective will of the region supports the policy; that we have a coalition of countries that agree with the policy set out by the United States. To me, that’s the most effective form of sanctions.

Many nations in that part of the world aren’t adhering to the sanction policy that had been in place, and as a result, a lot of goods are heading into Iraq that were not supposed to. And so, good sanction policy is one where the United States is able to build a coalition around the strategy.

<snip>

Q: Sir, on the air strikes in Iraq, the Pentagon is now saying that most of the bombs used in those strikes missed their targets. Given that, what is now your assessment of how successful those strikes were? How much danger do the remaining installations that we missed in those strikes pose to our forces? And would you hit them again if commanders in the field asked for authorization to do so?

THE PRESIDENT: I — we had two missions. One was to send a clear signal to Saddam, and the other was to degrade the capacity of Saddam to injure our pilots. I believe we succeeded in both those missions.
The bomb assessment damage report is ongoing, and I look forward to hear what the Pentagon has to say as they fully assess, completely assess the mission. And I will continue to listen to the commanders in the field. My job as Commander in Chief is to get input from the commanders in the field, and we will do everything needed to protect our pilots, to protect the men and women who wear the uniform.

<skip>

Q: Mr. President, on Iraq, what is your understanding of the Chinese presence in Iraq, especially with regard to constructing military facilities? And do you see anything that you see as a violation of U.N. sanctions?

THE PRESIDENT: We’re concerned about the Chinese presence in Iraq, and we are — my administration is sending the appropriate response to the Chinese. Yes, it’s troubling that they’d be involved in helping Iraq develop a system that will endanger our pilots.

Q: That is what they’re doing, sir, you’re convinced that is —

THE PRESIDENT: We think that may be the case. Let me just tell you this — it’s risen to the level where we’re going to send a message to the Chinese.

China has told the United States that it has ordered companies suspected by Washington of helping Iraq rebuild its air defenses to stop what they are doing. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said Thursday: “China has now said that they have told companies that were in the area doing fiber optics work to cease and desist.”

“We are still examining whether or not it was a specific violation of the sanctions policy and if it was, we will call that to the attention of the sanctions committee so that they can take a firm reaction with respect to China,” Powell said.

Last month, the United States and Britain carried out airstrikes on Iraqi air defense systems near Baghdad. The United States said the radar systems had recently been upgraded, allowing Baghdad to fire more accurately at planes patrolling the no-fly zones over Iraq.

Following the airstrikes, the United States said it carried out the attacks at that precise time to avoid hitting Chinese workers in the area. Later, the United States admitted it had warned the Chinese government on several occasions, dating back to January, to order the Chinese companies to stop their work.

<snip>

Powell gave no details on what China had told the companies to do and he did not suggest China acknowledged any wrongdoing.

But the reassurances were a shot in the arm to relations ahead of a visit by Chinese Vice Premier Qian Qichen, a foreign policy expert, on March 18.

The collision of a U.S. spy plane with one of two Chinese jet fighter planes on Sunday has further heightened tensions between the two countries.

Q: Yes, sir. Could both of you explain how you keep the Iraqi sanctions from crumbling and how do you explain how the Iraqi sanctions could be reconstituted to keep them from — to help ease the strain on the Iraqi people?

THE PRESIDENT: We spent a lot of time talking about our mutual interests in Iraq and the Persian Gulf, and from our perspective, as you know, I made the famous statement that our sanctions are like Swiss cheese. That means they’re not very effective. And we’re going to work together to figure out a way to make them more effective.
But I think the Prime Minister and I both recognize that it is going to be important for us to build a consensus in the region to make the sanctions more effective. Colin Powell left today, after lunch, to move around the Middle East, collect thoughts and to listen, with a policy of strengthening our mission to make it clear to Saddam Hussein that he shall not terrorize his neighbors, and not develop weapons of mass destruction.

PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: Yes, I’d like to just add to that. I think that — I mean, of course, we look the whole time to see how we can make sanctions more effective. But don’t be under any doubt at all of our absolute determination to make sure that the threat of Saddam Hussein is contained and that he is not able to develop these weapons of mass destruction that he wishes to do.
And as I constantly point out to people, I mean, this is a man with a record on these issues, both in respect to the murder of thousands of his own people, in respect to the war against Iran, in respect to the annexation of Kuwait. And we know perfectly well, given the chance he will develop these weapons of mass destruction; indeed, he’s trying to do so and will get as much technology as he can to do so.
Now, of course, we’ve got to — we’re all conscious of the fact that our quarrel is not with the Iraqi people who in many ways suffer under the yoke of Saddam Hussein. But — and therefore, it’s important that we make sure that the sanctions hit him, Saddam, as effectively as they possibly can. But we need to contain that threat, and that’s why the action that we took is right and justified.
<snip>

Q: Mr. President, you talked about Secretary of State Powell going to the Middle East, looking for consensus on how to handle Saddam Hussein. We do know that there is a consensus that sanctions hurt the people of Iraq too much and perhaps Saddam Hussein not enough. Did the two of you discuss ways of changing the sanctions to make them tougher on him and a little less punishing for the people of Iraq? And, if not, how do you hope to keep the coalition together? You already have some NATO allies, even, who are questioning the value of the sanctions.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, that’s the work we’ve got to do. First, our beef is not with the people of Iraq; it’s with Saddam Hussein. And, secondly, any time anybody suffers in Iraq, we’re concerned about it. And I would, however, remind you that Saddam’s got a lot of oil money and it would be helpful if he would apply it to helping his people. Having said that, to the extent the sanctions are hurting the Iraqi people, we’re going to analyze that. Colin is really going to listen. He’s going to solicit opinion from our friends and folks in the Middle East. And prior to formulation of any policy, we will have listened, and then I will, of course, consult with friends and allies such as the Prime Minister here, as we develop a policy that we hope and know will be more realistic. The Prime Minister said something interesting, though. A change in sanctions should not in any way, shape or form, embolden Saddam Hussein. He has got to understand that we are going to watch him carefully and, if we catch him developing weapons of mass destruction, we’ll take the appropriate action. And if we catch him threatening his neighbors, we will take the appropriate action. A change in the sanction regime that is not working should not be any kind of signal whatsoever to him that he should cross any line of — and test our will, because we’re absolutely determined to make that part of the world a more peaceful place by keeping this guy in check.