WASHINGTON (CNN) — Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has "no intention of disarming" and presents a direct threat to the United States that must be confronted — with or without U.N. approval, President Bush said Thursday.
"The risk of doing nothing, the risk of hoping that Saddam Hussein changes his mind and becomes a gentle soul, the risk that somehow inaction will make the world safer, is a risk I'm not willing to take for the American people," Bush said in his prime- time news conference.
"My job is to protect America, and that's what I'm going to do," he said. "I believe Saddam Hussein is a threat to the American people. I believe he's a threat to the neighborhood in which he lives.... I take the threat seriously, and I'll deal with the threat."
Bush stopped short of saying he's decided to take military action against Iraq, and said he still hopes a confrontation can be avoided. However, the president described diplomatic efforts to end the crisis as being in their "last phase," and at times he appeared openly skeptical that war could be averted.
"I wish that Saddam Hussein had listened to the demands of the world and disarmed. That was my hope," he said. "I hope we don't have to go to war. But if we go to war, we will disarm Iraq. And if we go to war, there will be a regime change."
"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."
Bush also said the United States will push next week for a vote on a new U.N. Security Council resolution, finding Iraq in breach of previous disarmament resolutions, even if it's clear there are not enough votes for it to pass.
"It's time for people to show their cards, let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam."
France, Russia and China, all permanent Security Council members with veto power, have expressed opposition to the resolution, along with Germany, a non- permanent council member. Administration officials had been hinting they might pull the resolution prior to a vote, rather than see it defeated.
Bush also made it clear that though the United States would prefer to work through the United Nations, he is ready and willing to take military action, even if the world body balks.
"I'm confident the American people understand that when it comes to our security, if we need to act, we will act. And we really don't need United Nations approval to do so," he said. "When it comes to our security, we really don't need anybody's permission."
But Bush also said that "when it's all said and done," the United States will have significant international support.
"If we have to use force, a lot of nations will be with us," he said.
The president expressed skepticism that giving U.N. weapons inspectors more time to do their work might lead to disarmament of Iraq, diffusing the crisis without war.
He said that while Saddam was allowing U.N. inspectors to destroy some missiles, the Iraqi president had ordered the production of new missiles. Bush also accused Iraqi operatives of moving biological and chemical agents around once or twice a day and even hiding them inside cars parked in residential neighborhoods to avoid detection.
"If the Iraqi regime were disarming, we would know it, because we would see it. Iraq's weapons would be presented to the inspectors, and the world would witness their destruction," he said. "Instead, with the world demanding disarmament, and more than 200,000 troops positioned near his country, Saddam Hussein's response is to produce a 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."
On Friday, chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix will report to the Security Council on the progress of the inspection process. Bush said Blix needs "to answer a single question — has the Iraqi regime fully and unconditionally disarmed ... or has it not?"
Making his case for the danger Saddam poses to the American people, Bush said he believes Iraq could provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists wanting to attack the United States, as they did on September 11, 2001.
"The price of doing nothing exceeds the price of taking action if we have to," he said. "The cost of the attacks on America on September 11th were enormous. They were significant. And I'm not willing to take that chance again."
But he also reiterated statements made in a speech last week that he believes a post-Saddam Iraq, with democratic institutions, could "serve as a catalyst for change" in the Middle East.
The president said that U.N. inspectors, aid workers and journalists inside Iraq would be warned and given a change to leave before any military action begins.
Bush also praised the cooperative efforts that led to the recent capture of al Qaeda operations chief, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and said, "We must smoke these al Qaeda types out one at a time."
When asked about North Korea, he said he was concerned about the Communist country developing nuclear weapons because it may choose to use them or sell them to dictators who might use them "to impose their will on the world."
The president said the United Nations, China, Russia, Japan and South Korea were all discussing the matter and he was hopeful for a diplomatic solution.
in·san·i·ty n. 1 a : a deranged state of the mind usually occurring as a specific disorder (as schizophrenia) and usually excluding such states as mental retardation, psychoneurosis, and various character disorders
b : a mental disorder
2 : such unsoundness of mind or lack of understanding as prevents one from having the mental capacity required by law to enter into a particular relationship, status, or transaction or as removes one from criminal or civil responsibility
Like the URL says, this website is about unknown news.
We present a once-weekly wrap-up of news that was underplayed, ignored, or simply lost in the non-stop news cycle. Our news comes only from mainstream, professional journalists or (rarely) other sources we trust entirely, with no nuttiness and no interest in the same news you see everywhere else.
What we believe
We believe in liberty and justice for all, so of course, we oppose many US government policies. This doesn't mean we're anti-American, redneck scum, pinko commies, militia members, or terrorist-sympathizers. It means we believe in freedom, as more than merely a cliché.
We believe you have the right to live your own life as you choose, and others have the equal right to live their lives as they choose. It's not complicated.
We believe freedom leads to peace, progress, and prosperity, while its opposite -- oppression -- leads to war, terrorism, poverty, and misery.
We believe it's preposterously stupid to hate people because of their appearance, their race or nationality, their religion or lack of religion, how they have sex with other consenting adults, etc. There are far more apropos reasons to hate most people.
We believe in questioning ourselves, our assumptions, each other -- and we especially believe in questioning authority (the more authority, the more questions). We believe obedience is a fine quality in dogs and young children, but not in adults.
Like America's right-wingers, we believe in
individual responsibility,
hard work to get ahead,
and stern punishment for serious crimes.
We believe big government should not be blindly trusted.
But unlike most right-wing leaders, we mean it.
Like America's left-wingers, we believe in
equal treatment under law,
war as a last (not first) resort,
and sensible stewardship of natural resources.
We believe big business should not be blindly trusted.
But unlike most left-wing leaders, we mean it.
Like libertarians, we believe it's wrong and reprehensible to arrest people for what they think, believe, look like, wear, eat, smoke, drink, inhale, inject, or otherwise do to themselves.
But unlike many libertarians, we're not obsessed with the gold standard, we don't believe incorporation is humanity's highest achievement, and we don't believe everything in life comes down to dollars and cents. We've read and enjoyed Ayn Rand's novels, but we understand that they're works of fiction.
We're skeptical, and we're sick of so-called 'journalists' who aren't skeptical at all.
A reader asks, what are our solutions?
We propose no solutions except common sense, which is never common. We like the principles of democracy, and the ideals broadly described as 'American'. The US Constitution is a fine and workable framework for solutions, when it's actually read and thoughtfully understood by intelligent statesmen and women. So, no manifestos from us. We don't dream that big, and if there's one thing the world doesn't need it's yet another manifesto.
Our suggestion is: think.
A fact-based instead of faith-based approach leads to solutions for most of the recurring issues of our time, from abortion to global climate change, pollution to universal health care, careful but real regulation of industry and economy, hunger, war, terror, human rights for humans not for corporations, science not religious doctrine in public schools, equal protection and prosecution under law, etc. Approach problems without glorifying stupidity, without demonizing intelligence, and answers usually come into focus.
These pages are published by Harry and Helen Highwater, happily married low-income nom de plumes and rabble-rousers from Madison, Wisconsin (with a few friends scattered around the world helping out).
We try to spotlight news that hasn't gotten enough (or appropriate) attention in American media, along with our opinions and yours.
We bang our keyboards against the wall, because it doesn't hurt as much as banging our heads.
We assume our readers are well-informed before they click here, so we focus on news that's generally unknown or under-reported. We're generally disinterested in such non-news as reports on what politicians might do, may do, or should do, and we don't usually mention the murders, kidnappings, house fires, auto wrecks, celebrity crap, wacky fluff, and other nonsense that's pushed real news right out of the newscasts.
Disclaimer for dummies: Our front page is free from nudity, but we make no promise on profanity. If your surfing is monitored this site might not be safe for work, and you may be shocked, offended, or in trouble with your boss. A link doesn't imply that we agree with every sentence and every sentiment on every site we link to. We use our noggins, and suggest you use yours.
We always welcome comments from readers, and we're especially interested in hearing and considering different perspectives, so please don't be shy. All we ask is that you conduct yourself sanely and civilly, so consider yourself invited to speak your mind. Our email address and other info is on our contact page.
Please don't email us unless you're sending an original communication that you're not sending to anyone or everyone else. If you add us to your mailing list or chat group without asking us first, or if you send "Dear friend" newsletters, or "link exchange" form letters, or if you send a press release every time you add a post to your blog, you're a spammer and we'll soon block your emails. Also, as a matter of security, we don't open emails from strangers which include attachments or have any kind of programming imbedded, and we recommend a similar policy for others. If you're sending us an email, please send it in plain text only.
Our RSS feed of Unknown News headlines is updated whenever we update the site. Click the orange button for more information, or just get the feed at http://unknownnews.org/ RSSfeeds/dailyRSS.xml.
(Enormous and eternal thanksto Doug at mistersquirrel.net, for setting up our RSS feed.)
Our privacy policy has a page of its own, but the short and sweet version is: We're in favor of privacy. We make no effort to track or identify anything about visitors to our website. We never share, trade, or sell email addresses. We never send spam. We never send email, except in response to readers' queries. We never send (or open) attachments of any kind, and we delete un-opened any emails received with attachments.
Anything sent to Unknown News may be published. If you don't want it published, say so plainly. When we publish incoming emails, we edit out the sender's last name and email address — if we slip up (or if you want your full name and email address published) please let us know. Of course, if your email is unambiguously intended only to annoy, insult, or threaten us, we'll publish it with all the details and leave it on-line forever.
