the q and a the actual text of Bush Senior -- read it and make your own spin

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Drzyzgula <bob () drzyzgula org>
To: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
Subject: Re: [IP] the actual text of Bush Senior -- read it and make 
your own spin
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:40:18 -0500

Dave,

Probably good to point out the Q&A as well,
he discusses his position a bit more in there:

--Bob Drzyzgula

-------------------------------------------------------

2003 Issam M. Fares Lecture
Questions and Answers
February 26, 2003

PRESIDENT BACOW: The first question is an amalgam of a
couple of questions, and I took the liberty of putting
them together, so it's not specifically identified with
one individual. In 1991, you worked tirelessly to assemble
an international coalition to support military action
in Kuwait. The United Nations Security Council gave its
blessing to the intervention, and the U.S. was joined
by an extraordinary coalition in a concerted action to
overturn Iraq's invasion of its sovereign neighbor. Many
viewed your efforts as really heralding a new day in
international cooperation. Today the U.S. is poised to
launch a preemptive military action against Iraq possibly
without U.N. support. The difference between your policy
of coalition building and respect for the United Nations,
and that of the current administration is striking to
some. Are you troubled by the willingness of the U.S. to
act unilaterally without broad based international support?

PRESIDENT BUSH: I agree with the President, it would be
much better to act with as much international support as
possible. The difference between '91 and today is that
the objective was clearer, in a way, back when I was
President. You could see the occupying forces. You could
get the reports of the brutality of the Iraqi soldiers to
the Kuwaiti women, and to the torture of the young men. You
could see that the forces, in my view, were determined to
go even further south to try to take over -- that was my
view -- to take over Saudi Arabia. Today it's less clear.

The violations of the U.N. resolutions by Saddam Hussein
are clear. But, the question is how much does he have
in a way of weapons of mass destruction? That could be
debated. But, I think, most people conclude that he has
not done what he was called on to do, to fully disarm. So,
it's a little fuzzier today.

But, then you have another ingredient today that we didn't
have back then. You saw September 11th. Now, I'm not
saying that this is a big conspiracy between Osama bin
Laden and Saddam Hussein, but the United States must do
what it can to protect itself and its friends against the
use of weapons of mass destruction. And here's somebody
that's violated these norms. And, I think, that it is
understandable we're trying to get him to live within
those resolutions, and whether we stay together enough to
make him change his ways without fighting, I don't know,
I just don't know.

Q: The next question comes from Aaron Markovitz Schwam
who is an undergraduate student here. Mr. President, why
is it that you elected not to follow through with support
for the Kurdish and Shi'ite uprisings in Iraq following
the first Gulf War? As we sit on the eve, or in the midst
of another war, is this a decision that you regret?

A: Well, it wasn't a decision really. Here's the thing. We
had a mission. And the mission was not to invade Iraq. It
wasn't to kill Saddam Hussein. It wasn't to free the
Kurds in the north, or the Shi'ites in the south. The
mission was to end the aggression. And we tried to do it
peacefully. And we tried to do it by diplomatically. And
when that didn't work, we fought "the mother of all
battles," as Saddam Hussein called it. It lasted one hour
in the sands of Kuwait. And we came out, and we kept our
word to the United Nations, and to our coalition partners.

But, if we had tried to go in there and then create just
more instability in Iraq, I think it would have been very
bad for the neighborhood, vis-à-vis Iran for example. And
so, if there's a perception that we said, "You go and rise
up and we'll help you," that's an erroneous perception. I
did say, "I'd like to see the Iraqi people take care
of their own problems," because frankly I, and most
other leaders in -- well, all the leaders in the Gulf,
and Mitterand and, I think, the Brits, certainly -- in
Turkey and Mubarak all felt that the people from within
would take care of Hussein. That he couldn't exist, you
see. So, I was wrong in that. But, not wrong in going
to continue the battle. And not wrong in taking military
action that might destabilize Iraq in the center, and that
very important center in the neighborhood there.

And so, there is this misperception, and I'm glad to have
a chance to clear it up.

Q: Next question comes from Seth Purcell, who is another
undergraduate student. Mr. President, recently Thomas
Friedman wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times in
which he implored the United States to consider Saddam
Hussein to leave Iraq in exile. Friedman proposed this as
a peaceful alternative to war. If America's true intention
is regime change in Iraq, would you support such a move --
as a private citizen, of course?

A: As a private citizen, I'd be carrying a sign saying,
"Yes, that's a great thing to happen." I'm not sure I
think it will happen. But, if we were putting forward a
unified opposition, if we were unified in opposition to
Saddam Hussein, if he didn't think he could divide us,
if he didn't misread large demonstrations in Europe, I
think there would be a good chance that he would get out
of there. And, I think, everybody would support it. And
I'm sure the administration would.

Q: The next question comes one of the members of
our faculty, Bruce Boghosian, a mathematician. While
you were Vice President and then later President, the
administration provided substantial amounts of arms to
Saddam Hussein. He was the same man then as he is now. He
had already accumulated weapons of mass destruction and
used them against Iran and against his own people. Was
this a mistake? Do you regret it?

A: I think what he's referring to is that some arms were
shipped to Saddam Hussein when they were in the middle of
the battle with Iran. Not after that. I don't think we did
that. They got on me about extending agricultural credits
to him, because we thought that there would be a chance
to modify his behavior by helping out his people. But,
I don't believe we did do that. But, I think, the reason
that it might have happened in the Reagan administration is
that they did not want to see Iran prevail in that war. And
so there was Henry Kissinger. I was U.N. Ambassador when
the war between India and Pakistan was on. And they were
talking about Kissinger tilting towards Pakistan.

Well, in this instance, we probably did tilt towards
Iraq. And some were very hopeful that Saddam Hussein
would not go down the path he has now gone. So, there is
a different feel. I never thought he'd actually go into
Kuwait and do what he did. But, I don't think many other
people did too, because the man just flat lied to Mubarak
and to King Hussein.

Q: The next question comes from another ex-baseball player
at Tufts, our former Provost, Sol Gittleman. Menacham
Begin's settlement policy began nearly 30 years ago. Do
we have any controls on the Likud policy and Sharon? Your
Minister Baker was the last one to try. And since then it
seems that no one has.

A: Well, actually, you don't have control over a sovereign
country. I remember refusing to give Israel loan guarantees
for settlements, if they continued to build settlements
in the occupied territories. I said, "We're not going to
do it." And I paid a hell of a price for it. But, I think,
all of us felt that again we would like to see Resolution
242 going forward with. I was encouraged under Bill Clinton
when Barak got together there at Camp David and then the
Oslo Accords came, and everybody was saying, "This might
work; there might be a chance for real peace. The parties
are talking to each other."

But, I don't remember the Baker mission particularly being
involved in that. But, he was a very active, and very good
Secretary of State, in my mind, and he tried very hard to
be a catalyst for peace there.

Q: For our last question, President Bush, we're going to
take you back to China. And this question comes from a
Fletcher student, Irving Chang. As a former U.S. Ambassador
to China, what can the U.S. do to improve China's
human rights policy? It's known that China has helped
North Korea's nuclear program, along with other nuclear
proliferation deals, with countries such as Iran. And why
shouldn't we list China as one of the evil axis? Are we
nurturing China, a giant future threat, as many countries
did when Hitler's Germany was rising to power?

A: Look, I lived in China as the Ambassador in 1974 and
1975. China is now where we want to see them in terms of
human rights today. But, China is so far advanced over
where China was back then that it isn't even debatable. It
is not even debatable. Now, China I do not think seeks
hegemony. I do not think China wants to take over the
world. They're feeding one billion two hundred million
people, and they're doing it pretty darn well. And the
reason they can do it is they've got a market economy
model now working. Working wonders. They've unleashed the
entrepreneurial spirit of China. And so, yeah, they fall
short on some ways. But, they can also work very closely
with us in other ways.

And I found that you can't remake everybody to be just
like we look at it from Tufts University or Texas on
human rights or on refugees or on anything else. And
there's a proud sovereign country. I think leave out the
Middle East right now, but I think it is perhaps the most
important bilateral relationship the United States has
in terms of whether your kids, my grand kids will live
in peace. I think it is that big. And we do not want to
"make an enemy" out of China. And there's many things
where we can work constructively with them. And sometimes
they can be difficult, and I think sometimes they think
we're difficult.

But, I don't see China as anything but a potential partner
and ally certain in the near term. And I don't think the
fact that they might abstain on a resolution, or even
vote against a resolution means that we ought to turn on
China. Everybody is not going to do it exactly our way,
whether it's on human rights or on the economy or these
other things. And so you're speaking to one who believes in
the importance of the relationship. And I've been invited
by Jiang Zemin to go back to the Olympics. My only problem
is I might not be alive by then. But, I want to go. And,
I think, it's a good thing the Olympics are going to be
in China. So, that's it.

[Back to Former President Bush's Remarks]

Additional Coverage:
[President Bacow's Remarks]
[Issam Fares's Remarks]
[Leila Fawaz's Remarks]

This page printed from: 
http://enews.tufts.edu/stories/030303BushQandA.htm
--farber

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/