we will see what ultimately comes out of the united nations, but i stand by that statement. i believe, first of all, any resolution must document the fact that he's in violation of these many u.n. resolutions over the years. secondly, the resolution must contain a strong new inspection regime so he can't defeat it the way he did the previous one. and i think such a resolution must also talk about the fact that consequences lay ahead. now, where the debate has been is how those consequences get determined, and i am confident that any resolution we come up with will in no way affect the president's authority with other like-minded nations to act in the presence of continued iraqi violation. the debate is how do you get all of the members of the security council to act in unison. and that's where we're having the discussion. there are 15 sovereign nations in the security council and each has a right to express its opinion. but i believe we'll be successful in the indictment, a tough inspection regime, and a linkage to consequences. if saddam once again frustrates the inspection regime and makes it clear that he is not going to cooperate, i think that is a matter of the utmost gravity. and the president has said clearly that if in that instance the united nations will not act, then the united states, with other like-minded nations, will act. and the resolution that's under consideration would in no way affect the president's ability to do that in a negative way, if that's what he chooses to do at the time. what i said was that if saddam disarmed entirely and satisfied the international community, that, in effect, would be a change in attitude and a change in the way the regime is looking at its situation in the world, and it was consistent with what the president has said previously and subsequently. all we are interested in is getting rid of those weapons of mass destruction. we think the iraqi people would be a lot better off with a different leader, a different regime, but the principal offense here are weapons of mass destruction, and that's what this resolution is working on. there are many other resolutions that he has violated, with respect to human rights, with respect to threatening his neighbors, with respect to return of prisoners. all of those, i think, have to be dealt with in due course. but the major issue before us is disarmament. and remember where regime change came from. it came out of the previous administration; it came out of the congress in 1998 when it was thought the only way to get rid of weapons of mass destruction was to change the regime. and we will see whether they are going to cooperate or not. the issue right now is not even how tough an inspection regime it is or isn't. the question is will saddam and the iraqi regime cooperate, really, really cooperate and let the inspectors do their job. if the inspectors do their job and we can satisfy the world community that they are disarmed, that's one path. if we can't satisfy the world community that they are disarmed, that takes us down another path. the president has made it clear what the united states position is. i'm sorry, it's nonsense. we saw the intelligence in early july. we challenged the intelligence community to get us as much as they had so we made sure we had a solid case. we looked at the information through july and august. i began consultations at a very high level with some of our friends, and in early september we began to brief members of congress about what we knew about north korean enriched uranium activity that was inconsistent with the agreed framework. we briefed both sides, democrats and republicans. we briefed both houses. we briefed enough people so that there was no secret about it. and i can provide to anyone who would care to see it in the congress the list of the briefings that were offered and that were conducted. some members were unable to take the briefings and we briefed their staffers. and then after assistant secretary [james] kelly went to north korea and came back with the information that they admitted it, we began another round of briefings, not only from the state department, from the cia, to pass on this new information. now, because this is a relatively recent development, we didn't get around to every constituency within the congress, but it is simply not correct to say that the united states was not making congress aware of the fact that north korea had begun to enrich uranium. i don't think it was relevant to the vote on iraq. it never entered our calculation that the manner in which we were briefing congress had anything to do with the vote on iraq. i think, in fact, it might even have reinforced the vote on iraq. i mean, i can't understand the logic that says we held this back because it would have made it harder to get the votes we needed on iraq. i think it might have told everybody that this is dangerous and we need to make sure we're firm with iraq as a signal to north korea. but the suggestion that this is some kind of plot on the part of the administration is just false. and there were so many members of congress briefed that i cannot believe a member can go around saying that the administration was not forthcoming. and last night when this issue came up, i challenged my staff to get me everything you had, and i've got two and a half pages of briefings. i expect early this week to put down a full resolution after we've had some very useful conversations with a number of our permanent security council member colleagues. and i hope that now the conversation will be joined not only with the permanent members but with the elected members, all 15 members. whether they can get to a final solution this week or not, i don't know. there are still some difficult issues. it isn't just going to be here it is and that's it. the president has all the authorization he needs if he believes it is necessary to use force to defend the american people. any resolution that comes out of the united nations, i am sure will contain an indictment against iraq, which we asked for, will contain a new tough inspection regime and it will make clear that iraq will face consequences if they frustrate and violate this new inspection regime. then the question becomes, and the debate we've been having, is at that point if iraq fails once again to comply, what are the consequences. the united states believes that it and like-minded nations might have all the authority, will have all the authority it needs at that point, if it chooses to take action. if other members wish to meet again to discuss it, that's up to other members, but the president believes he now has the authority. and with a new resolution with continued violation on the part of the iraqis, the president has authority, as do other like-minded nations, just as we did in kosovo. i can't predict that. it depends upon, one, getting a strong resolution, but it depends even more on whether iraq is willing to cooperate this time. if iraq is willing to cooperate, then the inspectors can get their job done. if iraq chooses to keep frustrating, denying, deceiving, distracting, fooling around with the inspectors, then the inspectors are not going to be able to get their job and they're going to come home. they're not going to be jerked around the way they were in 1997 and 1998. and that's clear. we've made that clear to our security council colleagues. we cannot go down that road again. either iraq cooperates and we get this disarmament done through peaceful means or they do not cooperate and we will use other means to get the job done. i make of it that they better watch out where the next door is; it puts them right back in jail. i mean, this is typical of this man's use of human beings for these political purposes of his. now, do you really think if these people are dangerous to the regime that they're going to be allowed out and stay out? or are they going to be back in jail in about three days' time? this is the kind of manipulation he uses to try to paint himself as something other than what he is, a brutal dictator. yes, i saw the speech before it was delivered. i commented on it a week before, and i fully supported that line. it's a good, powerful, strong line that makes the case that these three nations are representative of a group of nations that continue to act in ways that are - just are inconsistent with the expectations of the 21st century and are hindering our campaign against terrorism. and the president spoke to it. with respect to iraq, the problem is quite simple. we suspect they're developing weapons of mass destruction. we more than suspect it; we know it. there's an easy way for them to demonstrate that they are not, and that is, as the president has said, let the inspectors in. what the president has been saying continuously is there are u.n. resolutions with respect to weapons of mass destruction in iraq. let the inspectors in. they threw them out in 1998. they ought to be allowed back in. if iraq is not a member of the axis of evil club, let the inspectors in to establish it and prove it. the burden should not be on the president, it should not be on us and it should not be on the state of the union address, which clearly pointed out these problems. the burden and all of the counter-rhetoric we're hearing is misdirected. it ought to be directed at these nations that are pursuing these kinds of capabilities. well - well, the president has all the options available to him, political means, diplomatic means, economic means, and military means. and i know the president will consult with our friends and allies in the world, because it is not just a danger to the united states, it's a danger to the whole world, to the civilized world. and then we'll see what might be necessary to persuade them, convince them or force them to act in ways that are more responsible. we prefer diplomatic ways, political solutions. we're not looking for a war. we're trying to avoid war. but we will not resist the challenge that these nations present to us. we're not trying to give a signal that we're going to act unilaterally. if it's necessary, we can, and we - we - we will if we have to. but it is much better to - to operate within the framework of like-minded nations, and that's the president's policy. he has spent an enormous amount of time, just in the past week, talking to foreign leaders. king abdullah was in the oval office on friday. chancellor schroeder was in for dinner on thursday night. i won't even count for you how many heads of state and foreign ministers i've spoken to in the last five - five days. this is not a matter of us going off alone - alone all by ourselves. we keep in touch with all of our friends and allies. it's just - just a - it's an incorrect charge, a false charge, to say that we do not consult with our friends and allies. that's what i spend most of my days doing. no, i've heard this before. we've heard it for 10 years. if it is a true statement, and he's right and i'm wrong, there is a simple way to test the proposition. that is to let the inspectors in, as the president has called for repeatedly. let the inspectors in. the united nations inspectors, who are standing by under the direction of dr. hans blix, ready to go in right away, but they have to go in under circumstances which let them look everywhere with no constraints, no funny business, no conditions, and let them determine whether or not he is telling the truth or we've been telling the truth. we have insisted all along that the inspectors should be allowed to return. otherwise, the sanctions have to remain in place. and, in fact, those sanctions, which people thought would be falling apart, are very much in place, and i think they'll become more effective in may of this year when we get into smart sanctions. what we might do, at some point in the future, i don't know. the president has made it clear that he reserves all of his options - political, diplomatic, and, for that matter, military. and we are working with our friends and allies, we are in constant consultation with our european friends and with our friends in the region. i don't think so. so far, now that it is february, we still haven't seen any direct linkage to the events of 11 september, and the iraqi regime, and, to some extent, yes, he is bottled up. the sanctions constrain him, to some extent, and he is certainly not welcome in any other country in the region. at the same time, he is worrisome. he is to be concerned about, because we know that he continues to try to find the means to develop weapons of mass destruction. nuclear programs, chemical programs, biological programs, that's what concerns us, and that's what the vice president was speaking of in his speech the other day. and until that stops - and, frankly, we believe, as a u.s. position, until that regime is changed, then his neighbors have much to fear, and we should be fearful, too, because the weapons he is developing could well fall into hands of terrorists who might be able to use them. that's a fascinating question. it's a question that we examine on a regular basis. and there are, we believe, opposition elements and personalities and forces who would give us a better turn of the cards, so to speak, in baghdad, than the hussein regime. we would like to see a regime come in that represents all the people of iraq, that would be democratically based. it will be a tough thing to do because there is not that tradition in iraq, but the people of iraq are as deserving of that new opportunity as were the people of afghanistan. good morning, wolf, and congratulations on your fifth anniversary. we're still hoping for a peaceful solution, but it is up to saddam hussein and iraq to make that decision. dr. blix and dr. el baradei are in baghdad today. i hope they will make it clear to saddam hussein that he is running out of time, he has got to cooperate; moreover, he has got to disarm and he has got to do it in a way that the inspectors don't have to go hunt-and-peck looking for things, but that iraq comes forward and meets the will of the international community that it must disarm of its weapons of mass destruction. if they do that, there is still a chance for a peaceful solution. well, we'll see. i think time is running out. we can't keep this up forever. and we'll all look forward to receiving the report from dr. blix and dr. el baradei next monday, the 27th of january, at the united nations. and after that, the security council will have an opportunity to make its judgment as to what should happen next, and the president of the united states will also make his judgment as to what he thinks should happen next. i think there is a persuasive case there now. iraq has given us a false declaration in december, still has not accounted for stocks of various biological and chemical agents that we know they had. and there is a discrepancy between what they had and what they are now reporting they have, and they have not solved those discrepancies. and we simply can't walk away from that kind of discrepancy. so there is a case now. and we will see how strong that case looks when dr. blix and dr. el baradei report, but i think it's fairly persuasive that they are not cooperating, and i hope they understand as a result of the visit of the two chief inspectors today that time is running out on them. that will be a matter for the council to decide, and the president will make his own decision. but, you know, look at what we have found. we have found false declarations. there are all sorts of toxic agents that are unaccounted for. and then this week, the inspectors found chemical rockets. now, those rockets are not just laying benignly around. what are they doing there? why - what difference does it make? the point is that they are designed for a unique purpose, and that is to carry a chemical agent. and so they should have been declared. they should have been destroyed. this is the kind of weapon that iraq says it no longer has, and yet there it is. now, whether that constitutes one person's smoking gun or some other person's smoking gun, i think it contributes to a body of evidence that suggests iraq is not disarming and is not cooperating with efforts of the united nations inspectors to get them to disarm. and that's what we're looking for, and i hope that message comes through clearly today when they meet with the iraqi officials. when we talk about trust, let me use that as a bridge to one of the major issues of the day, iraq. let me try to explain why we feel so strongly about iraq and why we are determined that the current situation cannot be allowed to continue. we are where we are today with iraq because saddam hussein and his regime have repeatedly violated the trust of the united nations, his people, and his neighbors, to such an extent as to pose a grave danger to international peace and security. the united nations security council recognized this situation and unanimously passed resolution 1441, giving iraq one last chance to disarm peacefully after 11 years of defying the world community. today, not a single nation, not one, trusts saddam and his regime. and those who know him best trust him least: his own citizens, whom he has terrorized and oppressed; his neighbors, whom he has threatened and invaded. citizens and neighbors alike have been killed by his chemical weapons. this is not about inspectors finding smoking guns. it is about iraqis' failure - iraq's failure to tell the inspectors where to find its weapons of mass destruction. the 12,200-page declaration iraq submitted to the united nations security council on december 7th utterly failed to meet the requirements of the resolution, utterly failed to meet the requirements of being accurate, full, and complete. iraq attempted to conceal with volume what it lacked in veracity. not one nation in the security council rose to defend that declaration. not one person in this room could do so. the requirement for a declaration was put in as an early test of iraq's intent to change its behavior. it failed the test. this past week, united nations inspector [hans] blix and international atomic energy agency inspector [mohamed] elbaradei went to baghdad to deliver the message that iraq's cooperation has been inadequate. iraq's response did nothing to alter the fact that baghdad still is not providing the inspectors with the information they need to do their job. there is no indication whatever that iraq has made the strategic decision to come clean and to comply with its international obligation to disarm. the support of u.s. intelligence and the intelligence of other nations can take the inspectors only so far. without iraq's full and active cooperation, 100 or so inspectors would have to look under every roof and search the back of every truck in a country the size of california to find the munitions and programs for which iraq has failed to account for. after six weeks of inspections, the international community still needs to know the answers to key questions. for example: where is the evidence - where is the evidence - that iraq has destroyed the tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and botulinum we know it had before it expelled the previous inspectors? this isn't an american determination. this is the determination of the previous inspectors. where is this material? what happened to it? it's not a trivial question. we're not talking about aspirin. we're talking about the most deadly things one can imagine, that can kill thousands, millions of people. we cannot simply turn away and say, "well, never mind." where is it? account for it. let it be verified through the inspectors. what happened to nearly 30,000 munitions capable of carrying chemical agents? the inspectors can only account for only 16 of them. where are they? it's not a matter of ignoring the reality of the situation. just think, all of these munitions, which perhaps only have a short range if fired out of an artillery weapon in iraq, but imagine if one of these weapons were smuggled out of iraq and found its way into the hands of a terrorist organization who could transport it anywhere in the world. what happened - please, what happened - to the three metric tons of growth material that iraq imported which can be used for producing early, in a very rapid fashion, deadly biological agents? where are the mobile vans that are nothing more than biological weapons laboratories on wheels? why is iraq still trying to procure uranium and the special equipment needed to transform it into material for nuclear weapons? these questions are not academic. they are not trivial. they are questions of life and death, and they must be answered. to those who say, "why not give the inspection process more time?", i ask: "how much more time does iraq need to answer those questions?" it is not a matter of time alone, it is a matter of telling the truth, and so far saddam hussein still responds with evasion and with lies. saddam should tell the truth, and tell the truth now. the more we wait, the more chance there is for this dictator with clear ties to terrorist groups, including al qaeda, more time for him to pass a weapon, share a technology, or use these weapons again. the nexus of tolerance and terror, of terrorists and weapons of mass destruction, is the greatest danger of our age. the international community knows what real disarmament looks like. we saw it in kazakhstan. we saw it take place in the ukraine. we saw it in south africa. we see none of the telltale signs of real disarmament, honest disarmament, in iraq. instead of a high-level determination to work with inspectors, we have continued defiance. instead of a transparent disarmament process, we get the same old tactics of deceit and delay, documents hidden in private homes, denial of reconnaissance flights, denial of access to people and facilities, the kind of access that must be unimpeded and unrestricted in order to be successful. tomorrow, chief inspectors blix and elbaradei will make their report to the united nations security council. my government will study their report carefully, will study it with gravity, and we will exchange views on its findings that were presented with other members of the council. we are in no great rush to judgment tomorrow or the day after, but clearly time is running out. there is no longer an excuse for iraqi denial of its obligation. we must have iraq participate in the disarmament or be disarmed. we should not [sic] understand what is at stake here. saddam hussein's hidden weapons of mass destruction are meant to intimidate iraq's neighbors. these illegal weapons threaten international peace and security. these terrible weapons put millions of innocent people at risk. it is more than that. saddam's naked defiance also challenges the relevance and credibility of the security council and the world community. when all 15 members of the council voted to pass u.n. resolution 1441, they assumed a heavy responsibility to put their will behind their words. multilateralism cannot become an excuse for inaction. saddam hussein and others of his ilk would like nothing better to see the world community back away from this resolution, instead of backing it with their solemn resolve. iraq continues to conceal quantities, vast quantities, of highly lethal material and weapons to delivery it. they could kill thousands upon thousands of men, women, and children if saddam hussein decides to use these against those men, women and children, or, just as frightening, to provide them to others who might use such weapons. i think we have said consistently all along, through last fall and into this year, that we have seen contacts and connections between the iraqi regime and terrorist organizations, to include al qaeda. as we have been able to focus on this more and look back in time, i think we're more confident of that assessment and we see no reason not to believe that such contacts and the presence of al qaeda elements or individuals in iraq is a reasonable assumption, and we have some basis for that assumption. and the information that we can divulge in greater detail, we will be divulging in the days ahead. i can't see into the future unless i'm the one doing the future. in iraq, i knew what i was doing - kicking the army out of kuwait. but we never, notwithstanding all the speculation, the stories of the last 10 years, nobody every said to invade baghdad. no, i think they are quite different. i haven't spent a lot of time comparing the similarities. i'm sure you can always come up with lessons. i just haven't done it yet. iraq is iraq - a wasted society 10 years. they're sad. they're contained. they're still fiddling with weapons of mass destruction. no, we're going from here to - (laughter). the president decided this a month ago and we've been following the president's guidance ever since. in their inspections, mr. [hans] blix's team discovered a number of chemical warheads not previously acknowledged by iraq. iraq also continues to acquire banned equipment, with proscribed imports arriving as recently as last month. the inspectors also reported that iraqi activity is severely hampering their work. for example, iraq has refused the inspectors' request to use a u-2 reconnaissance aircraft, a critical tool for inspections. inspectors are accompanied everywhere by iraqi minders, are slandered by iraqi officials as spies, and face harassment and disturbing protests that would be unlikely to occur without the encouragement of the authorities. on wednesday, i will present to the security council u.s. intelligence showing further evidence of iraq's pattern of deception. our evidence will reinforce what the inspectors told the security council last week - that they are not getting the cooperation they need, that their requests are being blocked, and that their questions are going unanswered. while there will be no "smoking gun," we will provide evidence concerning the weapons programs that iraq is working so hard to hide. we will, in sum, offer a straightforward, sober and compelling demonstration that saddam is concealing the evidence of his weapons of mass destruction, while preserving the weapons themselves. the world must now recognize that iraq has not complied with the will of the international community as expressed in [u.n.] resolution 1441. iraq has failed the resolution's two tests - to disclose and to cooperate - in a manner that constitutes a further material breach of the resolution. first, biological weapons. we have talked frequently here about biological weapons. by way of introduction and history, i think there are just three quick points i need to make. first, you will recall that it took unscom [united nations special commission] four long and frustrating years to pry - to pry - an admission out of iraq that it had biological weapons. second, when iraq finally admitted having these weapons in 1995, the quantities were vast. less than a teaspoon of dry anthrax, a little bit about this amount - this is just about the amount of a teaspoon - less than a teaspoon full of dry anthrax in an envelope shutdown [sic] the united states senate in the fall of 2001. this forced several hundred people to undergo emergency medical treatment and killed two postal workers just from an amount just about this quantity that was inside of an envelope. iraq declared 8,500 liters of anthrax, but unscom estimates that saddam hussein could have produced 25,000 liters. if concentrated into this dry form, this amount would be enough to fill tens upon tens upon tens of thousands of teaspoons. and saddam hussein has not verifiably accounted for even one teaspoon-full of this deadly material. and that is my third point. and it is key. the iraqis have never accounted for all of the biological weapons they admitted they had and we know they had. they have never accounted for all the organic material used to make them. and they have not accounted for many of the weapons filled with these agents such as there are 400 bombs. this is evidence, not conjecture. this is true. this is all well-documented. one of the most worrisome things that emerges from the thick intelligence file we have on iraq's biological weapons is the existence of mobile production facilities used to make biological agents. let me take you inside that intelligence file and share with you what we know from eye witness accounts. we have firsthand descriptions of biological weapons factories on wheels and on rails. the trucks and train cars are easily moved and are designed to evade detection by inspectors. in a matter of months, they can produce a quantity of biological poison equal to the entire amount that iraq claimed to have produced in the years prior to the gulf war. although iraq's mobile production program began in the mid-1990s, u.n. inspectors at the time only had vague hints of such programs. confirmation came later, in the year 2000. the source was an eye witness, an iraqi chemical engineer who supervised one of these facilities. he actually was present during biological agent production runs. he was also at the site when an accident occurred in 1998. twelve technicians died from exposure to biological agents. this defector is currently hiding in another country with the certain knowledge that saddam hussein will kill him if he finds him. his eye-witness account of these mobile production facilities has been corroborated by other sources. a second source, an iraqi civil engineer in a position to know the details of the program, confirmed the existence of transportable facilities moving on trailers. a third source, also in a position to know, reported in summer 2002 that iraq had manufactured mobile production systems mounted on road trailer units and on rail cars. finally, a fourth source, an iraqi major, who defected, confirmed that iraq has mobile biological research laboratories, in addition to the production facilities i mentioned earlier. we know that iraq has at lest seven of these mobile biological agent factories. the truck-mounted ones have at least two or three trucks each. that means that the mobile production facilities are very few, perhaps 18 trucks that we know of - there may be more - but perhaps 18 that we know of. just imagine trying to find 18 trucks among the thousands and thousands of trucks that travel the roads of iraq every single day. it took the inspectors four years to find out that iraq was making biological agents. how long do you think it will take the inspectors to find even one of these 18 trucks without iraq coming forward, as they are supposed to, with the information about these kinds of capabilities? ladies and gentlemen, these are sophisticated facilities. for example, they can produce anthrax and botulinum toxin. in fact, they can produce enough dry biological agent in a single month to kill thousands upon thousands of people. and dry agent of this type is the most lethal form for human beings. we have evidence these weapons existed. what we don't have is evidence from iraq that they have been destroyed or where they are. that is what we are still waiting for. third point, iraq's record on chemical weapons is replete with lies. it took years for iraq to finally admit that it had produced four tons of the deadly nerve agent, vx. a single drop of vx on the skin will kill in minutes. four tons. yet, to this day, iraq denies it had ever weaponized vx. and on january 27, unmovic [u.n. monitoring, verification and inspection commission] told this council that it has information that conflicts with the iraqi account of its vx program. i'm going to show you a small part of a chemical complex called al-moussaid (ph), a site that iraq has used for at least three years to transship chemical weapons from production facilities out to the field. in may 2002, our satellites photographed the unusual activity in this picture. here we see cargo vehicles are again at this transshipment point, and we can see that they are accompanied by a decontamination vehicle associated with biological or chemical weapons activity. what makes this picture significant is that we have a human source who has corroborated that movement of chemical weapons occurred at this site at that time. so it's not just the photo, and it's not an individual seeing the photo. it's the photo and then the knowledge of an individual being brought together to make the case. this photograph of the site taken two months later in july shows not only the previous site, which is the figure in the middle at the top with the bulldozer sign near it, it shows that this previous site, as well as all of the other sites around the site, have been fully bulldozed and graded. the topsoil has been removed. the iraqis literally removed the crust of the earth from large portions of this site in order to conceal chemical weapons evidence that would be there from years of chemical weapons activity. to support its deadly biological and chemical weapons programs, iraq procures needed items from around the world using an extensive clandestine network. what we know comes largely from intercepted communications and human sources who are in a position to know the facts. iraq's procurement efforts include equipment that can filter and separate micro-organisms and toxins involved in biological weapons, equipment that can be used to concentrate the agent, growth media that can be used to continue producing anthrax and botulinum toxin, sterilization equipment for laboratories, glass-lined reactors and specialty pumps that can handle corrosive chemical weapons agents and precursors, large amounts of vinyl chloride, a precursor for nerve and blister agents, and other chemicals such as sodium sulfide, an important mustard agent precursor. just a few weeks ago, we intercepted communications between two commanders in iraq's second republican guard corps. one commander is going to be giving an instruction to the other. you will hear as this unfolds that what he wants to communicate to the other guy, he wants to make sure the other guy hears clearly, to the point of repeating it so that it gets written down and completely understood. listen. (begin audio tape) [speaking in foreign language.] (end audio tape) let's review a few selected items of this conversation. two officers talking to each other on the radio want to make sure that nothing is misunderstood: "remove. remove" the expression, the expression, "i got it" "nerve agents. nerve agents. wherever it comes up" "got it" "wherever it comes up" "in the wireless instructions, in the instructions" "correction. no. in the wireless instructions" "wireless. i got it" why does he repeat it that way? why is he so forceful in making sure this is understood? and why did he focus on wireless instructions? because the senior officer is concerned that somebody might be listening. well, somebody was. "nerve agents. stop talking about it. they are listening to us. don't give any evidence that we have these horrible agents" well, we know that they do. and this kind of conversation confirms it. our conservative estimate is that iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. that is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets. even the low end of 100 tons of agent would enable saddam hussein to cause mass casualties across more than 100 square miles of territory, an area nearly 5 times the size of manhattan. saddam hussein has chemical weapons. saddam hussein has used such weapons. and saddam hussein has no compunction about using them again, against his neighbors and against his own people. in truth, saddam hussein had a massive clandestine nuclear weapons program that covered several different techniques to enrich uranium, including electromagnetic isotope separation, gas centrifuge, and gas diffusion. we estimate that this elicit program cost the iraqis several billion dollars. since 1998, his efforts to reconstitute his nuclear program have been focused on acquiring the third and last component, sufficient fissile material to produce a nuclear explosion. to make the fissile material, he needs to develop an ability to enrich uranium. saddam hussein is determined to get his hands on a nuclear bomb. he is so determined that he has made repeated covert attempts to acquire high-specification aluminum tubes from 11 different countries, even after inspections resumed. these tubes are controlled by the nuclear suppliers group precisely because they can be used as centrifuges for enriching uranium. by now, just about everyone has heard of these tubes, and we all know that there are differences of opinion. there is controversy about what these tubes are for. most u.s. experts think they are intended to serve as rotors in centrifuges used to enrich uranium. other experts, and the iraqis themselves, argue that they are really to produce the rocket bodies for a conventional weapon, a multiple rocket launcher. in 1999 and 2000, iraqi officials negotiated with firms in romania, india, russia, and slovenia for the purchase of a magnet production plant. iraq wanted the plant to produce magnets weighing 20 to 30 grams. that's the same weight as the magnets used in iraq's gas centrifuge program before the gulf war. this incident linked with the tubes is another indicator of iraq's attempt to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program. intercepted communications from mid-2000 through last summer show that iraq front companies sought to buy machines that can be used to balance gas centrifuge rotors. one of these companies also had been involved in a failed effort in 2001 to smuggle aluminum tubes into iraq. people will continue to debate this issue, but there is no doubt in my mind, these elicit procurement efforts show that saddam hussein is very much focused on putting in place the key missing piece from his nuclear weapons program, the ability to produce fissile material. he also has been busy trying to maintain the other key parts of his nuclear program, particularly his cadre of key nuclear scientists. but what i want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between iraq and the al qaeda terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder. iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by abu musab al-zarqawi, an associated in collaborator of osama bin laden and his al qaeda lieutenants. zarqawi, a palestinian born in jordan, fought in the afghan war more than a decade ago. returning to afghanistan in 2000, he oversaw a terrorist training camp. one of his specialities and one of the specialties of this camp is poisons. when our coalition ousted the taliban, the zarqaqi [sic] network helped establish another poison and explosive training center camp. and this camp is located in northeastern iraq. those helping to run this camp are zarqawi lieutenants operating in northern kurdish areas outside saddam hussein's controlled iraq. but baghdad has an agent in the most senior levels of the radical organization, ansar al-islam, that controls this corner of iraq. in 2000 this agent offered al qaeda safe haven in the region. after we swept al qaeda from afghanistan, some of its members accepted this safe haven. they remain their today. zarqawi's activities are not confined to this small corner of north east iraq. he traveled to baghdad in may 2002 for medical treatment, staying in the capital of iraq for two months while he recuperated to fight another day. during this stay, nearly two dozen extremists converged on baghdad and established a base of operations there. these al qaeda affiliates, based in baghdad, now coordinate the movement of people, money and supplies into and throughout iraq for his network, and they've now been operating freely in the capital for more than eight months. iraqi officials deny accusations of ties with al qaeda. these denials are simply not credible. last year an al qaeda associate bragged that the situation in iraq was, quote, "good," that baghdad could be transited quickly. last year, two suspected al qaeda operatives were arrested crossing from iraq into saudi arabia. they were linked to associates of the baghdad cell, and one of them received training in afghanistan on how to use cyanide. from his terrorist network in iraq, zarqawi can direct his network in the middle east and beyond. we are not surprised that iraq is harboring zarqawi and his subordinates. this understanding builds on decades long experience with respect to ties between iraq and al qaeda. going back to the early and mid-1990s, when bin laden was based in sudan, an al qaeda source tells us that saddam and bin laden reached an understanding that al qaeda would no longer support activities against baghdad. early al qaeda ties were forged by secret, high-level intelligence service contacts with al qaeda, secret iraqi intelligence high-level contacts with al qaeda. we know members of both organizations met repeatedly and have met at least eight times at very senior levels since the early 1990s. in 1996, a foreign security service tells us, that bin laden met with a senior iraqi intelligence official in khartoum, and later met the director of the iraqi intelligence service. saddam became more interested as he saw al qaeda's appalling attacks. a detained al qaeda member tells us that saddam was more willing to assist al qaeda after the 1998 bombings of our embassies in kenya and tanzania. saddam was also impressed by al qaeda's attacks on the u.s.s. cole in yemen in october 2000. iraqis continued to visit bin laden in his new home in afghanistan. a senior defector, one of saddam's former intelligence chiefs in europe, says saddam sent his agents to afghanistan sometime in the mid-1990s to provide training to al qaeda members on document forgery. from the late 1990s until 2001, the iraqi embassy in pakistan played the role of liaison to the al qaeda organization. al qaeda continues to have a deep interest in acquiring weapons of mass destruction. as with the story of zarqawi and his network, i can trace the story of a senior terrorist operative telling how iraq provided training in these weapons to al qaeda. his information comes first-hand from his personal involvement at senior levels of al qaeda. he says bin laden and his top deputy in afghanistan, deceased al qaeda leader muhammad atif (ph), did not believe that al qaeda labs in afghanistan were capable enough to manufacture these chemical or biological agents. they needed to go somewhere else. they had to look outside of afghanistan for help. where did they go? where did they look? they went to iraq. the support that (inaudible) describes included iraq offering chemical or biological weapons training for two al qaeda associates beginning in december 2000. he says that a militant known as abu abdula al-iraqi (ph) had been sent to iraq several times between 1997 and 2000 for help in acquiring poisons and gases. abdula al-iraqi (ph) characterized the relationship he forged with iraqi officials as successful. well, frankly, i have not seen this plan. it has been speculated about in the press for the last 24 hours, but i do not know what the plan actually is. but i suspect it is a variation of what the french foreign minister discussed at the u.n. on wednesday, and that is increasing the number of inspectors and giving them more robust instructions. but i do not know what that accomplishes. the issue is not more inspectors or more robust inspections; the issue is will iraq comply, will it give up its weapons of mass destruction. the resolution that we are trying to execute, 1441, accepted as a fact that iraq had weapons of mass destruction - the french knew that, all the other members of the security council knew it - said iraq was in material breach and said it had to come into compliance or else serious consequences would flow. so the issue is not more inspectors. if iraq was complying, giving up these weapons of mass destruction, telling us what happened to the mustard gas, what happened to the anthrax, what happened to the botulinum toxin, where did all the missiles go, where did all this material go, where are the documents, bring forward not just one or two people to be interviewed, bring forward everybody to be interviewed. if they were doing what they were supposed to be doing, the inspectors that are there would be more than enough. you could do it with half as many inspectors. i do not want to speculate on what - on this hypothetical situation. let us wait and see what dr. blix and dr. elbaradei say on friday. but i do not think we can keep stringing this out and giving them more and more time. we know why the iraqis want more and more time. they're trying to stretch this out in the hope that it will just sort of dissipate and fall apart and everybody will go walking away and we will be faced with the same situation we were faced with last year next year, and that is that we have this regime, this dictatorial regime that has not given up its commitment to developing weapons of mass destruction to threaten its neighbors and to threaten the world. if it really was supposed to be a terrorist training camp, the reporters would not be allowed in. you can be sure that anything that the owners of that camp did not want reporters to see, reporters did not see. another version of reporters reporting that went into that camp said we did not see anything but, you know, suddenly we were taken to a bunker which had video cameras and which had power and which was sophisticated, had computers, state-of-the-art. and so do not underestimate what can be hidden. we are not just relying on one overhead picture to make the claim that this is a place where poisons were being developed. we have a number of sources. this is a multi-sourced piece of evidence that we put down, and we can trace things that have come out of that facility and have moved through europe and central asia back into western europe to support terrorists in the production of poisons - poisons that have been found in different capitals throughout europe. so this is not a [inaudible]. and we fully anticipated that after my presentation, every picture i threw up and everything i showed, within a day or two the iraqis would be taking people to go look at what they wanted them to see at these facilities. of course not. i do not know who this senior intelligence officer is, and he seems not to be talking intelligence but policy. we examine all of these things on a regular, continuing basis, and when you consider military options you consider them in the framework of your entire strategy. and we are familiar with this facility, we have been able to track things coming out of it, and we have a variety of options that have been under consideration with respect to that facility. i am not going to discuss why we did or did not do a particular military action in public. i do not know. i hope that we can avoid war. there is still the opportunity to avoid war. the president prefers a peaceful solution, but it is in the hands of saddam hussein. what he has to do is comply, as required by the u.n. resolution 1441, and turn over all the documents, make available all the scientists and engineers for interview, show us everything that he has been doing for these many years with respect to weapons of mass destruction. [resolution] 1441 was not a confusing document. it was very clear. saddam is in material breach, he has been in material breach. we give him a chance to come clean. he takes that chance or not. if he does not take the chance, then serious consequences follow. so far, he has ignored the will of the united nations, the will of the security council, as expressed in 1441. so we are running out of time and he has only got a short period of time left to demonstrate compliance or force will have to be used to bring him into compliance. no, i do not think so. i think britain stands behind its document. they have acknowledged that they use other sources that they did not acknowledge or attribute, but i think the document stands up well because it describes a pattern of deceit on the part of the iraqis that is not just a pattern of deceit that exists today, but has existed for many years and has been documented in many, many ways. i do not think it was presented as an intelligence document. it was presented as a document, a 19-page document, if my memory serves me correctly, that demonstrates how the iraqis, over time, have deceived inspectors, have tried to send them down the wrong path. and it is a pattern that continues to this day. it is not my document. i will let the british - oh, yes. well, the inspectors eventually did go there, and by the time they got there, they were no longer active chemical bunkers. and if you note, i think - i do not have the pictures right in front of me, but we took the pictures before the inspectors arrived, and the second picture i showed or the third picture i showed had the inspectors arriving with more than enough notice that this was a likely place to be inspected, so that we believe, and i think the evidence shows clearly, that the iraqis had sanitized the sites. well, i think they are not following what the resolution called for, what 1441 called for. [resolution] 1441, which passed 15-0, with the french voting for it, said that iraq has weapons of mass destruction and they are in material breach of 16 previous resolutions. the french agreed to that. and we said we were giving saddam hussein one last chance by this resolution. he has had that one last chance now for 3 months. if he does not now come into compliance and do what he is supposed to do - turn over all the documents, bring people forward for interviews - if he actually did what he was supposed to do, you would only need a handful of inspectors. so more inspectors does not answer the question. and what france has to do, and what i think germany has to do, and all the members of the security council have to do, is read 1441 again. this lack of cooperation by iraq and the false declaration, all the other actions that they have taken and not taken since the resolution passed, are setting - all set the stage for the u.n. to go into session and find whether or not serious consequences are appropriate at this time. i do not think that is going to be the issue before the u.n. the issue before the u.n. is going to be whether or not iraq is faithfully complying with 1441. we have had more than enough time to measure iraqi compliance, and all we have seen is noncompliance. this coming friday, the 14th of february, dr. blix and dr. elbaradei will report once again on the extent of iraqi cooperation or non-cooperation, and i think at that point the council is going to have to start to come together and make a judgment as to what next steps should be. and i do not think next steps should be "let us send in more inspectors to be stiffed by the iraqis." there is evidence that over the years al qaeda has sought training and information, and perhaps material related to weapons of mass destruction in the manner that i described in my presentation on wednesday. i do not want to overstretch the point, but i do not want to underplay it. it is that very nexus, that very possibility, that causes us such concern, and i tried to make that case wednesday. terrorists, non-state terrorists who can find a haven in a place like iraq, and in that haven they cannot only find a safe place to operate but they can perhaps find these sorts of terrible weapons and technologies that they can use to threaten the world. we do know that the facility that i described in my presentation on wednesday has been used to develop poisons, and not just from a picture of that facility but a lot of other source material we have that shows that things that come out of that facility and have transited through various parts of europe and central asia, reaching western europe. one has to be a little careful here because that part of iraq is not under saddam hussein's direct control - although we do know that iraqi intelligence officers have been working in that area and there are connections that are of concern to us. first, with respect to iraq. mr. chairman, when the international community came together after president bush's speech to the united nations on the 12th of september, it came together with the certain understanding that if the united nations was going to remain relevant it had to act on this challenge that had been put before the united nations by saddam hussein, the challenge that had been put before the united nations for the previous 12 years. and through 16 resolutions, the united nations had demanded compliance by saddam hussein of his obligations under those resolutions and he ignored the united nations. the president went to the united nations because this was a problem, as you noted, sir, not just for the united states, but for the whole world. saddam hussein is a threat to his own people, he is a threat to his neighbors, and ultimately he will be a threat to the whole world with the development of weapons of mass destruction. this was not a charge dreamed up by the united states of america. it was a statement of the security council of the united nations, repeated year after year after year. and what the president said to them on the 12th of september, it's time to get serious and put action to the words. over the next seven and a half weeks, i worked with my colleagues in the security council and we came up with a strong resolution, resolution 1441, which was passed on the 8th of november. this resolution did several things, which sometimes people forget, and some of the people who voted for the resolution forget. first and foremost, it said saddam hussein and the iraqi regime are guilty. it isn't a matter of needing more evidence. they have been found guilty previously. they are guilty now. they remain in material breach of their obligations under previous resolutions. so there is no question about whether they are guilty or not. and every member voting that day understood that simple proposition. second, we said there is a way to resolve this to the iraqi regime. there is a way to get out of this problem that you have put yourself in, and that way is to comply, to give up your weapons of mass destruction; to turn over the documents; to make people available to be interviewed, scientists and engineers, to bring them out of the country so they won't be intimidated; to show us where these facilities are; to bring forth all that you have been doing. and that is what the resolution called for iraq to do. to help you, we will strengthen the inspection system and give more authority to dr. blix and dr. elbaradei in order to help iraq comply. and then finally, to make sure that iraq understood the seriousness of this issue, the final part of the resolution clearly said that if there are new material breaches, further material breaches, meaning iraq has not complied as it must, then serious consequences will flow. every member sitting in the council that day and all of their capitals understood that serious consequences meant if iraq did not take this last chance, this last opportunity to come into compliance, they would face military force in order to bring them into compliance, in order to disarm them. there was no confusion in that council that day, i can assure you, because we worked on that document for seven and a half weeks. we now have three months of experience under that resolution, and saddam hussein has not complied. he sent forward a false declaration 30 days after the resolution was enacted - one day short of 30 days. and in that declaration, he gave us a lot of smoke. we specifically put that in there as an early requirement, a 30-day requirement, in order to test, in order to test him to see whether or not he was going to seriously undertake his obligations. he failed the test. nobody can dispute that. he has also failed to give the inspectors the kind of cooperation that is needed for the inspectors to do their work. i don't think there is any dispute about that and we will hear more about this from dr. blix and dr. elbaradei on friday. so we are reaching a moment of truth with respect to this resolution and whether it meant anything or not. we are reaching a moment of truth with respect to the relevance of the united nations security council to impose its will on a nation such as iraq, which has ignored the will of the council for the last 12 years, and we are reaching a moment of truth as to whether or not this matter will resolve peacefully or will be resolved by military conflict. no, i wouldn't say that. i would say there's still a chance for peace. but, you know, we will not - we will not realize that peace if we ever back off on the pressure, if we ever make it look like we do not have the will to take this to conflict if necessary to disarm iraq. but the question of war and peace is up to saddam hussein and the iraqi regime. the [u.n. security] council has spoken. the council spoke clearly in [resolution] 1441. we had a good, spirited debate today after hearing from the two chief inspectors. the burden now is on saddam hussein with respect to the question of whether there will be war or peace. we stay in close touch with the french. we had, obviously, discussions with them last friday in new york when we had the debate, both the open debate as well as the private debate, and then we had other opportunities to discuss the issue with the french. i take note of the european commission statement yesterday that once again reaffirmed that iraq must comply with the will of the u.n. iraq must disarm. there is a question as to how much time iraq should be given to disarm. we believe time is running out. it is not a matter of more inspectors or a longer inspection process. our french colleagues suggest that is the issue. that is not the issue, in our judgment. the issue is: is iraq complying? are they taking action on the specific issues we have brought to their attention - the destruction of prohibited missiles, accounting for the anthrax and the vx and the botulinum toxin and all the other horrible weapons that they had in their possession? this isn't speculation on the part of the united states. we know they had these weapons. the previous inspection regime said they had those weapons. they have acknowledged having had those weapons, but they won't tell us what has happened to all of that material. i think we owe it to the international community, we owe it to the world, to get the right answers, to get the correct answers, and iraq must comply. and it cannot be a satisfactory solution for inspections just to continue forever because some nations are afraid of stepping up to the responsibility of imposing the will of the international community. well, i am looking forward to the korean inauguration of a new president on the 25th of february, and since i was in the region, it was useful to stop in and spend time with my chinese colleagues. i have excellent relations with my chinese colleagues, especially with foreign minister tang [jiaxuan]. and it will give us another opportunity - it will be the fourth time in the last month - for he and i to discuss issues having to do with asia - the situation between the region and the d.p.r.k. [democratic people's republic of korea] and its nuclear programs. we will talk about our bilateral relationship and, of course, we will talk about iraq. the united states and china are unified in our desire to find a peaceful solution to the situation with iraq, but the united states and china are also unified in u.n. resolution 1441, which we both voted for as permanent members of the security council to see that iraq gets rid of its weapons of mass destruction, that it is disarmed. and so far iraq has not complied with the terms of 1441. even though the inspectors have been able to go back in, iraq continues not to provide the inspectors what they need to do the job and disarm iraq, so this will be an opportunity for me to discuss this once again with my chinese colleagues and point out to them that the united states feels strongly that we cannot just allow inspections to continue forever, and the answer is not more inspectors, the answer is iraq compliance. and if iraq does not comply, then the united nations security council must consider whether or not other action is appropriate. and this will be a subject of discussion with my chinese colleagues. yes. it is quite the contrary. grenada - when you have a military operation, there is going to be a military commander in charge. but how long did that military commander remain in grenada? a very short period of time. it is our desire if there is a conflict in iraq, and we still hope one can be avoided, but if there is a conflict, then a military commander will initially be in charge; not only to run the military operation, but to make sure that right after the operation things are secure, that the people are protected, that humanitarian supplies come in. you need some central authority initially. it is not our goal to destroy iraq. it is our goal to remove a regime that we believe has wasted the people's treasure on weapons of mass destruction. so we are not going to destroy iraq and we think once the regime has been eliminated there will be institutions that remain in place. as soon as we can, we would want to get the military commander to transfer real authority to a civilian leadership, perhaps initially of an international character as one develops a new iraqi leadership consisting of people who are outside the country right now in the opposition, as well as those who are inside the country who are responsible and who are committed to the same values that those outside the country are. i think to have a new leadership in iraq, you have to have a combination of both. and i think all of my colleagues agree with that and i think the opposition would agree with that, so we are going into iraq not to destroy a place, but to make it better. people worry about the negative consequences. there will be positive consequences if it is necessary to go into iraq. the united states has the best record of any major power for not establishing imperiums, for not taking over countries. kuwait - did we take over kuwait? no. have we taken over afghanistan? no. we gave it back to its muslim leaders. did we take over kosovo when we bombed it and made it safer for the muslim population? no. did we take over japan? germany? italy? no. the united states' record is not one of imperialism. it is one of doing the job, bringing peace, restoring order, and getting a responsible government in place. and when we said we were going to do that in iraq if it becomes necessary to have a conflict, it is all for the purpose of making iraq a good neighbor that is not developing weapons, that is not threatening its neighbors, that is committed to the welfare of its people. that will change the region. that's what we meant. well, france has a right to veto, as does any other permanent member of the security council. but i hope that when all the facts are put before the security council and they see that iraq is not complying, not really cooperating with the inspectors, that a lot of the things that were said at the united nations last week about iraqi compliance have turned out not to be the case, that sooner or later the council will say enough is enough, in the absence of compliance, we are obliged under the resolution 1441 to take action. that is certainly the position of the united states and i think prime minister [jose maria] aznar has been in the forefront of those leaders who understand our obligations to the safety of the world, our commitment to the people of the world to do something about these terrible weapons. i think if saddam hussein and his top leadership were to leave the country, go into exile, i think this would be a very positive step. and at that time, the united nations could take a look at the leadership that emerges, that follows saddam hussein, and if that leadership says we want to disarm of all these weapons of mass destruction, we want nothing to do with any of this, we want to cooperate fully with the united nations, then inspectors would have something to work with, and, frankly, it may be possible for the u.s. to provide direct assistance to that new leadership. the united states has no desire to invade a country or take over a country. that's not our history. that's not our tradition. we do have a desire to protect ourselves and protect our friends and to protect the world from these kinds of dangerous weapons. but the world will be better served if saddam hussein would go off into exile with the key members of his family and of the leadership group that has brought such tragedy to the people of iraq. we watch these demonstrations carefully. we know that there is great anxiety, that there are many, many people who do not want to see war. we don't want to see war. they don't think war is the right answer. war must always be a last resort, but it must be a resort. if the international community is to have any standing, if the united nations is to have any meaning, it must be able to impose its will when faced with a nation like iraq that simply ignores the will of the international community. and so i understand that people are hoping that war can be avoided. i hope it can be avoided. but the one who has the power in his hands to decide whether there will be war or peace is saddam hussein. if he complies, or if he leaves the country tomorrow, there will be no war. the problem is he has shown no signs of leaving the country and he still shows no signs of complying by coming forward with the documents, with people to be interviewed, with the materials that we know he has, with the mobile biological laboratories, with all these things that have been documented and are facts, not speculation. he still has not come forward and said, "here they are, i no longer want to have anything to do with these kinds of weapons, i'm changed." he's not changed, unfortunately, so far. i don't think that's the right approach. i mean, it says why should there be a timeline? because we have seen 12 years go by without compliance, and [resolution]1441 was passed by the security council with specific standards for iraq to meet, and they have not met those standards, and 1441 anticipated that if they didn't meet those standards, serious consequences would follow. now, some of the members of the security council take the position that, well, just let the inspectors go on forever and ever and ever. but what they're really saying is let iraq get away with it; we will never hold them to account, we will never force them to disarm, and let the inspectors stay there forever, and doesn't that take care of the problem? in our judgment, no. saddam hussein has demonstrated the intent repeatedly over the years to develop these weapon and to use these weapons, and he has used these weapons against his neighbors and against his own people. we don't want to take the chance now that those weapons could also get into the hands of the kind of terrorist organizations that we saw working around the world, especially on 9/11 but since 9/11. they are a threat to germany, they're a threat to france, they're a threat to england, they're a threat to the united states. and we believe that now that we have got this energy behind 1441 and we have forces in place, and without those forces there would be no inspections taking place, this is the time to bring this matter to a conclusion. those who say, well, let's not even consider the use of force. if it hadn't been for the presence of force, then no inspections would be taking place at all. so there's some inconsistency with this abhorrence to the use of force, but at the same time saying let inspectors continue their work. in the absence of force, there would be no inspectors there in the first place. no, not at all. we hope not to have to invade iraq. president bush and the international coalition has been doing everything possible to avoid a conflict with iraq. the issue simply is getting iraq to disarm, to get rid of its weapons of mass destruction. and the united nations security council, through a resolution, a resolution called number 1441, demanded that iraq come into compliance with its international obligations and get rid of these weapons. but it also said that if iraq did not do this, and did not cooperate with the monitors that were sent in to help them get rid of these weapons, the inspectors, then the possibility of force had to be considered, and in the absence of compliance on the part of iraq, then force would be used to disarm iraq. if it comes to that, and we hope it does not, president bush hopes it does not, but if it does come to conflict, it would be a conflict that we would try to conduct as quickly as possible. we would not destroy iraq. we would try to remove this regime, preserve the institutions of iraq, give their people a better life using their oil wealth, not for weapons of mass destruction, not to threaten their neighbors, but to build a better society for the people of iraq. the oil would belong to the people of iraq. the united states would not take it. it belongs to them, and under international law, as well as because of who we are, we would protect that oil and use it to benefit the people of iraq. we are very deeply engaged in the middle east peace process. my assistant secretary for near eastern affairs is in london right now, working with united nations representatives, european union representatives and russian representatives, to put together finally a roadmap of how to move forward and bring peace to the middle east. we want to see violence ended, we want to see terrorism ended, we want to see responsible leadership emerge on the palestinian side of the equation. and at the same time, we want to see israel help create conditions of stability in the region and create conditions so that a palestinian state can be created. president bush is the first president to go to the united nations and say he wants to see a state called palestine living side by side in peace with israel, two states that have to share this land. but we have got to end the violence, we need reform within the palestinian community. we also know that israel has to do something about its settlement policy. so it's not as if we are ignoring these resolutions and the obligations of the parties. it's just that not every one of these situations lend themselves to the kind of potential conflict of the kind we are seeing possibly in iraq. but hopefully, even with respect to iraq, we hope it will be possible in the next several weeks to find a peaceful solution and not take it to war. war is a last resort. war is a last option. all of us in this administration and all of our partners in the international community would rather see a peaceful resolution. but peaceful resolution means you have to achieve your objectives peacefully, and the objective won't be achieved unless saddam hussein gets rid of biological weapons, chemical weapons, his plans for nuclear weapons, the missiles to deliver them. he is the one who is at fault. he is the one who is responsible for this crisis, and not the united nations and not the united states. we have not taken our attention away from afghanistan. we are still looking for al qaeda elements. we are still looking for osama bin laden, assuming that he is even alive. we don't know whether he is or he is not. when the u.n. passed resolution 1441 in early november, it was with the understanding that all the members of the security council voting that day believed that saddam hussein had weapons of mass destruction. that was the basis for the resolution. and the reason we all believe that was we have our own intelligence services, all those nations; but moreover, for a period of 10 years, 11 years, he had denied having these weapons even though we were able to find them and get evidence, and then he would acknowledge he had them. and then he created conditions in 1998 where the inspectors had to leave before they finished their work, and they left some very specific questions behind when they were forced out. what happened to the anthrax that we know you had? what happened to the botulinum toxin? what happened to the mustard gas? what happened to the missiles? so it wasn't a question of the international community believing he did not have weapons of mass destruction. it's what happened to them. where are they now? and that's what he has not accounted for and that is what is of concern to the community. so the presumption is and the solemn assumption is that he does have weapons of mass destruction and the evidence supports that. and if we go in, you can be sure that our priority effort will be to go throughout the country, locate these weapons, materials, facilities, documents, and pull them all up so that the region and the world doesn't have to worry about weapons of mass destruction in iraq any longer. there are terrorist organizations that would strike america and other nations if given the chance. what we accomplish with the removal of weapons of mass destruction from iraq is that these kinds of weapons would not be available to fall into the hands of terrorists or to be given to terrorists. and so i would rather be chasing an osama bin laden who does not have potential access to chemical or biological weapons than an osama bin laden that has them. we want to get him one way or the other, but i think it's in the interest of the world and our own safety and the safety of the people in the region for this source of weapons of mass destruction to be no longer there for any terrorist organization that might come along. and we know that over the years, iraq, under saddam hussein, has been a sponsor of terrorist activity, to include a terrorist attack against former president bush back in the past decade. and so we know that they support terrorist organizations, have conducted terrorist acts in the past, and we don't want them to create linkages and, through those linkages, provide weapons of mass destruction training, material, expertise to other terrorist organizations. we would be leading an international coalition that has already begun stockpiling humanitarian supplies, food. we are already working with the united nations, the european union and other international organizations on any reconstruction that might be required. we would not expect this conflict to result in a great deal of destruction of the infrastructure. in fact, many parts of iraq right now are deprived because of the leadership that saddam hussein has provided for the last several decades. and so we have told all of our partners in the international coalition that if conflict comes, if it can't be avoided, we're not just going in for the conflict, but we will go in to lead an international coalition that will leave iraq in a better place than it is now. iraq will also have an advantage that countries like afghanistan did not have, in that iraq has roughly $20 billion worth of oil revenue available to it - money that will now be used to build the country, to help people, to educate children, to put in place health care systems, and not be used for weapons of mass destruction to threaten neighbors. no. we need more than that. we need not just more inspectors or not just more process improvement. what we need is a definitive action on the part of iraq that says, "we understand the problem we've got. we want to get rid of these weapons of mass destruction. so here is what we did with the anthrax. here is what happened to the botulinum toxin. here are the missiles that we have. you don't have to come search for them. you don't have to look for them. we will provide all of our scientists and engineers who had anything to do with these programs for you to interview anywhere you want without any minders listening in or without taping their remarks." if iraq were to show that level of compliance and cooperation, then we could deal with this matter. but it is not enough just to say, "send more inspectors in," or, "give the inspectors more time." it is not a resolution that was talking about inspections. it was a resolution that was talking about compliance on the part of iraq. if iraq really wanted to get out of the box on this one, they would be cooperating in every way possible. we wouldn't need more inspectors. the number of inspectors there could do the job. the problem is, so far, they have not demonstrated that spirit of cooperation, that commitment to comply with the will of the international community. that is what is causing the crisis. of course i do. and of course we watch the demonstrations that have taken place in the united kingdom and elsewhere around europe, and we take them very much into account. but the simple facts, the simple reality, is that the case is clear: iraq has weapons of mass destruction. the previous inspection regime said so as a result of their work from 1991 to 1998, when they were forced out of the country. and [u.n. resolution] 1441 begins with the opening premise that iraq remains in material breach of its obligations. where is the anthrax? where is the botulinum toxin? these are not just simple medications or chemicals that we can ignore knowing what happened to these items. these are deadly organisms and deadly chemicals. where are the missiles that we know exist? the mobile biological warfare labs? it's easy to say we haven't seen enough evidence, therefore we must not act. but it seems to me the evidence is clear, the evidence has been there for the past 11 to 12 years, and the united nations must not step back from its responsibilities, and i am pleased that there are leaders such as prime minister blair that even in the presence of dissension within the united kingdom he recognizes the responsibility that we have as an international community not to step back from this challenge, not to avoid the difficult days and difficult steps that may be ahead. iraq's still not accounted for the terrible materials that we know they have: anthrax, boutulinum toxin, the missiles that they have, the other weapons that we know they have, the programs that they have had underway over the years. it is these programs that iraq must come forward and let the monitors and the inspectors know the disposition of or what happened to them. it's not a matter of the inspectors wandering all over iraq looking for these materials, looking for these programs. so we face the same problem that we faced at the beginning when we first put [u.n. resolution] 1441 forward, and that is iraq is still not complying and time is drawing to a close when the international community - the security council - must show its relevance by insisting that iraq disarm or that iraq be disarmed by a coalition of forces that will go in and do it. to go to the last part of the question: a war is not necessary. it is saddam hussein who is putting in place conditions that will perhaps result in war. it is saddam hussein who has accumulated these horrible weapons. the presentation that i gave to the security council on the 5th of february was a summary of evidence that we have and it was a summary, really, of evidence that has been known for a long period of time. i tried to put it all together in a way that people could see it. but it is not just an idle accusation or a lack of evidence; the evidence is there. if the evidence was not there in the beginning, resolution 1441 wouldn't have passed in the first place. if you read the resolution, the resolution begins saying that iraq is in material breach of its obligations - remains in material breach - and for years it has been denying the truth. we know that they have been experimenting with weapons of mass destruction of a nuclear kind. we had to catch them in lies to prove that they had certain chemical facilities and chemical materials available. we had to catch them in a lie to show back in the mid-nineties that they had biological materials - they were working with anthrax and boutulinum toxin. all of these have a singular purpose, and that is to destroy large numbers of human beings. so this evidence is not new evidence. what more evidence does one need? we know they have this material. this issue before us is they have not accounted for the material - they won't tell us what has happened to it. we have evidence that, and i tried to put forward some of that evidence on the 5th of february, that this material remains within iraq - and we must assume it is there until they can demonstrate to us that it's not there. if they were serious about disarmament - and this is right to the japanese people - if iraq was serious about disarmament, if they were not trying to deceive us as they have for the past twelve years, they would be doing everything in their power to bring forth all the documentation, all the information, let us interview anybody that we wanted to interview, and interview them anywhere that we wanted to interview them to make sure they were not being intimated. if iraq was serious, they would be showing us where all the missiles are and not wondering whether the inspectors would find something or not find something. if iraq was serious, this matter could be over in a short period of time. we would see full cooperation. if i was in the position of saddam hussein and i was trying to persuade the united nations that i had no weapons of mass destruction, you would not have to ask me to bring forward scientists and engineers. i would bring them all forward; i'd line them all up in front of unmovic [united nations monitoring, verification and inspection commission] headquarters and say: "here they are. take them anywhere you want. ask them any questions you want. we will have nobody minding them. we will have no tape recorders so that we could get retribution later. go take them and find out all you want. what documents do you need? we will bring back documents from all the places we've sent them in the homes of scientists." we would not see this continued pattern of deception, which has not changed in twelve years. and it's time for us to stop saying, "well, gosh, give us new evidence." the evidence is there. the evidence is clear. the evidence has been there for these past dozen years, and especially we have evidence up to 1998 when they threw out the inspectors. and so, it is not enough any longer to say, "we don't want to take action because we don't see enough evidence or more evidence." it is time to take action. the evidence has been clear. they are guilty; 1441 says they are guilty, and 1441 said if they don't fix this, if they don't comply now, if they don't cooperate now, then serious consequences must flow. we are reaching that point, where serious consequences must flow. yeah, i would prefer it if there were rallies saying that iraq must disarm, but i have also seen previous situations in my professional career where on the eve of potential conflict there was a strong outpouring of support against that conflict. nobody wants to see conflict. and when conflict is potentially in the near future, there will always be an outpouring that says, "isn't there some other way?" i wish there were some other way. i have worked hard throughout my career to find ways other than conflict to solve problems, but sometimes you can't avoid it, and you must continue to do what you believe is the correct thing to do and the correct policy, even in the presence of demonstrations. people are free to demonstrate, and they don't see the danger the way we see the danger. we've studied this information for years. we've studied the evidence for years, and we continue to see iraqi deception, iraqi diversion of inspectors, iraqi efforts to hide, iraqi efforts to confuse. and all that does is persuade us that they continue to have these weapons and they are trying to hang onto them, and they have lost none of their intention to develop these kinds of weapons. and even though it might not be in all places the most popular thing to do, there are a number of world leaders who have stood up - such as [british] prime minister blair, such as mr. aznar of spain, mr. berlusconi of italy - a number of leaders who have stood up in many, many nations of europe. yes, there is public resistance in europe and elsewhere. it's a difficult call for many people, but these leaders are standing up because they know they don't want to wonder a couple of years from now, when iraq suddenly pops out and demonstrates in a way that can convince everybody that they had these weapons. they don't want to be in the position, and president bush has made this clear - he doesn't want to be in the position of saying, "why didn't we do something about this when we had mobilized the whole world?" yes, i have had quite a number of opportunities to meet with minister tang. we have been doing everything we can to avoid a war. we have been using the united nations, both the united states and china and other members of the security council. we're working hard to see if we can get iraq to comply and avoid a war and there is still time to avoid a war. we must not be afraid of a conflict, if a conflict is what it takes to remove weapons of mass destruction from iraq. we are not talking to any of our friends and colleagues about "slicing up the pie" so to speak after the conflict. if there is a conflict and the united states leads a coalition into iraq, everything we do during that conflict and after that conflict will be for the purpose of providing a better life for the iraqi people. and with respect to such issues as oil and their other natural assets, those assets belong to the iraqi people and everything we do would preserve those assets and make sure they serve the iraqi people and not anyone else. and so, i am sure that china shares that same point of view if a conflict comes, but china is working just as hard as the united states to see if such a conflict can be avoided. but the security council must meet its responsibilities if iraq does not comply. that was the clear intent of u.n. resolution 1441 when it was passed in november. we now have four months of experience, almost, with that resolution, and so far iraq continues to play games, continues to deceive, continues to let out a little bit here, a little bit there, but has not answered the basic questions: what happened to the anthrax? where is the botulism toxin? what have you done with the missiles? why aren't you getting us the documents that are needed? why can't people be interviewed without having minders and tape recorders present? stop the game. but the game continues because that is saddam hussein's intent, to try to hang onto these weapons of mass destruction, and that must not be allowed. that was the clear intent of resolution 1441. to end his possession, to make sure that weapons of mass destruction no longer exist in iraq and that it will happen one way or the other - peacefully or through the use of force. i never see war as inevitable. but time clearly is running out. saddam hussein is trying to use time to his advantage to avoid the consequences of his failure to comply. and i would encourage the european union, i would encourage the arab league, i spoke to the secretary general of the arab league this morning, and i would encourage them to issue the strongest possible statement to saddam hussein that he must comply, and time is running out in which he can comply. he's, frankly, running out of time. or suggest to him that perhaps to avoid what might flow in terms of serious consequences, it might be in his best interest to step down and get out of the way and let some responsible leadership take over in baghdad and allow the international community to help that responsible leadership disarm itself of its weapons of mass destruction as required by [u.n. resolution] 1441, and work with the international community to provide a better life for the people of iraq. and i hope that's one of the messages that might come out of the summit meeting. with respect to the european union, the minister can speak for the union. good afternoon. well, i disagree categorically with my colleague dominique de villepin's comment. [resolution] 1441, which we are trying to implement, had one goal, and that was to disarm iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. france voted for the resolution, as did the united states of america. and that is all we have been insisting on. and if iraq had disarmed itself, gotten rid of its weapons of mass destruction over the past 12 years, or over the last several months since 1441 was enacted, we would not be facing the crisis that we now have before us. i must say, however, that if we are unable to get iraq to comply and military action is necessary to remove this regime and to get rid of the weapons of mass destruction, it's quite clear to me that a new regime would be more responsive to the needs of its people, would live in peace with its neighbors, and perhaps that would assist the region in finding more peace, prosperity, and stability for other nations in the region. but the suggestion that we are doing this because we want to go to every country in the middle east and rearrange all of its pieces is not correct, and i think minister de villepin is wrong. we believe that war should be avoided and we have been trying to avoid a war. for 12 years, iraq has been in violation of its obligation - a simple obligation - get rid of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons and weapons programs for peace and security in the region. iraq has said no, we will not respond, we will not obey. and then we came together several months ago and passed resolution 1441 in the united nations, which said you must do this or face serious consequences. and so far, iraq continues to not comply. and therefore, as much as we have wanted peace, and we still hope for peace, we simply cannot allow iraq to continue to have biological weapons which kill people by the hundreds and thousands, or chemical weapons of the kind that they have used against their own people and have used against their neighbors. the united states does not want to go to war. it is iraq who is the problem. it is saddam hussein who is keeping these weapons. what purpose would these weapons serve in that part of the world? all we want to see is a leadership in iraq, a regime in iraq, that gets rid of these weapons and lives in peace with its neighbors. and i hope that our pakistani friends will understand that it is important for the world not to shrink from this responsibility. we know that there may be difficult days ahead if a conflict is necessary, but we also know that such a conflict would be conducted in a way to minimize any damage or loss of life as much as possible, considering it is a conflict; and in the aftermath of that conflict, we can build a better regime that is responsive to its people and i think will live in peace with its neighbors. and that is something we should all hope for. but we still hope to avoid war. we are pushing for a second resolution, and i won't speak for prime minister blair. but we understand the importance and usefulness of a second resolution, not only to prime minister blair but to all of us. we'd like to see a second resolution. but president bush has made it clear from the very beginning that if there is not compliance, he believes the u.n. should act, and through the second resolution is one way, but there is sufficient authority in [resolution] 1441 and earlier resolutions if willing nations and members of a willing coalition feel it is necessary to act to protect the stability of the region to get rid of these weapons of mass destruction. and, frankly, we're going to be creating a better life for the iraqi people once they are through with this problem and through with saddam hussein. it's not - it is a serious situation and i won't make light of it, but at the same time, what we are doing and what prime minister blair is doing and president bush is doing, what [spanish] prime minister aznar is doing, what [italian prime minister] mr. berlusconi is doing, and so many other european nations are doing, is stepping up to this challenge of leadership. either the international community's will has meaning or it does not have meaning, and in 1441 a clear standard was laid down and it said iraq is in violation, it is guilty, it's been guilty for 12 years, it must come into compliance, if it doesn't come into compliance, serious consequences must flow. everybody knew that that [sic] meant. it means military action would be required. and leader after leader has stood up to stand behind the meaning of that resolution, to include president bush and prime minister blair. and even though i understand the political difficulties that they are all facing, and president bush has his own set of political issues here, if it is clear that this is something that has to be done, and we do it and we do it well and efficiently, as i'm quite sure we will, and weapons of mass destruction are removed from iraq and the iraqi people realize there's a better life for them with the removal of this dictator, i think public opinion will quickly shift in the other direction and it will be seen as wise, enlightened, bold leadership, and all political leaders will benefit from it. well, i think there is always a chance for peace, and peace will come if saddam hussein and the iraqi regime do what they have been asked to do by the international community for the last 12 years, and that is to completely comply with all their obligations to disarm, to get rid of their weapons of mass destruction, to make the strategic decision to disarm. they haven't done that. they keep doling out little pieces of weapons. they keep reluctantly responding to the demands of the un. they keep pretending that they are disarming, that they are doing things for the inspectors, when, in fact, they are doing the minimum necessary to try to keep the pressure off. they're now destroying some missiles. well, there's nothing wrong with destroying those missiles, but we know why they're being destroyed. it's because there are large american and united kingdom and other forces assembling in the region, not because suddenly they have decided they have to comply and they realize they've made a mistake for all these years. it is simply military pressure and the threat of force that is causing them to do what they are doing now. what we would like to see them do is to come clean, let everybody come out to be interviewed that need to be interviewed, give all the documents over, account for everything, not try to game this every day with a little bit more, a little bit less, a little bit more, a little bit less. one day, we'll destroy the missiles. the next day, well, maybe we won't destroy the missiles. this is the game they have been playing for so many years, and the game has now come to an end, and it must come to an end soon. well, we are going to wait and see what dr. blix and dr. el baradei report to the security council on friday, and then over the weekend we'll consult with our friends and colleagues on the security council. i'm sure i'll be talking to my colleague, [german foreign minister] joschka fischer. and then early next week, we'll make a judgment on what we have heard, make a judgment on whether it's time to put the resolution up to a vote, and nobody really knows who has the votes until the votes are actually taken. this is not an easy vote for those nations on the security council, but the united states feels that it is appropriate to move forward with a vote in the absence of compliance on the part of saddam hussein and the iraqi regime. we have not seen the kind of compliance that we expected when [resolution] 1441 was passed. we believe that he has missed his last chance to comply. and it is not clear that he can do anything in the next several days or week or so that would give us and give the world any assurance that he is truly trying to get rid of these weapons of mass destruction. it's getting toward the end. we have had diplomacy with saddam hussein for 12 years. we have been waiting for 12 years and we have passed resolution after resolution after resolution. they were simple resolutions: please give up weapons of mass destruction, use the wealth of the iraqi people to benefit the iraqi people, not to develop weapons of mass destruction. and time after time, resolution after resolution, he ignored the will of the international community. when the inspectors were starting to get close in 1998, he created conditions so that they had to leave. and finally, in the fall of 2002, the international community came together, a 15-0 vote for the security council. resolution 1441 said this is your last chance, disarm, come into compliance, and if not, there will be serious consequences. now the debate before us is, well, shouldn't we have more inspectors? the inspection teams have not asked for more inspectors. should we not give inspections more time? how much more time would be necessary if he's still not complying and cooperating? the only reason he's doing these small steps that you see is not because of inspections or because of the resolution; it's because there is a powerful force assembling and he's trying to keep that force from being used. well, first of all, i agree very much with president chirac that it has only been through the threat of military force that saddam hussein has done anything. the limited cooperation we have seen is only the result of force, political force under resolution 1441, and the threat of force by u.s. and united kingdom forces moving into the region. trust me, if he did not see that threat of war, there would be no cooperation. he would be doing what he has been doing all of these years: ignoring the united nations. for 12 years, and especially since 1998, saying, i don't care what you think, pass all your resolutions, what do i care? i'm going to develop weapons of mass destruction to threaten the region, to threaten my own people, to keep a tight dictatorial rule over my country, and i don't care whether you like it or not. and then finally, this past fall, the united nations once again met and passed a resolution and this time said you must comply or face serious consequences. he's still not complying and therefore the choice is before us as to whether he should face serious consequences and whether the u.n. is irrelevant. now, france will have to make its own judgment as to how it will deal with this resolution. france is a sovereign nation. i understand the feelings of the people in france with respect to war. we don't want to see a war, but we also know that if it hadn't been for the threat of war, nothing would have been accomplished over the last four months; and if it is still not possible to get a strategic change in the mind of saddam hussein, then war may be necessary to compel him to disarm. and it will be a better region and a better world and a less threatened world once he is disarmed, one way or the other. i think it's unlikely. he has demonstrated for 12 years that he doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks. he intends to have weapons of mass destruction. he will manipulate public opinion. he will manipulate the world's opinion. he will do everything to make it look like he is cooperating and complying, when it is obvious that he is not cooperating and complying. the issue is not more inspectors, the issue is not longer inspections, the issue is has he made a decision that we all can see and understand that says i'm going to provide anybody you need to be interviewed, i'm going to provide all the documents you need to find out what i did with my chemical and biological weapons, i'm going to destroy all of this infrastructure, i don't want any more weapons of mass destruction, i'm turning it all in, i will tell you everything you need to know. that's what he has not done. that is what i was hoping, praying he would do after [resolution] 1441 was passed. but that is not what he has done. he continues to deceive. he continues to hide things. he continues to pretend he's destroying something here while he's protecting the ability to make more somewhere else. this is not what we are expecting from saddam hussein, but, unfortunately, it's what we got, and we must not step back from the difficult choices that may be ahead to disarm this dictatorial regime. well, i can't answer that question. time is running out on saddam hussein. we have been waiting for 12 years for him to disarm. we've been waiting almost four months since resolution 1441 passed and we still are not seeing a level of cooperation and we're not seeing the compliance that the international community had hoped for. so time is running out. sure, if he really demonstrated that he was going to totally comply and not just wait until the pressure was on him, and he destroys a few missiles, he gives a few more documents. this is all a game he's playing, trying to satisfy the pressure that's being placed on him. but the level of cooperation we've seen recently is not because he has made a strategic decision to comply, but because there are five american aircraft carriers in the region and thousands upon thousands of troops are assembling to disarm him if he doesn't disarm. so he's trying to divert that pressure through these techniques and tactics. but if he were serious, what we wanted to see after 1441 was here are the documents, here's the evidence, here's what i did, i'm going to destroy this, i'm going to show you everything, you can interview anybody you want to interview, you can interview them in the country, out of the country; i have a made a strategic choice to disarm. that is what we have not seen and we must not let these tactical moves deceive us into believing he has made a choice. nothing whatsoever. i didn't react, particularly. i didn't really consider it an attack. he looked at one of the photos and he said, based on his information, he didn't reach the same judgment. that doesn't mean i was wrong. he didn't reach the same judgment. no, it doesn't undercut my confidence in him. i believe that dr. blix is a very dedicated, distinguished man who will give you his straight opinion. but i not only had the picture that i showed that day, i had quite a bit of additional evidence that i wasn't able to present that day that certainly confirmed to me what we said about that facility. but based on what he saw and what he did, he came to a different judgment. and that's been portrayed as a huge attack against me, but i didn't see it that way at that moment. i think the inspections can only serve a useful purpose if the person on the other side, saddam hussein, has made a strategic decision to cooperate. and so the question of how much longer the inspections should continue, do you need more inspectors, do they need more technical assistance, you can double or triple the number. and by the way, the inspectors have not asked for more inspectors. they think they have enough inspectors. what they're looking for and what we've all hoped for was a level of cooperation and an intention on the part of saddam hussein to comply, and that we have not seen. so longer inspections, more inspectors, will not solve this problem. since my presentation to the security council on february 5th, we have received further intelligence from multiple sources showing that iraq is continuing in its efforts to deceive the inspectors. much of this intelligence from a variety of sensitive sources, many of these sources i cannot share with anyone in any greater detail than i am here today, but it's reliable and shows that the iraqi regime is still moving weapons of mass destruction materials around the country to avoid detection. why should we be surprised? this has been his pattern. this has been what he's been doing for 12 years. for example, we know that in late january, the iraqi intelligence service transported chemical and biological agents to areas far away from baghdad, near the syrian and turkish borders, in order to conceal them, and they have concealed them, from the prying eyes of inspectors. in early february, fearing that unmovic [united nations monitoring, verification and inspection commission] had precise intelligence about storage locations, the iraqis were moving prohibited materials every 12 to 24 hours. and in mid-february, concerned about the surveillance capabilities of the u-2 overflights that they finally were going to permit, iraq was transferring banned materials in old vehicles and placing them in poor, working-class neighborhoods outside the capital. if baghdad really were cooperating, if they really wanted to comply, if it really was disarmament that they were interested in, they would be bringing all these materials out, not scattering them for protection. we meet today, it seems to me, with one question and one very, very important question before us: has the iraqi regime made the fundamental, strategic and political decision to comply with the united nations security council resolutions and to rid itself of all of its weapons of mass destruction, all of the infrastructure for the development of weapons of mass destruction? i was pleased to hear from both of these distinguished gentlemen that there has been continuing progress on process, and even some new activity with respect to substance. but i was sorry to learn that all of this still is coming in a grudging manner, that iraq is still refusing to offer what was called for by [resolution] 1441: immediate, active and unconditional cooperation. not later, immediate; not passive, active; not conditional, unconditional in every respect. unfortunately, in my judgment, despite some of the progress that has been mentioned, i still find what i have heard this morning a catalog still of non-cooperation. if iraq genuinely wanted to disarm, we would not have to be worrying about setting up means of looking for mobile biological units or any units of that kind. they would be presented to us. we would not need an extensive program to search for and look for underground facilities that we know exist. the very fact that we must make these requests seems to me to show that iraq is still not cooperating. the inspectors should not have to look under every rock, go to every crossroad, peer into every cave for evidence, for proof. and we must not allow iraq to shift the burden of proof onto the inspectors. nor can we return to the failed bargain of resolution 1284, which offered partial relief for partial disclosure. 1441 requires full and immediate compliance, and we must hold iraq to its terms. and i know these are not toothpicks, but real missiles, but the problem was we don't know how many missiles there are, how many toothpicks there are. we don't know whether or not the infrastructure to make more has been identified and broken up. and we have evidence that shows that the infrastructure to make more missiles continues to remain within iraq and has not yet been identified and destroyed. there is still much more to do. and frankly, it will not be possible to do that which we need to do unless we get the full and immediate kind of cooperation that 1441 and all previous resolutions demanded. the intent of the iraqi regime to keep from turning over all of its weapons of mass destruction, seems to me, has not changed and not to cooperate with the international community in the manner intended by 1441. if iraq had made that strategic decision to disarm, cooperation would be voluntary, even enthusiastic, not coerced, not pressured. and that is a lesson we learned from south africa and the ukraine, where officials did everything possible to ensure complete cooperation with inspectors. we know what full compliance should look like and we know what it does not look like, and it does not look like full compliance now. they have known for these past 12 years what the requirements are, what the benchmarks are, what they are supposed to do, what we are expecting from them. and for 12 years, they have failed to comply, they have failed to cooperate. more than that, they have done everything to divide, to deceive, to put out practice of deceptions. and what we are saying is in this amendment to the resolution we are laying out clearly, i think, in that third operative paragraph, what we are looking for in order to see whether or not iraq has or has not lost this last chance is with - yeah, i know. well, there are different interpretations. there are some people who simply, in my judgment, don't want to see the facts clearly. i do not see the level of cooperation that should satisfy us that iraq is complying in a way that we would know they are no longer going to have weapons of mass destruction and they have given up the intent, the desire, to have weapons of mass destruction. if our sole goal was to get rid of saddam and we didn't care about weapons of mass destruction and we didn't care about the views of the security council, the president could have done that any time in the past year. but the issue that he brought to the security council last september was the issue of weapons of mass destruction and how to get rid of them, and he challenged the security council to make saddam hussein live up to the commitments and the obligations he had as a result of all the previous resolutions. well, i also know a large number of general officers who are active and who are planning this war, and they were mentees of mine along the way, and i think that the planning they have done, the work they have done, has been excellent. and a campaign plan has been put together that, if the president has to use military force, there will be a campaign plan that will minimize the loss of life, will achieve the military purpose and the political purpose, and will, i hope, create conditions for a better government to rise up in iraq. initially, an american general will be in charge, but as soon as possible, we will want to transition to civilian authority of one kind or another, and we're working that out, and ultimately give this country to responsible iraqi leaders who will stop wasting the oil treasure that iraq has on weapons of mass destruction, will make a commitment to get rid of all their weapons of mass destruction, but, above all, will live in peace with their neighbors. and at that time, the united states presence will recede, as it always has in the past. we'll be going about our business. that's not clear yet. we'll have to wait and see when the vote is taken sometime this week. but i am encouraged by the discussions i've been having with a number of members of the council. there are some members of the council among the permanent membership of the council that are firmly against such a vote. you know france's position, certainly. but i think most of the elected ten members are making up their judge - their minds over this weekend, and i've been in close contact with them. so i think we have a chance to get, a strong chance, and i am encouraged that we might get the nine or ten votes needed for passage of the resolution, and we'll see if somebody wants to veto it. but i will have to wait and see. we'll all have to wait and see. well, with respect to the aluminum tubes, we still believe the case is out. the cia has done a great deal of analysis on those tubes. they are not persuaded they were just for rockets. and, in fact, another nation this week, a european nation, came forward with some additional information that still, i think, leaves it an open question as to what the purpose of those tubes was. with respect to the uranium, it was the information that we had. we provided it. if that information is inaccurate, fine. we're continuing to examine this issue. and as dr. elbaradei said, it's still an open issue to be looked at. but we have to be a little careful about nuclear weapons programs. we saw the iaea [international atomic energy agency] almost give iraq a clean bill of health in the early '90s, only to discover that they had a robust nuclear weapons program that they had not discovered. and if you just look at iran this week, right now, the iaea is discovering, as a result of information and intelligence made available, that iran has a far more robust program for the development of nuclear weapons than the iaea thought. so while i respect dr. el baradei's opinion, he's a very dedicated international civil servant, i think we have to keep an open book on this as more information comes forward. i don't think it's a lie. i think there is information and evidence that there are connections. we have talked about mr. [abu musab] al-zarqawi and some of the people who are in baghdad who are linked with al qaeda and osama bin laden and who were there with the certain knowledge of the iraqi regime. we have seen connections and we are continuing to pursue those connections. we are not resting our whole case on this linkage. we are resting our case for the necessity perhaps of going to war on the fact that saddam hussein has developed weapons of mass destruction, has them in his possession, and for 12 years he has violated the will of the international community. it is the international community that has been violated here, not saddam hussein. he is the one who has stuck his finger in the eye of the international community. he is the one who has been deceiving and telling the lies all these years. and the fact that there is also an al qaeda connection, i think certainly adds to the case, but we are not resting the whole case on that connection. i think the region would be a lot better off, and certainly the iraqi people would be a lot better off, if saddam hussein were no longer there. we have said clearly, though, that within the u.n. context it was getting rid of the weapons of mass destruction. it was the previous administration, president clinton's administration, and the american congress in 1998 that made it an american position that regime change seemed to be the only way to get rid of the weapons of mass destruction and to get saddam hussein out of the place so that the iraqi people would no longer suffer under that kind of leadership. what we have said is: can the regime change itself? can there be a changed regime, if it was the full force and pressure, political pressure of the u.n. and the threat of force? and what we have seen so far is that regime has not yet indicated it would change itself, and time is running out. and when that time elapses, then the regime must be changed. what we gained by going to the united nations was resolution 1441, which was unanimously approved by the security council, that said saddam hussein is guilty and there's only one way for him to get out of that state of guilt, and that's to come clean immediately, unconditionally, without any reservations, or he'd face serious consequences. everybody knew when we voted for that resolution what it meant. he has not done it unconditionally. he hasn't done it. he hasn't complied. that's a simple fact he hasn't changed. therefore, it is becoming time for serious consequences to kick in. but a lot of our friends don't like facing that reality of serious consequences. many people in the world, unfortunately, don't see the danger as clearly as i think we do, the brits do, the spaniards do, the australians do, so many others do. weapons of mass destruction, chemical, biological weapons, the potential to develop nuclear weapons in this day and age, with a nexus between rogue states and the potential for terrorists to get their hands on that kind of material, seems to me create a new strategic dimension, a new strategic environment, that this president is not willing to just step back from. he was asked to be multilateral. the president was asked to take the case to the u.n. he did. and it's going to be very unfortunate if the u.n. uses 1441 as a way to wiggle away from their responsibilities, as opposed to step up to their responsibilities. well, he tried to shift to 1284, and he is operating under 1284. hans blix is a decent, honest man, and nobody made 1284 go away. but 1441 said immediately, unconditional, now. 1284 was a more deliberate process, partial results for partial progress. interestingly, france delayed 1284 for seven months and then abstained from voting for 1284. and so, you know, it's kind of curious to find myself in this position where france has been against active efforts to disarm saddam hussein, and i was hoping that with their support of 1441, which took seven weeks to achieve, they now have understood that disarmament must come, and 1441 was a means for that disarmament if iraq didn't comply, not a means to kick the can down the street longer and allow saddam hussein to achieve his objective, which is to stretch this out long enough so that we lose interest, we go away, the troops go home, and nothing has changed with respect to his desire to have these weapons. because iraq continues to deceive, iraq continues to find ways to divert the inspections. they are providing them some level of passive cooperation and there are obviously some things that are going on. but what is causing these things to be going on on the part of the iraqis? is it the inspection process or is it just the presence of military force? and iraq is trying to do as little as it can to remove that political pressure and that military pressure so they can go right back to the old ways. look what saddam hussein said yesterday. he started placing demands on the united nations. he wants the sanctions gone right away. he wants to be free again to continue with his original intent, and that was to develop weapons of mass destruction. i haven't seen that strategic change of direction on the part of iraq and on the part of saddam hussein. dr. blix, while he did give a report that describes some of the cooperation that he has experience, and dr. [mohamed] el baradei the same thing, he also handed out a document close to 200 pages long that lists page after page of unanswered questions about the most deadly things one could imagine - anthrax, botulinum toxin, mustard gas bombs, rpvs that are being developed that have just now turned up. i think that there is a threat to u.s. interests, there's a threat to stability in that part of the world, and with the post-9/11 nexus between countries such as iraq that develop weapons of mass destruction and terrorists who are trying to acquire them, i think the world just cannot sit back. and what he's really trying to do is to stretch this out until the troops can't stay there any longer and they go home, and he has not fully complied at that point and he is quite sure that the will of the international community will be broken at that point. and so the international community came together on the 8th of november with [resolution] 1441 and said he's guilty, he's got to now fix this, he's got to come into full, immediate, unconditional - not conditional, not later - and also active cooperation, not passive cooperation. we still haven't seen that and we must not be deceived by these limited steps that he's taking. they could kill a lot of people, and i'm glad that they're being destroyed. i just don't know how many there are and we don't know where the infrastructure may be to produce more of them. and so i don't view this as a definitive statement of iraq's change of position with respect to giving up its weapons of mass destruction. and how did it come about that these weapons are being destroyed? only grudgingly, only when the u.n. placed a demand, and only when saddam hussein realized that he had better start destroying these because the security council was liable to be no longer deceived by his efforts and there was the possibility of a war. so this is grudging response. this isn't the kind of full, active, unconditional response that 1441 was looking for. it wasn't weeks after, it was at that very next saturday that we debated this in front of the president, as has been well reported and recorded, and the president decided in that first week that we had to go after the enemy that had just struck us. and it was osama bin laden, it was al qaeda, and then when the taliban wouldn't turn him over, it became the taliban. and he announced that to the nation the following thursday, if i'm not mistaken - that nine days in there. so it was a decision that was pretty straightforward and, i thought, rather obvious. but a case was made, as you well know, and it was a very legitimate case, that there are other terrorist organizations and there are nations that are havens and support the terrorist groups, such as afghanistan was. and this is all presented to the president. these weren't revelations. we all knew this. we had been worrying about iraq since we came in here. and the debate that we had was should we go after iraq at the same time as afghanistan. i argued that afghanistan, everybody will understand, al qaeda everybody will understand. we've got several thousand dead americans and 80 other nations - or it's 90 now - nations of casualties. and we pulled everybody together behind this, nato [north atlantic treaty organization], the u.n., oic [organization of the islamic conference], you name it, they were all behind us in this. this is what the american people are expecting. let's do this and we can take care of the others in due course. would we have gone after iraq if there hadn't been a 9/11 at that time? no. and so should 9/11, in and of itself have been the precipitating reason to go after iraq? no. did it change the prism through which we viewed iraq? yes, definitely. and that's why the president said we'll look at this in i think he said the next phase, or subsequent phases. and so we did that. meanwhile, however, we finished work on smart sanctions, which was a year's worth of work, but we finally got them. the pentagon kept reviewing its plans, kept waiting to see whether we had changed attitudes on the part of saddam hussein, and there was none. and so in the course of last spring and summer, as we debated this, as we got afghanistan not fixed but up and running, [president hamid] karzai is there, we have an interim authority, we are starting to do other things on the war on terrorism, abu sayyaf. we work with a number of countries around the world, yemen and other places, and we realize the comprehensive nature of the assault that will be required, going after financial systems, intelligence systems. you know all that; i won't belabor it. and then, finally, what about these other countries that are a problem, the nexus between weapons of mass destruction and terrorist organizations. so, naturally, we have turned our attention to iraq. as we looked at iraq and realized how we were fighting a war against terror through a terrific coalition, it seemed - to me, anyway - that we would want something approaching that level of support if we were going to do iraq. we needed people who would be in on this. and we discussed this and debated this through the summer. and i think definitely what happened in august, and the president made the decision in august to go to the u.n. in september. i wasn't expecting as exciting an august as it turned out to be, because he had decided it the first week of august that he was going to do that on the 12th of september. which was a given, because we knew he was going to the u.n. he was going to speak on something on the 12th of september, and this had become the pressing issue of the day. you all were writing about nothing else even then. my opinion has always been that iraq is a dangerous country, it's a dangerous regime. it is developing weapons of mass destruction. and it was something that had to be dealt with sooner or later. it was always on our agenda. it moved up and down the agenda, depending on what else was going on in the world. but it was always there, lurking. and so the post-9/11 period highlighted it in a way that it hadn't been highlighted before with this potential nexus. does it mean that they're coming after us tomorrow morning? no, but this is clearly a guy who never changed his fundamental intent and has never modified his decision to pursue these kinds of technologies, these kinds of weapons. and, you know, some people have been committed to that proposition since the very beginning, when i was out of the government. and so the approach that i took to it was that we should try to get as much support for this as we can and we should work to give the iraqis one more opportunity to change their mind, and to realize a better life awaited the iraqi people, and perhaps some form of survival for the regime. it would have to be a different regime, a changed regime from the one we talked about, which got us into all those tautologies about regime change and change in regime. well, let's wait and see what the ultimatum would be if there's going to be an ultimatum. right now we're focusing on these leaders getting together in lajes just to talk about the diplomatic situation and to make a judgment as to whether the diplomatic window is closing. and that's a refocusing on, it's not a war council and ultimatums are not the issue today. the issue today is has the diplomatic track run its course? i think that's a fair statement. if saddam hussein, his sons, and a number of other top leaders were to leave and a more responsible leadership come in, a leadership that is determined to get rid of its weapons of mass destruction as they are supposed to and start to provide a better life for the iraqi people, then a war certainly could be averted. i have no idea. we haven't seen it. i don't know what dr. blix has made of it. i know that this is a document he was supposed to have turned over in 1991. eleven times over the last 12 years, he has provided declarations that were supposed to be full, complete and accurate. we gave him another chance with [resolution] 1441 to declare all that he knew about these weapons, to turn it all in; and he chose not to. and suddenly, here comes another 25-page document. it's part of a continuing effort on his part to break the council up, to deceive us, and it is a game we have been watching for 12 years. it's a game that must come to an end. i'm not entirely sure because those are excellent quotes that you pulled up, tony. it shows that there was no doubt, no question, about what 1441 was all about: compliance or the use of force if necessary. that's what the serious consequences meant in 1441. and also, you see an acknowledgment by the french foreign minister that this capability existed within iraq for weapons of mass destruction. 1441 was premised on the reality that such weapons of mass destruction programs existed. it wasn't a figment of anyone's imagination, and all 15 members agreed. now, in the months after that, france decided for its own purposes to just keep trying to avoid the inevitable conclusion that saddam hussein was not complying: keep inspections going, give them more time, let's have 120 days, let's do this, let's do that. and they did not want to face up to the reality that it is now time to consider whether or not the diplomatic track has run its course and it's time to use military force. two weeks or 30 days for what? all we need is two hours to decide whether or not saddam hussein has made the decision that he's been called on to make for the last 12 years, and that is a good way for him to manifest that he really wants to solve this problem is for him and his sons to pick up and leave town. it's hard to imagine, wolf, because he has had 12 years' worth of opportunities to avert the situation that he now finds himself in. he violated every one of the u.n. resolutions that was put before him. he constantly said he had told the world everything there was to know about his weapons of mass destruction, yet even as recently as yesterday he's coming forward with new documents, documents that should have come forward in 1991 and anytime over the last 12 years. he is playing a game at this point, and what we see, what the leaders in the azores see is a continuing pattern of noncompliance and non-cooperation. and i think the curtain's coming down. we can't continue to go like this. and it's unfortunate that there are members of the council who say, just give it more time, give it more time; and, the inspections are working. but what's really working is force. force is slowly causing him to do some things, but he's not doing them because he has changed his basic political strategy. i think if saddam hussein and some of the other individuals around him were to leave that certainly would open up the possibility of a peaceful solution, as long as we made sure that the top leadership, those who might be committed to weapons of mass destruction and oppression of their people were moving out and a new leadership was coming in and outside leaders could come in - outside iraqi leaders - and a new leadership arise from the people of iraq that would stop wasting the treasure of iraq on weapons of mass destruction and threatening its neighbors and start to build a responsible nation living in peace with its neighbors, yes, that would be good and the united states is more than willing to help in that effort as are many other nations. i'm quite confident they will find evidence of the presence of chemical and biological weapons and some elements of a nuclear infrastructure. and i think that that's - there's no question about that in my mind. success, if it comes to a military action, will be a better iraq, a better life for the iraqi people, the use of the treasure of iraq, its oil, for the benefit of its people and not to threaten its neighbors and develop weapons of mass destruction. everybody is worried about the conflict. you should worry about a potential conflict. it is always a time of high anxiety. but if it's done well, and i'm confident our military commanders, if they are told to do it by the president, if it has to come to this, will do it well. and we have quite a bit of experience in not only conducting successful military operations but rebuilding a better society afterwards where the iraqi people can be free of fear, free of torture, free of the kinds of crimes that saddam hussein has committed against his own people. and there is a possibility, a strong possibility which we will go after and hopefully seize, to put in place a country that is stable, living in peace with its neighbors and no longer a threat to the regions of the world or the united states. as you heard the president and the other leaders who assembled in the azores yesterday for the atlantic summit say, the window on diplomacy is closing. the moment of truth is arriving. and you will hear a speech from the president of the united states this evening. president bush will address the nation and the world on the situation as we now see it. in his speech, he clearly will issue an ultimatum to saddam hussein that the only way to avoid the serious consequences that were built into [u.n. resolution] 1441 is for saddam hussein and his immediate cohorts to leave the country and to allow this matter to be resolved through the peaceful entry of force and not a conflict. nevertheless, the president's determination will be made clear tonight that this matter cannot continue indefinitely, that saddam hussein is guilty of the charges that have been brought against him previously through these many resolutions which acknowledged that he had weapons of mass destruction, and he has failed to disarm himself as required by the various resolutions. i won't say any more about the president's speech because the president, of course, will have the opportunity to speak for himself and make the points perfectly clear to the american people and to the international community. you will also notice that in their statements yesterday at the atlantic summit, all of the leaders spoke to a future for iraq that will be brighter if it comes to the use of military force, where this dictator will no longer be able to oppress his own people, no longer able to threaten his neighbors, and no longer able to develop these horrible weapons which could be used against his neighbors as they have been used in the past, or, of greater concern to us, and spread and be acquired by terrorist organizations which might use them against us, our friends, or our interests. i think it was also important to note in the president's statement yesterday his commitment to the u.n. and the role that we believe the u.n. will play in the aftermath of any conflict should it come and our continued support for the u.n. and with that, i will take a couple of questions and then i have to go. i made the point that there - in response to a question, that of course there are commercial interests that everybody has to consider. and the french have for years had difficulties with the inspection regime. and i pointed out in one of the shows yesterday that when you go back to 1998 and early 1999, when the current inspection regime was being developed, when unmovic [united nations monitoring, verification and inspection commission] was being created after the collapse of the previous inspection regime, france worked actively for a number of months, in our judgment, to try to weaken that inspection regime. and, at the end of the day, when compromises had been made and everybody thought we had a good outcome before our time, the previous administration, even then france abstained from voting for it. and so that is a concern to us. but, in 1441, france was solidly on board. and when you look at the statements that were made by french officials right after the passage of 1441, it was absolutely clear that they understood that saddam hussein and the iraqi regime had weapons of mass destruction. it was not something just known to american intelligence; it's known to all the major intelligence agencies in the world. and france acknowledged that, everybody acknowledged that when they signed on to 1441, because that's what it says. it said, iraq is in material breach, has been in material breach, and now has the opportunity to get out of the problem or get into further material breach. and what they did was get into further material breach. and that's our judgment and we believe that the test of the resolution has been met with respect to the appropriateness of the application of serious consequences. no, no, no. this conflict, if it comes, with iraq, will be because iraq has been developing weapons of mass destruction and has possessed them for 12 years in violation of its international obligations. and the president took this problem to the international community. so we have to do something about it. it's a danger. the president's overall national security strategy remains one of working with friends and allies and helping with the crises in the world that include hiv/aids, read the whole document. but in that document there is also a reference to the use of pre-emptive action. it's higher in our list of things one can do to defend oneself, but it is not something that is brand new. we have had preemption as something one could do all along. in this case, we believe we will be acting with the authority of the international community as well as our own obligation to defend ourselves under our constitution and the president's authority as commander in chief. and so i would not, i don't want you to go down the path, well, here, new doctrine started, that one's first, that one's next, and then that one. if that was all we were about, we wouldn't have gone to the u.n. in the first place. because people are concerned about war. people naturally always have a level of anxiety. and, frankly, some motives have been attributed to us which are not accurate, that we're in it for the oil, that we're in it in order to control that part of the world, the middle east. but as the president said last night, i think it was, and as [secretary of defense] don rumsfeld has said and i've said, we don't want to stay there a day longer than is necessary to put in place a responsible form of government, get them up and running, use their treasury for the benefit of their people, and not weapons of mass destruction and to threaten their neighbors. now, that's what we're going to be doing and i hope that as we do it and as people see how we conduct our activities, then they'll understand that the united states is not anti-muslim, anti-iraqi people, anti-people of the region, anti-arab. and we'll do it well and do it in a manner that we bring credit upon the coalition forces, and i hope we'll reverse this trend. what i see in this trend of anti-americanism, as it's been described, is anti-american policies. there are some policies that people - that we have that people don't approve of. they think we should be doing more with respect to the middle east peace process, that a different way should have been found to deal with iraq. we tried to find a different way to deal with iraq. we gave iraq and the world a peaceful solution through [u.n. resolution] 1441 and iraq did not take it. and i think between what we're going to do with the liberation of iraq and what the president will be doing with respect to the middle east peace plan following on his announcement last week of the roadmap and with the emergence of a new prime minister, i think we'll be able to start changing public opinion. well, first of all, it isn't a doctrine. the term powell doctrine was coined by one of your colleagues. i always can't remember whether it was jeffrey smith or michael gordon who did it. michael takes credit? i was explaining this all to him one day and he called it the powell doctrine. fine. but i accept it. clear political objectives. i think there's a clear political objective here. i don't use the term "overwhelming force" and never have. if you ever look at what i've said, i may have slipped once and used it at the very beginning back in 1989 or 1990, but what i've always said is decisive force. there's a nuance difference, but it's a real one. you use the force necessary to accomplish the mission. and i think that the young officers that i trained that you now see in the newspapers as the commanders of the this operation clearly understand what decisive force means, and i think they will be applying decisive force. it doesn't necessarily mean huge numbers of people. it means decisive force. and i'm sure they are not going into this operation thinking that they don't have sufficient force to achieve a decisive outcome. with respect to political support, i think they have political support, certainly from our leaders. it isn't universal. not every nation, in fact many nations, think we're not doing the right thing, and many nations think we are doing the right thing. and i think as the operation unfolds and as we are successful, more and more nations will understand and give us the kind of political support that you need. i have never said that you have to have political support around the world to conduct an operation. the use of the armed forces is first and fundamentally a sovereign mission conducted by a nation for principally its own interests as well as broader interests, and so you need the political support and the political objective given to you by the american people. i think this has it in this case. and then exit strategy, i think you should always have some understanding of how a conflict will end and what you hope to achieve as a conflict is ending, and i think i touched on that. get rid of the weapons of mass destruction, make sure you leave a government that is responsible to its people and that is using the treasure of iraq for the benefit of its people, restore stability in the region, keep the country one country, and not let it break up. all those, i think, are elements of how you finally turn it over to the iraqi people and withdraw. and one of the good things about doctrines is you can write it - as soon as the guy who wrote it left, you can write a new one. i mean, it's (inaudible) can't (inaudible) anybody (inaudible). the reason i wasn't included in the new york times account but in the washington post account, and i hope you will correct this, is that i think when somebody came in to see who was there, he had made the decision and i had come back over here to make phone calls. i called [israeli prime minister ariel] sharon and (inaudible) and others. so when they were looking around the room, i had left after three hours, just - we are in consultation with coalition members as well as other members of the security council as to what is appropriate as we move forward. with respect to the oil-for-food program and any other broader resolution that might be appropriate, i'm not quite sure what president chirac is referring to. all i know is that the liberation of iraq is under way and we want to do it in a way that will demonstrate to the world that we come as liberators, that we are going to put in place a better life for the people of iraq, a representative form of government, and we are going to use the assets of the people of iraq, especially their oil assets, to benefit their people and to no longer develop weapons of mass destruction and to be used to threaten their neighbors. and i hope that france will want to be a partner in such an effort, but that remains to be seen. it is time for us to realize that the liberation is underway and it is inevitable. thank you. we have reports that there is such thinking within the iraqi regime and so we are on guard against that and we will continue to gather evidence. and we wouldn't put it past them. they have done this in the past. they have attacked the iranians with chemical weapons and they've attacked their own people in the past. and if i thought - and there can be no question in anyone's mind, certainly not in my mind - that if they thought that there was a way to fundamentally shift international opinion with respect to this conflict by blaming us for that, i'm sure they would do it. i'm speculating - we have reports and there is some evidence for those reports, but that's about as far, i think, as the intelligence will take it right now. keep in mind, however, i don't think it would work. everybody knows coalition forces would never be using any such weapons, so if such weapons were used, it would be an admission on the part of saddam hussein that he had been lying all along, an admission we don't need because we know he's been lying all along. there are such reports. i have no doubt that he would do such a thing if he thought it served his interests, and so we are concerned about it. we will follow this matter carefully. we will also do everything we can to gather all the intelligence that we can. he has to be careful here because the world knows he's done it before, and were he to do it again, it would be immediate acknowledgement of the fact that he has weapons of mass destruction of the kind that he has been swearing he does not have and we have been insisting he does have, and we continue to believe he does have. they have been battered for the last 20-odd years by the policies and actions of saddam hussein. he has squandered the treasure of the iraqi people. when i think that they have access to $20 billion a year of oil revenues and he spent it on weapons of mass destruction, he spent it on oppressive instruments of his regime, he spent it on attacking his neighbors; and when you think that some 20 or 25 years ago iraq had the gdp of, say, of portugal, and all of that was destroyed by saddam hussein. once that regime has been eliminated, and once we have an opportunity to get in there and work with the iraqi people and help them put in place a responsive government, a government that reflects all of the people of iraq, that wishes to help all of the people of iraq, a government that is committed to getting rid of the weapons of mass destruction, a government that is committed to using this $20 billion a year for good purposes and not evil purposes, i think the people of iraq will welcome all of this and understand that we have come in peace - not as conquerors, but as liberators. i really can't answer the first question. i will have to yield to my pentagon colleagues. but i'm sure that in due course we'll find them. now, the military operation right now, once again, i'm a little bit in the pentagon business. the military operation is focusing on the enemy. and there will come a time when the enemy has been defeated to make a more thorough search for the weapons of mass destruction facilities. so i wasn't expecting to start tripping over them right away. that'll take a more intense search. no. what the french president said a few days ago was that he would not support any resolution that gave legitimacy to what we did. but we don't need any resolution that gave legitimacy to what we did. we had all the legitimacy we needed in [u.n.]resolution 1441. and as we move forward, clearly, coalition leaders will be in charge of iraq initially. when you take down a regime, you have an immediate responsibility to become the government of that regime for a period of time until you can transfer it to civilian administrators and give it back to its own people. and during that period we think there is a role for the united nations, for the european union, all the many organizations around the world that can bring reconstruction expertise and money and governing expertise to iraq. so i think as we get deeper into this conversation, the french government will understand that our goal in iraq is not to administer iraq forever, but to administer iraq just long enough to put in place a functioning, responsible, iraqi government that is committed to get rid of all the weapons of mass destruction with our help and is committed to living in peace with its neighbors and using the oil wealth of iraq for the benefit of its people and not to threaten its neighbors and develop weapons of mass destruction. i don't know that that is the case. i think people are unhappy with our policy with respect to iraq. now, is there anti-american opinion around the world with respect to this issue? yes. there's no question about it. but when this war is over and we have liberated iraq and the people of iraq are facing a better life where their treasure, their oil treasure is not being used to develop weapons of mass destruction or to threaten their neighbors, i think those opinions and those attitudes will change rapidly. no, i would never speculate - i would never speculate. you're hearing from people who don't know because they don't know. we don't know how long it will take to finally finish off the regime in baghdad. i don't think it's going to be months and months and months, but there will be a requirement after the regime is gone for us to stay long enough to make sure that the country remains intact, that the people are being taken care of, that we put in place a new, civil administration that will take care of the people, and that we get rid of the weapons of mass destruction, and that we start to put in place an interim iraqi authority representing the people of iraq, and ultimately create a situation where the people of iraq can vote to determine who their new leaders are going to be. so it will take some time for this crisis, this problem to finally be behind us, and that will be when we have the country of iraq back into iraqi hands and living in peace with its neighbors. well, i can't predict that it's going to the general assembly or what the general assembly might choose to do. what we are going to do is to continue to prosecute this conflict in order to bring it to an end as quickly as possible and begin the process of putting in place a new authority in baghdad that will represent the views of all of the people of iraq and allow us to start using the wealth of iraq to benefit the people of iraq. so we are interested in concluding this conflict, not having a pause right now or stopping right now, but concluding this as quickly as possible so we can get on with the rebuilding of iraq and putting in place a better system of governance - a government that will live in peace with its neighbors and not waste the oil treasure of iraq on weapons of mass destruction and suppression of the people of iraq under a dictatorial regime such as saddam hussein's. i don't think there will be a large number of civilian casualties. we have done everything we possibly can do to minimize casualties. people thought baghdad was being destroyed the other night only to awaken and find that all we went after were specific military and command and control targets, facilities that might be developing weapons of mass destruction. there will occasionally be accidents. it is not a perfect war. there will be accidents and we regret any loss of life of innocent people; and we work hard to make sure that doesn't happen. but it occasionally does happen, and i think when this is over and people understand that we have come in peace - we have a record over the past 60 years of fighting conflicts as decisively as we can to get them over, and in the aftermath of those conflicts, helping people to restore themselves to a better situation with a better governance. this war is being conducted under the authority of u.n. resolution 1441 and earlier resolutions 678 and 687. 1441 is the most relevant one because last november by a vote of 15-0 the security council said this was iraq's last chance. they must take this last chance or face serious consequences. they did not comply. they did not make that strategic choice to get rid of their weapons of mass destruction. so it is a war that is being conducted with international authority. and i am confident that when it is over, people will see that we are committed to a better iraq, an iraq that is democratic and living in peace. and we are also committed to finding a way forward in the middle east so that the people of palestine, so that the palestinians will find a state that they can call their own. and we will help them bring that state into being. i have absolute confidence in the commanders who are running this war. and who says it is not being implemented? if whatever it is you describe it as, it is a clear political objective: disarm that country of its weapons of mass destruction. you have to do that by removal of the regime; you use decisive force to do it; and i can assure you that's what those generals and admirals are over there doing. and i know it. i trained them. as quickly as one can. i mean there is no way to answer it. i can't get trapped with an answer because it is so - it is so event and situationally dependent. if resistance, you know, is not a continuing problem and you can stabilize - - you can do what i said quickly and get rid of the weapons of mass destruction, item number one. so if you can do that quickly, then you can get out of there quickly. if it takes more time, then it takes more time. that shouldn't be the test. the test is, is it clear that we have no intention of keeping a military government in place? but our intention is to shift from a military government to a - to more and more civilians coming into it, so that you show a civilian face to our presence; and then stand up as quickly as you can. as we meet tonight, our thoughts cannot help but be with the brave young men and women from the united states, from britain, from australia, and other coalition partners, who are laying their lives on the line to liberate iraq from the tyranny of saddam hussein. they are serving their nations and they are serving humanity, to free the middle east and the world from the threat of saddam hussein's weapons of mass destruction. forty-nine nations openly associated with this willing coalition, all of them headed by leaders who have to go against public opinion - public opinion, because nobody wants war. everybody would like to avoid war. we did everything to avoid war. but these 49 nations and their leaders came together and decided that the world had to be rid of these weapons of mass destruction. the u.n. has made it clear that they do not want to be governing iraq. secretary general [kofi] annan and i have talked about this a number of times and [national security adviser] dr. [condoleezza] rice has been up to see him. i expect to see him once i get back from this trip. i am going to have to talk to all of my colleagues on thursday and in the course of the next several days to get their individual opinions about it, but i think there is a consensus that says the united nations has a role to play. if you look at the azores statement and what president bush and prime minister blair said at camp david last week, you have a solid acknowledgement from them and from president [jose maria] aznar and others that there is that role for the u.n. to play. what we have to work out is exactly the nature of that role and how the u.n. role will be used to provide some level of endorsement for our actions, the actions of the coalition, in iraq for some period of time until we can switch administration over to civilian administrators on the way to a new government built up from the interim iraqi authority. we believe that early on the interim iraqi authority should be accorded some level of recognition so that aid can flow. i think it's important for us to show as soon as we can that iraqis now are, once again, taking charge of their country to put it on a road to a better future based on all the principles you heard us espouse - getting rid of weapons of mass destruction, representative government, one nation, territorial integrity, and living in peace with its neighbors. and the sooner we show that in the form of an interim iraqi authority that is working with the coalition, working with the u.n. and working with the international organizations to serve the people of iraq, the sooner we will have the iraqi people recognize that a new life is there for them. and we'll get the full cooperation, i hope, of the population. now, how you put that all in the form of u.n. resolutions is something we'll have to work at and it will take a great deal of discussion and negotiations. but i sense everybody understands that there will, no doubt, be debates about how much authority the u.n. should have and what the role of coalition forces should be during this interim period. as you've heard me say many times, i think it's pretty obvious in a campaign like this, as you bring it to a conclusion, as you succeed, as you win, the military has a role to play to stabilize the situation, disarm people that need to be disarmed, deal with the residual military force that's there, get the weapons of mass destruction. and you can't turn that over to anyone right away, so there will be a period when the military will have that very proper and legitimate responsibility. but as the president has said on occasion - many occasions, i think - we don't want to stay one day longer or leave one day sooner than we should. we all would like to see the war brought to a speedy conclusion but wars are fought and you follow the rhythm of the battles. and what i'm seeing right now as i look at it is that everyday they are getting weaker and we are getting stronger. everyday a large number of sorties go out of all kinds and they come back having destroyed more tanks, more artillery, inflicted more casualties on the iraqi forces. those casualties in those forces are not being replenished. there are no new tanks coming and each day more coalition forces arrive in the theater. and now the 4th division is well into its unloading and moving into the battle area. and so there's no doubt in my mind about the fact that we will prevail, but i cannot tell you how long it will take. that goes to the rhythm of the battles, the rhythm of the war, and the judgments that are made by the commanders on both sides. but i think it's inevitable. we all hope it will be soon, because of some of the concerns that we see in the arab street, because we want to get on with our original mission, which is get rid of the weapons of mass destruction and start to rebuild this country and society. i've seen these rhythms and patterns before. when i was - one of the quotations that will forever be with me is, "cut it off and kill it," from the gulf war. but people forget the context in which i said that. i gave the minister and the president and the prime minister an update on the campaign - operation iraqi freedom. it is progressing well. it is a campaign that is being conducted with great skill and determination by coalition military forces. with each passing day, the iraqi military becomes weaker and coalition forces become stronger. it is just a matter of time before this conflict is brought to a successful end, and we can get on to the business of helping the iraqi people build a better country, a better society, with democratic rule, creating a nation that will live in peace with its neighbors, that will use the wealth of iraq - its oil - to benefit its people and not to develop weapons of mass destruction. yes, we always regret loss of life. war is a terrible thing to be avoided. this war was caused by saddam hussein and his unwillingness to comply with his international obligations; a dictator who tortured people, who has brought devastation and destruction to his country, who developed weapons of mass destruction. once this regime is gone, a better regime will be put in place - not just put in place, really, will create itself, will rise up. we will help it. but this will be a regime that comes up - it will be a government that comes up - out of the iraqi people, representing all of the iraqi people. we will help this government rise up, and as a government that we are confident will lead iraq into a brighter future and create a country and a system that will live in peace with its neighbors and use the wealth of the nation to support people and not to support the production of weapons of mass destruction. we regret any loss of innocent life. no army in the world is more careful than the american army with our coalition partners, especially the british and the australians, in surgically picking targets so that we do not cause harm to innocent civilians. no army is more careful. now, that is not to say that there won't be accidents. that is not to say that mistakes won't occur. it is also not to say that others aren't shooting in the area. i mean, the iraqis are shooting; they are firing missiles into the air that will come down somewhere. i don't know about this particular incident or what happened. but any loss of innocent life is a tragedy for all of us. but let us remember the cause of this. the cause of this is a dictator by the name of saddam hussein who would not comply with his international obligations, who for 12 years kept on developing weapons of mass destruction, kept on suppressing people. saddam hussein has killed more muslims inside of iraq that any other cause of death inside of iraq. the campaign in iraq - operation iraqi freedom - is now almost two weeks old and a great deal has been accomplished. coalition forces have moved to the outskirts of baghdad, and are now engaging the main republican guard units. pressure is being applied against iraqi units throughout the country. we have secured the oil fields in the south, they were not able to destroy them, and they are now firmly in [the] coalition's hands. we have started the flow of humanitarian aid into the southern part of the country. we have stabilized the situation in the north so that there is not the same degree of concern that existed a few weeks ago with respect to a problem with the turks that might require the intervention of turkish forces. a great deal has been accomplished in two weeks. the campaign will be prosecuted to its end. i can't say how much longer it will take, but i can assure you that we all want to end this as soon as possible so we can go on with the task of allowing the iraqi people to form a new government - a government that is democratic, a government that will represent all the people of iraq, a government that will cause iraq to live in peace with its neighbors, that will get rid of weapons of mass destruction, that will stop human rights abuses, that will stop the terror, rain of terror [sic], that has existed in that country for the past twenty plus years under the leadership of saddam hussein. a government that will welcome the international community as it comes in to assist in the reconstruction of the country, and to use the wealth of iraq, the oil of iraq, to build as we were saying earlier, to build hospitals and schools, and the things that people want, and not weapons of mass destruction, and the things that people do not want that only make you a pariah in the world stage. and so i think that this campaign is successful and that success will be seen in due course when the iraqi army is defeated in the field and we are able to stand up in an interim authority as the beginning of a full representative government. i briefed my colleagues on that campaign, but as i said, we really came here to talk about a future - a future for the people of iraq. a future that will be based on a new iraq, an iraq that is living in peace and freedom with a government that is representative of all the people, that is responsive to the needs of the people, a government that will no longer be developing weapons of mass destruction or dealing in terrorism activities or brutalizing its own people; a government that will use its oil wealth for the benefit of its people and not for preparing to invade its neighbors or to develop weapons of mass destruction. i indicated to my colleagues that the work of reconstruction and rebuilding will require the entire international community to join together. we will be going through a phase process obviously in the post-hostilities period. initially, military commanders, the coalition commanders will be responsible for stabilizing the situation for securing the country and people, for making sure that we find all the weapons of mass destruction, identify them, destroy them, pull out the infrastructure and capability, making sure that we have disarmed any remaining remnants of the iraqi army that might be a threat to their own people or to coalition forces. but at the same time, that military commander is performing that job, which is his responsibility as the commander of the liberating force, we will quickly want to bring in individuals who can establish an interim iraqi authority so that the people of iraq can very quickly see that their own representatives are moving into positions of authority, and as the interim authority develops capability, responsibility will be passed to them to make decisions about the future of iraq and how iraq will be governed and how it will be led and how it will be administered. i don't believe i'm a symbol of failing u.s. diplomacy. so i don't accept your premise. u.s. diplomacy - we won't go to polls and ratings, but maybe another time. the issue is, i think u.s. diplomacy is alive and well, that's why i'm here today. that's why i'm here today to speak to all of my european union colleagues and nato colleagues about a way forward. the united states took a bold diplomatic step last september when president bush went to the united nations and presented a problem to the united nations that one particular dictator and one particular regime that has been brutalizing its people and had been developing weapons of mass destruction for 12 years had ignored the will of the international community. with respect to what we've been doing for the last two weeks, we've been fighting a battle, fighting a series of battles, fighting a campaign. and that's been our priority. we have not yet started our search for weapons of mass destruction, which we know are well hidden throughout the country and within the iraqi industrial infrastructure, but we will certainly be doing that. we have uncovered quite a bit of protective gear that the iraqis have, which certainly suggested that they were prepared to fight in chemical environments - so are we, but everybody knows and the iraqis knew that we didn't have any chemical weapons to be used in a conflict. and so that's at least an indication that they were aware that they might be fighting in a chemical environment produced by themselves. and so we will continue to search and look for the weapons of mass destruction. i'm quite confident they will be found. and, i'm sorry? it is for me. i have known all the ministers that i met today for quite a bit of time now. especially, joschka fischer, my german colleague. we've been working together for two years now. we've done many things together, whether it was afghanistan, expansion of the alliance. we've had some disagreements recently, especially over iraq. but an alliance as strong as ours, as resilient as ours, can deal with disagreements and move on. so, as we move on with this issue of iraq and get beyond the conflict and into the reconstruction and the creation of a democratic iraq that is serving its people, and not building weapons of mass destruction, whether you call it "old europe" or "new europe," the transatlantic alliance, the transatlantic family will come together again in the rebuilding process. we don't know what the role exactly will be of the u.n. yet, and it is premature to start describing it as being a central role, or in the driver's seat, not in the driver's seat, because it suggests you are excluding someone else when you say it that way. the u.n. must be a partner in this effort. the u.n. will have a major role to play. and we will be working with our colleagues in the coalition, and our colleagues within nato, within the european union and especially with the secretary general, who will have something to say about this, with respect with the exact role to be played by the u.n. the role of the u.n. will ultimately be determined by the security council resolutions that are passed, authorizing the role. so there will be discussions and no doubt there will be debate in new york as to what authorities are required and what the role of the u.n. should be. so this is the beginning of a dialogue - not the beginning of a fight, the beginning of a dialogue - to determine what the appropriate role is. but as i said, and i've said this several times, the coalition that went in, that was willing to put at risk its young men and women, and lost lives, paid a great amount of money to conduct this campaign and also paid a political price for this campaign as well. we are committed to making sure that that sacrifice and that investment is not lost. we believe we have to play a very significant, perhaps a leading role, in order to make sure what replaces this corrupt, rotten regime is a democratic system that is responsive to the needs of its people and will reflect all of the people of iraq, and will use the treasure of iraq, its oil, to invest in the people and not invest in weapons of mass destruction. that's absurd. it's an absurd, simplistic, shorthand response to what people think we're doing. in fact, we went to the u.n. in the first place with respect to this problem. it was a problem that belonged to the u.n. for twelve years - this terrible regime that tortures its people, that developed weapons of mass destruction, that used them against its own people and then invaded its neighbors on two occasions. and we finally said to the united nations, "if you would be relevant, if the international community would be relevant, we must deal with this." this is not a regime that will simply roll over and play dead. it will fight back. it will try to avoid consequences. so we got a very strong resolution passed. unanimously. fifteen to zero. and when it became clear to a number of members of the security council that it was time to apply those serious consequences, we took it back to the u.n. and the u.n. said, "well, can't agree on this." but 1441 made it clear - it was more than sufficient authority. now there were some members of the council who said, "we'll veto anything." and there were others of us who felt we must move forward. we must remove this danger to the world. especially this regime that developed weapons of mass destruction and might actually allow some of these weapons to fall in the hands of terrorists. we will not apologize for this. we believe that we did what is right and we recognize that there is a great deal of opinion, especially in europe, that thinks this was not the right approach. but i hope we will change this opinion, when everybody sees that after this conflict we're not leaving it to be swept up by the united nations. we are going to work with the united nations and work with the international community. and guess who will be the major contributor, who will pay the most money to help the iraqi people to get back on their feet. it will be the united states, as always. this was a war against weapons of mass destruction. this was a war against a rogue regime that is also a terrorist regime that for twelve years had violated its obligations under a total of seventeen u.n. resolutions. once again, even after the whole security council came together last november, fifteen to zero, and said, "stop. stop now. immediately. unconditionally. without hesitation. no more fooling around. you're guilty. you're in material breach. stop it." and they still played games. and they tried to stretch it out. and they tried to break the will of the international community. and so we saw operation iraqi freedom. there is this perception in many parts of europe, frankly, that now that the united states has done this, we're just looking around for another place to go to war. it's as if you don't know our history. we don't look for wars to go to. we do this reluctantly. you perhaps should look at european history first, for a preemptive action and nations that enjoy going to war. and so we are not looking for wars to go to. we are looking for place that we can work with to solve the problem of hiv/aids, to solve the problem of famine, to solve the problem of economic growth, to solve the problem of sustainable growth. that's what we really want to do. but we will not turn away from those regimes that are supporting terrorist activities, not after 9/11 we won't. so we will say to the world...syria supports terrorist activities. iran supports terrorist activities. iran is developing weapons of mass destruction. it doesn't mean, as the night follows day, that there is going to be a war with syria, iran or north korea. in fact, what has been driving me to some distraction the last couple of months, is that we've been working so hard to have a multilateral approach to north korea, and to engage the neighbors of north korea - china, south korea, russia, and japan - in finding a solution. and the criticism i get all the time is "why aren't you unilaterally saying to the north koreans, let's talk right away?" and the other question i get is, "if you're invading iraq, why aren't you invading north korea?" it's almost as if you're disappointed. we don't have an answer. we've made some suggestions. could be stability operations, peacekeeping operations. we've also suggested it might be helpful in the search for weapons of mass destruction. what i'm pleased about today is that no one spoke out against such a role in the meetings that i was in. there was a willingness to consider a role for nato in iraq. also, there was further willingness expressed today to consider a role for nato in afghanistan. we'll see how that develops. ambassador burns will be following up on those ideas. i think they [blair and president bush] will certainly have a good discussion about the state of the operation iraqi freedom and a great deal of progress has been made in recent days. i think british troops are doing very well in the south, around basra. and american troops are circling baghdad, starting to probe into the city. so i think the campaign is going exceptionally well. it's been handled very professionally and will continue to be so. humanitarian re-supply, i'm sure they will be talking about how to make sure that the population is taken care of, not only in the north, but in the south. and i think they'll talk about the way forward. a lot of discussion about the role of the u.n., and i'm sure that will be a subject for discussion. there isn't as much debate and disagreement about this as you might read in the newspapers. everybody knows from the azore statement of a couple of weeks ago that there will be are [sic] role for the u.n. as a partner in this process. i've spent a good part of the weekend in conversation with kofi annan, and i think the secretary general may well have an announcement about that this afternoon, with respect to well, i'll let him make his announcement - with respect to how he will participate in deliberations with the coalition. as we said from the very beginning - and i don't think there's any inconsistency here - when you're in a military campaign such as this, when it comes to an end, the active hostilities come to an end, the military commander must be in charge for a period of time to stabilize the country, ensure security, make sure that the military - the other side has been disarmed, find the weapons of mass destruction and make sure that humanitarian supplies are coming in. that is his obligation as the military commander going in. we're examining what's going to be needed in the way of security or a peacekeeping force. it's not clear yet what's going to be required and when it's going to be required or where it's going to be required. it is for that reason that we are in discussions, not only with the u.n. but with nato. one of the items for discussion in brussels last week was, is there a role for nato. and i was very pleased that all of my nato colleagues at the north atlantic council meeting we had, accepted the possibility that there may be a role for nato organizations, nato units to go in a peacekeeping, security or stability role, perhaps helping in the search for weapons of mass destruction infrastructure. now, they haven't decided that or voted upon it, but nobody rejected it as a possibility. so the message that we are trying to give people, and the president has been giving the message in the azores presentation statement, and i'm sure you will hear it coming out of this message, this statement tomorrow and the conversations over the next 24 hours, is that the hostilities phase is coming to a conclusion. it's time for all of us to think about the post-hostilities phase, how we create a representative government consisting of all elements of iraqi society - those inside the country now who are committed to a different kind of iraq, an iraq that's living in peace with its neighbors; no weapons of mass destruction; everybody has a chance to participate in the life of the nation and the government - as well as those individual outside iraq, the external opposition, who for all these years never lost sight of the possibility of a free iraq. they obviously have an important role to play in the new iraq, as well. once the hostilities are over and we're not fighting battles every day, the search for weapons of mass destruction capability and infrastructure will, of course, be intensified, as you can allocate resources to it. we're not chasing it now. if you run into something that looks suspicious, as you know, reports come up every couple of days, we look at it. we found a lot of defensive equipment, and there are always reports surfacing about something that's out there. but that's not the mission of the troops right now. their mission right now is to defeat the iraqi army. and so i think that the international community that i deal with recognizes it's time to look forward; [u.n. security resolution]1441 was a success. we had the authority that we needed from 1441 - that gave us the authority. we have now conducted this campaign; it's going to be a successful campaign. i don't - i can't put a calendar date on success, but the president made it clear from the very beginning what we wanted, if we had to go down this route and use military force, and that was: one, a nation that is freed of weapons of mass destruction; a nation that has a representative form of government, that is living in peace with its neighbors; no longer using its own population; using the wealth of iraq for the people of iraq; a nation that is still one nation, hasn't splintered into different parts. i can't answer that question. we will not stay a day longer than we have to. there is no desire on our part for there to be a long-term american presence in iraq. we want to turn iraq over to the iraqi people. but we want to give the people of iraq a government that they can trust and a government that will do all the things that i said a moment ago, and i won't repeat. but i will repeat it because it's pretty good. representative, live in peace, not have weapons of mass destruction. no. oh, no. no, i can't envision that. i see centcom, and i think i've been through this with most of you fellows, certainly, and the ladies present. centcom having a major role initially. there's no other way to do this. the military commander has to have full authority. who can you turn it over to right now? you have to stabilize the situation, secure the country, disarm the army, search for the weapons of mass destruction, and start to take care of the people. you need military authority for that, and that's what's going on. well, i think coalition forces are doing a marvelous job. baghdad is, for the most part, now liberated. but there are a number of other places in baghdad that - in iraq that have not yet been secured. so the campaign continues. this is not over yet. we shouldn't start over-congratulating ourselves. there is a lot more work that has to be done. but i must say, yesterday was an historic day as we saw the people of baghdad cheer and welcome coalition forces come into the city. they are free of the dictator who has been suppressing them, terrorizing them and killing them for all these years, wasting their treasure on weapons of mass destruction and threatening neighbors. i am confident we will find weapons of mass destruction. there is no doubt in my mind that this regime had such weapons. we have the evidence. for the first several weeks of this campaign, the troops have not been looking for weapons of mass destruction; they've been dealing with the military forces of iraq. now that they are slowly being defeated, we can turn our attention to looking for these systems which we know have been well-hidden and concealed over time. so i don't think that that will be an issue or a problem. well, now that we have entered baghdad and the regime has essentially been brought to an end, we now want to provide an environment of security and stability for the iraqi people and begin the flow of humanitarian aid, health-care materials, clean water, and start to organize the iraqi people so that they can put in place a new government. the united states is fully committed to allowing the iraqi people to come together and create a government that is democratic, that is responsive to the needs of all of its people, that will get rid of weapons of mass destruction, that will not support terrorist activity, that will no longer repress and torture its own people and will live in peace with its neighbors - that is our sole goal and we are committed to that goal and we are working with every element of iraqi society. we will do everything we can to help rebuild the country, not rebuild it because of the damage that took place over the last three weeks, but because of the damage that was done over the last 25 years by a leader who used the wealth of iraq, its oil, to purchase weapons of mass destruction and to invade his neighbors. well, we were in the reception room outside of the president's office watching on the television screen. we had four stations so we saw it four times, and i said, "quick, switch to one, it's all the same scene." and then they brought it up just about the time it was ready to topple over, and it was a remarkable moment. it reminded us of some of the moments we saw in eastern europe 10, 12, 13 years ago. but we also knew that this was not yet the end. we were proud of our young men and women for the job that they had done. we were pleased to see the iraqi people greeting them. we were pleased to see the celebrations that were taking place, now that they realized they had been liberated. and we also realized that there was more fighting to be done, there are more cities that have to be secured, and the real task of rebuilding now begins. and it's not rebuilding from this three-week war, or however long the war lasts; it's rebuilding from over two decades of destructive behavior on the part of this dictator. the man was a dictator. he terrorized his people. he murdered people. he killed people. he developed weapons of mass destruction. he invaded his neighbors. and now that is all over, gone. it was - they were waiting. they were waiting to be liberated from this dictator. now, does that mean that there are no problems anywhere in the country and that everybody will, you know, be cheering? no. but it certainly is an indication that there was a degree of repression in that country that perhaps wasn't well enough understood outside of iraq and in some countries that have been very critical of our actions - but i think those who have been supportive of our actions understood that not only was it a case of weapons of mass destruction, but we were dealing with a regime that can only be described as a terrorist regime led by one of the most ruthless men we have seen on the world stage in years. i don't know. anything the netherlands wishes to offer would be welcome and i am sure will be useful. and as we go forward, there will be commercial needs as well. there will be a great deal of money that will have to be spent on the rebuilding process, and we hope that netherlands firms will see fit to participate in competing for those contracts, not just from u.s. sources. but this is an interesting situation in that the iraqi people have a source of revenue, oil, unlike some of the other countries that we've had to work with. and so that oil wealth will now be used not for weapons of mass destruction or threatening neighbors or terrorizing its citizens, but to rebuild the country and make iraq, once again, a thriving member of the international community. it once had a gdp [gross domestic product] equal to portugal. well, we are hoping to begin the process of forming that government in the very near future. we have sent ambassador zal khalilzad over with ambassador ryan crocker, two very distinguished diplomats, who will work with regional groups initially to start to bring forth representatives of the different groups in those regions and to see who wants to be part of the new government of iraq. and so we'll have regional conferences which ultimately will grow into, i believe, a national movement and national conferences so that the people of iraq can determine how they will be governed and by whom will they be governed. but we are quite hopeful and optimistic that we can help them create a government that will be democratic and that will be representing all the people of iraq, and a government that will make sure there are never against weapons of mass destruction in iraq and it is not an aggressive regime that invades its neighbors but, quite the contrary, will be a regime that no longer terrorizes its people and wants to live in peace with its neighbors and use the oil wealth of iraq for the benefit of the people of iraq, and not to develop these horrible weapons or to threaten neighbors. u.s. policy has been to make it clear that the world would be better served if states did not support terrorism, the world would be better served if states were - rogue states especially, states that are really not truly responsible - would not develop weapons of mass destruction, such as iraq. but the united states does not have some plan or some list with nations on the list that we're going to go attack one after another. well, i can't answer that question. we hope that it won't be an extended period of time. as the president has said on a number of occasions, we want to get out as fast as we can; we won't stay one day longer, but we won't leave one day early. we want to get the job done, and the job is to make sure that we help the iraqi people put in place the right kind of government, a government that is responsive to its people and is reflective of all the people of iraq and is a government that will not deal with weapons of mass destruction or terrorism and will use the wealth of iraq, its oil, for the benefit of its people. and we will stay however long it takes to raise up that kind of government. we are going to reconstruct iraq in that image that i just described, not reconstruct it from the devastation caused by three weeks of war. we didn't cause the devastation of iraq. it was saddam hussein's tyrannical regime for the last 25 years that has done that. and we're going to reconstruct it so that it will be a different nation and it will be a model to other nations in the region of what you can achieve when you stop supporting terrorism, when you commit yourself to live in peace with your neighbors, and you don't try to develop weapons of mass destruction that can fall into the hands of, perhaps, a terrorist. we have all hoped that saddam hussein would leave the scene. he terrorized his nation for several decades. he threatened his neighbors. he tortured people. he developed weapons of mass destruction. he was a source of instability in the region. well, we will find weapons of mass destruction. for the last three weeks we've been fighting battles, and once this combat period is over we can then turn our attention to finding the weapons of mass destruction. and i think they will be found. that was the basis upon which we went in, and i think there is strong evidence. there's no question about the fact that there are weapons of mass destruction, and they will be looking for them. there is, i think, a higher likelihood of there being chemical and biological weaponry. the nuclear program we also think is there, but we don't think it was as advanced as, perhaps, their chemical and biological weapons programs were. yes. i mean, this campaign, this operation, will come to a successful end when there is a new government in iraq that has been decided upon by the people of iraq, not imposed by the outside forces or the coalition. and when the people of iraq have foresworn any support of terrorism, when there are no more weapons of mass destruction, and when they are committed to using the wealth of iraq for the benefit of the people of iraq, and not to develop weapons or to threaten neighbors, then we will have closure, with or without saddam hussein. sure, we would like to know exactly what happened to him, but he is no longer in charge of anything. if he is alive he is not going to show his face, and if he is dead we may never know. not in this instance because it is - the secretary general [kofi annan] does not yet believe he has a mandate for this. but i think in due course the united nations will play a role. in due course we want this interim authority and we want the iraqi government that arises from this embryo of an interim authority to be recognized in the international community, which means being recognized by the united nations. so we're not fighting the united nations. we will be going through the united nations for it to play its vital role in due course and with various resolutions as we move forward. we don't feel a need right now to consult with respect to the weapons of mass destruction because the campaign is still underway. when general franks has said that hostilities are over, made that recommendation to the president, and when the country has been secured and the situation stabilized, then we will turn our attention to the search for weapons of mass destruction. and the united states and its coalition partners, the united kingdom and other nations - there are now some five nations in iraq now as part of the coalition right in iraq - then we will turn our attention to looking for these weapons of mass destruction and we will see what assistance can be provided in this effort. well, it's not a role for france, germany, and russia. i mean, we will be the liberating authority. we will have occupational responsibilities. but it's - i don't want to quite couch it that way because what we want to do is find these weapons of mass destruction and make sure that the whole world sees them and understands the nature of this regime. and we will want these weapons of mass destruction and the infrastructure associated with it seen by the whole world and verified by the whole world. i think it has been weakened. i don't think we should deny this, sort of soft-pedal it. the u.n. was presented with a challenge by the president last september, and the challenge was simple: for 12 years you have issued instructions to saddam hussein via resolutions to get rid of his weapons of mass destruction, to comply, and he has ignored those instructions; so you have one last chance to give him one last chance, and if he doesn't take this last chance, you have to impose your will. and so as one phase of this operation starts to wind down, another phase begins, a phase that really is the important phase, the phase that will put in place a government of a nation that intends in the future to live in peace with its neighbors, to use the wealth of that nation for the benefit of the people of that nation, and a nation that will no longer be pursuing terrorism, and no longer be putting people in prison, will no longer be raping, will no longer be threatening its neighbors, weapons of mass destruction gone. i think it is a moment of hope for not only the people of iraq, but for the people of the region and the people of the world. there should be no reason that we should be fearful of democracy in the middle east or in the gulf region, but each nation will have to find its own way. and iraq was a unique case where it wasn't just a matter of a dictator being there; it was a dictator terrorizing his people, raping and pillaging his own people, wasting his treasure; but, beyond that, invading his neighbors and threatening the whole world with weapons of mass destruction and supporting terrorists' activities and creating a nexus between weapons of mass destruction and terrorism, and totally ignoring the role of the international community that told him to get rid of these weapons for a period of 12 years. and that's what led us to this point. but from this point on, the people of iraq have a much more hopeful future to look forward to. and now here, in iraq, 17, 18 resolutions, whatever the number is condemning this regime, finding this regime guilty; and the regime said: we don't care what the international community thinks. we're going to continue to terrorize people, we're going to continue to use our oil wells - not to build hospitals and schools - we're going to use our oil wells to build weapons of mass destruction and to deprive people that we don't like in our own country. and, finally, the united states was willing to step up and say this cannot continue, and led a willing coalition into operation iraqi freedom. and so if this is what somebody would characterize negatively as policemen of the world, it was when a policeman was needed. and we were willing to do it with like-minded members of coalitions that went into these places. and what did we do when we had finished our work? we tried to leave those places, and have left those places better than we found them and under leadership of their own people. and this is not just a recent phenomenon for the united states. this is always the way we have done it. and just look at our record over the last 50 or 60 years of what we have done in the aftermath of conflict; it is a proud record that all americans and all freedom-loving people throughout the world should be proud of. it's not a message the united states has delivered. the president hasn't spoken in those terms. neither have i, and, for that matter, neither has don rumsfeld or condi rice. but, clearly, what's really happened in iraq is that a regime that did sponsor terrorism, that did terrorize its own people, that was developing weapons of mass destruction, was in violation of standards that had been imposed by the united nations is no longer there. so there is a changed situation, and syria is about to have a neighbor that is going to be democratic, it's going to have a representative form of government, it's going to use the wealth of its people - the intellectual wealth of its people, the human capital of that country and the oil of that country - to benefit the people. and so, hopefully, this is a new dynamic that syria will take note of. not entirely, because there were 12 years' worth of u.n. resolutions that had been imposed upon iraq, so i think it's different. iraq had recently invaded its neighbors, had used weapons of mass destruction against its own people and its neighbors, and as recently as just a few months ago, in total violation of u.n. resolution 1441, once again told the international community that we're not paying any attention to you. and therefore, serious consequences flowed and those serious consequences got rid of the regime of saddam hussein. but i would say we are into an era where some of those states that have supported terrorism, supported the weapons of mass destruction, are coming to the realization that the international community no longer finds this acceptable and is prepared to deal with these kinds of states. this is especially the case in the post-9/11 period, where people can see clearly the nexus between weapons of mass destruction and terrorist states and terrorist individuals and terrorist groups that are non-state actors. this is not to say, and i don't want to give you the wrong impression - "deal with" does not always mean "use military force." but i think from our perspective and with 9/11 still fresh in mind, we now realize, even more than we realized before, that states that continue to support terrorism, that continue to develop weapons of mass destruction, cannot ignore forever the opprobrium and will of the international community. so you have seen us undertake military action in iraq. you've seen us speak out strongly with respect to syria, with respect to iran and with respect to north korea. but you've also seen the president used a sophisticated array of tools to deal with this problem, and not just the first tool that is at hand or people expect him to use. as the president, like some people have said, the president's words, "even cowboys like posses, and even cowboys have more than just a six-shooter." i think right now we had both a military victory and a political victory. there's a theory, or a doctrine that rests on the name of the former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, that says you create a political goal and you use your military force to achieve that political goal. the principal political goal was to get rid of the weapons of mass destruction within iraq, and the only way to do that was to remove the regime, remove the regime. that's been done. so that is not only a military victory, it is also a political victory. however, we also picked up a responsibility, willingly picked it up, that if we were to do that there would be a period of enormous instability in the country and we had an obligation, therefore, to stay long enough to put in place a representative form of government that would hold the country together, that would not be interested in weapons of mass destruction, terror or repressing its people; and would use the wealth of its people for the benefit of its people. it's a dangerous thing to do. that the united states has made it clear that we are not going to rest until the global war on terrorism has been won. and as the president said at the very outset, if you are a terrorist or if you are a haven or a harbor for terrorists or you are helping terrorists do their evil work, you are going to be held to account when you're guilty. secondly, i hope the lesson that anybody developing these weapons would draw from iraq is the most competent power of military force on the face of the earth, with an enormous ability to project power, and they have gone into war twice in the last ten years with everybody expecting that weapons of mass destruction will be used against them. we went into the war in desert storm expecting chemical weapons use and the possibility of biological weapons use. we went into this war the same way. so don't think that you necessarily, if war - let me drop necessarily. don't think you have a deterrence by having weapons of mass destruction. now, we didn't really think saddam hussein had a nuke at the time of gulf war one, but he could have. there were some who said he did. it didn't deter us. and there is nobody who can match us nuclear-wise anyway. so weapons of mass destruction do not buy you the security or the deterrence capability that you might have thought they bought you; therefore, in my judgment, "do you want my advice, mr. rogue state leader? you're wasting your money on fool's gold, and heaven help you if your fool's gold, as you try to spin it into something useful, gets in the hands of a terrorist. you will be held accountable for that." so it seems to me that any leader who wishes to remain a leader, who does not wish to put his future at risk, looking at iraq would suggest to them that it's time to rethink our policies. this is the message we've been giving to syria for the last two and a half weeks that have gotten you all so excited, and hopefully it's a message mr. [james] kelly will convey into the north koreans' hands. i think the message for the iraqi war is the united states has power to use to pursue a principle. in this case, the principle was a state that was developing weapons of mass destruction that was terrorizing its own people that was invading its neighbors, that was using these weapons of mass destruction and stood in violation of 12 years' worth of u.n. resolutions. that regime was brought to justice and was removed. that was the use of american power. yeah, well, i think it's a wrong lesson if they have learned this lesson or are internalizing it. and the reason it's the wrong lesson is that the united states has such economic, political, diplomatic and military power that we are not going to be intimidated by a small number of nuclear weapons held by a particular regime. the north koreans - well, that - i don't know what they might or might not do, but the one thing they won't do is intimidate us. and we're going to make that very clear in these discussions. and it should dawn on them that they can have plutonium programs and they can have enriched uranium programs, and not one of those programs feeds one north korean child. and so there is no future in sitting there on a stockpile of nuclear weapons that we can contain or we can deter or we can do whatever might be required. but we don't need to threaten them. we believe, the president believes strongly, there is a diplomatic way to resolve this. to really put it in context, i have to take you to an earlier period, to the beginning of the administration, 2001, january of 2001, when the president came in. iraq was on our mind then because we had been watching for the nine years after the gulf war, 10 years after the gulf war, an iraq that had been kicked out of kuwait. kuwait had been freed, but nevertheless iraq was not complying with the obligations it entered into as a result of ending the gulf war. mr. cheney, vice president cheney now, and secretary of state powell, former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, had more than a passing interest in what went on in that part of the world in iraq. when we came in, we discovered that the sanctions regime that was being used to contain iraq was falling apart, the security council was losing interest in it, they wanted to get rid of the sanctions, a number of the permanent members. we also realized that we had this no-fly zone where we were patrolling every day over the northern and southern part of iraq, and it didn't seem to be serving an especially useful purpose over time. and the issue remained what to do about his weapons of mass destruction regime. so it was a subject that was on our mind throughout the first part of 2001, even before 9/11 came along. in fact, each one of those tracks, what to do about it if we ever had to do something militarily was on our agenda. we started to think about that, but no war plans were generating yet. we were thinking about it - what do about the no-fly zone and what do about sanctions. sanctions became the secretary of state's problem and i worked for a year to put in place what subsequently became known as "smart sanctions," only allowing humanitarian foodstuff to get in and making sure that weapons were kept out. then along comes 9/11, and immediately the issue arose: how do we respond to the taliban and al qaeda, who was being hosted by the taliban in afghanistan? and the issue arose immediately: iraq. since iraq was a source of weapons of mass destruction, it was a terrorist-sponsoring state. and there was some concern that there might be a connection between what happened at 9/11 and iraq because of its terrorist activity and its sponsorship of those kinds of activities. and so in our very first series of meetings after 9/11, the famous meeting that took place up at camp david on the saturday after 9/11, we focused on this. should we go after al qaeda immediately, and the taliban, and put down an ultimatum to them? and at the same time, should we deal with an iraq, or at least start to think about dealing with an iraq, and what should our priorities be - or one or the other, how to handle it. and the president decided - and this is also well known - to deal with afghanistan and deal with al qaeda. they're the ones who attacked new york and washington and pennsylvania. and so that became the president's policy. we will deal with the taliban and al qaeda. but at the same time, he said this will be a comprehensive campaign against terrorists, against those who harbor terrorists or provide the wherewithal to terrorists to do their dirty deed. so that early on, even though we're focusing on afghanistan, we were also going to start turning our attention to iraq. well, first of all, let me start by saying there is always a debate going on in washington, and the president in this administration has done quite a bit to inspire such debate by hiring people in his senior national security positions who have strong views about things. none of us, i would say, can be characterized as a shrinking violet. we also have known each other for years and have interacted in different capacities, so we're good friends and we know how to have a good disagreement about something and we know how to serve our president. and so the debate that we had that summer was, okay, we're not getting anywhere with iraq, they are simply not complying with these resolutions. and in this post-9/11 period where we can see the nexus between weapons of mass destruction and terrorists, the two coming together, it is not a risk we can continue to run. and the president said this is not a risk i wish to continue to run. and prime minister blair felt pretty much the same way. we had been talking to the british and other nations along the way. well, okay, then, how shall we go about this? shall we just go and decide on our own to undertake a military operation and invade, issue and ultimatum and go? or should we take this problem back to where the problem belongs, and that is, to the united nations? the united nations passed these resolutions, security council resolutions, that are now being violated at will, with no consequences. and the president, realizing that this was a major issue for the world, and in the spirit - if i might do this with a slight smile - of multilateralism, elected to take the issue to the united nations. nobody disagreed with that decision. not i, certainly, who helped structure the position. neither the vice president nor secretary cheney [sic] nor dr. rice, for that matter. we had concluded that if the united nations was not prepared to act in a forceful way that forced iraq to comply and deliver these weapons of mass destruction, and all the programs associated with them, and 'fess up to the past 15 years, 12 years, of misbehavior, we would go forward with the support of the united nations' military approval, another - you know, another statement by the united nations, or without it. and if they did not comply and the council chose not to take note of it, then we would act with a willing coalition. yes, yes. they're there and we will have to wait and be patient, let the troops finish the work they're doing now, securing and stabilizing the country. and as more and more people come forward who are now free to speak, i think the evidence will be more forthcoming. we've got exploitation teams in country now, as i speak, and these exploitation teams are finding interesting things, interesting documents, and having interesting interviews. so, too, liberation in iraq is a great victory for freedom. it has freed the region and it has freed the world from the threat posed by the potentially catastrophic combination of a rogue regime with weapons of mass destruction and terrorism. but above all, it has freed the iraqi people from a vicious oppressor. the united states removed a regime that was led by a dictator who was terrorizing his people, had developed weapons of mass destruction, was in clear violation of u.n. resolutions for a long period of time. it was a war against that regime, done under the authority of appropriate u.n. resolutions. that regime is gone. our commitment right now is to allow the people of iraq to decide how they will be governed, to decide who will represent them, to make all of the decisions with respect to the use of the resources of the land to benefit the people. it is a muslim country and we are quite confident, and by what you have seen in television, you can be quite confident, that they are free to practice their religion in ways that they could not for decades. and so it is not a matter of us dealing with their religion. we understand their faith. we respect the faith of islam. and we will try to show them and help them create a democratic system of government that is in no way contrary to their beliefs or to their faith. there should be no suggestion that people who practice a particular faith are somehow kept from also having a representative form of government. and, hopefully, this will be achieved in a relatively short of period of time. leaders are emerging. we are sending over special envoy [zal] khalilzad, the president's envoy, and ambassador ryan crocker back to the region to have regional meetings where people can assemble and decide who will represent them in larger meetings; put in place an iraqi interim authority, develop a constitution, develop a judicial system, and make sure we have gotten rid of the weapons of mass destruction. . . . once we know exactly what we're dealing with, then you are in a position to make an informed judgment with respect to where it might have come from. i don't put it past iraq. we know they have been working on this kind of terror weapon, and we keep a very close eye on them. and as the president has said, it is in the first instance we are going after al qaeda and osama bin laden, and that is the principal focus of our attention; but we recognize there are other regimes that give haven and harbor to terrorist activity, and we will turn our attention to them in due course. but at that moment, they had help, not from fellow marines, not from fellow soldiers in the army, but from the iraqi people who were there in the square, who welcomed them, who saw they were having trouble, so helped them as, together, iraqis and americans tore down this statue, the statue that celebrated despotism, terror, weapons of mass destruction. who will forget the photographs of tens of thousands of iraqi shiites marching on a pilgrimage to their holy city of karbala for the first time in a quarter century - peacefully? for 25 years, they had been prevented from practicing their faith in this noble way by somebody who claimed to be faithful, somebody who claimed to be a believer, somebody who claimed the faith of islam, said he was a muslim but would not let shiites practice their faith. and here, in this one moment, suddenly they were free to assemble by the tens upon tens of thousands, without a bunch of soldiers guarding them. we kept our distance so that they could peacefully participate in this important pilgrimage. this all may seem faraway and distant. baghdad may seem far from bogot and the cares of iraqis far removed from the daily struggles of argentines. but the countries of our hemisphere have had and continued to have an important role in eliminating the threat from iraq's weapons of mass destruction and bringing new hope to the iraqi people. seven of our latin american friends are members of the coalition of the willing that president bush assembled to free iraq. indeed, it did. already, the liberation of iraq can be seen as a great victory for freedom: it has freed the international community from the threat posed by the potentially catastrophic combination of a rogue regime, weapons of mass destruction and terrorism, and it has freed the iraqi people from a vicious regime that committed an unimaginable atrocity against them. the full horror has yet to be exposed, but every day brings more evidence of the regime's crimes against humanity, and those responsible will be held to account. so too, the liberation of iraq is a great victory for freedom. it has freed the international community from the threat posed by the potentially catastrophic combination of a rogue regime, weapons of mass destruction, and terrorists. and it has freed the iraqi people from a vicious oppressor. well, i was anxious to visit madrid to express my appreciation directly to president aznar and to minister palacio for the strong support that spain has provided to the coalition that liberated iraq. and frankly, it's to bring a message to the spanish people that they should be very proud of the stand that their government has taken. i know there was a great deal of concern and there was a great deal of popular opposition, but look what we've achieved: their dictator is gone, the people are free, people are now being fed, humanitarian supplies are flowing into the country, the electrical system is being fixed, and the iraqi people are already becoming part of the process, the political process to determine how they will be governed in the future. so we have given a hopeful future for the people of iraq as a result of the coalition effort, and we have gotten rid of a regime that was terrorizing its own people, that was developing weapons of mass destruction, and i wanted to express my appreciation to president aznar. of course, president aznar is coming to washington next week to see his good friend president george bush, and it was an opportunity to review our bilateral agenda before then. yes, we've spoken about that this morning with all of my colleagues. i think every nation should be examining their policies now to see how they can participate in the reconstruction of iraq; reconstruction of iraq not from what happened in recent weeks with the military conflict, but reconstruction of the society and the infrastructure of a society that was systematically destroyed by over two decades of dictatorship and bad leadership under saddam hussein. what we are finding in iraq now with the hospitals inadequate, water supply inadequate, roads inadequate, other things inadequate, the results of a dictator who spent the money of the people, the wealth of the country, its oil revenue, on weapons of mass destruction and on threatening his neighbors. now, the iraqi people have new hope that they will be able to create a government that is democratic and that will serve the interests of its people. we went into iraq in response to 12 years of violation of specific u.n. resolutions dealing with weapons of mass destruction, and we went in with the full authority of the united nations. whether people agree with that assessment or not, 1441 made it clear that we had a basis to do this. military force is not necessarily the first option in every one of these situations. i believe that iraq was a more real and present danger in terms of its weapons of mass destruction, which will be uncovered in due course, and because they had demonstrated that they are prepared to invade their neighbors and they have demonstrated they are prepared to use these kinds of weapons outside their own borders and on their own citizens. so i think this was a different case, a clear case, and we acted on that case, as we did in afghanistan. we, i think, have had some success in recent months in convincing all of north korea's neighbors that the problem presented to the region and to the world by north korea is not just a problem between north korea and the united states, but with all of the nations in the region. and as a result, we got china to take a more active role in sponsoring a multilateral meeting that included china, the united states, and north korea. south korea and japan were not in the meeting, but their interests were certainly represented in that meeting by the united states. and everybody has now made it clear to north korea that they will not find any assistance coming to them from the region in terms of economic development, in terms of helping them with their serious economic problems and problems of poverty, unless they abandon their nuclear weapons programs. they say they have a couple of nuclear weapons. they've admitted that. they are always ambiguous in their statements, masters of ambiguity. they say they have completely reprocessed all of the cells that would - the rods that would give rise to a sufficient amount of plutonium to develop five or six weapons. we can't confirm that with our intelligence, but that's what they say. and what they have gotten in response to these statements is nothing from us except condemnation. all of their neighbors have now said to them this is not going to get you anywhere, we will not be blackmailed, we will not be intimidated; you do not want to go in this direction because all it will do is further isolate you. and it takes time for the north koreans to hear these kinds of messages. they are masters of saying all we have to do is keep threatening people, hold our breath, throw tantrums, and they'll come our way. not going to happen this time. we are not going to be frightened into doing something. we're not going to be intimidated into doing something or blackmailed into doing something that we do not believe will solve this problem once and for all. the agreed framework of 1994 dealt with one aspect of their nuclear weapons capability, but while it dealt with that, temporarily it left the capacity in place for that program to come back. and at the same time we thought we had dealt with that, they started working on another program to develop nuclear weapons. we're not going to fall for that game again. they have a bigger problem than they have now. their nuclear weapons are not going to purchase them any political standing that will cause us to be frightened or to think that somehow we now have to march to their tune, march to their drummer. absolutely not. we haven't found any evidence of nuclear weapons in iraq as a result of what we have been able to see so far. but a program is more than just a weapon. we didn't think he had a weapon at the time i made that statement or the time the vice president made his statements or any of the other of my colleagues who made statements. but what he did keep intact were the scientific wherewithal. and by that, i mean he not only had people with the know-how, but he kept them together so that the know-how could be exploited at a time that he chose. he kept in place the infrastructure. and so he never lost the infrastructure or the brainpower assembled in a way to use that infrastructure if he was ever given a chance to do so because the international community had turned its attention in another direction. and so it is still our judgment, and it is still my judgment, that if he was given the opportunity and if the international community said fine, you're okay, we're not going to bother you anymore, he would still have pursued that objective. he never lost, in my judgment, and the judgment of the intelligence community, the intent to develop a nuclear weapon, and he kept in place the scientific brainpower and the infrastructure that would have allowed that to happen in due course. oh, i think we will find weapons of mass destruction. i'm the one who presented the case, and proud to have done so. and let me tell you, tim, we spent a lot of time on that presentation. it was about five straight days and nights of work with the most senior experts of the intelligence community. and with a smile on my face, i would like to point out that over my right shoulder was the director of central intelligence in that picture, george tenet. we all stood behind that presentation. and keep in mind that the whole security council acknowledged that saddam hussein had these weapons of mass destruction when they voted 15-0 for the basic resolution, 1441. it begins with a statement that saddam hussein is in material breach of his obligations to account for all of the anthrax and botulinum toxin and all the other things that previous inspectors said he either has and hasn't accounted for, or he won't tell us what happened to this material if he no longer has it. and that was the basis upon which 1441 rested. and it may well be that as we continue our work with the many teams that are now about the countryside we will find that some of the gaps that were there that he wouldn't account for, we can now account for; even if we don't find weapons, we can find out what happened to that material, i am confident. sure, it's important. i am confident that we will find evidence that makes it clear he had weapons of mass destruction. we will. i don't know. i don't know whether there was anything in the site that was of particular concern to us. i'm still - i'll wait for the intelligence community to give us an assessment of that. i just saw a washington post report about it. the rationale was the same. there was the weapons of mass destruction. let's be clear. the basis of u.n. security council resolution 1441 was a judgment on the part of all 15 members of the security council that the iraqi regime had been in violation of its obligations under all sorts of previous resolutions to account for its weapons of mass destruction. all 15 nations agreed when they passed that resolution. and i'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. we're just getting it just now. not from the syrians, no. and they say that they have taken in no weapons of mass destruction from iraq. their position is that they think it unlikely that saddam hussein would have trusted them with such weapons. nevertheless, we will continue to watch carefully, and any information or indications we have, we will follow up on them. i am still confident that weapons of mass destruction will be found. you have to keep in mind, however, that when we passed u.n. resolution 1441 on a vote of 15 to zero, just voting for that resolution signs you up to the proposition that iraq was not coming clean, with respect to their weapons of mass destruction programs. they were found guilty in that resolution, all 15 members of the security council who voted for it, guilty of having thwarted the role of the united nations for 12 years, with respect to answering questions with - concerning the weapons of mass destruction programs. when we said things such as, "what happened to all of the anthrax material you had? what happened to the botulinan [sic] toxics? explain the discrepancies that exist." they refused to do so. now whether we ever find that amount of material, or are able to resolve the discrepancies, remains to be seen. but i am absolutely sure that they had weapons of mass destruction, and i am sure we will find them. and it was the judgment of the united nations when that resolution was passed that we all believe the same thing. the case that i presented on the fifth of february was a well-documented, well-sourced case that was presented by the entire intelligence community. it wasn't something that just came off the top of my head, and we spent days getting that presentation ready with every senior representative present in our briefings and in our preparations. the intelligence community stands behind that information, i do, and i am confident that evidence will be found that will show that the united states and its coalition partners had a basis for acting under u.n. resolution 1441 because of the presence of weapons of mass destruction. no, i don't know what that means. i read the article. but i haven't received reporting from central command or the pentagon or our intelligence sources, as to what was there, what is not now there, whether it was under iaea [international atomic energy agency] supervision, and exactly what it was that was looted. a quick reading of the article suggested there might have been some storage tanks that - barrels that somebody thought might be there, but aren't there. and i don't know what their disposition was. so i can't - i can't say - i don't know that there was a special concern that there was nuclear-related material at that particular site. i know that early on, we looked at some sites down around in tuwaitha. but whether or not this particular site was a site of high concern or not, i can't answer that question without checking with my colleagues. we believe there are weapons of mass destruction and we presented last week some evidence of one such program. the pentagon gave a briefing last week that showed a mobile laboratory on wheels with all the equipment inside that matches the kind of equipment i spoke about on the 5th of february. we see no other use for this van and the equipment inside of that van to develop biological weapons. but we want to make absolutely sure, so we are studying it. and so we will slowly uncover all of their programs. a great deal of documentation has been found. and as ambassador boucher said last week, the first priority right now is to stabilize the country, restore a sense of security throughout the country, and make sure the people are being taken care of, start to reconstruct the infrastructure of the country. we have had some preliminary exploitation teams in iraq, and now a more sophisticated unit with a great deal of expertise is coming in to search out all of the locations that we have information about. well, we have started to identify some vehicles that are very suspicious in nature and look quite similar to some of the vehicles that i presented in my speech to the united nations on the 5th of february. so we'll continue to examine those vehicles to see whether they are mobile biological laboratories. we are going through a great deal of documentation that our troops have picked up, and we have thousands of experts and soldiers who will be examining the entire country and look at suspected sights. whether or not there is a role for unmovic [united nations monitoring, verification, and inspection commission] to play in the absence of the saddam hussein regime is an entirely different situation. this is something they'll have to examine. i'm aware that some of our security council partners, including the russian federation, believe that there is a role for unmovic. we believe that that may not be the case any longer. but it's an area that we'll have to debate. i don't subscribe to the domino theory, that what we have done in iraq will necessarily bring down regimes all over the area. what we have done in iraq is get rid of a terrible dictator. a dictator who we know was developing weapons of mass destruction. you tell me why he didn't let the united nations have full access. you tell me why he didn't turn over the documentation, why he didn't account for all the things he has been doing for the last 12 years. for 12 years, he ignored the u.n. we also know that he had such weapons. he has used such weapons in the past. and, on top of that, he terrorized his population, he wasted the revenue of the people on weapons and on building up a military force to threaten his neighbors. he killed people. he murdered people. we're now finding mass graves, full of innocent people who were murdered by this regime. and so the united states is not going to apologize. nor are our coalition partners going to apologize for undertaking this military operation which will determine whether there are any remaining weapons of mass destruction and bring the truth out in due course. and also have the effect of bringing down a dictator, and the world will be better off for it, is better off for it, and the people of iraq will be better off for it. and they now have an opportunity to use their oil wealth to build a better country that will be a democratic country. that's not a domino theory meaning the united states is going to go somewhere else and do the same thing. not at all. but what we might have is an example to the region of what can happen when you don't have dictators around and when you're willing to use the wealth that you have in the ground, your oil, for good purposes. yes, i'm quite sure. and, in fact, we have found a couple of items of equipment, some mobile vans, so that with each passing day the evidence is clearer to us that they were used for biological weapons purposes. and, the van we have and other materials we're finding look exactly like the sketch that i provided to the u.n. when i made my presentation. remember that we all agreed when we passed the resolution unanimously that iraq had weapons of mass destruction. that was the purpose of the resolution in the first place. we found iraq guilty. iraq would not answer basic questions about their weapons program. and now that we are in the country, we are flooding it with inspectors, we are flooding it with experts who will look in every place that one can look in to find documents and to get evidence of their programs of weapons of mass destruction. and we're quite sure we'll find it. the intelligence community has really looked hard at these vans, and we can find no other purpose for them. although you can't find actual germs on them, they have been cleaned and we don't know whether they have been used for that purpose or not, but they were certainly designed and constructed for that purpose. and we have taken our time on this one because we wanted to make sure we got it right. and the intelligence community, i think, is convinced now that that's the purpose they served. "vindication" isn't a word i would use. i think we knew what we were saying when we went to the u.n. on the 5th of february, and i was pleased to be the one to present the case. but this certainly is a good example of the kinds of activities that that regime was involved in for so many years, and which formed the basis of the u.n. charge against them that was contained in resolution 1441. they were in material breach. they stayed in material breach. they did not do anything to fix the situation; and, therefore, they suffered the serious consequences that followed, and now the people of iraq are liberated. i am also sure that, as our experts continue to examine sites around the country, more information will be forthcoming as to iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. the resolution will also show that there is a vital role to be played by the united nations. as president bush and prime minister [tony] blair said a few weeks ago, it was important that we recognize a vital role for the united nations and i believe this resolution does that, by designating the special representative of the secretary general to work in every way with the interim iraqi administration, when it is formed, to work with the coalition provisional authority, and to help in the process of moving this through phases that will now be right in front of us. first, the administration that we are responsible for, the coalition, and then, setting up an interim iraqi administration and slowly give them authority as they demonstrate capability and ultimately grow that into a government that will be a government of the people of iraq, as determined by the people of iraq, and not imposed upon them. a government that we are confident will live in peace with its neighbors, not develop weapons of mass destruction, and not use the wealth of the people of iraq, in the form of its oil, to do things which threaten regional stability. the mobile vans that you may have been reading about, it is becoming clear that these vans can have no other purpose than the production of biological weapons. our intelligence community has been very thorough in its examination and has ruled out any other option. i think that's a clear indication that saddam hussein had the programs of the kind we were talking about. the vans look exactly like the pictures, the cartoons that i used during my presentation on the 5th of february. and, i'm sure that as we send more investigative teams in and a very, very expert group of individuals - a couple thousand of them are on their way now - and as they go through all the documents and as they take a look at all the potential places where weapons of mass destruction might have been stored, might have been developed, there will be more information forthcoming. there is no question that saddam hussein had weapons of mass destruction and every nation that voted for u.n. resolution 1441 last november 8th acknowledged that, because the very basis of the resolution was that saddam hussein and that regime was in material breach of its obligations. by not accounting for its weapons of mass destruction, and by denying things that were known to be true from previous inspections and by submitting a false declaration they made themselves even more in breach of their obligations and i am confident that the evidence will prove that that finding of guilt in 1441 was accurate and was a solid basis for subsequent actions that were taken. we will be withdrawing as soon as the job is done. president bush has made it clear that we don't want to stay there a day longer than we have to. but right now, since we've conducted a military operation with a coalition of the willing, we have an obligation to run the government until such time as the iraqi people have created a government of their own. and when that government is up and functioning and prepared to assume all of the responsibilities of government, we want to leave. the united states does not need any colonies, we don't need any more states to add to our 50 states, all we want to do is help the people of iraq to a better life and then, come back to our shores. no, no, it is a question of longer than that. i can't say whether it's a year, two years, i don't know. anybody who says they know, they don't know. a lot depends on how quickly security is established and how quickly we are able to create a provisional government that will lead to a full government. it takes time to create a democracy and a functional legislature, a functional judiciary, put in place a constitution, all this takes time. and it seems to me that everybody should be interested in doing it right, not doing it fast, and i think the united nations, when they passed this resolution, recognized that it will take time. we noticed the resolution asks for a review of the situation in a year, within a year. so certainly, the united nations in this security council resolution recognizes that it is going to take some time. it doesn't mean that we need a new resolution at the end of the year, but let's see where we are in a year. hopefully, we will be well on our way and i hope, i would love to see an iraqi government in place next week or next month, but it will be in place when it is the right government and it is prepared to govern the country in a way that the country will not be a threat to its neighbors and not develop weapons of mass destruction and not practice terrorism against its own people, against others, and it will be responsible nation, a changed nation. at that time, we will declare success, and we will leave. no, france agreed that there were weapons of mass destruction when they voted for [u.n.] resolution 1441. france, along with all the other nations that voted for 1441, acknowledged that iraq was in material breach of its obligations to come forward with all the information that it had concerning weapons of mass destruction. france along with the others believed that there was still a program there. now, if france and the united states differ as how to find out about that program, we believe that the inspectors were being deceived and would never get to the answer. so, we believed that after a reasonable period of time with inspectors, without the kind of cooperation that was required by 1441, it was appropriate to use military force. so far, we have found the biological weapons vans that i spoke about when i presented the case to the united nations on the 5th of february, and there is no doubt in our minds now that those vans where designed for only one purpose, and that was to make biological weapons. i'm also confident that as our experts continue looking through the documentation and interview people they will find out more information. well, we disagreed with france's attitude, we were disappointed that we were unable to persuade france that they should be a part of this effort to disarm iraq and get rid of this regime that would not disarm itself. and so, we would have much preferred, as we went into this effort to liberate iraq, that france would have been with us rather than opposed to, or critical of us. but, you know, that was something that happened several months ago. now, we are working with france on a new security council resolution, helping the people of iraq. but was there disappointment? yes. did we have a major disagreement? yes. but because we are friends and we have been allies for all these years, a major disagreement isn't going to break the alliance, or the friendship. will it put pressure on us? yes. should we try to work our way through this and see if there are still some rough edges that have to be dealt with? yes. let's not pretend there was no disagreement. there was. but you know, you can have disagreements within families just as you can have between enemies. in this case, it was a disagreement between members of a family, in a great alliance, not two nations that are enemies with each other. let me go to the first part of your question, on lukewarm. i don't know that i would call it lukewarm. i mean, we're having an initial donors conference on the 24th of june in new york, preliminary donors conference, and then a major donors conference a month or so later where we expect significant contributions to be made. the pentagon is going through all of the offers that have come forward to put military forces and police forces and other kind of forces in to help with security and stability. a number of countries that i visited recently - france, germany, russia - are all interested in doing more with respect to reconstruction. and they're anxious, of course, to see if contracts are out there for them. you know, nothing wrong with that, because there is going to be money available now that is oil is flowing, so that iraq can start rebuilding itself. so i wouldn't characterize it lukewarm, i think we're getting quite a solid response from the international community. i think it's telling that when we passed resolution 1483, the lifting sanctions resolution, it only took us a - less than 10 days to do that, and we got a unanimous vote, if i can count syria, that kind of came in after the vote and said, yes, we vote yes, too. i think that was a pretty good expression of support to lift the sanctions and get on with the rebuilding. on the second part of your question on weapons of mass destruction, more teams are going over. we will exploit all of the information we have. more interviews will be conducted with people who are now available. documents are being looked at in greater detail. the biological weapons facilities, the mobile ones that the dia [defense intelligence agency] and cia put a paper out on the other day, i think make it clear that there is such a capability that's existed over the years. and the international community always felt that saddam hussein was guilty of having these weapons, which was the basis upon which they passed [u.n. resolution]1441 in the first place. and i'm quite confident that the evidence will be forthcoming, so there can be no doubt in anyone's mind. well, we found the vans. and we found a lot of documents. and the initial read from the documents suggests that these programs were there. now, reflect again on what the charges were in 1441 and what the international community has been saying for years. there were gaps in knowledge. and the iraqis would not step forward and bridge those gaps. we had clear evidence that so many liters of a particular item had been produced, botchulinen [sic], or anthrax, so many rounds of chemical artillery had been produced. and they refused to explain the gaps between what we know is produced and what inspectors could identify. and so that, in itself, was the violation, or one of the violations that formed the basis of resolution 1441. we knew they were doing things - not just gaps in knowledge, we knew they were doing things. the presentation i made on the 5th of february, where i put up the cartoons of those biological vans, we didn't just make up them up one night. those were eyewitness accounts of people who had worked in the program and knew it was going on, multiple accounts. and when i put them up, showed the four cartoons, people kind of, well, who knows. guess what? you should have seen the smile on my face when one day the intelligence community came in and gave me a photo, and said, look. and it was almost identical to the cartoon that i had put up in new york on the 5th of february. we have examined those vans repeatedly for the last several weeks, and we are confident that's what they are. now, there will be other theories that come from time to time - oh, it was a hydrogen making thing for balloons. no. you now have a white paper from the intelligence community reflecting the views of the director of central intelligence and the director of dia that that's what it's for, with appropriate balancing caveats in there, to say, we haven't found any contamination within it because they either haven't been used or they've been cleaned. but there's no question in the mind of the intelligence community as to what it was designed for. and so that is a clear case of solid evidence. and then gaps in intelligence which we're trying to fill as a result of the exploitations taking place. i have been through many crises in my career in government. and there are always people who come after the fact, to say, this wasn't what was presented to you, or this was politicized or this wasn't. let people look into it, let people examine it. i know that [cia] director [george] tenet is looking at everything that he has been doing in the recent past. you've been reading reports about that. i'm sure congress will be looking into this. i'm sure the president's oversight and others, pfiab [president's foreign intelligence advisory board] and others, will be examining all of this in due course, as part of their routine work. and you can make your own judgment. my judgment was based on when the president asked me to present the case to the world. and i went out to the cia, and i spent four days and four nights going over everything that they had as holdings, and not just me and george tenet, a room full of analysts, the raw documents, the papers. and everything i presented on the 5th of february, i can tell you, there was good sourcing for, was not politicized, it was solid information that was being presented to us for our consideration for that briefing, not by political appointees, but by the analysts who were responsible for it. and i was there until midnight three straight nights, friday, saturday, sunday, with the analysts themselves, challenging them, because i knew that it was the credibility of the united states that was going to be on the line on the 5th of february. the credibility of the president of the united states and my credibility, but george's. and what we put up on the 5th of february was the best analytic product that we could have put up. and it was mutli-sourced, and multi-sourced by the people who knew. we've had no better friend in recent months than italy, as italy has stood side by side with the united states in afghanistan, at the u.n. in helping us make the case to our colleagues at the u.n. i cannot tell you how much it has meant to president bush, to me and to all americans to have president [correction: prime minister] berlusconi's strong support, and the strong support of the italian government and people for what needed to be done to bring a dictator to justice, to deal with a regime that had totally ignored all u.n. resolutions for many years, in keeping and developing weapons of mass destruction. that dictator is now gone as a result of the coalition of the willing, and now the challenge before us is to help the iraqi people, and we know that italy will play an important and powerful role in that effort. there were weapons of mass destruction in iraq. it wasn't a figment of anyone's imagination. iraq used these weapons against iran in the late '80s. iraq used such weapons against its own people in the late '80s. when the gulf war was over in 1991, we found such weapons and destroyed some of them. inspectors were in iraq for years and were forced to leave iraq in 1998 without getting the answers that were needed with respect to what weapons remained, where they were and what programs were still underway. so there is no question, there is no debate here. iraq had weapons of mass destruction and they tossed out, caused the inspectors to have to leave, therefore, tossed out the inspectors in 1998. and for the years that followed, until the fall of 2002, iraq simply ignored the demands of the international community to allow the inspectors back in and resolve this issue. in the fall of 2002, in the u.n. resolution 1441, every member of the security council, all fifteen, unanimously agreed to a resolution that started out with the proposition that iraq was in material breach of its obligations, that iraq had weapons of mass destruction. there is no doubt in my mind as i went through the intelligence, and as i prepared myself for the briefing that i gave to the security council on the 5th of february, that the evidence was overwhelming, that they had continued to develop these programs. iraq convicted itself when iraq would not provide answers demanded by the international community. iraq further placed itself in material breach when it did not cooperate fully with the inspectors in a way that the inspectors could do their job. and under the terms of 1441, it was perfectly appropriate, it was the right thing to do, for a coalition of the willing, even if the entire u.n. security council did not wish to join in the effort, but for a coalition of the willing to take the bold political step to decide that this regime had to be changed because it refused to comply with the will of the international community. we are sending in the most extensive regime, we are putting in place the most extensive regime imaginable, to look at all of the sites, to exploit all of the documents that have come into our possession since the war, and to interview people who are now available, who were not made for interview by the iraqis previously. we have already discovered mobile biological factories of the kind that i described to the security council on the 5th of february. we have now found them. there is no question in our mind that that's what their purpose was. nobody has come up with an alternate purpose that makes sense. and so i think the case is clear, the case is made, the case has been made by the international coalition, it was previously made by the inspectors, and iraq has previously admitted to having these weapons of mass destruction and refused to tell the international community their current status, thus leading to resolution 1441 and subsequently leading to operation iraqi freedom. and now, the iraqi people are free, they're liberated, they're no longer living under a regime that would lie to the international community or deny its activities to the international community. and what we have to do now is not get trapped in the longwinded debates about what was known and not known, and these kinds of recriminations, but move on and help the iraqi people build a stable society, a democratic nation where all the people are represented in government. and what we don't have to worry about is any future regime in iraq, any future government in iraq developing weapons of mass destruction or terrorizing its own people or supporting terrorism against other people in the region. well, there are smoking guns all over. remember, iraq has weapons of mass destruction. we found them in 1991. the inspectors found them when they went in. we destroyed some of their weapons of mass destruction in 1991. they have weapons of mass destruction, they've had them, they used them against iran. that is not disputable. they used weapons of mass destruction against their own people. we know that they threw the inspectors out in 1998 rather than let the inspectors find more weapons of mass destruction. and so, when the united nations met last year and passed resolution 1441, it was because every member of the security council that voted that day believed that iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and something had to be done about it. we gave iraq an opportunity to say to the world, no we don't. here are all of our papers, here is all the documentation, we're opening up everything, come and see that we have nothing. they didn't do that. they hid. they gave a false declaration, they continued to try to keep the inspectors from getting everywhere that the inspectors needed to go. and we made a case, i made the case to the united nations just in february as to what we knew, and i showed drawings of a biological laboratory. we found that biological laboratory, now everybody can see it. we're confident as we continue our work with exploitation, as we send in more experts, as we interview more iraqis, as we translate more of the documents, we will find more evidence of what they have been doing over all these years. so, this suggestion that there were never any weapons - yes there were. the inspectors found them, we found them, we've seen them. we blew up some, but we always believed that iraq continued to have these weapons and continued to develop these weapons. and there can be no suggestion that iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. they did and the whole world knew it. and when finally iraq refused - refused - to account for their weapons, to tell us what happened to anthrax and to botulinum, to tell us what they were doing to come clean and avoid a war - then we had to use military force and go ahead and remove this regime because this regime did not comply with the will of the international community. no, our credibility is intact. everybody knows that iraq had weapons of mass destruction. iraq has used weapons of mass destruction in the past. the inspectors found weapons of mass destruction. the united states armed forces during gulf war one found weapons of mass destruction and destroyed weapons of mass destruction. iraq failed to account for what they had. they created a set of circumstances in 1998 where the inspectors had to leave and for five years we didn't know what iraq was doing. and when [u.n. r]esolution 1441 was passed unanimously by the united nations last fall, every one of these members of the security council who voted for that resolution voted for a resolution that began with the knowledge that iraq was in violation of its obligation and had weapons of mass destruction. now we found some mobile labs, we're interviewing people, we have a lot of documents that have come into our possession and we'll be examining that. so there is no doubt in my mind that iraq had weapons of mass destruction. it was guilty of the charges brought against it . . . let me tell you something, peter. as i was getting ready for my 5 february presentations at the united nations security council, i knew that the credibility of the united states was on the line. and i spent four days and four nights, maybe five days and five nights, it's all a blur, with the analysts themselves, with the director of central intelligence, with the deputy director of central intelligence (inaudible) with people who are not from the cia but are from my staff who could ask pointed, direct questions. the information we presented on the 5th of february was sound, it was multi-sourced, and i think in due course, as the inspections continue, with our exploitation teams being brought in, you will find that we presented a solid case, a case that is there and once there, will remain there. and all the skepticism that's being demonstrated now, the charges that are being levied now, in due course, will be found to be incorrect. yes. i spent - not only have i been studying this for many, many years, but as i prepared that statement i worked very closely with the director of central intelligence, george tenet - he was sitting right behind me. that statement was vetted thoroughly by all of the analysts who are responsible for this account. we spent four days and nights out at the cia making sure that whatever i said was supported by our intelligence holdings, because it wasn't the president's credibility and my credibility on the line; it was the credibility of the united states of america. and we are sure of what we said because he does have this kind of capability. now, suddenly this week there's a big firestorm about, well, we haven't found anything yet. well, we are going to intensify our search. in my statement, i also said they are masters of deception and hiding. so we are sending in an iraqi survey group of 1,300 people who will be looking in all the places. they will be exploiting all the documents. they will be interviewing people. and i would put before you exhibit a, the mobile biological labs that we have found. people are saying, "well, are they truly mobile biological labs?" yes, they are. and the dci, george tenet, director of central intelligence, stands behind that assessment. and my best justification for the fact that they are what we said they were, biological labs - as if they were not biological labs, i can assure you, the very next morning the iraqis would have pulled them out and presented them to unmovic [united nations monitoring, verification, and inspection commission] and presented them to the whole international press corps to demonstrate what they were if they weren't that. there can be no question there were weapons before the war. they have had weapons throughout their history. they have used chemical weapons. they have admitted that they had biological weapons. and they never accounted for all that they had or what they might or might not have done with it. and it is the considered judgment not only of this administration, it was the judgment of president clinton's administration, it's the judgment of a number of nations around the world, that they had these weapons. and when we passed [u.n.] resolution 1441 unanimously, it was the unanimous judgment of the security council that iraq was in violation of its obligations. now we have to do the intensive search that is ahead of us, and the iraqi survey group will be doing that. and i'm sure more evidence and more proof will come forward as we go down this road. false. i mean, the vice president, by going over to the cia and spending a lot of time there, was delving in, as i know [vice president] dick cheney does - i've worked with him for many years. he delves into a subject. he wants to get to the bottom. he wants to get to the truth. and i have heard no suggestion that he went over there and said, "this is the answer i want." he went over there to learn. i can tell you stories from the gulf war back in 1991, the first gulf war, when he was my boss, the secretary of defense, and i was chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. he did the same thing with me. he would bore in and bore in on our military plans and what we were doing. it's his style to make sure that he has all the information available to us in his mind so he knows what he's talking about. that isn't politicizing. that's doing a good job. no, no, please. they were briefed consistently and repeatedly throughout last year. george tenet was up testifying. john mclaughlin went up there repeatedly. we have presented information. we have put out classified documents that the central intelligence agency has. we have given briefings up on the hill. i presume congress knew what it was doing when it passed the resolution supporting the president last fall, and so if congress needs more information now to reaffirm their judgment of last year, the administration stands ready to provide all the information that we have. i've seen the summary that has made all the news. no, not true. the sentence that has gotten all of the attention in this two-page unclassified summary talked about not having the evidence of current facilities and current stockpiling. the very next sentence says that it had information that weapons had been dispersed to units, chemical weapons had been dispersed to units. so there was a question as to whether or not you're talking about chemical weapons that are being dispersed or the production facility, and there is a judgment call there. but the considered judgment and the official judgment of the director of central intelligence, who is the one responsible for gathering all this information and making a judgment, is that they had weapons of mass destruction of the kind that we had described: nuclear, nuclear capability in the form of individuals with the knowledge and the commitment on the part of saddam hussein to continue moving toward a nuclear capability even though he didn't - he wasn't close to one at the time, we don't believe; chemical weapons and biological facilities of the kind we have demonstrated with this lab. tony, i think we've put out a lot, and my presentation on the 5th of february was unclassified, on television live around the country and the world. i think the american people got a good, solid assessment. i boiled down what could have been a presentation of many, many hours and days to one hour and roughly 20 minutes, where i presented the best information we had on weapons of mass destruction, on the terrorist activities of this regime, and the human rights abuses of this regime. and i stand by that presentation and there is much more information that is available. and i'm sure that as the intelligence community feels that it is appropriate to declassify this information, it will be made available to the public. i don't think the public is as upset about all this, or as concerned about this, as is the media, which has had a feeding frenzy for the last week. i would tell those critics that it is nonsense, it is not bogus, and there can be no question that iraq had and has had weapons of mass destruction. and now that we are sending in a 1,300-man team, i am sure we will be uncovering more of that capability. you have to remember that in my presentation on the 5th of february, i also made the point that they had one of the best deception and - deception and hiding efforts known, and that is what we are going to have to go and look at. and i think all the documents that are now coming forward, the people who are being interviewed, will tell us more about what they have hidden and where they have hidden it. and i think the mobile labs are what i think is a good indication of the kind of thing they are doing. if those mobile biological weapons vans that we discovered were not biological weapons vans, if they were, as some suggest, nothing more than a device to produce hydrogen gas for weather balloons, i can assure you that the day after my presentation the iraqis would have had that van out there producing hydrogen gas for a weather balloon. they had never acknowledged that they had it. they lied about it. and we found it. and the director of central intelligence, mr. [george] tenet, is confident that it is what we said it was: a biological warfare van. and so that tells you the nature of this regime. this regime could have come clean. this regime could have destroyed its weapons of mass destruction. it chose not to. and the united nations and a willing coalition of nations acted appropriately in accordance with international law derived from u.n. resolution 1441. we took the regime out, the world is better off for it, and the iraqi people have been liberated. there will be no weapons of mass destruction once we get through in iraq with - the american people are quite assured. it is the media that invents words such as "bogus." how can it be bogus when i can show you pictures of people that were gassed by saddam hussein? i can show you reports from u.n. inspectors all through the 1990s that demonstrated that the iraqis had weapons of mass destruction. i can show you reports where the iraqis were caught lying about their weapons of mass destruction. you tell me why they issued a false declaration when they had the opportunity to tell the truth. and so i think the case is clear. the case has been substantiated over the years. every nation that voted for security council resolution 1441 voted for a resolution that began with the statement that iraq was in material breach of its obligations. so there was nothing "bogus" about the intelligence. we have uncovered the mobile vans and we are continuing to search. we also know that they were masters of deceit and masters of hiding these things. so a little patience is required, and it is really somewhat outrageous on the part of some critics to say that this was all bogus. it's not the least bit bogus. and the work continues, and a 1,300-man group is going in to continue that work. no. the dia sentence you made reference to is taken out of context in all of the reporting. the very next sentence after the sentence that says we're not sure what they're doing, says we have information that they have transferred chemical weapons within the last few weeks. let's put this in context and then i'll get to my presentation on the 5th of february. iraq had chemical weapons. they used chemical weapons. they had biological weapons. the admitted it. we have no doubt whatsoever that over the last several years they have retained such weapons, they have retained the capability to start up production of such weapons. and the presentation i gave on the 5th of february before the united nations security council, i spent four whole days and nights at the cia going over all the intelligence in order to make sure that what i presented was going to be solid, credible, representing the views of the united states of america. and i stand behind that presentation. one element that i presented at that time, these biological vans, all i could show was a cartoon drawing of these vans, and everybody said, "are the vans really there?" and, voila, the vans showed up a few months later. we found them. so slowly but surely, we are finding that capability. now people are debating whether or not these vans truly are biological vans. sure they are. what other purpose are there? and let me give you the killer argument as to why these vans are exactly what i said they were and what the intelligence community said they were: i can assure you that if those biological vans were not biological vans when i said they were on the 5th of february, on the 6th of february iraq would have hauled those vans out, put them in front of a press conference, gave them to the unmovic [united nations monitoring, verification, and inspection commission] inspectors to try to drive a stake in the heart of my presentation. they did not. the reason they did not is they knew what they were. and the intelligence community has reviewed all of the comments that have come in about those vans and reaffirmed yesterday to me again, through [cia] director [george] tenet, that they are confident of their judgment, they are confident that these vans are exactly what we said they were. so there's no question that iraq has this capability and has tried to hide it from the world. this is not only the judgment of the president and the secretary of state; it's the judgment of the united nations that they had this capability, it's the judgment of every nation that voted for the united nations security council resolution 1441, it was the judgment of the previous administration. president clinton made statements quite similar to what president bush said in the statement that you just quoted. i think that, over time, people in latin america will realize that the united states took the correct action in dealing with iraq. a terrible dictator who poisoned his own people with gas, who suppressed his people, who wasted their money on weapons and on threatening neighbors and on creating huge armies - a huge army and military force - is no longer there. i hope the people of latin america will watch these pictures we are now seeing of mass graves - tens upon tens of thousands who were murdered by saddam hussein - and they will come perhaps to a different judgment as to whether the united states and its coalition partners acted correctly. i think we did act correctly. one, to get rid of weapons of mass destruction - and they are there - and as we continue to unroll the documentation, as we continue to examine the sites there, i am quite sure we will find more evidence of weapons of mass destruction. and so we got rid of that. we got rid of the dictator. we will now be using the oil of iraq to benefit the people of iraq. and we will now have brought to justice of a regime that is no longer there, that killed people by the tens upon tens of thousands. i hope that over time the actions that the united states took will be seen throughout the hemisphere as being quite justifiable actions. no, i don't think so. i think that now that the conflict is behind us and international opinion sees that the united states is helping the people of iraq to build a better society, a democratic society, and when people - especially people in muslim countries - see that the united states is engaged in the peace process in the middle east trying to help the israelis and the palestinians move forward, then i think that attitude will change and it will start to be realized around the world that the united states does not come to invade you, the united states is not threatening you. the united states only wants to make friends and partners around the world, not enemies. the wars we have had to fight in recent years - whether it was gulf war i, gulf war ii, whether it was kosovo, or whether it was what we did in afghanistan - all of these were for the purpose of either putting down an enemy that was destroying innocent life, in the case of al qaeda in afghanistan, or we were saving muslim nations or muslim populations from assault from other muslim nations, in some cases, and we were coming to the rescue of muslims. i hope over time this message will get through and that people have a better view of america than is reflected in the poll that you are making a reference to. i would never use the term disloyal, nor did i use it at the time of the debate, nor did president bush ever use such a term. we were disappointed that chile was not able to support us when we worked on that second resolution, and we expressed our disappointment to president [ricardo] lagos and to foreign minister [mara soledad] alvear at the time. since then, though, we have come back together to achieve unity on the security council on the most recent resolution that lifted sanctions from iraq, and there will be other actions coming before the security council that i hope that chile will agree with the united states on. chile is a democracy. it is free to make its own choices. in this case we would have preferred it had made a different choice. but we were disappointed, we take that disappointment and we move on. and the president and i spoke - not about the past, except for just a few moments. we spent most of our time today talking about the future and what we are going to do together in the future. and not just on trade issues, but on strategic issues that affect all aspects of our relations here in the hemisphere: security, democracy, trade, human rights, narco-trafficking - all of the issues that we have a common interest in. with respect to weapons of mass destruction in iraq, we are quite confident of the information that we have been presenting to the world in recent years. i am very confident of the presentation that i made on the fifth of february. but it is not just what president bush and his administration have been saying, the issue of weapons of mass destruction is a well-documented issue to the extent that u.n. inspectors have verified that iraq had weapons of mass destruction. they have used weapons of mass destruction in the past. i have no reason to believe they did not have weapons of mass destruction at the time that we took a decision to undertake military operations. we are still looking for elements of their programs and weapons from their program. the mobile biological labs that were recently discovered, in our judgment - and in the best judgment of our intelligence analysts - is that it has no other purpose but to serve as a facility to develop biological weapons. the fact that we have not found any evidence that it actually had developed biological weapons in no means excuses it. it is something iraq was not supposed to have, it did not declare it to the u.n. inspectors and they were in violation of their obligations. the administration before ours - president clinton and his administration - held the same view with respect to iraq. many intelligence organizations outside of the united states have the same view. and so we are sending in a more extensively equipped team of experts to continue to examine sites; to look at all of the documents that are now coming forward that we have captured, and to interview a number of officials who are now in our custody. and i am quite confident that as we continue that work we will find more evidence of the presence of weapons of mass destruction and programs for weapons of mass destruction. let me say that [hans] blix is a very professional person and a very honest person. he did a very good job and he had universal respect for his professionalism and his efforts. i'm sorry to see him leave at the end of the year. he is a very good public servant and i am sure he's going to remain engaged, and we haven't heard the last of him. as to the smear campaign, i can't really get into it except to say that i have seen some articles in the press, which i have considered unfair, given the work that he has done. on the question of the quality of the intelligence or it's been hyped, obviously, material intelligence was given to the inspectors who used it in iraq. we know the result. it didn't get very much. i don't think i want to go beyond that. i didn't - i didn't hear senator biden's comments this morning. but the president asked me to make the definitive statement on the view of the united states with respect to weapons of mass destruction, and i did that before the security council on the 5th of february. we stand by that statement and we are continuing our work in iraq with the exploitation of documents, with the interrogation of individuals who may have knowledge of these weapons of mass destruction programs, and with onsite inquiries as well, and more experts are going in. and i think one should be careful about making judgments as to what was hyped or not hyped until the exploitation is finished. thank you. first of all, if you go back and read my transcript of my presentation, you will see that i spoke to all elements. i spoke to the presence of weapons. i also spoke to gaps in knowledge, what previous inspections said they might have and did have and what happened to it. where is it now? and we also talked about programs, so we were interested in all aspects of it. the biological weapons labs that we believe strongly are biological weapons labs, we didn't find any biological weapons with those labs. but should that give us any comfort? not at all. those were labs that could produce biological weapons whenever saddam hussein might have wanted to have a biological weapons inventory. so i think you have to look at both, the weapons themselves and the exploitation efforts that we have underway are going continue. and we are going to look at every part of that country, every bunker that we can get into, every bunker we find. and we are going to examine all of the documents. and we are going to conduct interviews that will lead us, not only, we believe, to weapons that still exist, but to the programs themselves, we want to find and rip up weapons and programs, and want to make sure we know what intelligence exists within iraqi society. there are nuclear scientists there. saddam hussein kept them together so that if the opportunity presented itself, he could recreate a nuclear program. we want to make sure those scientists are no longer kept together in a cell, a cell of scientists working together, but that they go on and find other things to do with the information they have inside of their head and with their intelligence. we believe there were weapons in iraq. we have solid judgment of the intelligence community behind us. and we believe in due course, when the exploitation is completed - by exploitation i mean sending in the large team that is prepared to go in now, some 1,300 people - when their work is done, the world will see what we were talking about. i don't think so. i think our credibility is intact. i think that we will be able to demonstrate convincingly through the mobile labs, through documentation, through interviews, through what we find, that we knew what we were speaking about. but let's go back a little further. it is not just the united states that made a claim on the 5th of february, when i made my presentation. iraq had weapons of mass destruction, used weapons of mass destruction. it was documented over a period of many years. at the end of the first gulf war in '91, we found weapons of mass destruction and destroyed those we found. as late as 1998, there was no question in anyone's mind. president clinton spoke out forcefully. his intelligence leaders, his director of central intelligence said that there were weapons. other intelligence organizations in other countries have said so, so this isn't a figment of somebody's imagination. this isn't something that was overblown or made up in the basement of the cia late one night. these were real weapons and real programs that saddam hussein refused to come forward and explain to the world. and if he didn't have weapons of mass destruction, it would have been an easy thing for him to make an honest declaration after 1441 resolution was passed. and it would have been easy for him to come forward and say, "here, go anywhere, any time, any place, i'll provide anything you want" as opposed to continuing these deception efforts. if he didn't have weapons of mass destruction or the capability to produce them, on the 6th of february, you tell me why, after watching me make this presentation and go on at some length about this van that we had never seen, but we believe existed, why didn't he come out the next day, pull that thing out in front of the whole world press corps and say, "powell doesn't know what he is talking about. here it is and we use it to make hydrogen gas for birthday balloons or weather balloons." he didn't do that. he kept it hidden. he brought back - he brought out all kinds of other vans to try to deceive us, but this van was kept hidden. why? do you want to give saddam hussein the benefit of the doubt? well, we didn't, and now we don't have to worry about it anymore. we don't have to worry about those weapons of mass destruction because iraq has been liberated and the iraqi people are free. the iraqi people can know this, and can go to bed tonight knowing this, that they will have the full support of the united states, the full support of the rest of the coalition and the international community as they recover to build a new and democratic iraq, as they come out of this period of horror, as we help them get through the anxiety and the uncertainty of the present. their oil is safe, now starting to ship, and the proceeds will be used only to help them, not squandered on illegal weapons or palaces for dictators. the coalition and the international community, after drifting apart earlier in the year, are now coming together again. the united nations security council has passed unanimously resolution 1483. in two days' time, the united nations will hold an informal meeting of countries who are prepared to help the iraqi people. and we hope this meeting will lay the groundwork for a formal donors' conference in the fall that will mobilize the resources iraqis need to rebuild their country. even as we look ahead to a new future for the iraqi people, we must still complete the unfinished business of the past. many dangers still exist. our troops are at risk. all problems can't be solved in a few days or a month or two. saddam's weapons of mass destruction must be found and all of the programs dug up and removed once and for all. the last holdouts from saddam hussein's regime must still be eliminated. we have nothing to apologize for. we are proud of the fact that the international community, recognizing that iraq did have weapons of mass destruction; it wasn't just an independent u.s. judgment. u.n. resolution after u.n. resolution over a period of twelve years was based on the understanding that iraq had weapons of mass destruction. resolution 1441 last fall, all fifteen nations voted for that resolution voted for it because of the understanding and the belief that iraq had weapons of mass destruction. i believe that they did have them and still have them, and i am confident that as we continue our efforts we will find these weapons, as well as the programs that supported these weapons. the mobile biological laboratories that were found and presented to the world, i think, is a further evidence of this, and so, at the same time that we continue our efforts to uncover those weapons programs, let us celebrate that a dictator has been removed. i mean, really, were the iraqi people, was the region, better off before, when saddam hussein was still there and when he was wasting the oil of iraq on weapons and on threatening his neighbors with a large army? the iraqi people look forward now to a better life now that we can use their oil to build up their infrastructure, now that we are repairing the electrical systems, now that we are repairing the sanitation and the sewage system. this is all for the benefit of the iraqi people. but, the basis upon which we went in were the weapons of mass destruction. you also said, "well, the iraqis are not in control of their country," but they will be; the united states has no desire, great britain has no desire to remain any longer than is necessary to put in place a responsible government, but that takes time. well, you haven't had any conflicting reports out of this department over the last week or two. what we have consistently said is that the president has no plan on his desk to invade iraq at the moment, nor has one been presented to him, nor have his advisers come together to put a plan to him. he is in the most intense consultations with his friends and allies around the world. he has discussed this issue with his friends at the g-8 meeting in canada recently. a steady stream of arab leaders have been through the oval office in recent weeks, and the president has spoken to them. he is aware of the feelings of our friends with respect to iraq. he is working very hard within the united nations. i spent a year on his behalf putting in place "smart sanctions" so that we're not hurting the iraqi people; we're just constraining the ability of the iraqi government to develop weapons of mass destruction. that was multilateral, not unilateral. he has called for the inspectors to go in as part of the u.n. regime. that is multilateral, not unilateral. but he also believes - and perhaps no one else agrees with him, but i think most people do; they just are a little reluctant to how to get to this end - that the iraqi people would be better served with a different regime, not with a regime that gasses its own people, gasses its neighbors, and are developing the worst kinds of weapons that will be more of a threat to its neighbors and regional stability than it will be to the united states. the united states could stand back and say we're going to ignore it. we can't ignore it, because we are concerned about our friends and allies and our interests around the world, and because we are the leader of a world that wants to be free. my analysts do not disagree. they do not say that they are not mobile vans. what my analysts said to me about, oh, almost a month ago now, was that they were not at the same confidence level as the cia and the dia. and when they said to me, "boss, you know, we are not entirely sure yet, and therefore we would like to see more analysis done," we passed that on to the cia to let them know that there was this opinion. a month has now passed since that memo. my guys would still like to see more data. the cia and the defense intelligence agency, the dia, are the ones who were on the scene exploiting [sic] the van and looking at all of it. and they are confident of their judgment. and their judgment, as validated by the director of central intelligence, is that's what they are. they are mobile biological warfare facilities. and there will always be, you know, different judgments and opinions in this business, and you essentially have to have somebody who makes the decision. and the person is the director of central intelligence, george tenet. and that is his opinion right now. will we continue to look for more information to reinforce our opinion? sure, we will. but i am confident with the judgment made by the cia, and the reason i'm confident of that judgment is, we got this information through defectors and others. and when i presented it to the u.n. on the 5th of february, all i could show was a cartoon picture of what we thought it looked like based on what people said to us. and guess what? we found something that looked just like that. and nobody has been able to come up with an alternative use for this. but we're still looking at it, but i'm fairly confident of the director of central intelligence's judgment. which could mean one of several things: one, they hadn't been used yet to develop toxins; or, secondly, they had been sterilized so thoroughly that there is no residual left. it may well be that they hadn't been used yet. our concern was that iraq was keeping in place this capability, waiting for the day when they were free of sanctions and could go about putting all of their programs back in place. this particularly applies to the nuclear program. what i said in february when i spoke to the u.n., was that they had the brainpower, they had the plans, and they were working on acquiring the capability, and whenever they were free of u.n. constraints or other constraints - nobody was breathing down their neck - there was no doubt in my mind saddam hussein still had the intention of developing such a capability. and as we have seen from material that's come forward in the last couple of days, and we've seen on television and in papers, we now have seen the plans, we have seen the scientists who said this is what he was supposed to be working on, and he was told to hide this material until times were better to get the program up and running again. that was the concern we had with saddam hussein. not only did he have weapons - and we'll uncover not only his weapons but all of his weapons programs - he never lost the intent to have these kinds of weapons. the imminent threat is we don't know. the imminent threat is that suddenly, this biological warfare lab, for example, could have been put into use. and the possibility that anything that came out of that lab or any of the chemical capability he had could have been given to terrorist organizations. and the point well, should we wait until we see a chemical device exploded or turned loose or some toxin released in london or paris or frankfurt or new york or los angeles and then decide we have an imminent threat? or should we act when we know that there is a regime that has said, "we are not going to tell you what we have been doing for 12 years. we are not going to turn over our programs. we are simply going to ignore 12 years' worth of u.n. resolutions, and we are going to do what we want to do, and we don't care what the international community thinks; we're going to develop these evil weapons." in this case, the international community spoke. now, there was a great deal of debate toward the end as to what one should do about this. and we decided that military action was appropriate. others in the security council thought military action was premature or wasn't appropriate at all. but nevertheless, nobody in the security council thought that saddam hussein was not developing these weapons or did not have these weapons. that's why the security council unanimously passed the first resolution, called 1441. there was no disagreement with france or britain or spain or russia or china that iraq had this kind of capability, and they did. and it's now coming forward, and i think it will be even more people as we exploit [sic] documents that we have in our possession, and more are coming forward. the case will be obvious to all once again. i made a presentation that talked about a specific link between the man by the name of [abu musab] al-zarqawi, who was in baghdad, and i think that link is solid. it was solid at the time that i presented it, and it is still of concern to us. in my presentation, i did not stretch the intelligence to suggest that we knew about all linkages between al qaeda and iran [sic]. i think there's still a lot we don't know, but i did take note at the u.n., of the u.n. presentation this week that they have not found a concrete link. but i think the information i provided them in terms of in february was relevant, was accurate, and did suggest there should be concerns about such links and identifying most of them. i reviewed that presentation that i made on the 5th of february a number of times, as you might imagine, over recent weeks, and it holds up very well. it was the solid, coordinated judgment of the intelligence community. some of the things that i talked about that day we have now seen in reality. we have found the mobile biological weapons labs that i could only show cartoons of that day. we now have them. i also talked about the nuclear weapons program and how they were retaining the infrastructure of such a program, and one of their scientists came forward recently and acknowledged that and provided documentation and components of centrifuges that the iraqis had retained in order to start up the program again when they had the opportunity to do so, which was also part of my presentation. and as our experts continue to work in iraq under mr. kay and under general dayton, i think more such evidence will come forward that will make the case. keep in mind - keep in mind, katie, it wasn't just my presentation. the fact that saddam hussein had weapons of mass destruction and such programs to develop more was the considered judgment of u.n. inspectors who had been in there previous, was the considered judgment of the entire international community. when resolution 1441 was passed last november, all 15 nations voted yes in the knowledge and in the certain knowledge that saddam hussein had such programs that had to be dealt with. no. and my presentation was very carefully done. it was vetted entirely. all the analysts - not just the senior people within the international community - i had the analysts in a room with me for almost four straight days preparing that, and they could make sure that i knew exactly what they knew. and they are still behind what i presented and we were not putting any pressure on them. i wanted the best out of them. that's what we got. that's what i presented on the 5th of february. sean, the weapons did exist, they do exist. the programs did exist and the programs do exist. and when i made my presentation on the 5th of february to the united nations, i can assure you that it was a well-documented presentation with the entire intelligence community standing behind it. moreover, nobody should have been surprised about what i said because when they voted for the u.n. resolution last fall, all 15 members of the security council voting voted to condemn a country that had those weapons. so everybody agreed they had the weapons, and the clinton administration had the same position. the intelligence agencies in so many of these countries know that they exist, and there were all these resolutions over a period of years. so this was the combined judgment of the international community, not just the united states and the bush administration. and if they didn't have them, he could have come clean. take the mobile vans that we've been talking about, the biological vans. i can assure you, sean, that when i presented those vans to the world on the 5th of february and described them, all i could put up were pictures or cartoons that we made of them. and later, we actually found them and showed them to the world. if those cartoons i put up weren't real and those vans were, say, making hydrogen gas for weather balloons, i can assure you the iraqis would have pulled those hydrogen vans out the next day for the purpose of blowing away my presentation. they didn't because they couldn't, because they were hidden. we had to find them after the war. quite frankly larry, i think too much is being made out of this single statement in his state of the union address. the fact of the matter is that saddam hussein had weapons of mass destruction, continued to develop weapons of mass destruction throughout the '90's during a period of time when u.n. resolution after u.n. resolution told him that it had to stop, that he had to come clean and he ignored all of those resolutions to the point that in 1998 when the inspectors were learning even more, he created a set of conditions that forced the inspectors out, requiring president clinton to go and bomb these facilities that were believed at that time by the previous administration, to be facilities designed to produce even more weapons of mass destruction. the international community believed as a community that he had such weapons and i'm quite confident that as we go forward with the investigations and the searches that are underway in iraq now, more evidence will be found to show to the world that he was guilty as charged of possessing these weapons. so to single out this one statement having to do with an intelligence picture that wasn't entirely clear with respect to what he might have been trying to do with respect to acquiring uranium in africa, i think there is quite an overstatement and quite an overreaction to this one line. the president wasn't in any way trying to mislead. it was information that got into the speech, whether it should or should not have been in the speech is something we can certainly discuss and debate. but it wasn't a deliberate attempt on the part of the president to either mislead or exaggerate. that's just ridiculous. well, we are working with a number of allies who have made commitments. the poles have already started to send in their advance party teams. we are working with a number of nations around the world. secretary rumsfeld and his team are in touch with these nations determining what their needs are, where to integrate them, we are dividing up sectors. i think a number of nations are planning to come forward. i can't give you the exact number of nations or how many troops are going to be committed. the guts of the work will still have to be done by the united states, great britain and the original members of the coalition. but i am quite sure that we will have a number of other nations joining us on the field because they understand the importance of the mission and they too are committed to a future iraq that no longer has weapons of mass destruction and is living in peace with its neighbors. there is nothing to apologize for. this regime, under the leadership of saddam hussein, had weapons of mass destruction, maintained those programs despite resolution after resolution from the united nations, maintained those programs. they forced the inspectors out of the country in 1998. president clinton, president bush's predecessor, was so concerned about this that for four days he bombed these facilities after the inspectors came out. when all of the nations of the world represented through the security council of the united nations last fall - 15-0, the security council voted for resolution 1441 - it was with the belief and the understanding of the part of all of them that saddam hussein had weapons of mass destruction. and all saddam hussein had to do to avoid a conflict was to come clean, to bring us a full declaration of what he has done over the years, or what he had done over the years. he did not do that. and he kept thwarting the will of the inspectors so that they couldn't do their job, and it was for that reason that this conflict began. he was given a way to get out, but there is no doubt in my mind that he had weapons of mass destruction, that we will find evidence of continuing possession of weapons of mass destruction up until we went in and removed the regime, and we have nothing to apologize for. the iraqi people are free. they are now practicing their freedom. we are trying to help them stabilize the country. and we are going to give the country back to the iraqi people as soon as things have been stabilized and we have put in place a representative form of government or helped them put in place a representative form of government. i think this is very overwrought and overblown and overdrawn. intelligence reports flow in from all over. sometimes they are results of your own intelligence agencies at work. sometimes you get information from very capable foreign intelligence services. and you get the information, you analyze it. sometimes it holds up, sometimes it does not hold up. it's a moving train. and you keep trying to establish what is right and what is wrong. very often it never comes out quite that clean, but you have to make judgments. and at the time of the president's state of the union address, a judgment was made that that was an appropriate statement for the president to make. there was no effort or attempt on the part of the president, or anyone else in the administration, to mislead or to deceive the american people. the president was presenting what seemed to be a reasonable statement at that time - and it didn't talk to niger, it talked specifically about efforts to acquire uranium from nations that had it in africa. subsequently, when we looked at it more thoroughly and when i think it's, oh, a week or two later, when i made my presentation to the united nations and we really went through every single thing we knew about all of the various issues with respect to weapons of mass destruction, we did not believe that it was appropriate to use that example anymore. it was not standing the test of time. and so i didn't use it, and we haven't used it since. but to think that somehow we went out of our way to insert this single sentence into the state of the union address for the purpose of deceiving and misleading the american people is an overdrawn, overblown, overwrought conclusion. no. and i cannot speculate on what an unnamed british official may or may not have said, or does or does not believe. let's start at the beginning. i don't want to take you through the whole history, but it's instructive. this is a regime that developed weapons of mass destruction, had them, used them, and in 1991, when we went to war, and i was chairman of the joint chiefs of staff at the time, we were concerned that they would use those weapons against them - against us, and everybody knew they had them. when the first gulf war was over, desert storm, we found them, and we destroyed some. and we looked for more. and the u.n. took it over, and for years the u.n. kept searching for more. and they never were able to get a full accounting and could not find them all. resolution after resolution was passed, agreed to by the entire international community. in 1998, saddam hussein created conditions that caused the inspectors to have to leave. they were getting close, and they had to leave. president clinton was so concerned at time that he bombed. what did he bomb? he bombed for four days, in operation desert fox, facilities that were believed to possess or developing or producing weapons of mass destruction. the entire international community has felt, over this entire period, that saddam hussein had these weapons, and there was sufficient intelligence available to all the major intelligence agencies of the world that they existed. and they do exist. and when we went to the united nations last year, when the president spoke to the united nations general assembly last september, he put the charge to the general assembly: you have been saying; put the charge to the security council as well, you have been saying for all these years that this is a nation that has not come clean, here is one last chance. and in resolution 1441, 15 nations unanimously approved that resolution that begins with a statement that iraq is in material breach. so everybody had reason to believe, good reason to believe - not figments of the imagination - that they had weapons of mass destruction and had programs to develop more. and if there is anybody who thinks that saddam hussein had ever lost the intent to have such weapons, then i think that is the most naive view imaginable. and he had the chance to come clean to the international community; he did not take that chance, he did not take that opportunity. and the war followed. and we have now removed a tyrant, a dictator. we have freed people. we have found the mass graves. we have found - we are starting to find evidence that i think will make it clear that there was a more than adequate justification for this war and more than adequate authority for it under resolution 1441. how could you say such a thing? on what basis would you make such a statement? we liberated kuwait, gave kuwait back to the kuwaiti people. we liberated afghanistan and gave afghanistan back to the afghan people. we have removed a dictator in baghdad, and the graves are now being opened. do you not show some concern over the hundreds of thousands of muslims that saddam hussein murdered? america did not murder them. saddam hussein murdered them. and now he is gone and the iraqi people can look to using their oil treasure to build their society, a free society, a democratic society, a muslim society, and not wasting their money on weapons of mass destruction, palaces for dictators and threatening their neighbors. - i'd be surprised if they [iraqi opposition forces] are sitting around reading about the 16 words in the state of the union address, and what mr. blair said, or what george said, or what condi said, or what i said. i really don't think this is motivating them. to the extent that they believe that mr. blair and president bush have been weakened in some way, i think that gives them - you know, that's certainly something they would welcome, but they're deceiving themselves if they welcomed it very long because i think this will all pass in due course. people will see that what president bush and prime minister blair and the other members of the coalition did was right. as more graves are opened, as more mass killings are made known, and as mr. kay completes his work in iraq searching for additional - or the evidence needed to make it clear to everybody that we knew what we were talking about with respect to weapons of mass destruction. i think this issue of what was in the state of the union address will fade into insignificance. you know intelligence is not always perfect knowledge. information comes along, you take the information and try to assess its validity, and you convert it into a piece of intelligence. sometimes it comes with lots of qualifiers on it, and it is up to policymakers to make judgments as to whether you can - that intelligence is something you can make a policy decision about. i have been through it many times where something looked very good at a particular point in time and looked better over time or looked worse over time, as more information came in. with respect to the state of the union address, they were looking for things that could make the case to the american people. this was an item that was in the intelligence world. it was referred to in nies [national intelligence estimates] and other documents, and it went into the state of the union address. on reflection, did it meet the standard that might have been appropriate for a state of the union address? you have heard the judgments that have been rendered on that. but by the time i was prepared and ready to go up and present it to the world, i had to make sure that there wasn't any more questioning of what i was going to put forward because i had a heck of an audience. the audience i was most worried about was not the audience in the security council. it wasn't even the massive television audience waiting for the adlai stevenson moment. it was the iraqis who, if they knew more than me, could shoot down anything i said if i didn't have it right. i wasn't worried about you guys. i was worried about the iraqis showing up that afternoon or the next morning with something that would shoot down something i said. so that is why mine was done in the way that it was done. the only thing anybody came up with was the iraqis, of course, said it's all lies. the only challenge was debate about the centrifuges, which i acknowledged at the time i presented it. there was a debate. then a couple of days later, a week or so later, there was some question about one of the overheads i used of a bunker complex, as to whether everybody agreed with my characterization of what made a particular bunker look like a chemical weapons storage bunker. otherwise, do your lexis-nexis and see how many iraqi attacks i got on my presentation. no, it's wrong. it's a wrong question. the president's vision is being implemented in iraq today and the president's vision reflects the advice that he has received from both the pentagon and state department. the pentagon and the state department have been working very, very closely over the last eight months on this issue. i'm the one who went and presented the intelligence case to the united nations on the 5th of february. and so surely there will always be some differences of perspective from the diplomatic side and from the military side, but what we are all doing is executing the president's vision and his decisions. and what you've seen is that a very terrible regime that was responsible for the death of tens upon tens of thousands of muslims has been removed from power, no longer have weapons of mass destruction. i think the arab world should look carefully at all of these graves that are now being opened up, mass graves filled with the bodies of people, muslims, who were killed, not by the united states and not by the united kingdom, but by saddam hussein and his sons and that regime - and it's gone. some europeans did not believe the war was appropriate. most europeans did believe it was an appropriate war and most europeans did support the action of the coalition. with respect to weapons of mass destruction, i am confident that as we develop information, as more informants come forward, informants of the kind that helped us find the two sons of saddam hussein, the evidence will be there for the world to see. the world agreed that saddam hussein had weapons of mass destruction. the world passed resolution after resolution in the security council saying that he had weapons of mass destruction and he had to do something about it, had to account for them, get rid of them, destroy them, and they didn't do it. and therefore i believe that the coalition was fully justified under u.n. resolution 1441, which starts out with an indictment of the regime, we were fully justified in taking the action that was taken. and one can debate the premise, one can argue about facts, one can argue about intelligence information and one can argue about perceived differences between the various departments of the u.s. government, but the reality of the world today, on this day, is that this regime is gone, the people of iraq are now looking to a better life. they are going to have an economy that functions, they're going to be respected on the world stage. and i think that is what we ought to be looking at. the evidence of iraq's weapons of mass destruction has been seen by the world for 14 years. do not, do not suggest to your audience that iraq did not have or has never had weapons of mass destruction. the evidence is there, and we have seen it. yes, we have. we have pictures of all through the '90s, of weapons of mass destruction that they had. we had them throwing out the inspectors, making sure the inspectors had to leave. and i think the case i presented on the 5th of february, has yet to be undercut by what we have - what we have seen. now, we have people searching all over iraq now. and i am quite confident that when they finish their work, when they finish their report, there will be no question about it. but it should not be - no impression should be left that somehow iraq was innocent of possession of weapons of mass destruction being used against their own people and against the iranians. now, with respect to iran and syria, the rhetoric hasn't been changed significantly. we have said to both of them that if they want to have a better relationship with the united states, and if they, frankly, want to contribute to the process of peace that is underway in the region, then they have to stop supporting terrorist organizations. they have to stop providing the wherewithal to hezbollah to conduct terrorist acts. and we also believe both of those nations should foreswear, not get involved in the development of weapons of mass destruction, on the iranian side especially, programs that would lead to the development of a nuclear weapon. i don't think these are unreasonable demands to place on both syria and iran. do they want to see peace in the region? do they want to see the roadmap executed, or do they want to continue to support organizations that are not for peace, that are not for a palestinian state, are only for the destruction of israel, which won't happen? there was a failure, as we all acknowledge, with respect to a statement that went into the state of the union address. i think it's been rather overblown. i think that the intelligence community has done an excellent job of giving the president the information that he needed, the intelligence that he needed to make informed decisions, as to how he should deal with the iraqi threat, in order to protect american citizens, and also to protect our friends in the region, and based on a solid body of intelligence acquired over many years, and not just by the united states but by other nations that looked at this, by the united nations itself, which over a period of years, in meeting after meeting before the security council, resolution after resolution before the security council, came to the conclusion that iraq did have these weapons, did have this capability. this is not debatable. all the way through the '90s and after the inspectors were forced to leave in 1998, continuing past 1998 into the present, there was a solid body of information. i have been through that intelligence. i have looked at that intelligence as a soldier. i have looked at that intelligence as someone who has had to work with intelligence over the years, as a soldier, as national security adviser, and as secretary of state. and the case i have presented to the international community on the 5th of february, i believe was a solid case, well supported, and, frankly, is a case that still holds. and now that mr. kay is over there with the support group that we have put in place, i am quite confident that his work, the materials that he will find, and the programs he will uncover, the interviews that he is holding, the documents that he is currently exploiting, when he is ready to report on his work, i am quite confident the case will be obvious for all to see, even those who wish not to see it. we can't give a precise answer because it's the mission that will dictate how long we are there. the mission is a very simple one: secure the country, get the economy going, allow the iraqi people to create their own government based on a new constitution; and as soon as that government is in place, a representative government, turn it over to them and leave. the united states has no desire to remain in iraq any longer than is absolutely necessary. a lot has been done. schools are open. factories are starting to open again. oil is now being pumped out again. fresh crude left iraq today. a lot of good things are happening, but you don't get enough attention on those good things because we still see insecurity and violence. but slowly but surely, the country is improving. a governing council has been formed. and so we will move deliberately down this path, but we will not abandon the iraqi people until we know that they have put in place a government of their own that they have confidence in and who will be able to run the country in a way that that country will live in peace with its neighbors and no longer be developing weapons of mass destruction. yes, i think the weapons will be found and the programs that supported those weapons will be found. mr. david kay, who is in charge of the research effort, has reported to us recently that more and more information is coming forward as he is able to read all the documents that he's captured and as he is able to interview people who were involved in these programs. and as he assembles this information and is in a position to present it, i think the people of the world will see that the united states and other nations who felt as we did knew what we were talking about. no. i think we put forward the best case that we could. we believe that this was a dangerous regime with a dangerous leader; not only did he have weapons of mass destruction, he violated basic standards of human rights, he oppressed his people, he murdered his people and put them in mass graves, he destroyed the marshlands in the south. and now he is gone and the iraqi people will have a better life. and i think that the case we made before the world was a case that was based on weapons of mass destruction principally, but it was also a human rights case, a terrorism case that i presented at the united nations, and i am confident that we presented a case that was a solid case, that was a case that people could believe in, and the american people still support the president by an overwhelming margin and believe that we did the right thing. i'm still confident that there were weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop weapons of mass destruction, and we'll wait and see what david kay says in his report. well, i don't know that they were destroyed. there were at the time that we took the action that we took. and i'm not saying they're not there now. we will wait and see what dr. kay reports. we put forward to the world, and in my presentation on the 5th of february, the best intelligence information that we had, that he had weapons and that he had programs. david kay is in charge of our effort now, with some 1,500 inspectors and analysts and experts. he will provide an interim report later this month, and i am confident when people see what david kay puts forward they will see that there was no question that such weapons exist, existed, and so did the programs to develop one. i don't think so, tim, and i don't think that charge is an accurate one. i can tell you that i sat for a period of four days with the analysts, and there was no blowing up or overdoing what they were telling me. we did not hype it. i did not put forward a presentation on the 5th of february before the world at the united nations security council that wasn't solidly supported by the best analysis that we were able to bring to the effort. if there was anything that looked the least bit, you know, not supportable, we didn't use it. and these are the most dedicated people in the intelligence community who put that presentation together. so we did not try to hyper [sic] it or blow it out of proportion. [what] we have said to our arab friends is you may not see saddam hussein the same way we do, but you ought to, because those weapons of mass destruction that he is developing - chemical, biological, nuclear - they're more likely than not directed at one of you than us . . . so there may be a little bit of patience with him on the part of the arab nations right now, but i'm quite sure that not one of them would really wring their hands or cry too long if the regime was overthrown. no, that was not a subject for the g-8 ministerial meeting. essentially, we talked about a number of issues preparing our respective governments before the head of state, head of government meeting that will take place in kananaskis. obviously, we did talk about proliferation activities in iraq. there is no dispute among the ministers that iraq has been pursuing weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. this is of concern to all of us. we all work together within the united nations to keep sanctions in place and to keep pushing to get inspectors back into iraq. now, as a separate u.s. policy, we believe that iraq would be better served with another regime, new leadership. that is a goal of u.s. policy. but we discussed with our friends around the world, through all of the ministers here from the g-8, why we think that is important. but, at the moment, the president does not have a military plan on his desk and he is not ready to make any decisions beyond those decisions that are now to our friends. the president has assured all of them that as he starts to move forward, if and when he does, he will consult with our friends. so i was not sent here to put together any combat operations. people should be nervous about the fact that there is a country such as iraq with all that wealth available to it through oil, that is using that wealth to develop chemical, biological, and even nuclear weapons, if they could get their hands on them, in order to threaten innocent people throughout the persian gulf region, and in due course perhaps even threaten us here, this far away. that capability might well fall in the hands of terrorists. so, while people focus on will the united states take military action or not, and that causes them to be agitated, they're going to be more agitated about what's going on in iraq and the nature of that regime. his conventional military capability - tanks, planes, divisions - nowhere near the capability they had 12 years ago at the time of the gulf war. the gulf war succeeded in bringing that conventional capability down to size. what would concern us are the weapons of mass destruction, the very reason that such a conflict may be necessary. we do know that he has stocks of biological weapons, chemical weapons. we don't believe he has a nuclear weapon, but there's no doubt he has been working toward that end. and that's what we want to make sure does not happen: him to be in possession of a nuclear weapon. so he could use these chemical and biological weapons against our forces going in; but more seriously, he could use them against neighbors or against his own people, as he has done in the past. at the time of the gulf war 12 years ago, we also attributed him with the capability to use chemical and biological weapons and we took the risk at that time, protecting our troops as they went into battle, and he demonstrated that he would strike at his neighbors. he fired scud missiles at israel and at saudi arabia. he caused casualties, but those missiles did not contain chemical or biological agents. i don't know whether they would or would not this time. but we have to make sure that if it comes to conflict we do everything we can to protect our friends in the region, and we also send out a clear deterrent message to the iraqi regime about the inadvisability of using such weapons, and especially get that message down to the commanders and units that might be the ones ordered to use those weapons and let them know they would be held to account for the consequences of such use. right now we're not talking about war. right now we're talking about finding a peaceful solution to this. nobody wants war. president bush does not war. i do not want war. but do we want saddam hussein to have nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons that he can use, as he has used these kinds of weapons in the past against his neighbors, against his own people, or perhaps against us someday? this is the time to stop him. he has been told to stop by the international community. it's not the united states who is at fault here; it is saddam hussein and iraq that is at fault. and it is a problem he is wholly responsible for, and he cannot be allowed to get away with it. there has been a containment policy in effect, but we have seen that during the period of this containment policy, iraq has continued to try to develop weapons of mass destruction. they have chemical weapons; they have biological weapons; they're trying to acquire nuclear weapons. they've been in violation of all of these containment resolutions for the last 11 years. he has shown previously that he is not that inhibited. what we don't want him to be able to do is to achieve greater capability because then he would be even less inhibited. one thing you can be sure of: he isn't going to disarm, he is not going to let the inspectors in, unless he is fearful of a conflict that would remove him from power. he has demonstrated for 11 years that he will ignore, stiff, and laugh at the world's opinion. that laughter has to stop. if peace can be maintained while disarming saddam hussein and disarming the iraqi regime, fine. but if it takes conflict, we must keep the prospect of conflict there or else he will not cooperate. the concern we should have is that saddam hussein might blow up his infrastructure, his own oil wells, as he goes down to defeat. if we are going in if we have to go in, and we hope we don't have to go in, we will go in to remove a dictatorial regime and take away his weapons of mass destruction. on september 12, president bush went before the united nations and challenged the security council to meet its responsibility to act against the threat to international peace and security posed by iraq. the council's unanimous passage of resolution 1441 was a historic step for the united nations toward ridding iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by peaceful means. the international community has given saddam hussein and his regime one last chance. it is now for baghdad to seize it. seven weeks of consultation, debate, and negotiation in the security council only forged a deeper agreement and a stronger resolve among the world that iraq must fully and finally disarm. it should now be clear to saddam hussein that this is not just a matter between iraq and the united states, but between iraq and a united world. after 11 years of flouting dozens of u.n. resolutions and statements, hussein's contempt for the international community is obvious. we are all well acquainted with the tactics of denial, deceit and delay that he has used time and again to avoid compliance. we are also well aware of the brutal and aggressive nature of his regime. he has twice invaded his neighbors, and he has used chemical weapons not just against other countries but against his own citizens: men, women, and children. during the four years since inspectors have been barred from iraq, hussein has done everything he can to acquire and develop more weapons of mass destruction - whether biological, chemical, or nuclear. he has no scruples about using the weapons that he possesses or about providing them to terrorists should that suit his interests. long experience with saddam hussein and his regime tells us that he will respond only when confronted with steadfast resolve and the threat of force. every member of the security council understands that if hussein fails to comply with resolution 1441, there must be serious consequences. the words of the resolution are unambiguous: the security council has found iraq in material breach of its solemn obligations. iraq has been given one week to state whether it intends to comply with resolution 1441. iraq must produce a comprehensive declaration of its weapons programs. iraq must submit to an inspection regime that is far tougher and far more thorough than ever before. saddam hussein must give the inspectors immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to uncover the weapons of mass destruction that he has had so many years to hide. access not just to places such as presidential palaces, but to people and other sources of information will be critical, because you have to know where and when to look in order to find biological and chemical weapons that are easy to conceal and move. without access to key people and information, the inspectors would have to search under every roof and in the back of every truck. the chief u.n. inspector, hans blix, and the director general of the international atomic energy agency, mohamed elbaradei, have been given the robust regime they need. the united states will support the inspectors in every way. other u.n. members will do the same. the disarmament process must now begin. the first inspectors plan to arrive in iraq one week from tomorrow. the world will be watching. the inspectors are required to update the security council 60 days after inspections start. inspectors also are required to inform the council whenever they encounter interference or obstacles. as president bush said on friday, u.s. policy will be one of zero tolerance. in the days and weeks of inspections that lie ahead, the international community can expect iraq to test its will. backing resolution 1441 with the threat of force will be the best way to not only eliminate iraq's weapons of mass destruction, but also to achieve compliance with all u.n. resolutions and reach our ultimate goal: an iraq that does not threaten its own people, its neighbors, and the world. president bush and both houses of congress have emphasized that the united states prefers to see iraq disarm under u.n. auspices without a resort to force. we do not seek a war with iraq, we seek its peaceful disarmament. but we will not shrink from war if that is the only way to rid iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. the security council has confronted saddam hussein and his regime with a moment of truth. if they meet it with more lies, they will not escape the consequences. i will be talking to this, as well, in the days ahead and next week in the united nations. we do have information that suggests that there have been links over the years, and continue to be links, between the iraqi government and al qaeda. and the more we look at this, the more we are able to look back in time and connect things with people who have come into our custody and other information has become available to us. it's clear that there is a link. i'm not saying there's a 9/11 link. we haven't seen that yet, but i wouldn't rule that out. i want to say to all of our friends in italy that i hope that you will look carefully at this matter with respect to iraq. i hope that you will understand, as we believe we understand, that this is a danger, a danger to the world, for this kind of a regime and this kind of man, saddam hussein, to continue to develop weapons of mass destruction - chemical weapons, biological weapons, nuclear weapons. these are weapons that kill people by the hundreds, by the thousands. and it is not just a problem for america or a problem for the neighbors of saddam hussein. if these weapons get loose and get in the hands of terrorists, you might see one of these weapons show up in italy as a terrorist weapon. and so it's a problem for all of us, and i hope italy sees it that way and all italians see it that way and will support our efforts in the united nations, and, if it is necessary to use force, one way or the other, then italy will play a responsible role in participating in a coalition of the willing. the iraqis have constantly tried to find a way around their obligations with respect to inspections. they have met several times now with secretary general kofi annan and with hans blix. they understand what is required of them. there is no need for further clarification or discussion of a comprehensive approach. the approach is clear and spelled out in appropriate u.n. security council resolutions. inspections aren't the issue; disarmament is the issue. making sure that they have no weapons of mass destruction and they did what they said they were supposed to do, but we know that they haven't, at the end of the gulf war. so the issue is removal of all weapons of mass destruction. inspections were an attempt to get into that question, and we should not allow the iraqis to try to change the goalposts or to come up with a new comprehensive approach. we have seen this game before. the president spoke to this very clearly today. he said that he is beginning an intensive process of consultation with the american congress, he's going to talk to the american people, he's talking to the world. he'll be talking to a number of foreign leaders over the next several days and he'll be talking at the united nations next week on the threat posed to not just the united states but to the whole world by iraq. here's the evidence. first, iraq has violated all the resolutions that were placed upon it requiring it to get rid of its weapons of mass destruction. there's no debate about this. it is absolutely a fact that iraq has not complied with these resolutions to get rid of weapons of mass destruction. second fact: the iraqis are pursuing still, after all these years, they are still pursuing these weapons, and they are still pursuing this technology. and when tariq aziz, the deputy prime minister, comes and says they are not, it's a lie and everybody knows it's a lie. and he's trying to con us. one day he says no inspectors, the next day he says maybe inspectors. it's all a con. now, what the united nations has to do is to look at these facts and make a judgment as to what they should do about the fact that this regime has been thwarting the will of the international community for all these years. and the united states is willing to point this out to the world and make the case to the world. the president will make it clear to the allies in the days ahead, he'll make it clear at the united nations next week. he has also said he has made no decisions with respect to what options he might choose to pursue, either within the multilateral environment or what we might have to do as a nation unilaterally. and the thing that is clear about all of this is that doing nothing is not an option, as the president said. the president benefits from all the advice that we give him as a group, and a lot of the chatter about all of the disagreements that take place within the administration is mostly that: chatter. we talk to each other in an open, candid environment. we're all old friends. there are no wars going on within the administration; there's good debate. and that debate and that discussion and the advice that we give to the president has only one purpose, and that's to make sure that the president understands all the issues with respect to any particular problem that is before him. and with respect to iraq, it's a very serious matter and we have to make sure he gets the best advice. and i'm confident that i, secretary rumsfeld, and vice president cheney, my former secretary cheney, and condi rice and george tenet of the cia and all of our colleagues are doing everything we can to make to sure the president gets the best advice, and we are unified together and we are behind him. there is no doubt that he has chemical weapons stocks. . . . with respect to biological weapons, we are confident that he has some stocks of those weapons and he is probably continuing to try to develop more. . . . with respect to nuclear weapons, we are quite confident that he continues to try to pursue the technology that would allow him to develop a nuclear weapon. . . . so there's no question that he has these weapons, but even more importantly, he is striving to do even more, to get even more.