False Statements Database

Question: Aside from the Arab-Israeli conflict that you talked about—and that seems that the U.S. policy is not going to change in that regard—Iraq, as you might have heard in many of the tapes of bin Laden or others, or even other people aren't friends of the U.S., is one of the sources of friction or problems for people in the Middle East toward U.S. policy. However, you are personally perceived as one of the few people in the administration who would like to enlarge the war in terrorism to include Iraq. Correct me, please.

Dr. Rice: Iraq has been a problem not just for U.S. policy, but for policy in the region, as well. This is a country that could not even acknowledge the right to exist of Kuwait. This is a country that has threatened its neighbors, that has been harmful to its own people. And we believe that our policies toward Iraq simply are to protect the region and to protect Iraq's people and neighbors. Now, we understood when we came to power here in Washington several months ago that we had a problem, for instance, on Iraqi sanctions; that people believed, or that Saddam Hussein was claiming that the sanctions that were in place were somehow harming the Iraqi people. We do not believe that they were harming the Iraqi people because in the north, where the U.N. administers the oil-for-food program, Iraqi people are doing well. It's only where Saddam Hussein administers oil-for-food that there is a problem with the Iraqi people. But that said, we want to change the sanctions. We want to change the sanctions so that they are aimed at the regime, which is a danger to its neighbors, not at the people.

Question: Other than that, there is no military action awaiting Iraq after all the military mobilization in the area as a second stage of this war on terrorism?

Dr. Rice: The president has made very clear that the war on terrorism is a broad war on terrorism. You can't be for terrorism in one part of the world and against it in another part of the world. We worry about Saddam Hussein. We worry about his weapons of mass destruction that he's trying to achieve. There's a reason he doesn't want U.N. inspectors—it's because he intends to acquire weapons of mass destruction. But for now, the president has said that his goal is to watch and monitor Iraq, and, certainly, the United States will act if Iraq threatens its interests.

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/10/20011016-3.html

SOURCE: Office of the White House Press Secretary, interview on Al Jazeera TV, October 16, 2001.

Tim Russert: If we are, indeed, successful in Afghanistan in eliminating Osama bin Laden and rooting out Al Qaeda, will the war on terrorism then turn to Saddam Hussein in Iraq?

Rice: The president has made very clear that this is a broad war on terrorism; that you cannot be supportive of Al Qaeda and continue to harbor other terrorists. We're sending that message very clearly. Now, as to Iraq, we didn't need September 11 to tell us that Saddam Hussein is a very dangerous man. We didn't need September 11 to tell us that he's trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction. There could be only one reason that he has not wanted U.N. inspectors in Iraq, and that's so that he can build weapons of mass destruction. We know that he tried twice before to acquire nuclear weapons. In 1981, when the Israelis pre-empted at Osyroc, he was trying to develop a nuclear weapon. In 1991, when our forces arrived in Iraq, they saw that, again, he was trying to acquire nuclear weapons. He is a very dangerous man. We have to deal with him on his own terms. We didn't need September 11 to tell us that he's a threat to American security.

Russert: Would the world be safer if he was eliminated?

Rice: The world would clearly be better and the Iraqi people would be better off if Saddam Hussein were not in power in Iraq. I don't think there's any doubt about that.

Russert: [The Czech Repulic's] government has told us that they have evidence that Iraqi agents met with one of the hijackers who flew the plane into the World Trade Center. Do you agree with that assessment?

Rice: In evaluating the report, certainly one would have to suspect that there's no reason to believe Saddam Hussein wouldn't do something exactly of that kind; that he would not be supportive of terrorists is hard to imagine. But this particular report I don't want to comment on because I don't want to get into intelligence information, but I will say again, we do not need the events of September 11 to tell us that this is a very dangerous man who is a threat to his own people, a threat to the region and a threat to us because he is determined to acquire weapons of mass destruction.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/9-11_saddam_quotes.html

SOURCE: "Administration Comments on Saddam Hussein and the September 11 Attacks," washingtonpost.com.

In his State of the Union, the president was crystal clear about the growing danger posed by such states as North Korea, Iran, and Iraq that pursue weapons of mass destruction. The president is calling on the world, on our friends and our allies, to join us in preventing these regimes from developing and deploying these weapons, either directly or through stateless terrorist surrogates. This is a serious matter and it requires a serious response.

North Korea is now the world's number one merchant for ballistic missiles, open for business with anyone, no matter how malign the buyer's intentions.

The United States has offered a road map for reciprocal steps that would enable North Korea to take a better course. We've had no serious response from Pyongyang.

Iraq continues to threaten its neighbors, the neighborhood, and its own people, and it continues to flaunt obligations that it undertook in 1991. And that can mean only one thing: It remains a dangerous regime, and it remains a regime determined to acquire these terrible weapons.

And Iran. Iran's direct support of regional and global terrorism and its aggressive efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction belie any good intentions it displayed in the days after the world's worst terrorist attacks in history.

All of these nations have a choice to make—to abandon the course they now pursue. Unfortunately, these terrible regimes have shown no inclination to do so. But the United States and the world have only one choice, and that is to act with determination and resolve.

As the president said, we must not and we will not wait on events while dangers gather, and we will use every tool at our disposal to meet this grave global threat. We will work to strengthen nonproliferation regimes and export controls. We will use our new and budding relationship with Russia to redouble our efforts to prevent the leakage of dangerous materials and technologies. And we will move ahead with a missile defense system that can do the job, unconstrained by the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. (Applause.)

This president is determined and committed to protecting America, our forces, our allies and our friends from terror that comes packaged atop a missile. And the United States is unequivocal in its resolve to do what we must to insure ourselves. As the president said, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.

But even as we address today's multiple challenges, even as we recognize that the war on terrorism is one that will have to be fought for a long time to come, we can look ahead to tremendous opportunities that are before us. We want to leave this world not just safer, but better. We are committed to a world of greater trade, of greater democracy and greater human rights for all the world's people wherever they live. September 11th makes this commitment more important, not less. Because, ladies and gentlemen, you know that America stands for something real. It stands for rights that are inalienable and truths that are self-evident. It stands for compassion and hope.

September 11th reintroduced America to a part of itself that some had forgotten or that some thought we no longer had. And we will carry this better part of ourselves out into the wider world.

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/02/print/20020201-6.html

SOURCE: Office of the White House Press Secretary, remarks by Condoleezza Rice to the Conservative Political Action Conference, February 1, 2002.

Lehrer: Is it fair to say, Dr. Rice, that all of our major allies—at least those who have spoken publicly with a couple of exceptions—have come out loud and clear against military action against Iraq?

Rice: I think it's not fair to say that our friends and allies have said that they're unequivocally opposed to any particular action against Iraq. What they said is they want us to be cautious, that they understand fully the threat that Iraq poses, and I want to be very clear that the United States has not said that the time has come for the use of force against Iraq. We're in a phase of consulting with our friends and allies.

What the president has made very clear is that the status quo is not acceptable. We cannot sweep under the rug what Iraq has been doing for the last ten years. We cannot pretend that this regime is one that can be trusted not to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is a problem that the world had better get serious about very soon.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/jan-june02/rice_3-11.html

SOURCE: Condoleezza Rice, interview on The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer, PBS, March 11, 2002.

Wolf Blitzer: Dr. Rice, The Wall Street Journal, in an editorial on Friday, wrote this: "President Bush bowed to pressure from Europe, the Arab world, and most of the U.S. media yesterday, by urging Israel to end its siege against Palestinian terrorists. This strikes us as a mistake, maybe even a large one, though it all might be redeemed if this helps Mr. Bush refocus the war on terror back on Iraq."

How close is the United States to launching military strikes against Iraq?

Rice: Well, first let me say that this is a president who speaks the truth. And when he believes that it is important to say something, he says it, and that's what he did on Thursday.

Rice: He also believed that it was important to speak the truth about the growing threat of weapons of mass destruction. Yesterday, at the press conference with [British] Prime Minister [Tony] Blair, they talked about this growing threat of weapons of mass destruction.

And everyone knows that Saddam Hussein is a—the Saddam Hussein regime is one that not only threatens its own people and threatens its neighbors, but it has been trying aggressively, for almost 20 years, to get weapons of mass destruction. And everyone knows that that would be a true disaster for international security and peace. So the status quo isn't acceptable.

Now, the means that should be used to deal with Saddam Hussein and to bring him to account and, indeed, to bring a regime to power that the Iraqi people deserve rather than the one that they have, those means are varied and many. And the president has not decided to use military force. There may be other things that can be done.

But what the president did in his State of the Union, and what he has done consistently since, is to say that the status quo is not acceptable with Iraq.

It would be a terrible mistake for the world to allow this man to continue to flaunt his obligations to the international community, to continue to build weapons of mass destruction under the dark of night, and to one day wake up in a situation in which we're being blackmailed by this bloody dictator. That isn't acceptable.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0204/07/le.00.html

SOURCE: Condoleezza Rice, interview on Late Edition, CNN, April 7, 2002.

Secretary Powell: 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.

Question: Will he present the evidence—

Secretary Powell: 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.

Question: Is there any difference—

Secretary Powell: And the thing that is clear about all of this is that doing nothing is not an option, as the president said.

Question: Right. But is there any difference of opinion between you and other members of the administration on the advice that the president is being given?

Secretary Powell: 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.

http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2002/13263.htm

SOURCE: Department of State, Colin Powell, interview on CNN, September 4, 2002.

Wolf Blitzer: Based on what you know right now, how close is Saddam Hussein's government—how close is that government to developing a nuclear capability?

Condoleezza Rice: You will get different estimates about precisely how close he is. We do know that he is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon. We do know that there have been shipments going into Iran, for instance—into Iraq, for instance, of aluminum tubes that really are only suited to—high-quality aluminum tools that are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs.

We know that he has the infrastructure, nuclear scientists to make a nuclear weapon. And we know that when the inspectors assessed this after the Gulf War, he was far, far closer to a crude nuclear device than anybody thought, maybe six months from a crude nuclear device.

The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't what the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/08/le.00.html

SOURCE: Condoleezza Rice, interview on Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer, CNN, September 8, 2002.

Snow: For more on these developments, we turn to President Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice.

Dr. Rice, let me talk about a couple of other breaking news stories. There's a report out of London today that the British government is putting together a dossier that tries to establish a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

Without going into the particulars of that report, the president seems to have been arguing in recent weeks that, in fact, there is a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Is that true?

Condoleezza Rice: Well, there are clearly links between Iraq and terrorism, and there are Al Qaeda personnel that have been spotted in Baghdad. There are some evidence that there have been various meetings concerning Iraqi personnel and Al Qaeda personnel.

No one here, Tony, is trying to establish that Saddam Hussein somehow planned and plotted 9/11. But this is a regime that has hostile intent toward the United States, that has all kind of people in Baghdad who are involved in terrorism—Abu Nidal, who also has had links with Al Qaeda.

We are working very hard to put together the full picture. We do think that there are links there, but let's be very clear: There is plenty to indict Saddam Hussein without a direct link to 9/11. He clearly has links to terrorism.

Snow: All right. And links to terrorism would include Al Qaeda? I just want to be certain.

Rice: Links to terrorism would include Al Qaeda, yes.

[text omitted]

Snow: The president said this week that he would like to see Saddam Hussein submit to complete, open, and unconditional inspections sooner rather than later. He said in a matter of days and weeks, not months and years.

Would you like to see the United Nations Security Council put deadlines, specific deadlines, on his compliance with the 16 Security Council resolutions he's violated?

Rice: Well, the president didn't prejudge the form of how Iraqi compliance might take place. And, in fact, one of the concerns is that whatever we do going forward, that it is different than what we've done in the past, that this time it's effective.

Snow: But that would include deadlines, hard deadlines?

Rice: Clearly, this can't be a matter that goes on and on. And yes, it's going to have to include some kind of deadline. And it's not going to be something that you negotiate with the Iraqi government.

Rice: This is a regime that has flaunted the United Nations security resolutions, that's hiding its weapons of mass destruction activities. Why one would try and negotiate now with the Iraqis what they will accept would be a mystery to us.

So one thing that we want to be very clear on is that when there is an understanding among the Security Council members as to what would constitute Iraqi compliance, it is not an offer to begin negotiations with the Iraqis on what that might look like.

Snow: So, clear conditions, clear deadlines, and then it would be possible under Article VII for the United States or other powers to use military force?

Rice: Well, obviously there will have to be some consequences if Iraq does not comply, but we'll see how those are expressed.

Snow: The president and everybody else in the foreign policy establishment, including you, have been talking a lot about Iraq. Why is it so important to act now, as opposed to a month, two months, three months from now?

Rice: Well, the real question is, why should you wait to attack later? This has been a long history now with Iraq of defiance, since '98—since 1998, the United States has had a regime-change policy.

So we have to do this sooner or later. And we believe, given the growing threat, given the vivid images from September 11th that show us what happens when people who want to do you ill do you ill, we think it's best to act sooner, not later.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,63125,00.html

SOURCE: Condoleezza Rice, interview on Fox News Sunday, Fox, September 15, 2002.

Question: Ari, what specifically was deceptive in the White House view about what the Foreign Minister said?

Mr. Fleischer: Well, number one, Iraq said in the speech that they have not rejected the resolutions of the United Nations. If that was true, then why did the United Nations pass 16 of them? The reason is because Iraq has not complied. Iraq said in the speech they are clear of all nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. As we know from the arms inspectors who have been to Iraq, that is categorically a lie.

Iraq also accused President Bush of engaging in lies and falsehoods. And finally, they are already putting up conditions for the weapons inspectors that they said only two days ago they would accept unconditionally. When Iraq talks about sovereignty and independence, history has shown that those are code words for thwarting the inspectors.

Question: Should Iraq have specific concerns about inspections at what they're referring to as presidential sites? What would the administration's position be on that?

Mr. Fleischer: Well, on the question of presidential sites, number one, there is no negotiating with Iraq. Iraq has to comply with the terms of the world to disarm, and that is not a matter that is subject to negotiations. On the question of so-called presidential residences, Iraq, by various reports, has some—I've seen some accounts of 17 presidential palaces, some 30 presidential palaces. I don't know very many people who need that many places to live. I don't think he spends much time at all of those places. Something is going on there other than Saddam Hussein sleeping there. And yet, he does not want the world to even visit those sites. There's probably a reason why.

Question: Thank you. I mean this with the utmost respect, but to help the American people and the world better understand, can you make a clear, explicit link between terrorist attacks against the United States and the regime of Saddam Hussein?

Mr. Fleischer: Well, obviously, the president is very worried about—and he says this in every speech—the worst thing he thinks could happen would be for the world's worst dictators, as he puts it, including Saddam Hussein—principally Saddam Hussein—to join up with a group like Al Qaeda and to provide any weapons that then the terrorist groups would use against the United States. It is a clear worry that we have.

Question: But do we know that they've done it in the past? I think Condoleezza Rice—

Mr. Fleischer: Well, we clearly do know that Iraq has supported terrorism in the Middle East, yes.

Question: Has the administration also seen anything in these back-to-back bombings, any evidence that there could be Palestinian terrorists who are trying to derail the administration's plans for Iraq by inciting violence—

Mr. Fleischer: Nobody has brought anything like that to my attention. I think that the violence in the Middle East and the terrorist attacks on Israel have a history of standing strongly on their own—even though they are aided by Saddam Hussein in many ways.

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020919-4.html

SOURCE: Office of the White House Press Secretary, press briefing by Ari Fleischer, September 19, 2002.

Question: Ari, the British dossier that was released this morning makes no mention of any link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. Does the president still believe that there is a link between the two, and what evidence is there to support that?

Mr. Fleischer: Well, that's not the immediate question that the president has asked, as he considers what steps are necessary to protect the American people, because he views the threat from Saddam Hussein of being a threat in and of itself, as a result of Saddam Hussein's military activities, his arms buildup, and his history of using those arms.

As for September 11th, what we do is that there are Al Qaeda operating inside of Iraq. But the United States has not gone beyond that. The president believes that what is known about Saddam Hussein, based on his decade of defiance and his arms buildup, is cause enough for the world to need to take action.

Question: One specific question that grows out of it. Vice President [Dick] Cheney, in the course of his speeches, San Antonio and the one that preceded it, and I think Dr. [Condoleezza] Rice have both said at various points that at the end of the Gulf War Saddam was six months to a year from a nuclear weapon. There's nothing in this report to back that up, and in fact at one point the report says that a—

Mr. Fleischer: One to two years.

Question: —crash program did not appear to have made much progress. Can you tell us where Dr. Rice and Vice President Cheney got that—

Mr. Fleischer: Yes, our information is that—at the time of the Gulf War we believed that Saddam Hussein was three years away from the development of a nuclear weapon. And then based on the assessments we received from the inspectors who were in Iraq, subsequent to that, and on other intelligence information, the conclusion of our community here was that it was six months to 12 months away from development of a weapon.

The point, though, whether it was six months, 12 months, one year or two years, is how close do you want to cut it before Saddam Hussein gets his hands on what he wants? And it's too close right now. The other issue, you always need to ask yourself when you heard that Saddam Hussein is "x" period of time away from developing a nuclear weapon, at what point did that clock start? It's not as if the six-month or 12-month or one-year clock starts the day a reporter asks somebody in the government the question. The clock could have started three months ago, six months ago, a year ago. We don't know. We don't know because inspectors aren't in the country, and because Saddam Hussein is using every means at his disposal to develop his nuclear weapons in the utmost secrecy, because that's what he wants more than anything else. What type of chances can the world take to allow Saddam Hussein any type of margin for our error in the calculations of how long he has?

Question: Ari, some members of Tony Blair's own party say there's nothing new in the dossier Blair delivered to his Parliament. Is there a smoking gun?

Mr. Fleischer: Well, I think there was new information in there, particularly about the 45-minute threshold by which Saddam Hussein has got his biological and chemical weapons triggered to be launched. There was new information in there about Saddam Hussein's efforts to obtain uranium from African nations. That was new information. But on this whole question of new information, this is not about whether or not there is something new. There is something a decade long that indicts Saddam Hussein and threatens freedom for people in the region and the United States. So no one has said that without anything so-called new, the case against Saddam Hussein should go away; it doesn't.

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020924-3.html

SOURCE: Office of the White House Press Secretary, press briefing by Ari Fleischer, September 24, 2002.