• "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 preemptive 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 I hope the same concern that we expressed to them the actions of Saddam Hussein [sic]. He is the one who has brought this upon the world. Not the United States. He is the one who has continued to pursue these weapons. He is the one who last fall, the United Nations challenged to come into full and immediate compliance and unconditional compliance. And he's the one that chose not to. And we believe the danger is real. And if we do not act now to disarm him as we said we would when 1441 was passed, the clear of intent of 1441 was for him to comply -- meaning disarm. If he didn't, it would be serious consequences. We believe he hasn't. We believe that he tried to deceive us. We believe that a game is being played with inspectors, and so we believe that we have met the test with respect to trying to find a peaceful solution and there are many cases in history where when people were reluctant to take the necessary military steps, the use of force, it was regretted later."
  Mar. 18, 2003 Colin Powell

Excerpts taken from Colin Powell's interview on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos:

• "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."
  Mar. 16, 2003 Colin Powell

Excerpts taken from Colin Powell's interview on NBC's Meet the Press:

• "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 lies all these years. And the fact that there is also an al-Qaida connection, I think certainly adds to the case, but we are not resting the whole case on that connection."

• "It was clear that 1441 said Saddam Hussein is guilty [of maintaining WMD], there are consequences for this guilt; now, one last chance. What we are interested in is getting rid of the weapons of mass destruction. One last chance. Let's see all the people who were involved in these programs, for them to be interviewed, interviewed without threat, out of the country. Let's see all the documents. Let's see all the equipment. Let's see all the facilities."

• "At this point, if military action is required, it's because the regime has not changed itself, it is not complying with the demands of the international community."

• "I think 9/11 changes the calculus that one uses for this [invading Iraq]. Saddam Hussein has been a threat to the region and we believe that his development of weapons of mass destruction and his intent toward his neighbors and the hostility he holds toward us; and in the post-9/11 period, where you have this potential nexus between weapons of mass destruction and terrorist organizations, non-state actors who are trying to get such weapons, suggests that this kind of threat has to be dealt with. And he has been in violation not only of, you know, our desire to see him be disarmed and get rid of these weapons of mass destruction, he's been in violation of international obligations for 12 years.

  And so this is a case where we believe the international community should act to protect itself, and, in protecting itself, protect the United States and protect the neighbors of Iraq."
  Mar. 9, 2003 Colin Powell

Excerpt taken from Colin Powell's statement to the United Nations Security Council:

• "Dr. ElBaradei talked about the aluminum tubes that Iraq has tried to acquire over the years. But we also know that notwithstanding the report today, that there is new information that is available to us, and I believe available to the IAEA, about a European country where Iraq was found shopping for these kinds of tubes. And that country has provided information to us, to IAEA, that the material properties and manufacturing tolerances required by Iraq are more exact, by a factor of 50 percent or more, than those usually specified for rocket motor casings. Its experts concluded that the tolerances and specifications Iraq was seeking cannot be justified for unguided rockets. And I am very pleased that we will keep this issue open.

• "The point is that this document [IAEA March 2003 Report] conclusively shows that Iraq had and still has the capability to manufacture these kinds of weapons, that Iraq had and still has the capability to manufacture not only chemical but biological weapons, and that Iraq had and still has literally tens of thousands of delivery systems, including increasingly capable and dangerous unmanned aerial vehicles."

• "So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? My judgment, I think our judgment, has to be clearly not. And this is now the reality we, the Council, must deal with."

• "We must not walk away. We must not find ourselves here this coming November with the pressure removed and with Iraq once again marching down the merry path to weapons of mass destruction, threatening the region, threatening the world.

  If we fail to meet our responsibilities, the credibility of this Council and its ability to deal with all the critical challenges we face will suffer. As we sit here, let us not forget the horror still going on in Iraq, with a spare moment to remember the suffering Iraqi people whose treasure is spent on these kinds of programs and not for their own benefit; people who are being beaten, brutalized and robbed by Saddam and his regime."
  Mar. 7, 2003 Colin Powell

Excerpts taken from Colin Powell's speech to a United State Senate Subcommittee:

• "This is the time we have to deal with this kind of threat, not after we have seen thousands of people die as a result of the use of some of these horrible weapons."
  Mar. 6, 2003 Colin Powell

Excerpts taken from Colin Powell's remarks at the Center for Strategic and International Studies:

• "The question simply is: Has Saddam Hussein made a strategic decision, a political decision, that he will give up these horrible weapons of mass destruction and stop what he's been doing for all these many years?

  That's the question. There is no other question. Everything else is secondary or tertiary. That's the issue. It's an issue that's been on the table for 12 years. It's the issue that was put to Saddam Hussein in 1991 after the Gulf War. And over a period of years, and resolution after resolution, the same question was put to him, the same challenge was given to him, the same instruction was given by the international community, by the Security Council, to Saddam Hussein: Disarm, give up these weapons of mass destruction, stop threatening your people, let your neighbors live in peace, no longer fearful of these kinds of weapons. And for 12 years, Saddam Hussein has given the same answer back repeatedly: No, I will not."

• "And lets be clear what Resolution 1441 is all about. It's not just a bunch of meaningless words. Every one of those words was fought over. It's not about inspections. It's not about an inspection regime. It is about Saddam Hussein, in the first instance, in the first part of that resolution, being found guilty again, reaffirming his guilt over the preceding 11 years of possessing and developing with the intention of having and potentially using weapons of mass destruction."

• "We also know that senior Iraqi officials continue to admit in private what they continue to deny in public, that Iraq does indeed, possess weapons of mass destruction. A senior official stated in late January that Baghdad could not answer UNMOVIC's question honestly without causing major problems for Iraq."

• "... But unfortunately, the inspection effort isn't working. Why? Because it was never intended to work under these kinds of hostile circumstances. It was intended to help the Iraqis comply. They were not intended to be detectives that went around seeking out things in the absence of genuine Iraqi cooperation. Inspections cannot work effectively as long as the Iraqi regime remains bound and determined to hold on to its weapons of mass destruction instead of divesting itself of these terrible items."

• "Last November, when 1441 was passed, the international community declared Saddam Hussein a threat. In four months since, that has not changed; he is still a threat."

• "It is always a hard thing for citizens to accept the prospect of war, and it should be. But consider the chilling fact that Saddam Hussein also knows what war is like. He has used war and weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors and against thousands of his own citizens. And in this post-September 11th world, getting those appalling weapons out of his hands is the only way to guarantee that he won't use them again, or he won't make common cause and pass them on through his terrorist connections for use practically anywhere in the world."

• "Last November, the entire Security Council declared his weapons of mass destruction to be that threat to international peace and security. And if that threat existed last November when we voted for 1441, it certainly exists now."

• "There was always a difference in the perception of the threat. Some of my colleagues in the [Security] Council have never quite seen it as strongly as we have seen it and that was the case during the seven weeks of the debate and before the debate. There are even some members of the Council who argue most vociferously now for delay or something else, who were anxious to see sanctions go away years ago when it was clear there was something still going on in Iraq.

  The one thing that we all agree upon is that there is no doubt that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and the capability to develop them or else I don't think we would have gotten a 15-0 vote. The debate really is, well, how much should we be concerned about it, how much should we worry about it?

  What we came together and said in 1441 is that they're in breach, continue to be in breach, they have not accounted for so much of this horrible material that they have, they have not allowed the inspectors in to verify the claims that they have made, and that this is a threat to the security of the region.

  We believe what highlights the threat, at least in our eyes, is the nexus that now exists in the post-9/11 world that it was one thing, and it was a bad enough thing, and it was a bad enough thing for Saddam Hussein to have these weapons of mass destruction, either accidentally or deliberately putting them in the hands of terrorists, we would all look back on this moment in time and feel awful if, at some future moment in time, a horrible attack took place and we discover one of these weapons was used, and when we had the chance to do something about it and we had the obligation to do something about it, we didn't do something about it."

• "For 30 years, Saddam has fed off the blood, sweat, and tears of his people. He has murdered, tortured, and raped to stay in power. He has squandered Iraq's vast oil wealth on lavish palaces and secret police and weapons programs."
  Mar. 5, 2003 Colin Powell

Excerpts of Colin Powell's interview by Anne Toulouse of Radio France International:

• "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."
  Feb. 28, 2003 Colin Powell

Excerpts of Colin Powell's remarks to the United Nations Security Council:

• "That's why we have joined and been active members of the institutions such as the United Nations and a number of other institutions that have come together for the purpose of peace and for the purpose of mutual security and for the purpose of letting other nations which pursue a path of destruction, which pursue paths of developing weapons of mass destruction which threaten their neighbors, to let them know that we will stand tall, we will stand together , to meet these kinds of challenges."

• "We will not tolerate Iraq continuing to have weapons of mass destruction to be used against its own people, to be used against its neighbors.

  Or worse, if we find a post-9/11 nexus between Iraq and terrorist organizations that are looking for just such weapons -- and I would submit and will provide more evidence that such connections are now emerging and we can establish that they exists -- we cannot wait for one of these terrible weapons to show up in one of our cities and wonder where it came from after it's been detonated by al-Qaida or somebody else. This is the time to go after this source of this kind of weaponry. And that's what 1441 was all about."

• "But the questions, notwithstanding all of the lovely rhetoric, the question remain, and some of my colleagues have talked about it. We haven't accounted for the anthrax. We haven't accounted for the botulinum, the VX, bulk biological agents, growth media, 30,000 chemical and biological munitions. These are not trivial matters one can just ignore and walk away from and say, well, maybe they won't. We have not had a complete, accurate declaration.

  We have seen the reconstitution of casting chambers for missiles. Why? Because they are still trying to develop these weapons."

• "Force should always be a last resort. I have preached this for most of my professional life, as a soldier and as a diplomat, but it must be a resort. We cannot allow this process to be endlessly strung out as Iraq is trying to do right now--string it out long enough and the world will start looking in other direction, the Security Council will move on, we'll get away with it again.

  My friends, they cannot be allowed to get away with it again. We now are in a situation where Iraq's continues noncompliance and failure to cooperate, it seems to me, in the clearest terms, requires this Council to begin to think through the consequences of walking away from this problem with a reality that we have to face this problem; and that, in the very near future, we will have to consider whether or not we've reached that point where this Council, as distasteful as it may be, as reluctant as we may be, as many as -- there are so many of you who would rather not have to face this issue, but it's an issue that must be faced. And that is whether or not it is time to consider serious consequences of the kind intended by 1441.

  The reason we must not look away from it is because these are terrible weapons. We are talking about weapons that will kill not a few people, not a hundred people, not a thousand people, but that could kill tens of thousands of people if these weapons got into the wrong hands."
  Feb. 14, 2003 Colin Powell

Excerpts taken from Colin Powell's presentation to the United Nations Security Council (To see full text of speech click here):

• "Saddam Hussein and his regime are concealing their efforts to produce more weapons of mass destruction."

• "Saddam Hussein and his regime are not just trying to conceal weapons; they are also trying to hide people. You know the basic facts. Iraq has not complied with its obligation to allow immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted and private access to all officials and other persons, as required by Resolution 1441."

• "The gravity of this moment is matched by the gravity of the threat that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction pose to the world."

• "They have never accounted for all the organic material used to make them [biological weapons]. And they have not accounted for many of the weapons filled with these agents such as their R-400 bombs. This is evidence, not conjecture. This is true. This is all well documented."

• "A third source, also in a position to know, reported in summer, 2002, that Iraq has manufactured mobile production systems mounted on a road-trailer units on road cars."

• "We know that Iraq has at least 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."

• "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. A dry agent of this type is the most lethal form for human beings.

  By 1998, U.N. experts agreed that the Iraqis had perfected drying techniques for their biological weapons programs. Now Iraq has incorporated this drying expertise into these mobile production facilities."

• "Saddam Hussein has investigated dozens of biological agents causing diseases such as gangrene, plague, typhus, tetanus, cholera, camelpox, and hemorrhagic fever. And he also has the wherewithal to develop smallpox.

  The Iraqi regime has also developed ways to disperse lethal biological agents widely, indiscriminately into the water supply, into the air."

• "There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more. And he has the ability to dispense these lethal poisons and diseases in ways that can cause massive death and destruction."

• "We know that Iraq has embedded key portions of its illicit chemical weapons infrastructure within its legitimate civilian industry."

• "Under the guise of dual-use infrastructure, Iraq has undertaken an effort to reconstitute facilities that were closely associated with its past program to develop and produce chemical weapons."

• "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."

• "We have no indication that Saddam Hussein has ever abandoned his nuclear weapons program. On the contrary, we have more than a decade of proof that he remains determined to acquire nuclear weapons."

• "In 1995, as a result of another defector [Hussein Kamel], we find out that, after his invasion of Kuwait, Saddam Hussein had initiated a crash program to build a crude nuclear weapon, in violation of Iraq's U.N. obligations. Saddam Hussein already possesses two out of three key components needed to build a nuclear bomb. He has a cadre of nuclear scientists with the expertise and he has a bomb design.

  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."

• "While inspectors destroyed most of the prohibited ballistic missiles, numerous intelligence reports over the past decade from sources inside Iraq indicate that Saddam Hussein retains a covert force of up to a few dozen SCUD-variant ballistic missiles./b> These are missiles with a range of 650 to 900 kilometers."

• "Iraq and terrorism go back decades. Baghdad trains Palestine Liberation Front members in small arms and explosives. Saddam uses the Arab Liberation Front to funnel money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers in order to prolong the Intifadah. And it's no secret that Saddam's own intelligence service was involved in dozens of attacks or attempted assassinations in the 1990s.

  But what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al-Qaida 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 associate and collaborator of Usama bin Laden and his al-Qaida lieutenants."

• "When we confront a regime that harbors ambitions for regional domination, hides weapons of mass destruction, and provides haven and active support for terrorists, we are not confronting the past; we are confronting the present. And unless we act, we are confronting an even more frightening future."

• "He has conducted ethnic cleansing against the Shia Iraqis and the Marsh Arabs whose culture has flourished for more than a millennium. Saddam Hussein's police state ruthlessly eliminates anyone who dares to dissent. Iraq has more forced disappearance cases than any other country -- tens of thousands of people reported missing in the past decade.

  Nothing points more clearly to Saddam Hussein's dangerous intentions and the threat he poses to all of us than his calculated cruelty to his own citizens and to his neighbors. Clearly, Saddam Hussein and his regime will stop at nothing until something stops him."

• "We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more. Given Saddam Hussein's history of aggression, given what we know of his grandiose plans, given what we know of his terrorist association, and given his determination to exact revenge on those who oppose him, should we take the risk that he will not someday use these weapons at a time and a place and in a manner of his choosing, at a time when the world is in a much weaker position to respond?"
  Feb. 5, 2003 Colin Powell

Excerpts taken from Colin Powell's op-ed "We Will Not Shrink From War", published in the Wall Street Journal on February 3, 2003 :

• "In their inspections, Mr. 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 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."

• "Together we must face the facts brought to us by the UN inspectors and reputable intelligence sources. Iraq continues to conceal deadly weapons and their components, and to use denial, deception and subterfuge in order to retain them. Iraq has ties to and has supported terrorist groups. Iraq has had no compunction about using weapons of mass destruction against its own people and against its neighbors."
  Feb. 3, 2003 Colin Powell

Excerpts taken from Colin Powell's statement at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland:

• "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 Nation's 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 Iraqi's failure -- Iraq's failure to tell the inspectors where to find its weapons of mass destruction."

• "After six weeks of inspections, the international community still needs to know the key 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 is? 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 wheel? Why is Iraq still trying to procure uranium and the special equipment needed to transform it into material for nuclear weapons?"

• "Saddam should tell the truth, and tell the truth now. The more we wait, the more chance there is for the dictator with clear ties to terrorist groups, including al-Qaida, 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 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."

• "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."

• "A resolution was put forward. It's a resolution that puts the burden on Iraq, not on the inspectors. And it is not the United States, it is not the international community, it is not the United Nations that is the source of the problem. The source of the problem is Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi regime and their use of the treasures of Iraqi people to develop weapons of mass destruction."

• "I think the evidence is there and I think the evidence is clear. The inspections that ended in 1998 under the auspices of the IAEA and UNSCOM made it absolutely clear that there were weapons of mass destruction and there were programs to develop more weapons of mass destruction. That is not speculation, it is a fact. It's a given."
  Jan. 26, 2003 Colin Powell

Excerpts taken from Colin Powell's interview on CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer:

• "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."

• "But the president has always said from the very beginning that the object is to disarm Iraq, and if the U.N. is not willing to do it, and is not willing to be relevant in a situation such as this, the United States reserves the option if it feels it must do so to at with like-minded nations to disarm Iraq."
  Jan. 26, 2003 Colin Powell

Excerpts taken from Colin Powell's remarks at a press conference:

• "On November 8th, the United Nations Security Council responded to the challenge issued by President Bush in his 12 September speech to the United Nations General Assembly. On that day, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441, requiring Iraq to disarm itself of its weapons of mass destruction and to disclose all of its nuclear, chemical, biological and missile programs.

  Resolution 1441 was the latest in a long string of Security Council resolutions since Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Previous resolution, which included requirements to disarm and to end the cruel repression of the Iraqi people, have all been defied or ignored by Iraq.

  Resolution 1441 recognized that Iraq 'has been and remains in material breach of its obligations,' but gave the Iraqi regime, again, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations.

  Iraq's answer came on December 7th in a 12,200-page document submitted to the Security Council.

  Resolution 1441 required Iraq to submit a declaration on all its mass weapons program of destruction, a declaration that was 'currently accurate, full and complete,' in the words of the resolution.

  The inspectors told the Security Council this morning that the declaration fails to answer many open questions. They said that in some cases they even have information that directly contradicts Iraq's account.

  Our experts have also examined the Iraqi document. The declaration's title echoes the language of Resolution 1441. It is called, 'Currently Accurate, Full and Complete Declaration.' But our experts have found it to be anything but currently accurate, full or complete. The Iraqi declaration, may use the language of Resolution 1441, but it totally fails to meet the resolution's requirements.

  The inspectors said that Iraq has failed to provide new information. We agree. Indeed, thousands of the document's pages are merely a resubmission of material it gave United Nations years ago, material that the UN had already determined was incomplete.

  Other sections of the Iraqi declaration consists of long passages copied from reports written by the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency. The only changes the Iraqi regime made were to remove references critical to its own conduct. The declaration totally fails to address what we had learned about Iraq's prohibited weapons programs before the inspectors were effectively forced out in 1998."

• "Before the inspectors were forced to leave Iraq, they concluded that Iraq could have produced 26,000 liters of anthrax. That is three times the amount Iraq had declared. Yet, the Iraqi declaration is silent on this stockpile, which, alone, would be enough to kill several million people.

  The regime also admitted that it had manufactured 19,180 liters of biological agent called botulinum toxin. UN inspectors later determined that the Iraqis could have produced 38,360 additional liters. However, once again., the Iraqi declaration is silent on these missing supplies.

  The Iraqi declaration also says nothing about the unaccounted, unaccounted precursors from which Iraq could have produced up to 500 tons of mustard gas, sarin gas and VX nerve gas.

  Nor does the declaration address questions that have arisen since the inspectors left in 1998. For example, we know that in the late 1990s, Iraq built mobile biological weapons production units. Yet, the declaration tries to waive this away, mentioning only mobile refrigeration vehicles and food-testing laboratories.

  We also know that Iraq has tried to obtain high-strength aluminum tubes which can be used to enrich uranium in centrifuges for a nuclear weapons program. The Iraqi regime is required by Resolution 1441 to report these attempts. Iraq, however, has failed to provide adequate information about the procurement and use of these tubes.

  Most brazenly of all, the Iraqi declaration denies the existence of any prohibited weapons programs at all. The United States, the United Nations and the world waited for this declaration from Iraq. But Iraq's response is a catalogue of recycled information and flagrant omissions. It should be obvious that the pattern of systematic holes and gaps in Iraq's declaration is not the result of accidents or editing oversights or technical mistakes. These are material omissions that, in our view, constitute another material breach."

• "Resolution 1441 calls for serious consequences for Iraq if it does not comply with the terms of the resolution. Iraq's noncompliance and defiance of the international community has brought it closer to the day when it will have to face these consequences. The world is still waiting for Iraq to comply with its obligations. The world will not wait forever. Security Council Resolution 1441 will be carried out in full. Iraq can no longer by allowed to threaten its people and its region with weapons of mass destruction. It is still up to Iraq to determine how its disarmament will happen. Unfortunately, this declaration fails totally to move us in the direction of a peaceful solution."

• "'Material Breach.' I think, perhaps, too much has been made of the term. Material breach is a term that comes from the law that says a party to a commitment has failed in meeting the terms of that commitment. Iraq has done that repeatedly in the past. That's why 1441 begins with that statement of past material breach on many occasions by Iraq, still in material breach, and this is a new material breach.

  I don't think we are devaluing the term ['material breach']. I think we are using the term to make it clear to the world that, once again, we have a breach on the part of Iraq with respect to its obligations and therefore the spots have not changed.

  Now, I'll let the other members of the Council make their own judgment as to whether they wish to characterize it as such right now. The important point, I think, is that from what we heard from Dr. Blix and Dr. El Baradei this morning, and what I heard form other members of the Council who have spoken, is that there is no question that Iraq continues its pattern of noncooperation, its pattern of deception, its pattern of dissembling, its pattern of lying. And if that is going to be the way they continue through the weeks ahead, then we're not going to find a peaceful solution to this problem."
  Dec. 19, 2002 Colin Powell

Excerpts taken from Colin Powell's interview with NBC News':

• "This is not about oil; this is about a tyrant, a dictator, who is developing weapons of mass destruction to use against Arab populations, and he has used such weapons against Arab populations right in that neighborhood where these articles and editorials you [Brian Williams NBC News] mentioned are being written."

• "Saddam Hussein is going to be disarmed one way or the other. If there is going to be a war, it will be because of Saddam Hussein, not NATO, not the United Nations and not the United States of America."
  Nov. 21, 2002 Colin Powell

Excerpts taken from Colin Powell's interview on NBC's Meet the Press:

• "All we are interested in is getting rid of those weapons of mass destruction. We thing the Iraqi people would be a lot better off with a different leader, a different regime, but the principle 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 these, 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 Congress in 1998 when it was thought that 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 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."

• "Saddam Hussein has used weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors. Despite inspections, despite all the containment efforts we have made, he has not moved away from that policy."
  Oct. 20, 2002 Colin Powell

Excerpts taken from Colin Powell's interview on PBS's NewsHour with Jim Lehrer:

• "One, let it be known that Iraq is in material breach of all of its previous commitments under the sixteen or so previous UN resolutions. Secondly, we have to make it clear that in order to deal with the weapons of mass destruction issue, we need a strengthened inspection regime if there are going to be inspections. We saw what happened last time when the Iraqis were able to run the inspectors around, deny them access to certain facilities, make it impossible for them to do their jobs. It is our opinion, the United States opinion, that the inspectors cannot go in under that same set of circumstances, so we need a new resolution. Those are the first two elements: they are in breach, and two, there has to be a tough set of conditions for any new inspection regime."

• "Now, we've been talking about weapons of mass destruction. Let's not turn loose of the fact that Iraq is in violation of other resolutions that deal with human rights; that deal with the return of property; accounting for prisoners, to include accounting for an American pilot that was lost in the first day of the Gulf War. There are many other things we have to worry about, but the focus has initially been on weapons of mass destruction."

• "Having brought it to the United Nations, the United Nations must now act, in our judgment. But if at the end of the day there is not that collective will in the Security Council to act, the President reserves the right and the option to do whatever may be necessary in order to protect the United States and to protect our interests. That is the reason he is also asking Congress to pass a resolution giving him that authority to act."
  Sep. 30, 2002 Colin Powell

Excerpts taken from Colin Powell's remarks (as delivered) to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee :

• "Now two days ago, we have an Iraqi presidential advisor telling the press in Baghdad that weapons inspectors would be allowed to go wherever they want. But these people are not deceiving anyone. It is a ploy we have seen before on many occasions, and on each occasion, each of these occasions, once inspectors began to operate, Iraq continued to do everything to frustrate their work."

• "We can have debates about the size and nature of the Iraqi stockpile. We can have debates about how long it will take them to reach this level of readiness or that level of readiness with respect to these weapons. But no one can doubt two things. One, they are in violation of these resolutions. There is no debate about that. And secondly, they have not lost the intent to develop these weapons of mass destruction, whether they are one day, five days, one year, or seven years from any particular weapon, whether their stockpile is small, medium or large, what has not been lost is the intent to have such weapons of mass destruction."
  Sep. 26, 2002 Colin Powell

Excerpts taken from Colin Powell's remarks (as prepared) to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee :

• "It is a ploy we have seen before, on many occasions. And on each occasion, once inspectors began to operate Iraq continued to do everything to frustrate their work.

  In May 1991, for example, just after suspension of hostilities in the Gulf War, Iraq accepted the unrestricted freedom of entry and exit without delay or hindrance for UN inspectors and their property, supplies, and equipment.

  In June 1991 – a short month later – Iraqis fired warning shots at the inspectors to keep them away from suspicious vehicles.

  Three months later, in September, the Iraqis confiscated a set of documents from the inspectors. When the inspectors refused to comply with an Iraqi demand to give up a second set of documents, the Iraqis surrounded them and for four days refused to let them leave the inspection site. Finally, when the UN threatened enforcement action, the inspectors were allowed to leave.

  In February 1992 Iraq refused to comply with a UN inspection team’s decision to destroy certain facilities used in proscribed programs and in April of that year Iraq demanded a halt to the inspectors’ aerial flights.

  Later, in July of that year, Iraq refused the inspectors access to the Iraqi Ministry of Agriculture. The inspectors had reliable information that the site contained archives related to proscribed activities. They finally gained access only after members of the Council threatened enforcement action.

  In January 1993, Iraq refused to allow the UN inspection teams to use their own aircraft to fly into Iraq.

  In June and July of 1993, Iraq refused to allow the UN inspectors to install remote-controlled monitoring cameras at two missile engine test stands.

  In March 1996, Iraqi security forces refused UN inspection teams access to five sites designated for inspection. The teams entered the sites after delays of up to 17 hours – which of course permitted the Iraqis to remove any incriminating evidence.

  In November 1996, Iraq blocked UN inspectors from removing remnants of missile engines for in-depth analysis outside Iraq.

  In June 1997, Iraqi escorts on board a UN inspector team helicopter attempted physically to prevent the UN pilot from flying the helicopter in the direction of its intended destination.

  In that month also, Iraq again blocked UN inspection teams from entering designated sites for inspection.

  In September 1997, an Iraqi officer attacked a UN inspector on board a UN helicopter while the inspector was attempting to take photographs of unauthorized movement of Iraqi vehicles inside a site designated for inspection.

  Also in September, while seeking access to a site declared by Iraq to be "sensitive," UN inspectors witnessed and videotaped Iraqi guards moving files, burning documents, and dumping ash-filled waste cans into a nearby river."

• "We can have debates about the size and nature of the Iraqi stockpile of WMD and of mid- and long-range missiles. But no one can doubt the record of Iraqi violations of United Nations Security Council resolutions, one after another, and for twelve long years."
  Sep. 26, 2002 Colin Powell

Excerpts taken from Colin Powell's interview on NPR's Morning Edition with Alex Chadwick :

• "Now, let's put the proposition very clearly. If Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction, if the United States and the United Kingdom and others are making all this up, if we are doing such an injustice to Iraq, there is an easy way to find it out. There is an easy way for them to turn the tables on us. And that is to say, "You send in any inspection regime you want to go anywhere you want under any set of circumstances, talk to anybody you want, because we're clean." Well, they're not clean, and that is why they have been trying to frustrate our effort all these years. And the challenge is now before the United Nations to do something about it."
  Sep. 19, 2002 Colin Powell

Excerpts taken from Colin Powell's testimony before the House Committee on International Relations :

• "We now see that a proven menace like Saddam Hussein, in possession of weapons of mass destruction, could empower a few terrorists to threaten millions of innocent people."
  Sep. 19, 2002 Colin Powell

Excerpts taken from Colin Powell's interview on CBS' Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer :

[QUESTION (Bob Shiffer):Mr. Secretary, if you were asking the United Nations to pass a resolution to go after Usama bin Laden, I think there would be unanimous support to do that. I think there would be unanimous support in the United States. But I think a lot of people still want to know what is the link between Usama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein? Some people would say, Brent Scowcroft among them, that in fact Usama bin Laden may have Saddam Hussein on his hit-list because he is after all -- he's not a religious leader and so on. What's the connection?.]

• "We have been examining all connections that may exist. There are some indications that there were contacts between the Iraqi regime and some al-Qaida members. There is no smoking gun that would link the regime in Baghdad to 9/11, but we can't dismiss it as a possibility entirely, so we're constantly looking for it.

  The real offense and the reason we have taken this case to the UN is not the terrorism angle as much, although that is also part of the resolutions, as it is the weapons of mass destruction and the other elements of the resolutions with respect to how he treats his minorities, how he deals with human rights issues, the return of prisoners, the return and accounting for prisoners that were lost and taken during the Gulf War."
  Mar. 15, 2002 Colin Powell

Excerpts taken from Colin Powell's interview on CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer :

• "But remember, inspection isn't the issue. The issue is eliminating weapons of mass destruction and dealing with the other issues that are within those Security Council resolutions such as the return of Kuwaiti prisoners, accounting for the American airman who was lost over Iraq in the Gulf War, human rights issues, issues having to do with terrorism, issues having to do with the use of the Oil-for-Food program. There are a lot of elements. Maybe these sorts of elements might also be in another resolution."

• "The other thing no one needs any more information about is that he has every intention of developing and acquiring and stockpiling and perhaps even using weapons of mass destruction. He's done it before.

  What we are debating is whether or not he has got X number of (inaudible) shells or Y number of biological agents. That is a legitimate discussion to have. We will try to give the Congress and our friends all the information we can, subject to not losing sources and methods by giving out too much. That process will continue this week with administration witnesses going up. We will put out more documents. We put out one document this past week. The British will be putting out a document. I think there's more than enough information out there to satisfy anybody who is interested with respect to the nature of this threat and why this is not a matter we can look away from."

• "There is no question that there are some linkages between the Iraqi regime and al-Qaida, but so far I haven't seen anything that would give you a linkage to 9/11. We don't rule it out. We are constantly examining the information that comes to us, but there is no direct linkage between the regime in Baghdad and 9/11 yet."

  "What I mean is that we want to work within the multilateral organization that is designed for this purpose, the United Nations, and we hope the United Nations will meet its responsibilities at this time. But the President always has the option of doing whatever he believes is necessary to defend US interests. So it doesn't mean that if the UN fails to act, the United States won't act. The President has made clear that he will do what he believes is necessary, but at this point he is anxious to see the UN act. He has made no decision with respect to a military option, but certainly that is an option."

[QUESTION (Wolf Blitzer):The parts of this resolution, the three parts you describe: the first part enumerating the violations that the Iraqis have engaged in; the second part what they must do, let the UN inspectors back in. Talk to me about the third part, the threat, in effect the ultimatum that is given if there is no compliance. How far do you want that threat to go?]

• " I think the UN should speak clearly that if, once again, the Iraqis do not respond, the United Nations cannot just say, well, never mind, we'll be back here next year at next year's General Assembly session and talk about it again. I think that the United Nations has to ask for action to be taken by its member-states. Now, how that is actually phrased remains to be seen, and I don't want to put a particular term out there because I would like this to be part of the dialogue that we're having with our friends. But it should be an action event that nations, willing nations or all nations are prepared to act. It doesn't mean that every nation has to participate in a military operation; but once it becomes the word of the Security Council, it is something that is directed to all of the nations of the United Nations to work on. We are all obliged to take steps that would support that."
  

  Mar. 15, 2002 Colin Powell
  

Excerpts taken from Colin Powell's interview on NBC's Meet the Press with Tim Russert :

• "What makes it imminent, as opposed to next year being more imminent or last year perhaps being imminent? The fact of the matter is what has not changed is his intention, his intention to continue moving in the direction of enhancing his ability to acquire and use weapons of mass destruction. Waiting for another year will not cause that intention to be any greater or less. The intention is there. He has demonstrated it."
  Mar. 15, 2002 Colin Powell

Excerpts taken from Colin Powell's interview with :

• "There is no doubt that he has chemical weapons stocks. We destroyed some after the Gulf War with the inspection regime, but there is no doubt in our mind that he still has chemical weapons stocks and he has the capacity to produce more chemical weapons.

  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. And biological weapons are very dangerous because they can be produced just about in any kind of pharmaceutical facility.

  With respect to nuclear weapons, we are quite confident that he continues to try to purse the technology that would allow him to develop a nuclear weapon. Whether he could do it in one, five, six or seven, eight years is something that people can debate about. But what nobody can debate about is the fact that he still has the incentive, he still intends to develop those kinds of weapons. And as we saw in reporting just this morning, he is still trying to acquire, for example, some of the specialized aluminum tubing one needs to develop centrifuges that would give you an enrichment capability.

  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. That's why he won't let the inspectors back in. That's why he has frustrated the will of the international community and that's why he has been violating all of these resolutions for all these years."

• "I think that consideration of what to do about Saddam Hussein is very consistent with the war against terror. There is no question that in addition to developing weapons of mass destruction Saddam Hussein has also supported terrorist activity over the years and in fact was responsible for a terrorist attack against President George Herbert Walker Bush, Bush 41, as we call him. And so for us to continue our campaign against terrorism, it's absolutely correct for us to be looking at Saddam Hussein and his regime as well.

  And what makes this so difficult is that he does have a proclivity toward terrorist activity and he is developing weapons of mass destruction that he might use or perhaps could make available to other terrorist organizations. So I don't think it goes against the campaign against terror; it's very consistent with the campaign against terror."

• "I think he certainly threatens our interests in the region and he threatens our allies, and he has demonstrated that previously by invading Kuwait. And we also saw during the Iraq-Iran War that he was quite willing to use chemical weapons against Iran. Now, we weren't a party to that one. And we also saw that in order to control his own population he was willing to use chemical weapons.

  And so if he's willing to use weapons in this way, should we say, well, we're too far away for us to worry about this? Or should we assume that with this kind of individual and with this kind of capability, he may eventually find a way to deliver it to the United States mainland? Now, this I think is one of the concerns we have and it's what's driving the President and all of us on this issue."
  Sep. 8, 2002 Colin Powell

Excerpts taken from Colin Powell's interview on CBS' 60 Minutes II:

[QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, one of the principle foreign policy goals of this nation is to oust Saddam Hussein from Iraq. How do you do that when every Arab nation is aligned against us with regard to Israel and Palestine?]

• "Well, we continue to examine what options are available to the international community and to the United States. In the first instance, we're working multilateraly within the UN to make sure that sanctions remain on the Iraqi regime, and we had some success in recent days working with other members of the Security Council.

  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. He'll have a harder time getting it to us. And he has demonstrated in the past he will use it. He has gassed Iranians. He has gassed his own people. He invaded Kuwait."
  Apr. 3, 2002 Colin Powell

Excerpts taken from Colin Powell's interview with Charles Moore published in The Telegraph U.K.:

[QUESTION:When you played your former role of course, the major thing was the Gulf War. What do you think now about Iraq and where Iraq stands now in relation to the war against terrorism?]

• "It's a terrible regime led by a despotic, evil man. We all wish he'd gone. But for 10 years the international community has kept effective but sometimes leaky sanctions imposed on him in a way that has kept him in the poor."

• "He has as much money coming in as he did before the Gulf War through the oil-for-food program and smuggling but he hasn't used it for any peaceful purposes in his country because he is isolated."

• "I wish he hadn't survived but he did. And I have to keep reminding people that it was never the mission of that coalition either by the terms of the UN resolution that authorized that action or by the resolution of the American Congress that endorsed the president executing the UN resolution, nor was it a decision by the President of the United States who started it all out to march to Baghdad to remove Saddam Hussein."

[QUESTION:Does that mean Iraq is not the next target in the war against terrorism. You have a continuing policy about Iraq but has that changed as a result of September 11th?]

• "Well, watch a little more closely because now that we see what terrorists are willing to do if they get on the right kinds of weapons and knowing the Iraqi regime continues to try to develop weapons of mass destruction, yes. And it is recognized as a sponsor of state terrorism and to include being guilty for the attempt on the life of the first President Bush in 1993."
  Dec. 14, 2001 Colin Powell

Excerpts taken from Colin Powell's testimony before the Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee Commission:

[QUESTION (Senator Bennett):Mr. Secretary, the U.N. sanctions on Iraq expire the beginning of June. We've had bombs dropped, we've had threats made, we've had all kinds of activity vis-a-vis Iraq in the previous administration. Now we're coming to the end. What's our level of concern about the progress of Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons programs?]

• "The sanctions, as they are called, have succeeded over the last 10 years, not in deterring him from moving in that direction, but from actually being able to move in that direction. The Iraqi regime militarily remains fairly weak. It doesn't have the capacity it had 10 or 12 years ago. It has been contained. And even though we have no doubt in our mind that the Iraqi regime is pursuing programs to develop weapons of mass destruction -- chemical, biological and nuclear -- I think the best intelligence estimates suggest that they have not been terribly successful. There's no question that they have some stockpiles of some of these sorts of weapons still under their control, but they have not been able to break out, they have not been able to come out with the capacity to deliver these kinds of systems or to actually have these kinds of systems that is much beyond where they were 10 years ago.

  So containment, using this arms control sanctions regime, I think has been reasonably successful. We have not been able to get the inspectors back in, though, to verify that, and we have not been able to get the inspectors in to pull up anything that might be left there. So we have to continue to view this regime with the greatest suspicion, attribute to them the most negative motives, which is quite well-deserved with this particular regime, and roll the sanctions over, and roll them over in a way where the arms control sanctions really go after their intended targets -- weapons of mass destruction -- and not go after civilian goods or civilian commodities that we really shouldn't be going after, just let that go to the Iraqi people. That wasn't the purpose of the oil-for-food program. And by reconfiguring them in that way, I think we can gain support for this regime once again.

  When we came into office on the 20th of January, the whole sanctions regime was collapsing in front of our eyes. Nations were bailing out on it. We lost the consensus for this kind of regime because the Iraqi regime had successfully painted us as the ones causing the suffering of the Iraqi people, when it was the regime that was causing the suffering. They had more than enough money; they just weren't spending it in the proper way. And we were getting the blame for it. So reconfiguring the sanctions, I think, helps us and continues to contain the Iraqi regime."
  May 15, 2001 Colin Powell

Excerpts taken from Colin Powell's press availability with Commissioner Christopher Patten at European Commission:

[QUESTION:Mister Secretary, do you any have any comment on the Iraqi Foreign Minister's statement that under no circumstances will the Iraqis allow weapons inspectors to return? How does this affect your strategy for re-energizing the sanctions?]

• "Well that's his choice. The ideas that we are considering -- and of course no decisions have been made -- really are not just re-energized sanctions. They tighten sanctions against those targets of the sanctions in the first place. If we move forward with the proposals that I have been shopping around the region, we will tighten sanctions on weapons of mass destruction material. We will tighten sanctions on armaments. We will tighten sanctions on all those sorts of equipment and other materials that put the people of the region at risk.

  What we would do, then, is remove some of the restrictions on the materials that could go to civilians and to civilian use, so that he will no longer have an excuse of saying that we are hurting the Iraqi people where the intentions of the sanctions from the very beginning have been for the purpose of constraining his appetite for weapons of mass destruction. We will also do everything we can to strengthen the controls we have on the "oil for food" money that goes to the regime. We have had some success in the last couple of days in discussions with the frontline states in the regions to tighten up on his ability to smuggle out things.

  So, at the end of the day, they will have to decide whether inspectors are coming back in. If they don't come back in, then the conditions set by the United Nations will not be met, and he will consider himself still trapped in the box that he has constructed for himself.

  So, there are lots of ways to describe this idea. Some have said that they are going to be "smart sanctions," some have said that they are going to be "re-energized sanctions," but really what we are going to see are strengthened sanctions against the threats that the sanctions were intended to deal with in the first place."
  Feb. 27, 2001 Colin Powell

Excerpts taken from Colin Powell's briefing for the press aboard aircraft en route to Brussels:

• Candidly , we then discussed the Iraqi-Syrian pipeline. Of course, as you know, the Syrians want to stay within the context of the UN Security Council resolutions to play their role and they have been on record with that. The President said to me in response to my query that it is their plan to bring that pipeline, and what is going through that pipeline and the revenues generated in that pipeline, to be under the same kind of control as other elements of the sanctions regime. I found that to be a very important statement on his part, and we have passed that information to President Bush; he has been informed of that, and he also was pleased."

• "The message I've consistently heard is that overdoing it with the sanctions gives him [Saddam Hussein] a tool that he is using against us and really is not weakening him. It's not that he gets any more money; it's that he now can use more of that money to benefit more of his people under UN control. So I still view that if we move in this direction, as not weakening but in effect restructuring them in a more sensible way that keeps us pointed at the target I've been talking about for the past several days and several weeks: weapons of mass destruction, not the Iraqi people."

[QUESTION:You have described to us how you would modify the sanctions so that they would not hurt the Iraqi people as much, but we haven't understood how you would modify the sanctions to tighten the controls over imports of stuff that could be used to make weapons of mass destruction. How will you tighten those?]

• "As part of this, as we move forward, we get agreement and we make a judgment and frankly, if we also get the support of the Arab League when they meet in two weeks' time --there is a lot more work to be done, and I have people working on this.

  As to how would we modify the list, what additional controls should we put on the money in the escrow account, how should it be monitored in a more effective way, what more work should we do with the front-line states, I think it gives us a stronger position to go to nations that might still be tempted to send in prohibited weapons or prohibited materials when we can give them a unified position that says look, we have all decided this is not the thing to do and there will be consequences of such behavior.

  Right now the consequences have less currency because things are in a state of, I must say, disarray. I think you all would agree with that. I've been reading editorial after editorial. I arrived on the 21st of January to discover cables coming at me from our Ambassadors saying we have to do something. This is that something if we move in that direction. What it does, I think, is gives a much stronger position with which to deal with the financial controls, deal with the leakage, and deal with the question you raised about people who have chosen to put in bad things. But there's a lot more work to be done at a very detailed level."

[QUESTION:Would you go into dual-use a little bit? We were told there may be some easing of dual-use; we don't have many examples: water pump, refrigeration. Are you willing to frankly begin asking very candidly "are you willing to risk a possible military application for the sake of easing the pressure on the people?]

• "That's a judgment call by the Committee that is currently led by Norway that we'll have to make on every one of these items. If something is clearly high-risk dual-use - and I'm fudging with you now a little bit because I don't know. A water pump? I don't know what the committee would say. My own inclination was, a water pump, that's pretty hard to say. It's so useful for military purposes, but I'm not going to let a water pump not go to a well to fill up water to help a village that might be having cholera or other kinds of epidemics. Eggs: I've heard eggs used as an example; yes, because you can do certain things with eggs that can create a biological weapon. And we also have to face the clear reality that a lot of these items, no matter what kind of regime you have - you know, they've been known to smuggle in Mesapotamia, and they've been doing so for a couple of thousand years.

  But what is interesting is that with the regime that has been in place for the past ten years, I think a pretty good job has been done of keeping him from breaking out and suddenly showing up one day and saying "look what I got." He hasn't been able to do that. So even though there are these complications, and they'll have to work their way through the dual-use question, I have reason to believe that when you're able to keep a box as tightly closed as the box we have for the last ten years, without receiving on our shoulders all the baggage that goes with it that frankly has been causing the whole thing to start to unravel."

[QUESTION:Can I ask you about the Syrian pipeline? Did President Asad agree to stop selling or allowing oil to go through the pipeline immediately? Was this a deal that - or did he say he was going to wait until after the new sanctions policy?]

• "In this first meeting, I got the commitment I described. We didn't get into details as to what the pipeline's being used for now - is it being used for testing or more, and exactly how to operationalize this.

  As you know, the controls come up for decision every six months, so we'll have to talk to the Syrians to see how they want to handle it. Do they want to move right away? Do they want to wait for the June review period? But I can tell you this: I have high confidence that that will work out because we went back to this point with the President three times - I did not want to leave -- and three times there was solemn agreement on what I just said to you. So I think the Syrians are serious about this, but of course the ultimate test of seriousness is when we see something happen. But I don't think I would have gotten that kind of assurance from that level three times unless they were serious. But we will test their seriousness."
  Feb. 26, 2001 Colin Powell

Excerpts taken from Colin Powell's remarks with Prime Minister-elect Ariel Sharon to the press:

• "I saw the press report concerning the German intelligence agency. I have not had a chance to see the actual report. But if I understand the press report, it says that Iraq has the potential of making such weapons within a few years. I think this just reinforces another one of the messages I am carrying throughout the region -- that Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi regime is a dangerous regime."

  "It seems to me it should reinforce to all the peoples of the region, especially my Arab friends in the region, that we have to enforce the U.N. Resolutions that Saddam Hussein agreed to at the end of the Gulf War. We have to make sure that he is denied the opportunity to continue moving in this direction. We have to make sure that we do everything we can to contain him, to constrain him, to get inspectors back in under the terms of the U.N. resolutions. All of us have to be vigilant, recognizing that these terrible weapons he is trying to develop will be aimed at the people of the region. He has shown before that he is more than willing to use weapons of this nature against the people of the region to pursue his own end."

  "So I think this German report, once we've all had a chance to see it and assess it, will help make the case to the people of the region and the people of the world that Saddam Hussein must be contained until he comes to his senses and until the international community is assured that he is not pursuing the kind of technology indicated by that report and by many other reports that we have seen in recent years."
  Feb. 25, 2001 Colin Powell

Excerpts taken from Colin Powell's remarks at arrival ceremony, Kuwait City International Airport:

[QUESTION:The Iraqis have threatened Kuwait again. What do you have to say about this?]

• "Don't worry. We are not going to see a repeat of that disaster. Kuwait is free. Kuwait has friends. Kuwait has allies. Saddam has nothing but rhetoric and shooting his mouth off."

[QUESTION:But still, we have threats and words from Iraqis.]

• "You have threats, you have words, but you have friends and you have allies. You have strength and you have world opinion. And so Kuwait will remain free. Kuwait will remain secure."

[QUESTION:You said yesterday in Egypt that Iraq will be at the top of your agenda as Foreign Minister.]

• "I am sure that it is something we will talk about tomorrow. And it is at the top of the agenda to make sure that we continue to contain Iraq so that it does not develop the kind of weapons that it is trying to develop. We have been successful for the last ten years in keeping him from developing those weapons and we will continue to be successful."
  Feb. 25, 2001 Colin Powell

Excerpts taken from Colin Powell's press briefing en route to Kuwait:

[QUESTION:Are you stunned that he [Saddam Hussein] is still in power after all these years?]

• "Stunned isn’t the word. I never ever have underestimated the power of a dictator, and I don’t think you’ll find me on the record ever predicting his demise at that time. But I also thought that we had pretty much removed his stings and frankly for ten years we really have."
  Feb. 25, 2001 Colin Powell

Excerpts taken from Colin Powell's remarks with foreign minister of Egypt Amre Moussa:

[QUESTION:The Egyptian press editorial commentary that we have seen here has been bitterly aggressive in denouncing the U.S. role and not welcoming you. I am wondering whether you believe you accomplished anything during your meetings to assuage concerns about the air strikes against Iraq and the continuing sanctions?]

• "I received a very warm welcome from the leaders and I know there is some unhappiness as expressed in the Egyptian press. I understand that, but at the same time, with respect to the no-fly zones and the air strikes that we from time to time must conduct to defend our pilots, I just want to remind everybody that the purpose of those no-fly zones and the purpose of those occasional strikes to protect our pilots, is not to pursue an aggressive stance toward Iraq, but to defend the people that the no-fly zones are put in to defend. The people in the southern part of Iraq and the people in the northern part of Iraq, and these zones have a purpose, and their purpose is to protect people -- protect Arabs -- not to affect anything else in the region. And we have to defend ourselves.

  We will always try to consult with our friends in the region so that they are not surprised and do everything we can to explain the purpose of our responses. We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place, but we are always willing to review them to make sure that they are being carried out in a way that does not affect the Iraqi people but does affect the Iraqi regime's ambitions and the ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and we had a good conversation on this issue."

• "May I just add a p.s. that if I was a Kuwaiti and I heard leaders in Baghdad claiming that Kuwait is still a part of Iraq and it's going to be included in the flag and seal, if I knew they were continuing to try to find weapons of mass destruction, I would have no doubt in my mind who those weapons were aimed at. They are being aimed at Arabs, not at the United States or at others, yes I think we should ... he [Saddam Hussein] has to be contained until he realizes the errors of his ways."
  Feb. 24, 2001 Colin Powell

Excerpts taken from Colin Powell's remarks with Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov to the press:

[QUESTION: (summarized) Mr. Powell, what's now the Arab public opinion has been very angered by the recent strike. What kind of assurances are you going to give the Arabs, or is this going to be a constant policy of strike in Iraq with or without (inaudible)?]

• "The message I plan to give all the leaders I speak to and to the Arab public is that the cause of this problem that we have is in Baghdad. It is Saddam Hussein who refuses to abandon his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. The United Nations has an obligation and, as part of the United Nations, the United States has an obligation to do everything we can to cause him to come into compliance with the agreements he made at the end of the Gulf War. He threatens not the United States. He threatens this region. He threatens Arab people. He threatens the children of Egypt, the children of Saudi Arabia, the children of Kuwait with these weapons. He has used them before, so I think we all have a solemn obligation to keep him in check.

  As part of that obligation, the United States and the United Kingdom patrol over the no-fly zone. We do so to protect the people within those no-fly zones and, from time to time, Iraq has challenged our presence; and when they do challenge our presence, we have to respond in order to protect our pilots who are protecting the people who live within those zones."
  Feb. 24, 2001 Colin Powell

Excerpts taken from Colin Powell's remarks in press briefing abroad aircraft en route to Cairo, Egypt:

[QUESTION:Iraq sanctions? Domestically but still have some impact because of the dual use challenges?]

• "I think it's important to point out that for the last 10 years, the policy that the United Nations, the United States has been following, has succeeded in keeping Iraq from rebuilding to the level that it was before. It's an army that's only one-third its original size. And even though they may be pursuing weapons of mass destruction of all kinds, it is not clear how successful they have been. So to some extent, I think we ought to declare this a success. We have kept him contained, kept him in his box.

  And, beginning with the oil for food program a few years ago, we became sensitive to the needs of the Iraqi people and found a way to give them the wherewithal to provide for the Iraqi people. The oil for food program gives him a great deal of money, on top of which he smuggles quite a bit, which gives him an additional amount of money, that exceeds the amount of money he was getting ten years ago.

  The difference now is that the UN regime keeps a lot of that money from being spent on weapons the way it was ten years ago, and so I think we need to turn the debate onto his actions as opposed to our actions. He is the one who is not providing for his people with the money that the oil for food program and his smuggling is providing. He is the one who is threatening the region, not the United States."

[QUESTION:With all due respect, that's absolutely the same line we heard from the last administration, and meanwhile, sanctions become increasingly unpopular among people in the region, if we're going to go on….]

• "Let me finish, let me finish. I'll take all your questions. The difference is that we can now make the case that all we're trying to do is not anything with respect to the welfare of the people of Iraq, it's the weapons of mass destruction we're after, and if he comes into compliance with the UN resolutions and the agreements he made at the end of the Gulf War with respect to the UN obligations and if he does that and lets the inspectors back in, there is a way to get through this process.

  What I'm going to be talking to my friends about in the region is that we are taking this heat that somehow we are affecting the people of Iraq, that somehow we are losing the support of Arabs in the street, as they are often called. And if we are losing that support and it's affecting the whole sanctions regime, then I want to hear about that directly from our friends in the region and let's exchange ideas about how we can make this sanctions regime a more effective and more directed to its sole purpose which is to constrain the development of weapons of mass destruction.

  I think it's a case that can be made, I think it's a case that has a powerful message behind it, and it's a case I'll be making, and I'm going out to consult, not to lay down edicts. I'm going out to listen to other ideas and bring those ideas back. I'm going to share what I hear with my friends in Brussels, our NATO allies and our EU colleagues in Brussels, and then I'm going to come back and report all that to the President, and see what seems to be appropriate after further consultations with the United Nations as well."

[QUESTION:Did the bombing make your job tougher?]

• "I think the bombing shows that we will not, in the process of looking at whether we should modify the sanctions regime, not overlook his bad behavior, and we will use military force where we think it is necessary.

  This particular incident that got all of the attention last week, it was in response to his efforts, his activities in the no fly zone, around the no fly zone, which puts our pilots at risk. We have always said we would respond to such activities, normally it's not noticed, in this case it was noticed and it became a very big story. It was at the upper end of our scale of response, and if he puts our pilots at risk, we will respond.

  If he does things which we think move in the direction of threatening his neighbors or in violating the terms of the agreements that came out of the Gulf War, we have prepared to respond militarily. He should know that and he should understand that.

  To the extent that it has made my trip a little more difficult because there's been some response in the region that was unfavorable, shall we say, or there's a bit of criticism -- in some places quite a bit of criticism -- over the fact that we did that, to the extent that makes my job and my work a little more difficult, well, so be it. But it makes the point that we will not allow the negotiating track or whatever we're doing with respect to sanctions overcome what we're prepared to do militarily. And if it means my trip is a little more difficult, I'm prepared to take on that added burden."

[QUESTION:It may be legitimate to say that the no fly zones, especially the southern one, have outlived their usefulness. Are you considering any changes in the way that you manage the no fly zones or the level of concentration that you put on them?]

• "We think both no fly zones continue to serve a purpose of protecting the people who live under those no fly zones as well as giving us advance warning of actions he might be taking directed against his neighbors outside of his boundaries. So the no fly zones are staying in place. But we are always in the process of reviewing how to manage them, how best to fly them; and I would expect that Mr. Rumsfeld is undertaking that review as part of our overall review."

[QUESTION:If you modify the sanctions, what are the risks there?]

• "If the sanctions are modified, it won't be as a result of just America saying let's modify the sanctions. It will be because we have been able to agree with our friends in the region and with our friends at the UN that the sanctions should be modified so that we can remove this hammer that is being used against us, suggesting that we are hurting the Iraqi people, and we can make it clear that the sanctions directly relate to the provocation. Now, that's what I'll be listening to arguments about and ideas on."

[QUESTION:What can you say to our Arab allies in the Gulf who want to see the sanctions lifted, but who want to contain Iraq?]

• "Every conversation I've had on this subject in recent weeks, and I've had quite a few, with those leaders in the Gulf, the representative leaders in the Gulf and with my friends in the United Nations, recognize the danger that Saddam Hussein and his weapons development activities present to the region.

  I haven't heard anybody say to me, no, he's a nice guy, he's not doing this, forget about it, remove the whole thing, because we want to welcome him back. Everybody I've spoken to understands that this guy and his regime and his activities present a danger to the region -- not a danger to the United States, a danger to the region, to the people of the region, to the children of the region.

  What they are concerned about and what I have had presented to me and the frustrations I've heard are that we've got to take another look at how it is being done, because there is a belief, at least within a number of the Arab communities, that we are hurting the people of Iraq and we are not hurting the regime and the regime's activities with respect to improving its military capacity or developing weapons of mass destruction.

  Because this is a consultative process, and because President Bush has made it clear to everybody that we're going to act after consulting with our friends, I'm going out to hear these arguments firsthand, in addition to just listening to representatives who have come and visited me which I've appreciated, but I want to hear it firsthand."

[QUESTION:Is there no danger that if you streamline sanctions that Saddam will be able to play it that he won, that he beat them down and forced the United States…]

• "No matter what we do, he will claim some level of success. But you can claim one thing, and the reality is something else. And the reality in his situation is it's a sad, tragic case of a tribal leader trapped in a jail of his own making, protected by his security, with young people who are not benefiting from a world that is changing. He pursues these weapons that will, at the end of the day, not bring him what he thinks they will bring him, and it's a tragedy that his nation's wealth is being squandered in this way.

  So he will claim what he wishes to claim. He will claim that Kuwait still belongs to Iraq. He will claim that he is winning the mother of all battles. Meanwhile, our economy continues to do well, nations around the world are enjoying the benefits of freedom, others are trying to figure out how to join this new world, and he sits there in his palaces, squandering the wealth of his people."
  Feb. 23, 2001 Colin Powell

Excerpts taken from Colin Powell's remarks with German Minister of Foreign Affairs Joschua Fischer to the press:

[QUESTION:Secretary Powell, the US has put a lot of effort and time, money, and risking American lives in patrolling the no-fly zones over Iraq. Do you think the results have been worth that effort? And as the Administration goes forward in looking at Iraq policy, do you expect containment to be the bottom line still?]

• Well, we're looking at every option in all parts of our policy: the UN part of our policy which requires Iraq to give up these weapons of mass destruction, and of course we have our own policies with respect to Iraq where we believe a change of regime would be in the best interest of all concerned.

  The fact of the matter is that both baskets, the UN basket and what we and other allies have been doing in the region, have succeeded in containing Saddam Hussein and his ambitions. His forces are about one-third their original size. They don't really possess the capability to attack their neighbors the way they did ten years ago.

  The danger he presents to the world is that he does pursue weapons of mass destruction, against the agreements that he entered into. So we will be talking with our friends in the region -- that's the purpose of my trip this weekend -- and we are reviewing with the Pentagon and all other parts of the US Government the full range of options available to us. And we will be announcing our decisions in due course.

  Containment has been a successful policy, and I think we should make sure that we continue it until such time as Saddam Hussein comes into compliance with the agreements he made at the end of the war. But we have to find ways to do it to not hurt the Iraqi people. We are not after the Iraqi people. We don't want to hurt the Iraqi people. But we don't want Saddam Hussein and his efforts to hurt the people of the region or to threaten the people of the region. And that's what it's all about."
  Feb. 20, 2001 Colin Powell

Excerpts taken from Colin Powell's remarks with UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to the press:

• "With respect to US policy, when it comes to our role as a member of the Security Council, we obviously are bound by UN resolutions. And we're not trying to modify those; we're trying to find ways to make sure that the will of the international community is met by the Iraqi leadership.

  And so we are constantly looking at ways to make it possible for us to be assured that there are no weapons of mass destruction and there are no programs underway that would produce weapons of mass destruction; at the same time, do it in a way that does not hurt the Iraqi people. We have sympathy for the people of Iraq. We have sympathy for the children of Iraq. We see a regime that has more than enough money to deal with the problems that exist in that society, if only they would use that money properly, if they would see that all of the people of Iraq are benefiting from the money that they have, more money than they had 10 years ago.

  And so that is our goal, to make sure that Iraq complies with the arms control agreements it entered into, and let's move on beyond this. And the burden of this is in Baghdad. The initiative should be in Baghdad for them to do what is required and what is right."
  Feb. 14, 2001 Colin Powell

Excerpt taken from Colin Powell's interview on CBS's Face the Nation:

[QUESTION:This is, as you know, the tenth anniversary of the Gulf War. Do you believe Saddam Hussein is stronger or weaker than he was?]

• "He's weaker, he's much weaker. That million-man army of ten years ago is gone. He is sitting on a very much smaller army of perhaps 350,000 that does not have the capacity to invade its neighbors any longer. He is living in three concentric rings of jails that he has created for himself in order to protect himself behind a security cordon. He has a great deal of money available to him through our Oil-for-Food Program, which he refuses to use entirely for the benefit of his people and for his children. Instead, he continues to pursue weapons of mass destruction to threaten the people and children of the region."

[QUESTION:But the CIA director told Congress this week that Hussein has "grown more confident" in his ability to hold onto his power.]

• "I'm sure he can hold on to his power, but if power is essentially sitting in palaces in Baghdad while the rest of the world leaves you behind, and you are wasting the treasure of your people, I don't consider this confidence that is well deserved. I think it would be better if he were less confident in a democratic system where he was responsive to the will of the people.

  What he can't do is invade his neighbors any more, but he can threaten his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction, which is why we entered into this agreement at the end of the Gulf War to contain his ability to move in that direction. And in my trip I'm going to be telling everybody in the region--I'm also going to be discussing with our friends in the Security Council -- the absolute necessity of making sure that he is not allowed to simply walk away from this and pursue weapons of mass destruction."

[QUESTION:Well, let me just ask you about this, then, because we're now seeing that Russia and France are showing signs they want to ease the sanctions on Iraq. There are commercial flights arriving there daily with uninspected cargo. There have been no arms inspections since 1998. What could or should be done about that?]

• "Well, but there are some positive signs here. We have been able to keep weapons from going into Iraq. We have been able to keep the sanctions in place to the extent that items that might support weapons of mass destruction development have had some controls on them. We have also had the Oil-for-Food Program that puts some controls on the use of the money that is made available to him so that that money is used for peaceful, safe purposes.

  But at the same time, there is a lot of smuggling. There is leakage in the regime of controls that are around him. But I think we can rally again, pull that coalition back together. It hasn't broken up, it hasn't fallen apart. A few planes going in from time to time does not cause this to be a failure. In fact, it's been quite a success for ten years, but there is leakage, there is slippage.

  And I think it's my responsibility, for President Bush, to try to rally again to make sure we keep the finger pointed where it deserves to be pointed, on the Iraqi regime, and not the Iraqi people, and remind everybody in the region he isn't threatening America; he is threatening the nations of the region, every nation around him, and we all have an obligation to make sure that he complies. And it should not be us begging for him to let the inspectors in. At the end of the day, he's going to have to let the inspectors in if he wishes ultimately to recapture freedom of movement totally.

[QUESTION:But how do you do that? I mean, you're saying that the inspectors need to be going back in there. How do you do that?]

• "Well, we have to wait and make sure that he understands that he will continue to pay a rather significant price for his intransigence, and he will not escape from the regime that has been placed around him entirely until he satisfies the international community that he is no longer doing what he says he isn't doing. And if he isn't doing it, but he's lying, and we know he's lying, and so he is doing it. And until he is willing to let people come in who can verify that he isn't doing it, we can consider that he is still lying to us."
  Feb. 11, 2001 Colin Powell

Excerpt taken from Colin Powell's interview on CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer:

[QUESTION:And as much as you'll be talking about the peace process during this trip, you'll also focus on the situation involving Iraq and Saddam Hussein, reports that over these past two years since there have been no inspectors there, he's pursuing weapons of mass destruction. What, if anything, can you do to reverse that situation if, in fact, that's unfolding inside Iraq?]

"I think what we have to do is make sure we continue to tell the world that we are not after the Iraqi people. We are after these weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein said he would not be producing and entered into an agreement at the end of the Gulf War that he would not be producing.

And we have to make sure that we keep the pressure on him to meet that commitment. Because those weapons are not threatening American youngsters. They're not threatening the American people. They're threatening the people of Jordan and Syria and Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and Israel, and of the region. And so he has to comply with what he said he would do, and what the UN insists that he does, as part of the end of the Gulf War.

And so what I will be doing when I visit is to make sure everybody has this message clearly and to make have sure we do what is necessary to keep him contained so that he cannot get access to weapons, he cannot get access to the materials that allow you to produce weapons of mass destruction, and that we control the money that is available to him.

The tragic situation here, the tragicness of this whole situation, is that he could be taking care of every youngster in Iraq. He could be of providing medical care and food and everything everybody in his society needs if he would turn away from this ridiculous pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and use the money that is made available to him to build his society and make it ready for the 21st century. And to become a responsible nation in that part of the world and not threaten his neighbors. His neighbors are the ones who are being threatened, not the United States, and we are helping his neighbors deal with the threat that he presents to them."

[QUESTION:But the coalition that you, among others, helped put together ten years ago seems to be crumbling right now, at least big chunks of it. The Russians don't like these sanctions, even the French don't like these sanctions. Several of the Arab allies are now dealing with Iraq rather openly. Is this going to be your major challenge, trying to put that coalition back together?]

"I don't know that it's fallen apart. I think there certainly have been some fractures in it. But I think we all have a common objective, and I think we can rally everybody around that common objective. And it's an arms control objective to not let this regime get access to weapons of mass destruction.

And I think it is possible to rally not only the members of the Security Council around that objective again, but all of our friends in the region, because we have a mutual interest in him not getting those weapons and we have a mutual interest in helping the people of Iraq. We are not after the people of Iraq; we are after those weapons. And until he satisfies the international community that he does not have such weapons, that he's not developing such weapons, we have a goal to make sure that we keep the pressure on."
Feb. 24, 2001 Colin Powell

Excerpt taken from Colin Powell's remarks to a press briefing:

• "As I travel throughout the region, I will be concentrating on the UN part of the policy, as opposed to the United States bilateral relationship with respect to Iraq and our other activities in the Gulf and with the Iraqi opposition. And the UN piece of it is rather straightforward and clear: it is an arms control regime. It is an arms control regime that Iraq agreed to at the end of the Gulf War, and it exists for one purpose, and that was to keep Iraq from threatening its neighbors with weapons of mass destruction that would be delivered by missiles. It was a regime that was for the purpose of protecting the children in the region, protecting the people of the region, and bringing Iraq into a world where one does not threaten and attack its neighbors with these kinds of horrible weapons.

  And part of that regime was to deny Iraq the opportunity to purchase weapons or material that would allow them to do this, to keep their missile programs under control, and the Oil-for-Food program was put in place as a way of making sure that this regime did not hurt the people of Iraq. Saddam Hussein has more money available to him now than he had at the beginning of the last decade. At the beginning of the last decade, he wasted the money available to him by investing in the military. He can't do that as well now because of the regime that we have placed upon him. And there is more than enough money to take care of books for the children of Iraq, food for the children of Iraq, medicine for the children of Iraq. All that the children of Iraq require there is money for.

  But what we will not allow him to have money for and not remove these sanctions from preventing him from doing is to go forward with weapons of mass destruction. And the sooner he comes to that realization that we can rally around that simple proposition that I just laid out for you, and the sooner he allows inspectors to come in and see whether or not he is or is not doing this. We think he is; he says he is not. There is a simple answer: Let the inspectors in, and we can get beyond this.

  But until he does that, then I think we have to be firm; we have to be vigilant. And I will be carrying this message to my friends in the region. It is a problem of his making, and any suffering that is taking place in Iraq is the cause of his actions and his policies."
  Feb. 9, 2001 Colin Powell

Excerpts taken from Colin Powell's interview on ABC's This Week:

[QUESTION:First, do you think he has been developing weapons of mass destruction? Do you have any evidence?]

• "Well, we have to assume that he [Saddam Hussein] has never lost his goal or gone away from his goal of developing such weapons. And that is unfortunate because, as long as he pursues that goal, the United Nations has to remain engaged. He made a commitment at the end of the Gulf War that he would not develop these weapons and he would demonstrate to the international community that he was not doing so. He has failed to meet those obligations.

  And as a result, the people of the region are threatened; the children of the region are threatened by Saddam Hussein and his potential possession of these kinds of weapons. And so I think the UN has to remain steadfast and demand that he do what he said he was going to do.

  We should find a way to do this that does not hurt the Iraqi people. The Iraqi people are not suffering as a result of what the UN is doing; they are suffering as a result of what Saddam Hussein is doing. He has got more money available to him now through the Oil-for-Food program than he ever had before the Gulf War. If he would use that money properly, if he would use it to educate children, if he would use it take care of the health needs of the Iraqi children, there would be no problem. But instead, he continues to find ways to direct this money into inappropriate purchases."

[QUESTION:What you seem to be suggesting to me that, at the moment, you don't have enough evidence to believe that you should follow through on President Bush's words to take out those weapons.]

• "We reserve the right to use whatever means may be necessary if we had a specific set of targets, or something occurred to us, or we found something that we think would be appropriate to go after."
  Feb. 4, 2001 Colin Powell

Excerpts taken from Colin Powell's remarks in a press briefing:

[QUESTION:Do you see Iraq emerging as a problem in the short term again?]

• "Problem? Iraq is a problem for its own people. I think we have to keep reminding everybody that this is an arms control problem. They are threatening their neighbors. They threaten the children of the region with weapons of mass destruction. They can't project conventional power very effectively, so they're trying to gain strength by threatening the people of the region. They made a commitment to do away with these weapons, and I think the international community and the United Nations has to hold them to that commitment. And I'll be working with our friends in the region; the President will be working with our friends in the region and our friends in the United Nations to hold them to account for the obligations they made."
  Feb. 1, 2001 Colin Powell