Secretary Colin L. Powell
Washington, DC
February 6, 2004
(5:05 p.m. EST)
MR. HANNITY: The President basically defending the decision that it was an act of justice to go into Iraq. Let's talk
about the -- have we politicized this whole issue as of this point?
SECRETARY POWELL: Let me tell you something. I think what you're asking about is this whole debate this week about
weapons of mass destruction, Sean, and let me tell you, Director Tenet gave a good speech about the subject yesterday.
The information that he made available in the fall of 2002 in his Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, which was the same
information I used when I presented to the UN a year ago, and it was the basis upon which the President made his
decision, it was the best analysis possible, there was no politicization of it, nobody told the CIA what to say or do,
and the President was right to act on that with the recommendation to act of all of his advisors.
MR. HANNITY: One of the things, Mr. Secretary, I've pointed out many times on this program, I've gone back and I've
quoted many of these Democrats that are now critical of the President, and they had all used similar, if not identical,
language that you have used and the President used in terms of how we were compelled to act against Saddam Hussein.
SECRETARY POWELL: Sean, you can go back through the last six or seven or eight years, and you will find quote after
quote.
The other thing you'll find is that the same intelligence information that the President received was made available to
members of Congress when they were getting ready to vote on a resolution to support the President's actions in the fall
of 2002. And so if they were questioning that information, that was the time to do it.
But it was a good case, it made sense, and we're absolutely sure we got a guy in Saddam Hussein who had the intention to
have these weapons, to develop these weapons, to develop even deadlier weapons, and he had the capability to do it.
What the whole debate has been about for the last week or two is whether or not we're going to find stockpiles or not.
Well, let's finish the work. Let's let Charlie Duelfer, the new head of the team, go out there and finish the work. But
let's not allow this debate to take away from the rightness, the correctness, of the President's decision.
Even Dr. Kay, the former guy in charge of our Iraq Support Group effort, and who believes there are no weapons, makes
this point. He says nevertheless all of the other evidence pointed to a despotic dictator who (inaudible) such weapons,
and that the President was absolutely right in taking him out. He was in violation. The guy was in violation of UN
resolutions.
MR. HANNITY: Yeah. Isn't this -- it's got to be frustrating to you, seeing how this has been politicized to the extent
that it has, I would think.
SECRETARY POWELL: Yeah, it does get on your nerves when you see people trying to use this for straightforward political
purposes. But, you know, that's the nature of this town in an election season. But the President was absolutely right in
what he did. And we were all standing behind him on this one. And I think the American people understand that we're
better off. Saddam Hussein is gone, and no political attack can remove that sentence from the vocabulary. He is gone.
MR. HANNITY: Isn't it also more likely, considering we had such a long buildup -- and by the way, Secretary Powell is on
our Newsmaker Line -- isn't it more likely that the weapons were either securely hidden in that country or that the
weapons were sent to a country like Syria? That's the more likely scenario, is it not?
SECRETARY POWELL: Well, you can't rule out any options. Those two are certainly options that have to be examined. Maybe
they destroyed them before we got there. And as Director Tenet acknowledged yesterday, maybe we weren't absolutely right
in some of the data that we had. That's why it's important not to politicize this thing now, but to continue the work of
the inspection group and get to the bottom of this.
MR. HANNITY: Yeah. What would this battle have been like -- let me ask you a question this way, and I don't want to drag
you into political questions because I don't think you want to go there anyway. But if we didn't have the B-1 bomber,
the cruise missile, the MX missile, the Trident submarine, the Patriot air defense missile, the F-15 or -16 fighter
plane, the Stealth bomber, the Pershing-II missiles, what would our military be like today?
SECRETARY POWELL: Well, without all of those, we wouldn't be a modern 21st century military with capabilities to respond
to any situation anywhere in the world, and to defend the United States against any attack. These are important systems.
They are the most technically advanced in the world. They are expensive, but what you buy for that money is the security
of the country.
MR. HANNITY: Well, John Kerry voted for the cancellation, or called for the cancellation, of all of those weapons
systems. And, of course, he was a big nuclear freeze supporter and even pushed forward a bill to provide a verifiable
freeze for the United States and the Soviet Union.
SECRETARY POWELL: Well, those weapons -- and I can speak now as a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff --
certainly, certainly paid off and did what they were advertised to be able to do.
MR. HANNITY: Yeah. You've spent a big part of your career serving your country admirably, and we are indebted to you in
many ways, in the military. And an issue also came up this week when Terry McAuliffe said he looks forward to a debate
when John Kerry, a war hero with a chest full of medals, is standing next to George Bush, a man who was AWOL. Just to
update you -- you've been in the air and you've been out -- the Guard Commander has recanted that story to begin with,
but that's an aside.
When you hear that kind of rhetoric about our Commander-in-Chief and these types of allegations that are
unsubstantiated, how does that make you feel?
SECRETARY POWELL: It's very disturbing, and I wish this kind of attack wouldn't take place. Both men served, they served
honorably, they got honorable discharges. They both stood up when their country needed them. Let's get on to the issues
of the day and not reach back for these kinds of scurrilous attacks, especially against a Commander-in-Chief who is
fighting wars right now in active theaters in Afghanistan and in Iraq and on the global war against terrorism.
MR. HANNITY: There was a story that came out this week about this gentleman -- I believe he's from Pakistan -- that
disclosed he had traded nuclear know-how with countries like North Korea, Iran, Libya, in exchange for money and missile
technology.
SECRETARY POWELL: AQ Khan.
MR. HANNITY: Mr. Khan. That's correct.
SECRETARY POWELL: Mm-hmm. He is a Pakistani, and we've known of his activities for quite some time and we conveyed to
the Pakistani Government our concern. And when we started to "roll" some of these countries, if I can use that term --
the Libyans giving up their weapons systems -- more evidence came forward as to Mr. Khan's activities.
And I'm glad that President Musharraf, the President of Pakistan, has now taken action to relieve him of his
responsibilities, to get all the information he can from him about his activities. And he has also granted him amnesty.
He is considered something of a national hero in Pakistan. But he will no longer be in the business of proliferating
this kind of technology.
MR. HANNITY: Secretary of State Colin Powell with us.
You know, when the President gave his "axis of evil" speech, he talked about Iraq, but he also mentioned Iran and North
Korea. You're dealing with these situations every single day. Do we have anything to fear in terms of an imminent threat
from either one of those countries?
SECRETARY POWELL: Well, I wouldn't use the word "imminent," but both Iran and Iraq have made it clear over the years
that they were pursuing weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear weapons.
Iraq, of course, has been dealt with. We don't have to worry about them anymore.
The Iranians have been somewhat forthcoming in recent months in letting the IAEA know what they are doing and in their
agreements with some of our European foreign ministers to tell more about their programs. But we're still watching them
very, very closely. There's more they have to do.
The North Koreans -- as you know, the President has enlisted all of North Korea's neighbors to work with us to bring
that program under control, to make sure that North Korea permanently, and in a verifiable manner, gets rid of its
nuclear weapons program. And we'll be having meetings with the North Koreans and our other partners, the so-called
six-party format, on the 25th of February.
MR. HANNITY: George Tenet mentioned earlier this week that we were about five years away from getting our intelligence
capabilities up to the level that we need. Is that about your estimation?
SECRETARY POWELL: Well, George is the expert on this. I don't know that I would have an estimate of my own. But my view
is whatever it takes to get our intelligence capability up to the level that the boss, George Tenet, and the other
experts say we need, then we've got to do it, and we've got to invest in it.
MR. HANNITY: All right, our good friend, Secretary of State Colin Powell. I know you're very busy, and we always
appreciate you taking time to be with us. And we are also appreciative of all the hard work you do on behalf of our
security, and we mean that sincerely. Thank you for being with us.
SECRETARY POWELL: Thanks, Sean. Look forward to the next time. Bye.
2004/134
[End]