Return to Main Page
Remarks by President
George W. Bush on Iraq
Cincinnati, Ohio
October 7, 2002
Thank you all. Thank you for that very gracious and warm Cincinnati welcome.
I’m honored to be here tonight; I appreciate you all coming. Tonight I want
to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace, and America’s determination
to lead the world in confronting that threat.
The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own
actions—its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror.
Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi
regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease
all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups.
The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and
produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.
It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against
its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history
of defiance, deception and bad faith.
We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September
the 11th, 2001, America felt its vulnerability—even to threats that gather
on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today,
to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror
and suffering to America.
Members of the Congress of both political parties, and members of the United
Nations Security Council, agree that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace
and must disarm. We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to
threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases
and atomic weapons. Since we all agree on this goal, the issues is: how can
we best achieve it?
Many Americans have raised legitimate questions: about the nature of the
threat; about the urgency of action—why be concerned now; about the link
between Iraq developing weapons of terror, and the wider war on terror. These
are all issues we've discussed broadly and fully within my administration.
And tonight, I want to share those discussions with you.
First, some ask why Iraq is different from other countries or regimes that
also have terrible weapons. While there are many dangers in the world, the
threat from Iraq stands alone—because it gathers the most serious dangers
of our age in one place. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled
by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands
of people. This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded
and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without
warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States.
By its past and present actions, by its technological capabilities, by the
merciless nature of its regime, Iraq is unique. As a former chief weapons
inspector of the U.N. has said, "The fundamental problem with Iraq remains
the nature of the regime, itself. Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator
who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction."
Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is
already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam
Hussein has dangerous weapons today—and we do—does it make any sense for
the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops
even more dangerous weapons?
In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq's
military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit
that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly
biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely
produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological
weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of killing millions.
We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents,
including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas. Saddam Hussein also
has experience in using chemical weapons. He has ordered chemical attacks
on Iran, and on more than forty villages in his own country. These actions
killed or injured at least 20,000 people, more than six times the number
of people who died in the attacks of September the 11th.
And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that
it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons. Every chemical and
biological weapon that Iraq has or makes is a direct violation of the truce
that ended the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Yet, Saddam Hussein has chosen to
build and keep these weapons despite international sanctions, U.N. demands,
and isolation from the civilized world.
Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles—far
enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other nations —in a region
where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work.
We’ve also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet
of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical
or biological weapons across broad areas. We’re concerned that Iraq is exploring
ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States. And, of
course, sophisticated delivery systems aren’t required for a chemical or
biological attack; all that might be required are a small container and one
terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to deliver it.
And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein’s links
to international terrorist groups. Over the years, Iraq has provided safe
haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried
out more than 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries that killed or injured
nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans. Iraq has also provided safe haven
to Abu Abbas, who was responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing
an American passenger. And we know that Iraq is continuing to finance terror
and gives assistance to groups that use terrorism to undermine Middle East
peace.
We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back
a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These
include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in
Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical
and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members
in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September
the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks
on America.
Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon
to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could
allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.
Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from
the war against terror. To the contrary; confronting the threat posed by
Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror. When I spoke to Congress more
than a year ago, I said that those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as
the terrorists themselves. Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the
instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction. And
he cannot be trusted. The risk is simply too great that he will use them,
or provide them to a terror network.
Terror cells and outlaw regimes building weapons of mass destruction are
different faces of the same evil. Our security requires that we confront
both. And the United States military is capable of confronting both. Many
people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon.
Well, we don't know exactly, and that's the problem. Before the Gulf War,
the best intelligence indicated that Iraq was eight to ten years away from
developing a nuclear weapon. After the war, international inspectors learned
that the regime has been much closer—the regime in Iraq would likely have
possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993. The inspectors discovered
that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design
for a workable nuclear weapon, and was pursuing several different methods
of enriching uranium for a bomb.
Before being barred from Iraq in 1998, the International Atomic Energy Agency
dismantled extensive nuclear weapons-related facilities, including three
uranium enrichment sites. That same year, information from a high-ranking
Iraqi nuclear engineer who had defected revealed that despite his public
promises, Saddam Hussein had ordered his nuclear program to continue.
The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.
Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists,
a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen"—his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite
photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have
been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase
high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges,
which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.
If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly
enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a
nuclear weapon in less than a year. And if we allow that to happen, a terrible
line would be crossed. Saddam Hussein would be in a position to blackmail
anyone who opposes his aggression. He would be in a position to dominate
the Middle East. He would be in a position to threaten America. And Saddam
Hussein would be in a position to pass nuclear technology to terrorists.
Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do
we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced the horror
of September the 11th. We have seen that those who hate America are willing
to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would
be no less willing, in fact, they would be eager, to use biological or chemical,
or a nuclear weapon.
Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against
us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof—the
smoking gun—that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. As President
Kennedy said in October of 1962, "Neither the United States of America, nor
the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive
threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a
world," he said, "where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient
challenge to a nations security to constitute maximum peril." Understanding
the threats of our time, knowing the designs and deceptions of the Iraqi
regime, we have every reason to assume the worst, and we have an urgent duty
to prevent the worst from occurring.
Some believe we can address this danger by simply resuming the old approach
to inspections, and applying diplomatic and economic pressure. Yet this is
precisely what the world has tried to do since 1991. The U.N. inspections
program was met with systematic deception. The Iraqi regime bugged hotel
rooms and offices of inspectors to find where they were going next; they
forged documents, destroyed evidence, and developed mobile weapons facilities
to keep a step ahead of inspectors. Eight so-called presidential palaces
were declared off-limits to unfettered inspections. These sites actually
encompass twelve square miles, with hundreds of structures, both above and
below the ground, where sensitive materials could be hidden.
The world has also tried economic sanctions—and watched Iraq use billions
of dollars in illegal oil revenues to fund more weapons purchases, rather
than providing for the needs of the Iraqi people. The world has tried limited
military strikes to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities—only
to see them openly rebuilt, while the regime again denies they even exist.
The world has tried no-fly zones to keep Saddam from terrorizing his own
people—and in the last year alone, the Iraqi military has fired upon American
and British pilots more than 750 times. After eleven years during which we
have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action,
the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons
and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer
to developing a nuclear weapon.
Clearly, to actually work, any new inspections, sanctions or enforcement
mechanisms will have to be very different. America wants the U.N. to be an
effective organization that helps keep the peace. And that is why we are
urging the Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough,
immediate requirements. Among those requirements: the Iraqi regime must reveal
and destroy, under U.N. supervision, all existing weapons of mass destruction.
To ensure that we learn the truth, the regime must allow witnesses to its
illegal activities to be interviewed outside the country—and these witnesses
must be free to bring their families with them so they all beyond the reach
of Saddam Hussein's terror and murder. And inspectors must have access to
any site, at any time, without pre-clearance, without delay, without exceptions.
The time for denying, deceiving, and delaying has come to an end. Saddam
Hussein must disarm himself—or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition
to disarm him. Many nations are joining us in insisting that Saddam Hussein's
regime be held accountable. They are committed to defending the international
security that protects the lives of both our citizens and theirs. And that's
why America is challenging all nations to take the resolutions of the U.N.
Security Council seriously.
And these resolutions are clear. In addition to declaring and destroying
all of its weapons of mass destruction, Iraq must end its support for terrorism.
It must cease the persecution of its civilian population. It must stop all
illicit trade outside the Oil For Food program. It must release or account
for all Gulf War personnel, including an American pilot, whose fate is still
unknown.
By taking these steps, and by only taking these steps, the Iraqi regime has
an opportunity to avoid conflict. Taking these steps would also change the
nature of the Iraqi regime itself. America hopes the regime will make that
choice. Unfortunately, at least so far, we have little reason to expect it.
And that's why two administrations—mine and President Clinton's—have stated
that regime change in Iraq is the only certain means of removing a great
danger to our nation.
I hope this will not require military action, but it may. And military conflict
could be difficult. An Iraqi regime faced with its own demise may attempt
cruel and desperate measures. If Saddam Hussein orders such measures, his
generals would be well advised to refuse those orders. If they do not refuse,
they must understand that all war criminals will be pursued and punished.
If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will
plan carefully; we will act with the full power of the United States military;
we will act with allies at our side, and we will prevail. (Applause.)
There is no easy or risk-free course of action. Some have argued we should
wait—and that's an option. In my view, it's the riskiest of all options,
because the longer we wait, the stronger and bolder Saddam Hussein will become.
We could wait and hope that Saddam does not give weapons to terrorists, or
develop a nuclear weapon to blackmail the world. But I'm convinced that is
a hope against all logic.