DUBYA: Clearly one of the most important parts of my job, because of 9/11, was to defend the security of the American people. There have been no attacks since I've been the president, since 9/11. One of the ma — major theaters against al Qaeda turns out to have been Iraq. This is where al Qaeda said they were gonna take their stand. This is where al Qaeda was hopin' to take —
RADDATZ: But not until after the U.S. invaded.
DUBYA: Yeah, that's — that, that's right. So what? The point is that al Qaeda said they're gonna take a stand. Well, first of all, in the post-11 environment Saddam Hussein posed a threat. And then, upon removal, al Qaeda decides to take a stand, and they, they're, they're, they're getting, they're becoming defeated, and I think, I think history will say that one, the world was better off without Saddam. Two, along with the Iraqi troops, we have denied al Qaeda a safe haven, because a young democracy's beginning to grow, which will be an important sign for people in the Middle East.

I'm honored to, uhh, shake the hand — of a brave Iraqi citizen who had his hand cut off by Saddam Hussein. Ummm, I'm with sssix other Iraqi citizens, as well, who suffered the same fate. Uhh, they are examples of the — brutality, uhh, of the tyrant.

Well, all due in modesty, I thought I did a pretty good job myself of making it clear that he's [Saddam Hussein's] not disarming and why he should disarm.

I thought an interesting comment was made when somebody said to me, I heard somebody say, now where's Mandela? Well, Mandela's dead, because Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandelas.

We, we have met with Syria since I have been the President of the United States. We have talked to them about what is necessary for them to have a better relationship with the United States, and they're not unreasonable requests. You know, we've, we've suggested to them that they no longer allow — Saddamists to send money and arms across their border into Iraq to fuel the violence — some of the violence that we see. We've talked to them about, they've gotta leave the democrat Lebanon alone.

The truth of the matter is, if you listen carefully, Saddam would still be in power if he [John Kerry] were the President of the United States, and the world would be a lot better off.

On my orders, coalition forces have begin striking selected targets of military importance to undermine Saddam Hussein's ability to wage war.

Removing Saddam Hussein was the right decision early in my presidency. It is the right decision now, and it will be the right decision ever.

Some people have guessed what's in the report and have concluded that going into Iraq was a mistake. I strongly disagree. I think it's naïve. I think it's a mistake for people to believe that going on the offense against people that want to do harm to the American people makes us less safe. The terrorists fight us in Iraq for a reason. They want to try to stop a young democracy from developing, just like they're trying to fight another young democracy in Afghanistan. And they use it as a recruitment tool, because they understand the stakes. They understand what will happen to them when we defeat them in Iraq.

I would hope people aren't trying to rewrite the history of Saddam Hussein — all of a sudden, he becomes kind of a benevolent fellow. He's a dangerous man. And one of the reasons he was declared a state sponsor of terror was because that's what he was. He harbored terrorists. He paid for families of suicide bombers. Never have I said that Saddam Hussein gave orders to attack 9/11.

DUBYA: Imagine a world in which Saddam Hussein was there, stirring up even more trouble in a part of the world that had so much resentment and so much hatred that people came and killed 3,000 of our citizens. You know, I've heard this theory about everything was just fine until we arrived, and kind of we're going to stir up the hornet's nest theory. It just doesn't hold water, as far as I'm concerned. The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.
REPORTER: What did Iraq have to do with that?
DUBYA: What did Iraq have to do with what?
REPORTER: The attack on the World Trade Center?
DUBYA: Nothing. Except for it's part of — and nobody has ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack.

REPORTER: Before we went to war in Iraq we said there were three main reasons for going to war in Iraq. Weapons of mass destruction, the claim that Iraq was sponsoring terrorists who had attacked us on 9/11, and that Iraq had purchased nuclear materials from Niger. All three of those turned out to be false. My question is, how do we restore confidence that Americans may have in their leaders and to be sure that the information they are getting now is correct?
DUBYA: That's a great question. First, just if I might correct a misperception. I don't think we ever said — at least I know I didn't say that there was a direct connection between September the 11th and Saddam Hussein. We did say that he was a state sponsor of terror — by the way, not declared a state sponsor of terror by me, but declared by other administrations. We also did say that Zarqawi, the man who is now wreaking havoc and killing innocent life, was in Iraq. And so the state sponsor of terror was a declaration by a previous administration. But I don't want to be argumentative, but I was very careful never to say that Saddam Hussein ordered the attacks on America.

One of the interesting moments will come here this year when Saddam Hussein's trial is brought forth for the world to see, to see the butcherer, the person who brutalized many people or ordered the brutality of many people here at this table, get his due justice under rule of law.

The United Nations had declared in more than 10 — I can't remember the exact number of resolutions — that disclose, or disarm, or face serious consequences. I mean, there was a serious international effort to say to Saddam Hussein, you're a threat. And the 9/11 attacks extenuated that threat, as far as I — concerned.

WILLIAMS: Do you believe this war was an elective on your part? Or did this have to come out of 9/11?
DUBYA: Hmm, interesting question. Well, first of all, troops don't move unless I give the order. So, from that sense it was elective. I mean, I could have said, no, we'll try to, you know, hope for the best with Saddam Hussein. Remember at the time we didn't know the facts on the ground. We — everybody thought the guy had weapons of mass destruction. Everybody knew that he'd used weapons of mass destruction and had provided safe haven for terrorists. I mean, those were facts. Whether or not it had to happen is — it didn't have to happen since a human being made the decision. Whether or not it needed to happen, I'm still convinced it needed to happen.

I want to remind the American people, if Senator Kerry had his way, we would still be taking our global test. Saddam Hussein would still be in power. He would control all those weapons and explosives and could have shared them with our terrorist enemies.

Saddam Hussein was a threat. He was a threat because he hated America. He was a threat because he was shooting missiles at American airplanes. He was a threat because he harbored terrorists. He was a threat because he invaded his neighbors. He was a threat because he had used weapons of mass destruction. He was a threat. Now, we didn't find the stockpiles we all thought were there. That includes me and my opponent.

As a matter of fact, when we gave [Saddam Hussein] the final chance, he continued to deceive and evade. So I have a choice to make at this point in our history. Do I forget the lessons of September the 11th and take the word of a madman, or do I take action to defend this country?

After September the 11th, America had to assess every potential threat in a new light. Our nation awakened to an even greater danger, the prospect that terrorists who killed thousands with hijacked airplanes would kill many more with weapons of mass murder. We had to take a hard look at every place where terrorists might get those weapons. And one regime stood out, the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein.

Remember Abu Nidal? He killed Leon Klinghoffer. Abu Nidal and his organization was in Iraq. Zarqawi, he's still lingering around. He had an organization. He's got ties to Al Qaeda. He's the guy who beheads people to shake our conscience. He was in and out of Baghdad. Saddam Hussein paid the families of suiciders.

SPANISH SPEAKER: Mr. President, mi amigo.
DUBYA: Come esta?
SPANISH SPEAKER: Muy bien. Muchas gracias. The Cubans in Miami want to know if you're going to be the President, going to get rid of Fidel Castro. You got rid of Saddam Hussein... so I hope you'll be the one to clean Cuba. Hey, Puerto Rico and Cuba are for you.
DUBYA: Gracias.
SPANISH SPEAKER: No hay de que.
DUBYA: All right, let me tell you what he's talking about. Cuba libre.
SPANISH SPEAKER: Cuba libre.
DUBYA: Sí. Ahora. Here's what he said. We're talking about Cuba.

I don't think you give timelines to dictators.

Let me tell you an interesting story, and then I promise to answer some questions. If Laura were here, she'd be giving me the hook. That's the way it is. Anyway, the Oval Office door opens up and in walks seven men from Iraq, all of whom had had their right hands cut off by Saddam Hussein. They had been to Houston, Texas, where a newscaster had — a quite famous newscaster — raised money and set up a foundation to help people. ... Anyway, so these guys walk in, you know, and I was emotional, they were emotional. And I said, why you? He said, that Saddam dinar had devalued and — he was a merchant, a small businessman. I don't know if he was a sub-chapter S corporation or not, but he was a small businessman. And he had sold dinars on a particular day to buy another currency, euros or dollars, so he could buy gold to manufacture his product. And because the Soviet Dinar had devalued, Saddam Hussein plucked this guy out of society to punish him, and six other small merchants, for the devaluation of their currency. He just summarily said, you're it, come here — and cut his hand off.

Even though we didn't find the stockpiles we affected — to find, Saddam Hussein had the capability of making weapons.

I went to the United Nations and said, he's [Saddam Hussein is] a threat. And they agreed with the fact that he was a threat, by a 15 to nothing vote in the United Nations Security Council. See, the world spoke. Not only America speak, the world spoke.

The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and Al Qaeda, because there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

REPORTER: Thank you, Mr. President. You do have now the personal gun of Saddam Hussein. Are you willing to give it to President al-Yawar as a symbolic gift, or are you keeping it?
DUBYA: What she's referring to is a — members of a Delta team came to see me in the Oval Office and brought with me — these were the people that found Saddam Hussein, the dictator of Iraq, hiding in a hole. And, by the way, let me remind everybody about Saddam Hussein, just in case we all forget. There were mass graves under his leadership. There were torture chambers. Saddam Hussein — if you — we had seven people come to my office. Perhaps the foreign press didn't see this story. Seven people came to my — they had their hands cut off because the Iraqi currency had devalued. And Saddam Hussein needed somebody to blame, so he blamed small merchants. And their hands were chopped off, their right hand.

REPORTER: Once, President Kennedy said, "Everyone has two countries, their own, and France." And why is it that your policy tends to be pushing your country and France to divorce? Second point, some in public opinion have accused you of state terrorism, and do you not believe that what has happened in Abu Ghraib has put you in the same basket, as it were, of Saddam Hussein, especially in the eyes of an international tribunal, and especially in light of the unfound weapons of mass destruction?
DUBYA: To paraphrase President Kennedy, there's America, and then there's Texas. We have great relations with France. We work closely with the French government on a lot of issues.

I saw a threat in Afghanistan. I looked at the intelligence and saw a threat. The Congress looked at the intelligence. Members of both political parties looked at that same intelligence and saw and threat. The United Nations Security Council looked at the intelligence and it saw a threat. The United Nations Security Council, like me, remembered — we saw more than a threat, we remembered that Saddam Hussein had used weapons of mass destruction against his own people and against his neighborhood, that Saddam Hussein professed hatred for America, that he had terrorist ties, that he paid suiciders to kill innocent citizens in the Middle East. We remembered all that.

The United Nations Security Council looked at the intelligence and said, Saddam is a threat. And so, for about the — I can't remember how many times they said it, but they said, disarm. See, you're a threat. Disarm. There's a reason why a lot of people made the conclusion. It was not only based upon intelligence, it was based upon the fact that he hated America, that he's willing to pay suiciders to go kill people in Israel, that he actually used weapons of mass destruction on his own people.

REPORTER: Mr. President, I'd like to follow up on a couple of these questions that have been asked. One of the biggest criticisms of you is that whether it's WMD in Iraq, postwar planning in Iraq, or even the question of whether this administration did enough to ward off 9/11, you never admit a mistake. Is that a fair criticism? And do you believe there were any errors in judgment that you made related to any of those topics I brought up?
DUBYA: Well, I think, as I mentioned, it's — the country wasn't on war footing, and yet we're at war. And that's just a reality, Dave. I mean, that's — that was the situation that existed prior to 9/11, because the truth of the matter is, most in the country never felt that we'd be vulnerable to an attack such as the one that Osama bin Laden unleashed on us. We knew he had designs on us, we knew he hated us. But there was a — nobody in our government, at least, and I don't think the prior government, could envision flying airplanes into buildings on such a massive scale. The people know where I stand. I mean, in terms of Iraq, I was very clear about what I believed. And, of course, I want to know why we haven't found a weapon yet. But I still know Saddam Hussein was a threat, and the world is better off without Saddam Hussein. I don't think anybody can — maybe people can argue that. I know the Iraqi people don't believe that, that they're better off with Saddam Hussein — would be better off with Saddam Hussein in power. I also know that there's an historic opportunity here to change the world. And it's very important for the loved ones of our troops to understand that the mission is an important, vital mission for the security of America and for the ability to change the world for the better.

I looked at the intelligence and saw a threat in Iraq. The United States Congress looked at the same intelligence, and they saw a threat. The United Nations Security Council looked at the intelligence, and it saw a threat. In fall of 2002, I went back to the United Nations, I said, look, why don't we deal with this threat together? We all see a threat, so why don't we get Saddam Hussein to do what the world has been demanding to do for over a decade, which is to reveal the weapons programs and get rid of him, for the sake of the security of the world. Your choice, Mr. Saddam. He said, no, I'm not interested. You see, given that choice whether to trust the word of a madman, a man who had used chemical weapons on his own people, or to defend our country, I will choose to defend America every time.

I saw a threat. The Congress saw a threat. The United Nations Security Council saw a threat in the form of Saddam Hussein. He was not only a threat to people in the Middle East because of terrorist ties. He's a threat to America or anybody else who loved freedom. He's a threat to his own people. He had torture chambers and mass graves.

Saddam Hussein said, I'm not going to expose my weapons, I'm not going to get rid of my — I'm not going to allow inspectors in, he said. But this is the same man who had used them. So I had to make a decision — do I trust the word of madman, or do I remember the lessons of September the 11th?

The world is more peaceful as a result of Saddam Hussein not being in power.

And the threat of Saddam Hussein was a unique threat in this sense — the world recognized he was a threat for twelve years, and seventeen resolutions, I think it is — I believe it was seventeen resolutions — for the resolution counter, give me a hand here — seventeen? Seventeen resolutions. And he ignored them.

I think when people begin to realize that, when people begin — that were, I would call them fence-sitters, when people begin to realize that the Saddam regime is gone forever, and that the new society that will emerge will be a fair society, it will protect people, and protect people from the — protect them based upon their own religious views, for example, guarantee them rights — is what I mean by "protect," that it's more likely people will begin to sign on to the future of Iraq.

REPORTER: Some people make a parallel between Iraq and Vietnam. Do you see it?
DUBYA: I know that people are anxious to be free. They were glad to get rid of Saddam Hussein. They were pleased when his sons met their demise. This person tortured, brutalized an entire population. And it's a different situation.
REPORTER: I didn't hear the word Vietnam in your answer.
DUBYA: No, because — I gave you the answer, you asked the question. You asked me if there's parallel. I said it's a different situation.

I was not about to leave the security of the American people in the hands of a madman. I was not going to stand by and wait and trust the sanity and restraint of Mr. Saddam Hussein.

The world is a better place when we got rid of Saddam Hussein.

Of course, it's important that the — that Saddam's sons were brought to justice.

As you know, earlier this week, two of the favorite henchmen of Saddam Hussein were brought to justice. They were discovered and their violent careers ended in justice.

The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region.

We sent a clear message to Saddam Hussein. 'Disarm, the world has asked you to disarm for 12 solid years and now is the time. For the security of America and our friends, and for peace in the world, for you to disarm.' And we gave him plenty chance to do so.

Since I was [last] here [in Chicago], thanks to the bravery of our military, and to friends and allies, the regime of Saddam Hussein is no more. The world is peaceful and free.

Less than 60 days ago that we started our mission. And in that period of time, not only did we remove a regime which threatened our security and held the American people hostage — not only did we remove a regime that brutalized their own people, but we will stay to make sure that the Iraqi people have got the security necessary.

In Iraq, the regime of Saddam Hussein is no more. A month ago — one month ago — that country was a prison to its people, a haven for terrorists, an arsenal of weapons that endangered the world.

You know, it's amazing, the statue comes down on Wednesday and the headlines start to read: oh, there's disorder. Well, no kidding. It is a situation that is chaotic because Saddam Hussein created the conditions for chaos. He created conditions of fear and hatred. And it's going to take a while to stabilize the country.

Syria just needs to know we expect full cooperation. And that we strongly urge them not to allow for Baath Party members or Saddam's families or generals on the run to seek safe haven and find safe haven there. We expect them to do everything they can to prevent people who should be held to account from escaping in their country. And if they are in their country, we expect the Syrian authorities to turn them over to the proper folks.

We're fighting an enemy that knows no rules of law, that will wear civilian uniforms, that is willing to kill in order to continue the reign of fear of Saddam Hussein.

F-ck Saddam! we're taking him out.

All of us need to step back and try to figure out how to make the U.N. work better as we head into the 21st century. Perhaps one way will be, if we use military force, in the post-Saddam Iraq the U.N. will definitely need to have a role. And that way it can begin to get its legs, legs of responsibility back.

I described them [Iraq] as the axis of evil once. I described them as an enemy until proven otherwise. They obviously, you know, desire weapons of mass destruction. I presume that he still views us as an enemy.

Saddam Hussein is a threat to our nation. September the 11th changed the strategic thinking, at least, as far as I was concerned, for how to protect our country. My job is to protect the American people. It used to be that we could think that you could contain a person like Saddam Hussein, that oceans would protect us from his type of terror. September the 11th should say to the American people that we're now a battlefield, that weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terrorist organization could be deployed here at home.

Hopefully, this [disarmament] can be done peacefully. Hopefully, that as a result of the pressure that we have placed — and others have placed — that Saddam will disarm and/or leave the country.

I believe Saddam Hussein is a threat to the American people. I believe he's a threat to the neighborhood in which he lives. And I've got a good evidence to believe that.

The American people know that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction. By the way, he declared he didn't have any.

[Saddam Hussein] has trained and financed Al Qaeda-type organizations before, Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.

[Saddam Hussein] could care less about human condition inside of Iraq.

Saddam Hussein's refusal to comply with the demands of the civilized world is a threat to peace, and it's a threat to stability. ...It's a threat to the security of peace-leaving — peace-loving people everywhere.

America and our allies are called once again to defend the peace against an aggressive tyrant, and we accept this responsibility.

But as we insist that Congress be wise with your money, we're going to make sure we spend enough to win this war. And by spending enough to win a war, we may not have a war at all.

As I said, a second resolution would be useful. We don't need a second resolution. It's clear this guy [Saddam Hussein] could even care less about the first resolution.

I think that no matter how Mr. Saddam is dealt with, the goal of disarming Iraq still stays the same, regardless of who is in charge of the government. And that's very important for the Iraqi people to know.

The war on terror involves Saddam Hussein because of the nature of Saddam Hussein, the history of Saddam Hussein and his willingness to terrorize himself.

Today, the gravest danger in the war on terror, the gravest danger facing America and the world, is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nukyular, chemical, and biological weapons.... We're strongly supporting the International Atomic Energy Agency in its mission to track and control nukyular materials around the world. We're working with other governments to secure nukyular materials in the former Soviet Union... Throughout the 1990s, the United States relied on a negotiated framework to keep North Korea from gaining nukyular weapons.... And today the North Korean regime is using its nukyular program to incite fear and seek concessions.... America is working with the countries of the region... to find a peaceful solution, and to show the North Korean government that nukyular weapons will bring only isolation, economic stagnation, and continued hardship. The North Korean regime will find respect in the world and revival for its people only when it turns away from its nukyular ambitions.... [Saddam Hussein] pursued chemical, biological, and nukyular weapons, even while inspectors were in his country.... The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nukyular weapons development program, had a design for a nukyular weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.... Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nukyular weapons production.... With nukyular arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans — this time armed by Saddam Hussein.

Should any Iraqi officer or soldier receive an order from Saddam Hussein, or his sons, or any of the killers who occupy the high levels of their government, my advice is, don't follow that order. Because if you choose to do so, when Iraq is liberated, you will be treated, tried and persecuted as a war criminal.

[Saddam Hussein] is adept at deception and delays and denying. He asked for more time so he can give the so-called inspectors more runaround.

He really doesn't care about the opinion of mankind.

And just like the United Nations has agreed that it is important to disarm him, for the sake of peace, and so the next step will be to put an inspection regime in there to — after all the declarations and after all the preamble to inspections, that he's got to show the world he's disarming.

I want you to think about a scenario in which he becomes the arsenal and the training grounds for shadowy terrorists so that he can attack somebody he hates and not leave any fingerprints behind.

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 nukyular weapons. ... Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nukyular 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 nukyular weapon. After the war, international inspectors learned that the regime has been much closer — the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nukyular weapon no later than 1993. The inspectors discovered that Iraq had an advanced nukyular weapons development program, had a design for a workable nukyular 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 nukyular weapons-related facilities, including three uranium enrichment sites. That same year, information from a high-ranking Iraqi nukyular engineer who had defected revealed that despite his public promises, Saddam Hussein had ordered his nukyular program to continue. The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nukyular weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nukyular scientists, a group he calls his nukyular mujahideen — his nukyular holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nukyular 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 nukyular 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 nukyular 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 nukyular 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 nukyular weapon. ...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 nukyular weapon. ...We could wait and hope that Saddam does not give weapons to terrorists, or develop a nukyular weapon to blackmail the world.

This is a man who continues to murder his own people, a man who has gassed — used gas on his own citizens, a man who has used chemical weapons on his neighbors, a man who has invaded two countries, a man which hates — who hates America, a man who loves to link up with Al Qaeda, a man who is a true threat to America, to Israel, to anybody in the neighborhood.

[Saddam Hussein is] a man who invaded two countries twice — two countries, once each time.

I gave a speech to the United Nations talking about Iraq, and making it crystal-clear to the United Nations that Saddam poses an international problem. ...He basically told the United Nations, your deal don't mean anything to me.

And in 1995, after four years of deception, Iraq finally admitted it had a crash nukyular weapons program prior to the Gulf War. We know now, were it not for that war, the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nukyular weapon no later than 1993. Today, Iraq continues to withhold important information about its nukyular program — weapons design, procurement logs, experiment data, an accounting of nukyular materials and documentation of foreign assistance. Iraq employs capable nukyular scientists and technicians. It retains physical infrastructure needed to build a nukyular weapon. Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nukyular weapon. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nukyular weapon within a year. And Iraq's state-controlled media has reported numerous meetings between Saddam Hussein and his nukyular scientists, leaving little doubt about his continued appetite for these weapons.

The facts are, this is a man who gassed his own people, has invaded two countries, a person who stiffed the international organization time and time again.

I will first remind the United Nations that for 11 long years, Saddam Hussein has side-stepped, crawfished, wheedled out of any agreement he had made not to harbor — not to develop weapons of mass destruction, agreements he's made to treat the people within his country with respect. And so I'm going to call upon the world to recognize that he is stiffing the world.

Nothing he has done has convinced me — I'm confident the Secretary of Defense — that he is the kind of fellow that is willing to forgo weapons of mass destruction, is willing to be a peaceful neighbor, that is — will honor the people — the Iraqi people of all stripes, will — values human life. He hasn't convinced me, nor has he convinced my administration.

Far be it from the American President to get to decide who leads what country... I made up my mind that Saddam needs to go.