Powell Says Iraq Intel 'Was Not Cooked'

March 14, 2004 -- A year ago, America invaded Iraq, taking aim at Saddam Hussein and the banned weapons the White House thought he had, with the goal of bringing democracy to the Middle East.

ABCNEWS This Week's George Stephanopoulos and George Will spoke with the man who made the administration's case for war, Secretary of State Colin Powell, to examine where things stand with Iraq.

Following are excerpts of the conversation.

George Stephanopoulos, ABCNEWS' This Week anchor: The Iraqis [ABCNEWS] is talking to,including members of the Iraqi Governing Council, aren't quite surewhether they're ready for the handover of power on June 30.

Secretary of State Colin Powell: We are creating a democracy where one has notexisted before. But the Iraqi people seem to want a democracy. Theywant to live in freedom. They enjoy the ability to speak out the wayPeter Jennings just described [in a preceeding segment].There is this vibrant debate and discussion taking placenow in Iraq. And so we are going to shoot for returning sovereignty,and I think we can make it on the first of July.But it doesn't mean we're abandoning Iraq on the first of July.We will continue to have 100,000 troops there helping them with theirsecurity as their own security forces show greater ability to protectthe population. We'll also have a very large embassy.So we're not walking out on Iraq on the first of July. We willbe with them. And what they have to do over the next several monthsis determine what kind of government they want to have during thisinterim period.And then there's a lot more to come — the writing of the fullconstitution, real, full national elections for an assembly and for anew government.Well, let's not discount how much we have accomplished in thelast year. Schools are being rebuilt, hospitals are being rebuilt,the infrastructure's coming back up, the oil is starting to flow.We're going to jump-start the economy as fast as we can with the moneythat Congress has provided.And most importantly, an administrative law has been written —which is the forerunner of the constitution that will be written — thatis quite astonishing with respect to basic rights and liberties andhow all these different ethnicities can come together.There's a majority — the Shias are the majority. But this basiclaw also shows how the rights of the Kurds and the rights of theSunnis will be protected in a representative form of government.It's hard, it's difficult. But they want to move in thisdirection. They want to end the occupation, sure. They also knowthat they have friends and partners in the United States that willhelp them during this difficult period.

Slow-Motion Secession?

George Will, ABCNEWS' This Week: It's been an American position from the start that Iraq shallremain a political unit. You say they want to live in freedom. Dothey want to live together? Do the Kurds really want to be part ofthis? And are we producing a constitution that might be the beginningof slow-motion secession?

Powell: That's certainly not our intention, and it need not bethe result. The Kurds want the nation to stay together. But for thelast 12 or so years, they have had a degree of independence thatthey've enjoyed. And that independence has brought them quite a bitof success.And so they are prepared to yield some of the independence andsome of the authority they had over the Kurdish region to a centralgovernment. But they also want their unique situation and, to someextent, the fact that they have a regional government up there,something that doesn't exist in other parts of the country, they wantthat to be recognized.And so in the administrative law, this situation was dealt within a delicate manner. And I'm sure it will be something that'll comeup again in the course of the writing of the constitution.

Stephanopoulos: You still seem to be having some difficultycoming up with a plan for which Iraqi entity will take over on June30.

Powell: Over the next several months, we will work with the GoverningCouncil, Ambassador Bremer, those of us back here. And we hope theU.N. will work with the Governing Council to determine what's best.Right now it consists of 25 individuals. I don't think that'srepresentative enough of the entire country. … There are a variety of models that are being looked at, [including to] make theGoverning Council larger. Some people have suggested having somethinglike a loya jirga, as we had in Afghanistan. I don't think there'senough time for that.But we're looking at a variety of models. And ultimately, theonly thing that'll work is something that will be satisfactory to theIraqi people, that will be seen as representative, seen as moving inthe right direction.And keep in mind, this will be an interim government — not even atransitional government yet, an interim government — till we can get toa transition government sometime hopefully the beginning of 2005.

Weapons of Mass Destruction

Stephanopoulos: Let me turn to the issue of weapons of massdestruction. We haven't had that on the program for several months.Since then, David Kay has come out and said he doesn't expect anyweapons to be found. Hans Blix, the chief U.N. weapons inspector, inhis new book, talks about the damage to U.S. credibility by failing tofind these weapons.And [Saturday], Sen. Ted Kennedy gave a radio address on thesubject:

[begin audio clip]

Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.: On no issue has thetruth been a greater casualty than the war in Iraq. Theadministration's credibility gap is vast. There was no immediatethreat, no nuclear weapons, no persuasive link to al Qaeda. But wewent to war anyway.

[end audio clip]

Stephanopoulos: How do you answer the charge of credibility gap?

Powell: When we presented our case to the American people and tothe world, my presentation at the U.N. last February, the presentationthat went to Congress earlier in the National Intelligence Estimate,we were presenting to the world the facts as we understood from ourintelligence analysis.It was not cooked. It was what the intelligence communitybelieved and had reasons to believe.

Stephanopoulos: But it was wrong.

Powell: Parts of it were not. I mean, most of it, I think, wasnot wrong. We had a country that had the intention to have suchweapons. They had the capability of having such weapons. They hadthe infrastructure for such weapons—

Stephanopoulos: Yet they had no stockpiles.

Powell: The question was, did they have stockpiles or not? Andwe all thought they had stockpiles, not because we wished it. Theevidence suggested that they had stockpiles. The U.N.'s own data overa period of 12 years suggested they had stockpiles.They hadn't answered questions with respect to materialswe knew they had, but we don't know what happened to that material,and they wouldn't tell us.So the presumption was, and the evidence was, that they hadstockpiles of these weapons, particularly chemical weapons.And so we are now examining that more closely under theleadership of Charlie Duelfer, who took over from Dr. Kay. Dr. Kaywent in thinking that there were stockpiles. He came out saying, Idon't think there are stockpiles now.And so we may not find the stockpiles. They may not exist anylonger. But let's not suggest that somehow we knew this. We went tothe United Nations, we went to the world with the best information wehad — nothing that was cooked.I spent a great deal of time out at the CIA with Director Tenetand Deputy Director John McLaughlin and all of their experts, goingover that presentation. And it reflected the view of the intelligencecommunity, the United Kingdom's intelligence community, [the] intelligencecommunity of many other nations. And it was consistent with reportingfrom the United Nations over time.And so we had solid basis for the information we presented to thepresident, the intelligence community presented to the president, andfor the decisions that the president made.