Condoleezza Rice on War & Peace

Secretary of State

Consequences via international coalition if Iran keeps nukes

Q: This week, Sen. Obama criticized the US's approach to Iran. What do you say to that?

A: We have built an international coalition of states led by the US, the UK, Germany, France, Russia and China which is showing Iran that there is a course of cooperation. And if they are not willing to cooperate and give up the technologies that could lead to a nuclear weapon then there are consequences. And we've passed three Security Council resolutions. Iran has increasingly difficult access issues with th international financial system. People, for reputational and investment risk reasons, are not investing in Iran.

Q: Is it not worth trying to open a discussion with the Iranian leader to get these thoughts on the table?

A: We've certainly made every attempt to open a dialogue with Iran. But we need to have them suspend their enrichment and reprocessing, because what we don't need to do is to negotiate while they're perfecting the technologies that could lead to a nuclear weapon.

Source: CNBC interview on Maria Bartiromo show May 23, 2008

Iraq is investing in its security; US troops are coming home

Q: How long will it take before troops can start coming home from Iraq?

A: Well, troops are already coming home from the levels that we needed to surge into Iraq to help to deal with the very precarious security situation there, a situation that is much improved, though still fragile. We are training the Iraqi security forces to be able to take control of their own provinces and to be able to carry out their own security tasks. We're seeing the benefit of that now, as they have the lead in securing Sadr City, as they took the lead in securing Basra in the south. And what is more, the Iraqis have passed national reconciliation language and the amnesty law, a law on de-Ba'athification, a law on provincial powers. They've passed two budgets. And by the way, the budget of Iraq this year is significant. It's $49 billion. We have told them--and they are doing it--that they need to take more responsibility for their own reconstruction, for their own security costs, and they're doing exactly that

Source: CNBC interview on Maria Bartiromo show May 23, 2008

Warned by CIA in July 2001 of major al-Qaeda attack soon

On July 10, 2001, CIA Director George Tenet reviewed the increasing likelihood that al Qaeda would soon attack the US. It was a mass of fragments and dots that nonetheless made a compelling case, so compelling to Tenet that he decided to go to the White House immediately.

For months, Tenet had been pressing Rice to give the CIA stronger authority to conduct covert action against bin Laden. On June 30, a top-secret intelligence brief contained an article headlined "Bin Laden Threats Are Real." Tenet hoped his abrupt request for an immediate meeting would shake Rice.

Tenet left the meeting feeling frustrated. Though Rice had given them a fair hearing, no immediate action meant great risk. The July 10 meeting went unmentioned in the various investigations into the Sept. 11 attacks, but it stood out in the mind of Tenet as the starkest warning on bin Laden and al-Qaeda. Tenet's deputy later said, "The only thing we didn't do was pull the trigger to the gun we were holding to her head."

Source: State of Denial, by Bob Woodward, p. 49-51 Oct 1, 2006

We must keep our word & not abandon Iraqi people

If we abandon the Iraqi people, we will show reformers across the region that America cannot be trusted to keep its word. We will embolden the enemies of democratic reform. We will leave the makings of a failed state in Iraq like Afghanistan in the 1990s and it could become a base of operation for terrorists yet again. And we should not assume for one minute that those terrorists will not come after us with renewed determination.
Source: Chicago Council on Foreign Relations on 4condi.com, "Issues" Apr 19, 2006

War stops Saddam from beating international community

Rice was the only member of his war cabinet whom Bush directly asked for a recommendation of whether to go to war. "Should we do this?," he had asked her a few weeks before.

"Yes," she said. "Because it isn't American credibility on the line, it is the credibility of everybody that this gangster can yet again beat the international system." As important as credibility was, she said, "Credibility should never drive you to do something you shouldn't do." But this was much bigger, she advised, something that should be done. "To let this threat in this part of the world play volleyball with the international community this way will come back to haunt us someday. That is the reason to do it."

Other than Rice, Bush said he didn't need to ask the principal advisers whether they thought he should go to war. He knew what Cheney thought, & he decided not to ask Powell or Rumsfeld. "I could tell what they thought," the president recalled. "I didn't need to ask them their opinion about Saddam Hussein.

Source: Plan of Attack, by Bob Woodward, adapted in Washington Post Apr 18, 2004

War on terror will be a long and comprehensive war

Q: Is al Qaeda more dangerous today than it was on September 11th?

A: Al Qaeda is not more dangerous today than it was on September 11th, but you don't have to make that choice. Al Qaeda is dangerous. And we're going to have to pursue them and we're going to have to defeat them. This is going to be a long war. It is a comprehensive war. It is not going to be enough to win in Afghanistan, to even kill bin Laden and to return to law enforcement.

Q: So capturing or killing al Zawahiri doesn't end this war?

A: That will not end this war. What will end this war is a sustained effort, over a long time, in which the US mobilizes all of its military means, its law enforcement means, its means of taking away economic support -- takes all of those measures and pursues them on a daily basis; and in which we are not, as a country, afraid to go after them where they live. We are not going to be able to sit back here and fight this war on the defense.

Source: Interview on "60 Minutes" with Ed Bradley Mar 28, 2004

War on terror is broad and hence includes Saddam

Q: The decision to go to war with Iraq: Given the fact that no weapons of mass destruction have been found and there's no proof that Saddam Hussein was linked to 9/11 or al Qaeda, the country is split about why we're even in Iraq and if we're fighting the right war.

A: The war on terrorism is a broad war, not a narrow war. And Iraq--the most dangerous regime in the world's most dangerous region in the Middle East--is a big reason, or was, under Saddam Hussein a big reason for instability in the region, for threats to the US; he was firing at our aircraft practically every day as we tried to keep his forces under control; he had used weapons of mass destruction; he had the intent & was still developing the capability to do so. Saddam Hussein's regime was very dangerous. And now that Iraq has been liberated and that Iraq has a chance to be a stable democracy, the world is a lot safer and the war on terrorism is well-served by the victory in Iraq.

Source: Interview on "60 Minutes" with Ed Bradley Mar 28, 2004

Supported large-scale war on terror over limited war

Because of Rice's extraordinary tight-lippedness, even her own National Security Council senior directors confessed themselves unable to predict whether she would align herself with Rumsfeld's big-victory or Powell's small-war point of view. But with every passing day after September 11, she seemed to edge closer and closer to Rumsfeld. She resisted Powell's plan for a Middle East speech in September, protected Bush's with-us-or-with-the-terrorists language against outraged would-be editors in the State Department, opposed the postponement of the war beyond Ramadan, and urged that fighting begin in Afghanistan as soon as the military was ready-rather than after the State Department completed its negotiations.

She was notably less eager than Powell to ingratiate herself with Arab opinion. In November, Rice threw in her lot with the Rumsfeld factions against the Powell faction. She remained exceedingly cautious. But in her careful way, she was decisive.

Source: The Right Man, by David Frum, p.199-200 Jun 1, 2003

Goal is steady progress toward Israel-Palestine peace

Q: Your views on the Mitchell Process, which lays out a road map toward meaningful political negotiations toward a final status of Palestine?

A: Our goal has been to make certain that we make steady progress toward getting back into the Mitchell plan. It is also important that we work with other Arab leaders. The President does imagine a Palestinian state as a part of his vision for the future.

Q: Would East Jerusalem be the capital of such a state?

A: We understand the importance of Jerusalem to the great religions of the world, and we believe that this is something that must be settled in final status negotiations.

A: Should people in the Arab world look forward to a US plan for the Middle East to be announced?

A: We are constantly evaluating how we can best push the process of Middle East peace forward. I wouldn't put any time line on what the US might do next. We really do believe right now that our best strategy is to work with the parties to get into the Mitchell Process.

Source: National Security Advisor Interview with Al Jazeera TV Oct 16, 2001

Kosovo was both strategic & humanitarian concern for NATO

We have three new members of the NATO Alliance. We have moved the center of gravity east with the reunification of Germany and the admittance of Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary. It should come as no surprise to anyone therefore that when Kosovo happened, it was a strategic concern for NATO, not just a humanitarian concern, because it was in Hungary's back yard. It was almost as if people did not focus on the fact that when you move the center of gravity east, you moved into an unstable neighborhood, so you had to do something about the Balkans. And I found odd the constant searching for an argument about why we were doing something about Kosovo, with people saying that the Balkans are out of area for NATO. Well, unless you expect a war in Bonn, you know, then of course the wars are going to be out of area for NATO!
Source: TIES-Webzine interview at Hoover Institution, Stanford Univ. Jun 25, 2000

Condoleezza Rice on Global War on Terror

War on Terror is not a war against Islam

Q: Post-Sept. 11th, while Arab governments support the US, the public in the Arab & Muslim world do not.

A: We have very good relations with a number of governments in the Middle East. But we care very much also about the people of the Middle East. We think that the US is a place in which religious tolerance and a belief that all people should live together in peace is a message that would resonate with populations in the region. We're trying to do a better job in getting that message out to people We want it to be very clear that the war on terrorism is not a war against Islam. Islam is a religion that respects innocent human life. So we cannot believe that Islam would countenance the kind of destruction that we saw on September 11th.

We are concerned about the economic opportunity for people in the Middle East. We believe that the policies that the US is pursuing are good for the Middle East as a whole-populations that are Arab, as well as the population of Israel.

Source: National Security Advisor Interview with Al Jazeera TV Oct 16, 2001

Monitor Iraq & take action if Saddam threatens US interests

Q: You are personally perceived as one of the few people in the administration who would like to enlarge the war in terrorism to include Iraq. Correct me, please.

A: Iraq has been a problem not just for US policy, but for policy in the region, as well. This is a country that has threatened its neighbors, that has been harmful to its own people. And we believe that our policies toward Iraq simply are to protect the region and to protect Iraq's people and neighbors.

Q: Is there military action awaiting as a second stage of this war on terrorism?

A: Pres. Bush has made very clear that the war on terrorism is a broad war on terrorism. You can't be for terrorism in one part of the world and against it in another part of the world. There's a reason Saddam doesn't want UN inspectors-because he intends to acquire weapons of mass destruction. But for now, Bush has said that his goal is to watch and monitor Iraq; and the US will act if Iraq threatens its interests.

Source: National Security Advisor Interview with Al Jazeera TV Oct 16, 2001

Syria must decide: either for terrorism or against it

Q: How about Syria?

A: We do not believe that Syria can be against al Qaeda, but in favor of other terrorist groups. But we have had some discussions with Syria. President Bush invites countries to stop the practice of harboring terrorism.

Q: So if Syria does not cooperate against people who are from Jihad or Hamas, they should be targeted also?

A: We have ruled out at this point issues that draw distinctions between types of terrorism. We just don't think that's the right thing to do. You can't say there are good terrorists and there are bad terrorists. But the means that we use with different countries to get them to stop harboring terrorists may be very broad. And there are many means at our disposal.

There are not a lot of discussions with Syria, but we have had discussions with Syria that suggest: get out of the business of sponsoring terrorism. We're asking that of every state of the world. You cannot be neutral in this fight; you either are for terrorism or against it.

Source: National Security Advisor Interview with Al Jazeera TV Oct 16, 2001

Blocking bin Laden's propaganda tapes is not censorship

Q: You asked executives of US networks not to broadcast bin Laden's tapes or anything coming from Kabul. It has been perceived in the Arab world as censorship. What is your answer to that?

A: The network have been very responsible, because they understood that having a 15-minute or 20-minute tape that was pre-taped, prerecorded, that sat there and did nothing but incite hatred and, ultimately, attacks against innocent Americans was not a matter of news, it was a matter of propaganda, and it was inciting attacks against Americans. Now, I understand that Al Jazeera has guidelines of its own on how to handle a tape like this, and we applaud that you would have guidelines of this kind, because what we do not need is to have a kind of free rein to sit and use the airwaves to incite attacks on innocent people.

Q: Overall, how do you perceive Al Jazeera as a credible or independent media?

A: If I did not have respect for Al Jazeera, I would not be doing this interview.

Source: National Security Advisor Interview with Al Jazeera TV Oct 16, 2001

Other candidates on War & Peace: Condoleezza Rice on other issues:
Republican Presidential Nominee:
Sen.John McCain

Republican Veepstakes:
Gov.Haley Barbour(MS)
Sen. Sam Brownback(KS)
Gov. Jeb Bush(FL)
Gov.Charlie Crist(FL)
Rep. Newt Gingrich(GA)
Mayor Rudy Giuliani(NYC)
Gov.Mike Huckabee(AR)
Gov. Bobby Jindal(LA)
Sen.Joe Lieberman(I,CT)
Gov.Tim Pawlenty(MN)
Secy. Condi Rice(CA)
Gov.Mitt Romney(MA)
Gov. Mark Sanford(SC)
Sen. Fred Thompson(TN)
Secy. Tommy Thompson(WI)
Democratic Presidential Contenders:
Sen.Hillary Clinton
Sen.Barack Obama

Democratic Veepstakes:
Gen.Wesley Clark(AR)
Sen.John Edwards(NC)
Gov.Bill Richardson(NM)
Civil Rights
Foreign Policy
Free Trade
Govt. Reform
Gun Control
Health Care
Homeland Security
Social Security
Tax Reform
Search for...

Page last updated: Jul 15, 2008