Selling America's Image in the World

In the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks a program was launched. A high powered advertising executive from New York City was hired to lead an advertising campaign to "brand" America, to project a positive image of America to the world, and specifically the Middle East.

The unspoken assumption must have been "they attacked us because they have a wrong impression of us, so let's change their perception of the U.S.". Denial takes many forms, doesn't it? In my view that attack wasn't an attack specifically on the U.S., but on Globalization, the World Trade Center having been seen as a major symbol of globalization, and it's effective headquarters. For someone to make such an attack, yes, there is an issue of their perception of the ones they are attacking, but is the message to the recipient soley that the other party is at fault? Or should the recipient of the attack also question themselves, look to themselves to see what's inside them which could have instigated the attack, and worked to change those things as well?

In any case, here's an interview of the authors of the book "Weapons of Mass Deception: The Uses of Propaganda in Bush's War on Iraq", covering this propoganda campaign launched by the U.S. to sway opinion in the Middle East. The campaign failed miserably.

[Sep 29, 2003; Salon.COM; salon.com/news/feature/2003/09/30/deception/index.html] War is peace! It seemed like an auspicious debut: The new magazine Hi was just off the presses and it generated heavy buzz. It was glossy. It was young. It was fresh and hip and just a little bit sexy. The multimillion-dollar launch across 14 countries got headlines worldwide. And for the U.S. State Department that seemed to be good news, because Hi is a government publication issued to win hearts and minds in the Arab and Muslim world.

... In "Weapons of Mass Deception: The Uses of Propaganda in Bush's War in Iraq," co-authors Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber explain why efforts like Hi have almost inevitably failed. "The United States lost the propaganda war a long time ago," Rampton told Salon, citing the wisdom of an Arab-American news executive. "They could have the prophet Mohammed doing their public relations, and it wouldn't help."

... "Weapons of Mass Deception" is a readable, witty, fact-filled catalog of the U.S. government's attempts to counter the tide of anti-U.S. sentiment that the Bush administration abruptly discovered in the Muslim world after Sept. 11, 2001. It starts with the story of Charlotte Beers, former chairwoman and CEO of two of the world's top ad agencies, J. Walter Thompson and Ogilvy & Mather. She was hired after 9/11, as Colin Powell explained, "to change from just selling the U.S. ... to really branding foreign policy."

Efforts like these eventually cost $1 billion a year. Where did the money go?

... "Branding America"? What does "branding" mean, in regards to a country?

Rampton: Charlotte Beers was an expert in "brand management." Branding, in general, is the idea of getting people to associate emotional values with the product or idea you're trying to sell.

This is what advertisers are always saying in one form or another. "Sell the sizzle, not the steak." They try to get you to buy an automobile, not because it is a form of transportation, but because it makes you feel powerful. Or it makes you feel sexy. They try to sell things on the basis of these emotional reactions that they're trying to get you to develop.

... One of the ironies here is that a critical reader, a critical thinker, someone who really wants to see what's going on here -- reading mainstream sources like the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the Guardian, and listening to the BBC -- could come to the same conclusions that we did. But that's not where most Americans get their news. Most Americans get their news from television, which is probably the worst single source for providing factual information and analysis.

Mad-Hatters Tea Party in Iraq

[Sep 18, 2003; San Jose Mercury News; Perspective by Joseph Wilson; http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/editorial/6778084.htm] Seeking honesty in U.S. policy President Bush's speech last Sunday was just the latest example of the administration's concerted efforts to misrepresent reality -- and rewrite history -- to mask its mistakes. The president said Iraq is now the center of our battle against terrorism. But we did not go to Iraq to fight Al-Qaida, which remains perhaps our deadliest foe, and we will not defeat it there.

By trying to justify the current fight in Iraq as a fight against terrorism, the administration has done two frightening things. It has tried to divert attention from Osama bin Laden, the man responsible for the wave of terrorist attacks against American interests from New York and Washington to Yemen, and who reappeared in rugged terrain in a video broadcast last week. ...

... We are now also beginning to face terrorists there, but it is our own doing. Our attack on Iraq -- and our bungling of the peace -- led to the guerrilla insurgency that is drawing jihadists from around the Muslim world. The ``shock and awe'' campaign so vividly shown on our television screens has galvanized historic Arab envy, jealousy and resentment of the United States into white-hot hatred of America.

Where once there were thousands, now there are potentially millions of terrorists and sympathizers who will be drawn into this campaign.

We've seen other examples of the kind of insurgency we're now facing. One was in Afghanistan against the Soviets in the 1980s, and we all should know the end of that story by now. Bin Laden was one of the outside jihadists drawn into that battle; he emerged as the head of a group of hardened soldiers he called Al-Qaida.

[Sep 17, 2003; New York Times; nytimes.com/2003/09/18/national/18BUSH.html] Bush Reports No Evidence of Hussein Tie to 9/11 President Bush said today that he had seen no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, as the White House tried to correct an assertion that Vice President Dick Cheney left extremely murky on Sunday. ... "I think it's not surprising that people make that connection," said Mr. Cheney, who leads the hawkish wing of the Bush administration. Asked whether the connection existed, Mr. Cheney said, "We don't know." He described Mr. Hussein's reported connections to Al Qaeda, connections that American intelligence analysts say were not very deep. Mr. Bush, asked by a reporter today about that statement, said, "No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th," a far more definitive statement than the vice president's. ...

[Sep 17, 2003; BBC Online; news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm] Bush rejects Saddam 9/11 link

[Sep 16, 2003; Wired News; wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp] Hans Blix: Iraq Destroyed WMD 10 Years Ago

[Sep 18, 2003; CNN; http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/09/18/sprj.irq.blix.bush/] Blix attacks Iraq weapons 'spin'

[Sep 18, 2003; MSNBC; msnbc.com/news/968663.asp] U.S. team finds no smallpox in Iraq

[Sep 21, 2003; BBC; news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3126522.stm] Iraq adopts sweeping reforms The American-backed administration in Iraq has announced sweeping economic reforms, including the sale of all state industries except for oil. The surprise announcement by Iraqi Finance Minister Kamel al-Kilani dominated the second day of meetings organised by the International Monetary Fund in Dubai. ... Mr Kilani said liberalisation of foreign investment, the banking sector, taxes and tariffs would "significantly advance efforts to build a free and open market economy in Iraq". ... The most lucrative part of the Iraqi economy - oil - is not included in the reforms. Natural resources are exempt from the changes, excluding current outside participation in Iraq's oil reserves. There is widespread belief in the Arab world that the US military action in Iraq earlier this year was motivated by a desire to control Iraq's substantial oil reserves.

These "reforms" sound suspiciously like the standard IMF & World Bank plan as detailed by George Palast in his book "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy". While it appears the oil industry will not be directly controlled by the Globalist forces, the rest of the economy there will be Globalist controlled.

Best Democracy Money Can Buy : The Truth about Corporate Cons, Globalization, and High-Finance Fraudsters -- Expanded Election Edition Best Democracy Money Can Buy, the Rev.Ed. Best Democracy Money Can Buy, the - Abridged CDs The Best Democracy Money Can Buy: An Investigative Reporter Exposes the Truth about Corporate Cons, Globalization, and High-Finance Fraudsters

Next: Iran?

In the Gulf War II Background Material page I note that the neo-conservatives (Wolfowitz, Rumsfield and the rest) were planning exactly that war since at least 1992. The theory presented is that the U.S. is now the sole super-power, with the fall of the Soviet Union, and we've got the high ground, and must assert our superiority.

In the days following the Sep 11, 2001 attacks those same neo-conservatives pushed hard for an immediate attack on Iraq. Why Iraq? The attack was supposed to have been launched by al Queda, located in Afghanistan, and an organization with little connection to Iraq. Yet, they insisted on Iraq as the target, and have eventually gotten it. As detailed in other of the Gulf War II pages, the justification for the war was a total fraud, none of the claimed for evidence has been found in Iraq, and as of this writing (Sep 19, 2003) the situation there is a bloody mess.

At the same time the uber-plan schemed by the neo-conservatives was for Iraq to be the first step. The following step was to be the overthrow of either Syria or Iran.

The goal is said to be that by establishing "moderate democracies" in the center of the Middle East, that we could turn the whole tenor of the Middle East. As I said, as of this writing the whole situation is a mess, and in particular the response is anything but being welcomed with open arms (as promised) but instead a bloody guerilla war. Much as extremists from all over the Middle East converged on Afghanistan when Russia invaded that country, they are converging on Iraq now that the U.S. has invaded.

Therefore it is worth following news about Iran to track the rhetoric and determine whether we are actually being steered towards a war there. In the Gulf War II pages you will find a few references to this issue, primarily on the "is Syria next" page.

Two issues have been building in general

1. Nuclear capability: For a few months there has been growing awareness and concern about development of nuclear capability in Iran. Supposedly they have a nuclear plant capable of reprocessing Uranium from which to make nuclear bombs. Now, if this is true, it is of grave concern, especially as Iran is denying the claim and is resisting Atomic Energy Commission inspections. On the other hand, given the track record of the U.S. administration they may well be lying through their teeth, again.
2. Promoting geurilla activities in Iraq: Certainly little love is lost between the U.S. and Iran. This isn't the old days of the Shah when Iran was our best buddy, but instead the days of the Ayatollah's and their hatred of the U.S. So, who knows, they could well be wanting to undermine U.S. activities in Iraq.

News Articles

[Sep 30, 2003; CNN; cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/09/30/iran.nuclear.elbaradei.reut/index.html] U.N. needs 'full Iran N-access' VIENNA, Austria (Reuters) -- The U.N. nuclear watchdog chief has said he will need full and unlimited cooperation from Iran to verify Tehran's insistence that it has no secret atomic weapons programme. Iran said on Monday it would limit the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) access to declared nuclear sites when inspectors arrive this week ahead of an October 31 deadline for Iran to show it has no nuclear weapons programme. However, to verify Iran's claims about its controversial uranium-enrichment programme and other aspects of Iran's atomic activities, the IAEA needs access to facilities that have not been officially declared as nuclear sites. "If we cannot have full cooperation, full disclosure, unfortunately I'll have to say that I am not able to verify the Iranian statements (that their nuclear programme is purely peaceful)," IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei told reporters Tuesday.

[Sep 22, 2003; Reuters; http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=3486523] Iran Shows Off Missile Might Amid Nuclear Fears Iran, under pressure to dispel fears it is developing nuclear arms, Monday paraded six of its newly deployed medium-range missiles, which military analysts say could reach Israel or U.S. bases in the Gulf. ... Iran's reformist President Mohammad Khatami said the show of strength should not be read as saber-rattling. "The Islamic Republic of Iran's policy is based on detente," he said at the parade led by disabled war veterans. "We are opposed to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and nuclear weapons but we insist on our absolute right to be powerful in the scientific and technological arena." ... "The (Shahab's) increased range covers the whole of Israel, north to south, from deployment areas deep within Iran, and thus increases concern as to what would happen if such missiles were armed with WMD warheads," he told Reuters. Television pictures showed one of the missile carriers displayed a defiant message in bold letters on a giant yellow banner facing Khatami. "We will stamp on America," it read. ... Iran insists its nuclear scientists are not working on a weapons program but trying to meet soaring electricity demand.

If their intent was truly to decrease tensions, then why would they parade missiles bearing provocative messages? Obviously the baiting is going both directions.

[Sep 19, 2003; Haaretz; haaretz.com/hasen/spages/341947.html] U.S. official: Iran can arm missiles with biological warheads Iran has the capability of arming ballistic missiles with biological warheads, ...

This is the first time that an official claim of Iran's ability to launch biological warheads has been made.

Intelligence sources said that such an ability indicates sophisticated technological capabilities, since biological warheads are considered much harder to use than other types. ...
DeSutter's testimony was delivered at a joint session that included Israeli Knesset members as well as members of both houses of Congress. The meeting, part of an ongoing initiative to hold periodic joint sessions of the Congress and Knesset, was attended by [various] Senators ...

DeSutter told the committee that Iran is in violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and has been working to acquire secretly nonconventional weapons of all kinds. ... is a genuine threat to both the Middle East and the U.S., since the Iranians are constantly working to expand the range of their missiles. America's current strategy for dealing with the problem is to push for a decision by the International Atomic Energy Agency, formally declaring Iran in violation of the NPT, she added.

The biological weapon angle is new, as the article says. The combination of nuclear allegations, actively seeking weapons, and actively working to extend the range of the missiles, well, we heard those exact complaints about Iraq. We've seen how accurate they were with Iraq, so can we trust the government again?

The fact that I can so easily express doubt about the government is the exact reason why their lies are impeachable offenses. As citizens we need to be able to trust that we are being told the truth, and if we catch the administration in a huge lie then how can we ever trust them?

The other interesting thing here is the joint session between Knesset and the U.S. Congress. Does the U.S. Congress regularly hold joint sessions with parlaiments or legislatures of other countries? Is Israel getting special treatment here? If so, why?

[Sep 18, 2003; The Economist; economist.com/world/africa/displayStory.cfm] It's all gone dreadfully wrong: Even the European Union has lost patience with Iran WHEN confronted with difficult questions about its nuclear programme, Iran's strategy has been to play for time. That approach backfired badly last week when the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) expressed its collective exasperation with Iran's evasive attitude. Instead of buying more time, Iran now faces a deadline of October 31st to dispel doubts about its nuclear ambitions.

[Sep 19, 2003; The Telegraph; telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml] US troops killed as Bremer accuses Iran At least three American soldiers died in attacks in Iraq yesterday as the US pro-consul in Baghdad gave warning that Iran should halt its plots to destabilise the country.

... In an interview with The Telegraph he claimed that Iranian intelligence agents were working to destabilise the reconstruction process.

IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) page on Iran: http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/Press/Focus/IaeaIran/index.shtml

IAEA 2002 report on Iran's Nuclear Power situation: iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/cnpp2002/Documents/Documents/Islamic%20Republic%20of%20Iran%202002.pdf

What happened to al-Qaeda?

The September 11, 2001 attack was horrendous by any measure. We were told by the U.S. administration that it was launched by Osama bin Laden in cahoots with his group, al Qaeda, and the Taliban, who was hosting him in Afghanistan. A war was launched, invading Afghanistan, toppling the ruling power there, etc.

Yet, in the middle of that effort statements were being made about Iraq. At first it was vague claims of dangers Iraq presented, but those statements grew stronger over the following year, more specific, calling for Regime Change in Iraq, and culminating in the 2003 invasion of Iraq and toppling of that government. We now know that a certain very hawkish faction in the administration had been planning an invasion of Iraq for over 10 years, and that the very day of the attack (Sep 11, 2001) they were immediately calling for an invasion of Iraq.

On no evidence of cooperation between al Qaeda or the Taliban with the government in Iraq, we were told that Iraq was the enemy and that their leader must be toppled. How "1984" of them.

The job in Afghanistan was not finished, Osama bin Laden was never captured, the invading forces in Afghanistan still control little more than Kabul, the President of Afghanistan who was installed (Hamid Karzai) is little more than the Mayor of Kabul, etc. The war in Iraq distracted us from finishing this job in Afghanistan.

So, what's going to happen as a result? Read on...

[Sep 23, 2003; Financial Times; ft.com/servlet/ContentServer] Taliban's shoots start to sprout from roots that the US failed to eradicate First there were warnings: two men on motorcycles who threatened a water supply team from the Danish Committee for Aid to Afghan Refugees for working with the infidels, and gunmen at a roadblock who torched a Dacaar vehicle. ... "You were warned about working for NGOs," they told five bound, kneeling Afghans who worked for Dacaar. They opened fire, killing four and seriously wounding one. ... Through the arid plains and the mountains of Ghazni in central Afghanistan and across the south of the country, the resurgent Taliban is attempting to undermine reconstruction efforts and government authority, and trying to win local support through intimidation and political promotion ... "The Americans were unable to eradicate the Taliban, to cut out their roots," says Mr Aolya. "Now they are growing back." ... Ali Ahmad Jalali, interior minister, says the Taliban is using southern Afghanistan as its main base while al-Qaeda remnants are hiding in south Waziristan, a Pakistani tribal area close to the Afghan border. Mr Hekmatyar, he adds, is based in the region straddling Kunar province, in the east, and northern Pakistan. ... "What we're seeing is an effective force behind which there's a strong movement," says Nick Downie, security co-ordinator for the Afghanistan NGO Security Office ... "Afghanistan needs more co-operation from Pakistan. Pakistan has been very effective in arresting al-Qaeda members but not Taliban," Mr Jalali says. ... "We're talking about tens of thousands of Taliban who are very angry and committed," says the western diplomat. "It's going to be a long fight."

[Sep 19, 2003; Asia Times; atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/EI19Df04.html] Al-Qaeda turns against Pakistan, Saudi Arabia

Powell Rebuts criticism

[2003 October 15]

Partly in response to the CBS News report I dissect in "The Man Who Knew", Secretary Colin Powell gives the following interview to a BBC News reporter. The transcript is replicated on the State Department web site, hence it is fair game to copy it here.

The rebuttal begins about halfway down, namely:

That's nonsense. I don't think I used the word "imminent" in my presentation on the 5th of February. I presented, on the 5th of February, not something I pulled out of the air. I presented the considered judgment of the intelligence community -- the coordinated judgment of the intelligence community of the United States of America. And the information I presented -- some of which has already been validated by David Kay.

And the investigation continues. We have found clear indications that Saddam Hussein maintained the infrastructure for chemicals -- weapons of mass destruction. We found some evidence of them. We haven't found stockpiles yet. The work continues. The investigation continues. There is an individual, I guess, who is going on a television show to say I misled the American people. I don't mislead the American people and I never would. I presented the best information that our intelligence community had to offer.

... I have many experts in my Department, and there are many differences of opinion among any group of experts. And it's quite easy for a television program to get this individual, and then they complain. But to try to turn it around and say that, "Secretary Powell made this all up and presented it, knowing it was false," is simply inaccurate.

... And so this is one of those cases where one individual strongly disagrees -- not just with me, he's disagreeing with the judgment of the intelligence community -- and this program is using it as a way of saying I tried to mislead the American people; quite the contrary. I presented the best judgment of our intelligence community and I supported that judgment. I sat there for five days and had them make the case to me, and I am confident in what I presented.

[http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2003/25206.htm]

Interview with Mr. Matt Frei of BBC Television

Secretary Colin L. Powell

Washington, DC

October 15, 2003

2003/1040

MR. FREI: Thank you very much for talking to us, Mr. Secretary.

SECRETARY POWELL: You're quite welcome.

MR. FREI: Let me start with a question about Gaza. For the first time ever, today American diplomats have been ambushed and killed in the Palestinian occupied territories. Does that mean that you're now drawn into that conflict?

SECRETARY POWELL: No, I don't think it does. I just think it shows that there are terrorists -- there are murderers -- in that part of the world that want to destroy the dreams of the Palestinian people for their own state.

You know what our people were doing when they were murdered in this manner? A convoy of American diplomats was in the Gaza Strip to interview individuals who had expressed an interest in the Fulbright Scholarship. We were going to bring them to the United States to study here as part of the Fulbright program. And that's the group that these people attacked -- and murdered three of their security guards.

We will not be deterred from trying to get Palestinians into our Fulbright program, or pursuing the roadmap or trying to bring peace to the region. We will not be deterred. And this kind of --

MR. FREI: And where does this leave the roadmap for peace?

SECRETARY POWELL: The roadmap is still there. It depends upon the Palestinian Authority coming together quickly; forming a government under, if it's going to be Mr. Abu Ala’a, forming that government quickly; giving that government political authority; and giving that government control of all the security forces in the Palestinian Authority so they can go after terrorists.

Three Americans lost their lives in the service of peace and in the service of the Palestinian people today. And the Palestinian leaders and the Palestinian people have got to come to the realization that terror does not serve their interests. There is nothing to cheer about. It is destroying the lives of innocent people and the dreams of the Palestinian people.

MR. FREI: But if you've been drawn into the conflict, as I said -- your people are being targeted -- can you be a mutual broker between Israel and the Palestinian Authority?

SECRETARY POWELL: We will serve our role. We will not let terrorists deter us from our role.

Now this is not the first time Americans have been attacked by terrorists in different parts of the world, as you well know. This is the first time it's ever happened in Gaza. But as much as we regret the incident and mourn the loss of these three brave men and express our sympathy to the families, we will not be knocked off our point, so to speak. We will not abandon the Palestinian people or the Israeli people who wish to find a way forward to peace.

MR. FREI: Let me ask you about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. Earlier this year, in February, you gave a presentation at the United Nations in which you talked about the imminent threat posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. Eight months later, we still haven't found anything of substance. And now, one of your former senior intelligence officials in your own department is claiming that you basically misled this nation and the world in that presentation.

SECRETARY POWELL: That's nonsense. I don't think I used the word "imminent" in my presentation on the 5th of February. I presented, on the 5th of February, not something I pulled out of the air. I presented the considered judgment of the intelligence community -- the coordinated judgment of the intelligence community of the United States of America. And the information I presented -- some of which has already been validated by David Kay.

And the investigation continues. We have found clear indications that Saddam Hussein maintained the infrastructure for chemicals -- weapons of mass destruction. We found some evidence of them. We haven't found stockpiles yet. The work continues. The investigation continues. There is an individual, I guess, who is going on a television show to say I misled the American people. I don't mislead the American people and I never would. I presented the best information that our intelligence community had to offer.

MR. FREI: But that individual was the leading expert for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction in your own department.

SECRETARY POWELL: I have many experts in my Department, and there are many differences of opinion among any group of experts. And it's quite easy for a television program to get this individual, and then they complain. But to try to turn it around and say that, "Secretary Powell made this all up and presented it, knowing it was false," is simply inaccurate.

It's a disservice to the wonderful young men and women, and not so young men and women, who have spent a lifetime gathering intelligence. And so that may be his view, but the view I presented that day with the Director of Central Intelligence sitting behind me, was the considered judgment of the professional men and women of American intelligence agencies.

MR. FREI: Is it possible, then, that you were misled by the intelligence community?

SECRETARY POWELL: No. I sat and I very carefully went over the material that I presented on the 5th of February. It was scrubbed. I am confident in the judgments that were given to me, and Dr. Kay is still out gathering information. He has miles of documents to exploit. He's got many more people to interview. And we will see what we will see as he finishes his work.

And so this is one of those cases where one individual strongly disagrees -- not just with me, he's disagreeing with the judgment of the intelligence community -- and this program is using it as a way of saying I tried to mislead the American people; quite the contrary. I presented the best judgment of our intelligence community and I supported that judgment. I sat there for five days and had them make the case to me, and I am confident in what I presented.

MR. FREI: In the year 2001, February of that year, you spoke to Face the Nation on CBS, and you said, "Saddam, today, is weaker, much weaker than he was before."

SECRETARY POWELL: He was.

MR. FREI: What happened in those two years between 2001 and --

SECRETARY POWELL: No, you're trying to put different pieces together.

In February 2001, I said he was much weaker than he was at the beginning of the Gulf War, some ten years earlier; and he was. We had destroyed his conventional forces by a factor of, I'd say, 50 to 60 percent. So he didn't have the capacity to invade his neighbors any longer because his conventional force was so small.

I also indicated that we -- I never said at that time he didn't have weapons of mass destruction -- I said that the sanctions had served the purpose of containing them, but not getting rid of them. And so the danger he presented in 2001 was a danger that continued into 2002, and I think was exacerbated and accelerated by what happened on 9/11 when suddenly we saw the potential danger of marrying up these kinds of weapons of mass destruction programs or actual weapons with terrorists was a risk the world should not be faced with. And for that reason, the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Great Britain and other leaders came together, presented the case at the United Nations, and earlier this year took military action in response to UN Resolution 1441, even though many other nations disagreed with our action. And we don't have to worry about this any longer.

This isn't a question that has to be debated any longer because the man responsible for all of this, Saddam Hussein, is no longer in power. He's in hiding. Remnants of his regime are trying to thwart our efforts to build a better Iraq that will be a democratic nation that will have elected leaders, and will no longer be investing its treasure into weapons of mass destruction programs or in the capacity to threaten its neighbors.

MR. FREI: Very briefly, the UN resolution that's currently on the table, are you confident it'll pass? And what difference will it make on the ground?

SECRETARY POWELL: I'm increasingly confident that it will pass. I think it will make a difference because it will show the international community coming together again. I don't know how many votes there will be for the resolution; we're working on that right now. But it will show us coming together and I hope it will give momentum to the Donors Conference that will be held in Madrid next week, and I hope it will give encouragement to those nations that are considering making additional contributions, whether they are military contributions or financial contributions or political support.

We have 32 nations, or thereabouts, standing alongside us in the Gulf, in Iraq. We're not alone. It is a coalition that has come together: Estonia, Latvia, Spain, Italy. So many nations are contributing this. Of course, the United Kingdom is making a massive contribution. Turkey has expressed its willingness to make a contribution, and we are working through some of the challenges associated with that.

But this is not the United States alone. This is the United States and a large group of responsible nations who did not want to face the continued risk of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and a regime that brutalizes people and filled graves with innocent people for a period of 30 years. That's over. That's done. We have nothing to apologize for and we are proud of what we've done.

MR. FREI: Mr. Secretary, thank you very much.

SECRETARY POWELL: Thank you, sir.

[End]

Released on October 15, 2003