Saddam Hussein's views on the crisis in CBS interview
Iraq, Politics, 3/1/2003

The INA yesterday presented "The Answers of His Excellency President Saddam Hussein to the Questions put to him by Mr. Dan Rather of CBS."
Following is the text of the report:

Baghdad, on 24 Feb. 2003

Ê-( on destroying the Sumoud Missiles )

President Saddam Hussein:

We are committed to dealing and implementing Resolution 1441 as demanded by the United Nations. It is on this basis that we have acted and shall continue to act. As you know, Iraq is allowed under UN resolutions, to develop land-to-land missiles of a range of 150 kilometers. And we are committed to complying to these specifications. We have no missiles exceeding this range, and the inspection teams have searched everywhere. Indeed I think you should seek an answer to this question from them.

I believe that the US and the world should know by now that Iraq does not possess any of the weapons claimed by top-ranking officials in the US and the UK.

I think that part of this fabricated campaign, together with the military buildup underway, is meant to cover the huge lie that Iraq is in possession of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction, and it is on this basis that resolution 1441 was adopted. Although Iraq is absolutely certain that it is void of any WMDs, as indeed has been confirmed by all officials concerned, and in order that Iraq's position may not be misinterpreted, Iraq has accepted resolution 1441 so that the facts are made clear. This is why, missiles such as the ones you are referring to, which exceed in range the limits set under UN resolutions, do not exist in Iraq any longer, because they have all been destroyed in the past as announced at the time.

Ê-(on core-issues)Ê

President Saddam Hussein:

In all divine religions, God has stressed to mankind in all scriptures, that the tow most important things in life, after the creation of man and Faith, are food and peace. This is true of Islam, Christianity and other religions. So peace, i.e. security, is an issue most fundamental to one's life and to the lives of others. Add to this man's right to live, not only in the sense of having food, but also in exercising his role vis-?-vis his own humanity and the humanity of others. I believe this is the core issue.

Ê-(on expecting US war or invasion)

President Saddam Hussein:

We hope it will not happen; but we are bracing ourselves to such an eventuality. You have, no doubt, observed the normalcy prevailing in public life in Iraq. People are getting married, making friends, maintaining normal relations with neighbors and relatives, traveling around the country, and enjoying life as much as they can. Yet, they are preparing themselves at the same time for this eventuality which is being talked about by US officials. Therefore, our people will continue be prepared, while we pray God Almighty to spare the Americans the experience of going down this road, and to spare the Iraqis the evil of those who ride the bandwagon of evil to launch aggression against Iraq.

Ê-(on possibility of being killed or captured)

President Saddam Hussein:

We, as believer, accepts God's will, whatever it may be. There is no value for life without faith. A true believer accepts his fate while taking precautions at the same time not to fall in an precipice of death, or any such precipice which his enemy may try dig for him. Prior to the revolution of July 1958, we were ordinary citizens in a people many of whom found it difficult to purchase shoes to wear, not only in the countryside, but in the cities as well, and many in fact were deprived of the simplest necessities of life. At that time, we had placed ourselves at the service of our people, having first relied on God Almighty, with all the dangers that we had to face in those days, the kind of dangers that are well known; and I do not want here to indulge in these details.

At that time, we never asked whether we were going to live or die. We had put our faith in God because what was essential to us was the kind of virtues of service to the people that would please God. Now that we have become leaders, with positions in the government, as President, Vice-President, Ministers, etc., it cannot be morally acceptable for us to change our stance. When we were fighters for freedom, our people believed us and followed the banner of the Revolution until victory. In spite of the great difficulties faced by our people along that course, difficulties well-known to the world, our people remained true to their principles.

So, I believe it is not right for a leader to ask himself whether he is going to live or die. Indeed, the basic question should be, to what extent will he remain true to his people and to humanity at large. There and then, God's will shall prevail unimpeded; for I believe that no power on earth can do anything contrary to God's desire.

ÊÊÊÊ -(on asylum)

President Saddam Hussein:

I take Mr. Rather's motive in this question to excitement, which is an American way of interviewing which some people may not like; but, as far as I am concerned, I can understand it; however, I shall answer your question: I was born here in Iraq. And I was born as a true Arab believer. I am proud, and I have taught my children to be proud, of the value of Arab history in all it human dimensions, and of all the stances of Faith which every believer, man or woman, should take. I also taught my children the importance and value of patriotism and the homeland, and to be true to their honor and their people. And now I am teaching this to my grandchildren. This is how we have been talking to the people of Iraq since the days of our struggle underground. I believe that it shall not be acceptable for any leader who talks to his people and to mankind at large about principles in a manner that sound genuine before coming to power, and then change his discourse when he is in power. As for us, we do not change, because our basic premise is that we were born in Iraq as part of a great and glorious nation, and have live n Iraq, blessed by God Almighty to be, through the will of the Iraqi people, in our present status and position. Therefore, we shall die here in Iraq, or on the soil of our nation, according to the will of God.

As for the question of asylum, we think that only he who forsakes his nation will seek to save himself. But he who is committed to the honor of defending his country and people, children men and women, shall abide by the same moral values that he has talked about to his people, never abandoning these values. Indeed, let me say again, maybe Mr. Rather, is after excitement in this question. But what ought to be said here is that whoever asks Saddam Hussein to take asylum in his country is a man without morals, because what his offer mean would be an insult to the people of Iraq. He would be saying to the Iraqis:" Your unanimous decision to choose Saddam Hussein as your leader is of no value. Which is why I will ask him, or convince him, to relinquish power and leave you to the mercy of beasts without a leadership. So rest assured that this matter is alient to the ethics of Saddam Hussein. Then, again, as a journalist, you raise questions such as this one for purposes of excitement, and for some an answer as well; and I can understand that. But I believe that he who speaks about destiny of a country as if it can be determined by another country, would be committing a grave sin. We believe that destiny is determined by God; for however powerful, tyrannical or capable of destruction a particular country may be, it cannot coerce the will of a people resolved to live in freedom and dignity and to defend it honor, integrity, homeland and sanctities.

You remember that in 1991, Mr. Tariq Aziz, then our foreign minister, met Mr. James Baker who wanted Mr. Aziz to convey to the Iraqi leadership the threat of pushing Iraq back into the pre-industrial age. So the attack on Iraq continued for one month and a half, during which time 3000 warplanes were used against Iraq, together with missiles and some 2700 helicopter gun ships, with troops from 28 countries. Nevertheless, Iraq was not pushed back to the pre-industrial age. True, a lot of destruction was brought to our bridges, churches, mosques, temples, universities, palaces, plants and factories, and a lot of killing was inflicted on our children, women and the elderly. But the Iraqis, driven by their resolve after relying on God Almighty, have rebuilt everything, in the light of which US officials started claiming that, the withdrawal of UNSCOMÊ (which by the way- was done upon US instructions, may have enabled Iraq to develop weapons of mass destruction. Then they began saying that they had intelligence to the effect that Iraq had developed such weapons. We, on the other hand, say that we do not have such weapons. But what does all this mean? It means that Baker's threat of 1991 had not come true. So any talk about the possibilities of metamorphosing Iraq is unfair both to God Almighty, Who doesn't need the fairness from those whom He creates, but expects only their devotion, as well as to the Iraqis and to their potential as a people in confronting adversity with talent, creativity and productive work.

We hope and pray that war will not take place; but if it were to happen, Iraq will still be there. A country, such as our, with 8000 years of civilization behind it, which was indeed the cradle of man first civilization, cannot be imagined to simply diminish simply because an external power wants or imagines, for some reason, to put an end to its role.

Ê-(on the belief in victory)

President Saddam Hussein:

You know that in both situations( that is in 1990-91 and now), we did not cross the Atlantic to commit aggression against the United States. We, as people, armed forces and leadership, are here at home in Iraq when US officials are declaring their intentions to perpetrate aggression against Iraq, Is it not part of our responsibility and the basic meaning of our patriotism, moral commitment and faith to say to the coming aggressor: " If you commit aggression against us, we shall not succumb." And if we were to reserve this question by putting it to any honest US citizen, in his own country of the USA, including Mr. Rather, and said to him: Let us suppose that at any time in the future, power will revert to a country other than the USA, and then this power decides to cross the Atlantic to occupy you, will you surrender or will you resist? Let me answer by saying to all good Americans, if you happen to face any such situation in the future, do not succumb, but resist and defend your country and your honor as a people. But you ought not to commit aggression on others.

As you know, we have not committed aggression against the USA, while the US government is inflicting death on our children, our women and the elderly, burning our crops and destroying our property on a daily basis. Even now, as I am sitting with you here, US warplanes may be raiding the northern or southern parts of Iraq to drop their lethal cargo on our population and our property which, be it private or public, belongs to the people in all circumstances.

So, when if the world is governed by the law of the strong: a law according to which the weak must accept being hegemonized by the strong who possess the supremacy of destructive force, then such a law will be void of the most basic elements of morality and of the simplest meanings of faith, regardless who you are and what faith you believe in. this means capitulation to the law of the jungle; and we, as true believers, refuse to surrender to the law of the jungle. It is our duty, under the rules of the honor of responsibility, that we defend our country, our children and our people. We shall never surrender, neither to the USA, nor to any other power, even if the US power of destruction were to become many many times its present size, we shall continue to resist aggression, and shall fight with honor, and victory can come only from God Almighty.

Let me, however, make a correction about history, which should be important to you and to the American people. In 1991 Iraq was not defeated. We withdrew from Kuwait by our own decision. True we were under bombardment; but once we were inside Iraq, neither the army, nor the people, of Iraq was defeated. You must remember this fact, or have seen in the writings which have since appeared about what actually took place in the tank-battle near Basrah, and how Mr. Bush, the father, delivered a speech declaring an unconditional ceasefire, except for when their forces are fired at, in which case they would retaliate. So Iraq was not defeated in 1991

Let me also explain to you, Mr. Rather, why I refer to former President Bush as ( Mr.) Bush. It is because I respect people. When Khumeini died ( May his soul rest in peace), and I received the news of his death, I told our Minister of information at that time: Don't gloat over his death, for this is the law of God. Interestingly enough, let me tell you that I hadn't used to refer to President George Bush, Sr., as ( Mr.) Bush when he was in office. But from the day he left office, I began calling him Mr. Bush whenever his name came up. In any case, the law of faith says this: you must respect even your enemy as a human being.

Ê-( on confirming that 1991 was a defeat to Iraq)

President Saddam Hussein:

Let me answer this question. You know goals of Bush, the father, and why he repeated his attacks later. Why did he come back to repeat his military strikes against us when he was President of the USA if we had been defeated. So when a military conflict takes place, the war includes advance and retreat. Mr. Bush, Sr., had mobilized 28 armies and 42 countries against us at the time; and when we saw the world collaborating in a military operation on the field against our country and our armed forces, we withdrew our armies from Kuwait, without losing more than 10% of our hardware in one and a half months of fighting on the battle field; so we withdrew in order to be able to carry on fighting inside Iraq. And we did fight on, and defeated the tanks that came to fight us on the outskirts of Basrah. This has been written about in the books published by American military experts.

So, in actual fact, the ceasefire declaration was issued by Mr. Bush, the father, without having consulted his allies to announce that the military offensive had achieved its objectives which was why they wanted to stop the war unconditionally.

So we lost a battle, but were not defeated. You know that the war between our country and Iran had last eight years during which Iran lost battles to us and we lost others to them. But how are things measured. They are measured on the basis of the final outcome. The United States can inflict destruction, but the question remains: Why keep destroying? Why make the world your enemy? Did the Americans develop their weapons in order to destroy the world? Or, Did their scientists and tax-payers work and pay for weapons for the defense of the United States? I believe that when American scientists developed weaponry, and when American tax-payers paid, and continue to pay for the weapons, then what they had in mind must have been the defense of the United States. But is it wise for anyone, any official, in possession of military supremacy, to commit aggression on others, destroy them, kill their people and their children simply because they say Allah is our God and we believe in Him, and we shall defend our freedom and our right to independence and dignity and to make our own choices in life while respecting others? What does Iraq threaten the United States with? Iraq has not committed aggression against the USA. Neither the people, nor the officials, of this country have said at any time that they are enemies of the United States, or enemies of the American people and their national choices. Is it right for any superior power to aggress against others? Is it right to do that because of ambitions coveted or desired by companies of special interests?

Mr. Rather, you are an experienced man and must know that the battle will no be over only when the guns are silent, or when the national will bows to the aggressor. It is not enough to have supremacy in the air or in missile capacity; for it is the guns that will remain to tell the tale of a great people's resistance against occupation and the defeat of the aggressors. This is not because Iraq wants to enter into confrontation with others. The United States or any other country, but this is a general principle. The people of Iraq have decided to re-assume their great patriotic and nationalist role of faith in human civilization, and will persist in this role of self-respect and respect to other peoples and to their will and right to free choice.

So let us pray for the good of all peoples, asking God to give them faith and spare them both from bringing harm to, or being harmed by others.

ÊDan Rather:

Mr. President, US Vice-President Richard Cheney has stated that when the US forces enter Iraq, they will be welcomed with greetings and music as an army of liberation. Do you think the American people should believe this sort of thing?

President Saddam Hussein:

If the Iraqi army, or any other army for that matter, were to cross the Atlantic and occupy America, will the people of America receive this army with music. I don't think any man in a position of responsibility should say this, because when he does say this sort of thing, it's as if he is preparing his own people to welcome any occupying force invading their country with music and festivities.

I don't believe that. In fact I am absolutely certain that not a single Iraqi citizen will welcome any American, if the latter comes as an invader. But all Iraqis will welcome any American citizen who comes as a friend.

So you see yourself that you, who have come from a country threatening to destroy Iraq, have been received with the respect and warmth to which you are entitled from all officials and people who know where you come from. What does this mean? Our citizen knows that you come as a guest and should be able to wonder about in Iraq in freedom. But if you had come as a trooper in an occupying force, you would not have been able to move freely in the country. So,Ê as long as you are here, moving about in freedom, this means that you are here as a guest, and it is the duty of the people of Iraq to host you in welcome as a guest, because they are committed to such a duty.

If Americans or others want to know the true situation in Iraq, they should ask themselves a specific question. The people of Iraq chose Saddam Hussein in a public referendum inÊ 1995 and again in 2002, by giving him 99.6% and 100% of the vote on the two occasions respectively. I can understand that such high voting figures may seem strange to you; but whatever you take out of them, the figures big. Consider also the circumstances under which the Iraqi people gave Saddam Hussein this kind of vote. They elected him under circumstances of war and embargo. What does this mean? It means that the people of Iraq decided to take a patriotic stance under these circumstances as a statement to foreigners saying: It is we who choose our way and you will not draw our path for us.

If the referendum had taken place at a time after than the time of the embargo and the war, may be Saddam Hussein would not have obtained the same percentage of the vote of the Iraqi people. If you want to see an indication on the way Iraqis act if attacked by a foreign power that wants to occupy their land and usurp their dignity, freedom, and honor, look at the outcome of the referendum.

You probably know that nothing negative was said in the west about the organization of the referendum of 2002, for many reporters from all over the world were present. some of the reporters stood by the ballot box to make sure that it was true that the Iraqis said (yes) to Saddam Hussein.

Ê ( on the possible new UN resolution and would it change Iraq's stance)

The basic constants do not change. The basic thing that we are committed to the security council resolutions which we have accepted. The inspectors have come to Iraq, and have seen that we had been telling the truth and that we have not developed weapons of mass destruction as was said by some parties. so, what would any new resolutions be about now ?Ê

The constants of our stance are clear: we do not bargain over our independence, dignity and freedom. At the same time we comply with what has been adopted by the Security Council. If new resolutions that en fringe upon our dignity, freedom and independence, are adopted, our position will be clear and built on our previous position.

Ê( on developing El-Soumod missiles )

Do you mean the EL-Soumod missiles that are with the UN limits and of a 150 Km range ?Ê Iraq has not violated any UN resolution, but if anyone wants to reconsider the past Security Council resolution with which we have complied, including the allowed 150 Km range missiles, the issue would be put into a completely new framework, i.e. the UN would be relinquishing its own resolutions, and that the basic issue has become not implementing Security Council resolutions, but inflicting harm on Iraq.

Ê( on what H.E. wants to say to the American people )

first of all convey to them that the people of Iraq are not the enemy of the American people, but the enemy of the aggressive policy adopted by the American Administrations against of the nations including Iraq. Iraqis want and work for living in peace. They wish that all the nations of the world, including the American people, live in peace, and respect the will and rights of the other nations.

If the American people wants to know more facts through a direct televised dialogue, I am ready to enter into a dialogue with Mr. Bush, the president of USA on TV before the entire world, so that I speak out my remarks regarding US policies, and he can say his remarks about Iraqi policies. Thus the Americans and the rest of the world would know who is right and who is wrong. I do not mind Mr. Dan Rather conducting the debate which can be made by satellite, with Mr. Bush in Washington and myself here in Baghdad, in fair way.

We have seen in movies, the American people are courageous, and like the Arabs, when challenged for a duel, they would not refuse. We are not asking for a duel with weapons, but a live debate on TV between Mr. Bush and me. If he is convinced with his position regarding going to war, this would be an opportunity for him to convince the world of his reasons for opting for war, if he has already decided to go to war. It is also an opportunity for us to explain our views that we have a right to live in peace. I think it is the American and the Iraqi peoples as well as the world at large have the right to hear us clearly explain our positions so that they can judge where right and wrong are.

Don't you call for facts in us ? we have heard and read in American writings of philosophers, novels and even seen in movies that they do. So why should we hide away from the people and not let the facts be seen by all the people concerned ? This is what I am calling for: either we both go for peace, which is what we want and wish, to avoid our people any harm, or he who opts for no peace, convince his people of his reasons.

Of course this not a joke. I propose this as a sign of respect on my side to the American public opinion, to my people, and to the entire world. I call for this because the war is not a joke. He who considers the war as the first option in his life is not a normal person. If a dialogue could bring on opportunity for peace, why shouldn't we go for it, and thus show respect to our peoples and put the facts before the centers of decision making in both countries ? in Iraq, the final decision is taken, after consulting the people, by the higher leadership in the country, and from our knowledge of the American constitution, in the US, it is the president who makes the decision. So why do not we seize this opportunity to have alive debate on the TV? Then everyone can chose his own way and means. If president Bush, has another proposal on the basis of the same idea, we are ready to hear it.

The important thing is that the debate should be heard in a normal and correct way, but in the UN the voice of people are not always heard. I do not mean, by the debate, that Mr. Bush and I deliver speeches; we should sit together as we are doing now with you, with the difference that each one of us would be in a different location, and I would ask him questions he would ask me questions. I would explain Iraq's position, and he the US position. He would explain why does he want to go to war, and I would explain why do we hold on peace and defend

Our dignity, sovereignty, and rights, in away that the American, Iraqis and other peoples would hear us in a direct and honest way and without prewritten speeches. The citizens want to see a direct and live dialogue. I think this applies to the psychology of American just as it does for Iraqis. The peoples do not want to listen to speeches, but to a dialogue where each party presents his reasons and counter reasons. The debate should air live and in its totality from American and Iraqi TV.

Previous Stories:
  Mexico rejects US position on Iraq   (2/28/2003)
  Germany wants Blix to define key remaining disarmament tasks   (2/28/2003)
  The US against France; a defining moment for world politics or a wasted opportunity   (2/24/2003)

Please add a link on your webiste pointing to ArabicNews.com and bookmark ArabicNews.com & subscribe to our daily email news bulletin.

Search