Speaking after his meeting with Canadian Foreign Minister William Graham in Washington February 14, Colin Powell reiterated that President Bush has made no decision with respect to military action against Iraq.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, President Putin said in Moscow this morning that he's not happy with the idea of US action against Iraq. Our own Prime Minister was there, Prime Minister Chretien, and said he's not ready to endorse military action in Iraq yet. Are you worried about the dissensions within the coalition, the coalition even breaking up because of this kind of --

SECRETARY POWELL: Not at all. President Bush has made no decision with respect to any kind of military action, which is the context of your question. And the Minister and I discussed in rather specific terms what President Bush meant by the axis of evil, and we talked about the nature of these three countries. And our policies are well known with respect to North Korea and Iran; they haven't changed. And our policies with respect to Iraq, both in a multilateral sense, with the United Nations Security Council resolutions, and our bilateral position, that the regime ought to change to benefit the people of Iraq and to bring greater stability and peace and opportunity to the region, that hasn't changed.

But the President has not received any recommendation to take additional action, and we'll be in close consultation with our friends as we go along. But of course we have to preserve all options, and we have to preserve the option to act alone if, as the President has said previously, we find that necessary.

So the coalition isn't breaking up. It has been reported as breaking up since about the second day it was formed last September, and my experience over the last five months is that it has grown stronger and stronger, because there is a common vision and a common purpose, and that is to defeat terrorism.

And as the Minister said a moment ago, use this coalition beyond just terrorism for many other purposes that we have a common vision for.

QUESTION: Do you think you'll still get Russian help on smart sanctions? You were fairly confident the other day, before President Putin's negative statement.

SECRETARY POWELL: I don't think President Putin said anything negatively about the sanctions regime.

QUESTION: No, no, about Iraq. Iraq policy.

SECRETARY POWELL: No, but you're asking about the sanctions regime.

QUESTION: Right, but it's still over, I'm asking.

SECRETARY POWELL: You get to pick the question; I pick the answer. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: I want to be sure you understand the question. We need him on sanctions, and do you think they're still there?

SECRETARY POWELL: Yes. We're working hard with the Russians. We have had good meetings recently, reviewing the goods review list. And I am confident that we will continue to work closely together with the Russians, and try to bring into effect by the deadline in May a reviewed, revised goods review list, and that the whole Security Council will bless it at that time. And the Iraqis, from that point on, will have no one to blame but themselves for any deprivation that the Iraqi people are suffering. It's their fault now, and we're going to take away their last excuse when the smart sanctions come into effect.

QUESTION: Minister, why would the Canadian Government be the slightest bit reluctant to back America in wanting to oust Saddam Hussein, who has gassed his own people, defied UN sanctions for a decade? Why aren't you wholeheartedly endorsing his ouster?

FOREIGN MINISTER GRAHAM: Nobody is supporting Saddam Hussein, but everybody recognises that in international politics you have to have a process which, before you invade a sovereign country, there has to be a reason for it or we're going to lead to international chaos. And what the Prime Minister has clearly said is that Canadians will support an action against Iraq if the causes are there. The two causes that are being cited are a link to the terrorism which occurred on September 11th. That has not been shown.

But if it is shown that they are amassing their weapons of mass destruction with a vision of using them against someone in the immediate future, that is a clear and present danger that we and all the world have to address. And we'll be willing to address it, but I think the Secretary was extremely clear about what he is saying. The President himself and the US administration is regarding this issue with a great deal of caution, and they are looking at what to do. And obviously we believe that what we are doing through the UN, the use of sanctions, is the way that we should presently proceed in order to make Saddam Hussein unable to use his weapons of mass destruction.

QUESTION: If the Americans provide concrete proof that Iraq is linked to the terrorism efforts, does that mean Canada will, in fact, back a military insertion?

FOREIGN MINISTER GRAHAM: That would certainly cause us to look at what action we should take with our American allies, yes.

2. Donald Rumsfeld, Defence Secretary Says U.S. Military Mistakes in Afghanistan Rare (Interview on National Public Radio)

Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said U.S. military mistakes that have caused civilian casualties in Afghanistan have been rare and the reports of such casualties may be inaccurate.

NPR: I haven't thought too much about this one because the President just said it. He said he refused to rule out an attack against Iraq, Saddam Hussein. So I guess I just want you to tell me how prepared you are to do that.

Secretary Rumsfeld: Oh, my goodness. Those are issues that Presidents deal with and decide and countries decide, and what the Department of Defence has to do is to be ready to do that which the country decides needs to be done. That's about all I can say.

NPR: A week or so ago you said we have any number of reports that Iran has been permissive and allowed transit through their country of al Qaida. Now there's a report from an Iranian newspaper that security forces there have arrested some al Qaida fighters fleeing Afghanistan and are hunting others who have slipped across the border. What do you make of that?

Secretary Rumsfeld: Well, I hope it's true. If so, it would be a new event. They have, to our knowledge, been quite accommodating to al Qaida people transiting from Afghanistan through Iran towards the Middle East, various countries in the Middle East. It's been notably unhelpful to the war on terrorism and to our efforts to stop terrorists from attacking us and our friends and allies, deployed forces.

Iran is an interesting case. You have, I think, a lot of particularly young people and women and others who would like to see reform and yet you have a very small group of revolutionary guards and ayatollahs that control the country. They don't seem to be making much progress.

I'm always hopeful that a country will change, but we have not seen much that would indicate they are changing and want to be a part of the civilised world. They're still sponsoring terrorists, for example, down through Damascus and the Bakka Valley in Lebanon, and then down into southern Lebanon.

NPR: Any chance they would turn these al Qaida fighters over to you?

Secretary Rumsfeld: Not likely.

NPR: Also, some Taliban are under negotiations to surrender, something like 15 Taliban leaders, possibly some cabinet ministers. The report here says this may take one, two, three or four weeks to negotiate their surrender. Will you be getting hold of those people or making some effort to have them turned over to UN forces?

Secretary Rumsfeld: Well, for months now there probably hasn't been an hour in any day that there have not been negotiations like that, discussions taking place where people have been trying to decide what they're going to do. It's now pretty clear that the al Qaida have fled in large numbers. There are still al Qaida in the country. It's now pretty clear that the Taliban don't run the government. But there are still a lot of Taliban in the country, and indeed al Qaida and Taliban in neighbouring countries across borders that could come back.

The ones that want to come back and the ones from Pakistan or Iran or wherever, and the ones that are in the mountains that are hiding do from time to time make contact with friends. These people have been on both sides of several different wars in the last decade and a half and they know each other so they talk to each other. In some instances local factions want to increase their capability and their power and their heft with the different tribes or different elements so they sometimes want to ring them in and have them be supporters of theirs, so discussions take place.

Of course the government, the interim government I should say, of Afghanistan has been wonderfully helpful with us and recognise the risk to them and the risk to the country if senior Taliban people are brought back in and allowed simply to go back to their old ways. So they've been helpful and they've been involved in negotiations and we've been involved in dealing with them essentially, to try to bring these people in so we can talk to them, find out what they know, gather intelligence, and see that people who shouldn't be part of the Afghan governmental structure aren't.

NPR: Each day this week the Washington Post has had another story on an accident, a raid, a bombing mission in which civilians in Afghanistan have been hit. Are --

Secretary Rumsfeld: Let me just qualify that slightly. They've had reports in the newspaper that allege that those things have happened.

NPR: Are these -- some of which you've investigated, some of which you have not.

Secretary Rumsfeld: We are investigating, right.

NPR: Are these the result of intelligence failures or is it a case of U.S. forces being used by rival Afghan factions to target one another?

Secretary Rumsfeld: I can't speak to any of the ones that you're making reference to in current newspapers because investigations are underway, but I can speak to the problem generally.

I would list the following categories. In some cases it is because a mistake was made. That's one category. In another case it is the possibility that you suggested, that one faction can try to encourage misinformation so that another faction that they're opposed to will be harmed. That's possible. We do not know of any instances where we have executed improperly in those cases. We'd know of at least one instance where we were misled and found out about it prior to execution of the campaign.

The other possibility is that everyone's right. That is to say that you go after a compound and in one building in a compound are people who are not Taliban or al Qaida and next door are Taliban or al Qaida, and the people coming in, the Special Forces entering the compound get fired on and the people who are the al Qaida or Taliban fire on them so they return fire. They then don't know what is in the other house and it may turn out that there are innocents in the other house, that is to say non-Taliban, non-al Qaida.

So if somebody says that they were fired on and they were al Qaida and Taliban, they're right. But if someone in the other house who isn't Taliban or al Qaida says they were fired on and they weren't, they could also be right. So you could have one of those strange situations where everyone's right.

Last, I think we should not ignore that the reality, the truth, that the al Qaida training manual does in fact advise Taliban and al Qaida people when captured to claim that they're innocent and to claim that they were beaten and to lie about their circumstances. And it is difficult to move around in mountainous Afghanistan quickly, fast enough to get in there and know precisely what took place.

And last, the other thing is a lot of people don't tell the truth so you have to live with that.

NPR: As a result of these incidents, have you made any changes in policy or procedure to make sure you know who you're striking when you strike?

Secretary Rumsfeld: We know of the thousands of sorties and the tens of thousands of weapons dropped and efforts on the ground. We know of less than a handful of instances where in fact there was a mistake made. We take great care, these people are exceedingly well trained. Not just our folks but the coalition forces that are operating on the ground with us. We are also operating generally with Afghan troops mixed in with ours. And what we do is every time there is an allegation or a suggestion or a question raised, we -- not we, but the commander, the Central Commander, General Franks, asks to have it looked into in one way or another. It is through that process. Then the lessons learned from that when you find that in fact it was a proper thing to do, but it looked for three weeks during the investigation as though it wasn't, then you have to say to yourself how can you avoid that? That's not helpful. If you find out it was a mistake then you have to go back and find out how that happened. What was it that, what was the evidence that led the people making the decision to go forward that misled them in terms of suggesting that it was going to be a proper thing to do and finding out later that it was not a proper thing to do?

We've got wonderful people out there doing a great job. It's a shame that we see day after day in the press these articles, because it sounds like, it leads a reader to the impression that there's a lot of it. And the short answer is, there is very, very, very little that anyone could characterise as a mistake.

NPR: It damages international confidence if you do.

Secretary Rumsfeld: It does. Which of course the people who are lying about it know and do it purposely. That's why it would be in the al Qaida training manual, to suggest that that be used as an argument. Which is not to say that everything that's done is perfect. It isn't. And needless to say when that happens you're deeply concerned about it and you want to find ways to improve what you're doing.

NPR: The CIA Director says al Qaida is regrouping. The interim government in Afghanistan says the Taliban is regrouping. Leaders of both are at large. What can you show for the billions spent? What have you accomplished in Afghanistan?

Secretary Rumsfeld: Well if you think about it, the United States, the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, this building were struck what, four months ago? Five months ago. Almost to the day.

Thousands of people were killed. Afghan was ruled by a terribly repressive government that was denying people their rights, killing people, starvation was rampant, the country had been engaged in wars and conflicts for years and years and years. And the al Qaida were recruiting, training and financing and launching terrorist acts around the world.

Five months later the Taliban government is gone. There is a government that promises an election sometime in the next six months. That is representative of the various elements in that country. Women have stopped being repressed. They can actually walk out in the street and not have their entire faces and bodies covered by burkhas. They can laugh on the street. They can go to a doctor, which they couldn't do. They can go to school, which they couldn't do. Food aid has been coming into that country from the United States. The United States has promised something like $320 million worth of humanitarian assistance. Other countries have antied up in the Tokyo Conference and are helping the starvation.

The circumstance of the people in that country is so vastly better today, it is just breathtaking. And that anyone could even wonder what has been accomplished, when right before our faces is this really exciting and thrilling change that's taking place in that country.

We have also said, as you properly point out, that the al Qaida and the Taliban haven't gone away. They've drifted into the mountains, they've drifted over borders. These are serious people. And we didn't catch them all. We didn't kill them all, as hard as we've tried. And it is not possible to do that. It's going to take time. And so we have an effort going on to try to run them down.

What we do know has been accomplished is that we have them running. They are not running the government of Afghanistan. They are not training in those training camps. They're on the move.

We know we've frozen a lot of their money, bank accounts. We know we've arrested a lot of their people and we know we have a lot of them in jail. We know we have others under interrogation.

NPR: But the President says there are tens of thousands of terrorists out there.

Secretary Rumsfeld: Right. But the President didn't invent them. They exist. They've been being trained for decades. They are there. That is a fact of our world. We just simply have to get up in the morning like adults and say fair enough? How do we live in this world? What do we do about the fact that thousands of these people were trained to go around killing people? What we do about it is we get serious about it and we say to ourselves fair enough. We will declare war on them and we'll go find them and we'll try to find the countries that are harbouring them and we'll try to stop having havens for them, we'll try to make it less desirable for them to recruit them, we'll try to make it more desirable for people to defect from them, we'll try to make it more difficult for them to move money, and we'll arrest as many as we can and keep them off the streets.

NPR: Is your new budget geared to fight that kind of war, or is it geared to fight more something like the Cold War as critics say it is?

Secretary Rumsfeld: Actually there's critics on both sides. There are people saying we aren't buying enough ships and we aren't buying enough of the legacy systems, and then there are people saying we didn't transform enough. It sounds to me like if we're catching it from both sides we might be in a pretty good place.

It's a very difficult thing, but the short answer to your question is we're prepared to do both. That's what we must be prepared to do. We have to recognise that we have to live in the world and be capable against defending against more traditional, conventional types of threats. The reason we have to do that is because it deters people from thinking they can defeat us or harm us by using conventional threats.

On the other hand, we have to be able to deal with, as your question suggests, with the so-called asymmetrical threat. The terrorism, cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, cyber attacks, weapons of mass destruction, damaging our ability to communicate in our space assets or our communication systems because they're not hardened to the extent they probably ought to be.

So what we have to do is say okay, that's the nature of the 21^st Century. Let's get about the business of investing in that and see if we can't provide as effective a deterrent there as we've been able to provide with respect to the more conventional threat.