STOCKHOLM, Sweden — U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Thursday rejected a former White House spokesman's allegations that the Bush administration misled the American public into going to war with Iraq.
Rice would not comment specifically on charges made by ex-press secretary Scott McClellan in a new book, but said President Bush was honest and forthright about the reasons for the war. She also said she remained convinced that toppling Saddam Hussein was right and necessary.
"The president was very clear about the reasons for going to war," she told reporters at a news conference with Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt in Stockholm where she is attending an international conference on Iraq.
Chief among those reasons was the belief, shared widely before the war, that Saddam Hussein had or was developing weapons of mass destruction, Rice recalled, suggesting the international community shouldn't have backed harsh sanctions against Iraq if it doubted the threat.
"I am not going to comment on a book that I haven't read," she said, referring to McClellan's scathing memoir, "but what I will say is that the concern about weapons of mass destruction in Saddam Hussein's Iraq was the fundamental reason."
"It was not the United States of America alone that believed that he had weapons of mass destruction that he was hiding," Rice said, dismissing suggestions that the administration knew the intelligence was incorrect.
In an exclusive interview Thursday on NBC's TODAY , McClellan told co-host Meredith Vieira that he became "disillusioned" when he realized that he was just a pawn in a political game.
Video: Exclusive: McClellan defends memoir “The larger message has been sort of lost in the mix ... The White House would prefer I not speak out openly and honestly about my experiences, but I believe there is a larger purpose," McClellan said.
Rice said Thursday, "The story is there for everyone to see, you can't now transplant yourself into the present and say we should have known what we in fact did not know in 2001 and 2002. ... The record on weapons of mass destruction was one that appeared to be very clear."
Those who were skeptical should have spoken up at the time and argued against U.N. sanctions such as the oil-for-food program, she said.
"The threat from Saddam Hussein was well understood," Rice said. "You can agree or disagree about the decision to liberate Iraq in 2003, but I would really ask that if you ... believe he was not a threat to the international community, then why in the world were you allowing the Iraqi people to suffer under the terms of oil-for-food."
Other political news of note
Competency questions pile up for White House
Updated 106 minutes ago 5/20/2013 1:09:10 PM +00:00 First Read: Trio of controversies bring more questions over the administration’s handling of the bureaucratic machinery of government.
- White House defends IRS handling, McConnell asserts 'culture of intimidation'
- Immigration officers' union to oppose Senate bill
- Ax hovers over food stamp program as costs grow
- Capping week of scandal management, Obama says focus remains on jobs
- Competency questions pile up for White House
The heart of the McClellan book concerns Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq, a determination McClellan says the president had made by early 2002 — at least a full year before the invasion — if not even earlier.
"He signed off on a strategy for selling the war that was less than candid and honest," McClellan writes in "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception."
He says Bush relied on an aggressive "political propaganda campaign" instead of the truth to sell the Iraq war.
However, McClellan wrote that he did not believe Bush or the White House "deliberately or consciously sought to deceive the American people."
McClellan says Bush's main reason for war always was "an ambitious and idealistic post-9/11 vision of transforming the Middle East through the spread of freedom." But Bush and his advisers made "a marketing choice" to downplay this rationale in favor of one focused on increasingly trumped-up portrayals of the threat posed by the weapons of mass destruction.
The White House responded angrily Wednesday to McClellan's memoir, calling it self-serving sour grapes.
"Scott, we now know, is disgruntled about his experience at the White House," said current White House press secretary Dana Perino, a former deputy to McClellan. "We are puzzled. It is sad. This is not the Scott we knew."
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.