Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

Iraq Still Refuses To Let Weapons Inspectors Come In Despite Bush's Warning

Aired November 27, 2001 - 07:07   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: The U.S. says it has no concrete evidence that Iraq was involved in the attacks of September 11 yet there are some strong suspicions, including reports that an Iraqi intelligence official met with one of the September 11 hijackers. Well, now President Bush has put Iraq on notice that he wants weapons inspectors back in that country. He warned of unspecified consequences if Iraq refused.

CNN's Major Garrett is standing by at the White House with more on that. Is anybody at the White House saying that the president meant exactly what he said yesterday?

MAJOR GARRETT, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Paula, they always say that. That's a typical line here at the Bush White House. What's important about what happened here yesterday at the White House is the president of the United States for the first time appeared to redefine the definition of what constitutes a legitimate target in the campaign against global terrorism. All that happened during an event in the Rose Garden, where the president welcomed back to the United States Heather Mercer and Danya Curry, two of the international aid workers who had been held by the Taliban but were freed when the capital of Kabul was vacated by the Taliban.

The president received several questions about Iraq and he said not only should Iraq allow international weapons inspectors back in the country -- they haven't been there since 1998 -- but he said nations that develop weapons of mass destruction could now be a legitimate target in the campaign against global terrorism.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: If anybody harbors a terrorist, they're a terrorist. If they fund a terrorist, they're a terrorist. If they house terrorists, they're terrorists. I mean I can't make it any more clearly to other nations around the world. If they develop weapons of mass destruction that will be used to terrorize nations they will be held accountable.

And as for Mr. Saddam Hussein, he needs to let inspectors back in his country to show us that he is not developing weapons of mass destruction.

(END VIDEO CLIP) GARRETT: Now, Paula, in his speech to Congress on September 30, the president did not invoke weapons of mass destruction as a term of art in what the United States and its coalition partners would consider a legitimate target in the war against global terrorism. Even so, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said the president was not plowing any new policy ground. Senior administration officials tell CNN, however, that the question of what to do about Iraq is under active and intense consideration. But they also point out Iraq is not a part of phase two planning in the campaign against global terrorism. As a matter of fact, other nations, Somalia and the Philippines, with more direct links to the al Qaeda terrorist network, come up more commonly in conversations about phase two -- Paula.

ZAHN: Major Garrett, thanks so much.

Iraq has said no weapons inspectors until international sanctions are lifted. The current sanctions are contained within the U.N.'s oil for food program, which expires on Friday.

CNN's Jane Arraf has the view from Baghdad -- good morning, Jane.

JANE ARRAF, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Paula.

Well, as you mentioned, Iraq seems to be willing to wait out and see what happens, according to President Bush's warning that it will suffer the consequences of not letting weapons inspectors back in.

Now, it's been three years since we've seen weapons inspectors here. But Iraq has been firm those entire three years that they're not coming back until sanctions are lifted completely, and there's absolutely no indication that that's going to change because of the latest threat from President Bush.

Now, it's a normal day here. You can probably hear rush hour traffic behind me, people rushing home from work during this holy month of Ramadan. But no reaction yet from the Iraqi government, nor is there likely to be. They've heard threats like this before. And while this one might be a little more pointed, they probably will not be making any change in their very firmly held position that the weapons inspectors just aren't coming back in unless they get something substantial in return, and that something substantial is a total lifting of sanctions -- Paula.

ZAHN: Do they really expect that to happen, Jane?

ARRAF: Well, they point out to a mechanism at the United Nations. It's not as simple as George W. Bush, the president, saying that Iraq should let in weapons inspectors or they'll be bombed. Actually, there has been a resolution at the United Nations for the past year that calls for the return of weapons inspectors and gives Iraq something in exchange. The problem is there's no unanimity at the security council. The United States itself is having trouble convincing other members of the council, notably Russia, that this would be a good thing, that, in fact, it would be good for the Iraqi people and it would be good for the region in general. It's not quite as clear cut as it appears. So it really is a problem. What Iraq is looking at is considerable support that it has, not just from Russia, but from other Arab countries in the region. It's been more than a decade since the Gulf War and it's a very different place. Iraq seems to have quite a lot more support than it had even a couple of years ago, and that's what it's counting on -- Paula.

ZAHN: Jane Arraf, thanks so much. Appreciate that update.

President Bush, of course, saying that Saddam Hussein will find out his fate if he doesn't let weapons inspectors back into Iraq. Would the president really attack Iraq over the issue of the inspectors who left in 1998 or is that just an excuse?

Former CIA Director James Woolsey joins us now to sort this all out. Welcome back. Good to see you, sir.

JAMES WOOLSEY, FORMER CIA DIRECTOR: Good to be with you, Paula.

ZAHN: What do you think the president meant yesterday when he said that Saddam Hussein will find out if he doesn't allow weapons inspectors back in the country?

WOOLSEY: Well, the president just gets better every day. That was a very thinly veiled warning, but I think it was terrifically delivered. I mean, you know, after all, we knew in the 1920s that Al Capone had murdered a lot of people and eventually Elliott Ness got him on tax evasion. But we got him.

And I think whatever Saddam is in the cross hairs for, whether it's developing weapons of mass destruction, whether it's trying to kill first President Bush in the spring of '93, whether it's supporting terrorism throughout the '90s, including some against us, or whether it's possible involvement in September 11 and the anthrax, it is quite clear that this murderous regime really does not belong in Baghdad anymore and it's in the interests of the entire Mideast and the rest of the world and especially the Iraqi people that the regime be destroyed.

ZAHN: You just referred to what the president said yesterday as a thinly veiled warning. Then do you see this as a run-up to a declaration of war on Iraq?

WOOLSEY: Oh, I don't think formal declarations of war are au current anymore and I don't know whether it's a run up to actual hostilities against Iraq. But I think that the president, and I must say Secretary Powell also yesterday, in talking about this being a sober and chilling warning and talking about Saddam's regime as an evil one, are right on the money. This whole issue of their development of weapons of mass destruction and their general support for terrorism, quite apart from whether there's any smoking gun in their hands with respect to September 11, is exactly the right approach.

ZAHN: Of course, the debate now is whether the president widened his definition yesterday of what constitutes a terrorist act or a potential terrorist attack now that he's included weapons that would terrorize nations.

WOOLSEY: I don't think it...

ZAHN: The White House denies that this is any change of policy, but do you see this differently?

WOOLSEY: No, I don't think there's a change. I don't think the president explicitly said that in his first speech to the Congress but you can't say everything in every speech. And I think there's, frankly, sufficient evidence of Saddam's involvement in terrorism against us in the '90s, which we know for a fact he tried to kill former President Bush in the spring of '93. Both the CIA and FBI determined that solidly and that's the reason President Clinton launched those few cruise missiles in the middle of the night against that empty Iraqi intelligence headquarters building, I think a rather weak response, but nonetheless we know he tried to kill former President Bush.

And I think there's a lot of evidence of their involvement in terrorism as well as weapons of mass destruction development over the course of the last decade.

ZAHN: But I guess what many people are scratching their heads wondering this morning is the president just basically saying there are good weapons of mass destruction and bad ones here? I mean he was, had to talk about North Korea yesterday and their nuclear weapons program.

WOOLSEY: Sure. Good weapons of mass destruction that deter war in the hands of people like the Americans and the British, ones that we can get along with are in the hands of people like the Russians and Chinese. Really bad weapons of mass destruction are in the hands of people like North Korea and Saddam Hussein. Those are evil, tyrannical regimens who threaten their neighbors and we need to do what we can and in the Mideast today I think Iraq is the one that's in the cross hairs.

ZAHN: If Saddam Hussein allows inspectors to come in, will this thinly veiled threat that you said was issued yesterday be just that and nothing more?

WOOLSEY: I don't think he will let them come in. I don't think he can afford to back down because we're certainly not going to lift sanctions. We're not going to permit that. And if we don't lift sanctions, he's not going to permit inspectors. And even if he permits someone nominally to come in, he's not going to permit them to be effective. He would block them from doing their jobs the way he mostly successfully, particularly toward the end, blocked UNSCOM four and five years ago from doing its job.

So I think the president has put Saddam in a very well constructed box which it's going to be hard for him to get out of.

ZAHN: James Woolsey, it's always good to see you. WOOLSEY: Good to be with you.

ZAHN: Former director, of course, of the CIA. Appreciate your time this morning.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com