Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

Interview with Bob Beckel, Cliff May

Aired July 30, 2002 - 07:35   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: As you know, there's a tremendous debate going on in Washington about a number of plans that are being considered by which the United States could ultimately attack Iraq. And in today's "New York Times" there is a report suggesting that if the U.S. does finally go after Saddam Hussein, it may pay a very heavy economic price.

The "Times" says that if the U.S. goes it alone, it will cost tens of billions of dollars and could also disrupt oil supplies. Well, just yesterday that same newspaper reported the U.S. may be planning to target Baghdad in a first strike as a way of getting rid of Saddam Hussein with fewer troops.

To sound off on U.S. strategy towards Iraq, from Washington, Democratic political strategist Bob Beckel. Good morning, Bob.

BOB BECKEL, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Hi, Paula. How are you?

ZAHN: You've got that high energy grin this morning.

BECKEL: Yes, I do.

ZAHN: Let's see if your partner Cliff May feels the same way, former RNC director.

Welcome back, Cliff. Good to see you, as well.

CLIFF MAY, FORMER RNC DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS: I think -- good morning. I think Bob has the energy for both of us this morning.

ZAHN: All right, well, I'll start with him, then.

MAY: All right.

ZAHN: So, Bob, some administration officials in the paper are saying that what they're considering is on somewhere in the middle of the two plans that we've heard about so far in the "New York Times." Do any of these plans make sense to you?

BECKEL: Well, not the last one about starting in Baghdad. I mean unless they've got some "beam me up, Scotty" idea about how you get all the troops up and back down into Baghdad, I don't quite get it. But the underlying point here is all these plans are being leaked because there is total disagreement in this administration about whether to attack Iraq or not. There's a lot in the Pentagon who don't want it. Certainly in the State Department it'd loaded with people who think it's a bad idea.

And I think what you're seeing here is a classic Washington example of I've got my plan, I've got my plan, I'm going to leak it to the press. And you know the nice thing about it, the only nice thing that I'll say about it is because George Bush hates leaks, it must be driving him nuts.

ZAHN: Well, let's talk about these leaks for a moment, Cliff. I don't know if you think that that is the motivation for leaking this information, but does it in the end put us at risk?

MAY: I think it does put us at more risk. I don't like seeing contingency plans published on the front page of the "New York Times." It makes it real easy for Saddam Hussein's diplomats and his spies and his military planners to look at what we may be doing.

But understand what's actually happening here. The Pentagon is a big operation. One of the things they do is they say OK, Saddam Hussein is a danger to us. He's a danger to his people, a danger to the region. What are the various ways we can eliminate him and secure a regime change? One way is with 250,000 troops, a major ground force. One way is through clandestine action. One way is with the inside out plan that you came up with. There may be other ways, I hope there are, that we haven't heard of and that Saddam Hussein hasn't heard of.

Now, at a certain point the administration will make the -- President Bush will make the determination, how dangerous is this guy, is he so dangerous that we need to absolutely secure a regime change sooner rather than later and if we're going to take him on do we want to take him on now or after he has nuclear weapons?

Joseph Biden, who is the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, will be holding hearings on this this week. I think that's a good idea. We need to air all this. We need -- the American people need to know, and I think they have a pretty good idea, they need to know exactly how much of a threat Saddam Hussein is and what we risk not only by securing a regime change, by taking him out, but what we risk by leaving him in power to develop nuclear weapons that he may use against us or give to terrorists to use against us.

ZAHN: But hasn't it also been Senator Biden, Bob, that -- boy, you are rolling your eyes on that one. But hasn't it been Senator...

BECKEL: I know, I was, are we back in the show? OK, sorry. Go ahead.

ZAHN: Was that too much of a speech for you?

BECKEL: Oh, no, no, no. It was a wonderful history. A wonderful history.

MAY: Paula, let me... ZAHN: Let's talk about the rationale the president would have to lay out. And I think Senator Biden, or one of his colleagues, have suggested that you have to explain to the American public why you want to attack Iraq when Iraq has not attacked America.

BECKEL: You know, that's ultimately the problem with anything like this, and that is that you have to have political support absolutely at home. And almost certainly you'd need to have some allies overseas. And everything we've heard from our allies, even from the Brits, is this is one that you ought to stay back at. You've got a war on terrorism going on. The military is spread very thin. That's the reason the Pentagon's leaking a lot of this stuff, by the way. They don't think they can fight a battle in Baghdad, or anyplace else, for the moment.

And with all these plans leaking, you might as well just send a courier to Hussein and say by the way, here's the date. And what do you think Hussein's going to do in front of all this? He's going to move all his troops around Baghdad.

But the point is that without the political support -- and it is not here. Look, you've got a much bigger situation in Iran where you've got a nuclear power plant about two years from coming online. And that's a big issue they've got to face.

Iraq, Iraq, Iraq. It's George Bush's mantra and I still contend it goes back to his father not closing the deal on Hussein 12 years ago.

MAY: Well, this is exactly the debate we have to have. And actually most of the American people do not agree with Bob. They understand that Saddam Hussein is, again, a great danger to this country, to his own people and to the region. This is the guy who threw out the weapons inspectors. He has chemical weapons. He's used them before against his people. He has biological weapons, such things as anthrax. He's trying to develop the nuclear weapons. He definitely has ties with terrorists. He has ties probably with al Qaeda.

We have to decide do we want to wait until he has done something terrible to us or has the capability or do we want to eliminate him before that, and do we have the strength to do that?

ZAHN: But, Cliff, given everything you've just said, wouldn't you acknowledge it's going to be much tougher this time around to build the kind of coalition that former President Bush was able to build? I mean you've got Jordan, the king of Jordan essentially telling CNN over the weekend that they're not going to allow their bases to be used to support this kind of action. And the British...

MAY: Jordan wasn't...

ZAHN: ... public increasingly is opposed to the British government being involved in any sort of action against Iraq.

MAY: Jordan wasn't in favor of the Gulf War in 1991 either. We know that. If we do this, we cannot expect a lot of support. However, we don't really need a lot of support on the ground. We are militarily way beyond where we were in 1991. The Iraqi military is much more, is way, has eroded since 1991. There isn't a lot of support for Saddam Hussein.

ZAHN: All right...

MAY: Basically what I'm saying is we don't need the French and the Russians and the Australians and all in there if they don't want to be. They should help us with the peace afterwards, not with the military action that removes Saddam Hussein and liberates that country.

ZAHN: Bob, you get the last word. You've got to do it in about six seconds.

BECKEL: OK. You're not going to get the Saudis. They'll be gutless in this. The Russians will be furious. It's going to interrupt the flow of oil, as you said in the opening, and that's going to put the United States' economy at risk and why?

Cliff made his own case. Our military is strong, theirs is weaker. Why do it?

MAY: Only because of the -- what could happen if Saddam Hussein is nuclear powered, oil rich and a threat inside the region.

ZAHN: All right, here's that little hand action, Bob. I've got to cut both of you off.

BECKEL: Oh, OK.

ZAHN: Thank you for both of you for stopping...

MAY: I think it's great that he does that for those that are hearing impaired.

ZAHN: It's very effective.

Thanks, gentlemen.

MAY: Thank you.

ZAHN: Cliff May, Bob Beckel. Always good to have both of you with us on AMERICAN 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