Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

Interview with Joseph Wilson

Aired August 26, 2002 - 08:14   ET

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

DARYN KAGAN, CNN ANCHOR: There's a new report this morning that the White House believes it has all the authority it needs to start a war with Iraq without going to Congress. According to the "Washington Post," that is the advice the president is getting from a White House attorney.
Adding to the debate over a possible war with Iraq, former Secretary of State James Baker. He wrote in a column in the "New York Times" yesterday that he supports military action to change the Iraqi regime, but he doesn't want the U.S. to go it alone.

To look at the issue of U.S. policy toward Iraq, the former U.S. charges d'affairs in Iraq and the latest member, actually, the last member of the executive branch to interview Saddam Hussein, Ambassador Joseph Wilson joining us from Washington this morning.

Mr. Ambassador, good morning.

Thank you for joining us.

AMB. JOSEPH WILSON, FORMER U.S. CHARGE D'AFFAIRS IN IRAQ: Good morning.

How are you?

KAGAN: I'm doing fine.

First, I want to start with this report in the "Washington Post," the president saying he would go for the opinions, certainly, of members of Congress, but a lawyer for the White House saying he doesn't necessarily need the permission from Congress in order to go to war with Iraq.

What's your opinion on that, sir?

WILSON: Well, I am not a lawyer and I'm sure that the president is well advised. But I think we've got to remember that the 1991 war was a war to expel Saddam from Kuwait. A military action designed to overthrow his regime is a different prospect completely and even if it is not assessed by the president's lawyers to be worthy of congressional support or a congressional declaration of war, I think it would be foolhardily for the administration to go forward without that congressional support.

KAGAN: Well, in fact, I believe they're even referring to that '91 document, saying that that covers the situation now, giving the president the power that he needs to make that call, that this country might need to go to war with Iraq.

WILSON: The 1991 war was a war to expel Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. It was underpinned by a series of U.N. Security Council resolutions, as well as U.S. actions, including a U.S. congressional declaration of support for the president's action. But it was to expel Iraq from Kuwait. It was not to overthrow the Iraqi regime.

KAGAN: So many opinions coming out about what the U.S. should do. Former Secretary of State James Baker, as I mentioned, writing in the "New York Times" yesterday -- and let's look at just a little bit of what he had to say.

He writes: "If we are to change the regime in Iraq, we will have to occupy the country militarily. The cost of doing so politically, economically and in terms of casualties could be great."

And yet, Mr. Ambassador, he goes on to make the argument, in spite of all that, well, he adds, "They will be lessened if the president brings together an international coalition behind the effort."

He goes on to say basically the cost is going to be expensive. This is difficult, but we have no choice now. He's saying the U.S. must go in and take on Iraq and Saddam Hussein.

WILSON: I disagree with him that regime change ought to be the object of a military action. I think that the regime changeniks have really skewed the debate in a way that domestically has paralyzed us for the past year, since September 11. And internationally, curiously enough, international sentiment has shifted from understanding of our plight in the aftermath of 9/11 to grave concern that we're engaged in a jingoistic approach to international relations.

I do think, however...

KAGAN: Are you saying...

WILSON: I do think, however...

KAGAN: Are you saying that you are comfortable with Saddam Hussein remaining in power in Iraq?

WILSON: I think that our posture ought to be to go after those aspects of Saddam's regime that affect our national security interests. And those are weapons of mass destruction. The question of whether Saddam stays or goes is one that is best left to the Iraqis. It is not one that we need to be engaged in.

The implications of our occupying Iraq, of our ground -- of a ground invasion of Iraq are really considerable. The potential unintended consequences have not yet been discussed in a way that is serious, up until maybe the last week, when Mr. Brzezinski, Mr. Eagleburger, Mr. Baker and Mr. Kissinger have begun to opine on the subject.

KAGAN: But Mr. Ambassador, when you talk about dealing with the specific situation that might be of a threat to the U.S., it sounds to me like you're going back to weapons inspections, a system that clearly did not work.

WILSON: No, actually, the weapons inspections system worked far better than certain people are giving it credit for having worked. Now, since 1998, there have not been inspectors back in there...

KAGAN: Right. So it's not working.

WILSON: ... and that is were we ought to be focusing our attention.

KAGAN: If it's not there, it's not working.

WILSON: That is where we ought -- excuse me. If I could finish, we ought to be focusing our attention on that. We ought to put back into place, as Secretary Baker suggests, an inspection regime that is truly intrusive. And if we can get international support or acquiescence in so doing, we ought to do so.

If we can't, we ought to be prepared to do that unilaterally. Mr. Blicks yesterday repeated that there are over 700 sites that they would like to check out just to have baseline information. That is truly a target rich environment for U.S. action going after weapons of mass destruction.

Now, the reason you go after weapons of mass destruction instead of regime change is that when you go in to attack Saddam Hussein, you give him the Article 51 of the U.N. charter self-defense right, which Secretary Baker alluded to yesterday in his piece, talking about what the U.S. might have.

Saddam Hussein has demonstrated in his war against Iran that he is fully prepared to use weapons of mass destruction in defense of his homeland. He has also demonstrated that our willingness to focus our goals on other than regime change serve as a deterrent for his use of weapons of mass destruction.

That's what we ought to do. Maintaining a political posture of a desire for Saddam to go is a good thing. It is as American as apple pie not to want Saddam Hussein to continue to rule Iraq. But that is far different from a military action which focuses on overthrowing a regime, occupying Iraq, rebuilding the major...

KAGAN: OK, let me just ask you, as we run out of time, let me just ask you this. In order to go down this road that you're talking about, that means negotiations. That means shaking the hand with Saddam Hussein. Are you comfortable, knowing the past, are you comfortable with that? You have to trust the man in order to go forward with that.

WILSON: No, you don't negotiate with Saddam Hussein. We won the war. Saddam is a rogue. You essentially say to Saddam Hussein you are in violation of Resolution 687. As a consequence, we are going to change the enforcement mechanism in a way to ensure that 687 is fully implemented. That contemplates if you don't allow intrusive inspection regimes peacefully, we will then take military action against some of those sites that Hans Blicks has already identified.

And by the way, if you decide that you're going to cheat and retreat on inspections once we go back in there, as Secretary Baker suggested yesterday, we will support the inspection regime with military might.

But our focus ought to be on the weapons of mass destruction, not on overthrowing his regime.

KAGAN: All right, a different take.

Ambassador Joseph Wilson, thank you for joining us with your insight and your opinion today.

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