Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Today

Dissent Within Bush Administration over Military Action Against Iraq Reaches Top

Aired August 30, 2002 - 11:18   ET

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

LEON HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: Dissent within the ranks of the Bush administration over the timing of military action against Iraq reaches now to the top of Foggy Bottom.
On the one side, you have Vice President Dick Cheney making the case for striking sooner rather than later.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DICK CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: With Saddam's record of thwarting inspections, one has to be concerned that he would continue to plot using the available time to husband his resources, to invest in his ongoing chemical and biological weapons programs, and to gain possession of nuclear weapons.

Should all his ambitions be realized, the implication would be enormous for the Middle East, for the United States, and for the peace of the world.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARRIS: Mr. Cheney's view is by no means unanimous within the administration. State Department correspondent Andrea Koppel joins us with some insight into what Secretary Colin Powell is thinking.

Good morning.

ANDREA KOPPEL, CNN STATE DEPT. CORRESPONDENT: Good morning.

Well, CNN has learned that behind the scenes battle lines are being drawn as to exactly how a possible war in Iraq meeting fought. And in fact a close confidant to Secretary of State Colin Powell telling CNN that Powell does not support a unilateral attack on Iraq without the support of key U.S. allies. That is a significant difference in opinion from others within the administration, in particular some over in the Pentagon, who believe while it is not preferable to have a go-it-alone approach in Iraq, it certainly is possible.

Now as far as Secretary Powell's position is concerned, for those who are familiar with his past record, it won't come as a surprise. He has been very much the reluctant soldier. Remember, ahead of the Gulf War when Powell, a retired four-star general, was chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, he did not support U.S. military taking on Iraq to force it out of Kuwait. But even though Secretary Powell himself is not making his private views public, there are others in the public arena who are. One of them is retired General Anthony Zinni, who gave a speech in recent days in which he said about Iraq, "Attacking Iraq now will cause a lot of problems. I think the debate right now that's going on is very healthy. If you ask me my opinion, General Scowcroft, General Powell, General Schwarzkopf, General Zinni, maybe all see this the same way. It might interesting to wonder why all the generals see it in the same way, and all those that never fired a shot in anger and really held back to go to war see it in a different way."

Now State Department officially deny that General Zinni is a stalking horse for Secretary Powell, and they say, the only reason, Leon, that Secretary Powell has been lying low is because he doesn't have any public appointments, and it is August and it's a slow month.

HARRIS: Interesting. Very interesting. Andrea Koppel at the State Department thank you. Appreciate that

Militarily, coalition fighters early this morning struck an Iraqi target for the fifth time this week. U.S. Central Command says today that it was an antiaircraft missile site in the southern no-fly zone. That's what is going on in Iraq, while this talk of attacking Iraq is going on here.

CNN military analyst retired General Wesley Clark joins us this morning, and he is doing so from Paris, to offer his perspective on the Iraq debate.

Good morning, or should I say bonjour, general. Thank you for taking time on your European trip to talk with us about this.

GEN. WESLEY CLARK, (RET.) CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Good morning, Leon.

HARRIS: I want to know if you've seen and heard comments that are made by General Zinni. Could he add your name to that list of people right now that are saying that right now the White House may be rushing ahead too quickly on this?

CLARK: You could. You could. I have an op-ed piece in "The London Times" yesterday. I think it's a serious problem with Saddam Hussein. I think he should be held to his pledge to give up his weapons of mass destruction, but we need to do so in the right context, and that context is adherence to full weight of international law, bringing our coalition partner all along with us, perhaps taking it to NATO, and putting a united front together to press Saddam Hussein.

HARRIS: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said on Tuesday. I want to quote what he said here and get your response. He says, "It is less important to have unanimity than it is making the right decision and doing the right thing even though at the outset is might seem lonesome. Leadership in the right direction finds followers and supporters." What do you make of that? CLARK: I think the principal of ultimate American responsibility and leadership is a good one, and that's what Sergei Rumsfeld is expressing. But, Leon, the question really is, what's the sense of urgency. Saddam Hussein really has had chemical and biological weapons for 10 or 20 years. We know he's used the chemical weapons. He has not used the biological weapons. He's been trying to get nuclear weapons for 20 years. We haven't had inspections against him for four years, but even when we were doing those inspections, they weren't very effective at finding all of his nuclear capabilities.

He doesn't have nuclear weapons yet. So if there is some smoking gun, some special reason for urgency, well, we should hear it. But it's more a chronic condition that can best be worked against in the context of the overall campaign against terror, and that campaign requires us to us have strong and willing allies.

HARRIS: General, please hold that thought. We want to pick up this discussion after we take a break. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS: Welcome back. We want to pick up our conversation with CNN military analyst General Wesley Clark, who is in Paris this morning. We are having this conversation on a day we learned that there is word coming from State Department that Secretary of State Colin Powell said -- well, he hasn't come out and said it, but someone close to him, and who needs his thinking quite well is saying that he is speaking out, within the administration, against striking at Iraq.

And, General Clark, I want to ask you about something that I read a while ago about that if the U.S. were to act unilaterally in this matter, wouldn't Osama bin Laden end up getting exactly what he asked for. The Arab world will be united against the U.S. Anti-Western-ism and extremism would actually be kicked up quite a notch, the Mideast peace process could actually come unraveled. In the end, Osama bin Laden pretty much gets what he wants, doesn't he?

CLARK: It seems that way to me. It seems that this would supercharge the opinion, not necessarily of the elites in the Arab world, who may bow to the inevitability of the United States and its power, but the radical groups in the Middle East, who are looking for reasons and gaining more recruits every time the United States makes a unilateral move by force. They will gain strength from something like this. We can well end up in Iraq with thousands of military forces tied down, and a worse problem in coping with a war on terror here in the United States or Europe, or elsewhere around the world.

HARRIS: General Wesley Clark, in Paris this morning, thank you very much. We appreciate you taking timeout on your trip overseas, and we wish you well and hope you have a nice day over there. Thank you very much.

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