Return to Transcripts main page
American Morning
White House Skeptical of Iraq's Sudden Change of Mind
Aired September 17, 2002 - 07:31 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 we have been reporting, the White House is skeptical of Iraq's sudden change of mind about weapons inspectors. The Bush team is still pressing the U.N. Security Council to pass a resolution demanding that Iraq obey previous Security Council resolutions, 16 of them in all.
Richard Roth is standing by at the U.N. this morning with the latest reaction from there -- good morning, Richard.
RICHARD ROTH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Paula.
Once again, Iraq's President Saddam Hussein has the world's diplomats jumping. In another surprising turnaround, Iraq said it would unconditionally accept the weapons inspectors once again. They haven't been there since December of 1998. And Iraq says the president will have a message to the world, which no doubt will be delivered by his foreign minister here at the United Nations General Assembly on Thursday.
However, the United States says it's all a tactic to avoid Security Council action, a tactic that will fail. Other countries, though, are reacting positively to the move. China and Russia saying it's an important step. Germany also welcoming the move, along with the Arab League. France says we have to consult.
It's the U.N. Secretary General, Kofi Annan, who announced the Iraqi change of heart to journalists yesterday. Annan now has given the ball to the U.N. Security Council. It's up to the Council to decide whether to pursue a new resolution and it's not going to be easy now for the U.S. in light of Iraq's turnaround.
This morning in Baghdad, deputy prime minister of Iraq, Tariq Aziz, says the U.S. and Britain have negative intentions all along toward his country and certainly he doesn't rule out any type of interest in a military strike towards his country -- Paula.
ZAHN: Richard, do you think the U.S. was caught off guard by this letter that came through yesterday announcing this change of position?
ROTH: I don't think so. I think they were waiting for a potential shift. But maybe they didn't expect it this soon. Maybe they thought it would go down towards the wire with a new resolution. It really puts the U.S. in another difficult spot. Just days after they finally got a lot of world support after President Bush's speech, now a lot of the members of the U.N. are certainly going to be very happy to hear that Iraq is going to accept the weapons inspectors, which is really what this resolution was going to call for.
ZAHN: Richard Roth, thanks so much.
Appreciate the update.
So, where does the Iraqi offer leave the Bush administration and its goal of regime change in Baghdad?
Pulitzer Prize winner Thomas Friedman is the author of "Longitudes and Attitudes" and foreign affairs columnist for the "New York Times" and he joins us from Washington this morning.
Tom, good to see you again. Welcome.
THOMAS FRIEDMAN, AUTHOR, "LONGITUDES & ATTITUDES": Thanks, Paula.
Good to be here.
ZAHN: So, Tom, first off, Iraq, of course, says it will allow inspectors back into the country. The Bush administration saying this morning that that offer is pretty much a joke. What do you think?
FRIEDMAN: Well, I think the administration is going to have to go through this whole play. Now, that is, I think they're going to have to go to the Security Council, attempt to get a resolution that does take up the Iraqi offer. In a sense say we're going to go, we're going to have inspections, but included in that are going to be provisions for real inspections anywhere, any time, with zero tolerance for any prevarication on the Iraqi part. And then when the Iraqis don't live up to it, at least you'll have a clear causus belli.
I think it's going to be very hard for the administration to say well, this is just a joke, this is just a fraud, forget about it, we're going to go to war anyway. I think they're going to have to go through the process. But I think, my gut is they'll probably end up in the same place.
ZAHN: What do you think of the Iraqi position this morning, Rula Amin reporting that basically no matter what the Iraqis offer, the Bush administration will find a reason to attack. That's their perception.
FRIEDMAN: Well, again, I'm not sure they'll find a reason to attack, but I think they're going to have to, given the way the world community is lined up trying to avoid a war, I think they're going to have to play the string out and take up the Iraqi challenge and say fine. Unfettered inspections, OK. It's going to be, here is going to be the deal. We can look anywhere any time without exception. We can look in Saddam's palace, in his bathroom, in his mosques.
What do you mean by unfettered inspections? I think we're going to have to go through that diplomatic process. But I think that ultimately, as I said, we'll end up with the same challenge that we began with, the ability to engage in military action, because I don't think the Iraqis will live up to it. ZAHN: Well, there's a report in the "L.A. Times" that suggests just that, a shift on the administration's part to a different policy, a one strike policy so if Saddam were to allow the inspectors back in and for some reason he would refuse at one site to allow them to continue the inspections, then a military strike could be authorized.
FRIEDMAN: Yes, and I think that's the kind of resolution they'll go for in the Security Council, Paula, one with basically zero tolerance and a loaded gun already in it, that basically says if we -- OK, fine. You're saying we can have inspections, great. We'll go in and have inspections. But the minute you interdict us going anywhere -- and remember, he's had four years to burrow this stuff away all over the country -- the minute you interdict us, the gun is loaded and we're going to follow up.
But you've got to be prepared for that and I don't see at this point the administration having deployed the troops, the resources or the domestic consensus to really have that gun loaded yet.
ZAHN: Let's talk for a moment about some of the pieces of the puzzle that have been moved around, particularly when it comes to Saudi Arabia, a part of the country or part of the world you know a lot about. What's with the change of position on the Saudis' part?
FRIEDMAN: Well, I think the fact that Saudi Arabia's foreign minister has indicated that Saudi Arabia would let the United States use its bases is an indication to me of how much the Saudis hope to avoid a war. Because I think Saddam was counting on the fact that we would have no large scale regional base in order to attack him. And I think the reason the Saudis did this was to signal him just how serious the Americans are and I think that probably contributed to this position.
I think the Saudis are desperate to avoid a war. They do not want to see their own population inflamed and they don't want to see the Arab world inflamed. And I think by indicating that the Americans could use their bases, they have really raised the credibility of President Bush's threat and probably continued to this early Iraqi initiative.
ZAHN: I wanted to close with a question about your book, "Longitudes and Attitudes," which is a collection of your columns from, going back to December of 2000 to this past July. And I believe it was September 13 you wrote, and this is 2001, that a September 11 was WW3. Do you still feel that way?
FRIEDMAN: I do, Paula. You know, the book is actually a collection of columns and a diary I kept along the way. And I believe as strongly today as I did then that this is WW3 in this sense, Paula. Before this war against terrorism is over, I believe it's going to touch directly or indirectly everyone on this planet, number one. And number two, this is really going to require a war not between civilizations, I hope, but within civilizations. That is, if we're to avoid a real clash out of 9/11, we're going to have to have a war within the Muslim world, you know, within the West, where basically the moderates in both camps really triumph over the bad guys. I'm not worried about the West. I think they've won that war within. I think there's going to have to be a struggle within in the Muslim world. It's started. But only if there is a war within civilizations will we avoid the war between civilizations.
ZAHN: Well, you raise some really complex issues in your new book, "Longitudes and Attitudes," and it's certainly inspired those of us who keep diaries to maybe make less frivolous entries.
FRIEDMAN: That's the thing to do.
ZAHN: What a diary you have, Mr. Friedman.
Thanks, Tom, for sharing some of your thoughts with us this morning.
FRIEDMAN: Thanks, Paula.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Aired September 17, 2002 - 07:31 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: As we have been reporting, the White House is skeptical of Iraq's sudden change of mind about weapons inspectors. The Bush team is still pressing the U.N. Security Council to pass a resolution demanding that Iraq obey previous Security Council resolutions, 16 of them in all.
Richard Roth is standing by at the U.N. this morning with the latest reaction from there -- good morning, Richard.
RICHARD ROTH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Paula.
Once again, Iraq's President Saddam Hussein has the world's diplomats jumping. In another surprising turnaround, Iraq said it would unconditionally accept the weapons inspectors once again. They haven't been there since December of 1998. And Iraq says the president will have a message to the world, which no doubt will be delivered by his foreign minister here at the United Nations General Assembly on Thursday.
However, the United States says it's all a tactic to avoid Security Council action, a tactic that will fail. Other countries, though, are reacting positively to the move. China and Russia saying it's an important step. Germany also welcoming the move, along with the Arab League. France says we have to consult.
It's the U.N. Secretary General, Kofi Annan, who announced the Iraqi change of heart to journalists yesterday. Annan now has given the ball to the U.N. Security Council. It's up to the Council to decide whether to pursue a new resolution and it's not going to be easy now for the U.S. in light of Iraq's turnaround.
This morning in Baghdad, deputy prime minister of Iraq, Tariq Aziz, says the U.S. and Britain have negative intentions all along toward his country and certainly he doesn't rule out any type of interest in a military strike towards his country -- Paula.
ZAHN: Richard, do you think the U.S. was caught off guard by this letter that came through yesterday announcing this change of position?
ROTH: I don't think so. I think they were waiting for a potential shift. But maybe they didn't expect it this soon. Maybe they thought it would go down towards the wire with a new resolution. It really puts the U.S. in another difficult spot. Just days after they finally got a lot of world support after President Bush's speech, now a lot of the members of the U.N. are certainly going to be very happy to hear that Iraq is going to accept the weapons inspectors, which is really what this resolution was going to call for.
ZAHN: Richard Roth, thanks so much.
Appreciate the update.
So, where does the Iraqi offer leave the Bush administration and its goal of regime change in Baghdad?
Pulitzer Prize winner Thomas Friedman is the author of "Longitudes and Attitudes" and foreign affairs columnist for the "New York Times" and he joins us from Washington this morning.
Tom, good to see you again. Welcome.
THOMAS FRIEDMAN, AUTHOR, "LONGITUDES & ATTITUDES": Thanks, Paula.
Good to be here.
ZAHN: So, Tom, first off, Iraq, of course, says it will allow inspectors back into the country. The Bush administration saying this morning that that offer is pretty much a joke. What do you think?
FRIEDMAN: Well, I think the administration is going to have to go through this whole play. Now, that is, I think they're going to have to go to the Security Council, attempt to get a resolution that does take up the Iraqi offer. In a sense say we're going to go, we're going to have inspections, but included in that are going to be provisions for real inspections anywhere, any time, with zero tolerance for any prevarication on the Iraqi part. And then when the Iraqis don't live up to it, at least you'll have a clear causus belli.
I think it's going to be very hard for the administration to say well, this is just a joke, this is just a fraud, forget about it, we're going to go to war anyway. I think they're going to have to go through the process. But I think, my gut is they'll probably end up in the same place.
ZAHN: What do you think of the Iraqi position this morning, Rula Amin reporting that basically no matter what the Iraqis offer, the Bush administration will find a reason to attack. That's their perception.
FRIEDMAN: Well, again, I'm not sure they'll find a reason to attack, but I think they're going to have to, given the way the world community is lined up trying to avoid a war, I think they're going to have to play the string out and take up the Iraqi challenge and say fine. Unfettered inspections, OK. It's going to be, here is going to be the deal. We can look anywhere any time without exception. We can look in Saddam's palace, in his bathroom, in his mosques.
What do you mean by unfettered inspections? I think we're going to have to go through that diplomatic process. But I think that ultimately, as I said, we'll end up with the same challenge that we began with, the ability to engage in military action, because I don't think the Iraqis will live up to it. ZAHN: Well, there's a report in the "L.A. Times" that suggests just that, a shift on the administration's part to a different policy, a one strike policy so if Saddam were to allow the inspectors back in and for some reason he would refuse at one site to allow them to continue the inspections, then a military strike could be authorized.
FRIEDMAN: Yes, and I think that's the kind of resolution they'll go for in the Security Council, Paula, one with basically zero tolerance and a loaded gun already in it, that basically says if we -- OK, fine. You're saying we can have inspections, great. We'll go in and have inspections. But the minute you interdict us going anywhere -- and remember, he's had four years to burrow this stuff away all over the country -- the minute you interdict us, the gun is loaded and we're going to follow up.
But you've got to be prepared for that and I don't see at this point the administration having deployed the troops, the resources or the domestic consensus to really have that gun loaded yet.
ZAHN: Let's talk for a moment about some of the pieces of the puzzle that have been moved around, particularly when it comes to Saudi Arabia, a part of the country or part of the world you know a lot about. What's with the change of position on the Saudis' part?
FRIEDMAN: Well, I think the fact that Saudi Arabia's foreign minister has indicated that Saudi Arabia would let the United States use its bases is an indication to me of how much the Saudis hope to avoid a war. Because I think Saddam was counting on the fact that we would have no large scale regional base in order to attack him. And I think the reason the Saudis did this was to signal him just how serious the Americans are and I think that probably contributed to this position.
I think the Saudis are desperate to avoid a war. They do not want to see their own population inflamed and they don't want to see the Arab world inflamed. And I think by indicating that the Americans could use their bases, they have really raised the credibility of President Bush's threat and probably continued to this early Iraqi initiative.
ZAHN: I wanted to close with a question about your book, "Longitudes and Attitudes," which is a collection of your columns from, going back to December of 2000 to this past July. And I believe it was September 13 you wrote, and this is 2001, that a September 11 was WW3. Do you still feel that way?
FRIEDMAN: I do, Paula. You know, the book is actually a collection of columns and a diary I kept along the way. And I believe as strongly today as I did then that this is WW3 in this sense, Paula. Before this war against terrorism is over, I believe it's going to touch directly or indirectly everyone on this planet, number one. And number two, this is really going to require a war not between civilizations, I hope, but within civilizations. That is, if we're to avoid a real clash out of 9/11, we're going to have to have a war within the Muslim world, you know, within the West, where basically the moderates in both camps really triumph over the bad guys. I'm not worried about the West. I think they've won that war within. I think there's going to have to be a struggle within in the Muslim world. It's started. But only if there is a war within civilizations will we avoid the war between civilizations.
ZAHN: Well, you raise some really complex issues in your new book, "Longitudes and Attitudes," and it's certainly inspired those of us who keep diaries to maybe make less frivolous entries.
FRIEDMAN: That's the thing to do.
ZAHN: What a diary you have, Mr. Friedman.
Thanks, Tom, for sharing some of your thoughts with us this morning.
FRIEDMAN: Thanks, Paula.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
