Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Talkback Live

Are Scott Ritter's Criticisms of the Bush Administration Valid?; Do Three Medical Students Deserve to Lose Their Internships?

Aired September 17, 2002 - 15:00   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.


ARTHEL NEVILLE, HOST: And, hello, everybody. Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville.
Iraq says it's ready to reopen its doors to U.N. weapons inspectors. Essentially, it's saying: "Come on in. Take a look around. And we won't even put any conditions on the inspectors." But, apparently, it's going to take more than that to impress the Bush administration. A White House spokesman says it's no longer just about inspections. It's about disarmament.

One of the loudest critics of the Bush administration's approach to Iraq and Saddam Hussein has been former weapons inspector Scott Ritter. He has been called a traitor, dismissed as out of the loop, and criticized for being too cozy with Iraq. Indeed, Ritter has just returned from a visit to Baghdad and is here with us today on TALKBACK LIVE.

And we want to welcome you to the show, sir.

SCOTT RITTER, FORMER U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: Thank you.

NEVILLE: OK.

So, Iraq says "Come back" to the weapons inspectors. Bush says: "No, that's not enough. We can't trust Saddam Hussein." What do you say?

RITTER: I think it is imperative -- and what I have been about for four years now is preserving the integrity of the process. I have never given the Saddam Hussein or the Iraqi government a clean bill of health. I have been clear across the board.

He is a brutal, tyrannical dictator who has violated international law repeatedly. And I view him as a criminal. But, as a criminal, if we're going to sit here and prosecute a case against a criminal, we have to ensure that we run a clean prosecution. We didn't run a clean prosecution last time. We played footloose and fancy free with the rules. We used inspectors to spy on Saddam. We operated in a manner which was not in accordance with the rule of law.

This time, Iraq says they are going to allow inspectors back in. OK, let's hold them to that. Here is a criminal that we are trying to put charges on and bring him to jail. He says, "Investigate me." So let's investigate him. And if he has violated, if he does not adhere to the rule of international law, we got him now. And no one in the world will oppose us going after Saddam if he in fact is in violation. But I repeat again, America as a nation laws is a nation of laws. If we are going to hold Saddam Hussein accountable to these laws, we have to adhere to these laws ourselves.

NEVILLE: I understand what you're saying is that, basically, don't taint the process, so as not to let Saddam Hussein off in the long run due to a technicality.

RITTER: It's the same way you would prosecute a crime against a drug dealer. You don't plant evidence. You don't take shortcuts with the law. If he is doing drugs, you build the case. You catch him with the drugs. And then you throw him in the slammer.

If Saddam Hussein is doing weapons of mass destruction, let's catch him with them. He is just giving us the vehicle to do that. He said bring the inspectors in.

NEVILLE: OK, so let's say the inspectors go back in. What will be different this time? They did not cooperate -- when you were there, they didn't cooperate. So what is going to be different? How can a new regime be more successful?

RITTER: Well, the key thing, again, is respect the integrity of the process.

The key to succeeding in prosecuting a criminal is to ensure that those who are bringing the case to bear don't themselves violate law. If you bring a corrupt cop to testify before a criminal, the criminal is going to get off. Let's respect the integrity of the process. Let's get the inspectors in there and make sure that they adhere to the mandate set forth by the Security Council to oversee Iraq's disarmament.

Iraq is not going to get any second chance. If they are caught off base this time, it is all over for Saddam.

NEVILLE: And is that your perspective as well? Would you, at that point, support military action against Saddam Hussein and Iraq?

RITTER: I don't know how to make it any clearer than I already have. I already fought a war against Iraq.

NEVILLE: But I am asking you right now, yes or no, Scott. I am just asking you.

RITTER: I spent seven years in Iraq. If Iraq is caught with weapons of mass destruction 10 years after the international community has outlawed these weapons, we are right to presume ill intent and treat him like a rogue leader and eliminate him

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: That's fine. I am asking you, Scott Ritter, a direct question.

RITTER: I just gave you a direct answer. NEVILLE: No, no, I'm asking you. Would you support military action against Iraq if it is proven that he is in fact preparing to build weapons of mass destruction, if he does not already have them?

RITTER: I wouldn't just support military action. I would volunteer my service to lead the first charge into Iraq to capture that son of a gun and hold him accountable.

NEVILLE: OK, let's talk, then, about your timing of all of this. Why, then, have you brought such attention to yourself and to your cause at this particular point?

RITTER: Well, first of all, it is not my cause. This is America's cause. I invite all Americans to read two documents.

The first document is the Constitution of the United States of America, which says we are a nation of laws. The second document is the United Nations Charter. See, in the Constitution, it says, if we enter into an international agreement, that agreement bears the force of law. The U.N. Charter is a legal document binding to the United States. I am insisting my government adheres to law.

NEVILLE: I understand all that. OK. I get that.

But let's just break this down now into layman's terms, because I understand that you have intimated that the White House, the Bush administration, has a hidden agenda. So, therefore, you are trying to put forth your agenda at this point.

RITTER: Why is it my agenda?

NEVILLE: OK, the American agenda, as you say. Well, what is that you are saying that the Bush administration might be hiding?

RITTER: Well, first of all, when we are talking about going to war, I think every American better understand what this means. It is not copacetic. It is not a video game. It's war.

We are going to kill people. And we are going to die. And we're going to destroy things. War is ugly. We do not go to war, we do not put the lives of American servicemen at risk to make the ultimate sacrifice in defense of their country unless there is a threat to the United States. So I am demanding that the Bush administration don't just say Iraq is a threat with rhetoric and speculation, but to back it up with facts, make sure the sacrifice is worth it.

NEVILLE: Sir, do you believe the president of the United States would sacrifice our forces, the U.S. forces, put them in harm's way, send them to war for some sort of personal vendetta or whatever your hidden agenda, the implication is?

RITTER: My hidden agenda?

NEVILLE: No, no, his. You were implying that this Bush administration has a hidden agenda. And you still haven't told me what that is, by the way, what you think it is. RITTER: The hidden agenda is regime removal. The Bush administration has put regime removal of Saddam Hussein above and beyond international law that says disarmament. They put getting rid of Saddam ahead of disarming Iraq.

NEVILLE: Why? Why? Why are they putting that in front?

RITTER: Because the Bush administrations is staffed by neoconservative ideologues who have endorsed the policy of unilateralist American intervention around the world. And they're using Iraq as a case example.

NEVILLE: So this, is it personal? Is it politics?

RITTER: It's politics and personal. They have invested so much political capital into the concept of getting rid of Saddam Hussein that the Bush administration has boxed itself into a rhetorical corner, where they have given themselves no ability to maneuver out of this, short of war. And this is wrong.

And if you think that the president can't lie to the American public, I invite you to go back to 1964 and the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. I am asking Americans to ensure that, this time, before we go to war, we are going to war for the right reason. I don't want us to wake up 10 years from now with 58,000 body bags coming home to suddenly realize we made a mistake.

(APPLAUSE)

NEVILLE: And some people would say that they don't want to wake up two months from now with body bags because, in fact, Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction that he could possibly use against the U.S.

RITTER: Then they need to make that case before we ask our servicemen to go to war, because, right now, I know how to build a nuclear bomb. I know how Iraq builds a nuclear bomb. And I can tell you right now, the Bush administration has not put forward a case about Iraq's retention of nuclear capability that's based on reality or fact. It is purely conjectural speculation. And this is not worth a single American's life.

NEVILLE: Hang on. I have got more for you.

But I have a call I want to take right now. And I've got Rob calling in from -- where are you calling from, Rob?

CALLER: Bremerton, Washington.

NEVILLE: OK. Go ahead, sir.

CALLER: A couple of weeks ago, I watched Scott Ritter in a televised C-SPAN teleconference with a senator and another couple interviewees. In that, you claimed that Iraq did not have the ability in the last four years to produce weapons of mass destruction. How am I supposed to take your credibility over President Bush's, when he is the one that's in touch with the intelligence agency and he has made the claim that they have advanced their technology and advanced their capabilities? How do you say, sir?

NEVILLE: Thanks, Rob.

Before you answer that, I want to add something to Rob's point, because, when you left there in '98, you said: "Listen, these guys are not disarmed. In fact, in six months, Iraq could reconstitute biological and chemical weapons" -- in six months. Well, they have had eight times that amount of time. So what makes you believe they have not done so?

RITTER: What makes you think I believe they have not done so?

NEVILLE: Well, tell me.

RITTER: What have I said in four years that makes you believe I have ever uttered that statement? I have never given Iraq a clean bill of health. When I resigned, I said: "We have not completed the task of disarmament. And if we withdraw inspectors, Iraq, within six months, can rebuild their weapons." I stand by that today. I never told the world that Iraq does not have a weapons capability.

What I have said is, before we go to war citing a threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, we need to make the case based upon substantive fact. Yes, the president is in the intelligence loop. And, my God, he better start sharing that intelligence with the American public and our elected representatives in Congress, because this is not a dictatorship. This is a democracy. And we must have accountability from our elected representatives.

NEVILLE: And what do you know what they don't know? I want to ask you that when we come back.

And I still want to hear from you on this subject. Scott Ritter is here with us. The number is 1-800-310-4CNN. Or, of course, you can e-mail TALKBACK@CNN.com.

We'll be back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: Today on TALKBACK LIVE: We are talking with former weapons inspector Scott Ritter about Iraq's invitation to come on in and take a look around.

Also: Three medical students worry about their future after being marked as possible terrorists.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

AYMAN GHEITH, MEDICAL SCHOOL STUDENT: This one phone call could jeopardize the rest of our lives.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEVILLE: It is all happening right now on TALKBACK LIVE.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Delegates to the General Assembly, we have been more than patient. We've tried sanctions. We've tried the carrot of oil for food, and the stick of coalition military strikes. But Saddam Hussein has defied all these efforts and continues to develop weapons of mass destruction. The first time we may be completely certain he has a -- nuclear weapons is when, God forbids, he uses one.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEVILLE: And, of course, that was President Bush speaking before the U.N. last week.

And we are speaking with former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter about what to do in Iraq.

And before the break, I wanted to know if you know something, sir, that the Bush administration does not.

RITTER: I have no idea of knowing what the Bush administration knows. I agree totally with Secretary Powell. "Scott Ritter has been out of the intelligence loop for four years." Yes, I've been a private American citizen simply trying to do my American duty, my patriotic duty, by holding my government accountable, ensuring that what they do in my name is reflective of the standards that we as a nation claim to adhere to.

NEVILLE: But have you not been contradicting what the Bush administration has been saying?

RITTER: What I say is that I have 10 years experience on the ground with Iraq, both in war and as a weapons inspector. And it has been a unique experience, unmatched by any individual. And I have gained some pretty good insights into the reality of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program and the details of the interaction between Iraq, the United Nations and the United States.

So you can't be dismissive of what I know about Iraq. And I know that, in December 1998, while we had not closed the book on their programs, we did eliminate the factories used by Iraq to produce weapons of mass destruction, together with their associated production equipment. And we accounted for a significant amount of the product produced.

So, when President Bush stands before the American public and the world and says he knows Iraq is producing weapons of mass destruction, he needs to demonstrate that knowledge.

NEVILLE: But, sir, you also said in '98 that, in fact, that they are not disarmed, that, in fact, in six months, they could develop weapons of mass destruction. So, again, we -- they've had eight times that amount of time. So you said that.

RITTER: And what did I say that contradicted what I just said? How am I somehow going against what I just said?

NEVILLE: Because you just...

RITTER: Why are you throwing my words back in my face when I told you I agree with that assessment?

NEVILLE: Listen, I have got a lot to cover here. I'm going to move on.

And I want to ask you something important. And that is, why did you meet with the Iraqi government? And who initiated that meeting?

RITTER: OK, let me ask you this. Why did you have me here today?

NEVILLE: Why did you meet with the Iraqi government?

RITTER: So I could be here today to get the message out to the American people. I have been saying the same thing for four years.

NEVILLE: So what did you say to them, Scott?

RITTER: First of all, it was my initiation. And I told them: "Allow the unconditional return of inspectors, give them unfettered access, or your nation will be destroyed." End of story.

NEVILLE: So that is why they are saying yes today?

RITTER: I am not giving myself any credit. You asked me what I said to them. I just told you what I said to them.

NEVILLE: So -- and you paid for it out of your own pocket.

RITTER: Out of my own money.

NEVILLE: What about your friend, your Iraqi-American friend?

RITTER: First of all, let's put the -- he is an American citizen. And you do an insult to every American citizen of an ethnic origin when you call him...

NEVILLE: By saying Iraqi-American?

RITTER: Call him an American of Iraqi origin.

NEVILLE: So I shouldn't call someone African-American, Japanese- American?

RITTER: I am saying that, in these times, in post-September 11, let's focus on the fact that he is a law-abiding American citizen.

NEVILLE: I understand that. And calling him an Iraqi-American doesn't imply that he's not.

RITTER: But you said Iraqi.

NEVILLE: Iraqi-American, African-American.

RITTER: Whatever.

I am telling you he is a American citizen and he has, in the past, provided funding so that I can get the message out to the American people. If you got a problem with me, come after the message. Don't come after him.

NEVILLE: I'm not talking about him. I'm asking...

RITTER: You just raised him.

NEVILLE: Yes, because I want to know what amount of money he gave you. Who is he? Why does he have an interest?

RITTER: That's none of your damn business. That's between me and the United States government. I don't violate American law. He is an American citizen, a private citizen.

NEVILLE: Who has family -- does he have family in Iraq still?

RITTER: Yes, he does. What's your point?

NEVILLE: Point made.

RITTER: Point made?

NEVILLE: I have an e-mail I want to share with everybody right now. And that is coming from Rob in Colorado: "Scott Ritter is a traitor to the U.S. An American citizen never has the right to go into what is ostensibly enemy territory and speak out against the U.S. government and its president."

RITTER: I ask him to go back. First of all, calling me a traitor? Twelve years of service in the Marine Corps -- I have gone to war for my country. I've put my life on the line for my country. I went to Iraq for seven years, where I again did the service of my country by getting rid of weapons of mass destruction. I have two classified commendations from the director of CIA for work I've done in support of the national defense. Call me a traitor? I think not. Back off, anybody who goes down there.

You can disagree with me, but I would say that you are also disagreeing with Theodore Roosevelt, who says that any American who blindly agrees to everything that comes out of the president's mouth is not only wrong and servile, but unpatriotic, that you have a patriotic responsibility as an American citizen to speak out against the president, especially if you think he is doing something wrong.

NEVILLE: We've got to take a break. Scott Ritter will be here when we return.

TALKBACK LIVE continues in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody.

We are talking today with former weapons inspector Scott Ritter.

And we are going to go to the audience now with questions and comments.

Sir?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hi.

Is it a possibility that, while the U.S. goes into Iraq to inspect, that -- would it be possible for Saddam Hussein to put these possible nuclear weapons and hide them, like in different -- in different surrounding countries? Could that be a possibility?

RITTER: Well first of all, it will be the United Nations going in, not the United States. But, yes, you can hypothesize any given situation. We know, based upon my personal experience in Iraq, that they are fully capable of lying, cheating, obstructing and concealing. And, yes, they can hide this thing.

But understand that weapons of mass destruction aren't pulled out of a black hat like a white rabbit at a magic show. They are produced in factories. They require industrial infrastructure. They leave traces. And weapons inspectors, while Iraq is trying to hide this, we bring to bear -- you've seen crime scene investigation and all that. We are the world's best damn forensic investigators you have ever seen when it comes to weapons of mass destruction.

And if they produced it, we will find evidence of that being produced. That is why we don't close the file on their programs, because we know they have lied to us. We can't tell you exactly what is out there, but we can tell you they have not told us the truth. So, yes, Saddam can hide things. I doubt he will hide it in other countries. He would hide it in Iraq. But we would find evidence of that. And then we would demand -- as we are currently demanding -- a full accounting.

NEVILLE: OK, I have Daryn here from Georgia.

DARYN: I just wanted to say that I agree with Mr. Ritter, what he says. And, obviously, if the U.N. -- or if Iraq has said that we can go back in for inspections unconditionally, then we should follow up on that to the fullest extent, because war is a terrible thing. And people need to understand that, because human lives all over the world are equal, completely.

NEVILLE: Let's let Mr. Ritter respond. Thank you, sir.

RITTER: Yes.

Look, a war is a terrible thing, but sometimes you need to fight a war. We just have to make sure that, if we go to war, it is done for the right reasons, it's done for national security, and it's done in compliance with international law. Look, we are standing alone right now as a nation. That should speak volumes about the case that we have made to the international community about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

Let the inspectors in. And if Saddam Hussein fumbles, he is not going to get a second chance. If he obstructs, if he cheats, now we can go back to the Security Council and we won't be standing alone. We will have the whole world behind us. And I think that is a good thing.

NEVILLE: OK, I have Alex from Georgia.

ALEX: Yes.

My comment is really a follow-up one, because, so far, virtually all of the comments are related to what the Bush administration and the United States is doing. The rest of the world, or the majority of the rest of the world -- Tony Blair on one side, perhaps -- he does not have the British people behind him -- the rest of the world is very, very skeptical and very wary of what is perceived as U.S. arrogance in matters of this kind.

NEVILLE: And you know what? Before we move on, Scott -- your name tag here says Georgia. But, clearly, you are not from Georgia. Where are you from, sir?

ALEX: Originally from the U.K., but I've lived in Georgia for a long time.

NEVILLE: All right, thank you.

Scott.

RITTER: Again, that comes back to the point I have made that it is imperative that we make the case, not only to the American people, but to the international community.

When I hear the president make a statement about the certainty of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction, I think he has an obligation to share with us some of that information so that we can support him. He should share it with our allies so they can support us.

The fact that we are standing virtually alone -- we have Great Britain; we have Australia, but no one else is behind us. Great Britain and Australia are good friends who are going to stand with us right or wrong. I don't want right or wrong. I want people to stand with us because we are right. And if we are right, let's make the case. And the best way, if we don't have the facts right now, is to return to the rule of law, run a clean prosecution of Saddam, let the inspectors back in.

And if Saddam is hiding something, they'll find it. If Saddam wants to cheat, now we have a case for war that the whole world will support. NEVILLE: OK. And we have Suzanne here from South Carolina.

SUZANNE: My question is that Mr. Ritter says that we should not blindly trust our president. And while I agree, when our hostess questioned you on your contact and the information you received from him, you said it was none of our damn business. So why should we not trust our president blindly, but we should trust you blindly?

RITTER: Don't trust me blindly.

OK, you want to know about it? You want to waste everybody's time? Four hundred thousand dollars is what it costs to make a documentary film. I received that from an American citizen who liquidated his own stocks and bonds. This was investigated by the FBI over a two-year period. And they found no wrongdoing.

The money is clean. He had no editorial control over the movie. And how much money did I make out of that $400,000? Less than 20 percent. I put $38,000 of my own money into this film. I'm still running in red ink. So you think that has any bearing on what I am saying today? No. It is a deviation. It diverts attention from the message: Are we doing the right thing vis-a-vis Iraq?

This is not about Scott Ritter. This is about the United States of America. That is why I said it is nobody's damn business, because it deviates from the message by coming after the messenger.

But I hope I answered your question.

NEVILLE: And the debate continues.

Scott Ritter, thank you very much for joining us here today on TALKBACK LIVE.

RITTER: Thank you.

NEVILLE: And, as you've heard, Mr. Ritter has his critics. And we're going to hear from one of them, a man who says Mr. Ritter has done a 180.

We'll be back in a moment. Don't go anywhere. TALKBACK LIVE continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: And welcome back everybody. I'm Arthel Neville.

We just talked with former U.N. weapons inspector, Scott Ritter. And now, we'll hear the other side. Ritter has an army of critics who have called him everything from "irrelevant" to a "traitor."

With us is one of those critics, Max Boot. He is the author of "The Savage Wars of Peace: The Forgotten History of America's Small Wars." Max is also the editorial features editor of "The Wall Street Journal."

And, Mr. Boot, I want to welcome you to TALKBACK LIVE.

MAX BOOT, AUTHOR, "THE SAVAGE WARS OF PEACE": Thanks for having me on.

NEVILLE: OK, you heard what Scott Ritter had to say. What do you say?

BOOT: Well, I'm puzzled by Scott Ritter's statements. There is an old Scott Ritter and a new Scott Ritter, and personally, I like the old one better.

After he came back from Iraq in 1998 and quit the U.N. inspections program in disgust, what he said at the time was that Iraq was winning its bid to regain its prohibited weapons. He said, even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. This is what he said in 1998, and he quit, because the U.N. weapons inspection program, which he now advocates, was not getting the job done in 1998.

Today, on this show, what I hear him say is something very different. He is saying, A, there is no real hard evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, and, B, if it does have weapons of mass destruction, the U.N. weapons inspections program will ferret that out. But why on earth would we believe either of those statements, when in the past, Scott Ritter has said Iraq does have weapons of mass destruction? And, in fact, there is overwhelming evidence from other sources that indicate that's the case.

And Scott Ritter has also criticized the U.N. in the past for not being tough enough in its inspections, and for allowing Saddam Hussein to get away with violating numerous U.N. resolutions. I believe that's what will happen this time around, if we, once again, get into the charade of allowing weapons inspectors into Iraq.

So, I am much more convinced by the statements of the old Scott Ritter than by the statements he just made on this show today.

NEVILLE: Well, let's see how Rob in Georgia feels about the old Scott Ritter vs. the new Scott Ritter. Robert.

ROBERT: Yes. I am a black American from Georgia who fought in the Vietnam War. And I just personally think that Scott Ritter is a true patriot, and I think it's a travesty of justice for everybody to be knocking him and kicking him, when the guy has got enough intestinal fortitude to stand up and say what a lot of people think, but it's unconscionable to be up front and out in the public and say it.

BOOT: I'm not...

ROBERT: I think there is...

BOOT: Sir, I'm not -- let me just set the record straight.

ROBERT: I think there are ulterior motives behind the Bush administration -- oil and politics. And let's go back 11 years in Vietnam with the first Bush. We know Saddam Hussein is a tyrant. The job should have been finished then. It wasn't finished then. Now, that we've got to come back and get 50,000, 75,000 or 100,000 other young men and women killed in a political war. It's garbage.

NEVILLE: OK, sir, I know you're referring to the Persian Gulf War.

OK. Listen, I have Justin here with some comments.

JUSTIN: My question is: Suppose Scott Ritter is right? What if Saddam Hussein doesn't have weapons of mass destruction, are we finished? Is it over? Are we done with Iraq?

BOOT: Well, first off, Scott Ritter didn't say that Saddam doesn't have any weapons of mass destruction. He was very careful not to be pinned on that. He was very evasive on that when he was asked directly. He doesn't deny that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. He just says that the evidence is not there.

Well, if you listen to the old Scott Ritter, and if you listen to all of the intelligence sources that have been developed over the past decade, if you listen to every defector from Saddam's regime, you know he does have weapons of mass destruction. In fact, in 1998, Scott Ritter, himself, admitted in congressional testimony that Saddam had tons of biological agents, had mustard gas, poison gas, and was trying to develop nuclear weapons. This is all what Scott Ritter admitted in 1998.

Now, since then, we've had four years without any weapons inspections in Iraq, and we know Saddam has been able to reconstitute a lot of his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. So, it's preposterous to claim that he doesn't have those weapons. We know he has them, and I think we also know that we have to take some action before those weapons wind up being used against the United States of America.

NEVILLE: OK, I have Lilian here in the audience.

LILIAN: Hi. I think Mr. Ritter has a point. If we are going to take it upon ourselves to instill peace and justice across the world, isn't it our duty to make sure that everything is done in the most just manner?

BOOT: And I think we are making sure everything is done in the most just manner. The problem here is not the United States of America. The problem is Saddam Hussein, who is currently in violation of about 21 U.N. weapons -- Security Council weapons resolutions, who has used poison gas on his own people, who has attacked his neighbors, who has thrown ballistic weapons at his neighbors. This man is a war criminal. He is a mass murderer. He is one of the worst thugs in the world. We ought to be worrying about Saddam Hussein's crimes and not impugning wrongdoing to the United States of America.

NEVILLE: OK, Cat from Georgia.

CAT: Yes, I just wanted to agree with the fact that he seemed to be saying a lot, but the big thing is, is that he did admit in '98 that they do have weapons of mass destruction still, and they do still have the capabilities to arm them. And it has been X amount of years since then, and...

NEVILLE: Four.

CAT: Four -- and he's with no overseeing or anything. And, of course, nobody thinks that he has actually disarmed them.

In addition to that, how much is too much? He is in violation of over 20 different U.N. resolutions. And, you know, how much is too much before we can go in and finally put a stop to all of this?

NEVILLE: Thank you.

BOOT: Absolutely. And, you know, if anybody thinks that Saddam Hussein is going to stop making weapons of mass destruction, is going to stop threatening his neighbors, is going to stop abusing his people, well, that person must also believe that John Gotti was really in the olive oil business all along. I mean, this is just preposterous.

You know, Saddam Hussein has been a thug since he was a teenager. He's been a murderer. He's been a killer. He's risen to power as a tyrant. He's not going to change his ways now. He's just going to figure out new ways to get around the sanctions, or try to figure out new ways to get around the inspections...

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: Having said that, Max -- having said that, Max, what do you think will happen when the U.N. weapons inspectors go back in?

BOOT: I think the same thing will happen this time as happened last time. They're going to get into this seven-year rigamorole with Saddam Hussein. There are going to be negotiations over what's going to be allowed, what's not going to be allowed. Saddam Hussein is going to be hiding weapons stockpiles. It's going to be a charade, just as it was last time.

NEVILLE: So, is military action...

BOOT: And I don't think we can...

NEVILLE: Is military action inevitable?

BOOT: I think the clear evidence indicates that the only way we are going to get acceptable behavior from Iraq is with a change of regime, by having a more democratic, accountable and liberal regime in Iraq. There is no way we can do business with Saddam Hussein, who has shown that he has violated every tentative international law, who has murdered his own people, attacked his neighbors. That's not a man we can do business with. I think we absolutely need a new regime in Iraq.

NEVILLE: OK, Max Boot, thank you very much for joining us here today on TALKBACK LIVE. And up next, we're going to switch gears and talk about those three students fingered as possible terrorists. Well, they say their medical careers have been disrupted. Did they deserve to lose their internships over what they say was one woman's mistake?

Don't go anywhere. TALKBACK LIVE continues after this break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NEVILLE (voice-over): Right now on TALKBACK LIVE...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Saddam has now played his card. He said, OK, come in, your move -- very clever.

NEVILLE: Is Iraq's new openness simply a delay tactic, or a step toward peace?

Also, denied internships after being profiled as possible terrorists. Do these men deserve to get their jobs back?

Give us a piece of your mind as TALKBACK LIVE continues.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEVILLE: And welcome everybody.

We want to return once more to those three medical students, who were detained last Friday, after a woman reported they acted suspiciously at a Shoney's restaurant in Georgia. They say they were on their way to Larkin Community Hospital in Miami, where they planned to do a nine-week internship. However, the hospital decided the time might not be right for the students to be interning there, so they canceled their internships.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's very saddening, and it's very frustrating, because we want to pursue our medical careers. And yet, because of one comment, we can't.

LARRY KING, HOST: Is the hospital right or wrong?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The hospital, it's a tough thing to say, right or wrong. What I say, is I understand their decision. I mean, if I had family in this hospital -- I mean, they are looking out for the best interests of their patients.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEVILLE: Well, we'll use Larry King's question: Is the hospital right or wrong?

I want to go to someone who is outside of the ring right now. Chris Askew is up there with a lady outside of the ring. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hi. I just think that that was not the time or the place for them to be joking. September 11 was nothing to joke about. And these people -- it's fine that they want to get a medical career training here in this country, but at the time that people start laughing about September 11 and letting other people joke about it is the time we forget those 300 people that were lost.

NEVILLE: OK.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And we should never let that happen.

NEVILLE: But now -- hang on now. They are saying they were not joking.

Robert, what do you say?

ROBERT: And that's exactly what they are saying. They are saying they weren't joking, and that they were talking about bringing a car down, and that they were going to get funding for the car to bring down to transport their children to daycare. So, I mean, which side are you going to believe? I mean, there are two sides to the story. Were they joking or weren't they joking? I sort of seem to believe, from everything I saw and read about this, that they were, indeed, just joking around, and weren't...

NEVILLE: So, should they have kept their internship -- been allowed to keep internships?

ROBERT: Oh, I think absolutely. Absolutely, until they were found guilty.

NEVILLE: Thank you.

Joseph from Louisiana.

JOSEPH: Well, my question was, they're on their way to an internship, but yet, they're breaking the law to get there. So, what does that say about them as well?

NEVILLE: OK, but even that part of the story, their attorney was here yesterday saying that they did not break the law. They did, in fact, pay the toll. That's what I'm assuming you are talking about...

JOSEPH: That's correct.

NEVILLE: ... that they went through the toll booth without paying. Their attorney says, they did pay the toll.

JOSEPH: OK. So, that's why the cops were all over them yesterday, because they had paid through (ph) the toll deal (ph) what they were supposed to...

NEVILLE: The cops were all over them, because Eunice Stone said she overheard them talking about "bringing it down."

JOSEPH: Correct. But they also were led, because they went through -- supposedly went through the toll booth without paying. That was one of the reasons that caught the attention of the authorities.

NEVILLE: Well, the point now is that they have been proven to be not guilty in this situation, and now, they are without their internships. What do you think about that?

JOSEPH: Well, my honest opinion is no, I don't think they should continue their internship -- that they should find somewhere else to do their internship. And they should think next time before they decide to play a joke or whatever or talk about something out loud where someone else can hear it.

NEVILLE: OK, but wait a minute now. If they were playing a joke, then that was very much a poor judgment on their decision. But if they say they weren't playing a joke, and, in fact, they were talking about "bringing it down," referring to a car from Chicago to Miami, what's wrong with saying that?

JOSEPH: Well, think about it in the times that we're currently living in today.

NEVILLE: OK, you're right. I understand the time we live in today. At the same time, though, that if you were overhearing something at the table, you need to make sure you are hearing what you think you are hearing...

JOSEPH: Well...

NEVILLE: ... considering the times that we live in today.

JOSEPH: So, what do you think that she should have -- that she should have asked them?

NEVILLE: No, I'm saying, you just start listen even closely. You know, like, OK, what are they talking about over there?

And, me, I think you all wouldn't be surprised. I would go over to the table, excuse me, I'm sorry, what did you say? What are you talking about? I'm sorry, I overheard you. I mean, really, there is a way -- like, I overheard you talking about -- what are you guys? Are you guys high? Are you guys -- what are you doing here? And you get some information in a very friendly way, but you get some information, and that's the way I would have done it.

JOSEPH: But that's the current state of the entire country right now. We're all afraid of what's going to happen next. And if somebody says something slightly out of the way, we're going to take it the wrong way.

NEVILLE: OK, listen, I have to take an e-mail right now. Let's share that with everybody.

This is from Daniel in Pennsylvania. "It sounds like the students are diverting attention away from what was said and making it the fault of some perceived prejudice." I don't know. Let me get one quick -- Charlie, you know what? I have one quick second here. Go ahead and stand up and speak up.

CHARLIE: My point is, is that in these times, we are going to make mistakes. These people had been detained for some 14 hours or whatever the number is, been checked out, given a clean bill of health. Let them continue with their lives.

NEVILLE: OK, thank you.

Listen, it's time for another break, and up next, I want to take you to CNN's new street-level set in New York City. We'll get a sneak preview of the re-launch of "AMERICAN MORNING" and talk with Paula Zahn about a special interview you will want to watch this week. Don't go anywhere. Paula is standing by to be on TALKBACK LIVE.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: OK, everybody, welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville.

Right now, I want to welcome "AMERICAN MORNING's" Paula Zahn to TALKBACK LIVE. Paula joins us from the network's new, swanky street- level set in New York City.

Hey, Paula, nice to see you...

PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: Hey, girlfriend. How are you?

NEVILLE: ... and it's not like 4:00 am.

ZAHN: No. It is so nice. We're both awake for a change. The last time I saw Arthel, she was getting up at 3:30 with the rest of the morning crew.

What do you think of our new digs?

NEVILLE: You know what? I have...

ZAHN: Check this out.

NEVILLE: Yes, show it.

ZAHN: Have you seen a wide shot of this place yet?

NEVILLE: Let's see the wide show. I have seen it, but let -- it is gorgeous.

ZAHN: It's a brand new universe for us.

NEVILLE: Audience, what do you think?

(APPLAUSE)

NEVILLE: The audience is loving this, Paula. Wow! That's a great shot from 6th Avenue, Avenue of Americas there. Now, Paula, tell us what's going to be different about this show.

ZAHN: Well, basically, we moved into a new home, and we're going to try to have some of the content we've had consistently over the last year. You know, we try to differentiate ourselves as the serious morning show, and the line-up tomorrow kind of reinforces that.

At the top of the show, we're going to be joined by the mayor, as he helps us cut the ribbon and unveil this new place -- the mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg. And then, Foreign Minister Shimon Peres of Israel will be joining us, and I will have an exclusive interview with the former president of the United States, George Bush.

NEVILLE: And that particular interview took place in Japan. If you would tell us why did former President Bush go back to Japan?

ZAHN: It's interesting, because the former president said there were just a couple of things that he really wanted to do to make himself feel complete. And one of those things was to return to the exact place where he was shot down in World War II, when he was a Navy fighter pilot.

So, I traveled with the president by Japanese military helicopters to this island of Chichi Jima (ph), and believe me, Arthel, when I tell this it's in the middle of nowhere, it's in the middle of nowhere. It would 34 hours to get there by boat from the mainland of Japan. It's 500 miles off of the mainland. And we actually went to the exact spot in the water where his plane went down.

And the reason why this was such an emotional journey for him was, on that day in September of 1942, he lost two of his crewmates. He was the pilot in front. He couldn't even see the two guys behind him because of a steel bar in the plane. He was hit by anti-aircraft fire. He describes in vivid detail how the cockpit filled up with smoke. Then, he had to make a decision to ditch the plane. He ejected and told the crewmembers behind him to do the same. And the tragedy is, onlookers saw two chutes -- one that opened, one that did not. And they never saw any evidence of a third chute.

So, he said to this day, that he has been haunted by their fate, and whether he could have done anything differently to save their lives, and that's part of the reason why he returned there.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ZAHN: To this day, how much do you regret that your mission didn't take you all the way to Baghdad?

GEORGE H.W. BUSH, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I have no regrets about that, because I know what would have happened. I know that the coalition would have shattered. My only regret is that I was wrong, as was every other leader, that in thinking that Saddam Hussein would be gone. We had an objective. We told our military commanders, "Here is your objective." They saluted from halfway around the world and said, "Mission complete, sir." And that's the way it was, and that's the way it should have been.

Now, am I happy Saddam Hussein is there? Absolutely not. But am I going to be moved by the Monday morning critics, who now say we should have done it differently, who were totally silent back then? No, we shouldn't. But should we do something about Saddam Hussein? Well, that's the problem facing the president of the United States of America, not me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAHN: So, Arthel, we discussed a lot on this trip, as the president looked back on how his experiences as a combat pilot shaped his adult life and shaped his presidency. And what you heard there was a conversation that you'll hear a little bit later on in the series, where he talks about how his military experience affected the kind of decisions he did when -- particularly when it came to Desert Storm, knowing that he was going to have to put tens of thousands of American troops in harm's way.

NEVILLE: OK.

ZAHN: You will see a very relaxed ex-president, who obviously is very at home on the water. And I think people will be struck by just how he is able to tie these combat experiences into some of the policy decisions he made later on as president.

NEVILLE: All right, Paula, do me a favor. Hang right there, because what you are saying is quite interesting. I want to find out more about it. I want to talk about that set.

But right now, it's all about Judy Woodruff. We have to find out what she has planned for "INSIDE POLITICS" today.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: No, that's not -- oh, look at this. This is a beautiful wide shot here -- the new set of "AMERICAN MORNING." And of course, we have the girl in the morning, Paula Zahn, who is with us.

You know, we want to see the inside of the studio again, Paula. Can you show that to us?

ZAHN: Yes, like this. I'm going to -- like, magic, I'm going to try to go after the wide shot again.

NEVILLE: Very nice.

ZAHN: And the greatest thing about this, you remember the little shoe box we were in before, Arthel. Remember when we were tripping over each other, and that's when I ran into the sofa?

NEVILLE: Yes, it was rather cozy.

ZAHN: But the greatest thing about this is, it gives us a lot of opportunities, technically, you know, we have these fancy plasma screens where you can literally take in six live shots simultaneously in interviews. See, check out this wall. You can have six interviews going at the time, and dip in and out of Moscow coverage or Russia -- you know, from Moscow to coverage from France, or whatever the heck you want to do. So, we have a lot of flexibility we didn't have before.

And you know what the other great thing is? For the first time in my career, Arthel, I actually have daylight streaming into the studio, and we have...

NEVILLE: That's very nice.

(CROSSTALK)

ZAHN: ... across from Radio City Music Hall. We can see people.

NEVILLE: Yes.

ZAHN: We're going to go out on the street and solicit people's opinions on whatever the hot, you know, button issues of the day, so we're very excited.

NEVILLE: There's nothing like ground-level in New York.

By the way, Paula.

ZAHN: Yes.

NEVILLE: I think you have some new highlights to go with that new set.

ZAHN: I do?

NEVILLE: Your hair is looking good. Your hair is looking good.

ZAHN: Hey, it's new and improved lighting. And you know what I was thinking? I was thinking how much I liked your new haircut.

NEVILLE: Thank you, girl. It is a wig. Hello!

ZAHN: Is it? Oh, she came clean.

NEVILLE: All right.

ZAHN: We can always count on your honesty, Arthel.

NEVILLE: All right, Paula, listen...

ZAHN: Have a good show, and thank you very much for joining us.

NEVILLE: I'm glad you were here. We will be watching...

ZAHN: Because you know how much better this is than the old place.

NEVILLE: We will be watching you in the morning, and good luck with everything, OK? ZAHN: Thank you very much.

NEVILLE: We're going to look forward to your -- absolutely -- your interview with former President Bush, as you re-launch "AMERICAN MORNING" tomorrow morning right here on CNN. Check it out.

Everybody, we are out of time. Thanks for watching. I'm Arthel Neville. I will be back again tomorrow, 3:00 Eastern, with more TALKBACK LIVE.

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





Valid?; Do Three Medical Students Deserve to Lose Their Internships?>


Aired September 17, 2002 - 15:00   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ARTHEL NEVILLE, HOST: And, hello, everybody. Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville.
Iraq says it's ready to reopen its doors to U.N. weapons inspectors. Essentially, it's saying: "Come on in. Take a look around. And we won't even put any conditions on the inspectors." But, apparently, it's going to take more than that to impress the Bush administration. A White House spokesman says it's no longer just about inspections. It's about disarmament.

One of the loudest critics of the Bush administration's approach to Iraq and Saddam Hussein has been former weapons inspector Scott Ritter. He has been called a traitor, dismissed as out of the loop, and criticized for being too cozy with Iraq. Indeed, Ritter has just returned from a visit to Baghdad and is here with us today on TALKBACK LIVE.

And we want to welcome you to the show, sir.

SCOTT RITTER, FORMER U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: Thank you.

NEVILLE: OK.

So, Iraq says "Come back" to the weapons inspectors. Bush says: "No, that's not enough. We can't trust Saddam Hussein." What do you say?

RITTER: I think it is imperative -- and what I have been about for four years now is preserving the integrity of the process. I have never given the Saddam Hussein or the Iraqi government a clean bill of health. I have been clear across the board.

He is a brutal, tyrannical dictator who has violated international law repeatedly. And I view him as a criminal. But, as a criminal, if we're going to sit here and prosecute a case against a criminal, we have to ensure that we run a clean prosecution. We didn't run a clean prosecution last time. We played footloose and fancy free with the rules. We used inspectors to spy on Saddam. We operated in a manner which was not in accordance with the rule of law.

This time, Iraq says they are going to allow inspectors back in. OK, let's hold them to that. Here is a criminal that we are trying to put charges on and bring him to jail. He says, "Investigate me." So let's investigate him. And if he has violated, if he does not adhere to the rule of international law, we got him now. And no one in the world will oppose us going after Saddam if he in fact is in violation. But I repeat again, America as a nation laws is a nation of laws. If we are going to hold Saddam Hussein accountable to these laws, we have to adhere to these laws ourselves.

NEVILLE: I understand what you're saying is that, basically, don't taint the process, so as not to let Saddam Hussein off in the long run due to a technicality.

RITTER: It's the same way you would prosecute a crime against a drug dealer. You don't plant evidence. You don't take shortcuts with the law. If he is doing drugs, you build the case. You catch him with the drugs. And then you throw him in the slammer.

If Saddam Hussein is doing weapons of mass destruction, let's catch him with them. He is just giving us the vehicle to do that. He said bring the inspectors in.

NEVILLE: OK, so let's say the inspectors go back in. What will be different this time? They did not cooperate -- when you were there, they didn't cooperate. So what is going to be different? How can a new regime be more successful?

RITTER: Well, the key thing, again, is respect the integrity of the process.

The key to succeeding in prosecuting a criminal is to ensure that those who are bringing the case to bear don't themselves violate law. If you bring a corrupt cop to testify before a criminal, the criminal is going to get off. Let's respect the integrity of the process. Let's get the inspectors in there and make sure that they adhere to the mandate set forth by the Security Council to oversee Iraq's disarmament.

Iraq is not going to get any second chance. If they are caught off base this time, it is all over for Saddam.

NEVILLE: And is that your perspective as well? Would you, at that point, support military action against Saddam Hussein and Iraq?

RITTER: I don't know how to make it any clearer than I already have. I already fought a war against Iraq.

NEVILLE: But I am asking you right now, yes or no, Scott. I am just asking you.

RITTER: I spent seven years in Iraq. If Iraq is caught with weapons of mass destruction 10 years after the international community has outlawed these weapons, we are right to presume ill intent and treat him like a rogue leader and eliminate him

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: That's fine. I am asking you, Scott Ritter, a direct question.

RITTER: I just gave you a direct answer. NEVILLE: No, no, I'm asking you. Would you support military action against Iraq if it is proven that he is in fact preparing to build weapons of mass destruction, if he does not already have them?

RITTER: I wouldn't just support military action. I would volunteer my service to lead the first charge into Iraq to capture that son of a gun and hold him accountable.

NEVILLE: OK, let's talk, then, about your timing of all of this. Why, then, have you brought such attention to yourself and to your cause at this particular point?

RITTER: Well, first of all, it is not my cause. This is America's cause. I invite all Americans to read two documents.

The first document is the Constitution of the United States of America, which says we are a nation of laws. The second document is the United Nations Charter. See, in the Constitution, it says, if we enter into an international agreement, that agreement bears the force of law. The U.N. Charter is a legal document binding to the United States. I am insisting my government adheres to law.

NEVILLE: I understand all that. OK. I get that.

But let's just break this down now into layman's terms, because I understand that you have intimated that the White House, the Bush administration, has a hidden agenda. So, therefore, you are trying to put forth your agenda at this point.

RITTER: Why is it my agenda?

NEVILLE: OK, the American agenda, as you say. Well, what is that you are saying that the Bush administration might be hiding?

RITTER: Well, first of all, when we are talking about going to war, I think every American better understand what this means. It is not copacetic. It is not a video game. It's war.

We are going to kill people. And we are going to die. And we're going to destroy things. War is ugly. We do not go to war, we do not put the lives of American servicemen at risk to make the ultimate sacrifice in defense of their country unless there is a threat to the United States. So I am demanding that the Bush administration don't just say Iraq is a threat with rhetoric and speculation, but to back it up with facts, make sure the sacrifice is worth it.

NEVILLE: Sir, do you believe the president of the United States would sacrifice our forces, the U.S. forces, put them in harm's way, send them to war for some sort of personal vendetta or whatever your hidden agenda, the implication is?

RITTER: My hidden agenda?

NEVILLE: No, no, his. You were implying that this Bush administration has a hidden agenda. And you still haven't told me what that is, by the way, what you think it is. RITTER: The hidden agenda is regime removal. The Bush administration has put regime removal of Saddam Hussein above and beyond international law that says disarmament. They put getting rid of Saddam ahead of disarming Iraq.

NEVILLE: Why? Why? Why are they putting that in front?

RITTER: Because the Bush administrations is staffed by neoconservative ideologues who have endorsed the policy of unilateralist American intervention around the world. And they're using Iraq as a case example.

NEVILLE: So this, is it personal? Is it politics?

RITTER: It's politics and personal. They have invested so much political capital into the concept of getting rid of Saddam Hussein that the Bush administration has boxed itself into a rhetorical corner, where they have given themselves no ability to maneuver out of this, short of war. And this is wrong.

And if you think that the president can't lie to the American public, I invite you to go back to 1964 and the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. I am asking Americans to ensure that, this time, before we go to war, we are going to war for the right reason. I don't want us to wake up 10 years from now with 58,000 body bags coming home to suddenly realize we made a mistake.

(APPLAUSE)

NEVILLE: And some people would say that they don't want to wake up two months from now with body bags because, in fact, Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction that he could possibly use against the U.S.

RITTER: Then they need to make that case before we ask our servicemen to go to war, because, right now, I know how to build a nuclear bomb. I know how Iraq builds a nuclear bomb. And I can tell you right now, the Bush administration has not put forward a case about Iraq's retention of nuclear capability that's based on reality or fact. It is purely conjectural speculation. And this is not worth a single American's life.

NEVILLE: Hang on. I have got more for you.

But I have a call I want to take right now. And I've got Rob calling in from -- where are you calling from, Rob?

CALLER: Bremerton, Washington.

NEVILLE: OK. Go ahead, sir.

CALLER: A couple of weeks ago, I watched Scott Ritter in a televised C-SPAN teleconference with a senator and another couple interviewees. In that, you claimed that Iraq did not have the ability in the last four years to produce weapons of mass destruction. How am I supposed to take your credibility over President Bush's, when he is the one that's in touch with the intelligence agency and he has made the claim that they have advanced their technology and advanced their capabilities? How do you say, sir?

NEVILLE: Thanks, Rob.

Before you answer that, I want to add something to Rob's point, because, when you left there in '98, you said: "Listen, these guys are not disarmed. In fact, in six months, Iraq could reconstitute biological and chemical weapons" -- in six months. Well, they have had eight times that amount of time. So what makes you believe they have not done so?

RITTER: What makes you think I believe they have not done so?

NEVILLE: Well, tell me.

RITTER: What have I said in four years that makes you believe I have ever uttered that statement? I have never given Iraq a clean bill of health. When I resigned, I said: "We have not completed the task of disarmament. And if we withdraw inspectors, Iraq, within six months, can rebuild their weapons." I stand by that today. I never told the world that Iraq does not have a weapons capability.

What I have said is, before we go to war citing a threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, we need to make the case based upon substantive fact. Yes, the president is in the intelligence loop. And, my God, he better start sharing that intelligence with the American public and our elected representatives in Congress, because this is not a dictatorship. This is a democracy. And we must have accountability from our elected representatives.

NEVILLE: And what do you know what they don't know? I want to ask you that when we come back.

And I still want to hear from you on this subject. Scott Ritter is here with us. The number is 1-800-310-4CNN. Or, of course, you can e-mail TALKBACK@CNN.com.

We'll be back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: Today on TALKBACK LIVE: We are talking with former weapons inspector Scott Ritter about Iraq's invitation to come on in and take a look around.

Also: Three medical students worry about their future after being marked as possible terrorists.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

AYMAN GHEITH, MEDICAL SCHOOL STUDENT: This one phone call could jeopardize the rest of our lives.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEVILLE: It is all happening right now on TALKBACK LIVE.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Delegates to the General Assembly, we have been more than patient. We've tried sanctions. We've tried the carrot of oil for food, and the stick of coalition military strikes. But Saddam Hussein has defied all these efforts and continues to develop weapons of mass destruction. The first time we may be completely certain he has a -- nuclear weapons is when, God forbids, he uses one.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEVILLE: And, of course, that was President Bush speaking before the U.N. last week.

And we are speaking with former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter about what to do in Iraq.

And before the break, I wanted to know if you know something, sir, that the Bush administration does not.

RITTER: I have no idea of knowing what the Bush administration knows. I agree totally with Secretary Powell. "Scott Ritter has been out of the intelligence loop for four years." Yes, I've been a private American citizen simply trying to do my American duty, my patriotic duty, by holding my government accountable, ensuring that what they do in my name is reflective of the standards that we as a nation claim to adhere to.

NEVILLE: But have you not been contradicting what the Bush administration has been saying?

RITTER: What I say is that I have 10 years experience on the ground with Iraq, both in war and as a weapons inspector. And it has been a unique experience, unmatched by any individual. And I have gained some pretty good insights into the reality of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program and the details of the interaction between Iraq, the United Nations and the United States.

So you can't be dismissive of what I know about Iraq. And I know that, in December 1998, while we had not closed the book on their programs, we did eliminate the factories used by Iraq to produce weapons of mass destruction, together with their associated production equipment. And we accounted for a significant amount of the product produced.

So, when President Bush stands before the American public and the world and says he knows Iraq is producing weapons of mass destruction, he needs to demonstrate that knowledge.

NEVILLE: But, sir, you also said in '98 that, in fact, that they are not disarmed, that, in fact, in six months, they could develop weapons of mass destruction. So, again, we -- they've had eight times that amount of time. So you said that.

RITTER: And what did I say that contradicted what I just said? How am I somehow going against what I just said?

NEVILLE: Because you just...

RITTER: Why are you throwing my words back in my face when I told you I agree with that assessment?

NEVILLE: Listen, I have got a lot to cover here. I'm going to move on.

And I want to ask you something important. And that is, why did you meet with the Iraqi government? And who initiated that meeting?

RITTER: OK, let me ask you this. Why did you have me here today?

NEVILLE: Why did you meet with the Iraqi government?

RITTER: So I could be here today to get the message out to the American people. I have been saying the same thing for four years.

NEVILLE: So what did you say to them, Scott?

RITTER: First of all, it was my initiation. And I told them: "Allow the unconditional return of inspectors, give them unfettered access, or your nation will be destroyed." End of story.

NEVILLE: So that is why they are saying yes today?

RITTER: I am not giving myself any credit. You asked me what I said to them. I just told you what I said to them.

NEVILLE: So -- and you paid for it out of your own pocket.

RITTER: Out of my own money.

NEVILLE: What about your friend, your Iraqi-American friend?

RITTER: First of all, let's put the -- he is an American citizen. And you do an insult to every American citizen of an ethnic origin when you call him...

NEVILLE: By saying Iraqi-American?

RITTER: Call him an American of Iraqi origin.

NEVILLE: So I shouldn't call someone African-American, Japanese- American?

RITTER: I am saying that, in these times, in post-September 11, let's focus on the fact that he is a law-abiding American citizen.

NEVILLE: I understand that. And calling him an Iraqi-American doesn't imply that he's not.

RITTER: But you said Iraqi.

NEVILLE: Iraqi-American, African-American.

RITTER: Whatever.

I am telling you he is a American citizen and he has, in the past, provided funding so that I can get the message out to the American people. If you got a problem with me, come after the message. Don't come after him.

NEVILLE: I'm not talking about him. I'm asking...

RITTER: You just raised him.

NEVILLE: Yes, because I want to know what amount of money he gave you. Who is he? Why does he have an interest?

RITTER: That's none of your damn business. That's between me and the United States government. I don't violate American law. He is an American citizen, a private citizen.

NEVILLE: Who has family -- does he have family in Iraq still?

RITTER: Yes, he does. What's your point?

NEVILLE: Point made.

RITTER: Point made?

NEVILLE: I have an e-mail I want to share with everybody right now. And that is coming from Rob in Colorado: "Scott Ritter is a traitor to the U.S. An American citizen never has the right to go into what is ostensibly enemy territory and speak out against the U.S. government and its president."

RITTER: I ask him to go back. First of all, calling me a traitor? Twelve years of service in the Marine Corps -- I have gone to war for my country. I've put my life on the line for my country. I went to Iraq for seven years, where I again did the service of my country by getting rid of weapons of mass destruction. I have two classified commendations from the director of CIA for work I've done in support of the national defense. Call me a traitor? I think not. Back off, anybody who goes down there.

You can disagree with me, but I would say that you are also disagreeing with Theodore Roosevelt, who says that any American who blindly agrees to everything that comes out of the president's mouth is not only wrong and servile, but unpatriotic, that you have a patriotic responsibility as an American citizen to speak out against the president, especially if you think he is doing something wrong.

NEVILLE: We've got to take a break. Scott Ritter will be here when we return.

TALKBACK LIVE continues in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody.

We are talking today with former weapons inspector Scott Ritter.

And we are going to go to the audience now with questions and comments.

Sir?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hi.

Is it a possibility that, while the U.S. goes into Iraq to inspect, that -- would it be possible for Saddam Hussein to put these possible nuclear weapons and hide them, like in different -- in different surrounding countries? Could that be a possibility?

RITTER: Well first of all, it will be the United Nations going in, not the United States. But, yes, you can hypothesize any given situation. We know, based upon my personal experience in Iraq, that they are fully capable of lying, cheating, obstructing and concealing. And, yes, they can hide this thing.

But understand that weapons of mass destruction aren't pulled out of a black hat like a white rabbit at a magic show. They are produced in factories. They require industrial infrastructure. They leave traces. And weapons inspectors, while Iraq is trying to hide this, we bring to bear -- you've seen crime scene investigation and all that. We are the world's best damn forensic investigators you have ever seen when it comes to weapons of mass destruction.

And if they produced it, we will find evidence of that being produced. That is why we don't close the file on their programs, because we know they have lied to us. We can't tell you exactly what is out there, but we can tell you they have not told us the truth. So, yes, Saddam can hide things. I doubt he will hide it in other countries. He would hide it in Iraq. But we would find evidence of that. And then we would demand -- as we are currently demanding -- a full accounting.

NEVILLE: OK, I have Daryn here from Georgia.

DARYN: I just wanted to say that I agree with Mr. Ritter, what he says. And, obviously, if the U.N. -- or if Iraq has said that we can go back in for inspections unconditionally, then we should follow up on that to the fullest extent, because war is a terrible thing. And people need to understand that, because human lives all over the world are equal, completely.

NEVILLE: Let's let Mr. Ritter respond. Thank you, sir.

RITTER: Yes.

Look, a war is a terrible thing, but sometimes you need to fight a war. We just have to make sure that, if we go to war, it is done for the right reasons, it's done for national security, and it's done in compliance with international law. Look, we are standing alone right now as a nation. That should speak volumes about the case that we have made to the international community about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

Let the inspectors in. And if Saddam Hussein fumbles, he is not going to get a second chance. If he obstructs, if he cheats, now we can go back to the Security Council and we won't be standing alone. We will have the whole world behind us. And I think that is a good thing.

NEVILLE: OK, I have Alex from Georgia.

ALEX: Yes.

My comment is really a follow-up one, because, so far, virtually all of the comments are related to what the Bush administration and the United States is doing. The rest of the world, or the majority of the rest of the world -- Tony Blair on one side, perhaps -- he does not have the British people behind him -- the rest of the world is very, very skeptical and very wary of what is perceived as U.S. arrogance in matters of this kind.

NEVILLE: And you know what? Before we move on, Scott -- your name tag here says Georgia. But, clearly, you are not from Georgia. Where are you from, sir?

ALEX: Originally from the U.K., but I've lived in Georgia for a long time.

NEVILLE: All right, thank you.

Scott.

RITTER: Again, that comes back to the point I have made that it is imperative that we make the case, not only to the American people, but to the international community.

When I hear the president make a statement about the certainty of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction, I think he has an obligation to share with us some of that information so that we can support him. He should share it with our allies so they can support us.

The fact that we are standing virtually alone -- we have Great Britain; we have Australia, but no one else is behind us. Great Britain and Australia are good friends who are going to stand with us right or wrong. I don't want right or wrong. I want people to stand with us because we are right. And if we are right, let's make the case. And the best way, if we don't have the facts right now, is to return to the rule of law, run a clean prosecution of Saddam, let the inspectors back in.

And if Saddam is hiding something, they'll find it. If Saddam wants to cheat, now we have a case for war that the whole world will support. NEVILLE: OK. And we have Suzanne here from South Carolina.

SUZANNE: My question is that Mr. Ritter says that we should not blindly trust our president. And while I agree, when our hostess questioned you on your contact and the information you received from him, you said it was none of our damn business. So why should we not trust our president blindly, but we should trust you blindly?

RITTER: Don't trust me blindly.

OK, you want to know about it? You want to waste everybody's time? Four hundred thousand dollars is what it costs to make a documentary film. I received that from an American citizen who liquidated his own stocks and bonds. This was investigated by the FBI over a two-year period. And they found no wrongdoing.

The money is clean. He had no editorial control over the movie. And how much money did I make out of that $400,000? Less than 20 percent. I put $38,000 of my own money into this film. I'm still running in red ink. So you think that has any bearing on what I am saying today? No. It is a deviation. It diverts attention from the message: Are we doing the right thing vis-a-vis Iraq?

This is not about Scott Ritter. This is about the United States of America. That is why I said it is nobody's damn business, because it deviates from the message by coming after the messenger.

But I hope I answered your question.

NEVILLE: And the debate continues.

Scott Ritter, thank you very much for joining us here today on TALKBACK LIVE.

RITTER: Thank you.

NEVILLE: And, as you've heard, Mr. Ritter has his critics. And we're going to hear from one of them, a man who says Mr. Ritter has done a 180.

We'll be back in a moment. Don't go anywhere. TALKBACK LIVE continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: And welcome back everybody. I'm Arthel Neville.

We just talked with former U.N. weapons inspector, Scott Ritter. And now, we'll hear the other side. Ritter has an army of critics who have called him everything from "irrelevant" to a "traitor."

With us is one of those critics, Max Boot. He is the author of "The Savage Wars of Peace: The Forgotten History of America's Small Wars." Max is also the editorial features editor of "The Wall Street Journal."

And, Mr. Boot, I want to welcome you to TALKBACK LIVE.

MAX BOOT, AUTHOR, "THE SAVAGE WARS OF PEACE": Thanks for having me on.

NEVILLE: OK, you heard what Scott Ritter had to say. What do you say?

BOOT: Well, I'm puzzled by Scott Ritter's statements. There is an old Scott Ritter and a new Scott Ritter, and personally, I like the old one better.

After he came back from Iraq in 1998 and quit the U.N. inspections program in disgust, what he said at the time was that Iraq was winning its bid to regain its prohibited weapons. He said, even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. This is what he said in 1998, and he quit, because the U.N. weapons inspection program, which he now advocates, was not getting the job done in 1998.

Today, on this show, what I hear him say is something very different. He is saying, A, there is no real hard evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, and, B, if it does have weapons of mass destruction, the U.N. weapons inspections program will ferret that out. But why on earth would we believe either of those statements, when in the past, Scott Ritter has said Iraq does have weapons of mass destruction? And, in fact, there is overwhelming evidence from other sources that indicate that's the case.

And Scott Ritter has also criticized the U.N. in the past for not being tough enough in its inspections, and for allowing Saddam Hussein to get away with violating numerous U.N. resolutions. I believe that's what will happen this time around, if we, once again, get into the charade of allowing weapons inspectors into Iraq.

So, I am much more convinced by the statements of the old Scott Ritter than by the statements he just made on this show today.

NEVILLE: Well, let's see how Rob in Georgia feels about the old Scott Ritter vs. the new Scott Ritter. Robert.

ROBERT: Yes. I am a black American from Georgia who fought in the Vietnam War. And I just personally think that Scott Ritter is a true patriot, and I think it's a travesty of justice for everybody to be knocking him and kicking him, when the guy has got enough intestinal fortitude to stand up and say what a lot of people think, but it's unconscionable to be up front and out in the public and say it.

BOOT: I'm not...

ROBERT: I think there is...

BOOT: Sir, I'm not -- let me just set the record straight.

ROBERT: I think there are ulterior motives behind the Bush administration -- oil and politics. And let's go back 11 years in Vietnam with the first Bush. We know Saddam Hussein is a tyrant. The job should have been finished then. It wasn't finished then. Now, that we've got to come back and get 50,000, 75,000 or 100,000 other young men and women killed in a political war. It's garbage.

NEVILLE: OK, sir, I know you're referring to the Persian Gulf War.

OK. Listen, I have Justin here with some comments.

JUSTIN: My question is: Suppose Scott Ritter is right? What if Saddam Hussein doesn't have weapons of mass destruction, are we finished? Is it over? Are we done with Iraq?

BOOT: Well, first off, Scott Ritter didn't say that Saddam doesn't have any weapons of mass destruction. He was very careful not to be pinned on that. He was very evasive on that when he was asked directly. He doesn't deny that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. He just says that the evidence is not there.

Well, if you listen to the old Scott Ritter, and if you listen to all of the intelligence sources that have been developed over the past decade, if you listen to every defector from Saddam's regime, you know he does have weapons of mass destruction. In fact, in 1998, Scott Ritter, himself, admitted in congressional testimony that Saddam had tons of biological agents, had mustard gas, poison gas, and was trying to develop nuclear weapons. This is all what Scott Ritter admitted in 1998.

Now, since then, we've had four years without any weapons inspections in Iraq, and we know Saddam has been able to reconstitute a lot of his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. So, it's preposterous to claim that he doesn't have those weapons. We know he has them, and I think we also know that we have to take some action before those weapons wind up being used against the United States of America.

NEVILLE: OK, I have Lilian here in the audience.

LILIAN: Hi. I think Mr. Ritter has a point. If we are going to take it upon ourselves to instill peace and justice across the world, isn't it our duty to make sure that everything is done in the most just manner?

BOOT: And I think we are making sure everything is done in the most just manner. The problem here is not the United States of America. The problem is Saddam Hussein, who is currently in violation of about 21 U.N. weapons -- Security Council weapons resolutions, who has used poison gas on his own people, who has attacked his neighbors, who has thrown ballistic weapons at his neighbors. This man is a war criminal. He is a mass murderer. He is one of the worst thugs in the world. We ought to be worrying about Saddam Hussein's crimes and not impugning wrongdoing to the United States of America.

NEVILLE: OK, Cat from Georgia.

CAT: Yes, I just wanted to agree with the fact that he seemed to be saying a lot, but the big thing is, is that he did admit in '98 that they do have weapons of mass destruction still, and they do still have the capabilities to arm them. And it has been X amount of years since then, and...

NEVILLE: Four.

CAT: Four -- and he's with no overseeing or anything. And, of course, nobody thinks that he has actually disarmed them.

In addition to that, how much is too much? He is in violation of over 20 different U.N. resolutions. And, you know, how much is too much before we can go in and finally put a stop to all of this?

NEVILLE: Thank you.

BOOT: Absolutely. And, you know, if anybody thinks that Saddam Hussein is going to stop making weapons of mass destruction, is going to stop threatening his neighbors, is going to stop abusing his people, well, that person must also believe that John Gotti was really in the olive oil business all along. I mean, this is just preposterous.

You know, Saddam Hussein has been a thug since he was a teenager. He's been a murderer. He's been a killer. He's risen to power as a tyrant. He's not going to change his ways now. He's just going to figure out new ways to get around the sanctions, or try to figure out new ways to get around the inspections...

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: Having said that, Max -- having said that, Max, what do you think will happen when the U.N. weapons inspectors go back in?

BOOT: I think the same thing will happen this time as happened last time. They're going to get into this seven-year rigamorole with Saddam Hussein. There are going to be negotiations over what's going to be allowed, what's not going to be allowed. Saddam Hussein is going to be hiding weapons stockpiles. It's going to be a charade, just as it was last time.

NEVILLE: So, is military action...

BOOT: And I don't think we can...

NEVILLE: Is military action inevitable?

BOOT: I think the clear evidence indicates that the only way we are going to get acceptable behavior from Iraq is with a change of regime, by having a more democratic, accountable and liberal regime in Iraq. There is no way we can do business with Saddam Hussein, who has shown that he has violated every tentative international law, who has murdered his own people, attacked his neighbors. That's not a man we can do business with. I think we absolutely need a new regime in Iraq.

NEVILLE: OK, Max Boot, thank you very much for joining us here today on TALKBACK LIVE. And up next, we're going to switch gears and talk about those three students fingered as possible terrorists. Well, they say their medical careers have been disrupted. Did they deserve to lose their internships over what they say was one woman's mistake?

Don't go anywhere. TALKBACK LIVE continues after this break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NEVILLE (voice-over): Right now on TALKBACK LIVE...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Saddam has now played his card. He said, OK, come in, your move -- very clever.

NEVILLE: Is Iraq's new openness simply a delay tactic, or a step toward peace?

Also, denied internships after being profiled as possible terrorists. Do these men deserve to get their jobs back?

Give us a piece of your mind as TALKBACK LIVE continues.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEVILLE: And welcome everybody.

We want to return once more to those three medical students, who were detained last Friday, after a woman reported they acted suspiciously at a Shoney's restaurant in Georgia. They say they were on their way to Larkin Community Hospital in Miami, where they planned to do a nine-week internship. However, the hospital decided the time might not be right for the students to be interning there, so they canceled their internships.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's very saddening, and it's very frustrating, because we want to pursue our medical careers. And yet, because of one comment, we can't.

LARRY KING, HOST: Is the hospital right or wrong?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The hospital, it's a tough thing to say, right or wrong. What I say, is I understand their decision. I mean, if I had family in this hospital -- I mean, they are looking out for the best interests of their patients.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEVILLE: Well, we'll use Larry King's question: Is the hospital right or wrong?

I want to go to someone who is outside of the ring right now. Chris Askew is up there with a lady outside of the ring. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hi. I just think that that was not the time or the place for them to be joking. September 11 was nothing to joke about. And these people -- it's fine that they want to get a medical career training here in this country, but at the time that people start laughing about September 11 and letting other people joke about it is the time we forget those 300 people that were lost.

NEVILLE: OK.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And we should never let that happen.

NEVILLE: But now -- hang on now. They are saying they were not joking.

Robert, what do you say?

ROBERT: And that's exactly what they are saying. They are saying they weren't joking, and that they were talking about bringing a car down, and that they were going to get funding for the car to bring down to transport their children to daycare. So, I mean, which side are you going to believe? I mean, there are two sides to the story. Were they joking or weren't they joking? I sort of seem to believe, from everything I saw and read about this, that they were, indeed, just joking around, and weren't...

NEVILLE: So, should they have kept their internship -- been allowed to keep internships?

ROBERT: Oh, I think absolutely. Absolutely, until they were found guilty.

NEVILLE: Thank you.

Joseph from Louisiana.

JOSEPH: Well, my question was, they're on their way to an internship, but yet, they're breaking the law to get there. So, what does that say about them as well?

NEVILLE: OK, but even that part of the story, their attorney was here yesterday saying that they did not break the law. They did, in fact, pay the toll. That's what I'm assuming you are talking about...

JOSEPH: That's correct.

NEVILLE: ... that they went through the toll booth without paying. Their attorney says, they did pay the toll.

JOSEPH: OK. So, that's why the cops were all over them yesterday, because they had paid through (ph) the toll deal (ph) what they were supposed to...

NEVILLE: The cops were all over them, because Eunice Stone said she overheard them talking about "bringing it down."

JOSEPH: Correct. But they also were led, because they went through -- supposedly went through the toll booth without paying. That was one of the reasons that caught the attention of the authorities.

NEVILLE: Well, the point now is that they have been proven to be not guilty in this situation, and now, they are without their internships. What do you think about that?

JOSEPH: Well, my honest opinion is no, I don't think they should continue their internship -- that they should find somewhere else to do their internship. And they should think next time before they decide to play a joke or whatever or talk about something out loud where someone else can hear it.

NEVILLE: OK, but wait a minute now. If they were playing a joke, then that was very much a poor judgment on their decision. But if they say they weren't playing a joke, and, in fact, they were talking about "bringing it down," referring to a car from Chicago to Miami, what's wrong with saying that?

JOSEPH: Well, think about it in the times that we're currently living in today.

NEVILLE: OK, you're right. I understand the time we live in today. At the same time, though, that if you were overhearing something at the table, you need to make sure you are hearing what you think you are hearing...

JOSEPH: Well...

NEVILLE: ... considering the times that we live in today.

JOSEPH: So, what do you think that she should have -- that she should have asked them?

NEVILLE: No, I'm saying, you just start listen even closely. You know, like, OK, what are they talking about over there?

And, me, I think you all wouldn't be surprised. I would go over to the table, excuse me, I'm sorry, what did you say? What are you talking about? I'm sorry, I overheard you. I mean, really, there is a way -- like, I overheard you talking about -- what are you guys? Are you guys high? Are you guys -- what are you doing here? And you get some information in a very friendly way, but you get some information, and that's the way I would have done it.

JOSEPH: But that's the current state of the entire country right now. We're all afraid of what's going to happen next. And if somebody says something slightly out of the way, we're going to take it the wrong way.

NEVILLE: OK, listen, I have to take an e-mail right now. Let's share that with everybody.

This is from Daniel in Pennsylvania. "It sounds like the students are diverting attention away from what was said and making it the fault of some perceived prejudice." I don't know. Let me get one quick -- Charlie, you know what? I have one quick second here. Go ahead and stand up and speak up.

CHARLIE: My point is, is that in these times, we are going to make mistakes. These people had been detained for some 14 hours or whatever the number is, been checked out, given a clean bill of health. Let them continue with their lives.

NEVILLE: OK, thank you.

Listen, it's time for another break, and up next, I want to take you to CNN's new street-level set in New York City. We'll get a sneak preview of the re-launch of "AMERICAN MORNING" and talk with Paula Zahn about a special interview you will want to watch this week. Don't go anywhere. Paula is standing by to be on TALKBACK LIVE.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: OK, everybody, welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville.

Right now, I want to welcome "AMERICAN MORNING's" Paula Zahn to TALKBACK LIVE. Paula joins us from the network's new, swanky street- level set in New York City.

Hey, Paula, nice to see you...

PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: Hey, girlfriend. How are you?

NEVILLE: ... and it's not like 4:00 am.

ZAHN: No. It is so nice. We're both awake for a change. The last time I saw Arthel, she was getting up at 3:30 with the rest of the morning crew.

What do you think of our new digs?

NEVILLE: You know what? I have...

ZAHN: Check this out.

NEVILLE: Yes, show it.

ZAHN: Have you seen a wide shot of this place yet?

NEVILLE: Let's see the wide show. I have seen it, but let -- it is gorgeous.

ZAHN: It's a brand new universe for us.

NEVILLE: Audience, what do you think?

(APPLAUSE)

NEVILLE: The audience is loving this, Paula. Wow! That's a great shot from 6th Avenue, Avenue of Americas there. Now, Paula, tell us what's going to be different about this show.

ZAHN: Well, basically, we moved into a new home, and we're going to try to have some of the content we've had consistently over the last year. You know, we try to differentiate ourselves as the serious morning show, and the line-up tomorrow kind of reinforces that.

At the top of the show, we're going to be joined by the mayor, as he helps us cut the ribbon and unveil this new place -- the mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg. And then, Foreign Minister Shimon Peres of Israel will be joining us, and I will have an exclusive interview with the former president of the United States, George Bush.

NEVILLE: And that particular interview took place in Japan. If you would tell us why did former President Bush go back to Japan?

ZAHN: It's interesting, because the former president said there were just a couple of things that he really wanted to do to make himself feel complete. And one of those things was to return to the exact place where he was shot down in World War II, when he was a Navy fighter pilot.

So, I traveled with the president by Japanese military helicopters to this island of Chichi Jima (ph), and believe me, Arthel, when I tell this it's in the middle of nowhere, it's in the middle of nowhere. It would 34 hours to get there by boat from the mainland of Japan. It's 500 miles off of the mainland. And we actually went to the exact spot in the water where his plane went down.

And the reason why this was such an emotional journey for him was, on that day in September of 1942, he lost two of his crewmates. He was the pilot in front. He couldn't even see the two guys behind him because of a steel bar in the plane. He was hit by anti-aircraft fire. He describes in vivid detail how the cockpit filled up with smoke. Then, he had to make a decision to ditch the plane. He ejected and told the crewmembers behind him to do the same. And the tragedy is, onlookers saw two chutes -- one that opened, one that did not. And they never saw any evidence of a third chute.

So, he said to this day, that he has been haunted by their fate, and whether he could have done anything differently to save their lives, and that's part of the reason why he returned there.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ZAHN: To this day, how much do you regret that your mission didn't take you all the way to Baghdad?

GEORGE H.W. BUSH, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I have no regrets about that, because I know what would have happened. I know that the coalition would have shattered. My only regret is that I was wrong, as was every other leader, that in thinking that Saddam Hussein would be gone. We had an objective. We told our military commanders, "Here is your objective." They saluted from halfway around the world and said, "Mission complete, sir." And that's the way it was, and that's the way it should have been.

Now, am I happy Saddam Hussein is there? Absolutely not. But am I going to be moved by the Monday morning critics, who now say we should have done it differently, who were totally silent back then? No, we shouldn't. But should we do something about Saddam Hussein? Well, that's the problem facing the president of the United States of America, not me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAHN: So, Arthel, we discussed a lot on this trip, as the president looked back on how his experiences as a combat pilot shaped his adult life and shaped his presidency. And what you heard there was a conversation that you'll hear a little bit later on in the series, where he talks about how his military experience affected the kind of decisions he did when -- particularly when it came to Desert Storm, knowing that he was going to have to put tens of thousands of American troops in harm's way.

NEVILLE: OK.

ZAHN: You will see a very relaxed ex-president, who obviously is very at home on the water. And I think people will be struck by just how he is able to tie these combat experiences into some of the policy decisions he made later on as president.

NEVILLE: All right, Paula, do me a favor. Hang right there, because what you are saying is quite interesting. I want to find out more about it. I want to talk about that set.

But right now, it's all about Judy Woodruff. We have to find out what she has planned for "INSIDE POLITICS" today.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: No, that's not -- oh, look at this. This is a beautiful wide shot here -- the new set of "AMERICAN MORNING." And of course, we have the girl in the morning, Paula Zahn, who is with us.

You know, we want to see the inside of the studio again, Paula. Can you show that to us?

ZAHN: Yes, like this. I'm going to -- like, magic, I'm going to try to go after the wide shot again.

NEVILLE: Very nice.

ZAHN: And the greatest thing about this, you remember the little shoe box we were in before, Arthel. Remember when we were tripping over each other, and that's when I ran into the sofa?

NEVILLE: Yes, it was rather cozy.

ZAHN: But the greatest thing about this is, it gives us a lot of opportunities, technically, you know, we have these fancy plasma screens where you can literally take in six live shots simultaneously in interviews. See, check out this wall. You can have six interviews going at the time, and dip in and out of Moscow coverage or Russia -- you know, from Moscow to coverage from France, or whatever the heck you want to do. So, we have a lot of flexibility we didn't have before.

And you know what the other great thing is? For the first time in my career, Arthel, I actually have daylight streaming into the studio, and we have...

NEVILLE: That's very nice.

(CROSSTALK)

ZAHN: ... across from Radio City Music Hall. We can see people.

NEVILLE: Yes.

ZAHN: We're going to go out on the street and solicit people's opinions on whatever the hot, you know, button issues of the day, so we're very excited.

NEVILLE: There's nothing like ground-level in New York.

By the way, Paula.

ZAHN: Yes.

NEVILLE: I think you have some new highlights to go with that new set.

ZAHN: I do?

NEVILLE: Your hair is looking good. Your hair is looking good.

ZAHN: Hey, it's new and improved lighting. And you know what I was thinking? I was thinking how much I liked your new haircut.

NEVILLE: Thank you, girl. It is a wig. Hello!

ZAHN: Is it? Oh, she came clean.

NEVILLE: All right.

ZAHN: We can always count on your honesty, Arthel.

NEVILLE: All right, Paula, listen...

ZAHN: Have a good show, and thank you very much for joining us.

NEVILLE: I'm glad you were here. We will be watching...

ZAHN: Because you know how much better this is than the old place.

NEVILLE: We will be watching you in the morning, and good luck with everything, OK? ZAHN: Thank you very much.

NEVILLE: We're going to look forward to your -- absolutely -- your interview with former President Bush, as you re-launch "AMERICAN MORNING" tomorrow morning right here on CNN. Check it out.

Everybody, we are out of time. Thanks for watching. I'm Arthel Neville. I will be back again tomorrow, 3:00 Eastern, with more TALKBACK LIVE.

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





Valid?; Do Three Medical Students Deserve to Lose Their Internships?>