Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Today

Foreign Relations Committee Holds Closed-door Hearings

Aired September 24, 2002 - 12:39   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.


KYRA PHILLIPS, CNN ANCHOR: Less than two hours from now, another closed-door hearing on the situation in Iraq for members of the Senate.
Let's bring in our congressional correspondent, Kate Snow for a preview -- hi, Kate.

KATE SNOW, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hi. Good afternoon, Kyra. This is the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. They held hearings a while ago, at the beginning of August, but they haven't really had any hearings since then, so this is their first effort to sit down behind closed doors, and talk with members of the intelligence community. They are getting it from the top levels today behind closed doors, CIA Director George Tenet will be at that session this afternoon, along with the acting director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, one official from the State Department, as well as someone from the Department of Energy, all briefing the members, I'm told, about the status -- up to the minute status of intelligence about Iraq.

What does the U.S. government know about their capabilities, their weapons of mass destruction, what is the very latest intelligence. They are building up, Kyra, looking towards hearings tomorrow, and then again on Thursday, when they will have Secretary of State Colin Powell here with them, before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

You know, ever since last Thursday, when the White House presented -- sent over a draft resolution that they want Congress to consider approving very quickly here, there has been a lot of discussion on Capitol Hill about exactly how that resolution ought to be worded. One of the key players in all this is the chairman of the committee that is meeting this afternoon, Senator Joseph Biden. He is the chair of Foreign Relations.

CNN -- we have been talking to people here, talking to senators over the last couple of days, and we have learned that Biden is working with some other top level Democrats, including the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Carl Levin, and they are talking about other language that they would prefer -- they are talking about, perhaps, changing the language that the White House sent over, making it include more reference to the United Nations.

There are many Democrats who feel that it needs to be explicitly about going to the U.N. for approval, Kyra, before the United States can take any sort of unilateral action.

So those are the discussions that are underway today on Capitol Hill -- Kyra.

PHILLIPS: All right. Kate Snow from the Hill there. Thanks, Kate.

PHILLIPS: Joining us now from Washington also, James Phillips, a research fellow with the Heritage Foundation.

Hello, James.

JAMES PHILLIPS, HERITAGE FOUNDATION: Hello.

PHILLIPS: I want to talk about your predictions, which I find very fascinating, but before we do that, your experience goes back to the '70s, with regard to international terrorism. How has that helped you formulate these predictions that you've made, which have come true in many instances?

J. PHILLIPS: Well, I try to keep open mind when I read what some of the leaders of these groups say, because as a conservative, I believe that ideas have consequences, and just the fact that they utter certain concepts means, to me, that they are willing to follow through. It is not just an idle threat. I think too often in the past, we have dismissed some of the rhetoric as just idle threats, and since September 11th, I think we realized that we can't do that anymore.

PHILLIPS: Back in '79, when Saddam became president, you made the prediction that Kuwait was in his sights. How did you know that?

J. PHILLIPS: Well, at the time there was rising tension between Iraq and Iran, but Kuwait, although it was allied with Iraq, had some very serious territorial disputes, which I thought could erupt in tensions between Iraq and Kuwait.

PHILLIPS: Saddam doesn't care about embargoes, does he?

J. PHILLIPS: No, he doesn't care about embargoes, he doesn't really care about welfare of his own people; what he cares about is that his own mafia stays in power. And I think he's best understood as the leader of a mafia gang that will sacrifice the interests of his nation and of his people, as long as he and I have lieutenants survive and retain power.

PHILLIPS: So when government say, all right, let's get him with economics, you are saying, oh no, he responds much better to force.

J. PHILLIPS: No. -- I -- yes, I would agree with what you are saying, that Saddam, because he doesn't really care about the welfare of his own people, he is willing to let them suffer under an embargo or multinational sanctions much more than many western nations are willing to let them suffer.

PHILLIPS: You encouraged the Clinton administration to make counterterrorism a priority. What happened when you did that?

J. PHILLIPS: I pointed out after the first World Trade Center bombing that America had a wake-up call and that we should act on that call, that there was a rising network of Islamists and other terrorist groups that also depended on states, and that by treating the first World Trade Center bombing as merely a criminal matter, a criminal conspiracy, that we were missing some of the broader implications, that it actually was part of a broader war, and that the U.S. needs to get serious about that war.

PHILLIPS: Did anyone in the administration take your analysis seriously?

J. PHILLIPS: No, I think the Clinton administration had different priorities. Looking back, I think we were using military force to try to build nations in such places as Bosnia and Haiti, whereas I think we were missing the boat on much more urgent threats to our national security.

PHILLIPS: James, in my final question, you know I have to ask you this: What is your prediction now? Saddam Hussein? Does he to go? Will he use weapons of mass destruction against the United States, against his own people?

J. PHILLIPS: Well, I think Congress and the United Nations would do well to, so to speak, connect the dots. There's Congressional hearings now about how we missed the threat of Al Qaeda before September 11th, and I would submit that Iraq presents very much an urgent threat, and that if we stand by and do nothing, Saddam Hussein eventually will obtain a nuclear weapon. According to Prime Minister Blair's dossier, Iraq now is two to three years away from a nuclear weapon, and once he gets that nuclear weapon, then that's something we're going to regret.

PHILLIPS: James Phillips, research fellow with the Heritage Foundation. Thank for your insights, sir.

J. PHILLIPS: Thank you.

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







Aired September 24, 2002 - 12:39   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
KYRA PHILLIPS, CNN ANCHOR: Less than two hours from now, another closed-door hearing on the situation in Iraq for members of the Senate.
Let's bring in our congressional correspondent, Kate Snow for a preview -- hi, Kate.

KATE SNOW, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hi. Good afternoon, Kyra. This is the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. They held hearings a while ago, at the beginning of August, but they haven't really had any hearings since then, so this is their first effort to sit down behind closed doors, and talk with members of the intelligence community. They are getting it from the top levels today behind closed doors, CIA Director George Tenet will be at that session this afternoon, along with the acting director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, one official from the State Department, as well as someone from the Department of Energy, all briefing the members, I'm told, about the status -- up to the minute status of intelligence about Iraq.

What does the U.S. government know about their capabilities, their weapons of mass destruction, what is the very latest intelligence. They are building up, Kyra, looking towards hearings tomorrow, and then again on Thursday, when they will have Secretary of State Colin Powell here with them, before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

You know, ever since last Thursday, when the White House presented -- sent over a draft resolution that they want Congress to consider approving very quickly here, there has been a lot of discussion on Capitol Hill about exactly how that resolution ought to be worded. One of the key players in all this is the chairman of the committee that is meeting this afternoon, Senator Joseph Biden. He is the chair of Foreign Relations.

CNN -- we have been talking to people here, talking to senators over the last couple of days, and we have learned that Biden is working with some other top level Democrats, including the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Carl Levin, and they are talking about other language that they would prefer -- they are talking about, perhaps, changing the language that the White House sent over, making it include more reference to the United Nations.

There are many Democrats who feel that it needs to be explicitly about going to the U.N. for approval, Kyra, before the United States can take any sort of unilateral action.

So those are the discussions that are underway today on Capitol Hill -- Kyra.

PHILLIPS: All right. Kate Snow from the Hill there. Thanks, Kate.

PHILLIPS: Joining us now from Washington also, James Phillips, a research fellow with the Heritage Foundation.

Hello, James.

JAMES PHILLIPS, HERITAGE FOUNDATION: Hello.

PHILLIPS: I want to talk about your predictions, which I find very fascinating, but before we do that, your experience goes back to the '70s, with regard to international terrorism. How has that helped you formulate these predictions that you've made, which have come true in many instances?

J. PHILLIPS: Well, I try to keep open mind when I read what some of the leaders of these groups say, because as a conservative, I believe that ideas have consequences, and just the fact that they utter certain concepts means, to me, that they are willing to follow through. It is not just an idle threat. I think too often in the past, we have dismissed some of the rhetoric as just idle threats, and since September 11th, I think we realized that we can't do that anymore.

PHILLIPS: Back in '79, when Saddam became president, you made the prediction that Kuwait was in his sights. How did you know that?

J. PHILLIPS: Well, at the time there was rising tension between Iraq and Iran, but Kuwait, although it was allied with Iraq, had some very serious territorial disputes, which I thought could erupt in tensions between Iraq and Kuwait.

PHILLIPS: Saddam doesn't care about embargoes, does he?

J. PHILLIPS: No, he doesn't care about embargoes, he doesn't really care about welfare of his own people; what he cares about is that his own mafia stays in power. And I think he's best understood as the leader of a mafia gang that will sacrifice the interests of his nation and of his people, as long as he and I have lieutenants survive and retain power.

PHILLIPS: So when government say, all right, let's get him with economics, you are saying, oh no, he responds much better to force.

J. PHILLIPS: No. -- I -- yes, I would agree with what you are saying, that Saddam, because he doesn't really care about the welfare of his own people, he is willing to let them suffer under an embargo or multinational sanctions much more than many western nations are willing to let them suffer.

PHILLIPS: You encouraged the Clinton administration to make counterterrorism a priority. What happened when you did that?

J. PHILLIPS: I pointed out after the first World Trade Center bombing that America had a wake-up call and that we should act on that call, that there was a rising network of Islamists and other terrorist groups that also depended on states, and that by treating the first World Trade Center bombing as merely a criminal matter, a criminal conspiracy, that we were missing some of the broader implications, that it actually was part of a broader war, and that the U.S. needs to get serious about that war.

PHILLIPS: Did anyone in the administration take your analysis seriously?

J. PHILLIPS: No, I think the Clinton administration had different priorities. Looking back, I think we were using military force to try to build nations in such places as Bosnia and Haiti, whereas I think we were missing the boat on much more urgent threats to our national security.

PHILLIPS: James, in my final question, you know I have to ask you this: What is your prediction now? Saddam Hussein? Does he to go? Will he use weapons of mass destruction against the United States, against his own people?

J. PHILLIPS: Well, I think Congress and the United Nations would do well to, so to speak, connect the dots. There's Congressional hearings now about how we missed the threat of Al Qaeda before September 11th, and I would submit that Iraq presents very much an urgent threat, and that if we stand by and do nothing, Saddam Hussein eventually will obtain a nuclear weapon. According to Prime Minister Blair's dossier, Iraq now is two to three years away from a nuclear weapon, and once he gets that nuclear weapon, then that's something we're going to regret.

PHILLIPS: James Phillips, research fellow with the Heritage Foundation. Thank for your insights, sir.

J. PHILLIPS: Thank you.

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