Return to Transcripts main page
American Morning
Blix Meets with Iraqi Officials
Aired September 30, 2002 - 08:02 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: Time to talk about Iraq once again. They say the devil is in the details. Well, the particulars of returning U.N. weapons inspectors to Iraq is the subject of a meeting today in Vienna. U.N. officials met on Sunday to get ready for the talks.
And Richard Roth joins us from the U.N. He is covering the showdown with Iraq -- good morning, Richard.
RICHARD ROTH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Paula.
Developments in Vienna and New York. First in Austria, Hans Blix, the chief U.N. weapons inspector, and his team, sat down with senior Iraqi officials to discuss the "practical arrangements" of getting the weapons inspectors back into the country. Those arrangements include visas, flights, landing rights and where the inspectors are going to stay.
Iraq may be very interested in getting the inspectors in now, before a tougher new Security Council resolution that may follow. Blix says he thinks the inspectors can be able to go wherever they want to go. However, there is an existing agreement between the United Nations and Iraq that excludes eight presidential sites, saying that foreign diplomats must escort inspectors if they want to go there. The United States wants to do away with that. In a new resolution, the details seeping out in the last few days. And the resolution under the U.S. guidelines would give Iraq just seven days to say it accepts the resolution allowing the United Nations to go to these presidential sites and anywhere else they want to go, unfettered, unconditional access.
Then it would have 30 days to turn over all information regarding weapons of mass destruction. The resolution also says there might be armed guards that would be in place in Baghdad to help the inspectors and that it would allow the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council to send diplomats to observe the inspections in case they had any reservations.
We're still, Paula, in the early negotiating stage on all of this. It may not even be formally introduced to the Security Council today, maybe just to the big permanent five, all who have veto rights -- Paula.
ZAHN: Richard, let's talk about what's going on in Vienna. There is a perception by some that this is just another example of Saddam stalling for time. What productivity might come out of this meeting at all? ROTH: Well, at this meeting the Iraqis are supposed to turn over three years worth of a backlog of dual use logs, equipment that the U.S. fears can be diverted to military use. It might be a simple item but it might contain sophisticated technology, and thus Baghdad can profit from this. They could legally have the right to import these items.
These things are going to be the tests that the U.S. is going to point to to see how is Iraq cooperating now. Hans Blix is going to come back to New York, the chief inspector, on Thursday, and tell the Security Council what he found out from the Iraqis. And those who favor, perhaps, military conflict, will say the Iraqis are obstructing on this and that. Those who don't will say hey, give them a chance, it's a step by step approach.
ZAHN: Thanks for the road map. We'll be following.
Appreciate it, Richard.
There is word this morning that the Pentagon already has a plan to persuade Iraqi field commanders not to use weapons of mass destruction if there is a war. Today's "Washington Post" says the military is already planning a major leafleting campaign.
Joining us now, Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr -- good morning, Barbara.
BARBARA STARR, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Paula.
Well, indeed, yes, the Pentagon is planning a major psychological operations campaign against Iraqi military officers, trying to convince them not to launch chemical or biological weapons if a war breaks out. Now, none of this is really a big surprise at the moment because for some weeks Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has been saying both publicly and privately that key Iraqi military units must be convinced that they would have too much to lose if they did use weapons of mass destruction against U.S. troops, that if Saddam Hussein orders them to fire that they should obey those orders.
What the U.S. wants to do is send a clear message to the Iraqi military that if they don't use weapons of mass destruction they may be able to have a role in a post-Saddam Iraq. But if they use weapons of mass destruction at Saddam's orders, then all bets are off.
So how is all of this going to be done? Well, there's going to be several things that everyone should watch for. The first one, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld himself continuing to make public pronouncements on this. In the weeks ahead, the Pentagon knows the Iraqis will watch international television, that they watched Don Rumsfeld closely. So expect to see him out there.
Expect some covert approaches, under the table intelligence contacts that we will not see. And what we also can expect to see, if hostilities break out, a key method of doing this will be leafleting, dropping leaflets from C-130s flying overhead, something we have seen in previous campaigns in Afghanistan, in Kosovo. A major leafleting effort is said to be under way. One official told CNN earlier this morning what this is all about, quoting him, "We will communicate any way we can with the military inside Iraq to convince them of the consequences of using chemical and biological weapons."
So what really underlies all of this, this time, this war, very different than the last one. The U.S. is looking to make allies, to make friends inside the Iraqi military. They feel that will be key to regime change in Iraq -- Paula.
ZAHN: Very quickly, though, here, Barbara, what incentive do any of these Iraqi officers or soldiers have to comply with this leafleting operation?
STARR: Well, no. But it is essentially a psychological warfare, of course, against them, trying to convince them that if they use chemical and biological weapons at Saddam's orders that terrible consequences will follow, that they will have no future inside Iraq. If they defect, if they support the U.S. and the allies, then perhaps they will have a role to play.
ZAHN: Barbara Starr, thanks so much.
Appreciate it.
Let's go back to Bill now.
BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: Paula, the White House this morning is denying a suggestion that President Bush would mislead the American people in order to go to war against Iraq. Those comments from House Democrat Jim McDermott in Baghdad have some Republican lawmakers fighting mad, both yesterday and today.
McDermott and David Bonior appeared earlier today with Paula here on AMERICAN MORNING.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JIM MCDERMOTT (D), WASHINGTON: Why don't we wait until Hans Blix meets with them and comes over here and begins the inspection? I trust Mr. Blix to be a fair and impartial and professional inspector and if at 60 days he comes back to the United States and says they wouldn't let me into this place, they wouldn't let me into that place, that's a new circumstance. And at that point, we'll make another decision.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HEMMER: Again, from an hour ago.
And now from Dallas this hour to offer a different view, Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison is our guest from Dallas.
Senator, good morning to you.
Good to see you again.
SEN. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON (R), TEXAS: Good morning, Bill.
Right.
HEMMER: All this talk out of Baghdad helping or hurting right now?
HUTCHISON: You mean from our congressmen?
HEMMER: Indeed.
HUTCHISON: Well, I think every member of Congress has a right to disagree with the president and oppose the resolution. But I am very concerned when a member of Congress goes to Baghdad and talks against a United States president's administration and policies. I just, I think that does cross the line and I'm very concerned about it.
HEMMER: So when they come back to the U.S. and the debate continues on Capitol Hill, where do these arguments fit in, then, going forward on U.N. resolutions and resolutions from Congress?
HUTCHISON: Well, of course, they're making the case that Iraq is going to be honest and they're going to give full access. But at the same time you read that the Iraqis are saying we're not going to change any rules, which means that we're not going to let you in the presidential palaces and it is widely believed that that's where the weapons of mass destruction are, is under the presidential palaces.
HEMMER: Senator, what about this position? It's been taken up by the French essentially. And it says let's get one resolution that puts inspectors back on the ground throughout the country of Iraq. If, indeed, that does not pan out to the satisfaction of the U.N., the U.S., Britain included, then you go back and draft another resolution that calls for consequences of the military kind.
What is wrong with that approach right now throughout the argument?
HUTCHISON: Well, I don't disagree with anything except two resolutions. I think allowing inspectors in on a very short time frame so that we know if Iraq is stalling or if they're going to actually come through -- we all think they're going to stall -- I think is fine. But you can't come back then and go through another delay tactic at the U.N. I think it would be much better for the U.N. to pass a resolution, set the timetable, allow inspectors in and then if the inspectors are thwarted or stalled then immediately there -- a reaction would be taken.
HEMMER: So the issue for you, then, is a question of time, whether it's delayed, weeks, going into months?
HUTCHISON: Yes, that's where -- yes. That's for the U.N., absolutely, because I think the president is saying to the U.N. I'd like to have the support of the U.N. He's not saying, nor will Congress say, we will wait for the U.N. if there is a provocation. But -- or if there is a clear indication that Saddam is making a move with weapons of mass destruction and the ability to deliver them. But I think the president has said, and I agree with him, let's give them a short time frame. See if the inspectors can get in and let's make sure that we have fair, open, honest and short time frames kinds of activity and access. And then give 'em a shot.
HEMMER: Got it.
HUTCHISON: But don't allow delays at the U.N. to keep Saddam Hussein building and improving his capabilities.
HEMMER: I hear your point. Point well taken.
I want to show you something from Saturday, though. Tariq Aziz, the deputy prime minister of Iraq, saying -- I'll put it up for our viewers. This is a quote from him regarding the eventuality of a military conflict.
"The assault against Iraq will not be a cake walk, but rather a fierce war during which the United States will suffer losses they have never sustained for decades."
He's talking about urban battle within big cities like Baghdad and other places.
The latest "Newsweek" poll, though, indicates 63 percent of Americans favor a military action in Iraq as of today.
What are you hearing in Texas, knowing that American men and women may pay for this conflict with their lives?
HUTCHISON: Oh, it's mixed. A lot of people are very concerned about it. But they, everyone believes that if there are weapons of mass destruction and if they can be used against our troops in the field or other people in the Middle East, that we need to take the decisive action. We have learned a lot from 9/11 and that is that we can't wait for someone to prove that they can do horrible things that we never imagined before.
I think that's what the president is thinking and people do trust the president. And all of us are looking to the information that the president and our intelligence resources are bringing in, and we're trying to make the right decision. But do we think that this is going to be a cake walk? Do we think this is a decision made on the fly? No. We are very serious when we're talking about sending our troops into harm's way and we know that bad things can happen. That's why we're trying to be very careful.
HEMMER: Thank you, Senator.
Kay Bailey Hutchison from Texas in Dallas today.
HUTCHISON: Thank you, Bill.
HEMMER: All right.
One viewing note. You can get the very latest about the situation. It seems to change day by day right now. And on "Showdown Iraq" later today, Wolf Blitzer again hosts this show at noon Eastern time. It runs for about an hour, only here on CNN -- Paula.
ZAHN: Remember the former mayor of New York?
HEMMER: That I do.
COMMERCIAL
ZAHN: Iraq may have given the green light to weapons inspectors, but they've rejected the terms of a U.N. draft resolution. Iraq's vice president saying in a statement, "Our position on the inspectors has been decided and any additional procedure is meant to hurt Iraq and is unacceptable."
And now to talk about Iraq and the inspectors, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Bill Richardson, who is currently running for governor in New Mexico against Republican John Sanchez.
Mr. Richardson joins us by telephone from Sante Fe because of some communications problems this morning.
Welcome back to the broadcast. Good to hear from you again, sir.
BILL RICHARDSON, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE U.N.: Thank you, Paula. Sorry we're not connected better.
ZAHN: That's all right. We can still hear you.
Let me ask you this, you've heard what the Iraqi vice president had to say over the weekend. You've also heard what the Bush administration had to say, that this is completely unacceptable. If you go back to the old resolutions that have never been enforced, it wouldn't even allow for inspectors to go into eight presidential sites where things may be hidden. Do you have a problem with that?
RICHARDSON: Well, I do have a problem. I think the Bush administration is right, they have to insist in full unfettered access anywhere because the Iraqis in the past, they always played games, either the offices of the Revolutionary Guard, the presidential palaces. They claimed that, you know, how can you come into where Saddam Hussein lives? We, they used to say well, we wouldn't be allowed into the White House if we had to inspect in the U.S.
But the fact is for the last eight years they have been building new chemical and biological weapons. They're hiding them somewhere. So I think the U.S. is right to press on very hard, full unfettered access anywhere, and the Iraqis are starting right now their P.R. game, their public relations offensive, trying to divide the U.N. Security Council, trying to stall. This is what they always do and they're very good at it.
ZAHN: So where do you think this all ends up? In war?
RICHARDSON: Well, what I think should happen, Paula, is we've got to press on at the U.N. Security Council. We have to stress that we need only one resolution instead of two. The key players are France, China. And we need to get France and China and Russia on board.
I think it's very important that the Bush administration follow through with some type of resolution at the United Nations, recognize that it needs to be as flexible as possible, not use the word force, but try to get something passed to give international certification to what we're trying to do. And then simultaneously move on in the U.S. Congress for some broad language. And then make a tactical decision as to whether we should go on.
But the Iraqis right now are playing their usual game. They're going to stall. There are also other members of the Security Council that worry me a little bit that are not permanent members, like Colombia, like Syria, like Mexico, that have to be worked on.
So this is not over. But in the end I think we will get something out of the U.N. Security Council.
ZAHN: And what concerns you about some of those other countries you said that are non-permanent members of the Security Council, like Colombia, for example?
RICHARDSON: Well, the problem, Paula, is you need nine out of 15 votes in the Security Council. You have five permanent members, the countries that can veto. But then there are 10 others and you need nine out of the 15. And so besides getting the votes and non-veto action by France and Britain and Russia -- of course, the Brits are with us -- we also have to persuade the non-permanent members that are on, and that's a whole collection of countries that generally have not been terrible supportive of us.
So we've got a task ahead, but we need to press on as vigorously as possible with the U.N.
ZAHN: We've got 10 seconds left. Senator Chris Dodd saying over the weekend if the U.N. turns its back on this one and does nothing to enforce some of the previous resolutions, then maybe military action will be necessary. Do you agree?
RICHARDSON: Yes, I think that if the U.N. does not respond, does not take action, if it just slinks in its shell, then, yes. But I think be ready, Paula, for another actor to emerge. The Iraqis will pull something off at the last minute, a special envoy, a new special deal. This is not over. And the Iraqis are very good at this last minute brinkmanship stuff.
ZAHN: Well, Ambassador Bill Richardson, great to hear you. Can't see you but nice to have you back with us on AMERICAN MORNING.
RICHARDSON: Thank you. 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 30, 2002 - 08:02 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: Time to talk about Iraq once again. They say the devil is in the details. Well, the particulars of returning U.N. weapons inspectors to Iraq is the subject of a meeting today in Vienna. U.N. officials met on Sunday to get ready for the talks.
And Richard Roth joins us from the U.N. He is covering the showdown with Iraq -- good morning, Richard.
RICHARD ROTH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Paula.
Developments in Vienna and New York. First in Austria, Hans Blix, the chief U.N. weapons inspector, and his team, sat down with senior Iraqi officials to discuss the "practical arrangements" of getting the weapons inspectors back into the country. Those arrangements include visas, flights, landing rights and where the inspectors are going to stay.
Iraq may be very interested in getting the inspectors in now, before a tougher new Security Council resolution that may follow. Blix says he thinks the inspectors can be able to go wherever they want to go. However, there is an existing agreement between the United Nations and Iraq that excludes eight presidential sites, saying that foreign diplomats must escort inspectors if they want to go there. The United States wants to do away with that. In a new resolution, the details seeping out in the last few days. And the resolution under the U.S. guidelines would give Iraq just seven days to say it accepts the resolution allowing the United Nations to go to these presidential sites and anywhere else they want to go, unfettered, unconditional access.
Then it would have 30 days to turn over all information regarding weapons of mass destruction. The resolution also says there might be armed guards that would be in place in Baghdad to help the inspectors and that it would allow the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council to send diplomats to observe the inspections in case they had any reservations.
We're still, Paula, in the early negotiating stage on all of this. It may not even be formally introduced to the Security Council today, maybe just to the big permanent five, all who have veto rights -- Paula.
ZAHN: Richard, let's talk about what's going on in Vienna. There is a perception by some that this is just another example of Saddam stalling for time. What productivity might come out of this meeting at all? ROTH: Well, at this meeting the Iraqis are supposed to turn over three years worth of a backlog of dual use logs, equipment that the U.S. fears can be diverted to military use. It might be a simple item but it might contain sophisticated technology, and thus Baghdad can profit from this. They could legally have the right to import these items.
These things are going to be the tests that the U.S. is going to point to to see how is Iraq cooperating now. Hans Blix is going to come back to New York, the chief inspector, on Thursday, and tell the Security Council what he found out from the Iraqis. And those who favor, perhaps, military conflict, will say the Iraqis are obstructing on this and that. Those who don't will say hey, give them a chance, it's a step by step approach.
ZAHN: Thanks for the road map. We'll be following.
Appreciate it, Richard.
There is word this morning that the Pentagon already has a plan to persuade Iraqi field commanders not to use weapons of mass destruction if there is a war. Today's "Washington Post" says the military is already planning a major leafleting campaign.
Joining us now, Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr -- good morning, Barbara.
BARBARA STARR, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Paula.
Well, indeed, yes, the Pentagon is planning a major psychological operations campaign against Iraqi military officers, trying to convince them not to launch chemical or biological weapons if a war breaks out. Now, none of this is really a big surprise at the moment because for some weeks Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has been saying both publicly and privately that key Iraqi military units must be convinced that they would have too much to lose if they did use weapons of mass destruction against U.S. troops, that if Saddam Hussein orders them to fire that they should obey those orders.
What the U.S. wants to do is send a clear message to the Iraqi military that if they don't use weapons of mass destruction they may be able to have a role in a post-Saddam Iraq. But if they use weapons of mass destruction at Saddam's orders, then all bets are off.
So how is all of this going to be done? Well, there's going to be several things that everyone should watch for. The first one, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld himself continuing to make public pronouncements on this. In the weeks ahead, the Pentagon knows the Iraqis will watch international television, that they watched Don Rumsfeld closely. So expect to see him out there.
Expect some covert approaches, under the table intelligence contacts that we will not see. And what we also can expect to see, if hostilities break out, a key method of doing this will be leafleting, dropping leaflets from C-130s flying overhead, something we have seen in previous campaigns in Afghanistan, in Kosovo. A major leafleting effort is said to be under way. One official told CNN earlier this morning what this is all about, quoting him, "We will communicate any way we can with the military inside Iraq to convince them of the consequences of using chemical and biological weapons."
So what really underlies all of this, this time, this war, very different than the last one. The U.S. is looking to make allies, to make friends inside the Iraqi military. They feel that will be key to regime change in Iraq -- Paula.
ZAHN: Very quickly, though, here, Barbara, what incentive do any of these Iraqi officers or soldiers have to comply with this leafleting operation?
STARR: Well, no. But it is essentially a psychological warfare, of course, against them, trying to convince them that if they use chemical and biological weapons at Saddam's orders that terrible consequences will follow, that they will have no future inside Iraq. If they defect, if they support the U.S. and the allies, then perhaps they will have a role to play.
ZAHN: Barbara Starr, thanks so much.
Appreciate it.
Let's go back to Bill now.
BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: Paula, the White House this morning is denying a suggestion that President Bush would mislead the American people in order to go to war against Iraq. Those comments from House Democrat Jim McDermott in Baghdad have some Republican lawmakers fighting mad, both yesterday and today.
McDermott and David Bonior appeared earlier today with Paula here on AMERICAN MORNING.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JIM MCDERMOTT (D), WASHINGTON: Why don't we wait until Hans Blix meets with them and comes over here and begins the inspection? I trust Mr. Blix to be a fair and impartial and professional inspector and if at 60 days he comes back to the United States and says they wouldn't let me into this place, they wouldn't let me into that place, that's a new circumstance. And at that point, we'll make another decision.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HEMMER: Again, from an hour ago.
And now from Dallas this hour to offer a different view, Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison is our guest from Dallas.
Senator, good morning to you.
Good to see you again.
SEN. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON (R), TEXAS: Good morning, Bill.
Right.
HEMMER: All this talk out of Baghdad helping or hurting right now?
HUTCHISON: You mean from our congressmen?
HEMMER: Indeed.
HUTCHISON: Well, I think every member of Congress has a right to disagree with the president and oppose the resolution. But I am very concerned when a member of Congress goes to Baghdad and talks against a United States president's administration and policies. I just, I think that does cross the line and I'm very concerned about it.
HEMMER: So when they come back to the U.S. and the debate continues on Capitol Hill, where do these arguments fit in, then, going forward on U.N. resolutions and resolutions from Congress?
HUTCHISON: Well, of course, they're making the case that Iraq is going to be honest and they're going to give full access. But at the same time you read that the Iraqis are saying we're not going to change any rules, which means that we're not going to let you in the presidential palaces and it is widely believed that that's where the weapons of mass destruction are, is under the presidential palaces.
HEMMER: Senator, what about this position? It's been taken up by the French essentially. And it says let's get one resolution that puts inspectors back on the ground throughout the country of Iraq. If, indeed, that does not pan out to the satisfaction of the U.N., the U.S., Britain included, then you go back and draft another resolution that calls for consequences of the military kind.
What is wrong with that approach right now throughout the argument?
HUTCHISON: Well, I don't disagree with anything except two resolutions. I think allowing inspectors in on a very short time frame so that we know if Iraq is stalling or if they're going to actually come through -- we all think they're going to stall -- I think is fine. But you can't come back then and go through another delay tactic at the U.N. I think it would be much better for the U.N. to pass a resolution, set the timetable, allow inspectors in and then if the inspectors are thwarted or stalled then immediately there -- a reaction would be taken.
HEMMER: So the issue for you, then, is a question of time, whether it's delayed, weeks, going into months?
HUTCHISON: Yes, that's where -- yes. That's for the U.N., absolutely, because I think the president is saying to the U.N. I'd like to have the support of the U.N. He's not saying, nor will Congress say, we will wait for the U.N. if there is a provocation. But -- or if there is a clear indication that Saddam is making a move with weapons of mass destruction and the ability to deliver them. But I think the president has said, and I agree with him, let's give them a short time frame. See if the inspectors can get in and let's make sure that we have fair, open, honest and short time frames kinds of activity and access. And then give 'em a shot.
HEMMER: Got it.
HUTCHISON: But don't allow delays at the U.N. to keep Saddam Hussein building and improving his capabilities.
HEMMER: I hear your point. Point well taken.
I want to show you something from Saturday, though. Tariq Aziz, the deputy prime minister of Iraq, saying -- I'll put it up for our viewers. This is a quote from him regarding the eventuality of a military conflict.
"The assault against Iraq will not be a cake walk, but rather a fierce war during which the United States will suffer losses they have never sustained for decades."
He's talking about urban battle within big cities like Baghdad and other places.
The latest "Newsweek" poll, though, indicates 63 percent of Americans favor a military action in Iraq as of today.
What are you hearing in Texas, knowing that American men and women may pay for this conflict with their lives?
HUTCHISON: Oh, it's mixed. A lot of people are very concerned about it. But they, everyone believes that if there are weapons of mass destruction and if they can be used against our troops in the field or other people in the Middle East, that we need to take the decisive action. We have learned a lot from 9/11 and that is that we can't wait for someone to prove that they can do horrible things that we never imagined before.
I think that's what the president is thinking and people do trust the president. And all of us are looking to the information that the president and our intelligence resources are bringing in, and we're trying to make the right decision. But do we think that this is going to be a cake walk? Do we think this is a decision made on the fly? No. We are very serious when we're talking about sending our troops into harm's way and we know that bad things can happen. That's why we're trying to be very careful.
HEMMER: Thank you, Senator.
Kay Bailey Hutchison from Texas in Dallas today.
HUTCHISON: Thank you, Bill.
HEMMER: All right.
One viewing note. You can get the very latest about the situation. It seems to change day by day right now. And on "Showdown Iraq" later today, Wolf Blitzer again hosts this show at noon Eastern time. It runs for about an hour, only here on CNN -- Paula.
ZAHN: Remember the former mayor of New York?
HEMMER: That I do.
COMMERCIAL
ZAHN: Iraq may have given the green light to weapons inspectors, but they've rejected the terms of a U.N. draft resolution. Iraq's vice president saying in a statement, "Our position on the inspectors has been decided and any additional procedure is meant to hurt Iraq and is unacceptable."
And now to talk about Iraq and the inspectors, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Bill Richardson, who is currently running for governor in New Mexico against Republican John Sanchez.
Mr. Richardson joins us by telephone from Sante Fe because of some communications problems this morning.
Welcome back to the broadcast. Good to hear from you again, sir.
BILL RICHARDSON, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE U.N.: Thank you, Paula. Sorry we're not connected better.
ZAHN: That's all right. We can still hear you.
Let me ask you this, you've heard what the Iraqi vice president had to say over the weekend. You've also heard what the Bush administration had to say, that this is completely unacceptable. If you go back to the old resolutions that have never been enforced, it wouldn't even allow for inspectors to go into eight presidential sites where things may be hidden. Do you have a problem with that?
RICHARDSON: Well, I do have a problem. I think the Bush administration is right, they have to insist in full unfettered access anywhere because the Iraqis in the past, they always played games, either the offices of the Revolutionary Guard, the presidential palaces. They claimed that, you know, how can you come into where Saddam Hussein lives? We, they used to say well, we wouldn't be allowed into the White House if we had to inspect in the U.S.
But the fact is for the last eight years they have been building new chemical and biological weapons. They're hiding them somewhere. So I think the U.S. is right to press on very hard, full unfettered access anywhere, and the Iraqis are starting right now their P.R. game, their public relations offensive, trying to divide the U.N. Security Council, trying to stall. This is what they always do and they're very good at it.
ZAHN: So where do you think this all ends up? In war?
RICHARDSON: Well, what I think should happen, Paula, is we've got to press on at the U.N. Security Council. We have to stress that we need only one resolution instead of two. The key players are France, China. And we need to get France and China and Russia on board.
I think it's very important that the Bush administration follow through with some type of resolution at the United Nations, recognize that it needs to be as flexible as possible, not use the word force, but try to get something passed to give international certification to what we're trying to do. And then simultaneously move on in the U.S. Congress for some broad language. And then make a tactical decision as to whether we should go on.
But the Iraqis right now are playing their usual game. They're going to stall. There are also other members of the Security Council that worry me a little bit that are not permanent members, like Colombia, like Syria, like Mexico, that have to be worked on.
So this is not over. But in the end I think we will get something out of the U.N. Security Council.
ZAHN: And what concerns you about some of those other countries you said that are non-permanent members of the Security Council, like Colombia, for example?
RICHARDSON: Well, the problem, Paula, is you need nine out of 15 votes in the Security Council. You have five permanent members, the countries that can veto. But then there are 10 others and you need nine out of the 15. And so besides getting the votes and non-veto action by France and Britain and Russia -- of course, the Brits are with us -- we also have to persuade the non-permanent members that are on, and that's a whole collection of countries that generally have not been terrible supportive of us.
So we've got a task ahead, but we need to press on as vigorously as possible with the U.N.
ZAHN: We've got 10 seconds left. Senator Chris Dodd saying over the weekend if the U.N. turns its back on this one and does nothing to enforce some of the previous resolutions, then maybe military action will be necessary. Do you agree?
RICHARDSON: Yes, I think that if the U.N. does not respond, does not take action, if it just slinks in its shell, then, yes. But I think be ready, Paula, for another actor to emerge. The Iraqis will pull something off at the last minute, a special envoy, a new special deal. This is not over. And the Iraqis are very good at this last minute brinkmanship stuff.
ZAHN: Well, Ambassador Bill Richardson, great to hear you. Can't see you but nice to have you back with us on AMERICAN MORNING.
RICHARDSON: Thank you. 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
