Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

Interview With Frank Gaffney

Aired November 08, 2002 - 07:06   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.


BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: What would passage mean? Would it lower or raise the chances for a military conflict?
From Washington, Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy is our guest this morning.

Good to see you again, sir -- good morning to you.

FRANK GAFFNEY, CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY: Good morning, Bill.

HEMMER: You don't think the White House is being tough enough, do you?

GAFFNEY: I worry that the president can't rightly get there from here, as they say up in Maine, with a resolution that seems calculated to preserve Saddam Hussein in power.

I think the president is absolutely right that Saddam Hussein represents a threat. I think he's absolutely right, as he said very passionately yesterday, that the people of Iraq deserve to be liberated from this man.

I think he's also right when he and Vice President Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld and others have pointed out that you can't really expect genuine disarmament as long as Saddam Hussein is in power.

What I'm concerned about is that this resolution, which has taken months to negotiate, and which we've only now gotten after the French and the Russians and the Chinese have dumbed it down, may preclude the liberation of Iraq, may perpetuate Saddam's reign of terror, and in the end, will mean that he'll back in the weapons of mass destruction business in due course.

HEMMER: So, you're suggesting, Frank, the way the resolution is laid out right now, the way the inspectors and the system is set up in their timeline, that Saddam Hussein does not necessarily have to lose his grip on power, and does not necessarily have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that indeed he's not producing weapons of mass destruction. And if that's the case, you're saying this is all for not?

GAFFNEY: Well, it could be worse than for not. I think we could, in fact, at the end of this process see Hans Blix, who in his previous incarnation as an atomic energy inspector, was routinely certifying Iraq as in full compliance with his obligations not to build nuclear weapons, when we now know he was beavering (ph) away at them all the while. He's going to be certifying that there is no problem with Saddam's compliance, and that in fact Iraq is weapons-free. I think that we will not get a straight answer out of him. We will, as a result of this resolution, apparently not have U.S. inspectors on the team. We will, in short, be going back, in a way, to the drawing board.

And if, as I fear -- and I hope I'm wrong about this, believe me. But if, as I fear, we find the U.N. remaining sort of a protector of Saddam Hussein, not an agent of the termination of his regime, we may see the sanctions regime over the side, and it actually is easier for Saddam to build weapons of mass destruction in the future. This is a nightmare scenario.

(CROSSTALK)

HEMMER: I am listening to the nightmare scenario. Do you go that far?

GAFFNEY: Well, it could be, and here's the reason: Because I think we are very close. The president has now secured the support, even from the Democratic-controlled Senate, to end Saddam Hussein's threat. He's received an overwhelming mandate from the American people, having gone to them explicitly saying, let's remove this threat.

HEMMER: And that's why -- that's why...

GAFFNEY: And now, we're seeing the United Nations once again being allowed to run interference with Saddam...

(CROSSTALK)

HEMMER: And if that's the case, though, but if you listen to the words from the White House, they are essentially hell bent on making sure that Saddam either pays or is essentially taken over, kicked out and verified (ph).

GAFFNEY: Yes.

HEMMER: And knowing that that is there and that is the heavy- handed thinking at the White House, now, you've got Republicans in control of the Senate and the House as well, it appears at this point that they can go forward on their own timetable at this point.

I'll give you another theory of logic here. Essentially, we've been saying for some time that the war should be conducted during the winter months, because it's too darn hot to fight in the spring and the summer. Well, now with the Republican-control in the House and the Senate, you've essentially bought yourself three winters in which to conduct this military action. Do you buy that or not?

GAFFNEY: Well, I think as Shakespeare said, there's a tide in the affairs of men, which taken (UNINTELLIGIBLE) leads to victory. We're at a moment now where I think the president has got, as his father used to say, the "big Moe." I think he can go ahead and he can bring about what's needed here: the end of Saddam Hussein's regime.

The subordination of our sovereignty to the United Nations I'm afraid is going to translate into more time for Saddam to hide weapons, maybe to build nuclear weapons, certainly to compromise any possibility of surprise that we might still have to bring about the end of his regime with minimum cost to Iraqi and American lives. And that would be an epic mistake.

I hope the president won't get trapped by the U.N. I know he would like to have this appearance of international solidarity. I'm afraid it's being bought, however, at a price that's translating into a real impediment to doing what he knows needs to be done. Again, I hope I'm wrong about that. Let's see.

HEMMER: We shall all see in due time. Thanks, Frank -- Frank Gaffney in D.C. with us.

GAFFNEY: My pleasure.

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 November 8, 2002 - 07:06   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: What would passage mean? Would it lower or raise the chances for a military conflict?
From Washington, Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy is our guest this morning.

Good to see you again, sir -- good morning to you.

FRANK GAFFNEY, CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY: Good morning, Bill.

HEMMER: You don't think the White House is being tough enough, do you?

GAFFNEY: I worry that the president can't rightly get there from here, as they say up in Maine, with a resolution that seems calculated to preserve Saddam Hussein in power.

I think the president is absolutely right that Saddam Hussein represents a threat. I think he's absolutely right, as he said very passionately yesterday, that the people of Iraq deserve to be liberated from this man.

I think he's also right when he and Vice President Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld and others have pointed out that you can't really expect genuine disarmament as long as Saddam Hussein is in power.

What I'm concerned about is that this resolution, which has taken months to negotiate, and which we've only now gotten after the French and the Russians and the Chinese have dumbed it down, may preclude the liberation of Iraq, may perpetuate Saddam's reign of terror, and in the end, will mean that he'll back in the weapons of mass destruction business in due course.

HEMMER: So, you're suggesting, Frank, the way the resolution is laid out right now, the way the inspectors and the system is set up in their timeline, that Saddam Hussein does not necessarily have to lose his grip on power, and does not necessarily have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that indeed he's not producing weapons of mass destruction. And if that's the case, you're saying this is all for not?

GAFFNEY: Well, it could be worse than for not. I think we could, in fact, at the end of this process see Hans Blix, who in his previous incarnation as an atomic energy inspector, was routinely certifying Iraq as in full compliance with his obligations not to build nuclear weapons, when we now know he was beavering (ph) away at them all the while. He's going to be certifying that there is no problem with Saddam's compliance, and that in fact Iraq is weapons-free. I think that we will not get a straight answer out of him. We will, as a result of this resolution, apparently not have U.S. inspectors on the team. We will, in short, be going back, in a way, to the drawing board.

And if, as I fear -- and I hope I'm wrong about this, believe me. But if, as I fear, we find the U.N. remaining sort of a protector of Saddam Hussein, not an agent of the termination of his regime, we may see the sanctions regime over the side, and it actually is easier for Saddam to build weapons of mass destruction in the future. This is a nightmare scenario.

(CROSSTALK)

HEMMER: I am listening to the nightmare scenario. Do you go that far?

GAFFNEY: Well, it could be, and here's the reason: Because I think we are very close. The president has now secured the support, even from the Democratic-controlled Senate, to end Saddam Hussein's threat. He's received an overwhelming mandate from the American people, having gone to them explicitly saying, let's remove this threat.

HEMMER: And that's why -- that's why...

GAFFNEY: And now, we're seeing the United Nations once again being allowed to run interference with Saddam...

(CROSSTALK)

HEMMER: And if that's the case, though, but if you listen to the words from the White House, they are essentially hell bent on making sure that Saddam either pays or is essentially taken over, kicked out and verified (ph).

GAFFNEY: Yes.

HEMMER: And knowing that that is there and that is the heavy- handed thinking at the White House, now, you've got Republicans in control of the Senate and the House as well, it appears at this point that they can go forward on their own timetable at this point.

I'll give you another theory of logic here. Essentially, we've been saying for some time that the war should be conducted during the winter months, because it's too darn hot to fight in the spring and the summer. Well, now with the Republican-control in the House and the Senate, you've essentially bought yourself three winters in which to conduct this military action. Do you buy that or not?

GAFFNEY: Well, I think as Shakespeare said, there's a tide in the affairs of men, which taken (UNINTELLIGIBLE) leads to victory. We're at a moment now where I think the president has got, as his father used to say, the "big Moe." I think he can go ahead and he can bring about what's needed here: the end of Saddam Hussein's regime.

The subordination of our sovereignty to the United Nations I'm afraid is going to translate into more time for Saddam to hide weapons, maybe to build nuclear weapons, certainly to compromise any possibility of surprise that we might still have to bring about the end of his regime with minimum cost to Iraqi and American lives. And that would be an epic mistake.

I hope the president won't get trapped by the U.N. I know he would like to have this appearance of international solidarity. I'm afraid it's being bought, however, at a price that's translating into a real impediment to doing what he knows needs to be done. Again, I hope I'm wrong about that. Let's see.

HEMMER: We shall all see in due time. Thanks, Frank -- Frank Gaffney in D.C. with us.

GAFFNEY: My pleasure.

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