|
CNN TALKBACK LIVE
Iraq welcomes inspections, but is there a catch? Who is more dangerous to your way of life: Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden?
Aired November 13, 2002 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ARTHEL NEVILLE, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everybody. Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville.
There has been a big turnabout in the standoff with Iraq today. Iraq now says it welcomes U.N. inspectors with open arms, and has agreed to the Security Council's resolution calling for disarmament. Taking it even further, Iraq's U.N. ambassador says his country is eager to see the inspectors do their duty. Sounds good so far, but is there something in the fine print? We'll get to that in a minute.
Then, stay tuned, because we'll take a closer look at that audiotape being attributed to Osama bin Laden. And you can tell me who threatens you more: Saddam or bin Laden?
First, Iraq's apparent change of heart concerning inspections. It came even as President Bush appeared to emphasize that the U.S. has drawn a clear line in the sand.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: There's no negotiations with Mr. Saddam Hussein. Those days are long gone, and so are the days of deceit and denial, and now it's up to him. And I want to remind you all that inspectors are there to determine whether or not Saddam Hussein is willing to disarm. It's his choice to make, and should he choose not to disarm, we will disarm him.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: And with us now is Dan Benjamin. He served on the National Security Council during the Clinton administration, and he is the co-author of "The Age of Sacred Terror." Also with us is retired Army Lieutenant Colonel Bob Maginnis. Colonel Maginnis met with Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld earlier this month to discuss Iraq.
And I want to welcome both of you to the show this afternoon.
LT. COL. BOB MAGINNIS, U.S. ARMY (RET.): Thank you.
DAN BENJAMIM, AUTHOR, "THE AGE OF SACRED TERROR": Thank you.
NEVILLE: And, Colonel Maginnis, I'll begin with you. The big question is: Will Saddam comply with weapons inspectors?
That is a loaded question, Arthel. You know, clearly, I don't think anybody doubted that he was going to embrace the seven-day window and say, yes, we're going to do it. The big question is on December the 8th when he provides this -- quote -- "full and complete list." He did this seven times during the 1990s with UNSCOM. In every case, it was like Swiss cheese he was delivering, and we found major breaches.
I do suspect, however, this time, with all of the troops that are gathered in the Gulf region, he understands that we're serious, that his list is going to be rather comprehensive. I still question whether or not some of the biological systems that he may have, some of the real precious, perhaps small quantities of nerve gas and so forth that are sequestered away in deep holes, because after all, he's been digging around like a gofer for a long period of time.
They're hidden in such a way that it would be very, very difficult for us to find. So, you know, it will take months...
NEVILLE: So, then perhaps...
MAGINNIS: ... if not longer.
NEVILLE: Sir, excuse me, sir. Perhaps is that why Saddam Hussein is saying now, sure, come on in, because he knows that he can conceal such deadly weapons?
MAGINNIS: Well, he was very successful, Arthel, during the '90s. After all, his denial and -- I don't know -- his denial process, you know, worked so incredibly well. He slurred the truth, basically. We didn't find a lot of things. In fact in 1995 when the son-in-law defected, it was only then we found that he had a fairly credible biological program.
And so, he has used the last four years to hide a great deal of what perhaps he has, but we still don't know where it is and exactly what it is we're looking for.
NEVILLE: And then also, how quickly everything can be moved, if there is something there.
MAGINNIS: Well, and concealment in residential areas, concealment perhaps under hospitals, or certainly in areas that we didn't look before. We know where there are some dual-use facilities, obviously, where they're making nitric acid or they're making various chemicals that can be used also for cleaning uranium or making missile fuel. Those things are there, and I think that he'll have no, you know, alternative but to acknowledge that.
But it's the secret things that we know that he's running around the country in refrigerated trucks or that he has somehow figured out how to sanitize locations very quickly with pulling something out the back door just as we arrive. Those are the types of tricks, the plain of "Where's Waldo," I suppose, if you will, like the child's game, that we'll be playing. We played them in the '90s; we'll probably play them in the future.
NEVILLE: But, now, Dan, the difference this time is that there is a very, very strong threat of military action if he does not comply. So, do you think Saddam would risk a war with the U.S.? And if so, what would he gain?
BENJAMIN: I don't think that he would think of it that way. One of the characteristics of Saddam is that he remains an incorrigible optimist. He, first of all, always thinks that he can get away with it. He thinks that he can always hide things, conceal things, give something away so he can hold on to something else.
I don't think that he believes that he is tempting war, and this is one of the problems with Saddam Hussein, which is that he does not calculate, as a rational actor would, and this has been a great frustration to the United States over a number of years.
NEVILLE: That's interesting that you say that he doesn't calculate as a -- what did you say?
BENJAMIN: A rational actor.
NEVILLE: Yes, a rational actor.
BENJAMIN: I mean, he doesn't -- he just doesn't think the way we would think if we were standing in his shoes. And I think that this is one of the problems that we've had in dealing with him. He simply always believes he is going get away with something. And so the question is: Will he miscalculate again and trigger the wrath of the United States?
MAGINNIS: Arthel, I agree with Dan. You know, the guy is a survivalist. You know, from 1979 to the present, you know, there was every reason to believe that the Iranians were going to overrun him. Of course, he used chemicals -- sarin gas and mustard gas at that time. There have been a host of attempts on his life over the years. He has doubles. He has figured out every way in which to escape being killed or having his regime toppled.
So, you know, this is just another roll of the dice for him, and perhaps he'll give us a little bit. But I don't think he's going to give us everything, and we won't know that he hasn't given us everything.
NEVILLE: Really? So, you think inspectors can go in, do their jobs and come out with a report to Washington, and still not know everything that's there?
MAGINNIS: Quite possibly. And in February, we could get a report from Hans Blix and the IAEA, which basically says we can't find anymore, other than what he revealed to us.
But, keep in mind, the denial-and-deception plan, which he's been working on for four years -- he had a very good plan up until 1998 and he's perfected that to a science. So, he is ready for us to come, and when we arrive there and begin to search, unless we have a massive team and the sophistication that we didn't use before that might be available today, I don't know that we're going to find some of the things he really wants to hide from us.
NEVILLE: And that's exactly something I would like to talk about a little bit later in the show, and that is because this new batch of inspectors, they're novices in terms of being on the ground in Iraq. And I want to know how that's going to affect this whole operation. We'll talk about that in a moment.
But, in the meantime, I want to go to Minnesota where I think it's Diane is standing by on the phone -- go ahead, Diane.
CALLER: Yes. I don't think it matters what the inspectors find or don't find. Bush is going to find a reason to go to war with him.
NEVILLE: Thank you, Diane, for calling in.
Colonel Maginnis, I'd like to hear your thoughts on that comment.
MAGINNIS: Well, I certainly hope we don't go in without justification. You know, as a military man myself, and you know, I've lived the life in the military, and today, I see so many wonderful young men and women ready to give their lives for their country. And there needs to be justification for that. If, in fact, you know, we don't have any real justification for going in there, the guy has, as far as we know, given up all of the weapons, and right now, there's some question about the linkage with terrorism. You know, I don't see that the plain and simple justification.
But, perhaps the president is going to reveal more information, perhaps Saddam Hussein will not be as compliant as we're hoping that he will be. Then that might give us a provocation to go ahead. We don't want to shed blood innocently.
NEVILLE: Listen, I want to go to Baghdad right now, where Dr. Mohammed Al-Adhami is on the phone. He's joining us there. He is a member of the Iraqi parliament, and I want to welcome him to the show.
Dr. Adhami, good afternoon.
MOHAMMED AL-ADHAMI, IRAQI PARLIAMENT MEMBER: Good afternoon.
NEVILLE: First of all, I'd like to ask you, why is it that the Iraqi parliament turned down the U.N. resolution?
AL-ADHAMI: Well, actually, we didn't accept that resolution because we found it the worst resolution we have ever read. There are a lot of things which are not acceptable, as I explained yesterday in the interview with CNN. But for the circumstances and for many reasons, we prepared to authorize our leadership to take the final decision, because it's very critical attitudes, and we will need to accept any result of that decision of the government. And when the government accepted that, that would be OK, we would accept the resolution.
NEVILLE: Then, sir, why do you think Saddam has agreed to go ahead and welcome weapons inspectors back in?
AL-ADHAMI: Well, the letter of the foreign minister -- Iraqi foreign minister was clear. He said, first of all, is to avoid the war. And the second thing is to prove that the country is clean. We don't have any weapons of mass destruction. And to prove that these are only lies made by the American administration.
NEVILLE: Then, sir, actually we have weapons inspectors -- experts here on our show today, who believe that indeed that there is a possibility that Saddam might have weapons of mass destruction, shall I say, nerve gas that would be easily concealed and it would be very difficult for weapons inspectors to detect those types of weapons. What do you say to that, sir?
AL-ADHAMI: Well, we hope that they will come here and will work within the legal framework of their task and according to international law. We had a bitter experience, you know, with inspection teams in the past. We hope they will work with the aim of fulfill their task, but nothing than that. You know why? Because if they are going to create problems, that means there is another aim. That means they want to help the Americans to launch an aggression against Iraq, because the Americans are not behind the weapons of inspection -- the weapons of mass destruction.
NEVILLE: Then, sir -- excuse me, sir...
AL-ADHAMI: The Americans want to launch an aggression against Iraq.
NEVILLE: Sir, then let me ask you then, is that what the members of the Iraqi parliament believe? That, in fact, the Bush administration wants to go ahead and wage war against Iraq no matter what?
AL-ADHAMI: Well, I think so, because their plan is to control the oil fields, to re-divide the area, to solve the Palestinian question (ph) for the benefit of the Israelis. This is their aim, actually. This is their plan.
NEVILLE: Let me ask you this. When the inspectors come back in this time, will they comply? Will Saddam comply with them and let them -- make available to them the presidential palaces?
AL-ADHAMI: Well, as before, they will be given free access. There will be full cooperation with them, and this is what the Iraqis promised even before this resolution. Nobody will put obstacles on their way. They will find it easy to do their job if they want really to do their job on the legal framework of their task.
NEVILLE: Well, sir, I really do appreciate your calling here today on TALKBACK LIVE. Dr. Mohammed Al-Adhami, a member of the Iraqi parliament. Thank you very much for that interview.
And we have to take a break right now. But up next, we'll meet a former U.N. weapons inspector who will tell us what he thinks will happen when the U.N. weapons inspectors go back in.
And of course, I would like you to talk to him, so you can go ahead and give me a call at 1-800-310-4CNN, or e-mail me at talkback@cnn.com. TALKBACK LIVE continues in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) NEVILLE: I want to welcome you back right now.
(INTERRUPTED FOR CNN COVERAGE OF LIVE EVENT)
NEVILLE: And speaking of weapons inspectors, we have one right here, a former weapons inspector on our show. And you get a chance to speak to him. There he is standing by, waiting to talk to you and the rest of us here on TALKBACK LIVE -- don't go anywhere.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. I'm Arthel Neville.
We've been talking with Colonel Bob Maginnis and Dan Benjamin about Iraq's acceptance of the U.N. resolutions. And right now, I would like you to meet Jonathan Tucker, a former U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq. He is the author of "Scourge: The once and future threat of smallpox."
Welcome, Jonathan.
JONATHAN TUCKER, FORMER U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: Thank you.
NEVILLE: OK, U.N. inspectors have gotten the OK. They leave Monday. What are they doing now to prepare for the trip?
TUCKER: Well, the inspectors have been going through a five-week training program to learn about Iraq's political and cultural background, the history of the previous U.N. inspections, and then what they're likely to confront when they actually hit the ground.
NEVILLE: But now, that brings me to another question that this new batch of inspectors, they don't have experience on the ground in Iraq. So, how will that affect their process over there of their operation?
TUCKER: Well, I think they're going to be on a very steep learning curve. The reason that there are very few former inspectors who are currently working for UNMOVIC is that UNMOVIC wanted a much larger geographical distribution, and it wanted people from many different countries, whereas UNSCOM employed mainly people from the U.S., Canada and European countries, as well as Australia and New Zealand.
So, most of the inspectors, even though they have technical skills, are not experienced in conducting inspections, and they'll be on a very steep learning curve.
NEVILLE: OK, but with that steep learning curve, couple that with Saddam's deception, how can this be successful?
TUCKER: It can be successful, but it will take a few weeks and even months for the inspectors to get up-to-speed. They can be greatly assisted, however, with the provision of timely and accurate intelligence information that tells them where to go. Iraq is a big country, about the size of California or France. There are many hiding places, and if the inspectors are going to be effective, particularly on a fairly compressed timescale, they need to have accurate intelligence.
NEVILLE: OK, listen, I have Ryan here from South Carolina.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, I was just going to make a comment. I thought it was interesting to hear Mr. Annan talk about how he was hoping that Saddam would let the inspectors have unfettered access; that he was hoping that things would go well. Obviously, you can see that he has some thought that maybe it won't go as well as planned.
And then, also, the question of the material breach. I think Saddam will try and change the dialogue of actually what will be a material breach to continue the distraction, to continue with putting off the finding of possible weapons of mass destruction.
NEVILLE: Thank you.
TUCKER: Well...
NEVILLE: Go ahead.
TUCKER: Well, I think we have to wait and see to some extent. Saddam has never really faced as stark a choice between his physical and political survival, and cooperation with the United Nations. So, perhaps he will be forced to change his ways.
Another possibility is that he will cooperate initially, perhaps even discover some weapons that he didn't know were there, in so many words, in order to take the wind out of the U.S. political sails, and then try to stretch out the inspection process. It's just very difficult to predict how Saddam will react under these unprecedented conditions.
NEVILLE: And then, what would he gain by stretching out the inspections process?
TUCKER: Well, if he is determined to retain some of his core mass destruction capabilities in spite of the inspections, which would be a very risky path, then this would be a possible way for him to string out the inspections to the point where there could be schisms or differences on the Security Council between the United States and Britain and perhaps France and Russia, which occurred last time around and greatly weakened the political effectiveness of the Security Council in backing up the inspectors, who of course are unarmed and really derive all of their power and authority from the Security Council.
NEVILLE: And then, then perhaps, therefore, decreasing any further -- or even the reluctance of -- there are a lot of countries who are reluctant to go ahead and support the Bush administration on a possible invasion, and perhaps that's what you're saying that could be Saddam's objection -- I mean, objective right there.
TUCKER: That could be his game plan, but he must understand that this time around that would be an exceedingly risky strategy. And that the Bush administration is really determined to disarm him or topple him from power.
NEVILLE: Let's take an e-mail right now. It's coming in from Charles in Alabama. He says: "Iraq says they don't have weapons of mass destruction. So, how can they provide a list of sites to the inspectors if they deny having them?"
Jonathan.
TUCKER: Well, this list will include not only any stockpiles of weapons, if they exist, but also dual-use facilities -- that is, facilities that could potentially be used to produce weapons of mass destruction -- nuclear, chemical, biological and missile.
Under the UNSCOM regime, there were literally hundreds of dual- use facilities that were subjected to ongoing monitoring and verification. And when the inspectors go back in, they will have to re-inspect these facilities, and then start up a monitoring system that could involve, for example, surveillance cameras, chemical samplers and periodic inspections.
NEVILLE: So, again, I want you to expound a little bit more on the technology that the inspectors will have available to them this time around as opposed to what they didn't have before. And how will it help them in their operation?
TUCKER: Well, they will have more sophisticated satellite surveillance, including commercial satellite systems that are less sensitive. They will, perhaps, have airborne aerial surveillance, such as helicopters or even the Predator-type unmanned aerial vehicles. They will have ground-penetrating radar that can detect underground facilities, because it's suspected that Saddam may have put some of his weapons or production facilities underground. And they will have sophisticated detection devices -- for example, for biological weapons that can take samples and analyze them rapidly to determine their identity, whether Iraq, for example is producing anthrax at a vaccine plant.
NEVILLE: Interesting.
OK, Jonathan Tucker, thank you very much for sticking around with us and taking all of those questions. We do appreciate that.
And we have to take a break right now. But TALKBACK LIVE is far from over.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE (voice-over): Right now on TALKBACK LIVE, who is more dangerous to your way of life: Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden? Also, if the voice is bin Laden's, does that new audiotape have teeth (ph)?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This tape of the tape (ph) is of extreme important. It means that Osama bin Laden is going to also attack civilians.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Americans around the world should be very concerned. Bin Laden is not somebody who makes idle threats.
NEVILLE: The talk continues, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(NEWS ALERT)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. I'm Arthel Neville. This is TALKBACK LIVE.
Intelligence analysts are poring over an audiotape that could hold a dire warning from Osama bin Laden. Administration officials aren't saying if the voice aired on Al-Jazeera is definitely that of the al Qaeda leader, but at least one U.S. official says they're about 95 percent sure it's him. Let's listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OSAMA BIN LADEN (through translator): Bush, the pharaoh of the century, is killing our children in Iraq. And Israel, an American ally, is bombing homes with elderly women and children, using American planes in Palestine. This is not enough for the wise of your leaders to stay away from this band of terror.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: OK. The question is, is it Osama? Here to talk about it is Jim Walsh, a fellow in the international security program at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy's school of government -- hello.
JIM WALSH, HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Hi Arthel.
NEVILLE: Nice to see you.
And CNN security analyst J. Kelly McCann. I want to welcome both of you gentlemen.
J. KELLY MCCANN, CNN SECURITY ANALYST: Hi Arthel.
NEVILLE: And I want to remind everybody, still with us, Colonel Bob Maginnis and author and former National Security Council member Dan Benjamin. And Kelly, in this segment I'm going to begin with you and ask you why an audiotape and not video?
MCCANN: There's three basic reasons that are right now kind of predominant. And one is, of course, that they've realized that there's always intelligence value to video material. In other words, you can look at the background, you can look at the quality of the video, how it was taken, determine how it was taken, lighting, et cetera. There's always some information.
Off an audiotape, there's much less information, especially if it's second or third hand. You can't really hear the things or go to the depth of background noises that might give you an indication where it was recorded. Others believe that it might be because he's sickly and he doesn't want to appear in the public sickly, diminishing his stature.
And then lastly, is the theory that he may have altered his looks somehow. It's all speculative, Arthel, but I would tend to believe the first.
NEVILLE: OK. Then, Jim, I ask you, what do you make of the timing of the release of this tape?
WALSH: Well, Arthel, I think this is big news and it's likely to be bad news. You know we haven't had any data confirming bin Laden's existence for over a year now. And suddenly we get this. Why now? Why not before? Why not in the future?
Some people are taking it and putting it together with other pieces of information that indicate that al Qaeda attacks may be in the near term, they maybe in the offing. You know Interpol and other coalition intelligence communities have been arguing that Saddam is planning something, perhaps a multiple country attack, sometime in the short term, two weeks, months, something like that.
NEVILLE: Dan, what do you think of that notion?
DAN BENJAMIN, AUTHOR, "THE AGE OF SACRED TERROR": Well, that's certainly possible. But I think that the key factor here is that bin Laden -- the bin Laden message is that he is the champion of Muslims at a time when the United States is waging a war against Islam. This tape came out at a moment of particular tension as the United States confronts Baghdad.
And his message is, you see, the Americans are coming after us again, just as I have always told you. And I am your champion and I am the leader of the truest Muslims, and I will rally you. Or you will rally to me and we will defeat them. I think that he chose this moment very, very carefully.
NEVILLE: So, Jim, getting back to you, though, if, in fact, bin Laden is planning some other attack or attacks, do you think al Qaeda has the resources and ability to carry those attacks out?
WALSH: Well, it's a good question, Arthel. I think it certainly does have those resources. We've seen that play out in Southeast Asia over the past several months. The attack in Bali, and seven different attacks that preceded the attack in Bali.
Unfortunately, it doesn't take much money or much resources to put together a truck bomb, to have a suicide bomber. It doesn't require a lot of money or a lot of sophistication.
I think al Qaeda that taken a hit, it has been (UNINTELLIGIBLE). It's been forced to adapt, but I think it's certainly perfectly capable of launching other attacks. On Bill's earlier point, I think it's certainly plausible that the timing of this has to do with the Iraq war, but it's...
NEVILLE: But why? WALSH: Well, you know -- and there's an argument against that as well. That is to say, he could wait until the war looked much more imminent. Why do it in a week, when most of us are predicting that Saddam is going to accept that U.N. resolution?
You would think that if that was the real motivation he would give it a little time and wait until we had troops on the ground or we were really ready to go full (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Of course, the announcement today doesn't preclude that, but this is the first time he's done this in over a year, and that makes me think there's something more than just the battle over Iraq or the diplomatic -- let me put it that way -- diplomatic battle over Iraq that might be behind this.
But again, we're all speculating at this point. And I think the other theories are as credible at mine.
NEVILLE: Sir Dan, I'd like to hear your take on that. Do you think that there is no coincidence here?
BENJAMIN: Well, actually, I think that he's drawing a comparison between himself and Saddam. Remember, Osama bin Laden has a great deal of contempt for Saddam Hussein as a secular Muslim leader, and as someone who has led his country and the Islamic world into a historic crisis. He's showing that he's not going to bend a knee before America, even if Saddam and the Bath (ph) regime there are going to.
So I think that he's scoring a point. He chose this moment carefully. He wants to show that, first of all, his existence is a triumph. He's survived the enormous onslaught of American arms, and that he is serving -- he's claiming for himself the mantel of leadership.
NEVILLE: OK. Colonel Maginnis, I know you want to jump in there. I have to take a break right now. I will get to you after the break. In the meantime, I want to go ahead and thank Dan Benjamin for joining us here today. Dan, thanks so much.
BENJAMIN: My pleasure.
NEVILLE: Great. And still ahead, if the tape really is bin Laden, does it suggest Iraq and al Qaeda are connected? We just talked about that, but I want to hear what you have to say about that. We're going to analyze more of this tape after this break. Don't go anywhere. TALKBACK LIVE continues in a moment.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. I'm Arthel Neville.
We are talking about whether an audiotape played on Al-Jazeera is really the voice of Osama bin Laden. And Colonel Maginnis, I promised I would let you go ahead and speak out first this segment. LT. COL. JIM MAGINNIS, U.S. ARMY (RET.): Arthel, I talked to some Iraqis in this country and also some people in the intelligence community. They indicated, at least to me, that they believe it's genuine. Al-Jazeera obviously out of Qatar is confirming their belief that it's genuine.
You know this is the globalization of anti-Americanism, anti- western beliefs. It comes and it coincides with all the tension with Iraq. In the message, as you recall, you heard about Bali. You heard about the shooting of the Marines in Kuwait. You heard about the French freighter that was shot or almost sunk down off of Yemen. You heard about the Moscow theater.
All of these are radical Islamists going after western icons, essentially. So you put all that together and then you consider the target, quite frankly, might be the Saudi Arabians. Why? Because it was before the U.S. went in to save Saudi Arabia from a potential invasion by Iraq in 1990-91 that Osama bin Laden was trying to do essentially the same thing.
Today, you have a very young population in Saudi Arabia that are somewhat perturbed with the (UNINTELLIGIBLE). They would like to turn that country in a different direction. So you have a number of dynamics here. I think that if this, indeed, is Osama bin Laden, that it's a very, very strategic move on his part to really marshal his forces around the globe.
NEVILLE: And if, in fact, this is an increase of the anti- American or anti-western sentiment, then that brings us back to another point of whether or not -- I'm going let you ask the question, Julie (ph).
JULIE: I was wondering if you thought al Qaeda and Iraq were connected at all? And if so, how is al Qaeda going to take it if we actually engage in war with Iraq?
MAGINNIS: Well, that's a $64,000 question. I don't know that we've established that nexus. Of course, there are differences of opinion about the Prague, so-called connection, about (UNINTELLIGIBLE) and allegedly bin Laden having been there in '92. That's not solid.
Even Mr. Straub (ph), the foreign minister there in great Britain, said, look, he's not sure about that. The president has laid out a plan in October the 7th in Cincinnati. He said, look, they've had al Qaeda there. But the reality is, you have as many or more al Qaeda in Iran, in Saudi Arabia, in Syria, all around the region. So I don't know that we can quite firmly establish the nexus that would make a lot people more comfortable.
NEVILLE: All right. Thank you for that answer, sir.
Listen, I know that Valerie (ph) is standing by on the line in Georgia. Don't go anywhere. I'm going to get to you after the break. And I have Stacey (ph) in the audience.
There's so much more of this tape to hear and analyze. And again, I want you to tell me how listening to these threats affects you. You can go ahead and call me now or e-mail, and I'll be back in a moment. We'll talk to you then.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody.
We're talking about an audiotape believed to be the voice of Osama bin Laden. And, Jim Walsh, I think you have something you wanted to add to the conversation.
WALSH: Julie's (ph) question was a good one. What is that connection between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein? I think Dan is right to say that we don't have evidence in the past of there being a strong connection between the two. But one of the troubling things about this tape and Osama's embrace of the Iraqi cause, is it raises the possibility we will take these two men, who are not natural allies, who have different goals, who don't like each other, and we may be, in fact, forcing them together to be allies because they both share a common enemy.
And the paradox here, is that as we try to isolate Saddam and weaken Saddam, that increases his motivation to reach beyond his own security forces and form an alliance with al Qaeda. So I think there's nothing in the tape that suggested that alliance has been formed, but it appears to me that bin Laden is signaling an openness to that sort of thing.
NEVILLE: So now, Jim, how would a war with Iraq affect the war against terrorism and al Qaeda?
WALSH: Well, I think it would affect it in a couple of different ways. Most of them are not positive. First of all, it would put the political and resource focus on Iraq. It will necessarily mean that people are paying less attention to the problems in Afghanistan and to al Qaeda as people focus on what's happening in Iraq and trying to win that war, which becomes priority number one at that point.
Secondly, a lot depends on what happens in the aftermath. Some have talked about installing a U.S. military government in Iraq in the short term, much as was done after the occupation of Japan and Germany in World War II. If that is true, it may be a recruiting bonanza for Islamists and terrorists.
NEVILLE: OK. Kelly McCann, Jim Walsh and Colonel Maginnis, thank you very much for joining us here today.
And still ahead, the question of the day: Who scares you most, Saddam or Osama? And Valerie (ph) in Georgia, I know you're standing by. I want you to answer that when I come back, OK? TALKBACK LIVE continues in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody.
It's time for our question of the day. Who are you most afraid of, Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein? Valerie (ph), I am going to let you answer that first.
CALLER: Yes. It is clearly Osama bin Laden, and the record speaks for itself.
NEVILLE: Valerie (ph), thank you for calling in. And here's Stacey (ph) with her answer.
STACEY: I would say Osama bin Laden, only because we seem to know more about Saddam Hussein.
NEVILLE: OK, thank you. And an e-mail coming in now I want to share with everybody from Cathy in Richmond, Virginia. "I fear Hussein more for global destruction, bin Laden more for localized destruction. Therefore, Hussein is a greater threat." Thank you all for answering that question.
And we are out of time. Thanks to all of you for watching, as well. I'm Arthel Neville. And I'll see you again tomorrow at 3:00 Eastern for 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
more dangerous to your way of life: Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden?>
|
