Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

White House Has No Reaction to Iraq's Admission Yet

Aired December 02, 2002 - 08:03   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: Back to Iraq right now, that startling admission earlier today. Christiane Amanpour reporting learning exclusively that Baghdad says it tried to get those special aluminum tubes, a type of tubing that could be used and a nuclear weapons program. But it adds now, it adds that it meant to use them to make rockets. Still, even that would be a violation of sanctions the way things are set up today.
How will the White House react?

Let's find out now from our senior White House correspondent John King on the front lawn this morning -- John, good morning.

JOHN KING, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good morning to you, Bill.

No official reaction just yet. One senior official a few moments ago telling meanwhile the White House would like to hear these reports directly from the weapons inspectors as to what Iraq is saying, not through source accounts in the news media. This official went on, though, to make the point you just made, that even if Iraq was trying to buy these for some non-nuclear weapons purpose, it would be a violation of the sanctions in place since the end of the Gulf War. This official asking if they're violating the sanctions trying to buy these tubes, how else have they violated the sanctions.

A great deal of skepticism here at the White House. This official also going on to note that Iraq is only permitted short range and medium range rockets. This official referring to comments in the past by the national security adviser, people at the Pentagon, saying Iraq would not need those highly, those aluminum tubes, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons, for those range rockets.

So there is skepticism here. Frankly, they don't believe almost anything the Iraqi government says, but they say they want to hear directly from the inspectors first and they want to see what Iraq files at the end of this week with the United Nations about its weapons programs -- Bill.

HEMMER: John, I've got to think the end of this week, that December 8 deadline, has to hold a lot of anticipation. Do you get the same sense at the White House regarding that list?

KING: The White House is being careful in everything it says until that deadline. You have heard the president say he has a zero tolerance policy for any violations of the new sanctions regime, yet if there are things that are violations, the White House is saying wait and see, wait and see. They view this document as a huge threshold, if you will. They want to see what the Iraqis declare, match it up against U.S. intelligence. Then, they say, the inspections from that point on will be much more meaningful, much more cataclysmic, potentially, once they see the Iraqi declaration. That is when the United States says the inspections will matter most.

HEMMER: Got it.

John, thanks.

John King at the White House this morning.

And, again, by the end of this year there will be as many as 100 inspectors on the ground. How, then, does the U.N. go about recruiting people for the job? And, also, will Iraq's revelation about this controversial aluminum tubing now complicate their task?

Former U.N. head weapons inspector Richard Butler is our guest again back in Sydney, Australia.

Good to have you back, Richard, and good morning to you, or good evening to you there in Sydney, Australia.

RICHARD BUTLER, FORMER CHIEF U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: Good to be with you.

HEMMER: Let's look past these U.N. teams for a second here. Your reaction to the aluminum tubing that Iraq apparently has admitted right now. How does that change the game as it stands right now?

BUTLER: It changes the game not one whit in terms of substance. What it does underline is the very profound difficulty we have with Iraq's basic position. I remind you that a few weeks ago they were saying they have no weapons of mass destruction. That would imply that when they make their declaration a few days from now, they'll be furnishing a blank piece of paper.

A few days after that, however, the foreign minister of Iraq talked about a document that would be a thousand pages long. Now we hear complaints and concerns that they have about whether they'll have enough time to put the document together. I have to hurry through this.

HEMMER: Sure.

BUTLER: There's so much confusing stuff here. The tubes, what are we to believe? The tubes could have been used in the business of centrifuge enrichment of uranium to make the core of a nuclear weapon. And they're saying oh, no, we didn't want it for that. We wanted it for missiles. But the missiles are illegal up to a certain mileage anyway.

Look, what this underlines is that Iraq is playing the same old game that it's played in the past. You wonder whether they can lay straight in bed at night, the number of times they've changed their story.

I agree with what John King was just saying and what the White House is saying, this document, at the end of the week, the declaration, that's a crucial document. And, you know, in a sense all bets are off until we see exactly what Iraq is prepared to put black on white at the end of this week about its weapons programs.

HEMMER: You know, Richard, let's go back to the first part of your answer here. Essentially, then, the onus goes back on the U.N. And the U.N. then has to decide what type of action it's prepared to do. In the mix of opinions right now, knowing that we've already been given the indication that Iraq may need some more time for what's considered here a civilian portion of its chemical and biological weapons program, I don't know what the difference is between a civilian portion and a military portion, but ultimately the end game is how the U.N. interprets this information.

Based on what you know, based on your experience, what does the U.N. do, then, if, indeed, you have this give and take, this cat and mouse which goes on on a weekly basis?

BUTLER: Well, that's up to Hans Blix. He has to decide how to put this to the Security Council. And, you know, concerns have been raised about how robust he will be. The distinction he must draw is between weapons related programs and programs which are civilian. That is not always completely easy to draw because civilian programs can also have a dual face, you know, they can also be used in the weapons environment.

But, you know, that distinction on the whole can be drawn and it is the crucial one. And I make this basic point. And this is where Iraq's declaration is so important. The basic point, Iraq knows exactly what weapons of mass destruction it has made. I mean we can't be pulled away from this. This can't be said too frequently. Iraq made weapons of mass destruction in the past and I believe it continues to hold them, and many other people do.

It knows exactly what weapons of mass destruction it has made and has. It is obligated to put that down on paper, not blur the situation by talking about manufacturing capability which in the morning could make aspirin and in the afternoon could make chemical weapons. We all know about that. We would be given a very much stronger and clearer position if they would put down on paper everything that is true about their weapons.

HEMMER: We want to get to some, Thomas Friedman wrote a piece recently in the "New York Times." We just want to put a quote up, pull a small portion of the article he wrote and read it off to our viewers.

BUTLER: Right.

HEMMER: He says, "Saddam Hussein was an expert at hiding his war toys and having had four years without inspections, had probably buried everything good under mosques or cemeteries. That means the only way we can possibly uncover anything important in Iraq is if an Iraqi official or scientist, a Saddam insider tells the U.N. where it's hidden."

Ultimately, is that the big end game here, have someone on the inside come forward and say it's here or it's there, go find it?

BUTLER: Yes, I read Tom's piece with great interest. He calls it the Point Five piece, the fifth point in that part of the Security Council resolution gives the inspectorate this new power. And it's a great power. I think it's very important.

That is, to take Iraqi scientists outside the country so that they can be interviewed free from pressure by the government and to take their families with them, because there have been situations in the past where people have been unprepared to talk because they knew of the damage that would be done to their families. And, indeed, there have been situations where family members have been killed.

I agree with Tom. This is a very important power. But what is at the core of what he's saying is this, that in the end, there is no substitute for a few defectors. There's no substitute for individuals who have worked on the weapons programs, who've had their hands on those weapons coming forward and saying you know what we were doing? We were doing this, this and this.

And if to get to that you have to take those scientists outside the country and their families and guarantee them safety, a bit like witness protection arrangements.

HEMMER: That's right, that's exactly it.

BUTLER: Then I think that could be very effective.

HEMMER: Richard, thank you.

When we talk tomorrow, I want to talk about whether or not your perspective lines up with a lot of others and whether or not the military force that is now threatened against Iraq, whether or not that rings true or hollow or where that sits today.

BUTLER: Right.

HEMMER: Richard, thank you.

Richard Butler again live in Sydney, Australia.

BUTLER: Good.

HEMMER: You've got it.

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 December 2, 2002 - 08:03   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: Back to Iraq right now, that startling admission earlier today. Christiane Amanpour reporting learning exclusively that Baghdad says it tried to get those special aluminum tubes, a type of tubing that could be used and a nuclear weapons program. But it adds now, it adds that it meant to use them to make rockets. Still, even that would be a violation of sanctions the way things are set up today.
How will the White House react?

Let's find out now from our senior White House correspondent John King on the front lawn this morning -- John, good morning.

JOHN KING, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good morning to you, Bill.

No official reaction just yet. One senior official a few moments ago telling meanwhile the White House would like to hear these reports directly from the weapons inspectors as to what Iraq is saying, not through source accounts in the news media. This official went on, though, to make the point you just made, that even if Iraq was trying to buy these for some non-nuclear weapons purpose, it would be a violation of the sanctions in place since the end of the Gulf War. This official asking if they're violating the sanctions trying to buy these tubes, how else have they violated the sanctions.

A great deal of skepticism here at the White House. This official also going on to note that Iraq is only permitted short range and medium range rockets. This official referring to comments in the past by the national security adviser, people at the Pentagon, saying Iraq would not need those highly, those aluminum tubes, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons, for those range rockets.

So there is skepticism here. Frankly, they don't believe almost anything the Iraqi government says, but they say they want to hear directly from the inspectors first and they want to see what Iraq files at the end of this week with the United Nations about its weapons programs -- Bill.

HEMMER: John, I've got to think the end of this week, that December 8 deadline, has to hold a lot of anticipation. Do you get the same sense at the White House regarding that list?

KING: The White House is being careful in everything it says until that deadline. You have heard the president say he has a zero tolerance policy for any violations of the new sanctions regime, yet if there are things that are violations, the White House is saying wait and see, wait and see. They view this document as a huge threshold, if you will. They want to see what the Iraqis declare, match it up against U.S. intelligence. Then, they say, the inspections from that point on will be much more meaningful, much more cataclysmic, potentially, once they see the Iraqi declaration. That is when the United States says the inspections will matter most.

HEMMER: Got it.

John, thanks.

John King at the White House this morning.

And, again, by the end of this year there will be as many as 100 inspectors on the ground. How, then, does the U.N. go about recruiting people for the job? And, also, will Iraq's revelation about this controversial aluminum tubing now complicate their task?

Former U.N. head weapons inspector Richard Butler is our guest again back in Sydney, Australia.

Good to have you back, Richard, and good morning to you, or good evening to you there in Sydney, Australia.

RICHARD BUTLER, FORMER CHIEF U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: Good to be with you.

HEMMER: Let's look past these U.N. teams for a second here. Your reaction to the aluminum tubing that Iraq apparently has admitted right now. How does that change the game as it stands right now?

BUTLER: It changes the game not one whit in terms of substance. What it does underline is the very profound difficulty we have with Iraq's basic position. I remind you that a few weeks ago they were saying they have no weapons of mass destruction. That would imply that when they make their declaration a few days from now, they'll be furnishing a blank piece of paper.

A few days after that, however, the foreign minister of Iraq talked about a document that would be a thousand pages long. Now we hear complaints and concerns that they have about whether they'll have enough time to put the document together. I have to hurry through this.

HEMMER: Sure.

BUTLER: There's so much confusing stuff here. The tubes, what are we to believe? The tubes could have been used in the business of centrifuge enrichment of uranium to make the core of a nuclear weapon. And they're saying oh, no, we didn't want it for that. We wanted it for missiles. But the missiles are illegal up to a certain mileage anyway.

Look, what this underlines is that Iraq is playing the same old game that it's played in the past. You wonder whether they can lay straight in bed at night, the number of times they've changed their story.

I agree with what John King was just saying and what the White House is saying, this document, at the end of the week, the declaration, that's a crucial document. And, you know, in a sense all bets are off until we see exactly what Iraq is prepared to put black on white at the end of this week about its weapons programs.

HEMMER: You know, Richard, let's go back to the first part of your answer here. Essentially, then, the onus goes back on the U.N. And the U.N. then has to decide what type of action it's prepared to do. In the mix of opinions right now, knowing that we've already been given the indication that Iraq may need some more time for what's considered here a civilian portion of its chemical and biological weapons program, I don't know what the difference is between a civilian portion and a military portion, but ultimately the end game is how the U.N. interprets this information.

Based on what you know, based on your experience, what does the U.N. do, then, if, indeed, you have this give and take, this cat and mouse which goes on on a weekly basis?

BUTLER: Well, that's up to Hans Blix. He has to decide how to put this to the Security Council. And, you know, concerns have been raised about how robust he will be. The distinction he must draw is between weapons related programs and programs which are civilian. That is not always completely easy to draw because civilian programs can also have a dual face, you know, they can also be used in the weapons environment.

But, you know, that distinction on the whole can be drawn and it is the crucial one. And I make this basic point. And this is where Iraq's declaration is so important. The basic point, Iraq knows exactly what weapons of mass destruction it has made. I mean we can't be pulled away from this. This can't be said too frequently. Iraq made weapons of mass destruction in the past and I believe it continues to hold them, and many other people do.

It knows exactly what weapons of mass destruction it has made and has. It is obligated to put that down on paper, not blur the situation by talking about manufacturing capability which in the morning could make aspirin and in the afternoon could make chemical weapons. We all know about that. We would be given a very much stronger and clearer position if they would put down on paper everything that is true about their weapons.

HEMMER: We want to get to some, Thomas Friedman wrote a piece recently in the "New York Times." We just want to put a quote up, pull a small portion of the article he wrote and read it off to our viewers.

BUTLER: Right.

HEMMER: He says, "Saddam Hussein was an expert at hiding his war toys and having had four years without inspections, had probably buried everything good under mosques or cemeteries. That means the only way we can possibly uncover anything important in Iraq is if an Iraqi official or scientist, a Saddam insider tells the U.N. where it's hidden."

Ultimately, is that the big end game here, have someone on the inside come forward and say it's here or it's there, go find it?

BUTLER: Yes, I read Tom's piece with great interest. He calls it the Point Five piece, the fifth point in that part of the Security Council resolution gives the inspectorate this new power. And it's a great power. I think it's very important.

That is, to take Iraqi scientists outside the country so that they can be interviewed free from pressure by the government and to take their families with them, because there have been situations in the past where people have been unprepared to talk because they knew of the damage that would be done to their families. And, indeed, there have been situations where family members have been killed.

I agree with Tom. This is a very important power. But what is at the core of what he's saying is this, that in the end, there is no substitute for a few defectors. There's no substitute for individuals who have worked on the weapons programs, who've had their hands on those weapons coming forward and saying you know what we were doing? We were doing this, this and this.

And if to get to that you have to take those scientists outside the country and their families and guarantee them safety, a bit like witness protection arrangements.

HEMMER: That's right, that's exactly it.

BUTLER: Then I think that could be very effective.

HEMMER: Richard, thank you.

When we talk tomorrow, I want to talk about whether or not your perspective lines up with a lot of others and whether or not the military force that is now threatened against Iraq, whether or not that rings true or hollow or where that sits today.

BUTLER: Right.

HEMMER: Richard, thank you.

Richard Butler again live in Sydney, Australia.

BUTLER: Good.

HEMMER: You've got it.

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