|
CNN TALKBACK LIVE
Will Iraq Comply With Weapons Inspections, Or Is War Inevitable?
Aired December 2, 2002 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ARTHEL NEVILLE, HOST: Hello, everybody. Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville. Well, you just heard President Bush define America's enemies as well as his plan for beefing up the military for what he called the first war of the 21st Century. Among those named enemies, Saddam Hussein. Who Mr. Bush Identified as supporter of terrorist. The president expressed doubt the inspectors could actually uncover any weapons of mass destruction.
Will Iraq comply with the weapons inspectors, or is war inevitable? This is something that effects all of you, and I really want to get you all involved in the story. So I want hear from you. Give me a call at 1-800-310-4cnn or you of course can e-mail me at talkback@cnn.com.
And then don't go any where because later you going to meet a writer who predicts November 28 could be a date that is scarier for airline passengers than September 11. Stick around for that one.
But right now, an amazing story out of Tennessee where a policeman is giving advice about how to avoid getting DUIs. You heard me right. And of course we are just entering the holiday period. According to the Highway Traffic Safety Administration, slightly more than 2,000 people died in alcohol-related accidents between Thanksgiving to New Year's Day last year. Not to mention more then a half million people are injured in alcohol-related accidents each years.
Now, if it's so dangerous to drink and drive, why would police officer Tim Stone produce a videotape which, to quote from his Web site, will teach you how to counter police training and avoid a DUI. Officer Stone agreed to join us here today along with John Moulden, who is the president of the National Commission Against Drunk Driving, who will join us later.
And Mr. Stone I want welcome you to TALKBACK LIVE.
TIM STONE, POLICE OFFICER, AUTHOR: Thank you.
NEVILLE: Now, you say your video will make road safer because you're teaching people to drink smarter not harder. Well the consensus is there's nothing smart about drinking and driving. So if you could explain your concept, please.
STONE: Basically want to inform the public to make better informed decisions. And hopefully if they see the video, then they will understand that everything that has to do with DUI and the dangers of drinking and driving. And by seeing the video, I believe they'll have a better understanding and hopefully choose not to drink and drive.
NEVILLE: We don't have the luxury at this moment to see the video. So if you can be more specific, officer Stone.
STONE: Sure. We talk about in the video law and legal and everything encompasses a DUI. All the laws like implied consent and per se, and then we talk about alcohol and physiology, how alcohol reacts to the body and then go to police detection. The police methods and the way the police will detect people that are drinking and driving.
NEVILLE: Right, so let me see if I can jump in and make sure I am understanding this correctly. Because I understand that you in your video, which I have not seen, you say, I have read your Web site we'll visit in a moment, you say that you give them ways to -- tips on how to sort of get out of a DUI, when stopped by the police. For instant if they ask your address and your name at the same time, to kind of see if you can multitask or divide the attention, if you will, then as long as your right on target and answers those quiz questions without hesitation then you'll get off.
Why would you want to inform someone of something like that?
STONE: Well, we feel like if you're able to follow the directions of this video, you are probably just fine. You a driver that is in control. If you can't follow directions of this video, then you probably are DUI or over the limit, and the officer will obviously noticed this.
NEVILLE; OK, listen sir, right now I want to go ahead and share with the audience something from your Web site from Casey in Nashville. It says the informational -- "The information in this video has been invaluable. After following the vice of this video twice I had been pulled over after a night of drinking and twice the police let me go without incident. I can't say enough good things about the information on this video." Hmm. So the guy gets pulled over twice, and twice is let go. And that's after a night of drinking. I can't understand how that's a good thing.
STONE: Well, I got a chance to spoke with the gentleman in referenced. And it's not really what he was saying. It's like not a night of drinking. He had had a few drinks and felt he was maybe right at the legal limit or a little below the legal limit. But the fact is, he followed the advice of the video and knew what the officer was going ask him. He knew the officer would ask about divided attention. So he was able to look like a driver that was in control.
NEVILLE: Right, so. But you said, look like a driver that's in control, so perhaps he's not in control. I mean, listen, I understand that you also say, let's be realistic about this, and people will drink, especially during the holidays. And your point, I think, please correct me if I'm wrong, is to -- you know what? I don't know your point is. If you can tell us. I can't understand your point, sir, I really can't. STONE: OK, the fact is, there's no amount of legislation that's going to stop drinking and driving. People are going to drink, and they're going to drive. And we feel that if people make the decision to drink and drive, they need to be better informed so they can make a better decision, you know, and hopefully decide not to drink and drive.
NEVILLE: OK. I'm going to share another bit of your Web site. But right now, Marilyn (ph) from Michigan in our audience.
MARILYN: I know that, generally, the police will look for someone driving slow when they're looking for drunk drivers. Do you advocate driving faster then while they're under the influence?
STONE: In the video we show you all the -- what we call for centers, if you are like, for example, if you're driving across the center lane then you may be 65 times out of 100 DUI. We will show you in the video all the classic mistakes. And nine times out of ten, people that get pulled over, the best DUI suspects I've seen and most law enforcement sees is not really have to do much with the way they're driving. It's equipment violations like a headlight or taillight out, something to do with their registration or something.
NEVILLE: Sir, is it okay to drink anything? A glass of wine? One mixed drink? Is that what you're saying? And still get behind the wheel?
STONE: We don't advocate -- we don't condone drinking and driving, but, you know, if they are below state's legal limit, this video may allow them to test themselves to know what their -- you know, if they feel like they're going to be able to operate that motor vehicle safely, if they're under the legal limit. You know, people just really don't understand how easy it is to get a DUI with the legal limit at .08.
NEVILLE: I still don't know why you're trying to get these people to avoid getting a DUI. Because perhaps that would encouraging some people, oh I can have an extra glass of wine, extra cocktail now. because now I know how to avoid. I know what they're looking for, so I know what not to do.
STONE: Well, that could be also true but we really hope that people will make a better decision by being better informed about DUI. And by knowing what the police are looking for, they may look at it as just a big hassle and may make arrangements and call for a designated driver, a sober rider, something like that.
NEVILLE: OK, let me take a moment now to go to California where Monique is -- Nick (ph) is standing by, excuse me, on the phone. He wants to share some thoughts with you, sir go ahead -- Nick (ph).
CALLER: Well, I've lost a family member to a drunk driver...
NEVILLE: Hey, Nick, is your television set turned down? could you do that, please?
CALLER: Yes, it's down.
NEVILLE: OK, and speak up for us. I want to hear your story.
CALLER: I lost a family member to drunk driving before and I think this is just a ploy for officer Stoner to just make money, and I think that he should probably give some of the proceeds of this to Mothers Against Drunk Driving.
NEVILLE: Proceeds? Nick?
CALLER: For the money they make from this video.
NEVILLE: Nick, is it OK? Is that what you are saying it's OK to sell this video?
CALLER: I don't think this video is OK at all.
NEVILLE: Thank you, Nick (ph) for calling in.
I have Noah (ph) from California as well.
Go ahead, sir.
NOAH: Don't you think that by providing this video, percentages of alcoholic driverless increase? Isn't it your job to stop this from happening?
NEVILLE: Officer Stone, did you hear that?
STONE: Yes, I did.
No, we don't feel it's going to increase at all. We feel that it's going to -- people are going to make a better, informed decision. And about the gentleman in California, you know, my mother has disabling injuries due to a drunk driver and I have a neighbor who also has a disabling injury, a crippling injury to a drunk driver. They all know about it, it's not just because it's me doing the video. They know the concept and they are totally behind it. Most people that I've spoken to are behind it, even if they've had one time in their life any experience of being a victim.
NEVILLE: Bob (ph) from Connecticut what do you say?
BOB: You said it before. If I was out drinking and I reached my limit, which as a sensible drinker, I would say, you know, I can have that extra drink because I've seen that video and I can avoid a ticket. That's it in a nutshell, so I disagree with him completely.
NEVILLE: Thank you for speaking out.
And Officer Stone I want ask you this -- when we come back that is, because I have to break -- take a break right now. But I want to know what your fellow officers think about this videotape. And I'm sure both you, Mr. -- Officer Stone, excuse me, wants to hear from you as well. So go ahead and give me a call or you can e-mail me right now. And I also am waiting to hear your thoughts on Iraq. I told you what the president said earlier.
Then later, I want to know if the economy has affected any of your holiday shopping habits? I'll take your calls and e-mails later this hour.
And we're back in a moment. Don't go anywhere. "TALKBACK LIVE" continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Today on TALKBACK LIVE, why would a policeman peddle videotapes telling drivers how to avoid a D.U.I?
STONE: We're being responsible by teaching the public, you know, what their rights are.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Why would the average citizen need to know unless they plan on driving drunk?
NEVILLE: Officer Tim Stone explains his controversial advice to drunk drivers as TALKBACK LIVE continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody.
We're talking with Officer Tim Stone, who has produced a video telling drivers how to avoid getting DUIs. And Office Stone, we want to ask you how do your fellow officers feel about this videotape?
STONE: Well, at first they were just like the, you know, general public, the nation is watching right now. You know, how to avoid a DUI They were like, wow. That doesn't sound right. Actually, they saw the video and were like, Wow that was really informative and educational.
You know, we don't show you anything in the video that the average person can't go out on the Internet and learn themselves. We just put it in an action-packed 50-minute video.
NEVILLE: Hmmm. Georgia is where we're going to take a call from now, where Tom is standing by on the phone. Go ahead, sir.
CALLER: Yes. I've had a DUI, and it's a very, very terrible experience to have to go through. And I don't recommend it to anybody at all. It's extremely costly. And it certainly will change your idea about drinking and driving. And I certainly don't drink excessively and drive anymore.
NEVILLE: So what do you think about the video, sir?
CALLER: I think it's very informative not only to the public, but to anybody in general who drinks or who does not drink for that matter. And I think it's really a great service that this gentleman's providing.
NEVILLE: OK. Thank you very much for calling in to "TALKBACK LIVE." And I want to introduce another guest right now, John Moulden. He is the president of the National Commission Against Drunk Driving.
Sir, welcome to the show.
JOHN MOULDEN, PRESIDENT, NAT. COMMISSION AGAINST DRUNK DRIVING: Thank you. Glad to be here.
NEVILLE: Good.
When you hear the words, "drinking smatter and driving" in the same sentence what do you think?
MOULDEN: Well, I think what we try do is separate the drinking from the driving. We're not opposed to drinking in any way. In fact, on our board are all the major alcohol producing representatives. The distillers, the brewers and so on. So We're not anti-alcohol, but we are anti-people driving after they've been drinking. There's simply no reason for it.
NEVILLE: And Officer Stone earlier said there are people who were teetotalers, if you will. They are just social drinkers, and may have one glass of wine and they can actually still function. They are within the legal alcohol limit. What do you say to that?
MOULDEN: Well, they have nothing to fear. Somebody has to be over at least .08. In fact, in Tennessee right now it's still .10. That's a lot of alcohol. Just to give you an example, a 200 pound person like myself would have to drink almost a six pack in an hour on an empty stomach. That's not social drinking. That's not one person having a beer or a glass of wine at dinner. That's abusive drinker.
NEVILLE: Right.
MOULDEN: So people who are social drinkers aren't anywhere near the legal limit. They have nothing to fear. Police aren't going to be pulling people like that off the road.
NEVILLE: Let's get Gunnar (ph) in here now from Idaho.
GUNNAR: Hi. DUI or no DUI, drinking and driving is bad in my opinion. So officer, don't you think people should be punished for endangering people's lives?
STONE: If they are over the legal limit, I do, yes. And I'd like to go back to what Mr. Moulden was saying. You know, see it firsthand. I'm on the streets and I do know, I've seen people arrested be arrested for -- that were under the legal limit. Simply, you know, if you've got any alcohol on your breath and the officer sees it, hears it or smells it, they're going to start their investigation on you.
And if you feel like you've only had one glass of wine, there's no way you could be over the legal limit and you have to right to refuse any field sobriety testing or any testing whatsoever from the law enforcement.
NEVILLE: So what happens if you do that, sir? Let me -- help me with this. You're saying if someone is to -- was to get pulled over and the officer says, I think you've been drinking too much, you can say, I don't want to take -- you can decline taking a sobriety test?
STONE: That is your right to do so, yes. And after that...
NEVILLE: You mean I can still get in my car and drive off?
STONE: Well, probably -- if the officer feels at that time, will make their determination whether you are competent enough to operate that motor vehicle and under the legal limit. But if they feel like you are over the legal limit, you will be placed under arrest and you will be taken through the system.
NEVILLE: So, if in fact -- So the point is, if you do have the right to decline the sobriety test, it does not mean that you will be getting behind that wheel again necessarily.
STONE: Right.
NEVILLE: OK. Listen, Elizabeth from Arizona wants to say something.
ELIZABETH: Yes. I have a question. If -- why, as an officer, are you promoting drinking and driving and promoting the idea of lying -- lying to other officers and saying that you're not over the limit or that you aren't drunk?
STONE: We don't in the video tell you to lie or anything like that. We're not promoting drinking and driving. I believe when you see the video, if you see the video, you'll understand. You'll see what we've done, what we've accomplished here.
We're not promoting drinking and driving. We do not condone it, and we do not tell anybody -- as a matter of fact, in the video, we tell you that if the officer asks if you've been drinking, don't lie. Honestly goes a long way with law enforcement. You know, tell them you have. Just be sure to be throw in the timeline of -- if -- of what you had, you know, and like x amount of hours or whatever.
NEVILLE: Mr. Moulden before we go, I want to ask if you feel there's any value to a videotape such as this one?
MOULDEN: I think what we have to remember that people have already been pulled over. The police officer has seen some dangerous driving. He's not pulling people randomly off the street. So there's something that's caused him to want to investigate. And if you truly have been below the legal limits and if you're not showing overt signs of impairment, you're not likely to be arrested.
But there are people who are actually below the legal limit who are a danger. People vary in the effects of alcohol. So it's really outrageous to think that we should in any way enable these people and to try to fool police and avoid detection. Drunk driving in America is going up. For the first time in the last six years, we are going up. We are not declining. We need to get tough on drunk drivers. We don't need to enable them.
NEVILLE: OK. Officer Stone and John Moulden, thank you both for joining us here today on "TALKBACK LIVE."
STONE: Thank you.
MOULDEN: Thank you.
NEVILLE: Sure.
And up next, is there any way to avoid war with Iraq? Well, listen to what the president just said, and see if you hear any peace talk there.
Also, don't forget to give a call or e-mail your response to the question of the day: "Has the economy affected your shopping habits this season? We'll be back in a minute?"
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville.
Less than an hour ago, President Bush gave a get-tough speech about Iraq, announcing his plan for beefing up the military. Mr. Bush put Iraq's Saddam Hussein firmly in the enemy camp. He again put Saddam Hussein on notice that anything less than a full, accurate and credible declaration of its weapons programs won't be tolerated.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: So far the signs are not encouraging. A regime that fires upon American and British pilots is not taking the path of compliance. A regime that sends letters filled with protests and falsehoods is not taking the path of compliance.
On or before the 8th of December, Iraq must provide a full and accurate declaration of its weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile programs. That declaration must be credible and complete. Or the Iraqi dictator will demonstrate to the world once again that he has chosen not to change his behavior.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: Is it all sounding more like a buildup to war? Here to talk about it is former assistant secretary of defense and president for the Center for Security Policy, Frank Gaffney. Hello, Frank.
FRANK GAFFNEY, PRESIDENT, CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY: Hello, Arthel.
NEVILLE: And Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow in the foreign policy studies program at the Brookings Institute. I want to welcome you as well, sir.
MICHAEL O'HANLON, BROOKINGS INSTITUTE: Thank you very much.
NEVILLE: Good. Frank, you're up first today. President Bush is skeptical that Iraq will meet the December 8 deadline, calling for full disclosure of weapons of mass destruction, and Bush says that he will not tolerate anything less than full disclosure.
We're six days out. Should the president take a wait-and-see attitude?
GAFFNEY: I don't think so. Arthel, we've been waiting and seeing for the better part of 11 years. This is a moment of truth. And I personally am as skeptical as he is, perhaps even more so, about whether Saddam Hussein will tell the truth. You know, we're starting to hear that he may be able to sort of wiggle out of this December 8 date by saying that he's got a lot of dual use chemical and biological systems and technologies. That is to say, systems and technologies that could be used to manufacture commercial or civilian goods, as well as military goods.
And this is, of course, the problem, that much of what Saddam has and has been acquiring over many years, some of it covertly, some of it overtly, falls into this category of stuff that could go either way, and I think the president is going to have to be every bit as resolute as he was today, and perhaps even more so, to say, you know, it's just not worked out. We've tried the best we could. We hoped that the U.N. would be able to overcome the past behavior. It's time to liberate Iraq and disarm Saddam Hussein, the clique around him, once and for all by putting them out of business.
NEVILLE: And Mr. Gaffney, you say that the U.S., the U.N. had been waiting and seeing for many, many years now. So why now is such a crucial timing in that, there might be a possible invasion. Why now is there such pressure?
GAFFNEY: Well, I'm frankly among those who would have much preferred to see it done when we had 500,000 people in the neighborhood 11 years ago. I think it was a terrible mistake, a strategic error of the first magnitude not to do it then. And the intervening years have seen a number of other missed opportunities.
I think what President Bush has done is basically draw a line in the sand. He went to the U.N., as he was urged to do in mid- September, and he said, look, if you're going to be anything other than sort of a League of Nations, a debating society completely irrelevant in the world, you need to do something about this problem now because it's metastasized to such a point where it poses a material and direct threat to the United States, and we will have to act alone or with other allies who wish to join us if you won't act. That, I think, is the correct view.
NEVILLE: Michael, if, in fact, this situation or this infection, if you will, hasn't -- hello -- if I could say it -- (UNINTELLIGIBLE) -- metastasized, excuse me, everyone -- if it has indeed, you know, manifested in such a way, and such -- perhaps had gotten so rotten, will Saddam Hussein comply at this point?
O'HANLON: I don't know. I certainly share Frank's skepticism. I think he laid out the basic situation quite well.
The only difference perhaps between us is that if Saddam makes a declaration that looks fairly credible, as credible as we can ascertain with our intelligence, I think we should continue on the inspections and disarmament path, but I certainly share his skepticism about whether Saddam will do that, and I also commend the president for making it very clear to Saddam and the world that we will use force if necessary. Because any hope of avoiding war rests on making that threat credible. We know Saddam will cheat unless he fears for his own survival as president of Iraq. So the only way to get him to comply with these disarmament demands is to be just as resolute as the president has been so far and has been today.
NEVILLE: OK. Let's go to British Columbia, where Merrill (ph) is standing by on the phone.
What do you say?
CALLER: Hi there. How are you doing?
NEVILLE: Hi.
CALLER: I wanted you to know, as this Canadian, I am very proud of your president. Boy, I wish we had a leader like that in Canada, and I want Americans to know that you have friends in Canada. Please don't let us think -- please don't think that we're letting you down. The question for Mr. -- I'm just -- I'm excited. I just -- every time I hear Bush speak, I just bounce off the walls. But he's a great leader. He really is.
And Mr. Gaffney, do you really think for any moment, and -- that Mr. Hussein is being honest? We have reports in Canada that just a couple of weeks before the inspections, he was piling documents into trucks and having them shipped off to party members. How long are we going to wait before he fires more chemical weapons at Israel? Are we then going to tell the liberals, well, see, millions of lies at stake -- do you not think that they should act, that these inspections is just really a cat and mouse game?
NEVILLE: OK, sir, thank you for calling in. And Frank, if you could hang onto your thoughts for me, I have to take a break
CALLER: ... millions of lives are at stake. Do you not that they should act and that this inspection is just really a cat and mouse game?
NEVILLE: OK, sir. Thank you for calling in. And Frank, if you could hang on to your thoughts for me.
GAFFNEY: Sure.
NEVILLE: I have to take a break. If you could answer that after the break. And also, Anthony (ph) is standing by on the phone in Oklahoma. I will get to you as well.
And up next, do you think the U.N. inspectors are going to find anything in Iraq? Let me know what you think the inspectors are all about. You can go ahead and give me a call and get on board with Anthony in Oklahoma. Or you can e-mail me now and let me know why or if the economy is making you rethink your holiday spending. We're back in a moment.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(NEWS ALERT)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. We're talking about the inspections in Iraq and what Iraq can do to avoid a war with the U.S.
And Frank, I promised I would let you go ahead and answer the caller's question.
GAFFNEY: Thank you. It's great to hear from our friends in Canada. I would just respond in I think the obvious way. We've been down this road before.
We've tried inspections, we've seen the cat and mouse game. I think even if the president is right, and Saddam Hussein somehow miraculously does transform his behavior and cooperates fully, we have to understand, as long as he remains in power, it will be a matter of time, perhaps as few as several months, before he's back in the weapons of mass destruction business.
The president spoke movingly, Arthel, about the need for the people of Iraq to enjoy freedom. And I think this is the moment when, by standing with them and helping them to achieve that freedom, we give ourselves the only real hope of ending the threat that currently emanates, and I think will continue to emanate from Baghdad in the form of Saddam Hussein's regime.
NEVILLE: We have another question for you, Frank, from Gunner (ph) in the audience.
GUNNER: I want to know what happened to Osama bin Laden? It seems like he went into a little hole and hid. And the crazy fool actually hurt us, and we're just going after Iraq, you know even though they're a major threat, of course. But it seems like we're hitting only where we can win here. I saw homeless people outside of the White House, and President Bush isn't doing anything for them.
GAFFNEY: Well, a lot of points there. I would just say very quickly that you do want to hit Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda and the people who support and operate with them, and enable them to be formidable threats. I think Iraq falls into that category.
And my own view of it is that, if Saddam Hussein is removed from power and Iraq is liberated, it will take off the table, as we have tried to do previously in Afghanistan, an important element in the terrorist network worldwide. Not the end of the game, but another step towards wrapping up and I hope permanently putting out of business people like Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda network.
NEVILLE: Michael, I know you're standing by. Hang in there for me. I'm going to go to Oklahoma right now, where Anthony (ph) is on the phone. Go ahead, Anthony (ph).
ANTHONY: Yes. I'm 20 years old. I've lived in Oklahoma all my life around the Air Force base and everything, so I've been exposed to the military. And my question/comment is, President Bush seems to have a lot of interest in things going on overseas, such as Iraq and things of that nature, but he doesn't seem to have very much concern or passion for issues that are occurring over here.
For example, I have a chronic medical condition, and I don't see Bush making any kind of leeway, you know, help bring down prescription drug costs or get better medical care for people that have medical problems and things of that nature. It just seems like his administration is based on getting big targets out in the open that makes it look like he's actually doing something when he really isn't. And I basically just think he's going after Saddam to make up for the fact that he hasn't caught Osama. And he's just going to let this circle of violence continue.
NEVILLE: Anthony (ph), thank you so much for calling in. I'm going to let our guests get a chance to respond. Michael, do you have any thoughts on this?
O'HANLON: Well let me try to be fair to President Bush. As Democrat, which I am, I think that I would disagree with some of President Bush's domestic priorities, and particularly the tax cut, I believe, is excessively large. It makes it hard to address some of these medical issues and other issues.
However, I think President Bush's focus on the war on terrorism has been entirely appropriate and necessary. And I am glad that he has made that a priority of his administration, because I think the threat is serious enough to justify that.
Even someone like myself, who is not quite as bent on overthrowing Saddam, thinks that the threat of Saddam with nuclear weapons is one we do not want to contemplate. So we have to make the inspections work or overthrow Saddam. And for that reason, I think that, in general, I would support the president's foreign policy and applaud him for making that a priority. Even as I would reserve the right to disagree with him on domestic priorities.
NEVILLE: OK. Thank you. And Monica (ph) from Oklahoma has something to say.
MONICA: I was wondering, do you think it's very fair to go after the -- this whole country, when it could just be one group of people? If one group of people from America did something to another country, we wouldn't want them to come and bomb our whole country.
GAFFNEY: Well, that's very much why I place the priority that I do on trying to help the people of Iraq liberate themselves. I think they can't do it without us, but we don't have a quarrel with, as you say, the vast majority of the Iraqi people. We do have a quarrel, as do they, with a small clique around Saddam Hussein who have terrorized them and their relatives for two decades or so now.
I would just add to what Michael said. I think the problem here is, there will be many more homeless, there will be many more ill if the president is not able to succeed in stopping these terrorists from doing probably incalculably worse harm to us than was done on September 11 with weapons of mass destruction. And my concern is that Saddam is a principal enabler of that threat today and must be dealt with accordingly.
NEVILLE: Frank, we are out of time. Michael, we're out of time. Hey Frank, before we go, one thing to say to you, sir, metastasize.
GAFFNEY: You got it.
NEVILLE: Listen...
GAFFNEY: Practice makes perfect, Arthel.
NEVILLE: Hey, you know you come here and do this sometimes. You know how this is. Thank you so much. I really enjoyed talking to both of you. Michael, nice to meet you.
GAFFNEY: Well done. Thank you.
O'HANLON: Likewise.
NEVILLE: Listen, up next, what happened on November 28 of this year that can turn out to be more life-altering than September 11? We're going to find out when we come back. You don't want to go anywhere. TALKBACK LIVE continues.
And don't forget, later I'm going to take your calls and e-mails on the question of the day: Has the economy affected your spending habits this holiday? We're back in a moment.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everyone. I'm Arthel Neville.
U.S. officials say the missiles fired at an Israeli charter jet in Kenya last week are similar to those used in an attempt to shoot down a U.S. military plane in Saudi Arabia last May. And while the evidence isn't conclusive, they appear to be linked to al Qaeda.
The weapons are described as old Russian shoulder-launched surface-to-air missiles with a range of 10,000 to 12,000 feet. And this brings us to our next get.
Jim Fallows, made some pretty scary observations about these missile attacks yesterday in "Slate" magazine. He is the national correspondent for "The Atlantic Monthly," and Jim joins us, along with Jalal Haidar -- hello, sir -- he is the senior vice president of Aerospace Service International, which specializes in aviation security. And I want to welcome both of you to the show.
Mr. Fallows, you say November 28 will go down in history as a more defining day in airline history than September 11. Why is that?
JAMES FALLOWS, "THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY": Well I said it could. I hope I'm wrong about this, but the logic is, what happened on September 11 was horrific, but probably is never going to happen again. We saw already by the fourth plane on September 11 that passengers realized they could keep this from happening, they could keep planes from being used as flying bombs.
What happened on November 28, Thanksgiving day, when there were these missiles fired at the Israeli plane, is something that happened in some form before over the years, but it likely to happen, I think, more and more often. And sooner or later, it's likely that a plane will be brought down, a civilian airliner will be brought down. And I think there'll be a whole different calculation of how people think about flying, if and when that actually occurs.
NEVILLE: Now this is not the first time this has happened. Why is it so important now and how vulnerable are American airlines?
FALLOWS: Well, I think these are two separate issues. What is more important now, I think, is the context, where there have been, especially in Africa over the last two decades, there have been a number of planes brought down by missiles. But in the current sense of the U.S. and its allies being vulnerable to attack by a variety of terrorists, including al Qaeda, it seems like a different calculation.
The problem for the airlines is it's very, very hard to think of anything they can do to protect themselves. Airliners are big and robust, and one little rocket might not bring them down. But they can't really take evasive measures or behave like military aircraft. And so if this starts to become a successful scenario, there's not much the airlines can do.
NEVILLE: But Mr. Hadar, come on, is there anything the airlines here in America can do to protect themselves?
JALAL HAIDAR, AEROSPACE SERVICES INTERNATIONAL: Absolutely not. Carriers or air carriers can't do this on their own. This is not a matter of airline or aviation security. It goes way beyond that.
But, yes, something can be done that would be ground based. And that is something that would be part of the aviation security visionary. It is not just something that -- let's not focus on the microaspect of this threat. It's an emerging threat, it's not new threat. But the airlines, on their own themselves, cannot do it.
NEVILLE: Why do you say that? What sort of help would they need?
HAIDAR: Well, of course, you know, aviation security has been proven now that it's part of our national security process or cycle. This is not, again -- trying to bring down a civilian airliner is not a matter of aviation security as we understand it or as the world understands it. Because, let's face it, we have a limited understanding of aviation security.
Aviation security is much wider and much more complex than what people think. To answer you, just, airlines are not equipped financially, technologically or even from a security perspective to carry out this job.
NEVILLE: OK. But, sir, are you saying that then the airlines are just going to be vulnerable and that's that?
HAIDAR: Absolutely, but the vulnerability level varies from one geographical region in the world to another.
FALLOWS: I wonder if I could jump in here for a second?
NEVILLE: Sure.
FALLOWS: I think the way to think about this is that, we can hope that nothing more like this will happen. We can hope that nobody will hit a big civilian airliner, and that civilian airlines travel will continue. But it is conceivable there'll be a kind of Hindenburg event, where a big enough airplane with enough people on it will go down in a visible enough way that there'll be a real distinctive before and after calculation on how people think about air travel, especially international air travel.
And the challenges -- if you're trying to think technologically of a way to prevent this, it is really hard. I mean the airlines have to fly low before they land. It's a hard problem.
HAIDAR: I think it's a matter...
NEVILLE: Mr. Haidar, if you could excuse me, I have to take a break right now. I definitely will get you in after the break, as well as you, Luke (ph), in the audience. We'll talk more about living in the age of terror in just a minute.
Don't forget I'll be taking your calls on the question of the day: Has the economy affected your holiday shopping habits? You can give me a call or you can e-mail me. And we're back in a moment. Don't go anywhere.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. We're talking about missiles being used to target civilian planes. And Mr. Haidar, I promised I'd let you go first. Go ahead, sir.
HAIDAR: I disagree with Mr. Fallows about the possibility of hitting another civilian aircraft or attempting to do so. I think it's a matter of time. I'm afraid to say, possibly a short time, before a disaster takes place that could be the result of a missile attack. There are too many loose missiles in the wrong hands in the world, and that is dangerous.
NEVILLE: And these things can be -- can they be shot from any place?
HAIDAR: They could be either ground or shoulder-based. And they travel very high up, considerably.
NEVILLE: But Mr. Haidar -- I'm sorry, I'm running out of time here. But if you're thinking this, surely the government is looking into this. So they're not just going to let the airlines be sitting ducks.
HAIDAR: Airlines, again, cannot do anything about it. This is the responsibility of the government or governments. I think, though, we are less vulnerable in the U.S. than other geographic regions around the world, because of, you know, the overall security environment in the U.S.
We're much less vulnerable. U.S. carriers can be vulnerable overseas; not in the U.S.
NEVILLE: Luke (ph) from Wisconsin. Go ahead, sir.
LUKE: Yeah, I was wondering, do either of our guests here have any idea what the governments could go theoretically to prevent this? I mean, it is kind of a small thing for our government, our military to even work with, because you're only working, maybe, with trying to defend against two or three people and one launcher?
NEVILLE: OK. Mr. Fallows, if you could answer that for me.
FALLOWS: Right. Here's why this is hard to do. If you live in a big city, you see the long (UNINTELLIGIBLE) airplane goes down before it lands. Almost any place along the last couple miles of that path you could fire at it from the ground. And so unless you can really secure a several mile radius of the airport, which you just can't do, it really is impossible to prevent this. You can catch them after it's fired, but you really can't prevent it, I think.
NEVILLE: Jim Fallows and Jalal Haidar, thank you very much for joining us here today on TALKBACK LIVE. Thank you.
And up next, I'm taking your phone calls and e-mails and the question of the day to all you shoppers out there. Has the economy changed your holiday spending habits this year? TALKBACK LIVE continues after this break.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. I'm Arthel Neville. It is time for the question of the day. Has the economy affected your holiday shopping habits? We have some e-mails coming in now I want to share with you.
From Beth in Tennessee: "If it's not on sale, we're not buying. We are definitely only using cash and spending much smaller this year." Thank you, Beth, for writing in.
And hey, look, Anthon is writing in saying, "I will continue to do my part to help the economy by spending what I can for the holidays. I think the worst thing for the economy is everyone being so paranoid about it."
And in Minnesota, Dana's (ph) on the line. What do you say, Dana?
DANA: Hey.
NEVILLE: Dana, you have to speak up for me, please, so I can hear you.
DANA: OK. We're making our Christmas gifts this year by hand. Knitting and sewing.
NEVILLE: Dana (ph), that's a good idea, I think.
OK. Listen, we are out of time right now. Thanks to all of you for watching. I'm Arthel Neville. I'll be back again tomorrow at 3:00 Eastern, 12:00 Pacific, with more TALKBACK LIVE.
Judy Woodruff is next with "INSIDE POLITICS." Thanks for watching.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Inevitable?>
|
