|
CNN TALKBACK LIVE
Did Blix's Report Satisfy Anyone? Will the U.S. Decide to Take on Iraq Alone?
Aired January 27, 2003 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ARTHEL NEVILLE, HOST: Today on TALKBACK LIVE, it's the day of reckoning for Iraq as chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, reports to the United Nations. Did the report satisfy anyone? And will the U.S. decide to take on Iraq alone? We'll have reaction from the U.N. and the White House.
Then, Democrats step all over the president's State of the Union address and deliver what's being called a prebuttal. They say Mr. Bush still needs to make a convincing case for war with Iraq. Will you be listening for that tomorrow night or are you already convinced?
The talk starts right now.
And hello every one and welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville. We join you today from the newsroom at CNN headquarters in Atlanta as we cover developing news story focus Iraq.
Now earlier today, U.N. chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, delivered his report on Iraq to the United Nations. And in just a few minutes, Secretary of State Colin Powell is expected to hold a news conference. And of course, we will bring that to you in a just moments.
But right now, let's look at where things stand. Now, Blix told the Security Council that while Iraq hasn't stood in his way, large quantities of chemical and biological weapons remain missing.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HANS BLIX, CHIEF U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: The inspection is not a game of catch as catch can. Rather, as I noted, it is a process of education for the purpose of creating confidence. It is not build upon the premise of trust. Rather, it is designed to lead to trust if there is both openness to inspectors and action to...
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: OK. We're going to go to the State Department's briefing room to listen to Colin Powell's comments.
(INTERRUPTED BY CNN COVERAGE OF LIVE EVENT)
NEVILLE: OK. We've been listening to Secretary of State Colin Powell addressing the press hours after chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, submitted his latest report to the U.N. and time seems to be a running theme here. Head of the IAEA, Mohammed ElBaradei is saying the inspectors need more time, possibly months, and Powell is saying, Listen, time is not the time the inspectors need to search in the dark but rather, how much time it's going to take Iraq to come and bring things to the light.
I want to bring in United Nations correspondent Richard Roth right now to talk about this a little further. First of all, how are those words ringing through the halls at the U.N.?
RICHARD ROTH, CNN U.N. CORRESPONDENT: Well, a lot of countries have a different view than Secretary of State Colin Powell. They believe that more time should be granted to the inspectors, ambassadors from Russia, China, France, Germany, all saying that they want Iraq to cooperate more with Hans Blix and his inspectors, but that it's too soon to cut off their mission. Germany noting the inspectors have been given broader power than they've ever had before; that their tools have been sharpened. Russia says, Let's see what happens. Let's keep going. China, also, the same.
Mohammed ElBaradei of the International Atomic Energy Agency asked for months. He said it's a good investment for peace. This as Blix and ElBaradei noted significant areas where Iraq is not cooperating -- Arthel.
NEVILLE: Yes, because I wanted to talk about those areas of concern on the part of Blix and ElBaradei, if you could expound a little bit on that for us, Richard.
ROTH: Well, as Secretary Powell asked, Where is the anthrax? Where is the VX? There are significant quantities of these chemical and biological agents that the United Nations inspectors want Iraq to account for.
How was it destroyed, as Baghdad has said. Where did it go? There are two big areas. Why did an Iraqi scientist have 3, 000 pages of nuclear documents in his home? Some sort of tip or information led them to the inspector a couple of days ago, and he came out of the house with them.
Why is Iraq not allowing U-2 reconnaissance overflights and putting conditions down? And a big one: why are Iraqi scientists not able to talk in private inside Iraq to the United Nations weapons inspectors? Eleven attempts and 11 times, apparently, the Iraqi scientists insist on having an Iraqi minder present. Obviously, a lot of fear among the scientists -- Arthel.
NEVILLE: OK. Richard Roth, thank you so much.
And right now we'll find out what they're saying in Baghdad. CNN's senior international correspondent Nic Robertson is there. And Nic, go ahead and tell us the reaction to Blix's report over there.
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN SR. INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Arthel, it's strange here and unusual even to get quick reaction to something like this. But we're already seeing on the TV channel run by President Saddam Hussein's son here, Shababel (ph), youth TV, as its known, we've seen a commentary program and an analyst on that programing saying that Hans Blix wasn't fair, he wasn't professional and that he focused on the negative.
Now we know that Iraqi officials have been saying that they were expecting the report given to the U.N. to be grave, and it does seem to have come out to be a darker shade of gray than perhaps they first imagined. Certainly their ambassador to the U.N., Mohammad Aldouri, said Iraq had been doing everything to cooperate. That's what Hans Blix has said he needed more of; Iraq's ambasaador saying they were doing that already.
He also said, the ambassador said, that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MOHAMMED ALDOURI, IRAQ AMBASSADOR TO THE U.N.: There is no and will never be such a record of this, of disarmament for any other nation in the history. I would also like to refresh your memories that the former American president Clinton declared after the Desert Fox aggression that he had, by bombing in Iraq in 1998, destroyed all the alleged weapons of mass destruction sites.
Since then, and until Mr. Bush decided to make an issue out of Iraq, all the U.S. intelligence reports stated that Iraq did not restore its weapons capabilities.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERTSON: Now just to give you an idea as well, the sort of contacts and the background that this is playing into here in Baghdad. Just in the last couple of minutes, literally, President Saddam Hussein has been seen on television talking with top military officials, asking them if they're ready, asking them about morale, telling them to be prepared, telling them to not to be afraid of the United States forces.
So really the country here looking towards the possibility of war, Arthel.
NEVILLE: But Nic, what about the people of Baghdad? Are they prepared for the possibility of war?
ROBERTSON: You know, those that can are trying to. There's not a lot of money in Baghdad anymore. A lot of their families that had money in 1990 -- in the 1990s were able to make preparations for the last Gulf War. This time, the economy has been so bad since the Gulf War, the money isn't there.
But people are doing what they can. Some people are buying a little extra food, putting it in their house. You know, surprisingly, a lot of people even, very senior people, people you wouldn't expect to take this type of precaution, are digging wells in their back gardens. And, you know, what happened during the last Gulf War -- the bombing knocked out electricity; electricity took out the water pumping. Nobody had water their homes. These are concerns for Iraqis. No water, no food. How are they going to feed their children?
Very real concerns at this time, Arthel.
NEVILLE: And Nic, are they acting on their own or can you tell us a little bit more about what Saddam Hussein said to the people and to military personnel via that television address?
ROBERTSON: Well, you know, the address by President Saddam Hussein this evening is really -- is one of his televised appearances. We've seen a lot these recently -- his sitting around a long table with military advisers.
He's not speaking with the people, but the message is to the people. Last night we saw military units preparing on the television. We saw tanks out in training. We saw military servicemen saying that they were prepared to fight to the death for the country and the president. So the message is coming through for the people from the leadership, the potential for war is there.
Now, a lot of people here -- there's new law has been passed. You know, you cannot alter military papers, try and dodge the draft, essentially. Big penalties for that -- 10 to 15 years in jail. The message loud and clear for the people here is, War could be coming. Be ready.
NEVILLE: OK. Nic Robertson, live from Baghdad, thank you so much for that report.
In the meantime, I want to know what do you think about the weapons report? Have you heard enough to convince you that it's time for war? That's our "Question of the Day." Go ahead and give me a call at 1-800-310-4cnn or you can e-mail me at talkback@cnn.com.
Then, don't go anywhere because I want to know what you think about Democratic lawmakers Nancy Pelosi and Tom Daschle rebutting the State of the Union address a full day before the president even delivers it.
Stay right there. The talk continues after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE. We're live from the newsroom on this busy news day. We're talking about whether the U.S. now has enough evidence to move into Iraq.
Joining us now, Bernard McGuirk, a producer and cast member of the "Imus in the Morning" program radio show. He's a conservative who says that he needs a lot more convincing. And Mark Simone, a convinced conservative, is host of the "Mark Simone Show" on WABC radio in New York. Welcome to both of you, gentlemen.
MARK SIMONE, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Thank you. NEVILLE: All right, Bernard, you just heard Secretary Powell's speech. He's speaking to the press, but you were listening. I want to know if you are you convinced now.
BERNARD MCGUIRK, "IMUS IN THE MORNING": Well actually I'm not convinced. My concern is whether or not there's a -- you know, the imminent threat that they talked about last fall when they first introduced this whole -- when they ratcheted up all this war talk. And, by the way, I just want to preface it again. I was for the Gulf War, I voted for Bush 41, voted for Bob Dole, voted for Bush 43.
I can't stand Sean Penn. I think he makes Mike Tyson look like a nuclear physicist. And Barbra Streisand, you know she's a half a cross-eyed moron who should stick to singing. Having said that, I don't see the clear and present danger. I think we owe it to our service men to have that as a barometer; to put them into harm's way only when there's a clear and present danger to the United States or United States citizens somewhere. And I don't see that anywhere.
NEVILLE: Well Mark, what about you?
MARK SIMONE, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Well there is a clear and present danger. We know that terrorists are plotting a bioterrorist attack. We've already stopped two or three of them in the world. And Saddam Hussein has got the largest stockpile of bioterrorist weapons and he's also cooperated with every major terrorist group in the world.
He's given money to Hamas, Hezbollah. He admits to this, and who knows what he's giving that he doesn't admit to. So if you're going after bioterrorism, obviously you'd want to get the biggest supplier in the world before he does something with it.
MCGUIRK: What evidence do we have that Saddam Hussein supplied any sort of biochemical weapons to al Qaeda or anybody that ever perpetrated a terrorist attack against the United States?
SIMONE: Well, again, we know he's given $25,000 to every suicide bomber family. That's the part he admits too. And we know...
MCGUIRK: Sure, of course. I mean, the United States, though.
SIMONE: Well, we know he's got the bioterrorist weapons.
MCGUIRK: They can't seem to find them. Excuse me for interrupting. Go ahead, Mark.
SIMONE: Well he can't seem to find them because he's had four years without inspections and a desert to hide them in. And if you think 12 middle-aged guys in two SUVs are going to search a whole country in a couple of weeks -- and this is under the assumption that he's hiding them in buildings, which is all they're serving.
MCGUIRK: But this is a fundamental question. He's not a radical fundamentalist Muslim bent on destroying the West. He's a secular regional dictator... NEVILLE: Bernard, let me jump in here and ask you this: do you think that further inspections would help avoid a war?
MCGUIRK: Well absolutely. I mean I'd like to see them discover a nuclear missile with the United States written on it. You know, New York City or Washington, D.C. or L.A. or something. Short of that, I don't think has -- he doesn't have the history nor the desire to attack the United States.
He's not crazy. He wants to stay in power. He's not interested in dying in a cave for some cause.
He embraces the Western culture. He likes Frank Sinatra and Viagra. And I have not seen him as a threat directly to the United States. I don't think it warrants putting anybody, any soldier in harm's way, no matter how negligible the casualties may be. One casualty in this war, if it's under a false premise, is wrong.
SIMONE: But you're saying that we know he's a bad guy, we know he's done some awful things, but he won't come here and attack us. We tried that strategy with Osama bin Laden and it didn't work.
MCGUIRK: You see that's where...
SIMONE: I mean he's cooperated with every major terrorist group. Maybe he hasn't with al Qaeda yet, but are you honestly trusting him to safeguard that stockpile of weapons for the next dozen years?
MCGUIRK: This is where I have a problem with the Bush administration. By the way, I like Bush, but they tried the same thing. To dishonestly equate Saddam Hussein with 9/11 and Osama bin Laden. There's no connection there whatsoever.
But when President Bush gave the speech to the U.N. on September 12, exploiting the anger and emotion over 9/11, on September 12, a day after the one-year anniversary of 9/11, I think that's dishonest. And if you ask the average person in the street, they think Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11. It's because of behavior like that and people like Rush Limbaugh -- irresponsible chicken hawks (ph) like Rush Limbaugh perpetuating that myth, and that's wrong.
SIMONE: Well I don't think you can blame Rush for that. But on September 20, Bush made that great speech to all of America, and he said we're going after al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas and all terrorist groups. And we know for a fact that Hussein has cooperated and funded some of these terrorist groups. Abu Nidal, the greatest terrorist in the world, was harbored in Iraq until he died.
MCGUIRK: Let's go after them, but let's not have street-to- street fighting with our troops in Baghdad trying to depose Saddam Hussein. Let's contain him.
NEVILLE: Then how do you do it, Bernard? What do you do?
MCGUIRK: Well you do what you're doing right now. Weapons inspections, and, if need be -- I mean, if you do find something, if you have intelligence as to where some of these stockpiles are, bomb them. But in the meantime...
SIMONE: But this is where the confusion is with the public. They think the point of the inspections is to find the weapons. It's not. The point is to find the proof that they disarmed. And so far they can't find any evidence of that.
MCGUIRK: Well if you go back even further, the bottom line is, we're supposedly defending the United States against a clear and present danger. Ted Kennedy, even a drunken squirrel gets a nut -- finds a nut once in a while. The clear and present danger, the imminent threat is not there. And that's the bill of goods they sold us last fall, and I personally am still waiting to see it.
NEVILLE: Bernard, do you think there would be any backlash if there were war? Backlash on the U.S.?
MCGUIRK: I believe so. When the body bags start coming back, if down the line in the future we end up finding nothing there, and that there was no threat, and we got bogged down in some sort of a quagmire, no question there would be a backlash. I mean, you know, I'd be the first to throw a backlash against the Bush administration myself.
NEVILLE: More specifically, Mark, though, if there were to be a backlash, what sort of backlash are we talking about?
SIMONE: Well, you know it depends how successful we are. I think, first of all, that if we are successful, that everybody, including Arab nations, will be glad that he's gone. He's a threat to everybody obviously in his own region.
You know a lot of people might not want to say they're for this war. France has business interest there, Russia has business interest there, China does. So they -- you know, they've got reasons not to go to war. But when it's all over, I'm sure they'll all be happy.
MCGUIRK: You see that's the other problem. There's a lot of hidden agendas here. He is a regional threat. He's a threat to his neighbors, to Kuwait, to Turkey, to Israel.
And France and Russia do have oil contracts with Saddam. And once he's deposed, the Americans will get those contracts. And that's another reason why it's a win situation. So it's a win for Israel, it's a win for oil contracts.
It closes -- it puts some closure on the Bush 41 Gulf War. And plus it's -- politically, it's a no-brainer for them that the poll numbers stay high. But that's the win-win-win situation. But there's no clear and present danger, imminent threat, which is what they tried to convey to us, in my opinion, dishonestly, especially by rationing up the war talk the day after the first anniversary of 9/11.
SIMONE: You know you could say the same think about Osama bin Laden in the year 2000. That there was no imminent danger to us here in America.
MCGUIRK: You cannot.
SIMONE: And to claim that this is about oil is ridiculous. Vietnam was not about rice and the Civil War not about cotton. It's not about oil.
MCGUIRK: No, oil is one factor. It's another added benefit. But look, Osama bin Laden had a history. The Khobar towers in Saudi Arabia, the USS Cole, and United States embassies in Africa.
He had a history. Give me one example of an Iraqi terrorist act against the United States. You can't do it.
NEVILLE: And you know what? Unfortunately, Bernard, I'm not going to allow Mark the chance to do that because we are out of time. Bernard McGuirk, thank you very much. Mark Simone, good to see both of you. Thanks so much for joining us here today on TALKBACK LIVE.
SIMONE: Thanks.
NEVILLE: And stay tuned, because the Democrats make a preemptive strike on the president's State of the Union message. What do you want to hear tomorrow tonight? We'll hear from two political consultants who will tell us what President Bush needs to say.
Don't go anywhere. The "Talk" continues after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE. We are live in the newsroom today.
Now tomorrow night President Bush delivers his State of the Union address. In it he's expected to lay out his case for going after Iraq's Saddam Hussein. Instead of waiting around for the traditional Democratic response that generally follows the president's speech, democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi and Tom Daschle decided to make their move now, more than a full day before the president's speaks. And they think they found some soft spots.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. TOM DASCHLE (D-SD), MINORITY LEADER: The two crucial questions the president needs to answer on Iraq are, first, does Saddam Hussein pose a threat to national security so imminent that it justifies putting American lives at risk to get rid of him? And, second, how are our efforts to deal with this threat helped by short- circuiting an inspections process that we demanded in the first place?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: OK. Let's get into it right now with Republican political consultant Tara Setmayer and former DNC communications director Kiki McLean. She's a Democratic political consultant who has worked with Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Joe Lieberman. I want to welcome both of you to TALKBACK LIVE.
KIKI MCLEAN, POLITICAL CONSULTANT: Thank you, Arthel.
TARA SETMAYER, POLITICAL CONSULTANT: Thank you.
NEVILLE: All right. Tara, do you agree with Daschle or disagree?
SETMAYER: Well, I mean they're singing the same old song and dance, because they don't have an agenda of their own. I mean it's very obvious here why we need to do what we're doing here with our military actions against Iraq.
NEVILLE: It's not very obvious to everyone, Tara. The polls are showing that not everybody is convinced.
SETMAYER: Well I disagree with that. I think what happens is that there is so much demagoguing of this issue, and that the focus of the threat that Saddam Hussein poses not only to our national security but to the world as a whole is very obvious. It's that people -- the ones that have interests here that don't want to see this won't.
This man has completely violated the resolution that was passed, he is not cooperating. The reason why the inspectors found what they found with the 12 chemical warheads was because the CIA gave them a tip. The inspections process that we demanded is -- we're going through the process because it's to satisfy...
NEVILLE: OK, Tara. I don't want you to go off too much on the inspections process here. I do want to talk about this speech tomorrow night. And bringing Kiki into the conversation, what do you think Americans want to hear more about, Kiki, Iraq or affairs at home?
MCLEAN: Well I think they want to hear about both because one will affect the other. They recognize now that there is no budget surplus under President Bush. That it's gone. They recognize, and the president even recognizes that they understand this now, that the tax plan and the stimulus package he has proposed is going to plunge us further into deficits.
And this begins to affect the secondary issues: health care, education, things that he tried to make his hallmark. I think that one of the things that leader Daschle and Congresswoman and leader Pelosi did well at the lunch today was they put the question out there about a credibility gap. That George Bush will talk about one thing but he's got no follow-up.
And that's where Iraq also begins to affect those issues. For instance, he made a huge to do last year on the passage of Leave No Child Behind, his education reform bill. Worked on bipartisanship, brought Ted Kennedy with him. Well a year later Ted Kennedy didn't go to the one-year anniversary. Why? Because Bush and his administration haven't funded that program.
Why haven't they funded that program? Well now there's no surplus because of his tax cut. And with Iraq, we're going to go further in debt. Let me make one comment, though. As a Democrat, I'm somebody who believes that Saddam Hussein actually poses a threat. I think what we cannot do is go in unilaterally without a delegation of support around us from around the world. And I think that George Bush actually recognizes that he's got to give this speech tomorrow night and address that. That speech will be heard around the rest of the world, not just in America, Arthel.
NEVILLE: Let me move this along now. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi says we need to be taking a closer look at the economy.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), HOUSE MINORITY LEADER: Last year President Bush told the nation in his State of the Union address that his economic plan could be summarized in a single word: jobs. Unfortunately, his record could be summed up in one phrase: loss of jobs. Since President Bush took office two years ago, a total of 2.3 million private sector jobs have been lost. The worst record of job creation for any president since the end of World War II.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: So, Tara, do you think Americans want to hear more of the three-letter word, J-O-B and not W-A-R?
SETMAYER: Of course. And they have every right to. But we need not to blame President Bush for the reason why jobs have been lost. First of all, there has been economic growth for the past two years. Slow, but it is growing. We are not in a recession.
President Bush's economic stimulus package will affect the most hit Americans, middle-income Americans. A family of four making $39,000 a year will receive $1,100 in tax relief this year. This is something that helps our citizens. Also, in his economic stimulus package, there is -- the jobs, the unemployment benefits have been extended, which is a platform that the Democrats wanted to see passed.
(CROSSTALK)
MCLEAN: Tara, it's interesting...
SETMAYER: Can I finish? Thank you. Under the economic stimulus package there is tax cuts for small businesses. Small businesses create 99 percent of the work force. Two out of three new jobs are created by small businesses. So if President Bush is putting forth -- and he needs to make a more convincing case, I do agree, because the Democrats, who have demagogued this issue again, keep saying this is a tax cut for the wealthy, which is not true at all.
NEVILLE: OK. Kiki, I'll give you 15 seconds -- Kiki.
MCLEAN: Leader Pelosi made a really important statement, which is tomorrow night's speech is important, but what will be more important is the budget he puts forward and what that tells people about their prospects of growing this economy and making more jobs. I hate to break it to Tara, but, you know what? If you get the big, fancy house on Pennsylvania Avenue to live in, you take responsibility for the jobs that are lost. And...
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: And that is the last word. Tara Setmayer, Kiki McLean, thank you both for joining us today here on TALKBACK LIVE. Good to see both of you.
MCLEAN: Thanks.
NEVILLE: And coming up next, what are people buzzing about on AOL? Iraq, the economy or something else? We're going to find out. Don't go anywhere. The "Talk" continues after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. It's time now to find out what's buzzin' at AOL with Regina Lewis. She's joined us right here in the newsroom, CNN's Atlanta headquarters right here in Atlanta. Good to see you in person and in the newsroom.
REGINA LEWIS, AOL "BUZZ INDEX": Well thank you. Yes, great to be here.
NEVILLE: All right. So, let's see. I'd imagine first up they're buzzing about showdown Iraq.
LEWIS: Yes. Actually, we're going to do it in reverse order.
NEVILLE: Oh we are? OK, go right ahead.
LEWIS: No. 5, this one's interesting because it's placed every Monday: dieting. Apparently this is the day that everybody decides they're really, really going to do it.
NEVILLE: I'm really going to start.
LEWIS: So Atkins, Weight Watchers, pilates, yoga, all of those are (UNINTELLIGIBLE) search term data. It will be interesting to see where they are come Wednesday, Thursday.
NEVILLE: And definitely Friday -- right.
LEWIS: Right. Big falloff later in the week. No. 4, on a much more serious note, is the tragedy surrounding Laci Peterson. One of the neat things that people can do there, if you go to the official lacipeterson.com Web site, is sign the guest book and send well wishes to the family. So nice to see a big online outpouring there.
NEVILLE: Sure, absolutely.
LEWIS: And in the third slot is the Super Bowl. It was all about the ads.
NEVILLE: Was there a big game yesterday or something? LEWIS: Yes. You know, the ads, the ads, the ads. And so if you walked out of the room and missed one, you can actually watch them online. AOL broadband has them all aggregated. So that's kind of fun.
NEVILLE: What was your favorite?
LEWIS: Well I actually -- I did like the ones where the Osbournes turned into the Osmonds.
NEVILLE: Oh that was good. That was clever.
LEWIS: And apparently the online crowd agrees. That was the clear favorite.
In the No. 2 slot, your point, Iraq. All about Iraq. And interestingly, this is about protests. If you think about it, it's fascinating to me that for the first Gulf War in 1991 the Internet was in its infancy. Now, 60 percent of America is online. So it will be interesting to see the role that this medium has in a wartime situation.
We're seeing a lot of virtual protests. Ben Cohen, the Ben & Jerry's founder, who's a big liberal activist, who's slated to air an ad tomorrow night with Susan Sarandon, a very dramatic antiwar ad, that organization also has a Web site where they have a form letter that starts with "I'm a concerned citizen." You fill out a couple basic things and off the letter goes to Congress and the president. So it's never been easier or more convenient to protest, and a lot of people are doing that.
NEVILLE: Right.
LEWIS: And No. 1 is the showdown, is the war itself and breaking news. Interestingly, in a very big online poll -- two million people took on AOL -- 66 percent now fear war is inevitable.
NEVILLE: Well, listen, they are always buzzing on AOL. And I'm sure you will bring the buzz to us again next Monday.
LEWIS: I will.
NEVILLE: And I'll check your diet.
LEWIS: OK. Fair enough.
NEVILLE: Regina Lewis, good to see you. Thanks so much. And coming up next, I want to hear from you over the phones, or e-mail me about today's "Question of the Day." You've heard what Hans Blix had to say. Is there enough evidence for the U.S. to go to war?
Go ahead and give me a call: 1-800-310-4CNN, or e-mail me at talkback@CNN.com. We're back after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. It's time for the "Question of the Day." Is there now enough evidence for the U.S. to go to war with Iraq, or should the U.S. hold off and give the inspectors more time to locate those missing biological and chemical weapons?
Lots of e-mail is coming in on this one. Going first now -- R.J. says, "The U.N. report reaffirmed there is no evidence that Iraq poses any threat. When will we realize that Bush will stop at nothing to wage war, even if it means exchanging U.S. blood for Iraqi oil."
Another e-mail coming in now. Adam in Delaware says, "Resolution after resolution, Iraq does not comply. They do just enough to avoid conflict, but we have a leader that is not willing to accept that. Bush is just looking out for our safety."
Another e-mail coming in now. Let's see. Sullivan in North Carolina says, "There is not enough evidence to go to war with Iraq. This new policy of preemptive warfare on the part of the United States can, and I believe will, have dire consequences."
Time for one more I think. Let's see. Coming in now, Hilar in Toronto says, "It's time to remove that cruel and dangerous dictator from Iraq. I only hope that my country will stands behind yours when the moment arrives."
Thanks so much for the e-mails. And we are out of time for today. Thanks for watching.
I want to let you know tomorrow at 3:00 Eastern the polls in Israel will be closing, and Christine Amanpour will be in Jerusalem to host a special report on the Israeli elections. Please join Christine then.
Tomorrow night, be sure to watch the president's State of the Union address live right here on CNN. I'm Arthel Neville. I'll see you Wednesday.
"INSIDE POLITICS" up next.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Take on Iraq Alone?>
|
