|
CNN TALKBACK LIVE
Case For War: Are You Convinced?
Aired February 5, 2003 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ARTHEL NEVILLE, HOST (voice-over): Secretary of State Colin Powell tries to exchange secrets for support.
COLIN POWELL, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: We know from Iraq's past admissions that it is successfully weaponized not only anthrax but also other biological agents, including botulinum toxin, aflutoxin and Ricin.
Saddam Hussein has investigated dozens of biological agents, causing diseases such as gas gangrene, plague, typhus, tetanus, cholera, camel pops, hemorrhagic fever. And he also has the wherewithal to develop smallpox.
NEVILLE: Did Powell prove to you that Iraq's president, Saddam Hussein, is a menace and must go?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: Hello, everybody. Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville.
Counter-terrorism officials say the U.S. is under a heightened threat of a terrorist attack at this hour, and while the alert status remains at Code Yellow, one official tells CNN they are acting as if bombs are already falling on Iraq.
How concerned should you be? Well, joining us now is CNN correspondent Jeanne Meserve.
Jeanne?
JEANNE MESERVE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Arthel, there is, as you mentioned at this point in time, heightened concern about the possibility of a terrorist attack on U.S. soil and for a couple of different reasons.
One, the flow of intelligence information is very high right now.
Secondly, the Haaj, one of the five pillars of the Islamic faith will be observed February 10 through 13.
And third, war may be looming with Iraq. Now, despite these concerns, as you mentioned, the national threat level remains right where it has been at the elevated level or yellow.
Gordon Jondreau (ph), a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security, says, "There are no plans at this time to raise the national threat level. It is evaluated daily based on the intelligence available at the time. However, we remain concerned about continued al Qaeda activity overseas, as well as al Qaeda sympathizers here in the United States."
One administration official says the intelligence gathered at this point has not yet crossed the threshold to raise the threat level.
But another senior counter-terrorism official is telling CNN's Kelli Arena, quote, "Our guys have been told to act as if we've already bombed Iraq." One source saying we're holding our breath because of Iraq, saying he not been this concerned since September 11.
Kelli's sources indicate their concerned about an attack by al Qaeda, Iraqi governments agents or sympathizers to either cause acting on their own. And an administration official telling me all the agencies of the federal government are preparing to fight terrorism no matter who the enemy might be -- Arthel.
NEVILLE: Jean, what are the officials doing about these threats?
MESERVE: Well, of course, they're gathering intelligence and they are analyzing that. As the statement from the Department of Homeland Security indicates, that happens at least on a daily basis if not even more frequently.
In addition, there are people under surveillance. There are some Iraqi intelligence officers, people believed to be Iraqi intelligence officials, being closely watched by law enforcement in the U.S. at this point. A handful of them.
In addition, about 1,000 Iraqis who were thought to be sympathizers with Saddam Hussein, who are in this country, are under surveillance of some sort -- Arthel.
NEVILLE: All right. Jeanne Meserve, thank you very much for that update.
And of course, it was show and tell time for Secretary of State Colin Powell. He presented what he says is declassified evidence to the United Nations and the world that Iraq is hiding banned weapons, deceiving inspectors and remains a terrifying threat to the world.
The presentation included transcripts of intercepted conversations, satellite photos of alleged weapon sites and information gathered from informant and defectors. It's proof, Powell says, that Iraq's president, Saddam Hussein, has managed to get around the U.N. resolution to disarm.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
POWELL: Leaving Saddam Hussein in possession of weapons of mass destruction for a few more months or years is not an option. Not in the post-September 11 world.
My colleagues, over three months ago this council recognized that Iraq continued to pose a threat to international peace and security, and that Iraq had been and remained in material breach of its disarmament obligation.
Today, Iraq still poses a threat and Iraq still remains a material breach.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: Now will Powell's words sway nations reluctant to use military force against Iraq? Let's put some perspective on this speech.
With us today is former assistant secretary of defense Frank Gaffney. He is president of the Center for Security Policy. And former U.S. senator from Arizona, Dennis Deconcini. Want to welcome both of you.
And before we get to Powell's remarks and address, want to talk about that report we just heard from Jeanne Meserve, high level possible attacks or threats of attacks from possible al Qaeda members.
Frank, what do you make of that?
FRANK GAFFNEY, CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY: I'm afraid it's entirely possible that we would be subjected to further attacks.
The thing that has worried me about what arguably is the world's longest telegraphed punch against Iraq is that it does invite preemptive attack by him, using cut-outs, as I think he may have done in the past or through some other device.
I think there's reason to be concerned, and I trust that the U.S. government is seized with this problem.
NEVILLE: And, Dennis, of course you know, there are many detractors and skeptics out there. And there some people who might go as far as to say, wait a empty. Could this possibly be a ploy on the part of the administration to go ahead and gain more support for their invasion into Iraq?
DENNIS DECONCINI, FORMER ARIZONA SENATOR: In my experience working in the intelligence community for a number of years, I think it is appropriate to keep that level high when you have the uncertainty of when we're going to go to war against Iraq and when you have the uncertainty of the war on terrorism still being pursued vigorously by the administration and other nations.
So, you know, there's good reason to keep it there. And I don't think it's done for any sinister reason other than to keep people's awareness high and to keep those that are working in our national security area tuned into this subject matter and this problem.
NEVILLE: OK. Thank you, Senator.
Let's move on to Secretary of State Colin Powell's address earlier. France, reaction from France using words like "containment," saying give the inspectors all the info you have.
China is saying the same thing. Saying that enhanced regime of inspectors is needed. War is the last resort. Political solutions still possible.
And so Frank, I go to you again. Did France not hear what Powell had to say earlier?
GAFFNEY: I'm sure they heard it. It's not clear that they were listening.
The problem with France and for that matter, several of the other countries you've mentioned, Arthel, is that they have been running interference for Saddam Hussein for the past 12 years.
The reason we're in the fix we're in today is principally because many of these countries who saw Saddam as a client, wanted to do business with him, saw no reason to disrupt the relationship with him, have actually undermined every effort the United States and other countries in the Security Council have been trying to make actually to contain Saddam, let alone to get him to comply with these previous resolutions regarding his disarmament.
So I'm not surprised at what the French are doing. I don't think it can be allowed to prevent us from doing what the president has clearly understood needs to be done, which I think is the liberation of Iraq.
Frank, I know you say you're not surprised, but expound on it, if you will, why you think that France could be working somehow in conjunction with Iraq or trying to dissuade the idea of war for their own purposes.
GAFFNEY: I think there are a couple of reasons.
One is that there have been long-standing commercial ties with Iraq. I think they'd like to get back into business with Saddam.
Secondly, I think that you have understandable concerns about how this is going to work out. Will the large population of metropolitan France be somehow stimulated to act against the French government? They've preferred to try to appease people like this in the past.
And thirdly, I think there really is a resentment upon the part of France about what one of their ministers once called American hyperpower. Not just superpower, but our actual ability to be the preeminent power on the world stage today.
And I think all of these combine to make it less of a reliable ally than it has been in the past. And certainly it's someone we can't allow to prevent us from doing, as I said a moment ago, what we know needs to be done here, in the face of Saddam's unwillingness to disarm and the threat that he represents.
NEVILLE: Senator, what did you think about that notion of the idea of preventing the U.S. from becoming a hyperpower?
DECONCINI: Well, I don't think anybody is going to prevent us to do almost anything we decide we have to in our national security, and that's the way it should be.
I'm not quite as cynical about the French as my friend here, Frank, is. But I understand where he's coming from because I know that history and I know their involvement with Iraq for many, many years.
I think the French are looking for the attention. They want to be the peacemaker, if there is one here. They will be one of the first ones, I suspect, if the U.N. does vote to go to war who will be there, because they want to be on the landing bridge, they want to be there on the beach head, as they usually are, even though they take positions opposite the United States.
I think they're doing what the French often, often do on the national Security Council, and part of that is the French mentality. They are there because they were on the right side of the war. They got a permanent seat. They have a veto power, and they don't have much else to offer because they are not strong supporters of NATO. They haven't been strong with the United States against terrorism and other things.
However, they have attacked terrorism within their own country and done quite an excellent job of it that the United States has emulated in some instances. And certainly since 9/11 we have, because the French take it very seriously, about their internal securities.
So there is still a relationship here that I think will always be there with the French. But I don't think we have to count on them as being one of our staunchest allies. That's just not in the cards.
NEVILLE: OK. I have to take a break right now.
Coming up next: Does Saddam Hussein offer refuge to al Qaeda terrorists? I'll tell you how Powell linked Hussein to Osama bin Laden in a minute.
And you can tell us if Powell's indictment convinced you and made a case for war? It's our question of the day. Go ahead and give me a call at 1-800-310-4CNN, or course you can e-mail me at TalkBack@CNN.com.
And we are back after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: On TALKBACK LIVE, we're talking about Secretary of State Colin Powell's case for war against Iraq. Did he convince you? Can he convince the world?
Also you'll meet a man that says the space shuttle program must be shut down. Find out what he has against shuttle flights as TALKBACK LIVE continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back. We're talking about Secretary of State Colin Powell's indictment of Iraq presented to the U.N. Security Council today.
Now, along with accusing Iraq of violating the U.N.'s order to disarm, Powell went on to link Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda terrorists.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
POWELL: They say Saddam Hussein's secular tyranny and al Qaeda's religious tyranny do not mix. I am not comforted by this thought. Ambition and hatred are enough to bring Iraq and al Qaeda together.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE; Senator, do you believe that there is a link between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein?
DECONCINI: Yes, I do. And I know from past experience, not current, but past experience, that the regime there has been involved in terrorist activities, including with those located in what used to be or still is Afghanistan, but no longer under that regime.
I don't think there's any question that they've given refuge, they've given financial resources and perhaps weapons. I wouldn't be surprised at all.
I think there is a distinction. I don't know that it makes much difference.
They don't have camps there, training camps, as they did in Afghanistan. They are not conducting their training and developing the weapons inside Iraq. This means the al Qaeda or other terrorist activities. But they're friendly to them, and that's to me, just as severe and important for us to consider as the secretary proposed today that there is a link.
NEVILLE: OK. Let me go to Florida now where Dave is standing by on the phone.
You just heard what the senator said, saying that Iraq is friendly to al Qaeda terrorists, in fact, could possibly or maybe for sure, funding them financially. Is this enough to link al Qaeda to Saddam Hussein for you, Dave?
CALLER: Hello?
NEVILLE: All right, Dave, you didn't hear me.
Going on to Frank Gaffney.
CALLER: Hello?
NEVILLE: Thanks for calling, Dave.
CALLER: Yes, I'm sorry.
NEVILLE: Are you there? Go ahead.
CALLER: Yes, I'm sorry about that. No -- My position with this, I felt Mr. Powell was eloquent in his speaking, but I don't really think he made the case for war. In my opinion, he made more of a case for continuing inspections. Because the U.S. allowed the obligations against this country.
I think at the least, if you have this intelligence information, this information should be provided to the inspectors and allow them the opportunity to go in and prove your point if you have all this information.
Because you are committing U.S. troops and their lives and their safety. You don't just do that based on the information that Colin Powell has presented.
NEVILLE: OK, Dave, thank you for calling. And let's go to Frank Gaffney on that.
There was a debate inside of the administration as to how much information Powell should have divulged today. Do you think that it was enough or too much?
GAFFNEY: My concern was that it would be insufficient to persuade people like the French, who we were just talking about, but too much with respect to compromising the means by which we obtain that intelligence, which could prove a matter of life and death for American forces, if, as the caller just suggested, we wind up having to send them in to disarm Iraq forcibly.
You know, Arthel, in talking about the case that Colin Powell has made, I must tell you I think there's been a lot of talk in this town, as you know, since September 11, about connecting the dots. The dots in particular that we might have had as evidence that al Qaeda was going to use an aircraft to attack us on September 11, the quality of information that Colin Powell provided, and I hope it hasn't compromised our security that he did it, and I hope it will prove persuasive.
But the quality of information that he's provided is at least as high as what we had after -- in the run-up to September 11 about al Qaeda attacks.
And it is, I believe, for the open minded at least, sufficiently compelling to justify the course of action, I think the president knows needs to be taken. Namely, to use American-led forces, coalition of the willing to bring about the freedom of the people of Iraq and the end of this regime that will continue to produce these weapons if we don't stop it.
NEVILLE: Senator Deconcini, I have just a few moments left, want to give you some -- get some final thoughts from you.
DECONCINI: Well, you know, I agree with our national objective here. I don't think anybody is going to defend Saddam Hussein or the Iraqi regime.
But I do also agree with, so far, and I attribute it a lot to the president and certainly to Secretary of State, of convincing our government that we should go through the process that we are going through right now and not be out there on our own, going to do it, no matter what, no matter who says what. And that's very important.
And the reason it's so important is because when and if some other country takes military actions against Taiwan or the Republic of Georgia, or some other country, and they just say, well you know, we don't have to do it. It's in our national security.
We have to play by the rules. And he was convincing today. And Frank is right. What he said could jeopardize some national security sources, and that's always dangerous. But that's what you have to do.
Now his father, that's what he did before the last Gulf War. He released some of that material. Some of was leaked and accused from different sides of being leaked.
But in fact, it did persuade the American public and the world community that this was absolutely necessary now. Not next year. Not after some containment of Kuwait or whatever. Now.
And that's what Powell put forward today, in my judgment.
NEVILLE: OK, we are out of time. Frank Gaffney, Dennis Deconcini, Senator, thank you very much for joining us here.
And coming up next: what U.S. intelligence says about Iraq's development of biological and chemical weapons and the way these weapons are tested.
The TALK continues, after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. We are talking about Secretary Powell's speech before the United Nations today.
In making his case against Iraq, Powell pointed a horrifying picture of chemical and biological weapons development and a cruel leader who conducts human experiments on his own people.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
POWELL: Since the 1980s, Saddam's regime has been experimenting on human beings to perfect its biological or chemical weapons. A source said that 1,600 Death Row prisoners were transferred in 1995 to a special unit for such experiments. An eyewitness saw prisoners tied down to beds, experiments conducted on them, blood oozing around the victims' mouths and autopsies performed to confirm the effects on the prisoners.
Saddam's humanity -- inhumanity has no limits.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: OK. Let's meet our guests.
Former congressman from Georgia and CNN contributor Bob Barr and Bruce Shapiro, contributing editor of "The Nation." Welcome to both of you.
Those are really strong words there. Bruce, starting with you, definitely plays on your emotion. Do you think this will help convince skeptics?
BRUCE SHAPIRO, EDITOR, "THE NATION:" Well, playing on emotions is important here. You know, the secretary of state made a very eloquent case for Saddam Hussein as a producer of chemical weapons, as a brutal man, but we knew that going in.
There are really two questions coming out of today's talk. One of them: is Saddam Hussein a more imminent threat? Are his chemical weapons a more imminent threat than anyone realized, and I think the answer to that is no. There was no sense of new imminent threat to justify a war coming out today.
And secondly, can inspections work? You know, one of the interesting things that I took away from the secretary's remarks was the sense that if the inspectors are there on the ground, if they are backed up by United States cooperation and intelligence, which may or may not have happened up until now, the whole process of chemical weapons production gets disrupted.
Once we go to war, Saddam Hussein can sit there without inspectors, weaponized material in his bunkers. As long as the inspections process goes on, his cycle of production, his cycle of research gets disrupted. And we need to remember that.
That's one of the reasons that...
NEVILLE: So you're saying as long as the inspectors are present, then his cycle gets interrupted, so perhaps there's no need for military action.
SHAPIRO: Indeed, in fact to the contrary. That's one of the reasons that inspectors in the mid-'90s, even in a limited way, were much more effective at disposing of weapons of mass destruction than the Gulf War, which preceded it.
The fact of the matter is that inspections are a better way of dealing with this real problem. NEVILLE: Bob Barr, do you agree with that?
BOB BARR, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: I couldn't disagree more. The inspectors frequently are bumbling like Inspectors Clouseau over there. They are being played like a drum by this regime.
He's not going to change. I think that's apparent. And there's no way, in a country the size of Iraq with the capabilities that it already has to hide and deceive is going to change. Sending more inspectors over there is not going to do it. Sending the same inspectors back is not going to do it.
The only way that we are going to get rid of Saddam Hussein is to get rid of Saddam Hussein.
SHAPIRO: But getting rid of Saddam Hussein and getting rid his weapons are not necessarily the same goal. And I think, you know, the secretary today did not talk about getting rid of Saddam Hussein. The secretary of state talked about disarming Iraq and that's a good goal. Right?
Now I would like to see Iraq without Saddam Hussein. So would much of the rest of the world. But that's not what the United Nations has set as its mission. So let's keep those things separate.
NEVILLE: So what does that mean, Bruce?
BARR: Well, of course, it truly is irrelevant what the United Nations sets as its mission. It can do whatever it wants to do.
SHAPIRO: But the United Nations is quite relevant here.
BARR: Hold on. What we're talking about here is the national security interests of the United States and our allies, whether some of them realize it or not.
We are, in fact, threatened by this man, by this regime, by this capability and by the support that it continues to provide to terrorist groups, including al Qaeda.
Why anybody would sit here and say, facing all of that, we ought to sit back and let more inspectors go wandering around the countryside and have the wool pulled over their eyes is beyond me.
NEVILLE: OK. Hang on for me, Bruce. Manny (ph) here. So do you think the plan should be to disarm Saddam Hussein or get rid of Saddam Hussein?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Both. Disarmament and get rid of him. It's important to get rid of him because he's a dangerous threat to us.
NEVILLE: And do you think by getting rid of Saddam, is exile an option?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, no. NEVILLE: Going to the phones now, I have a caller calling in, Bo, who is calling from West Virginia. Bo, are you convinced that military action is necessary?
CALLER: Yes, I am. I am totally convinced. Powell made a very good case. They have a lot of evidence behind closed doors.
And there's a couple of comments I also wanted to make. I am a Persian Gulf War veteran, and I believe that no matter what happens, our country should support our troops, no matter what. These men and women are going in fighting for freedom of our country that we could actually talk like this and all these peace activists and everything, they have the right to do what they're doing because of our American troops.
NEVILLE: So your bottom line is what, Bo, before I get off? Bo, before we go, your quick bottom line.
CALLER: They've got something to hide. I think they have a lot of documents...
NEVILLE: Thank you so much for calling in. I do appreciate your call.
We have to take a break right now.
We've talked about the proof. Now what happens if the U.S. decides war is the only option in Iraq? We'll get to that question after this break. Don't go anywhere; the TALK continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MOHAMMED ALDOURI, IRAQI AMBASSADOR TO THE U.N.: Regarding the presentation of Mr. Powell, I believe that it was a set of accusations that could easily be refuted. We are committed to proactively cooperate with the inspections, as we have done since their return to Iraq.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: And we're talking about the case for war with Iraq, bringing Bob Barr back into the conversation now, listening to comments from Mohammed Aldouri, saying that Powell's words are lies, basically, incorrect allegations, assumptions and presumptions, all fall in line with the U.S.' main objectives.
So, I ask you, Bob, how does the average person decipher propaganda from wherever it may come from?
BARR: Well, I think the rule of thumb is, we trust our leaders and we don't trust the enemy's leaders.
NEVILLE: Mr. Barr, let me interrupt you now, because we're going to the U.N., where Kofi Annan is going to speak out. (JOINED IN PROGRESS)
KOFI ANNAN, U.N. SECRETARY-GENERAL: ... a very good discussion, followed by a working lunch. And I think I still believe that war is not inevitable, but a lot depends on President Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi leadership.
I think the message today has been clear: Everyone wants Iraq to be proactive in cooperating with the inspectors and fulfill the demands of the international community. And I think if they do that, we can avoid a war.
The inspectors are going back over the weekend carrying the message of the international community to the Iraqi authorities, and I urge them to listen and follow through on the demands, as I have said, for the sake of their own people, for the region, and for the sake of world order.
ANNAN: As far as my own visit to Baghdad is concerned, as you know, the question was posed in the council today and it's been posed -- has been floating around for a while. Let me say that the message that has been given to Iraq is very clear. That message has come from a united Security Council. It has come from the Arab League. It has come from its neighbors. And the inspectors are going back in the next few days to give them the same message in the name of a united international community. And they should listen to them.
If I were to go, I would not carry a different message, I'll be carrying the same message, and they should listen to Drs. Blix and ElBaradei. And I hope they do so.
QUESTION: Sir, would you give us your reaction, please, to the U.S. presentation today? Would you please us your reaction to the U.S. presentation today?
ANNAN: I think that the council members all reacted, and we followed up with discussions at lunch. And it is expected that the inspectors will take up the new information that secretary of state has given them. Some of it may be familiar with them. And they will factor that into their work, and when they are in Iraq they will pursue the leads that they have been given.
QUESTION: When are you going to go to Baghdad exactly?
ANNAN: I just said I'm not going. I'm not going. Yes, I'm not going to Baghdad, but the inspectors are going, and they should be listened to.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary General, after today's presentation are you convinced by the Americans' argument that Iraq is in material breach of OP 4 of 1441?
ANNAN: I just indicated that (inaudible) the discussions this morning, and the inspectors have been asked to follow through, and they will report back as part of their work.
QUESTION: Did you find the secretary's presentation persuasive, convincing?
ANNAN: I think secretary of state made a strong presentation to the council members. He was thorough and he took his time to do it.
QUESTION: Last time Mr. Blix and Mr. Baradei came to the Security Council each one of them presented his report, and each one of those two reports was received in a positive light and a negative light at the same time, depending on who was looking at it. Is there a mechanism that the U.N. could set in place whereby it would not be interpreted according to who is interpreting it?
ANNAN: Yes, obviously the report the inspectors brought to the council was not black and white. If you wish, as somebody said, it was gray, and that was to be expected given the nature of their work.
But as they keep presenting their reports to the council, depending upon what they come up with, the council will have to make a judgment at some stage as to whether Iraq is performing, is cooperating or it's not and they should declare material breach. But the judgment has to come someday. It's not up to the inspectors to declare material breach. They will present the facts, and it's up to the council to make that judgment.
QUESTION: How crucial will the report, the Blix and Baradei reports on the 14th of February become in light of today?
ANNAN: I think, given the developments since their last report on the 27th of January, this would also be an important report. Members will be looking to see if there has been any further developments, any changes...
(CROSSTALK)
ANNAN: ... or any changes in Iraqi attitude and mindset.
QUESTION: (SPEAKING IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE)
ANNAN: (SPEAKING IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE)
NEVILLE: OK, we've been listening to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, saying the inspectors should be listened to.
And, Bruce, I think that's exactly what you were saying earlier.
We want to hear your thoughts on those comments.
Well, indeed.
SHAPIRO: And I think the message from the Security Council today for Saddam Hussein is that the inspectors need to be listened to. But that message should go to Washington as well, that inspections still offer the best route to avoid the massive human cost, the massive financial cost, the risk to American young people, and the unknowable political fallout from a huge regional war.
Inspectors make the region more safe. And we should be backing up those inspections. We should be encouraging them to work, rather than subverting them by not providing intelligence and hoping that they somehow fail and we can rush in to dislodge Saddam.
NEVILLE: OK.
We want to remind everybody, let you know that, at 4:00 Eastern, Secretary of State Colin Powell will be coming out with further remarks. And you'll want to keep it tuned to CNN to take a listen to what Mr. Powell has to say.
And going back to Bob Barr now, we were talking about Mohammed Aldouri, Iraqi ambassador. We were saying that -- I asked you earlier, how does the average person decipher propaganda, wherever it may come from?
BARR: Well, first of all, a rule of thumb for all loyal Americans is to believe our leaders before we trust our enemies' leaders. And that's the rule of thumb that we ought to follow here.
But even notwithstanding that general rule of thumb, Colin Powell has laid out, in much more detail than I think was necessary, the evidence against what this regime is doing, not just to its own people, not just to our interests, but to all freedom-loving people around the world. And if we, as Americans, can't give our leaders the benefit of some doubt -- and I don't think there's any doubt in this case -- then one really wonders about where the loyalties for a lot of these people are.
Are they with foreign regimes? Are they with the U.N. over the United States? Or are they really with the United States?
SHAPIRO: Well, now, Bob Barr, Bob, I hope that you are not saying that people like me, who are not ready to rush American children off to war, are being disloyal to the United States. I hope you're not saying that.
BARR: Nobody -- I don't think anybody could legitimately accuse the president of rushing off to anything. This has been a very lengthy, very deliberative process. We have spent months upon months worrying about the United Nations. So, your characterization that this is rushing to war is erroneous.
SHAPIRO: But you are not saying that people
(CROSSTALK)
SHAPIRO: ... disloyal, are you?
NEVILLE: Gentlemen, of course this conversation can go on. I'm sorry to interrupt you, but I do have to go to break right here.
Bob Barr, Bruce Shapiro, thanks so much for being with us.
BARR: Thank you.
SHAPIRO: Thank you. NEVILLE: And coming up next: Now that you have heard Secretary of State Colin Powell's case for war, are you convinced?
Go ahead and give me a call at 1-800-310-4CNN or you can e-mail me at TALKBACK@CNN.com. It is the "Question of the Day," and I do want to hear to you.
And next, we'll turn our attention to the space shuttle tragedy. And I'm going to introduce you to a man who, years ago, warned that the insulating tiles might spell disaster.
Stay right there. We're back after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: The remains of the shuttle Columbia crew are now at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware. And as recovery crews gather shuttle debris spread across Texas and Louisiana, there is word that Columbia may have already started coming apart over California. We should learn more once NASA engineers reconstruct some 32 seconds of data transmitted from Columbia just before mission control lost contact.
Now, for more than 20 years, Gregg Easterbrook, has been reporting on the problems of the shuttle program. Gregg is a senior editor for "The New Republic" and a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution. This week, he wrote an article for "TIME" magazine calling for an end to the shuttle program.
And, Gregg, I want to ask you, why are you calling for such a situation to become reality?
GREGG EASTERBROOK, "THE NEW REPUBLIC": Well, Arthel, the shuttle was a noble idea when conceived.
It has not worked out very well. And we've seen the evidence in front of our eyes. Twice, it's exploded in front of our eyes, not only taking the lives of valiant astronauts who, of course, yes, accepted the risk that they were taking, and destroying hardware with it, but stopping the American space program both times.
The shuttle was originally conceived to make access to space cheaper and more reliable. It's turned out to be substantially more expensive than the rockets it replaced and to impede our access to space, as the space program will now grind to a halt, at least for a few years.
If we were to replace it -- I think a proper memorial to the seven dead of Columbia would be to end the shuttle program -- it was an interesting and noble idea, but it's been a financial and operational fiasco -- and replace it with an improved system of access to space, reflecting the 30 years of new technology since the shuttle was originally designed, that will enable us to get back and forth to space more cheaply and more safely.
NEVILLE: Now, Gregg, let's talk about the design. Let's talk about those protective tiles, what, some 27,000 black and white ceramic tiles, affixed to the belly of the shuttle to protect it from extreme heat.
Over 20 years ago, you wrote an article once again expressing concern and talking about the problems with those tiles and that it could pose serious dangers and threats to the astronauts. Tell me a little bit more about what you said back then.
EASTERBROOK: Well, I hate to shock the delicate sensibilities of your viewers by hinting at how old I am, but, 23 years ago, I looked at Columbia under construction and described the delicacy of the tiles and the fact that you could just lightly brush your hand against them and break them.
The tiles -- the heat-resistant tiles are very impressive from a technical aspect. They are a marvel of materials engineering. They could be 100 degrees hot on one side and the other side is cool to the touch. But they're so easily broken that it was, sadly, easy to predict that they would lead to a shuttle failure at some point. This was Columbia's 28th flight.
It had been through 27 cycles of three times the force of gravity, followed by the absolute-zero of space, followed by 3,000 degrees of reentry, followed by intense aerodynamic buffeting. You didn't have to be an engineer to guess that that was going to fail at some point. And if the three remaining shuttles continue to fly, it's likely that they, inevitably, will fail as well.
NEVILLE: But, now, Gregg, of course, there have been -- tiles have come off on previous launches without any safety consequences to the astronauts.
EASTERBROOK: Yes. Many things have gone wrong on previous launches and they've gotten through it all right. And, certainly, no one suggests that NASA would ever be able to build a space vehicle that doesn't fail. That's an unrealistic expectation.
The point about the shuttle is that it's so big, so complex, and designed with this unrealistic goal of multiple trips to space and back without falling apart, that there is a much higher risk involved than there are in other spacecrafts. And the proof of that is that the United States -- all through the 60s and 70s launched regular rockets into space without ever once
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Gregg, I'm going to jump in there. And for the sake of conversation here, I want to let Karen speak out, because she disagrees with you.
KAREN: To stop the program is ridiculous.
Everyone knows being an astronaut is a very high-risk job. And like a police officer, are we going to stop the police force just because policemen are dying on the job? NEVILLE: Well, we definitely need the police force, which is not to say we don't need the space shuttle. I'm just saying that we do need the police force.
Let me go ahead and pull up an excerpt from the article that you wrote this week in "TIME" Magazine, Gregg. It says, "The space shuttle is impressive in technical terms, but, in financial terms and safety terms, no project has done more harm to space exploration."
I want to get you to expound on that for me.
EASTERBROOK: Sure.
Let me first answer, Karen, and say, Karen, of course, we need police officers. But would you put them in an unsafe car? And, of course, we need astronauts. Now, I'm not suggesting that we end the space program. Let me be clear. I'm suggesting that we end the shuttle program and replace it with a new space vehicle that's more affordable and more reliable.
The shuttle was originally sold to Congress as a vehicle that would cost $20 million in today's dollars per launch. Last year, NASA spent $640 million per space shuttle launch. That's more, in inflation-adjusted dollars, than we spent for each Apollo mission to the moon. The space shuttle, the whole point of it was to save money. It has instead cost money.
And if we had a reliable and affordable way of getting into space, then we could have grand ambitions in space again, a return to the moon or a trip to Mars, two things that NASA is not even in the planning stages of now, because the space shuttle stands between them and those objectives.
NEVILLE: OK, Gregg, Frank here wants to jump into this discussion.
FRANK: The thing I take most exception to from Mr. Easterbrook, what he said, is that it would be a fitting memorial to the astronauts that died. Cancel the shuttle program because of a risk-cost-benefit analysis, detailed study. Don't do it as a memorial for those who died, because those astronauts would not want that. They would not have wanted that, having known the consequences.
They knew the risks going in. They believed in the shuttle program. Their families believed in the shuttle program. To call it a memorial to them is absolutely wrong.
(APPLAUSE)
NEVILLE: Thirty seconds, Gregg.
EASTERBROOK: Well, do it for -- whether, as you suggest, do it for reasons of cost-benefit analysis or, as I said, do it for reasons of memorial, it's still what needs to be done.
And future generations of astronauts, if they fly in a safer and more affordable system, will look back on the men and women of Columbia as heroes, if only for pointing that out.
NEVILLE: OK, Gregg Easterbrook, thank you so much for joining us here today on TALKBACK LIVE.
And now I want to go to your telephone calls or your e-mail responses to the "Question of the Day": Did Secretary Powell make his case for war? Are you convinced? 1-800-310-4CNN, or the e-mail address, TALKBACK@CNN.com.
And I'll take your comments after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Time now for our "Question of the Day": the case for war. Did Secretary Powell convince you?
Brad.
BRAD: I am not convinced. I think that, so far, the presentation has been emotional. I think we need more time to put inspectors in -- to keep the inspectors in. And I think the CIA could do a lot more to try and overthrow Saddam from within.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hi. I'm convinced, as far as the information in the...
NEVILLE: Presentation that Colin Powell made today?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes. And I just think that, whatever needs to be done needs to be done.
NEVILLE: Thank you.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm not convinced. And I hope that the Security Council gets a lot of information from other countries' intelligence and that Kofi Annan's commitment to them really stays firm.
NEVILLE: OK.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I was convinced 12 years ago. I don't know what's changed since then and I don't know what more people want.
NEVILLE: One quick e-mail coming in.
Hang on for me, Joel.
It is from Carolyn in New York: "Powell has shown proof that Iraq has the ability to make and use chemical weapons. Military action is the only feasible option."
Sir, 10 seconds.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We need to rally around our president. We need to be proactive instead of reactive. We do not need another 9/11. NEVILLE: OK. Got to go.
Thanks so much for joining us. I'm Arthel Neville.
We'll see you again tomorrow, 3:00 Eastern.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
|
