Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

Iraq Issues Last Minute Decree

Aired February 14, 2003 - 09:05   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: Just about an hour ago, Saddam Hussein issued a decree banning of mass destruction in Iraq. It comes as weapons inspectors prepare to make a crucial report to the U.N., and this happened shortly before an extraordinary session of the Iraqi parliament in Baghdad took place.
Nic Robertson is standing by there to give us an idea of exactly what was pronounced -- good morning, Nic.

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Paula. Well, the language of the decree is very interesting. It says that individuals and private and mixed companies are banned from importing chemical, biological and nuclear weapons of mass destruction, banned from making them, banned from producing them.

But it's interesting that it talks about private companies and mixed companies. Apparently no mention in this decree about government or state-run companies at this time. The extraordinary session of the national assembly is underway. So far, we know that they've debated and talked about what they see as the United States aggression against Iraq this time, and the newspapers here have a very interesting slant on Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei's report to the Security Council, saying that they should be fair and objective, but they shouldn't overlook the negative. The newspaper articles, however, call on them not to overplay the negative. The vice president here believes if the report is 80 percent in Iraq's favor, then that should be enough to head off war -- Paula.

ZAHN: Nic Robertson, thanks so much. We'll be checking in with you throughout the morning. Of course, our special coverage gets underway just about an hour from now.

When chief weapons inspectors make their report to the U.N. in just over an hour, will it lead to a change in a very divided Security Council? Ambassador Joseph Wilson was U.S. charge d'affairs to Iraq, one of the last American diplomats to meet face-to-face with Saddam Hussein. Nice to see you in person. Welcome.

JOSEPH WILSON, FORMER U.S. CHARGE D'AFFAIRS: And now I am meeting face-to-face with you.

ZAHN: Yes, exactly. It has only taken us about 9 months to get you up here. First off, your reaction to this decree that the parliament issued today.

WILSON: I think it's more of the same, the little rope-a-dope, trying to stretch this out as long as possible. It is not going to change the substance of the deliberations in the U.N. Security Council, and it is certainly not going to change the resolve of this administration.

ZAHN: If that's the case, is it a joke? Or is there anything meaningful about the decree?

WILSON: It's not a joke. It's consistent with Saddam's efforts to drive a wedge between the United States and others in the international community who would like to see him disarm. The difference is not whether he should disarm. The difference is whether we should take military action to do it, and he's trying to avert that military action in the hopes that, in the end, there will be not a consensus to do anything.

ZAHN: Well, based on what you were hearing will be in Mohamed ElBaradei's report today and Hans Blix, do you think Saddam Hussein will be successful in buying more time?

WILSON: I don't think he is going to be successful, because I think this administration has made its decision. And so it is prepared fully to do it unilaterally, or do it with the coalition of friends that it has described in the past, with or without U.N. Security Council support.

ZAHN: Now, the administration, of course, denies it has made up its mind. They have a specific timetable in mind if it comes to war. Walk us through what happens after these very important reports today when the foreign ministers sit in closed door meetings with Secretary of State Powell. What are they saying that they can't say publicly right now? Or...

WILSON: Well, I think the United States and the U.K. will say enough is enough, it is time to take the necessary next step, which will be use of force in order to enforce 1441, depending on what the two, ElBaradei and Blix, say today, the others on the U.N. Security Council will either say OK, we will go along with a resolution, or we will not. And that will be the point where the United States will decide to go, based on what it believes its authority is under 1441, the last U.N. Security Council resolution, or whether it proceeds to get another one.

ZAHN: Well, the truth is the American government, obviously, believes that they have the authority to go to war based on the first resolution. The Germans are denying that's the case.

WILSON: That's right. And I would argue, if you go back and you take a look at all the resolutions, dating back to 661 through 687, which was the original weapons of mass destruction resolution, the United States has a legal case to make that it has the authority. Doesn't make a lot of difference. They're going to act on what the president has said are our national security interests.

ZAHN: Before we let you go, you made it pretty clear that there is no doubt in your mind that you think the United States will be at war with Iraq somewhere down the road. Do you think the U.S. should be going to war? WILSON: My belief is that the United States needs to focus on -- the international community needs to focus on disarmament as an objective, and that if we proceed down this road to military action, it should be in support of that disarmament objective, that makes...

ZAHN: That's a little bit of diplomatic talk there. What are you saying?

WILSON: No, that makes for a different war.

ZAHN: So as long as you go through the process...

WILSON: No, it basically means if you focus all your military action on disarming Saddam, and don't worry about the problems of invading and occupying, for the next decade, Iraq, which is a fiercely nationalistic country in a very hostile region of the world, and where the collateral damage to our interests might be great.

ZAHN: Ambassador Joseph Wilson, nice to see you in person. You will be with us throughout the morning, and you know you will be a part of our special coverage this morning, right? It gets underway an hour from now.

WILSON: I'm looking forward to it. I just -- I have to get home by St. Valentine's Day dinner tonight...

ZAHN: So you won't be considered a cat (ph)?

WILSON: That is right. I certainly don't want to do that.

ZAHN: No, we don't want you to do that either. You got a lot of kids waiting for you back home, too.

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







Aired February 14, 2003 - 09:05   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: Just about an hour ago, Saddam Hussein issued a decree banning of mass destruction in Iraq. It comes as weapons inspectors prepare to make a crucial report to the U.N., and this happened shortly before an extraordinary session of the Iraqi parliament in Baghdad took place.
Nic Robertson is standing by there to give us an idea of exactly what was pronounced -- good morning, Nic.

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Paula. Well, the language of the decree is very interesting. It says that individuals and private and mixed companies are banned from importing chemical, biological and nuclear weapons of mass destruction, banned from making them, banned from producing them.

But it's interesting that it talks about private companies and mixed companies. Apparently no mention in this decree about government or state-run companies at this time. The extraordinary session of the national assembly is underway. So far, we know that they've debated and talked about what they see as the United States aggression against Iraq this time, and the newspapers here have a very interesting slant on Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei's report to the Security Council, saying that they should be fair and objective, but they shouldn't overlook the negative. The newspaper articles, however, call on them not to overplay the negative. The vice president here believes if the report is 80 percent in Iraq's favor, then that should be enough to head off war -- Paula.

ZAHN: Nic Robertson, thanks so much. We'll be checking in with you throughout the morning. Of course, our special coverage gets underway just about an hour from now.

When chief weapons inspectors make their report to the U.N. in just over an hour, will it lead to a change in a very divided Security Council? Ambassador Joseph Wilson was U.S. charge d'affairs to Iraq, one of the last American diplomats to meet face-to-face with Saddam Hussein. Nice to see you in person. Welcome.

JOSEPH WILSON, FORMER U.S. CHARGE D'AFFAIRS: And now I am meeting face-to-face with you.

ZAHN: Yes, exactly. It has only taken us about 9 months to get you up here. First off, your reaction to this decree that the parliament issued today.

WILSON: I think it's more of the same, the little rope-a-dope, trying to stretch this out as long as possible. It is not going to change the substance of the deliberations in the U.N. Security Council, and it is certainly not going to change the resolve of this administration.

ZAHN: If that's the case, is it a joke? Or is there anything meaningful about the decree?

WILSON: It's not a joke. It's consistent with Saddam's efforts to drive a wedge between the United States and others in the international community who would like to see him disarm. The difference is not whether he should disarm. The difference is whether we should take military action to do it, and he's trying to avert that military action in the hopes that, in the end, there will be not a consensus to do anything.

ZAHN: Well, based on what you were hearing will be in Mohamed ElBaradei's report today and Hans Blix, do you think Saddam Hussein will be successful in buying more time?

WILSON: I don't think he is going to be successful, because I think this administration has made its decision. And so it is prepared fully to do it unilaterally, or do it with the coalition of friends that it has described in the past, with or without U.N. Security Council support.

ZAHN: Now, the administration, of course, denies it has made up its mind. They have a specific timetable in mind if it comes to war. Walk us through what happens after these very important reports today when the foreign ministers sit in closed door meetings with Secretary of State Powell. What are they saying that they can't say publicly right now? Or...

WILSON: Well, I think the United States and the U.K. will say enough is enough, it is time to take the necessary next step, which will be use of force in order to enforce 1441, depending on what the two, ElBaradei and Blix, say today, the others on the U.N. Security Council will either say OK, we will go along with a resolution, or we will not. And that will be the point where the United States will decide to go, based on what it believes its authority is under 1441, the last U.N. Security Council resolution, or whether it proceeds to get another one.

ZAHN: Well, the truth is the American government, obviously, believes that they have the authority to go to war based on the first resolution. The Germans are denying that's the case.

WILSON: That's right. And I would argue, if you go back and you take a look at all the resolutions, dating back to 661 through 687, which was the original weapons of mass destruction resolution, the United States has a legal case to make that it has the authority. Doesn't make a lot of difference. They're going to act on what the president has said are our national security interests.

ZAHN: Before we let you go, you made it pretty clear that there is no doubt in your mind that you think the United States will be at war with Iraq somewhere down the road. Do you think the U.S. should be going to war? WILSON: My belief is that the United States needs to focus on -- the international community needs to focus on disarmament as an objective, and that if we proceed down this road to military action, it should be in support of that disarmament objective, that makes...

ZAHN: That's a little bit of diplomatic talk there. What are you saying?

WILSON: No, that makes for a different war.

ZAHN: So as long as you go through the process...

WILSON: No, it basically means if you focus all your military action on disarming Saddam, and don't worry about the problems of invading and occupying, for the next decade, Iraq, which is a fiercely nationalistic country in a very hostile region of the world, and where the collateral damage to our interests might be great.

ZAHN: Ambassador Joseph Wilson, nice to see you in person. You will be with us throughout the morning, and you know you will be a part of our special coverage this morning, right? It gets underway an hour from now.

WILSON: I'm looking forward to it. I just -- I have to get home by St. Valentine's Day dinner tonight...

ZAHN: So you won't be considered a cat (ph)?

WILSON: That is right. I certainly don't want to do that.

ZAHN: No, we don't want you to do that either. You got a lot of kids waiting for you back home, too.

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