|
CNN TALKBACK LIVE
U.N. Security Council to Discuss Second Resolution; Saddam Hussein Tells Dan Rather He Wants to Debate With President Bush; Investigation Continues in Rhode Island Nightclub Fire
Aired February 24, 2003 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
CAROL COSTELLO, HOST: Today on TALKBACK LIVE, time may be running out for Saddam Hussein, as the United States and Britain draw another line in the sand at the United Nations.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I've come to the conclusion that risk of doing nothing far exceeds the risk of working with the world to disarm Saddam Hussein.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COSTELLO: Will the Security Council agree, and if not, does it matter?
The talk starts right now.
Hello, everybody, and welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I am Carol Costello. Arthel Neville is on assignment in New York City.
The U.N. Security Council will soon face a second resolution on disarming Iraq. It will be submitted by the United States, Britain and Spain later today. French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder are countering with their own proposals for disarming Iraq.
We'll get live coverage from around the world. We begin, though, at the United Nations, and CNN senior United Nations correspondent Richard Roth. Good afternoon, Richard.
RICHARD ROTH, CNN SR. U.N. CORRESPONDENT: Good afternoon, Carol.
COSTELLO: This latest resolution is short, just one page. It doesn't mention any timetable. No talk of war. How is this different from the first resolution?
ROTH: Well, because it's probably the last resolution that'll be offered. It's the U.S. saying to the other Security Council members, if you want to join with us, here is a chance. It's the resolution at the end says Iraq has failed to live up to its responsibilities, last opportunity for peace, because it has not cooperated on weapons of mass destruction. So it's a simpler document, but everyone knows the deal. If you want to back an authorization for war, you approve this resolution. If not, the U.S. has always made it clear, it will go around the U.N. if it has to.
COSTELLO: Well, yes, Richard, but isn't this unusual for the United States or anyone to present a resolution when it knows that it doesn't have the total support of the Security Council?
ROTH: No, this has happened before, whether it's Iraq or the Middle East, and that's what the diplomacy is for. Now the U.N. has about two weeks to try to get enough votes. They need nine votes without any vetoes by the other permanent Security Council powers, such as Russia and France. A lot of people thought the U.S. wouldn't succeed with the other one in November, and it got 15 votes, including Syria. A little too early to rule it out, yet. But if the U.S. thinks it won't pass, it won't even be put up for a vote.
COSTELLO: Well, it's not going to be voted for until March 7, why is that?
ROTH: Because Hans Blix, the chief weapons inspector, has to brief orally and with a written report, the latest update on Iraq's cooperation, and if a lot of countries hear Blix says that Iraq is not living up to the agreement to disarm, that might persuade enough people to side with the U.S., provided nobody vetoes.
COSTELLO: Even France, Richard? I mean, is there anything anyone can do to make France switch sides and back the United States position?
ROTH: Well, in France, I'm sure they are saying, is there anyone who can make the U.S. switch sides. France's leader, Jacques Chirac, just said right now with the German chancellor that France is not willing to approve this resolution. It's not needed, it's useless at this time. He thinks and the other opponents thinks inspections should be improved, enhanced. Iraq should cooperate, they warn, but right now they think it's not the time for war.
COSTELLO: OK, Richard, you are going to stick around with us through this half hour, right? I know you are busy there, but you're kind enough to agree to stay. Yes?
ROTH: Yes.
COSTELLO: OK, we are going to go to Berlin, because oddly enough, France and Germany are meeting right now in a restaurant in Berlin called the Last Appeal and they are working on a sort of resolution of their own. Let's go to Walter Rodgers, who is in Berlin. And I know that they popped out for a short time to speak.
What did they have to say?
WALTER RODGERS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Carol, actually, the meeting broke up just a few moments ago, and the French and the Germans were unanimous and united totally. They say they will not support the U.S. resolution. They see no use for it at this point, although it was very interesting when the French President Jacques Chirac was asked if France would use its veto as a permanent member of the Security Council to veto such a resolution, he ducked the question and said that's hypothetical, I don't answer hypothetical questions at this point.
Again, the French and German position is that such an American and British resolution to force Iraq to disarm at this point is useless. But what they're saying is that they would prefer to see a different approach. That is to say, they, the French, the Germans and the Russians are now joining in a proposal by which they would set a timetable for Iraq to disarm. Again, however, the French president was evasive when asked what's the deadline for the timetable. Jacques Chirac said, oh, the deadline is whenever the inspectors say that they're convinced they have or have not...
COSTELLO: Oh, that's not a timetable, Walter.
RODGERS: Well, don't tell me, tell the French president. He was very, very evasive, and the point I'm not sure my colleague Richard Roth made, but remember that going into the Gulf War in 1991, that the French were opposed to military action, and at the last minute, they jumped in. There is ample room here. It's not clear what the French and German end game is, except perhaps to placate their own voters who, both in France and in Germany, are overwhelmingly opposed to military force against Saddam Hussein at this point.
The French and the Germans know they are not going to stop the Americans and the British, if the decision is made in Washington and London to go ahead. So perhaps the position that the French and Germans are taking at this point is nearly a fallback position, so they can say, well, at least we stood up to George W. Bush, at least we tried.
COSTELLO: OK, Walter, I know you have to get to CNN International, we are going to let you go. We want to go back to Richard Roth and ask him more about this French-German proposal and the wiggle room that each leader seems to have left himself. When it comes right down to it, Richard, will France go along and not veto this second U.S.-British resolution?
ROTH: Well, I'll take bets, if people can send their money to the U.N., but it's a little early to know what the line is. France has not vetoed a Security Council resolution since 1956 during the Suez crisis, and France wants to, as Walter said, be the lead in Europe now for post-9/11 world, a new 21st century situation, where they don't want the U.S. to be able to call the shots, even though they have got the biggest power in no matter what area, economics, military. Here at the U.N., this is where France is using this as an international arena to say, hold on there, we are not going to let you get whatever you want, but France has, as Walter indicated, talked tough early and then at the end says they've gone along and put up enough of a fight to show that they didn't get rolled over on. And it's a little early to say whether they are going to veto or not.
COSTELLO: Got you. Richard Roth, we are going to check back with you a little later on.
Who has got the votes of the Security Council? The U.S., Britain or France? With us now, Ian Williams, the United Nations correspondent for "The Nation" magazine. And Fred Gedrich. Hello. Fred Gedrich is senior policy analyst from the Freedom Alliance. Welcome to both of you.
IAN WILLIAMS, THE NATION: Pleased to be with you.
FRED GEDRICH, FREEDOM ALLIANCE: Good to be here.
COSTELLO: Ian, let's start with you. This second resolution, is it necessary? Is the world glad that the United States and Britain are going this route?
WILLIAMS: Well, the whole process seems to be people eating their words, as Richard would tell you. Three months ago, it was the French who insisted that you needed a second resolution, and the Americans have said they neither needed nor wanted one. Three months later, we have the president saying, we want a second resolution and you better give it us, and the French are saying no, not just yet.
COSTELLO: So you are saying the United States is caving here. Is that true, Fred?
GEDRICH: Yes, the United States has gone ahead in submitting another resolution for consideration to the Security Council. But I think they're just playing out the string. I think George Bush's man of his word and he made a promise to Tony Blair that he was going to do it, and he's doing it.
COSTELLO: Is he just doing this for Tony Blair's sake?
GEDRICH: No. He's given, like he's often said over the past several month, the U.N. one more chance to prove its relevancy.
COSTELLO: I have to interrupt you, Fred, right now. We have a live news event happening, speaking of Tony Blair and president -- oh, I am sorry, we are going to have to go to a break right now. We are waiting for something to happen. And we'll tell you what it is right after this. Sorry for the interruption. TALKBACK LIVE will come back right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COSTELLO: As the United States presses the United Nations for a final decision on Iraq, we'll have reaction from around world, including a report from inside Iraq.
CNN international correspondent Nic Robertson will join us today on Baghdad right here on TALKBACK LIVE.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COSTELLO: Welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Carol Costello.
President Bush today said the second resolution on Iraq will determine once and for all if the United Nations is relevant in the 21st century.
CNN White House correspondent Dana Bash joins us more on that.
Good afternoon, Dana.
DANA BASH, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Carol.
COSTELLO: Hi, let's talk strategy here.
Why the second U.N. resolution?
The president was dead set against it a couple months back?
BASH: The White House is certainly suggesting, hinting over the past few weeks, that they are moving towards a second resolution. For a couple of reasons. One is the fact some of the U.S. key allies including Great Britain and Spain really wanted it. They really wanted to continue to go through the United Nations, because that's what their friends and supporters back home really wanted.
They wanted to get as much as international support through their proper channel sort of speak as possible. The other thing is the White House feels that, in the long run, it will help them if they do have a strong U.N. backing, or at least another resolution, making absolutely clear that the president does have support of as many as nations as possible.
COSTELLO: Well, I want to interrupt you right there, Dana,because you are talking strategy. And we understand that strategy, we really do.
But we want to talk to, Patty, from Washington, D.C. about how some Americans are feeling about this long drawn out process.
Penny, go for it.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I feel we are going to go to war no matter what, and the sooner it happens, maybe the better. We have planes circling Washington daily, 24 hours a day. Now, I find it unnerving. Waiting each day to see what news is.
COSTELLO: Waiting each day to finally say...
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Is today the day?
Is today the day, and that's what many Americans are feeling, Dana.
And how would the president, I know that you can't go inside the president's head right now, but how would he answer such a concern?
BASH: Well, I guess for research citizen that we just heard here, there's probably another that would say that if the president is going to go ahead and use military force against Saddam Hussein, they want the president to get as much international support in doing so as possible. If you look at some of the public opinion polls, it actually says -- they say that they wants the president to get U.N. Support, to go ahead with military action.
But when you ask here at the white house what the president thinks -- actually, Ari Fleischer said today, that the president certainly this a difficult decision but one of the hallmarks the way this president leads is that he makes it a decision. He sticks with it. He is comfortable with it, and kind of moves on, and according to Ari Fleischer, what the president has done with this particular situation in Iraq.
COSTELLO: I understand.
Dana Bash, thanks very much. I know that you have to get back to work.
Now, let's get back to our guests.
Ian Williams, since you are from Scotland.
Do people in Britain feel the pretty much the same way, they just wish this situation would be resolved?
WILLIAMS: I was look at some of the comments there. No one has a vested interested in war. Everyone wants to avoid war if possible. The question is how far can you go. The other thing is nobody anywhere else outside of the world other than the United States believes that Iraq and al Qaeda on September 11 have anything to do with each other. September the 11th was not a result of Iraq is what most people think. So they don't feel the same panic that you're contributing from Washington felt.
COSTELLO: I don't felt many of the American people feel that way either.
Fred, can you address that?
GEDRICH: Yes. I think there's a connection between terrorism and the terrorist that attacked us on September 11.
COSTELLO: What is it?
GEDRICH: They're able to move freely throughout the world. Supposedly, the al Qaeda network operates in and around 60 countries. These terrorists know no borders and it is very difficult to try to draw lines of attack. For instance, to assume that they operate only in Afghanistan is folly and will reap the repercussions of that.
COSTELLO: Yes, Fred, you mentioned 60 other countries.
Why isn't the United States concentrating on any other country right now except Iraq?
GEDRICH: Well, I -- when that question's posed to me, I always suggest people take a close look at the map. And a map of the terrorist region of the world. And Iraq happens to be situated right in the middle of that terror country. Iran on one side, Syria on the other and Saudi Arabia to the south. That is why we're focused on Iraq.
COSTELLO: Ian, would you agree with that, and how do people of Britain feel about that?
Because you've got to believe, Tony Blair's in real trouble, politically, because he is standing by the United States?
WILLIAMS: He's likely to be the first regime change if this goes wrong. What you -- just heard it, 60 countries. John Bolton, the undersecretary of defense for disarmament affairs last week in Israel was saying after Iraq, we will deal with Iran and Syria and North Korea. And in the past, he's mentioned Cuba, he's mention the Libya.
You want to wonder these reservist, how many toothbrushes should they be taking?
How many wars after this one?
That's what worries people out there. Because they don't think Saddam Hussein is innocent. Nobody thinks Saddam Hussein is innocent. But they want to see the consequences. They want to see the end game. And this is what we are not getting. We are getting wild threats. Terrorism is everywhere with 60 countries. Going to do Syria next, want to do Iran next. Nobody wants to be part of a perpetual war (UNINTELLIGIBLE) in the White House.
COSTELLO: Fred.
GEDRICH: The world in the last 23 years has witnessed an atrocity on the par with those committed by Stalin and Mao. And that is Saddam Hussein attacking neighbors and killing Muslims. As many demonstrators were out on the street a week or so ago, that's how many Muslims were killed by Saddam Hussein. His people cannot change their government. His people cannot speak out against their government. If they do, they are libel to use their tongues or have their limbs amputated. It's a sad situation and demonstrators have lost track of that.
(CROSSTALK)
COSTELLO: And on that note, we have to head it a break right now.
Thank you, Fred.
Fred, Ian, you are going to stick around?
We are going to take a break right now.
Iraq is facing a Saturday deadline to destroy missiles the U.N. say violate Gulf War Sanctions. Will they comply?
We will get a live report out of Baghdad. Don't you go away.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COSTELLO: Welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE.
While the United Nations wrangles over a second resolution on Iraq, Iraq is now under a U.N. order to start destroying its illegal missiles by the end of this week. Iraq says the idea is opened to negotiation.
CNN international correspondent Nic Robertson joins us now live from Baghdad. Good night to you, Nic. It's dark there.
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, good afternoon to you, Carol.
The issue for Iraq is, though, not just about the missile. They've been told they have to destroy the launchers, the fuel for the missiles, the software that went into the development, and some 380 missile engines that they imported outside of the U.N.'s import/export restrictions.
Now, they've said that they would like to deal with this through technical discussions in the framework of their ongoing cooperation with the U.N. weapons inspectors. However, one senior Iraqi official is saying that they are giving this good consideration, and will come up with an answer soon.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEN. AMER AL-SAADI, HUSSEIN SCIENTIFIC ADVISER: I said it's being studied very carefully and the channels are still opened between us, and we will come up with a decision quite soon.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERTSON: Now, Iraqi officials have also been meeting with some South African experts. These scientists from South Africa were involved in South Africa's eradication of its own weapons of mass destruction back in the 1990s, and what the South African delegation are hoping to do is share their experience with Iraqi officials as a way to show Iraq how it can show the rest of the world that it really is intent on getting rid of its weapons of mass destruction.
The first round of talks today apparently got off to a good start, both sides saying good dialogue and a good exchange of ideas.
Another interesting development this weekend. Former Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov flew intoBbaghdad on a very secret quiet mission. He met with President Saddam Hussein while he was here. Now the last time this Russian envoy came to Baghdad, it was during the Gulf War. And at that time, he brought the Soviet Peace Initiative, one of instruments that led to the ending of the Gulf War. Now this mission apparently by Primakov, to get President Saddam Hussein to agree to fully cooperate with U.N. resolution 1441 and say that he won't hinder the work of the weapons inspectors. And according to Russia's Foreign Ministry, he did get that agreement, according to Russian's Foreign Ministry. President Saddam Hussein said that he would not obstruct the U.N. Inspectors -- Carol.
COSTELLO: Well, let's talk some more about that very issue because Iraq says it's open to negotiation, as it applies to these missiles. And it sort of wants to reconfigure the missiles. Tell us about that. What does that entail?
ROBERTSON: Well, No. 1, Iraq says these missiles were never designed to go beyond the U.N. range. Limits them to 93 miles. Over a quarter of these missiles in some 40 tests went well beyond that distance. One of the missiles actually went 140 miles.
And what Iraqi officials says it wasn't designed to go that far. They say that if it had its guidance in control and its explosive payload it never would have never flown that distance. Well the U.N. is saying, yes, but way back in the 1990s, we told you don't alter the design of the missile. What Hans Blix said two weeks ago, the U.N. weapons chief of the U.N., he said they've extended -- they've increased the diameter for the missile 23 inches up to 30 inches. It can carry more propelent missile rocket fuel. It can go further.
That's what a team of U.N. Experts has decided and that's what Iraqi officials are wrestling with now. They know that being watched. The sort of this unspoken message right now with these peace initiatives is the world is watching, the countries that oppose a U.S.-led war are watching. This is the opportunity for you to show those countries that you can go along and make it pay off with the international community to give the inspectors more time to do their work.
COSTELLO: Well, the answer has to come by March 1. Nic Robertson, thanks for that live report out of Baghdad.
We're going to have to take a break right now. Coming up next on TALKBACK LIVE, we go to the United Nations and the State Department as the Security Council prepares to go into closed session. CNN's senior U.N. correspondent Richard Roth can fill us in on some of the details of the regulation and where it could run into some trouble.
Stick around.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(NEWS ALERT)
(APPLAUSE)
COSTELLO: Welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE. A divided Security Council is expected to go into closed session as we speak at the United Nations to discuss that second resolution on Iraq. Reaction is pouring in from around the world. CNN senior U.N. correspondent Richard Roth joins us from the United Nations. Andrea Koppel is at the State Department.
Good afternoon to you both. Richard, let's begin with you, because when exactly is Britain going to introduce that resolution before the Security Council?
ROTH: Well, if we take a look right now at the Security Council, you are seeing the British ambassador walking in with U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte. The British ambassador on the left. Let's see if they comment. I don't think they will. They're promising afterwards.
Britain is going to put it down on the table probably not long after he gets into that closed-door session there around the corner inside of the Security Council chamber and its consultation room. There will be a British draft with the U.S. and Spain on board. Other than Bulgaria, though, the U.S. certainly needs more votes -- Carol.
COSTELLO: Richard, why is Britain introducing this resolution and not the United States?
ROTH: Well, this has happened before. Britain kind of the stalking horse for the U.S. It's not seen as Washington dominating the proceedings. Sometimes this happens, Britain puts it out there. The U.S. signs on as a co-sponsor. Sometimes it doesn't mean anything. But very symbolic, sometimes in the United Nations circles here.
COSTELLO: Andrea Koppel, doesn't everyone know that, though?
ANDREA KOPPEL, CNN STATE DEPARTMENT CORRESPONDENT: Well, sure they do. But that doesn't defeat what the purpose of this is. And that is, as one official told me, to get the ball rolling, get this text introduced. Get it in blue, as the diplomatic language puts it. And try to rally nine out of 15 countries to try to support the resolution.
Right now, Carol, the U.S. does not have the votes. It only has about four countries, including itself and the U.K.
COSTELLO: I would suspect, Andrea, that the wording of this resolution is crucial. It's a very short document. What parties were involved in drafting it?
KOPPEL: This was a U.S.-U.K. joint effort. But again, U.S. officials telling me that this is British language. They are the ones really who took the lead on this. They are the ones who felt they needed it.
Tony Blair had a million protesters out on the streets just one week ago. And he really feels that he needs to prove to the British people, to the European public at large, and to the international community that the U.S. and the U.K. are going the extra mile before they would take military against Iraq.
COSTELLO: And of course the U.S. government has people out everywhere trying to convince other countries to come over to its side.
KOPPEL: That's right. Those frequent flyer miles are being racked up. Secretary of State Colin Powell was in Beijing earlier today meeting with Chinese leaders. China of course one of the five permanent members of the Security Council. That means it has veto power over a resolution.
Secretary Powell got a noncommittal answer from the Chinese. You also have another senior State Department official, John Bolton (ph), in Moscow, another permanent member of the Security Council. And there is going to be Mark Grossman (ph), who is another senior State Department official in Paris. That's the other -- that's the fifth country that the U.S. would need and the U.K. not to veto this resolution.
But really right now, Carol, what you have the U.S. doing in terms of its strategy to try to get this resolution through the Council, is to try to convince the permanent members not to veto. And to get another six votes or five votes from the rotating members of the Council. There are 10 of those countries. And so, again, you have got a lot of phone diplomacy and a lot of travel involved in that.
COSTELLO: OK. Richard, I have a question for you, because France and Germany are meeting in Berlin. In fact, they have met and they have come up with their own sort of resolution, but it's not a proposal that will be presented before the U.N. Security Council. Why doesn't France write out its own resolution and present it to the Security Council?
ROTH: Well, a New resolution, just to say the inspectors should be given more time, is not really something that would be put forth before the Council. It's more preliminary language. It deals with existing programs. It doesn't have the weight and the heft of a resolution.
It wouldn't -- and also France knows that the U.S. would certainly veto that. So this happened before with the last resolution in November. France put forth what -- I'm sure everyone cringes when I say this -- a non-paper. Only in U.N. and diplomatic circles could something like this exist.
A non-paper is something that could be denied or is not official. But it's on paper and circulated in front of all of the Council members.
COSTELLO: Richard is France, too, lobbying members? I mean, is France gaining stature within the United Nations for its stance on this issue?
ROTH: Well, you remember the applause the French foreign minister received a few weeks ago when he spoke out against the need to war and that inspectors should be allowed to carry the day. Various countries sitting in the U.N. gallery applauded. There might have been some press members from around the world, shocking.
But France has a lot riding on this, and we haven't seen the end game yet, how to all ends up. But France certainly like to achieve a lot of higher stature and to be able to put the U.S. a notch down and be able to say there is another country on the Security Council with a veto. We're still powerful even though we are not a big colonial power anymore, and you have to listen to the voices of the world. You can't just try to ram (ph) home resolution after resolution.
COSTELLO: Andrea, I know you don't like to play the speculation game, but I will put you on the spot. What happens if United States and Britain cannot convince France? What happens then?
KOPPEL: Well, the U.S., the Bush administration has always maintained that it never needed a second resolution. It's really only doing this because of the British. And would take unilateral --or as the U.S. likes to put it, put together a coalition of the willing, which at this stage is not a huge coalition, and take matters into its own hands. It will complicate matters for the United States, Carol, not just for the war.
This really is about so much more than military action. Because the U.S., the British and the Australians have enough military power to handle this, and they have the countries around Iraq on board pretty much. What this is really about is the day after, the months after, the years after.
You want to have the, the U.S. believes, the international community on board so that they can help pay for this and that they could help put in peacekeepers. And that this won't be something where you have thousands of American and British men and women who are serving as peacekeepers in Britain. And it's going to be very, very expensive.
COSTELLO: Andrea Koppel, Richard Roth, thank you both for joining us this afternoon. The U.N. Security Council meeting in a closed-door session as we speak. Will it be the countdown to war? The final countdown? We will talk more about that when TALKBACK LIVE continues.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COSTELLO: And welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE. We're talking about Iraq and the disarmament of Saddam Hussein. And CNN has just learned this tidbit. Get this: CBS anchor Dan Rather sat down and had an exclusive interview with Saddam Hussein. An exclusive interview with Saddam Hussein.
Saddam Hussein apparently told Dan Rather that he wants a debate with the United States President George Bush. And he wants that debate to be broadcast on international television. Apparently, this happened just a short time ago.
The White House came out and said they don't believe this is a serious statement. But I asked our audience, would they be interested in seeing a debate between Saddam Hussein and President Bush? And I had an overwhelming -- I mean I had a rousing set of applause.
So Malcolm (ph), do you want to comment on that? Would you like to see a debate between the two and why?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm not sure about that. I don't think he would, though. I don't think it would debate.
COSTELLO: So you're with Ari Fleischer? He's just kidding? Yes. How about you? You are a Gulf War veteran. Would you like to see a debate like that?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Definitely. I think that in a debate, I think that President Bush can ask Saddam Hussein some very key questions that Saddam say can't wiggle his way out.
COSTELLO: Do you think it will happen, though, really?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don't think it will happen because Saddam Hussein has done nothing but give us empty words. And it's time for us to stop taking his empty words and take action.
COSTELLO: Got you. That's Cherry (ph) from Georgia and Malcolm (ph) from Georgia. Thank you both very much.
(APPLAUSE)
Let's go back to our guests right now, Ian Williams from "The Nation," and Fred Gedrich from the Freedom Alliance. What do you guys think about that? Let's start with you, Ian. A debate?
WILLIAMS: Well, it would be difficult to know. One only speaks Arabic and the other can barely speak English without a teleprompter.
COSTELLO: It would be a very slow-moving debate. I mean, is that at all possible, Fred?
GEDRICH: Well, I don't think it would even be worth while. Because the real issue here -- and shouldn't lose focus of -- is disarmament. It's all about disarmament. And Saddam Hussein has just played another game and he's thrown it on the world stage for consideration.
COSTELLO: You know, you talk about disarmament, and something very serious did come out of that interview between Dan Rather and Saddam Hussein. Apparently, Saddam Hussein also said that those al- Samud II missiles, you know the one that Hans Blix has ordered the Iraqis to destroy by March 1, well, Saddam Hussein doesn't believe that those are in violation of U.N. resolutions.
So, apparently, he is not going to destroy those missiles. And that will really throw a wrench into things, if that is indeed true, Ian.
WILLIAMS: They always -- they have always changed their mind at the last minute, the Iraqis. The trouble is that they have always left it too late. They asked for talks on the last day of the last ultimatum in the last Gulf War, and look where it got them. But disarmament, I worry about the different excuses.
So far today, we've heard that we are going to war with Iraq because of terrorism. We're going to war for disarmament. And some people are threatening to use nuclear weapons to disarm them as well, which worries me a lot. We're doing it because of the Iraqi repressive regime needing to be removed, humanitarian invention. And we're asking the Russians, who are beating up on the Chechens and the Chinese who are beating up on the Tibetans for their support to go and remove Saddam Hussein because he is indeed persecuting his own people.
COSTELLO: Well sometimes the world works in strange ways.
WILLIAMS: Their excuses gets a bit mixed up. I wonder what is this war about? Is it because Saddam Hussein tried to kill George Bush's father? I have never heard a consistent line of excuse yet.
COSTELLO: Well let's ask our audience that. Rita (ph), where are you from?
RITA: Colorado.
COSTELLO: What do you think? Why is George Bush pushing this war, do you think?
RITA: Well I think, as a country, we need to think much more globally. And I had mentioned earlier that my dad was part of the allied force that liberated France. So if I'm standing here and saying I am not angry that the French are not supporting us, but at the same time, I work for a global company. And I question and I challenge all of us, are we really thinking globally? And would that debate provide us education?
COSTELLO: Got you. You know, on the subject of France and Germany, I mean, a lot of Americans don't like the French much these days. But you don't hear that same sentiment coming out about Germany, and I have wondered about that.
Does anyone want to comment on that? I wonder why we are not as angry at the Germans as we are as the French, as Americans I am saying. Lou (ph), from Connecticut, what do you think?
LOU: No matter which way the U.N. votes, world opinion is going against us, I think. After I saw a few week ago that the millions of people that marched all over the world against us, not against Saddam Hussein, against the United States. That scares me. I think the Egyptian president said last week we will unleash billions of martyrs upon this country if we go to war.
That's what I am afraid of. That there's a lot of people that are just going to turn that region into a more volatile area, and it's all going to come back at who? The United States. Not France, not Germany, the United States.
COSTELLO: I think a lot of people are concerned about that. Fred, can you address that?
GEDRICH: Sure. We must be mindful of what happened on September 11. We were attacked by depraved terrorists who wanted to pursue some kind of political objective. And they inflicted terror on our citizens.
They takd our homeland. And it's about a lot more than just creating chaos in the Middle East. The Middle East has plenty of chaos, by the way.
COSTELLO: And with that, that's the last word. Fred Gedrich, thank you so much. Ian Williams, thank you, too, for joining us today.
Coming up next on TALKBACK LIVE, a live report on that tragic fire that killed at least 97 people in Rhode Island. It could become quite a legal case, as blame for the accident gets passed around. TALKBACK LIVE will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COSTELLO: Welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Carol Costello.
We have to talk a little bit about that tragic nightclub fire in Rhode Island. It has now been confirmed that the Great White guitarist, Ty Longley, is among the 97 people known to have died in last week's nightclub fire in West Warwick, Rhode Island. The band's pyrotechnics display apparently caused the fire, but so many questions remain over who is responsible for allowing those fireworks to be used inside of the building. Rhode Island Attorney General Patrick Lynch said he hopes the owners of the station club will cooperate with the investigation.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PATRICK LYNCH, R.I. ATTORNEY GENERAL: I am hopeful and remain hopeful, after viewing Jeffrey Derderian's comments attributed through him on behalf of his brother Michael to the press. I remain hopeful that they will cooperate, both Jeffery and Michael, with the law enforcement agencies as much as they cooperated with the press.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COSTELLO: CNN's Whitney Casey is covering this story in Rhode Island. She joins us live from there right now. Good afternoon, Whitney. Whitney, are you there? Oh, we just lost Whitney.
Well, we understand the new information that we were going to get from Whitney Casey is that police did search the home of one of the bar's owners. We don't know what -- Whitney, are you there now? Whitney is not there. So let me go on with my thought.
We do understand the police did search the home of one of the bar's owners. We don't know what police were looking for, but of course they -- as you just heard the attorney general for the state of Rhode Island say, they want much more cooperation from the bar's owners. Apparently the band is talking a lot to authorities, but the owners of the club are not, and they're wondering why.
Whitney Casey, are you there now?
WHITNEY CASEY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, I am. Sorry about that, Carol.
COSTELLO: Oh, no problem. Tell us the latest information that you have.
CASEY: Well the latest here on the investigation, what I just noticed over my shoulder is sort of an interesting juxtaposition here. There are family members that have come here to the site, and then now there are investigators here again. They have sort of come sporadically through the day and they've been collecting evidence.
But what's interesting is that the attorney general said from the very beginning that really evidence is not going to be that key in here. It's those interviews. And that interview that is the most key is what you were saying earlier about Jeffery Derderian and his brother Michael Derderian.
And CNN reports earlier today that yesterday the authorities went over to Michael Derderian's house and they were there for two hours. It's not necessarily clear whether they had a search warrant, but what they were recovering from there, and if they brought anything out. But still, the Derderians are not talking. They did, though, speak to the media.
COSTELLO: They did speak to the media. And it was very emotional, as I recall. The interesting thing to me, though, is one of these brothers, one of the owners of the club, is a reporter for the local television station in Providence or in the Providence area. He was actually in the club that night doing a story on nightclub safety.
Now, just speaking from a reporter's point of view, if I'm in my own club doing a story for television on nightclub safety, I would make darn sure that I have all of my T's crossed and I'd dotted. Could that be a reason that they are not talking, Whitney?
CASEY: Well there may be a slew of reasons that they are not talking. But, sort of some sad irony to that videotape is that the governor said yesterday in a press conference that that videotape may be the key evidence in determining just how many people were in the club that night. The governor believes that it did exceed its 300 capacity limit. And then that will only add to the legal ramifications that may then be that of the club owner, Jeffery Derderian.
So he is the one who was there shooting it. And now it may be that big key piece of evidence of the legal and maybe civil suits that are about to come.
COSTELLO: Oh, you bet. Whitney Casey, thank you for finally joining us today.
Up next, we'll have the "Question of the Day." With the second resolution on Iraq introduced in the Security Council, do you think it's time to go to war? Call me at 1-800-310-4CNN, or e-mail TALKBACK@cnn.com. I will take your comments, right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COSTELLO: Welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE. We have time to answer our "Question of the Day." Is it time for America to finally go to war? We have asked our audience. We got some e-mails.
This is from Kate in Michigan. "No, it is not time for a war with Iraq. Bush is just promoting the American agenda and expecting other countries to be like the United States. Who is to say we are right?" Thanks, Kate in Michigan.
Also, this from Gary in Michigan. "Yes, by all means, let's hurry up and get on with the war."
I asked our studio audience here and they just want something to happen sometime soon. We are out of time. Thanks to all of you for watching.
I am Carol Costello. Arthel Neville will be back tomorrow at 3:00 Eastern with more TALKBACK LIVE. "INSIDE POLITICS" is coming your way next.
(APPLAUSE)
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Hussein Tells Dan Rather He Wants to Debate With President Bush; Investigation Continues in Rhode Island Nightclub Fire>
|
