Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Today

Talk with Former Weapons Inspector Jonathan Tucker

Aired February 25, 2003 - 10:23   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.


LEON HARRIS, ANCHOR: At the United Nations, the stage is set and the battle lines are drawn as the council reaches crossroad of just how to deal with Iraq. The U.S., Britain and Spain have submitted a resolution that inches toward military action, while France, Germany and Russia raise their voices for restraint.
Jonathan Tucker served as biological weapons back inspector in Iraq in 1995, and he is now a senior fellow at the U.S. Institute of Peace, and there, he specializes in weapons of mass destruction and arms control. He's with us this morning to share some insights.

Good to see you this morning, John. Thank you for the taking the time to talk with us today.

JONATHAN TUCKER, FMR. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: Good morning.

HARRIS: Let me ask you, first of all, have you heard comments that came from Saddam Hussein in the last day or so, talking about these Al Samoud II missiles, saying that they are not these weapons that have been proscribed by the U.N. Security Council? He's saying the weapons do not fly out of the range of I believe it's 93 miles they were allowed to fly.

What do you make -- is there is any argument that can be made that the weapons actually are not proscribed weapons?

TUCKER: Well, the Iraqis are argued that because the weapons were tested without the full payload and the guidance system, that, in fact, their range is more limited.

HARRIS: Does that sound right to you?

TUCKER: Well, there was a review of Iraq's missile programs conducted by experts brought together about the United Nations, and they concluded unanimously that these missiles are, in fact, a violation of the range limits. And Hans Blix has ordered unequivocally the Iraqis to destroy the weapons. If they were to defy that order, that would put them in direct defiance of the U.N. weapons inspectors. It would be a major step for the Iraqis to take.

HARRIS: Would you expect them to take that step?

TUCKER: I think they are going to drag their feet. But at the end of the day, I think they understand that this would be a very dangerous step for them to take, and I think at the end of the day, they will decide to destroy the weapons. HARRIS: All right then, in recent days, we heard that this Al Samoud II missile may be the tip of the iceberg. Based on your knowledge of what may be in that country, what do you think is underneath the surface of the water of this iceberg here?

TUCKER: Well, the major issue is Iraq's failure or inability to account for its claimed destruction of large quantities of chemical and biological weapons. The Iraqis claim the weapons were destroyed 1991 , but they have not been able, or they have been unwilling to provide adequate documentation and physical evidence that the weapons were in fact destroyed. So that is the challenge that is facing the inspectors, and also Iraq.

HARRIS: Have you heard some of the quotes that have been in the press recently, I believe in the last two days or so, from some of the inspectors over there, complaining about the U.S. intelligence that they're working with. And I'm quoting here, one inspector called it garbage upon garbage, and he went on to say he believes U.S. is sending them out purposely on wild goose chases. What do you think about that?

TUCKER: Well, that is a problem that we encountered back in the '90s, that some intelligence is just wrong. And it could be based on incorrect sources or deliberate disinformation, but I have also heard that the U.S. has not been adequately forthcoming with intelligence information, and the inspectors have complained repeatedly that they are not getting actionable intelligence from the United States, and they feel that the U.S. may be deliberately trying to undermine the inspection process.

HARRIS: Well, if the U.S. is really trying to convince the world, forget about the inspection process, if they are trying to get the world to join its side of the debate about what to do on Iraq, doesn't it make imperative that the U.S. actually gives actionable intelligence, and if they haven't so far, does it mean they don't have any?

TUCKER: That's a good question. I believe they do have quite a bit more information than they have thus far provided. There are concerns on the part of the intelligence community that UNMOVIC may have been penetrated by Iraqi intelligence, and that this information, which some would like to use in a war for targeting purposes, could be compromised. So there is a tug-of-war going on within the U.S. government, with the intelligence community being reluctant to release information until they are confident it can be kept secret by the inspectors.

HARRIS: So once again, no easy way to make an easy decision out of all this.

Jonathan Tucker, former weapons inspector, thank you very much. Appreciate your time this morning. Thank you.

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 25, 2003 - 10:23   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
LEON HARRIS, ANCHOR: At the United Nations, the stage is set and the battle lines are drawn as the council reaches crossroad of just how to deal with Iraq. The U.S., Britain and Spain have submitted a resolution that inches toward military action, while France, Germany and Russia raise their voices for restraint.
Jonathan Tucker served as biological weapons back inspector in Iraq in 1995, and he is now a senior fellow at the U.S. Institute of Peace, and there, he specializes in weapons of mass destruction and arms control. He's with us this morning to share some insights.

Good to see you this morning, John. Thank you for the taking the time to talk with us today.

JONATHAN TUCKER, FMR. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: Good morning.

HARRIS: Let me ask you, first of all, have you heard comments that came from Saddam Hussein in the last day or so, talking about these Al Samoud II missiles, saying that they are not these weapons that have been proscribed by the U.N. Security Council? He's saying the weapons do not fly out of the range of I believe it's 93 miles they were allowed to fly.

What do you make -- is there is any argument that can be made that the weapons actually are not proscribed weapons?

TUCKER: Well, the Iraqis are argued that because the weapons were tested without the full payload and the guidance system, that, in fact, their range is more limited.

HARRIS: Does that sound right to you?

TUCKER: Well, there was a review of Iraq's missile programs conducted by experts brought together about the United Nations, and they concluded unanimously that these missiles are, in fact, a violation of the range limits. And Hans Blix has ordered unequivocally the Iraqis to destroy the weapons. If they were to defy that order, that would put them in direct defiance of the U.N. weapons inspectors. It would be a major step for the Iraqis to take.

HARRIS: Would you expect them to take that step?

TUCKER: I think they are going to drag their feet. But at the end of the day, I think they understand that this would be a very dangerous step for them to take, and I think at the end of the day, they will decide to destroy the weapons. HARRIS: All right then, in recent days, we heard that this Al Samoud II missile may be the tip of the iceberg. Based on your knowledge of what may be in that country, what do you think is underneath the surface of the water of this iceberg here?

TUCKER: Well, the major issue is Iraq's failure or inability to account for its claimed destruction of large quantities of chemical and biological weapons. The Iraqis claim the weapons were destroyed 1991 , but they have not been able, or they have been unwilling to provide adequate documentation and physical evidence that the weapons were in fact destroyed. So that is the challenge that is facing the inspectors, and also Iraq.

HARRIS: Have you heard some of the quotes that have been in the press recently, I believe in the last two days or so, from some of the inspectors over there, complaining about the U.S. intelligence that they're working with. And I'm quoting here, one inspector called it garbage upon garbage, and he went on to say he believes U.S. is sending them out purposely on wild goose chases. What do you think about that?

TUCKER: Well, that is a problem that we encountered back in the '90s, that some intelligence is just wrong. And it could be based on incorrect sources or deliberate disinformation, but I have also heard that the U.S. has not been adequately forthcoming with intelligence information, and the inspectors have complained repeatedly that they are not getting actionable intelligence from the United States, and they feel that the U.S. may be deliberately trying to undermine the inspection process.

HARRIS: Well, if the U.S. is really trying to convince the world, forget about the inspection process, if they are trying to get the world to join its side of the debate about what to do on Iraq, doesn't it make imperative that the U.S. actually gives actionable intelligence, and if they haven't so far, does it mean they don't have any?

TUCKER: That's a good question. I believe they do have quite a bit more information than they have thus far provided. There are concerns on the part of the intelligence community that UNMOVIC may have been penetrated by Iraqi intelligence, and that this information, which some would like to use in a war for targeting purposes, could be compromised. So there is a tug-of-war going on within the U.S. government, with the intelligence community being reluctant to release information until they are confident it can be kept secret by the inspectors.

HARRIS: So once again, no easy way to make an easy decision out of all this.

Jonathan Tucker, former weapons inspector, thank you very much. Appreciate your time this morning. Thank you.

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