Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Today
Discussion with Ambassador Joseph Wilson
Aired March 06, 2003 - 10:01 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.
DARYN KAGAN, CNN ANCHOR: We're getting word from the White House that President Bush will hold a news conference later today. Want to get the latest on this, and bring in our White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux.
Suzanne, good morning.
SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Daryn.
We just got word that yes, there's going to be a press conference, 8:00 in the East Room this evening. It is not going to war declaration, rather, a chance for the president to answer reporters' questions, and to make an opening statement on the successes of the war on terror. All along, the White House has been saying the president would take his case, make his case to the American people if he decided that war was necessary. We've been told this is not that speech tonight.
At the same time, the diplomatic efforts continue. Secretary of State Colin Powell in New York. He will be trying to push those undecided U.N. Security Council members, those votes to get that second resolution passed. And, of course, at the same time, military planning very much in earnest.
It was just yesterday that the president met with his top Pentagon advisers. Quite frankly, they told the president the U.S. military is ready. All he has to do is give the authorization for military force.
Here's what we're looking at, a possible timeline here. Of course, very important tomorrow is Hans Blix's report to the Security Council on the update on weapons inspections. Perhaps in the days to follow, if the United States says look, if we can see the votes for the resolution, they'll set a date for a vote, perhaps as early as Monday or Tuesday. And following that, the president is expected to make that determination, whether or not the United States is going to go to war.
Daryn, there are a lot of things that could change, of course, a couple of scenarios. If the administration does not believe it has the support for the second resolution setting the stage for war, it could be a lot faster, it could move that timetable up. If they believe that British Prime Minister Tony Blair's amended resolution, giving a little bit more time is something that will pass, then that will set the deadline a little bit back, but not by very much.
We're talking about 72 hours to a week. All of this happening very quickly, Daryn. But again, we've been told that the president has not yet made up his mind about whether or not the country is going to war, but he's certainly going to paint a broad picture this evening in that press conference. Daryn?
KAGAN: Meanwhile, Suzanne, any reaction out of the White House about France, and Germany and Russia coming out yesterday, and very strongly, plainly stating that any one of those countries would veto any measure going through the Security Council right now declaring war on Iraq?
MALVEAUX: Well, the White House has been rather dismissive about those comments, really downplaying them, saying they didn't say the "v" word explicitly, that they may not use the veto power, that you have to wait until all of this plays out. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said saying French President Jacques Chirac said something very similar in October before that resolution 1441 was passed unanimously.
So, again, they are working on the diplomatic front, also working on the military front. We should have some answers sometime next week.
Suzanne Malveaux at the White House, thank you very much.
You heard Suzanne make mention of a potential compromise drafted by the British. For more of that, we want to go to London and bring in our Matthew Chance from London about what might be in there.
Matthew, hello.
MATTHEW CHANCE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hello to you, Daryn, as well.
As yet, there is no compromised proposal that's been put forward by the British, just a lot of talk that's been bandied around in the media at this stage. Downing Street officials, government officials here in Britain, saying only that intensive negotiations are continuing with all the parties involved at the Security Council.
Having said that, there are these rumors, reports swirling around in the British media about a compromise proposal, a proposal which would give Iraq, in the words of some, a little more time to come into compliance with U.N. resolution 1441.
But it would also set a deadline for Saddam Hussein to come into compliance, triggering military intervention if he does not. The hope, in Britain, the hope in Downing Street very much, that this would be enough to bring on board the doubters, particularly ones that hold a Security Council Veto, bring them on board with this resolution -- Daryn.
KAGAN: We do expect to hear from the British foreign minister, Jack straw, about 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time today at the United Nations.
But any word about more timing of this, Matthew, or the details that might make up this compromise? CHANCE: No word at this stage at all. We're hoping, of course, that Jack Straw, when he meets the press in the United States, in New York over the course of the next hour or so, then we will be able to get some more clarification. Certainly, at this point, Downing Street officials are being very tight-lipped on it, saying at this stage, the possibility of a compromise proposal is only one of many possibilities on how to go forward.
One of the things, of course, Downing Street will be doing very carefully is making sure it brings along the United States with this. It does not want to be seen to be moving itself away from the very hard-line position of the Bush administration on this issue. And so, obviously, a lot of talking still has to be done before the proposals are made public -- Daryn.
KAGAN: And that is the next kind of question that comes to mind here. Is it a sign of the crack between the unity between the U.S. and Britain. Is it the sign of Britain breaking away from its steadfast report of what the U.S. might have in store.
CHANCE: I think it's more an acknowledgment by the British government that they're not going to get the kind of support on the Security Council they'd hoped for. Tony Blair has staked a lot on getting a second U.N. Security Council resolution. I'm sure he's very mindful of the opinion polls that show quite clearly in this country, and the latest ones have been out in the last few days, quite clearly that 75 percent of the British public would back a war with Iraq, if there was a second Security Council resolution authorizing it. But that support slips to just 24 percent without one. Tony Blair very mindful of those figures.
ZAHN: Matthew Chance in London, thank you so much.
We want to move right from there to the United Nations, where, once again, we expect a lot of action. If not action, then a lot of words today.
Let's go to the United Nations and to our Richard Roth.
Richard, good morning.
RICHARD ROTH, CNN SR. U.N. CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Daryn.
Well, we can follow up on Matthew Chance's report with comments from British ambassador to the United Nations, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, who moments ago was asked about talk about any type of British compromise proposal.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SIR JEREMY GREENSTOCK, BRITISH AMB. TO U.N.: I haven't heard ministers talk about a compromise. We're going to the objective of this whole operation, which is complete disarmament of Iraq. Let's see what ministers say. They're coming tomorrow. No decisions have been taken. We're still talking with all other members of the Security Council. We'll take it day by day. (END VIDEO CLIP)
ROTH: At tomorrow's meeting, the British ambassador said the U.K. would be interested in presenting facts, not speculation, to the council. Of course, that meeting highlighted at the start by Hans Blix's latest report in person.
Yesterday, he gave a bit of a preview to correspondents here at the United Nations. Blix saying that Iraq has made real disarmament efforts when comes to dismantling Al Samoud II missiles, though he still can't account for Iraq's biological weapons program. Again, the tone could be mixed tomorrow.
Meanwhile, the United States has ordered the expulsion of two Iraqis at the U.N. mission for Iraq. They have to get out by tomorrow. The U.S. says they were engaged in conduct that was harmful to the United States.
Today, the Iraqi ambassador, Mohammad Al Douri, firmly denied this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MOHAMMAD AL DOURI, IRAQI AMB. TO U.N.: We didn't really find any reasonable reason for that, so we imagine that this is done within their campaign against my country, and also try to -- just a part of the harassment against our people here in our people here and my mission here. This is my comment on that.
QUESTION: Can you tell me what these two gentlemen...
AL DOURI: Well, they are the guards of the mission, only the guards. They are not really a real diplomat. They are attache working in our mission. Their work, their job is only to guard, guarding our mission. They are guards only.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROTH: Iraq's U.n. ambassador to the U.N., Mohammad Al Douri to CNN producer Dana Garrett (ph) in a fierce snowstorm, yet another one here in New York. Iraq's news reporter here, inside Iraqi headquarters, belonging to the Iraqi News Agency, was also expelled last week by the United States -- Daryn.
KAGAN: Richard, and give us more of a preview of what will take place tomorrow. You say the report from Hans Blix looks like it potentially will be mixed. But in terms of how it's going to play out, in terms of the day.
ROTH: Well, it could follow what happened last time, where the real swords come out, and a lot of verbal jousting between France and the United States, the main opponents on this new resolution, this latest one. The U.S. thinks it's more than enough, that the resolution passed in November authorizes force. France drew applause last time inside the chamber against U.N. rules by advocating more time for the inspectors. That's what could happen, though, they may take it behind closed doors, if they can agree on that.
KAGAN: Richard Roth, yes, even the smallest details, having a tough time agreeing there at the United Nations.
Richard, thank you so much.
I want to encourage you to have your television on CNN this time tomorrow, live coverage as Hans Blix delivers his report to the U.N. Security Council. Our coverage begins tomorrow at 9:30 a.m. Eastern, 6:30 a.m. Pacific.
Well now, let's get the view from Baghdad, and our senior international correspondent Nic Robertson joins us live from the Iraqi capital.
Nic, hello.
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN SR. INTL. CORRESPONDENT: Hello, Daryn.
Well, it is a changing view as we stand here in Baghdad. Diplomatic sources are saying that of the 900 U.N. workers here three months ago. In a couple of days, that figure will be down to 45 U.N. workers, just the most needed international U.N. workers in the central and southern areas of Iraq.
Also, diplomatic sources saying that a number, quite a large number, maybe as many as several hundred, Russian workers, many of them working in the oil field, they also leaving Iraq today. Some of them have been seen waiting at Saddam International Airport, the main airport here in Baghdad. Iraqi officials saying they've complied again with disposing and destroying some of the Al Samoud II missiles, saying six more were destroyed today. President Saddam Hussein meeting on television last night with top military commanders, commented for first time on the Al Samoud missiles, saying their destruction would not destroy the moral of the Iraqi people and the Iraqi soldiers.
And President Saddam Hussein has had another meeting with the top ministers, in that meeting saying the United States should not think that they cannot attack Iraq in one go and that will be it. Describing any attack against Iraq by the United States as utter foolishness. That also was followed up in newspapers today, headlines saying that any invading force will die in Iraq's deserts, the deserts will turn into graveyards for the invader -- Daryn.
KAGAN: Nic Robertson in Baghdad, thank you very much.
We'll turn our attention back to the progress report we're expecting tomorrow from the U.N.'s two top inspectors. Whatever is said or not said could set the stage for war.
And joining us for more on that is Joseph Wilson, former U.S. ambassador to Iraq and the last U.S. official to talk to Saddam Hussein before the Gulf War. He also is an adjunct collar at the Middle East Institute.
Mr. Ambassador, good morning. Thank you for being with us.
JOSEPH WILSON, FMR. U.S. AMB.: Hi, Daryn.
And also, like you, I'm from Santa Barbara, California, and proud of it.
KAGAN: Thank you so much, Mr. Ambassador.
Let's get to the very serious news of the morning, and that is looking forward to tomorrow's meeting at the United Nations with the Security Council. Any hope that anything Hans Blix could have to say could set this on a better path than it appears to be?
WILSON: I don't think so at all. I think the decision -- not only has the decision been made to launch this invasion of Iraq, but I think for all intents and purposes, a war has begun.
KAGAN: I heard you say that earlier. Why do you say that?
WILSON: Well, the rules of engagement covering the two no-fly zones were historically that U.S. aircraft would attack anti-aircraft batteries and their command and control centers if we were painted by their radar. Those rules of engagement have now been changed to attack surface-to-surface missile batteries. That is a far different approach. That's an offensive action, taken, indeed, as a secretary said, to defend ourselves against a possible surface-to-surface missile attack on our troops in Kuwait.
KAGAN: Mr. Ambassador, you say it's an offensive action, but in fact, isn't Saddam Hussein, in fact, moving the missiles down to the southern part of the country, threatening Kuwait and the other countries down there, and the United States is doing that to show the countries on board with the U.S. that indeed they will protect them as well.
WILSON: No doubt about it. Nonetheless, it's a different rule of engagement than the one that we'd been operating under for all the years of the no-fly zones. And as such, it strikes me as real evidence that we're moving forward with our assault plan.
KAGAN: The other thing that's kind of floating out right now is the potential compromise the British might come up with. Any hope on that?
WILSON: I think actually Tony Blair has been hung out to dry. He signed up to a disarmament campaign, and what he got is what the president announced in his American Enterprise Institute speech last week. He's got a regime change and a redrawing of the political map of the Middle East campaign, which makes the Europeans nervous, and puts Tony Blair, who has sided with the president, in a very awkward position.
KAGAN: Well, speaking of the Europeans, when you see how France, Germany and the Russians are acting, and some people have predicted that perhaps they could be split apart, but that union seems to be stronger and stronger. Are you surprised how that's played out? WILSON: Not at all. I think at the end of the day, they read the president's speech last week, and I think they feel vindicated that while the president was talking about disarmament, in fact, he sided with the neoconservatives here in the United States for a much more aggressive campaign in Iraq, which has much different objectives.
KAGAN: Mr. Ambassador, if you can hang on for a second, we want to listen to secretary of state Colin Powell before the Senate Appropriations Committee. We want to listen in for a bit.
(INTERRUPTED BY LIVE EVENT)
KAGAN: We were listening in there. This is Secretary of State Colin Powell -- that isn't, but he was talking to the Senate Appropriations Committee. I want to bring Ambassador Wilson back in and go over a couple points we heard Colin Powell talk on. The timing was good, because it brings up two key points, philosophical in nature, that some people buy and some don't. First, the timing. You heard him say you've got to go now. You know Saddam Hussein's building the weapons. You go now before he can use them. Some people in the buying that argument of a preemptive strike.
WILSON: Well, I think that's exactly right, and that's because it's clear from both what we've seen on the ground what Mr. Blix will say tomorrow, and what the president and the secretary have themselves said in the past, that the intrusive inspections are having an effect. They are forcing the Iraqi bureaucracy to spend all its time hiding their weapons of mass destruction. It's showing up some of these weapons that are actually being discovered. So there's been some cooperation, albeit not nearly enough. Scientists, as they've said and leaked to "The Wall Street Journal," thereby rendering them ineffective in their programs, and scientists have been threatened with death if they cooperate, rendering them quite possibly dysfunctional.
So disruption is a significant measure of success as has been described by any number of generals who are in this business and take a look at it. The question really is, in order to achieve the objective of disarmament, do we have to launch this shock and awe campaign, which will involve 3,000 bombs being dropped around Iraq, followed by a ground invasion, followed by an occupation for 10 years. Those who look at this suggest it will spawn an entire generation of terrorists. It will be, in fact, the greatest recruitment tool that terrorist organizations can imagine. Does that enhance our war against terrorism?
KAGAN: Well, let me just play devil's advocate for a second, and certainly can't you at least understand the frustration on the Bush administration, saying why are we even talking about this in this respect, in that the inspectors are working, are having some effect, but even the people who are fighting the idea of putting the strike on Iraq are admitting that this isn't happening. Osama bin Laden has an order to disarm -- I'm sorry, Saddam Hussein has an order to disarm, and he has not. He's not complying.
WILSON: Well, no, that's exactly right, and we've known that since December.
But the question really is, is disarmament -- the question is not compliance. We know he's not complied. The question now before the world is the best way to disarm him. And the best way to achieve a the goals of the international community, as it was articulated in 1441.
Now, the trouble is, is that the mission -- the administration's objectives have morphed since the passage of 1441 from disarmament to this far broader objective of redrawing the political map of the Middle East, as was articulated by the president in his speech at the American Enterprise Institute last week. That's what makes everybody in the international community nervous. If we were to get back on to disarmament, I have no doubt but that the rest of the international community would see its way clear to support that as an objective, but that means, essentially, that there are several steps between where we are now and the total war that we'll be in next week or the week after.
KAGAN: As you mentioned, there are plenty of nervous people not just in the international diplomatic community, but just regular people all around the world.
Ambassador Wilson, thanks so much on your insight and your take on that situation today. Appreciate your time.
WILSON: Thanks, Daryn. Good to be with 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 March 6, 2003 - 10:01 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
DARYN KAGAN, CNN ANCHOR: We're getting word from the White House that President Bush will hold a news conference later today. Want to get the latest on this, and bring in our White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux.
Suzanne, good morning.
SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Daryn.
We just got word that yes, there's going to be a press conference, 8:00 in the East Room this evening. It is not going to war declaration, rather, a chance for the president to answer reporters' questions, and to make an opening statement on the successes of the war on terror. All along, the White House has been saying the president would take his case, make his case to the American people if he decided that war was necessary. We've been told this is not that speech tonight.
At the same time, the diplomatic efforts continue. Secretary of State Colin Powell in New York. He will be trying to push those undecided U.N. Security Council members, those votes to get that second resolution passed. And, of course, at the same time, military planning very much in earnest.
It was just yesterday that the president met with his top Pentagon advisers. Quite frankly, they told the president the U.S. military is ready. All he has to do is give the authorization for military force.
Here's what we're looking at, a possible timeline here. Of course, very important tomorrow is Hans Blix's report to the Security Council on the update on weapons inspections. Perhaps in the days to follow, if the United States says look, if we can see the votes for the resolution, they'll set a date for a vote, perhaps as early as Monday or Tuesday. And following that, the president is expected to make that determination, whether or not the United States is going to go to war.
Daryn, there are a lot of things that could change, of course, a couple of scenarios. If the administration does not believe it has the support for the second resolution setting the stage for war, it could be a lot faster, it could move that timetable up. If they believe that British Prime Minister Tony Blair's amended resolution, giving a little bit more time is something that will pass, then that will set the deadline a little bit back, but not by very much.
We're talking about 72 hours to a week. All of this happening very quickly, Daryn. But again, we've been told that the president has not yet made up his mind about whether or not the country is going to war, but he's certainly going to paint a broad picture this evening in that press conference. Daryn?
KAGAN: Meanwhile, Suzanne, any reaction out of the White House about France, and Germany and Russia coming out yesterday, and very strongly, plainly stating that any one of those countries would veto any measure going through the Security Council right now declaring war on Iraq?
MALVEAUX: Well, the White House has been rather dismissive about those comments, really downplaying them, saying they didn't say the "v" word explicitly, that they may not use the veto power, that you have to wait until all of this plays out. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said saying French President Jacques Chirac said something very similar in October before that resolution 1441 was passed unanimously.
So, again, they are working on the diplomatic front, also working on the military front. We should have some answers sometime next week.
Suzanne Malveaux at the White House, thank you very much.
You heard Suzanne make mention of a potential compromise drafted by the British. For more of that, we want to go to London and bring in our Matthew Chance from London about what might be in there.
Matthew, hello.
MATTHEW CHANCE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hello to you, Daryn, as well.
As yet, there is no compromised proposal that's been put forward by the British, just a lot of talk that's been bandied around in the media at this stage. Downing Street officials, government officials here in Britain, saying only that intensive negotiations are continuing with all the parties involved at the Security Council.
Having said that, there are these rumors, reports swirling around in the British media about a compromise proposal, a proposal which would give Iraq, in the words of some, a little more time to come into compliance with U.N. resolution 1441.
But it would also set a deadline for Saddam Hussein to come into compliance, triggering military intervention if he does not. The hope, in Britain, the hope in Downing Street very much, that this would be enough to bring on board the doubters, particularly ones that hold a Security Council Veto, bring them on board with this resolution -- Daryn.
KAGAN: We do expect to hear from the British foreign minister, Jack straw, about 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time today at the United Nations.
But any word about more timing of this, Matthew, or the details that might make up this compromise? CHANCE: No word at this stage at all. We're hoping, of course, that Jack Straw, when he meets the press in the United States, in New York over the course of the next hour or so, then we will be able to get some more clarification. Certainly, at this point, Downing Street officials are being very tight-lipped on it, saying at this stage, the possibility of a compromise proposal is only one of many possibilities on how to go forward.
One of the things, of course, Downing Street will be doing very carefully is making sure it brings along the United States with this. It does not want to be seen to be moving itself away from the very hard-line position of the Bush administration on this issue. And so, obviously, a lot of talking still has to be done before the proposals are made public -- Daryn.
KAGAN: And that is the next kind of question that comes to mind here. Is it a sign of the crack between the unity between the U.S. and Britain. Is it the sign of Britain breaking away from its steadfast report of what the U.S. might have in store.
CHANCE: I think it's more an acknowledgment by the British government that they're not going to get the kind of support on the Security Council they'd hoped for. Tony Blair has staked a lot on getting a second U.N. Security Council resolution. I'm sure he's very mindful of the opinion polls that show quite clearly in this country, and the latest ones have been out in the last few days, quite clearly that 75 percent of the British public would back a war with Iraq, if there was a second Security Council resolution authorizing it. But that support slips to just 24 percent without one. Tony Blair very mindful of those figures.
ZAHN: Matthew Chance in London, thank you so much.
We want to move right from there to the United Nations, where, once again, we expect a lot of action. If not action, then a lot of words today.
Let's go to the United Nations and to our Richard Roth.
Richard, good morning.
RICHARD ROTH, CNN SR. U.N. CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Daryn.
Well, we can follow up on Matthew Chance's report with comments from British ambassador to the United Nations, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, who moments ago was asked about talk about any type of British compromise proposal.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SIR JEREMY GREENSTOCK, BRITISH AMB. TO U.N.: I haven't heard ministers talk about a compromise. We're going to the objective of this whole operation, which is complete disarmament of Iraq. Let's see what ministers say. They're coming tomorrow. No decisions have been taken. We're still talking with all other members of the Security Council. We'll take it day by day. (END VIDEO CLIP)
ROTH: At tomorrow's meeting, the British ambassador said the U.K. would be interested in presenting facts, not speculation, to the council. Of course, that meeting highlighted at the start by Hans Blix's latest report in person.
Yesterday, he gave a bit of a preview to correspondents here at the United Nations. Blix saying that Iraq has made real disarmament efforts when comes to dismantling Al Samoud II missiles, though he still can't account for Iraq's biological weapons program. Again, the tone could be mixed tomorrow.
Meanwhile, the United States has ordered the expulsion of two Iraqis at the U.N. mission for Iraq. They have to get out by tomorrow. The U.S. says they were engaged in conduct that was harmful to the United States.
Today, the Iraqi ambassador, Mohammad Al Douri, firmly denied this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MOHAMMAD AL DOURI, IRAQI AMB. TO U.N.: We didn't really find any reasonable reason for that, so we imagine that this is done within their campaign against my country, and also try to -- just a part of the harassment against our people here in our people here and my mission here. This is my comment on that.
QUESTION: Can you tell me what these two gentlemen...
AL DOURI: Well, they are the guards of the mission, only the guards. They are not really a real diplomat. They are attache working in our mission. Their work, their job is only to guard, guarding our mission. They are guards only.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROTH: Iraq's U.n. ambassador to the U.N., Mohammad Al Douri to CNN producer Dana Garrett (ph) in a fierce snowstorm, yet another one here in New York. Iraq's news reporter here, inside Iraqi headquarters, belonging to the Iraqi News Agency, was also expelled last week by the United States -- Daryn.
KAGAN: Richard, and give us more of a preview of what will take place tomorrow. You say the report from Hans Blix looks like it potentially will be mixed. But in terms of how it's going to play out, in terms of the day.
ROTH: Well, it could follow what happened last time, where the real swords come out, and a lot of verbal jousting between France and the United States, the main opponents on this new resolution, this latest one. The U.S. thinks it's more than enough, that the resolution passed in November authorizes force. France drew applause last time inside the chamber against U.N. rules by advocating more time for the inspectors. That's what could happen, though, they may take it behind closed doors, if they can agree on that.
KAGAN: Richard Roth, yes, even the smallest details, having a tough time agreeing there at the United Nations.
Richard, thank you so much.
I want to encourage you to have your television on CNN this time tomorrow, live coverage as Hans Blix delivers his report to the U.N. Security Council. Our coverage begins tomorrow at 9:30 a.m. Eastern, 6:30 a.m. Pacific.
Well now, let's get the view from Baghdad, and our senior international correspondent Nic Robertson joins us live from the Iraqi capital.
Nic, hello.
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN SR. INTL. CORRESPONDENT: Hello, Daryn.
Well, it is a changing view as we stand here in Baghdad. Diplomatic sources are saying that of the 900 U.N. workers here three months ago. In a couple of days, that figure will be down to 45 U.N. workers, just the most needed international U.N. workers in the central and southern areas of Iraq.
Also, diplomatic sources saying that a number, quite a large number, maybe as many as several hundred, Russian workers, many of them working in the oil field, they also leaving Iraq today. Some of them have been seen waiting at Saddam International Airport, the main airport here in Baghdad. Iraqi officials saying they've complied again with disposing and destroying some of the Al Samoud II missiles, saying six more were destroyed today. President Saddam Hussein meeting on television last night with top military commanders, commented for first time on the Al Samoud missiles, saying their destruction would not destroy the moral of the Iraqi people and the Iraqi soldiers.
And President Saddam Hussein has had another meeting with the top ministers, in that meeting saying the United States should not think that they cannot attack Iraq in one go and that will be it. Describing any attack against Iraq by the United States as utter foolishness. That also was followed up in newspapers today, headlines saying that any invading force will die in Iraq's deserts, the deserts will turn into graveyards for the invader -- Daryn.
KAGAN: Nic Robertson in Baghdad, thank you very much.
We'll turn our attention back to the progress report we're expecting tomorrow from the U.N.'s two top inspectors. Whatever is said or not said could set the stage for war.
And joining us for more on that is Joseph Wilson, former U.S. ambassador to Iraq and the last U.S. official to talk to Saddam Hussein before the Gulf War. He also is an adjunct collar at the Middle East Institute.
Mr. Ambassador, good morning. Thank you for being with us.
JOSEPH WILSON, FMR. U.S. AMB.: Hi, Daryn.
And also, like you, I'm from Santa Barbara, California, and proud of it.
KAGAN: Thank you so much, Mr. Ambassador.
Let's get to the very serious news of the morning, and that is looking forward to tomorrow's meeting at the United Nations with the Security Council. Any hope that anything Hans Blix could have to say could set this on a better path than it appears to be?
WILSON: I don't think so at all. I think the decision -- not only has the decision been made to launch this invasion of Iraq, but I think for all intents and purposes, a war has begun.
KAGAN: I heard you say that earlier. Why do you say that?
WILSON: Well, the rules of engagement covering the two no-fly zones were historically that U.S. aircraft would attack anti-aircraft batteries and their command and control centers if we were painted by their radar. Those rules of engagement have now been changed to attack surface-to-surface missile batteries. That is a far different approach. That's an offensive action, taken, indeed, as a secretary said, to defend ourselves against a possible surface-to-surface missile attack on our troops in Kuwait.
KAGAN: Mr. Ambassador, you say it's an offensive action, but in fact, isn't Saddam Hussein, in fact, moving the missiles down to the southern part of the country, threatening Kuwait and the other countries down there, and the United States is doing that to show the countries on board with the U.S. that indeed they will protect them as well.
WILSON: No doubt about it. Nonetheless, it's a different rule of engagement than the one that we'd been operating under for all the years of the no-fly zones. And as such, it strikes me as real evidence that we're moving forward with our assault plan.
KAGAN: The other thing that's kind of floating out right now is the potential compromise the British might come up with. Any hope on that?
WILSON: I think actually Tony Blair has been hung out to dry. He signed up to a disarmament campaign, and what he got is what the president announced in his American Enterprise Institute speech last week. He's got a regime change and a redrawing of the political map of the Middle East campaign, which makes the Europeans nervous, and puts Tony Blair, who has sided with the president, in a very awkward position.
KAGAN: Well, speaking of the Europeans, when you see how France, Germany and the Russians are acting, and some people have predicted that perhaps they could be split apart, but that union seems to be stronger and stronger. Are you surprised how that's played out? WILSON: Not at all. I think at the end of the day, they read the president's speech last week, and I think they feel vindicated that while the president was talking about disarmament, in fact, he sided with the neoconservatives here in the United States for a much more aggressive campaign in Iraq, which has much different objectives.
KAGAN: Mr. Ambassador, if you can hang on for a second, we want to listen to secretary of state Colin Powell before the Senate Appropriations Committee. We want to listen in for a bit.
(INTERRUPTED BY LIVE EVENT)
KAGAN: We were listening in there. This is Secretary of State Colin Powell -- that isn't, but he was talking to the Senate Appropriations Committee. I want to bring Ambassador Wilson back in and go over a couple points we heard Colin Powell talk on. The timing was good, because it brings up two key points, philosophical in nature, that some people buy and some don't. First, the timing. You heard him say you've got to go now. You know Saddam Hussein's building the weapons. You go now before he can use them. Some people in the buying that argument of a preemptive strike.
WILSON: Well, I think that's exactly right, and that's because it's clear from both what we've seen on the ground what Mr. Blix will say tomorrow, and what the president and the secretary have themselves said in the past, that the intrusive inspections are having an effect. They are forcing the Iraqi bureaucracy to spend all its time hiding their weapons of mass destruction. It's showing up some of these weapons that are actually being discovered. So there's been some cooperation, albeit not nearly enough. Scientists, as they've said and leaked to "The Wall Street Journal," thereby rendering them ineffective in their programs, and scientists have been threatened with death if they cooperate, rendering them quite possibly dysfunctional.
So disruption is a significant measure of success as has been described by any number of generals who are in this business and take a look at it. The question really is, in order to achieve the objective of disarmament, do we have to launch this shock and awe campaign, which will involve 3,000 bombs being dropped around Iraq, followed by a ground invasion, followed by an occupation for 10 years. Those who look at this suggest it will spawn an entire generation of terrorists. It will be, in fact, the greatest recruitment tool that terrorist organizations can imagine. Does that enhance our war against terrorism?
KAGAN: Well, let me just play devil's advocate for a second, and certainly can't you at least understand the frustration on the Bush administration, saying why are we even talking about this in this respect, in that the inspectors are working, are having some effect, but even the people who are fighting the idea of putting the strike on Iraq are admitting that this isn't happening. Osama bin Laden has an order to disarm -- I'm sorry, Saddam Hussein has an order to disarm, and he has not. He's not complying.
WILSON: Well, no, that's exactly right, and we've known that since December.
But the question really is, is disarmament -- the question is not compliance. We know he's not complied. The question now before the world is the best way to disarm him. And the best way to achieve a the goals of the international community, as it was articulated in 1441.
Now, the trouble is, is that the mission -- the administration's objectives have morphed since the passage of 1441 from disarmament to this far broader objective of redrawing the political map of the Middle East, as was articulated by the president in his speech at the American Enterprise Institute last week. That's what makes everybody in the international community nervous. If we were to get back on to disarmament, I have no doubt but that the rest of the international community would see its way clear to support that as an objective, but that means, essentially, that there are several steps between where we are now and the total war that we'll be in next week or the week after.
KAGAN: As you mentioned, there are plenty of nervous people not just in the international diplomatic community, but just regular people all around the world.
Ambassador Wilson, thanks so much on your insight and your take on that situation today. Appreciate your time.
WILSON: Thanks, Daryn. Good to be with 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
