|
CNN CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT
U.N. Weapons Inspectors Present Their Case; Search for bin Laden Continues
Aired March 7, 2003 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
CONNIE CHUNG, HOST: Good evening. I'm Connie Chung.
Tonight, is it now just a matter of days before the U.S. takes action against President Saddam Hussein?
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ANNOUNCER: Showdown: Iraq. U.N. weapons inspectors present their case.
COLIN POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE: Now is the time for the Council to send a clear message to Saddam.
The clock is ticking for Iraq. A diplomatic solution or war?
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I will not leave the American people at the mercy of the Iraqi dictator and his weapons.
ANNOUNCER: Is the noose tightening on Osama bin Laden? After the capture of his No. 1 terrorist planner, are members of his family next?
CHARLIE DANIELS, SINGER: The devil went down to Georgia he was looking for a soul to steal. He was in a bind because he was way and he was willing to make a deal.
ANNOUNCER: A country rock legend takes on Hollywood's anti-war movement. Tonight, Charlie Daniels lashes out.
And, our "Person of the Day." A miraculous comeback.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ANNOUNCER: This is CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT. From the CNN Broadcast Center in New York, Connie Chung.
CHUNG: Good evening.
The United States tonight seems poised to begin a war against Iraq, no matter what the United Nations does. And today, the head arms inspectors reported to the Security Council. While most Council members seem to feel inspections deserve more time, the United States seems to be looking at a different clock.
Secretary of State Colin Powell summed it up in blunt terms.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
POWELL: Let us not forget the horrors still going on in Iraq, with a spare moment to remember the suffering Iraqi people whose treasure is spent on these kinds of programs and not for their own benefit, people who are being beaten, brutalized, and robbed by Saddam and his regime. Colleagues, now is the time for the Council to send a clear message to Saddam, that we have not been taken in by his transparent tactics.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CHUNG: And last night, the president said unless Saddam Hussein disarms now, the U.S. will act with or without U.N. approval.
We begin our coverage this evening with a report on events at the Security Council. CNN's Richard Roth was there all day.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
RICHARD ROTH, CNN SR. UNITED NATIONS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): A deadline for Iraq. The U.S., Britain and Spain want to give Iraq until March 17 to give up weapons of mass destruction.
JACK STRAW, BRITISH FOREIGN SECY.: Mr. President, the Council must send Iraq the clear message that we will resolve this crisis on the United Nations' terms.
ROTH: The deadline, included in an amended draft resolution, which still needs approval by the full Security Council. France immediately rejected the idea.
DOMINIQUE DE VILLEPIN, FRENCH FOREIGN MINISTER: They are giving the deadline of the 17th of March, which is 10 days. We don't think that we go to war on a timetable.
ROTH: The deadline dilemma pushed a U.N. weapons inspectors' report into the background. Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix did cite better Iraqi cooperation, but, again, with a caveat.
HANS BLIX, CHIEF U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: Iraq, with a highly developed administrative system, should be able to provide more documentary evidence about its proscribed weapons programs. Only a few new such documents have come to light so far.
ROTH: The bottom line on the Blix report: no evidence of mobile weapons production centers, no evidence of underground weapons production, despite U.S. charges. Blix gives Iraq points for trying to give an accurate count of biological and chemical weapons it already destroyed, but scolds them for failing to revealing how many of those weapons it produced in the first place.
When it comes to Iraq's destruction of al-Samoud 2 missiles, this showdown:
BLIX: We are not watching the breaking of toothpicks. Lethal weapons are being destroyed.
POWELL: But the problem was we don't know how many missiles there are, how many toothpicks there are.
ROTH: Blix's assessment of a timetable for Iraqi disarmament could not have sat well with the Bush administration.
BLIX: It will not take years, nor weeks, but months.
ROTH: And this from the top nuclear inspector:
MOHAMMED ELBARADEI, IAEA CHIEF: We have, to date, found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapon program in Iraq.
ROTH: Blix and ElBaradei both cited better Iraqi cooperation in allowing scientists to be interviewed in private. But they both said they want to be able to speak to those scientists outside Iraq.
When they finished, divided Council members dug in deeper.
DE VILLEPIN (through translator): Why should we wish to proceed by force at any price when we can succeed peacefully?
STRAW: Dominique, that's a false choice. I wish that it were that easy, because we wouldn't be having to have this discussion. We could all put up our hands for disarmament by peace and go home.
POWELL: The clock continues to tick, and the consequences of Saddam Hussein's continued refusal to disarm will be very, very real.
ROTH: The final speaker in the debate, the Iraqi ambassador, who was unyielding.
MOHAMMED AL-DOURI, IRAQI AMBASSADOR TO THE U.N.: War against Iraq will not unearth any weapons of mass destruction. But it will wreak destruction. For a very simple reason -- there are no such weapons.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ROTH: A vote is likely early next week. But probability of passage is very unclear -- Connie.
CHUNG: Richard, how is this British proposal being received in the Security Council, other than France?
ROTH: Well, there's some lukewarm response from nonpermanent members. Chile said it would not be in favor because it doesn't give Iraq enough time to comply with disarmament. Others also are rather concerned that there won't be enough time because by the time the resolution, if passed -- there's just not going to be much time except days.
CHUNG: Is Chile stopping short of saying it will actually vote against it? ROTH: Chile is stopping short and those who have veto power on the Security Council have also stopped short over the last few days. They talk tough and they say they're not in favor of the resolution, but the veto has yet to be tested.
CHUNG: And Richard, you said the vote would occur probably next week. If the vote occurs, for instance at the beginning of the week, does that mean that the March 17 deadline will extend beyond March 17, because it will no longer be 10 days, it will be five days?
ROTH: Unless the resolution is further adjusted, the calendar day of March 17 remains that, no matter what time or what day the resolution would be approved.
CHUNG: All right. So the deadline once again would be March 17. What will the United States do?
ROTH: The United States is going to keep the pressure on to try to get nine votes in favor, without any vetoes. One diplomat, though, told us that it does not appear that this resolution would pass. It would be overwhelmingly defeated as-is.
But what about Iraq cooperating by the 17th? Another diplomat said he has as much chance of marrying or having a date with Julia Roberts than Iraq does of cooperating in full by the 17th.
CHUNG: Well, Richard, how seriously, then, is the United States taking the vote? Obviously it sounds like it's not.
ROTH: One of the reasons the U.S. wants a vote and wants a new resolution added to all the others is to help British ally Tony Blair. He is in trouble politically. The British want a new resolution. It will help draw others on. Perhaps it will show another attempt, giving more space and time to Saddam Hussein, was made.
CHUNG: All right. Richard Roth at the U.N., thank you.
Few people know the ins and outs of international diplomacy as well as Bill Richardson. He searched as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations during the Clinton administration. He's currently the governor of New Mexico, and he joins us tonight from Santa Fe.
Good evening, governor, and thank you so much for being with us.
Take us through a reaction to, if you will, today. And that is, the British reaction, the proposed amendment. Tell us, doesn't this completely change the equation for the United States?
GOV. BILL RICHARDSON (D), NEW MEXICO: Well, it's going to make it tougher for the United States.
Hans Blix's report was mixed, both for the U.S. And for those that support the other side. What is surprising is, one, Chile not being with us, possibly. This was a key vote for us because the best way that I saw the United States winning a vote on a second resolution was by a 9-6 vote with Russia, China and France abstaining. So this is a big blow. Bigger than we may think. Although there is always room to maneuver.
In the last few days, the vote isn't going to be either Tuesday or Thursday, on the March 17 deadline and the U.S.-backed resolution with the British. You never know. There's last-minute maneuverings. But what will happen now is big power politics. You lay it on the line with the Russians, the French -- you lay out on the line with the other small votes we need like Syria, like Chile, like Mexico, and say, this is it. This is a key vote that is not just based on the Iraq issue, but the relationship that you want to have with the United States.
CHUNG: So it's very interested in one thing you just said. You do not believe France, China, or Russia will use the veto?
RICHARDSON: Well, again, I read France's statements today, and they still don't use the word veto. They say they will oppose.
This happened to me many times at the United Nations on resolutions relating to Kosovo and Africa and Iraq. France would always start out being terribly adamant. This time, though, I think it is more serious. Nonetheless, French like to compromise.
I think that everyone is also looking at, what is this vote going to do to the integrity of the Security Council and the United Nations? That in the end, may get us a last-minute compromise that allows France, Russia and China and others to have some face saving. But today's worst development for the U.S. was not Blix's report, which was not good, but Chile kind of moving the other way.
CHUNG: All right. So if Chile actually does not support the United States, does not support the British proposed amendment, what should the United States do? If they are able to count up the votes the way you are, behind the scenes, does the United States proceed with another vote?
RICHARDSON: Well, I think even if we are going to lose, Connie, I think we do proceed with another vote even if it is vetoed. Because then the United States can say, we have a mixed record at the United Nations. Fourteen forty-one the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) resolution does authorizes war. It passed. The second one didn't, it was tactical differences.
It will have a negative effect, no question about it. Because what we are going to need is those countries in the potential reconstruction of Iraq. Plus it robs us of the legitimacy that we're going to need to say that we have international and U.N. support for our actions.
But I think the U.S. has no choice but to proceed. I just said goodbye to a number of New Mexico National Guardsmen and you can't have the deployment of such a force out there in the Persian Gulf, numbers-wise, without contemplating some kind of action.
So I think that we're going to have to proceed even though we may lose the vote. I don't think we will, though. I'm still on the optimistic side. I think narrowly at the end, there will be a face saver that allows all countries to claim victory, including us.
CHUNG: North Korea appears to be escalating its provocations. Should the Bush administration be taking this much more seriously? And will it?
RICHARDSON: The Bush administration needs to focus more on it by engaging in direct talks with North Korea. This is something Republicans and Democrats all across the country feel is needed. You're not going to have other third countries like China be the broker. I think the time has come to go straight to the North Koreans, resolve our differences directly.
CHUNG: All right. Governor Bill Richardson, thank you so much for being with us.
RICHARDSON: Thank you, Connie.
CHUNG: Last night, President Bush again made his case against Iraq during a rare primetime news conference. He stopped short of declaring war as imminent. But he did not equivocate about we he stands.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BUSH: The risk of doing nothing, the risk of hoping that Saddam Hussein changes his mind and becomes a gentle soul, the risk that somehow that inaction will make the world safer, is a risk I'm not willing to take for the American people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CHUNG: With us to discuss the prospect of war, Tom Andrews, former Democratic congressman from Maine. Now a director of Win Without War, a coalition of anti-war groups. He joins us from Washington.
And former Oklahoma Congressman J.C. Watts, a Republican, joins from us Houston. Good evening, gentlemen, and thank you for being with us.
J.C. WATTS, FORMER CONGRESSMAN: Thank you, Connie.
TOM ANDREWS, DIR., WIN WITHOUT WAR: Good evening, Connie.
CHUNG: Congressman Andrews, I know you support the -- basically the anti-war groups. You would like the inspections to continue. But isn't it obvious to you that President Saddam Hussein is destroying missiles, is doing what he can, only because there's the threat of war looming so large?
ANDREWS: Well, Connie, one of the things that most of us didn't realize until just recently is that we destroyed more weapons of mass destruction through the United Nations weapons inspection process during the 1990s than the entire U.S. military did during the Gulf War. If you listen to Hans Blix's report today, significant and substantial progress is being made...
CHUNG: But my question is, isn't it clear why he's destroying missiles?
ANDREWS: Yes, exactly right. Because we are putting pressure on Saddam Hussein. We have him in a box. Exactly, and this is good.
But we don't have to invade Iraq. We don't have to put our young men and women at risk. We don't have to kill innocent Iraqis. We don't have to polarize one of the most volatile regions in the world. And we don't have to put ourselves at risk, Connie, for further terrorist attack by giving Osama bin Laden a tremendous boom in organizing and recruiting new suicidal terrorists...
(CROSSTALK)
CHUNG: That's such an important point. And that's what I want to address with Congressman Watts. I think there are many people who would be supportive of the war, but the two daunting factors are the lives of our soldiers, and the other is the terrorist attacks that will be unleashed on our country. And I don't think there's anyone out there who doesn't doubt that will happen.
WATTS: Well, Connie, go back to September 11, 2001. What did we do to provoke September 11, 2001? What did we do as a nation, as Americans, to call for 2,000 or approximately 3,000 American citizens to be killed?
The point is this, if we do nothing, they will attack us. If we do something, if we defend ourselves, we can't guarantee that they're not going to attack us then. But what President Bush said is this, the risk, the cost of inaction, is much greater than the cost of action. And again, there was nothing that we did on September 11, 2001 to provoke that.
CHUNG: Isn't the United States inflaming a volatile region by proceeding and invading Iraq?
WATTS: Well, you know, Connie, that's about like -- I think that attitude or that approach or that disposition is about like a parent saying, I can't discipline my child, I can't punish my child, because they might do it again. No parent takes that approach.
I think it is the wrong approach to say, we're going to sit back and try to deal with Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden or any other person or organization that would deal with terrorists or encourage terrorism. To sit back and say we're going to deal with them with a lollipop and caviar I think is the wrong approach.
(CROSSTALK)
ANDREWS: Connie, here's the problem. We're debating something that's irrelevant in this debate here and what President Bush said last night misrepresented what all of us in our movement and what people around the world are saying. We're not talking about inaction. We're not talking about handing Saddam Hussein lollipops. We're talking about looking him straight in the eye and saying, we're going to seek out and destroy every single weapon of mass destruction, we're going to disarm you, we're going to make it impossible for you to destroy the lives of your citizens or the region or the rest of the world or threaten us.
But we're going to do it in a way that will not kill innocent Iraqis, put our people at risk and inflame this very volatile region. There's a choice here, Connie. It's not a choice between inaction and action. It's a choice between smart action and what we think is foolish action and we're hoping and we're working very hard to make sure the United States does not move in the second direction.
CHUNG: Congressman Andrews, you're talking about 12 years and 17 resolutions. And Saddam Hussein hasn't acted. It's only now, because of the threat of war.
ANDREWS: Exactly. We need to keep the pressure up, Connie. And it's a very important point to make. Without pressure, without looking him in the eye, without aggressively closing off opportunities for him to be able to get or use or develop weapons of mass destruction, it's not going to work. But we have him in a box right now. He can't move. Every expert realizes that. And says that.
So why, if we are disarming him, if we're containing him, if we have him in a box, do we want to put us all at such risk, kill innocent Iraqis in that region, inflame that volatile very region in the world?
CHUNG: Congressman Watts, I think another thing Americans are very concerned about is the cost. It could be millions, billions. I've seen one estimate, if you include the cost after the war, up to a trillion.
WATTS: Well, Connie, I think we -- those are all estimates and that's speculation...
CHUNG: But you know it's going to be a healthy amount of money.
WATTS: There will be a cost...
CHUNG: An enormous amount of money.
WATTS: But, Connie, I ask you this -- what cost are you and I and Congressman Andrews, what cost are we willing to pay to protect American citizens, to protect America's interests around the world? You bet there's going to be a cost.
But I think it's a cost that we must pay in order to make sure that our citizens and the United States of America, that they are protected. That's the bottom line.
President Bush said last night, I'm not going to rely on anyone, I'm not going to negotiate out or I'm not going to contract out the safety of American citizens to anybody. That is the responsibility of the president of the United States, his team, the Congress. That's our first responsibility, first and foremost, is the safety of American citizens.
And I think it is nonsense, to think that we can deal with Saddam Hussein, considering that he's violated 17 resolutions over the last 12 years. He has been in violation of the 1991 treaties. And these weapons that he's destroyed...
CHUNG: I need to interrupt you. It's such a pity both of you are no longer in Congress. But I thank you so much for being with us and discussing this important issue. Congressman Andrews and Congressman Watts.
Coming up next, what new domestic targets were terrorists planning to attack? We'll find out what a key al Qaeda operative has been saying when we return.
ANNOUNCER: Next, a terrorist roundup in Pakistan's wild west. Is Osama bin Laden's capture in sight? CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHUNG: As President Bush presses for a U.N. vote on war with Iraq, U.S. and Pakistani forces are pressing with renewed vigor the search to find Osama bin Laden. The search has accelerated since the capture this week of a key al Qaeda lieutenant, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who has reportedly began to talk. He's giving interrogators clues about plans for new domestic terrorist attacks. CNN's David Ensor has been following this story.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DAVID ENSOR, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): An aggressive search for Osama bin Laden is under way, U.S. officials say as they and Pakistani officials race to take advantage of new leads.
MATT LEVITT, FRM. FBI INTELLIGENCE ANALYST: There's no question in my mind that we will catch bin Laden. It is only a matter of time.
ENSOR: The information is pointing to this part of Northwest Pakistan, just across the border in Afghanistan. Narrowing the search, officials say, to a few Pakistani provinces and a small area along the Afghan side of the border.
Despite reports to the contrary, knowledgeable U.S. officials say they do not believe bin Laden is currently in the Southwest, the Baluchistan and Balochistan province of Pakistan. The new leads are coming from materials seized Saturday with Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. His laptop, cell phones and address book. The president called him the mastermind of September 11.
BUSH: Khalid Shaikh Mohammed conceived and planned the hijackings and directed the actions of the hijackers. We believe his capture will further disrupt the terror network and their planning for additional attacks.
ENSOR: U.S. officials confirm Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is now talking and has begun giving his integrators information that is of some use. Wherever he is, officials say bin Laden must know he has never been in such danger since he escaped the closing noose in Tora Bora in December of 2001.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ENSOR: A senior law enforcement official tells CNN that among the many names and phones numbers found with Mohammed, including some in the U.S., are two names and numbers in New York City, and one from upstate New York. U.S. sources say the materials also include evidence Mohammed may have been planning attacks on apartment complexes, bridges and hotels. But, Connie, there were no specifics on that.
CHUNG: David, why is there so much conflicting information about where Osama bin Laden is?
ENSOR: Well, there are so many rumors. There's such intense interest in this, that there are rumors, there's probably some disinformation. There are Pakistani officials who are eager to claim credit for their undoubtedly large role in the effort these days. And there may also just be some sloppy journalism, to be quite frank about it.
CHUNG: Could it be purposeful, though, on the part of U.S. intelligence and the Pakistanis to sort of throw Osama bin Laden off?
ENSOR: There may be some of that too. When the U.S. and Pakistanis say we're 10 feet tall, we're on the chase, we've narrowed it down, they may be hoping that Osama bin Laden and others might feel unsafe where they are, feel they have to move. It's when they move that they're in the most danger of being caught.
CHUNG: David, why is it so difficult to find Osama bin Laden in the terrain that they're describing? Because it's quite a mountainous region.
ENSOR: Well, first of all, it just is difficult to find people in a mountainous terrain. There's a lot of caves there, too. But the other thing is, let's be honest, Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda group are quite popular in that part of the world. He's getting a lot of help around there.
CHUNG: There were reports today that Osama bin Laden's sons were arrested. What can you tell us about that?
ENSOR: You know, I was almost immediately told by knowledgeable U.S. officials that there was no truth to that. It seemed to have a life of its own for a while. But they say that just isn't true.
CHUNG: All right. David Ensor, thank you.
A new help for teachers worried about domestic terrorism tops tonight's "World in 60."
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CHUNG (voice-over): American schools were given a new tool today to prepare for any emergency, including terrorist attacks. Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge unveiled a Web site for educators, www.ed.gov/emergencyplan. It contains guidelines for disaster preparedness.
Turkish military vehicles were heading to the country's border with Iraq as a security precaution in the event of a war. The Turkish parliament said it will not consider a proposal to host U.S. troops before next week, if at all.
North Korea has given notice that indicates it plans to conduct another missile test over the Sea of Japan, perhaps as early as this weekend. This would be another test of a short range anti-ship missile that was test-fired several weeks ago.
Two Palestinian gunmen dressed as religious students opened fire on a Jewish settlement in the West Bank. The two gunmen were subsequently killed.
In another development, sources say the Israeli army has arrested a man considered to be a senior bomb maker for the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ANNOUNCER: Next, the king of country rock takes on Hollywood. Charlie Daniels speaks out on war, politics and America. CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHARLIE DANIELS, MUSICIAN (singing): Well the eagle's been flyin' slow, and the flag's been flyin' low, and there's a lot of people saying that America's fixin' to fall. Well, speakin' just for me and some people from Tennessee, we've got a thing or two to tell you all.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CHUNG: Those lyrics are from "In America" by the Charlie Daniels Band. As the drumbeats of war against Iraq get louder and more heated, so does the debate.
Country music star Charlie Daniels has stepped forward to support President Bush and lash out at the anti-war opposition. He's posted an open letter to the Hollywood bunch on his Web site. Not pulling any punches, here's one of his quotes: "You bunch of pitiful, hypocritical, idiotic, spoiled mugwumps. Get your head out of the sand and smell the Trade Towers burning. Do you think that a trip to Iraq by Sean Penn did anything but encourage a wanton murderer to think that the people of the USA didn't have the nerve or the guts to fight him?"
Whoa, no doubt about where he stands. And Charlie Daniels joins us now from Destin, Florida.
I mean, whoa. I mean, yes, but what do you really think about them?
(LAUGHTER)
DANIELS: Well, I just so much disagree with it. Please, people have accused me of thinking they didn't have a right to do that, and I don't feel that way at all. Everybody's got a right to speak their mind.
But I think it's being very unrealistic to think that we can do -- that we can get this thing done without having a war. I wish we could. I wish -- if somebody could show me a way, I would say, let's do it. But all I've heard is containment. You can't contain evil. It has a way of sneaking out, leaking out. If you want an example of containment, look at North Korea. We contained them for 50 years and look where we are. We've got another dangerous nuclear situation in the world.
And I just think that Sean Penn going to Iraq, that it was kind of aiding and -- well, at least comforting the enemy. He was certainly not going to see anything Saddam Hussein didn't want him to see. He was not going to show him the torture chambers and the weapons and that sort of thing. And I believe with all my heart that he has weapons of mass destruction. And I believe with all my heart that, if he's left to develop them and a way to -- a delivery system, that he'll use them. And that's why I'm so adamant about feeling the way that I feel.
CHUNG: Well, what about, Charlie Daniels, the possibility that it could unleash Iraq and Osama bin Laden to let loose on the United States terrorist attacks here? And a lot of people are very worried about that.
DANIELS: Connie, they're going to do it anyway, whether -- this war is not going to decide whether or not they're going to attack the United States. If they get a chance to do it, they're going to do it.
I've been in that hole in the ground in New York where the Trade Towers used to be. I don't want any more of that. The only way that we're going to stop terrorism is to do away with it. And anybody -- I believe that the war on Saddam Hussein is the war on terrorism, just as much so as it is with Osama bin Laden.
And I just feel that -- I'm 66 years old. I've lived through quite a few wars in my lifetime. And I remember Hitler's time. I remember the evil that Hitler unleashed on the world. And I feel that my fear is -- please believe me, I hate war more than most people, because I've seen so much of it. But I honestly believe in my heart, if we don't stop -- we're going to fight Saddam Hussein either in the streets of Baghdad or in the streets of America. And that is my heartfelt feeling. I don't write things that I don't believe. And I honestly believe that.
CHUNG: All right, I'm going to read another part of your letter: "Barbra Streisand's fanatical and hateful rankings about George Bush makes about as much sense as Michael Jackson hanging a baby over a railing."
(LAUGHTER)
DANIELS: Well, I think this is -- to me, what gets me, if it's valid criticism, that's fine. But the thing to me is, I hear so much -- so many things that are said that are just mean. You see, to me, it seems that this is almost as anti-Bush as it is anti-war.
I've seen -- there are signs accusing -- who was it? One of the actors said that -- compared Hitler with -- Bush with Hitler. I remember Hitler. I remember how rotten he was. I remember what an evil person he was. And this is just total, complete hateful rhetoric that doesn't make any kind of sense at all. I have not heard...
CHUNG: Charlie...
DANIELS: Pardon?
CHUNG: Charlie, it's not just Hollywood. There are people worldwide who are demonstrating against this war. Do you think they're all misguided?
DANIELS: I think there are people, believe me, that are really sincerely trying to do something about the war.
And let me tell you what. If I felt they were right, I would join them. But I really feel they're wrong. I feel this war is going to have to happen if the United States is to be a safe place to live.
CHUNG: On your Web site, you have your fans who are supportive of your position, but there are some who are not.
Let me read you one: "Unless you can offer some informed opinion about an aggression by the U.S. which will be responsible for the killing and maiming of a defenseless Iraqi civilian population by the hundreds of thousands, I suggest you keep your jingoism to yourself."
What do you have to say?
DANIELS: I say that, when this war is over and when they do a body count, you're going to find that three times more people have been killed by Saddam Hussein than was ever killed by the United States of America. We're going to try to keep from hurting anybody. There are going to be people hurt. That's the sad realism. But we're not going to go in and try to kill Iraqi citizens, the way that they have no fear of blowing up women and children.
I do think I do have an informed opinion. And I'll tell you one other reason why I'm so -- I read a lot of e-mail. My e-mail box is just loaded. I can't -- it's maxed out. And I go through it and read. And about 1.5 percent, 2 percent of what I get are letters like that. But one of the things that really bothers me about this thing -- and I constantly hear it from the wives and husbands and parents and children of people who are in the military service -- and what they're doing, what the people are doing in Hollywood is really hurting these people really bad.
They're going off to war and they're telling them that it's an unjust cause. I personally think it's a just cause. And I really hate to see a parent send a son or a daughter off to war and somebody's -- and these people get so much publicity because they're very famous. And they're there telling them, we don't need to do this. Well, somebody's got to stand up and say that we need to do it. And I firmly, honestly believe we need to do it.
CHUNG: All right, Charlie Daniels, I thank you so much for being with us.
DANIELS: Well, I thank you very much, Connie. It's been a pleasure.
CHUNG: Coming up: a U.S. Marine who was on the front lines of the Gulf War. His views are quite the opposite of Charlie Daniels'.
Before we get to that, though, you'll recall that, all month, "TIME" magazine, which is owned by our parent company, is marking its 80th anniversary by spotlighting 80 days that changed the world. Here on CNN, we're profiling some of those days.
Tonight, a day that is forever identified with a U.S. Supreme Court decision that continues to stir passions: Roe v. Wade.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DR. SARAH WEDDINGTON, ATTORNEY: January 22, 1973, is a day I will never forget. As a very young lawyer, I was 27 on that particular day. I had filed a case challenging the constitutionality of the Texas anti-abortion statute.
It had gone to the U.S. Supreme Court. I had argued it. I was waiting for a decision. The phone rang. It was a reporter. The reporter said to the assistant who answered the phone, "Does Ms. Weddington have a comment about Roe v. Wade?" The assistant said, "Should she?" And the reporter said, "It was decided today" and later said," She won it 7-2."
The decision had a very basic and very extensive effect on women. It gave women much more extensive ability to be autonomous. I like a saying that says, women cannot really be happy, cannot really be autonomous and independent unless they can make the most basic decisions of life. And those are when and where to bear children.
So, while the case directly affected only U.S. states and residents, it certainly, by example and by implication, had a huge impact throughout the whole world.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHUNG: With the threat of a new war against Iraq looming ominously, let's take a moment to look at an American who knows war and fought in the last one.
Anthony Swofford, a 32-year-old former Marine, elite scout and sniper in the Persian Gulf War, has written "Jarhead," what "The New York Times" calls a bracing memoir that captures the hilarity, tedium, horniness and loneliness of pre-war deployment and, of course, the powerful experience of his war. "Jarhead" is slang for a Marine, playing on the extreme haircut, shaved on the sides and with a brush on the top, like a jar's lid.
And Anthony Swofford joins us now.
Congratulations on the great reviews you got. Let's see, "The New York Times" says one of the best books ever written about military life, with humor, anger and great skill.
ANTHONY SWOFFORD, AUTHOR, "JARHEAD": That's pretty good, isn't it?
(LAUGHTER)
CHUNG: All right, you have come from three generations of military. You joined when you were only 17, joined the Marines. Your father fought in Vietnam.
SWOFFORD: Correct.
CHUNG: Your grandfather fought in World War II.
SWOFFORD: Correct.
CHUNG: Had you always wanted or felt that you wanted to go to war, that you wanted to be a military man?
SWOFFORD: Well, I first became sort of interested and seduced by the Marine Corps really at the age of 13 or 14, when the Beirut barracks was bombed. And I was a paper boy at the time folding papers. And I'd see those images of the Marines on the cover every day. And I began to understand then. For me at least, it seemed that there was a link between military service, combat, and manhood.
And I was just in the middle of my teen years and trying to attach myself to a narrative.
CHUNG: Do you think that we as Americans or that you have any idea of what war really is?
SWOFFORD: Well, I didn't. I didn't then, certainly not as a 14- year-old, or even as a 20-year-old training in Saudi Arabia in the fall of '90, preparing for combat.
CHUNG: So what is the misconception that all of us have and that you had about war? SWOFFORD: I think there's one misconception. And that is just that it's because of technological advances and because of precision...
CHUNG: Particularly the Persian Gulf War.
SWOFFORD: Yes -- that it's clean and that it's only precise, where, in fact, all combat is messy and it's humans doing the fighting and people making mistakes. And, in the end, it's people fighting and dying on both sides.
CHUNG: As we look at this war approaching, there are, what, almost 250,000 young soldiers there preparing for war. Do they have any idea what they're facing?
SWOFFORD: Well, some of them must. There must be veterans from the first Gulf War. And they're certainly well prepared in terms of the practical nature of warfare, because their training is intense and, for the most part, they can probably rely on their weapons.
But once bombs start flying and bullets are coming downrange and they're firing back, there's really no preparation for that. The metaphysical aspect of fighting is not known until the event occurs.
CHUNG: You came upon death very starkly at one point.
SWOFFORD: There was what was a small convoy of Iraqi troop carriers that had been demolished with our bombs. And there were some men in a loose formation around a campfire that I came upon. And I walked down and sat down among them for a few moments.
CHUNG: Why?
SWOFFORD: Oh, to move closer to death. I was fascinated with it. And maybe, also, retrospectively, being that close, sitting among those men, I felt maybe the most alive I ever have. I knew then that, whatever had happened in my past and whatever was going to happen in the future, it didn't really matter. I was here and I was feeling the death of these men. And I was changed.
CHUNG: But did you think, in a second, you, too, could be dead?
SWOFFORD: Absolutely.
From early on, before the war even began, that was -- when we were training, especially for the nuclear, biological, chemical defense, when you're in the desert with a gas mask on your hip, you can't forget the fact that, yes, death might be right next door.
CHUNG: I want to read a quote in which you're talking about the whole idea of being fired at close range and what your enemy is thinking and what you're thinking.
"If wars were fought only by the men on the ground, the men facing one another in real battle, most wars would end quickly and sensibly. Men are smart and men are animals, in that they don't want to die so simply for so little." Are you saying that no one really wants to kill?
SWOFFORD: Yes. No one wants to kill. To be a fighter, to be a combatant, there has to be some desire there to fight and to kill. But the desire to live is stronger and more urgent.
CHUNG: Knowing that your family has been in the military and that you have fought in the Persian Gulf War, one would think that you would be supportive of this invasion of Iraq, which appears to be imminent. Do you support this war?
SWOFFORD: Right now, I don't support the war, if we were to start fighting tomorrow. This time, I'm a citizen. I'm not a soldier. And I don't think the evidence is there.
And if I were on the ground in Kuwait right now, if I were a Marine on the ground, my wishes would be that the U.S., that the U.N. move diplomatically as far as they can, push diplomacy to extremes in order to avert war.
CHUNG: Anthony Swofford, I thank you so much for being with us.
SWOFFORD: Thank you.
CHUNG: Next: Have they made Tony Soprano an offer that's just too easy to refuse?
We'll find out when we return.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHUNG: Going somewhere by car this weekend? Not so fast, if you're cost-conscious. The tale of topping off your tank tops tonight's "Snapshot."
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CHUNG (voice-over): California drivers are getting drained at the pumps, especially in San Francisco, where the average cost of regular gas jumped to a record $2.20.
So what's a Grammy worth in gold? Just ask singing sensation Norah Jones, whose album "Come Away With Me" saw sales jump 331 percent just a week after it won five Grammys.
Superstar singer George Michael is striking a note against possible war in Iraq. MTV Europe says Michael has recorded Don McLean's famous 1971 classic "The Grave."
The take-home pay isn't good enough for James Gandolfini, who plays mobster boss Tony Soprano on TV. So he's suing HBO and threatening to walk out unless his salary is raised from $400,000 to $750,000 an episode.
Some Los Angeles residents showed their disdain for France by pouring out bottles of French wine near the French Consulate, hoping to encourage a boycott of French products for that country's opposition to using force against Iraq.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ANNOUNCER: Coming up: our "Person of the Day," a miraculous comeback.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHUNG: A teenager who has overcome some very long odds is our "Person of the Day."
Anthony Wade plays basketball for La Salle High School in Spokane, Washington. His team is in the state playoffs this year. Even he says it's a miracle, not that the team has made it this far, but the fact that he's even playing; 2 1/2 years ago, Anthony was in a Now, crash. It killed his father and almost killed him. He was pulled from the fiery wreckage and rushed to the hospital. Doctors told him to forget basketball, that he would never walk again.
But Anthony fought back. Did he ever.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANTHONY WADE, HIGH SCHOOL BASKETBALL PLAYER: It's really amazing that I'm out here playing basketball.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CHUNG: Last night, one of the men who pulled him from the wreckage watched Anthony play.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: By the time we got there, the seat belt had melted through.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CHUNG: Anthony will never forget that crash. His body is still scarred from the flames that almost took his life. But his victory against the odds makes him tonight's "Person of the Day."
And on Monday: drumbeat to war, the latest on possible war with Iraq. Also, in the wake of alarming reports of rape at the U.S. Air Force Academy, we will interview a woman who alleges she was assaulted while she attended the academy. And we'll talk to her mother, who is an academy instructor.
Coming up next on "LARRY KING LIVE": West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd on today's Iraq developments.
And that's our program for now. Thank you so much for joining us. And for all of us at CNN, good night. Have a great weekend. And we'll see you on Monday.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Laden Continues>
|
