|
CNN TALKBACK LIVE
Blix Presents Latest Report to U.N.; Has Bush Made the Case for War?
Aired March 7, 2003 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ARTHEL NEVILLE, HOST (voice-over): Today on TALKBACK LIVE, chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix speaks at the U.N.
Will his report on Iraqi disarmament stoke or stifle the drums of war?
Then President Bush prepares the nation for possible military action. Has he made the case for war?
And from the terror front, the noose could be tightening on Osama bin Laden after the capture of accused terrorist Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.
The "Talk" starts right now.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
NEVILLE: Hello, everyone. Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville.
It's a day of high anxiety at the United Nations, where chief weapons inspector Hans Blix and nuclear expert Mohamed ElBaradei delivered their reports on Iraq to the Security Council this morning. The U.S. is pressing for military action in Iraq, while diplomats are trying to find a way to bring the divided council together.
Here are the details. CNN Senior United Nations Correspondent Richard Roth, and Richard, a question everybody wants to know: ultimately will there be a vote on a second resolution?
RICHARD ROTH, CNN SENIOR U.N. CORRESPONDENT: Well, a United States official is predicting that a vote could come as early as next Tuesday. It's not guaranteed yet. It's not agreed to internally, but the United States has made it very clear in the last few weeks that it wants a vote very fast.
President Bush last evening said it's time for countries to show their cards. We just don't know how the final deal will shake out -- Arthel.
NEVILLE: ... veto it? ROTH: Well, the French say that they do not like what is in this new resolution. In there is a deadline for Iraq, March 17 for Baghdad to cooperate on all areas of weapons of mass destruction.
The French foreign minister doesn't like this. He thinks it's a pretext for war, and it also got a little heated on this point inside the Security Council.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DOMINIQUE DE VILLEPIN, FRENCH FOREIGN MINISTER: Why choose division when our unity and our resolve are leading Iraq to get rid of its weapons of mass destruction? Why should we wish to proceed by force at any price when we can succeed peacefully?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JACK STRAW, BRITISH SECRETARY OF STATE: ... also said the choice before us was disarmament by peace or disarmament by war. 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.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROTH: Well, the prospects are unknown for this new, amended resolution. One diplomat telling us, quote, "I have a better chance of getting a date with Julia Roberts than Iraq has of complying in 10 days," by that March 17 deadline.
Another, non-permanent diplomat, one of the key members of the Security Council now being tugged at for a vote, one of the so-called Swinging Six, the uncommitted said, We are being forced to vote between Mr. Hussein and Mr. Bush. It is not the sort of choice the countries who are on the fence were looking for -- Arthel.
NEVILLE: Interesting. Well, I'm sure Julia Roberts would love getting that mention at the U.N. Richard, go ahead and sum it up for us. Let's talk about the highlights, the surprises and the predictable points from today.
ROTH: Well I think people will remember the passionate position taken by the British foreign secretary. You might say it was revenge for the French foreign minister's passionate defense of the U.N. and peace several weeks ago. When the French spoke and concluded, there was applause in the chamber. This time, the applause a little bit more muted, was for the British delegate.
It is very rare to see this type of public spat in the world of diplomacy, especially right in the well there, in the chamber of the U.N. Security Council.
And Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix, who was the opening act, he said Iraq is being more proactive in cooperation, but he could not say what the resolution that everyone agreed on last November, the key point is has Iraq fully complied and cooperated? He was not able to support that.
NEVILLE: And I suspect, Richard, that next week we'll see even more animation from everybody. Richard Roth, I know you'll be there and we will talk to you then. Thank you so much for that report.
And when we come back, I'm going to be joined by my panel.
And later, I always want to hear from you. So I want to tell -- you heard what the president had to say last night. And you know what the weapons inspectors said this morning. So I ask you, do you think it's time for war with Iraq? It's "Our Question of the Day." You can go ahead and get those phone calls started now. The number is 1-800- 310-4CNN. Or you can e-mail me, talkback@cnn.com and I'll talk to you after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Today on TALKBACK LIVE, the hunt for Osama bin Laden. Are operatives closing in on the al Qaeda leader?
Then, North Korea heats up tension in that region, hinting loudly it plans to conduct another missile test, and soon. How should the U.S. deal with that? The talk continues after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Welcome back, everyone, I'm Arthel Neville. We're talking about how Hans Blix's weapons report is affecting diplomacy at the United Nations today.
And right now, we're going to meet our panel. Rich Galen is a political commentator and columnist for his Web site, Mullings.com. Leslie Marshall is a radio talk show host on KLAC in Los Angeles. Ben Ferguson is a radio talk show host with the syndicated show on Radio America. And Walter Fields is a public affairs consultant and publisher of TheNorthStarNetwork.com. Hello, everyone.
Leslie, I'll begin with you today. So, do you think the Blix report is fuel for a second resolution?
LESLIE MARSHALL, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Actually, I think more of the information that came out today -- we have to look at no magnets, no aluminum, no tubes, no nuclear missiles that they have found.
They feel, the weapons inspectors, that they need more time. And I feel that the president needs to listen to them, as well as to the other leaders of nations that oppose this process and want to go the most peaceful route. I feel that war should be the last resolution, regardless of the president's feeling about the U.N. resolution.
When we look at what's happening with America, we are distancing ourselves, except for Great Britain, from the rest of the world. And that's one of the reasons we were attacked on September 11 and one of the reasons many countries and leaders such as Saddam Hussein hate us. And we need to really stop that.
We have a smaller nation, we have a world, not just with a global economy, but geographically. Our borders are getting closer. We have to think of the men and women and that casualties and the economy, which the president completely has been ignoring the questions of.
NEVILLE: Ben, your take?
BEN FERGUSON, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: I mean, right now, yes, everybody's saying that there needs to be more time, we need to take more time. It's been going on for 12 years.
And the reason why we can't find any of these weapons is because we're plying childhood games like hide and go seek with a man that's really good at it. I mean that's the only thing I can give him credit for. He's good at playing hide and go seek.
But obviously he's lied to the U.N. before. We know he has weapons, that he hasn't told us that he had. We've had 18 resolutions, and none of them have worked.
NEVILLE: So, Ben, you're saying forget about another resolution?
FERGUSON: Yes. By now, it's saying, OK, we have to press forward, we have go to war with this man because, obviously, it's not working. He's not going to comply. And unfortunately, that's what it's going to take to keep America safe.
And the main thing is this war hasn't been on TV for just two weeks. It's been going on for 8 -- I mean, it's been going on for 12 years. Not just two weeks, like everybody thinks on TV or two months or six months.
NEVILLE: And, Walter?
WALTER FIELDS, THENORTHSTARNETWORK.COM: Well, I think all the conversations regarding that we shouldn't give them more time is absolutely ridiculous.
You know what I'm concerned about is we have a president, leader of the free world, who's begin to engage in thug diplomacy. You can't distinguish the rhetoric coming from the Bush White House with a West Coast gang leader. This is a president who's talking about committing a drive-by on a nation unprovoked. This is a president who's talking about revenge because his father was dissed by Saddam Hussein. This is a president who's talking about clearly taking someone else's territory because there's a perceived threat against the United States.
The reason why we're isolated in Security Council is because world nations are looking at the United States and saying, this country, which has stood as symbol of democracy, as a rule of law, is now acting like a rogue state. And I think that's why you see in the U.N. Security Council today the extreme isolation of the United States.
NEVILLE: Well, some strong words there, Walter. Rich, what do you think about that?
RICH GALEN, MULLINGS.COM: Well, I think that's too strong words, and I think he is describing words and motives to the president that are not in evidence and will never be in evidence, because they're not true.
(CROSSTALK)
GALEN: I'm sorry. I get my turn. The fact is that we are not isolated at the Security Council. The fact is that we have three votes, firm. The other side has three votes, firm. That's not exactly being isolated.
Secondly, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) we have to understand that -- and by the way, let me make the point, Walter, that the president did not -- is not opposed to Saddam Hussein because he dissed, Saddam dissed his father. He actually tried to kill his father, which is -- I'm not saying that's the reason for going to war...
FIELDS: I would hope not...
(CROSSTALK)
GALEN: ... but you're wrong. My point is that you're using words that are incorrect or at least misleading, and you need to be a little more careful because this is important stuff.
FIELDS: I know this is important stuff. And it's not misleading.
(CROSSTALK)
GALEN: You said he was opposed to Saddam Hussein because Saddam Hussein dissed his father. That's not right.
FIELDS: I said the motivations...
(CROSSTALK)
GALEN: The fact is that Saddam Hussein tried to assassinate his father. Put that aside. I'm just pointing out the fact you're using words and you're ascribing motives that have no basis in fact.
FIELDS: I think there's a lot of...
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: ... because I've got to go to break.
With all this going on at the United Nations, North Korea's Kim Jong Il is apparently getting ready to demonstrate his firepower. We'll talk about that after the break. Don't go anywhere. The talk continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everyone. I'm Arthel Neville.
You've been listening to what the panel has to say about a second vote on a new U.N. resolution. Let's see where the president had to say about that last night in his speech.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Yes, we'll call for a vote.
QUESTION: No matter what?
BUSH: No matter what the web count is, we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council.
And so, you bet. Time for people to show their cards; let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: OK, Leslie, so what do you think about the president's strategy on a vote for a new resolution?
MARSHALL: They get this program in Washington, D.C.? No, I'm just joking. Just joking.
Well, basically....
NEVILLE: They do.
MARSHALL: I get so angry as an American that other Americans don't join me in being insulted by the assumption that we're morons.
Let's take a look at something, shall we? The president says it's his job so protect our nation. It is the president using Americans and using American lives by looking at going to war to keep his job.
We know what this is about. If you're going to break Iraq into three sectors, this is about oil, this is about money and that's what politics is about. Americans -- we need to wake up here.
NEVILLE: Leslie, Ben disagrees with you.
FERGUSON: Leslie, that's the biggest cop-out I've ever heard. That's totally not true.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: One at a time. One at a time. Ben, please -- go ahead, Ben.
FERGUSON: The last 12 years, we've had resolutions. Just because it's not on TV doesn't mean it's not happening for the last 12 years.
It's not about oil, it's not about revenge for his father. It's nothing about that. It has to do with protecting America, protecting other countries, and making sure that he disarms completely, not...
MARSHALL: Tell me what Saddam Hussein has done to the United States of America in the past 12 years, what country he has invaded.
By the way...
(CROSSTALK)
MARSHALL: Saddam Hussein was not September 11.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Well, you know what? Speaking of going after the wrong guy, Leslie, you know, a lot of the world focus is on the United Nations, right?
Well, of course, today, North Korea is making another bid for attention. Today, it announced an exclusion zone in the Sea of Japan, warning ships to stay out of the coastal area. The U.S. officials believe that means North Korea is planning to test another missile this coming weekend. It tested a short range missile last month.
And just last weekend, North Korean fighters intercepted a U.S. surveillance plane over the Sea of Japan. And, you know, Rich, what is it North Korea want? What else will they do to get the U.S.'s attention and how would you say the U.S. should handle North Korea?
GALEN: I think the U.S. is doing the right thing. The president wants the neighbors of North Korea to become fully engaged in the way this process moves forward. The Chinese and the Japanese and the -- certainly the South Koreans would very much like the United States to be the fall guy here, to go out and make all of the pledges and all of the promise.
NEVILLE: But why do you say that the U.S. could be considered being the fall guy when they have the more military might?
GALEN: Well, for us to bear all the costs, literally and figuratively, of getting North Korea to back down, and then they'll sweep in and kind of clean up on the other side.
This is different from Iraq in a number of ways, one of which is that North Korea's neighbors are truly at risk here.
NEVILLE: Yes.
GALEN: And they have some fairly significant neighbors in China, Japan and South Korea. So I think what we want to do is make sure that North Korea's neighbors get involved in this process and move it forth.
NEVILLE: What does that mean, Rich, to get involved? GALEN: You know, the North Koreans, for their part, of course, want to have a one-on-one- discussion with us...
NEVILLE: With the U.S.
GALEN: And -- yes, and they may get that at some point.
But the fact is that it hasn't, in my mind, and I think in the minds of some of the folks down here in Washington, where, by the way we get this show, that hasn't ripened to the point where we need to engage in one-on-one discussions.
NEVILLE: But Rich, I ask you pointedly though here, so what are you suggesting that China, Japan, and South Korea do?
GALEN: Well, they have to put pressure on North Korea to start backing down a little bit and acting like a grown-up country. I mean, this -- the guy that runs this thing with a Kramer hair-do is very frightening. And the fact is that we Americans are horrible at this, but I actually looked at a map once. North Korea is about 18 steps from Seoul, the capital of South Korea. So military action, really, is not an option.
NEVILLE: Right.
GALEN: A, because it's too close and B, because they already have a nuke. So you don't want to lose that thing.
But I think that the -- that diplomatic pressure and -- and the promise of help both on the political side and on the economic side from China and from...
NEVILLE: Japan.
GALEN: ..Japan and from South Korea can have a positive effect and I think that's what the administration is trying to...
NEVILLE: OK, so Walter, what's your suggestion?
FIELDS: Well, let me speak with someone outside of Washington, D.C. and you know, it's interesting, I was with a group of people this afternoon in my barber shop talking about foreign policy.
GALEN: I saw the movie.
NEVILLE: Where is your barber shop, Walter?
FIELDS: Hackensack, New Jersey. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) His and Hers. Been going there for years, A great place if you're ever in New Jersey.
NEVILLE: All right, all right, all right.
FIELDS: But let me say this -- I think the Bush administration is clueless on North Korea. What's alarming, when we talk about the Security Council and whether or not we're isolated or not, this president wants to take another vote to see where every one stands. They want -- he wants to know where people stand on Saddam Hussein and this issue of disarmament.
Well, what where we're going to find out is where people stand on the United States. And that's what we're witnessing today. The fact that you only have three nations standing with the United States of America in the Security Council on an issue that the U.S. has defined as a priority internationally speaks volumes to the manner in which we're being isolated right now in the international community.
NEVILLE: OK, Walter.
FIELDS: In terms of North Korea, I think he has to -- we have to speak directly to the leadership....
NEVILLE: OK.
FIELDS: In terms of North Korea, I think we have to speak directly to the leadership of North Korea and quit acting as if that we can go through other nations with a country that is an imminent threat to its neighbors and the United States.
NEVILLE: OK, Panel, I've got about 10 seconds. Ben, you've got it.
FERGUSON: Arthel, he said that there's only three nations with us right now. You want to know why there are only three? Because the other ones right now that are wasting time have more interest and more oil interest and more financial interest in Iraq and letting us sit out there alone.
NEVILLE: OK.
FIELDS: Excuse me. This is the United States that is strong- arming other nations with cash. We're strong-arming Mexico; we're strong-arming France.
FERGUSON: If we were strong -- we would have done it alone a long time ago. Everybody is talking about how President Bush is war hungry, yet...
FIELDS: The only reason why we didn't do it alone, because there was growing pressure to go to the United Nations Security Council.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Panel, you know what? Unfortunately, I do have to cut this part of the conversation short. You know -- but, listen, if the U.S. does go to war with Iraq, what happens when the bombing ends? CNN Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr has some interesting details on a plan to divide the country into three parts. She'll tell us about it when we come back.
And the woman who might control Baghdad. Stick around for that.
(APPLAUSE) (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Everybody, welcome back. I'm Arthel Neville.
Now you know for the first time, we're beginning to get some idea of the Pentagon's plan for a post-war Iraq, if a war happens. CNN Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr has learned Iraq would be divided into three sectors.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: The plan now calls for the partition of Iraq into three sectors for civil administration by a team of U.S. officials who will go there as soon as security can be established after any war. A northern and southern sector will be administered each by a retired U.S. Army general. A central sector, essentially Baghdad, will fall under the administration of Barbara Bodine, well remembered as the U.S. ambassador to Yemen during the bombing of the USS Cole.
All of this is under retired Lieutenant General Jay Garner of the U.S. Army. He is heading the Pentagon's office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance. Now General Garner is slated to lead a team of more than 150 government personnel and several hundred private sector personnel to Iraq to help establish a new government and rebuild the country.
Once inside Iraq, General Garner will carry the title of Interim Transitional Civil administrator, a signal that the United States hopes to turn Iraq back to the Iraqis as quickly as possible. U.S. officials will be assigned to run each of the Iraqi ministries, but there will be some changes in the government there because some of the ministries will be disbanded.
Of course, the U.S. now plans, for example, to disband the current ministry of information which has the state-run media and replace it with a free press. Some of the other military and intelligence organizations will also be reformed. But officials tell us they do plan to try and maintain the regular Iraqi army and use those people to help rebuild the country -- Arthel.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
NEVILLE: OK. Barbara Starr, thank you so much.
OK, Leslie. So you heard the plan. How would the Muslim world accept such a proposal?
MARSHALL: I'm really glad you asked me that, because I'm married into a Muslim family, and unlike some of the people who haven't or have looked at the map, have actually been to many of these countries. One of the things that really frustrates me about this is, one, we haven't gone to war, unless I haven't heard anything new this day. And we're already planning what to do after.
That's an abomination, in my opinion. Who are we to do this to these people? Think about this. We're going to divide this country into three sectors and we're going to have American non-Muslims who don't know the customs, who don't know the culture, who don't know the people, nor respect it. Who feel above it, because we think god only blesses America and forget he also blesses Iraq.
We did this ancestrally to the American Indians, the Native Americans in this nation. When will we as a nation learn it is not our responsibility to push our ways, our politics, our westernization on every government, Iraq included. And let's talk about government. We're a democracy, supposedly.
This is not giving this people democracy. We are robbing these people. Right now, they are not free, they're under a dictator. And we're just switching them over to a different kind of imprisonment, a different kind of dictatorship. And let me say one more thing.
NEVILLE: Leslie, actually -- hang on, Leslie. I'm short on time. I'm short on time. Ben, go ahead.
(CROSSTALK)
FEGUSON: Leslie, you said that it's ridiculous and it's an abomination that we have made plans to already go in after the fact. Do you know who asked what the plans were, if we went to war how we were going to rebuild the country, how we were going to set it up? The Democrats in Washington asked that question.
MARSHALL: I don't care what party. I'm a human being. I don't care about...
NEVILLE: Yes, but this is not about Democrats or Republicans here, Ben.
MARSHALL: This is about people. This is about people.
NEVILLE: Rich, what is your take?
GALEN: Well, two things. One, the United Nations, for something on -- I think it was on the BBC Web site the other day that the United Nations, for something like six or eight months, has had a full team of people working on post-war plans for Iraq. So this is not just something the U.S. is doing. The U.N. has been doing this too.
Also, Michael Beschloss wrote a very engrossing book called "The Conquerors," which was released toward the end of last year, which dealt with the planning of what to do with Germany after World War II. It wasn't a book about how the war was conducted on the ground.
It was all about exactly these kinds of questions that Leslie is wrestling with. And I think most people are wrestling with now. Is to how to allow Germany to rebuild after the war. And, frankly, I think all things considered, we were pretty successful in that.
NEVILLE: Walter...
MARSHALL: Oh there is... (CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: I've got to get Walter in there before the break.
FIELDS: I think it's real disturbing any time you hear people talking about subleasing property that you don't own. I mean this is akin to someone coming in your house and taking your living room, your kitchen and your family room and saying, you know what, we're the landlords now. We dictate what happens in this house.
And I think once again, it's an example of the arrogance that we see coming from the United States on this very issue. What's really disturbing, though, is the fact that this discussion takes place way in advance of any resolution on disarmament through the arms inspection process. Basically, you're sending a strong message to Iraq that, look, we may appear before the United Nations Security Council, but you know what? Those 250,000 troops that we've assembled, we're going to use them.
NEVILLE: But, Walter, isn't it standard to have a contingency plan?
FIELDS: Oh, I think you can have contingency plans. But I don't call this a contingency plan. This is a hostile takeover.
You know a contingency plan says, you know what, there are allies in the region that perhaps we should work with the allies in the region that, if in case we have the fall of Saddam Hussein, our allies should be the ones who are leading the charge, determining how that region of the world may react.
NEVILLE: OK.
FIELDS: This isn't a contingency plan. This is a takeover.
NEVILLE: Well, listen guys, I have to move on here. Our secret operatives closing in on Osama bin Laden? And what's that we've been hearing about his sons being in custody? The rumors are flying and we're going to talk about that when we come back. Stay right where you are.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Well, there's probably no better catch on Earth right now than al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. And U.S. sources say special operations forces may be closing in on bin Laden. He is believed to be hiding along the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. And earlier today, there were reports that two of bin Laden's sons had been captured, following gunfire along that border.
The Afghanistan ministry says it's investigating that story. And U.S. officials also say they are also looking into it. But at this point, do not believe it is accurate. So, Rich, what, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was arrested; there's talk that Osama's sons might have been captured. What do you say? Do you think the U.S. is winning the war on terror?
GALEN: Well, we are certainly prosecuting the war on terror, which is something that our friends on the left were accusing the president of not doing. Even "The New York Times" had to more or less apologize, saying after they caught Khalid the other day, last weekend, saying that perhaps we were doing more than people thought.
Here's what happens in Washington. That if the press corps -- well that's some picture. If that's what the number three guy looks like, what do you think number 1,547 looks like? But here's what happens in Washington. That if it doesn't leak to the press or to the -- well, to the press ultimately, then the press assumes that it's not happening.
Because in previous administrations -- I'm not casting aspersions on the Clinton administration -- going back to when I first got here in the '70s, this place leaks like a sieve. So the assumption is, if they don't hear about it, it must not be going on.
This administration is somewhat different. They do have a very good control over the -- what leaks out and what doesn't leak out. And I think it was a surprise to everybody -- a pleasant surprise in this case -- when Khalid went down last weekend. And that -- clearly, they got a whole bunch of other stuff with him, and I think they will continue to sweep these guys up.
NEVILLE: And he's now talking.
GALEN: Not only that, but it does have a ripple effect, because it does send a shudder through the entire network. And we want to make sure that, while they're off balance, that we go in and get more of them.
NEVILLE: Well let's hear from one of your friends on the left, I think. Let me see -- Walter, do you want to address this?
FIELDS: Sure. I mean, without a doubt, I think the arrest is a positive development in the war on terrorism. Look, I stood with President Bush after 9/11 because I think he made the right call. I think there was a clearly defined target out there that we need to find and that we need to capture and that we need to find a way to minimize the potential threat of terrorism.
I think that's why it's so frustrating now when you hear the debate on Iraq, because there is no clear definition. We've thrown the international community into chaos. And some of our very friends that we need to help us out on the issue of terrorism are now looking at us with a jaundiced point of view, because they can't understand the mixing of apples and oranges.
So while I applaud certainly the arrest of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, I would caution to say that the White House is not, you know, unfortunately increasing its presence in the international community with this behavior over the Iraq situation.
NEVILLE: OK. Now, Leslie and Ben, I have not forgotten you. I have to take a break. The two of you will speak when we come back.
Up next, the call for Osama bin Laden's head. I'm going to tell you why some high-powered U.S. official's reportedly say bin Laden is wanted more dead than alive. What do Ben and Leslie think about that? We'll talk about it after the break.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everyone. I'm Arthel Neville.
Osama bin Laden is wanted dead or alive, but "The Washington Post" reports many U.S. officials, including Attorney General John Ashcroft and CIA Director George Tenet, think it would be better if he were not captured alive. According to the article, the general feeling is bin Laden probably doesn't know much about the operational details of al Qaeda, and a trial followed by execution could make him a martyr for al Qaeda sympathizers.
So Ben, is Osama more valuable dead or alive?
FERGUSON: I mean I would like to see Osama bin Laden dead. But, realistically, I think that if we can take Osama bin Laden, capture him, talk to him, find out everything that we possibly can, and let him be used as an example of somebody that has lost all power and all control over his forces, and to have everybody that's with him to see him in that state, just like the picture of the other guy that we joke about is such a terrible picture, to see their leader in that state of mind and that setting in a jail cell could really hurt their power and what they want to do. Whereas I think Osama bin Laden would much rather probably be killed, because then he's going to be praised as a powerful...
NEVILLE: Martyr.
FERGUSON: Yes, martyr who died for his cause, and will probably pump everybody else up to do the same thing.
NEVILLE: Leslie, how do you see it?
MARSHALL: I see him as a martyr either way by the community. I don't think it matters whether we take him dead or alive. Terrorism will continue.
He has 19 brothers and sisters. He has numerous children from wives and mistresses. And there are many members of al Qaeda that have been, in a sense, brain washed since as early as five or six, much like a gang-like mentality.
They are going to defend their cause, what they truly believe in, as brain washed as they are, regardless of whether he's dead or alive. As a matter of fact, if he's dead or captured, I think it will only escalate their anger toward the United States and we will see increased terrorist attacks.
NEVILLE: Interesting. Matt (ph), how do you see it?
MATT: I don't know. I tend to agree with Ben on this one. The fact that the Islamic culture and the terrorists and even Saddam Hussein himself pay for suicide bombers and things like that, if you lock him in jail, he's no longer a threat. And you show to the rest of the world that these guys cannot accomplish their mission and things like that.
So he pretty much failed in his mission. He's in U.S. custody. It's all over.
NEVILLE: All right. Well, I think -- I don't think we have time for anybody else, right? OK. Well, Rich Galen, listen, thank you so much for being here. Nice to see you again.
Leslie Marshall, good to have you. Ben Ferguson, Walter Fields, thank you both for being here with us today on TALKBACK LIVE.
And coming up next, you've heard what our panel had to say. Now I want to hear from you. Is it time for a war with Iraq or is it time for more diplomacy? Give me a call or e-mail me and I'll talk to you after this break.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: You heard the president last night and chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix today. So, in your view, is it time for war with Iraq? We have an audience member speaking out first up.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We have a world leader who has made assassination plans against an American president, who has attacked ethnic minorities in the North. And it's time for the people of the world to either stand or take a stand against it and (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
NEVILLE: OK. We have some e-mails coming in we want to share with you. K. Martin in California, "Yes, the U.S. should go in and disarm Saddam Hussein now." OK, K. Martin. Thank you so much.
Greg in Florida says, "I'm a strong supporter of not going to war. We've waited 12 years. Waiting a little longer is worth giving peace a chance. Thank you very much, Greg.
Thanks so much for all those e-mails and thanks for watching. We're out of time. I'm Arthel Neville. I'll see you again Monday, 3:00 Eastern, 12:00 Pacific. Have a great weekend. Judy Woodruff is coming up next with "INSIDE POLITICS."
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Case for War?>
|
