The Web     
Powered by
powered by Yahoo!
Return to Transcripts main page


Iraqis Show Defiance As Saddam Rejects President Bush's Deadline; Are Countries Turning Against America Or Just President Bush?

Aired March 18, 2003 - 16:00   ET


ANNOUNCER: The Iraqis show defiance as Saddam Hussein rejects President Bush's deadline.

ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: If Saddam Hussein doesn't leave the country, he'll make his final mistake.

ANNOUNCER: On the brink of war and in the line of danger, we'll have the latest on threats to U.S. forces and to Americans here at home. y Anger abroad. Are more countries turning against America or just against President Bush?

Women at war trying to prove themselves and be themselves.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I want to attack, destroy, the same kind of feelings. But when I do get off work, I take off the uniform and I am a wife. I am a daughter. And I am a friend.


Live from Washington, this is INSIDE POLITICS with Judy Woodruff.

JUDY WOODRUFF, HOST: Thank you for joining us.

With each passing hour Saddam Hussein is closer to being attacked by U.S.-led forces. But the Iraqi leader and his sons still are refusing to give up power.

In this "NewsCycle," Iraqi officials are vowing to confront allied forces now massing on their southern border. And they are rejecting what they call President Bush's reckless ultimatum.


NAJI SABRI, IRAQI FOREIGN MINISTER: It is Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair who should go away, who should leave office. And I think they are approaching this point. The British people and the American people, I think, are clever enough to choose sensible leaders, not crazy ones.

(END VIDEO CLIP) WOODRUFF: As expected, the United Nations today evacuated its weapons inspectors and other staffers from Baghdad in anticipation of war.

U.S. military officials tell CNN that Iraqi Republican Guard units south of Baghdad may now have chemical munitions filled with a form of VX nerve agent, as well as mustard gas. If Iraq were to launch a biological or chemical weapons attack, the French ambassador to the U.S. says that his country could join the fight, despite its vocal opposition to war in recent days and weeks.

Meantime, Spain's Prime Minister apparently is feeling the heat at home for his strong support of the U.S. position on war. Jose Maria Aznar announced today that Spain will not send combat troops to Iraq.

Our correspondents are at the center of power if and, more likely, when a war is launched. We'll go to Jamie McIntyre at the Pentagon shortly. But first up, our senior White House correspondent John King. John the president has been out of sight today, but what has been going on behind the scenes?

JOHN KING, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Quite a bit. A series of meetings with key cabinet members to discuss not only the war planning but the president's domestic agenda. The key meeting, though, came this morning. Mr. Bush met with Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld and General Richard Meyers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to go over the war planning. We are told the president was told the troops are ready to go on his order. That order, of course, could come as early as tomorrow night.

Mr. Bush also working the phones, some telephone diplomacy. One conversation with chief ally, the British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Also conversations with two key presidents who flatly oppose what the president is on the verge of doing. President Bush calling President Putin of Russia and President Hu of China. We are told Mr. Bush voicing hope that the long-term relationships will not suffer, despite the profound disagreement over the possibility of war with Iraq. The administration also trying to make the case that this is, indeed, a broad U.S.-led coalition. The state department putting out a list of some 30 countries that includes the well-known allies like Great Britain, like Australia, Spain and Italy. Also countries like Albania, Nicaragua, the tiny east African nation of Eritrea.

The State Department saying most of these countries, of course, would have no direct military role, but releasing this list to try to show political support at least for what the president is poised to do in Iraq. Now, that still leaves some 160 nations, members of the United Nations that are not on that list of the coalition of the willing. Ari Fleischer insisting today at the White House press briefing that it would be wrong to say just because someone is not actively involved in the coalition that they are opposed to the president's position.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) FLEISCHER: I don't think a fair characterization of other nations to say that they are a coalition of the unwilling. Not every nation has the ability to contribute. Not every nation is in an area that is geographically advantageous concerning military operations over overflight or basing. So I think it depends significantly on the ability of these nations to contribute to a coalition.


KING: Now, that deadline for Saddam Hussein and his sons to leave Iraq or face war is now just 28 hours away. No one here at the White House expects it to be accepted. Here at the White House, they say the orders to attack could come any time after that deadline lapses. Although one senior official today made a point of noting that the president said in his speech last night that the the United States would attack, quote, "at a moment of its choosing." The president used exactly the same phrase when he set a deadline on the Taliban back at the beginning of the war on terrorism to cooperate in rounding up Osama bin Laden and other key al Qaeda suspects. Mr. Bush let that deadline lapse and waited a bit before he could attack. The administration officials said you can't rule out that the president will wait a little bit past tomorrow's deadline as well -- Judy.


WOODRUFF: New York City Police Commissioner James Kelly along with New City Mayor Michael Bloomberg explaining what New York is doing to increase the security there. Among other things, they are increasing the vigilance at all entry points to the city. Of course, adding more security across the board, including mass transit. They are calling this "Operation Atlas." And we heard Mayor Bloomberg say, yes, the risks of terror are up, but this city is doing everything we can to see that we have no problems.

Turning back to the news this hour, right now the British parliament is turning towards a symbolic but politically crucial vote on whether to back Prime Minister Tony Blair's support of military action in Iraq. Blair is expected to win this vote after a final appeal to members of his own party who oppose the use of force now.


TONY BLAIR, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: The only persuasive power to which he responds is 250,000 allied troops on his doorstep.



WOODRUFF: Blair got a boost today when a cabinet member who had threatened to resign in protest of war said that she should vote today with Blair in support of military action.

France, Russia, Germany and China all stuck to their guns today in opposing war in Iraq. But there were some signs of support in the world. Australia today committed forces to the battle to disarm Iraq. There are now 2,000 elite troops in Iraq along with fighter jets and war ships.

Japan's prime minister said that his country stands behind President Bush if he takes military action in Iraq, citing the importance of the U.S.-Japanese alliance.

In Mexico, President Vincente Fox says that he hopes his refusal to support a second resolution on Iraq will not endanger Mexico's relationship with its friend the United States.

Well, here in Washington, many members of both parties are rallying behind the president now that U.S. troops are on the brink of war. But the Senate's top Democrat still is offering fighting words, at least as Republicans see it. Here's our congressional correspondent Jon Karl.


JONATHAN KARL, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Republicans lashed out at Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle for criticizing the commander in chief on the brink of war.

SEN. BILL FRIST (R-TN), MAJORITY LEADER: I think it is counterproductive in that our men and women literally are in a countdown before fighting is initiated. And any remarks that their lives in some way have been compromised by the President of the United States is irresponsible.

KARL: Senator Daschle provoked the reaction by saying in a speech Monday that he was saddened the president has failed so miserably at diplomacy and ...

SEN. TOM DASCHLE (D-SD), MINORITY LEADER: Saddened that we have to give up one life because this president couldn't create the kind of diplomatic effort that was so critical for our country.

KARL: The normally reserved speaker of the House Dennis Hastert said in a statement, "Those comments may not undermine the President as he leads us into war, and they may not give comfort to our adversaries, but they come might close."

SEN. RICK SANTORUM (R), PENNSYLVANIA: It was unfortunate. It was disappointing and it was uncalled for. And I hope he thinks better of it and retracts his statement.

KARL: But Daschle is not backing down.

DASCHLE: Well, I stand by my statement. I don't know that anyone in this country could view what we've seen so far as a diplomatic success. As a veteran,, there is no question that I stand strongly with the troops. I always will. I feel very strongly about our obligation to support the troops. And I have said in every way, shape and form that will continue.

KARL: Well, most Democrats in Congress have restrained their criticism of the president on the eve of war, Daschle is not alone. In a statement after the president's Monday night speech, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said, "President Bush has clumsily and arrogantly squandered the post-9/11 support and goodwill of the entire civilized world."


KARL: And in a statement from majority leader Tom Daschle in the House, we saw two things that we rarely see, maybe even never see, Judy, that is a statement that is in French. And a statement that tells another Congressional leader to shut up. The very short statement from Congressman Delay tells Senator Daschle, "Fermez la bouche," meaning "shut your mouth," in French, thereby, combining both his displeasure with Tom Daschle and his displeasure with the French -- Judy.

WOODRUFF: Mr. Delay knows how to get his point across doesn't he John?

KARL: Yes, he does.

WOODRUFF: All right. Jon Karl. Thanks very much.

Well, with the U.S. on the brink of war, the Federal government is taking new measures to prevent terrorist attacks. About an hour ago, new flight restrictions were ordered over Walt Disney World in Florida and Disneyland in California. Certain flight restrictions also were reinstated over New York. The government increased the terror alert level to high yesterday just minutes after President Bush delivered his ultimatum to Saddam Hussein. The Homeland Security Department today outlined new moves under operation Liberty Shield. They include more Coast Guard, air and sea patrols, more agents on U.S. borders, beefed up security on Amtrak. Flight restrictions over certain U.S. cities and enhanced food inspections. Still, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry today criticized the administration's efforts to protect the homeland, saying the funding for first responders is inadequate.


JOHN KERRY (D-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: It seems that this administration has no difficulty finding money for others. Well, I say to you, if we can find $6 billion for Turkey to be able to go off and join in the war, we can find $3 billion for the frontline defenders of America to do their job in this country.


WOODRUFF: Presidential hopeful Joe Lieberman has offered similar criticism. And I'll be talking to him a bit later on the program.

There's much more ahead on INSIDE POLITICS as the U.S. moves closer to war.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I signed up to do a job and follow my orders. And that involves having people, killing people, killing the enemy. And I accept that.


WOODRUFF: Coming up, women on the front lines bravely facing the battle ahead.

We'll get an update on the fight to find a job. It's not getting any easier with war on the horizon.

WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: I'm Bill Schneider in Washington. If being president were a popularity contest in other countries, George W. Bush would be failing, big time.

WOODRUFF: Also ahead, my interview with Senator and Democratic presidential candidate Joe Lieberman.

This is INSIDE POLITICS, the place for campaign news.


WOODRUFF: Heading north, military convoys make their way toward the Iraqi border. Coming up next, we'll go live to Kuwait as troops are in the final preparations for an expected attack on Iraq.

And later, ousting Saddam Hussein. The idea for such a policy goes back further than you think.


WOODRUFF: Another vicious sandstorm struck the Persian Gulf region today, making work difficult along the Iraqi border. The storm was caught on tape, just inside Jordan, where United Nations relief workers are setting up camp to handle possible Iraqi refugees. For an update now on all the preparations under way across the Gulf region, let's turn to our colleague CNN's Wolf Blitzer in Kuwait. Wolf, what are you seeing in the way of getting ready there?

WOLF BLITZER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, as far as those sandstorms, Judy, are concerned they're expected to continue usually until around April 1. So they could be a problem, obviously, in the coming days. Here in Kuwait, they are still an uneasy calm. No one thinks that will last once the war starts. The Kuwaitis, themselves, are under no illusions. They've had their own personal and very bitter experiences with Saddam Hussein just more than a dozen years ago.

Of course, this small, but wealthy country was invaded and occupied by the Iraqi military for some seven months. Much of the country was looted. People here constantly note that more than 600 Kuwaiti prisoners remain unaccounted for in Iraq all these years later. Some Kuwaiti citizens have left the country already. They're worried that Saddam Hussein could order a chemical or biological attack in the opening hours of a war. Gas masks have been made available.

Still, many Kuwaitis say they are counting on the United States for military protection. The U.S. has more than 200,000 troops in the region, joined by some 40,000 from Britain, and another 2,000 from Australia. That is the extent of the so-called military coalition of the willing. Many of the troops, by the way, are heading right now toward the Iraqi border. There seems to be some traffic jams up in the northern part of Kuwait right now. Some of the troops are, of course, women. Let's get some more now from CNN's Karl Penhaul. He's in northern Kuwait.


KARL PENHAUL, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): American pilots do preflight checks on an Apache attack helicopter. The one in the front seat is Cindy Rosel. She is one of only a small band of women flying U.S. army attack helicopters.

C. WO CINDY ROSEL, U.S. ARMY: They would think, well, she's a woman she probably can't fly. So, in that sense, you have prove it. Yeah, I can. I can be just as good as any guy.

PENHAUL: Rosel used to fly on anti-drug missions in Central America and just completed a tour in South Korea. Now she's on standby in the Kuwaiti desert. She is scheduled to be one of the first wave into battle. Her target, Iraqi tanks and artillery. She'll be the one with her finger on the trigger, shooting canyons, rockets and Hellfire missiles.

ROSEL: If the time comes, I mean, I signed up to do a job and follow my orders, and if that involves having people - or killing people, killing the enemy, then I accept that.

PENAHUL (on camera): The U.S. army first committed women to fly Apache helicopters in the mid-1990s. But this will be the first time women have flown the latest generation of Apaches, the Longbow, into combat.

(voice-over): There are other women in this unit, that is, 1st attack from Fort Hood. But alongside Rosel, Lisa Berry is the only other female pilot. It's still very much a man's world. Women pilots, like Berry, say they must battle hard to win the trust of male colleagues and their place in the flying seat. But away from the $25 million machine, she says she's just a regular girl.

C. WO. LISA BERRY, U.S. ARMY: I want to attack, destroy. Same kind of feelings. But when I do get off work, I take off the uniform. And I am a wife. I am a daughter and I am a friend. And I like to do everything that normal women do.

PENHAUL: Besides flying, Berry is helping plan a convoy to shuttle ammunition and fuel to the front lines to help resupply the Apache helicopters. And although she may soon find herself in the thick of war, she doesn't view herself simply as a warrior.

BERRY: It's all about peacekeeping to me. It's not about death and destruction, although that is a fact of war.

PENHAUL: And when the bullets begin to fly, these women will be fighting to prove both genders are equal, even on the battlefield.

Carl Penhaul for CNN, in northern Kuwait.


BLITZER: And in this coming war, the American women, whether in the army, the navy or marine corps or the U.S. air force, they are going to be playing a first-hand role on the front lines directly involved in combat -- Judy.

WOODRUFF: Just one part of this big story that we are going to be covering. And, Wolf, you are there on the front lines. Thanks very much.

We want to remind your audience to watch "WOLF BLITZER REPORTS" at 5:00 Eastern. Among his guests, my former colleague at CNN Bernie Shaw, who, of course, was a principal part of our coverage of the first Gulf War 12 years ago.


WOODRUFF: Well, how do you run a campaign for president during a war? That is just one of the questions I'll ask Senator Joe Lieberman who joins us next on INSIDE POLITICS.


WOODRUFF: This item just in from CNN White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux. A senior administration official telling CNN that the United States may launch "a small military action," their words, before the 48-hour deadline for Saddam Hussein to leave Iraq expires. The official said this action could come in the next 24 hours to, quote, "try to get Saddam's attention."

Now, we want to turn to the Pentagon and to Jamie McIntyre, our correspondent there on another important military development. And, Jamie, that is information that the Iraqis may be planning to deploy in some way use chemical munitions?

JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: The intelligence on this is still ambiguous, Judy, but it's still enough to give the U.S. some concern. It appears, according to the intelligence, that at least one Republican Guard unit, located near Al Hayy, south of Baghdad, may have been provide with chemical munitions. The big question is would they actually use them?

Another indicator that has the U.S. concerned is that the commander that Saddam Hussein has placed in charge of the southern defenses is a general who has been nicknamed chemical Ali, because of his role in using chemical weapons against the Iraqi people, against the Kurds in the north in 1988. The theory is since he's been names as a potential war criminal, he may be more motivated to order the use of chemical munitions -- Judy.

WOODRUFF: Jamie, another question. We know that the leaflets have been being dropped by U.S. military for some days now. What is it now that the military is trying to do to get the Iraqi military to surrender?

MCINTYRE: They are basically trying to send the message that Saddam Hussein's fate is sealed and that the Iraqi military can best serve themselves and their country by essentially giving up without a fight.

President Bush promised that they would get clear instructions. And Pentagon sources say that those instructions will include telling them to lay their weapons down, park vehicles, tanks, military equipment, and then remain in their barracks until U.S. troops arrive. If they do this, by the way, if they don't resist, even if they don't technically surrender, that could actually facilitate the U.S. troop movement, because the U.S. wouldn't have to take them all as prisoners of war. They could stay in their barracks.

The U.S. could leapfrog over them and more quickly engage the Republican Guard units to the north. They are also hoping, by the way, that, if they can score a quick victory, say, down in Basra, where they could have pictures of jubilant Iraqis -- because, in Basra, the population is notably unsupportive of Saddam Hussein -- that that could also demoralize the rest of the Iraqi military and prompt them to fold a little faster.

WOODRUFF: All right, a lot going on.

All right, Jamie McIntyre at the Pentagon, thanks very much.

Well, right now, we're joined by a strong Democratic voice of support for military action to disarm Iraq, Democratic presidential candidate and former vice presidential nominee Joe Lieberman.

Senator, good to see you. We appreciate you talking with us.


WOODRUFF: Yesterday, one of your Democratic colleagues in the Senate, Tom Daschle, said he was saddened that we -- in his words -- we have to give up one life because this administration, this president, failed, in his words, so miserably at diplomacy.

Did Senator Daschle step over the line with this comment?

LIEBERMAN: Well, look, there's a lot of strong feelings about what we are about to do. And any time you go to war and people are at risk, Americans, it bothers people.

I do think, though, you have got to say that the blame for the war is Saddam Hussein's. We gave him 12 years to do what he promised to do at the end of the Gulf War, which was to disclose the weapons of mass destruction he has, the very ones that we are speculating now that he may use against our troops in the region.

So, I would guess that the little bit of a debate between Senator Daschle and Mr. Hastert today is going to be the last of this. Members of Congress of both parties are going to pull together now to support our troops, but also, in Iraq, to support our commander in chief.

WOODRUFF: What is this going to mean for your presidential campaign? Once the fighting is under way, what does this mean? Does your campaign go on as usual?

LIEBERMAN: Well, nothing will really go on as usual. But the work will be -- because our hearts and minds will be on what's happening in Iraq and in the region.

But the business of democracy will go on. The campaigns will continue do what they are doing now, which is to organize. We'll continue to have very serious debates, for instance, on the budget resolution that's happening in the Senate now, where we'll have respectful disagreements about the president's failure to get the economy going, the tax plan that will send us more into deficit.

WOODRUFF: Well, there are those candidates who are out there also seeking the nomination, like you are, who are saying they're going to continue to speak out about the president and the administration on the conduct of this war. Are they making a mistake?

LIEBERMAN: I think everybody has got to decide here.

Look, as you said earlier, Judy, I have felt now for 12 years that Saddam Hussein was a menace to the region and to us. In 1998, John McCain and I introduced legislation that became law where it said that our goal ought to be to change the regime in Baghdad.

After September 11, I think all of us are looking at -- a lot of us are looking at Iraq under Saddam and saying, we don't want to look back after this man uses these chemical and biological weapons against us or gives them to terrorists to use against us and say, why didn't we take him down? I think that's -- we gave him every chance to have this happen peacefully. And he's now forced us to war.

WOODRUFF: You mentioned the budget. So, you are going to feel free to speak out against the administration on the tax cuts, the shape of this administration's budget?

LIEBERMAN: Oh, yes, indeed. I mean, I'm going to continue to support our troops and our commander in chief as we carry out what I think is a just and necessary war in Iraq.

But it would be contrary to the very vitality of our democracy and our way of life if we suddenly rolled over on questions of health care reform or education or getting -- how to get our economy going again or how to protect our environment. Those are critical questions that we have got to continue to discuss.

WOODRUFF: And when we hear this war could cost up to $100 billion, does that completely undermine the president's request for congressional support for his budget plan? LIEBERMAN: Well, it does. I mean, a lot of us have been asking for more specific estimates of what the war and the post-Saddam Iraq will cost us, because we have to plan it.

It also says, once again, Mr. President, this tax cut that you pushed through in 2001, which, if we continue to implement it, will cost us more than a half-trillion dollars in the next several years, just leaving in place the parts of it that we put into effect already, don't we have to acknowledge that we're in a war; we need money for homeland security, for international security; we need money to get our economy going again and get us out of debt?

And those are fair questions to ask, and I think we'll ask them respectfully. But we're going to draw together shoulder to shoulder, not as Democrats or Republicans, but as Americans, as this war now begins.

WOODRUFF: Well, as we are on the eve of what is evidently going to be war, Senator Joe Lieberman, it's always good to see you. We appreciate you coming by.

LIEBERMAN: Thank you, Judy.

WOODRUFF: Thank you.

The pros and cons of the subject we've just been discussing: campaigning in a time of war. Up next: how the Democratic hopefuls plan to adjust their routines if U.S. troops are called into battle.


WOODRUFF: Checking the headlines in our "Campaign News Daily": Virtually all of the 2004 Democratic hopefuls, as you just heard from Joe Lieberman, say they plan to access their campaign activities day by day if and when U.S. troops head into battle.

None of the candidates we spoke with today plan to suspend their campaign activities or fund-raising. All said, however, that they will adjust their public schedules accordingly, based on events in Iraq. Carol Moseley Braun and Howard Dean have said that, while they support U.S. troops, they will continue to criticize the president's plan to use military force.

With me now from the "CROSSFIRE" set at George Washington University to talk more about the Democratic hopefuls and the president's Iraq policy: James Carville and Tucker Carlson.

James, is it right for any of these candidates, whether it's Howard Dean or anybody, to say, "I'm going to feel free to criticize this president," even when the fighting is under way?

JAMES CARVILLE, CO-HOST, "CROSSFIRE": Well, geez, Howard Taft in 1942 said dissent during a time of war is necessary to the preservation of democracy. Do you think that people stopped criticizing the country? They were fighting a real war. We were not fighting against a country like Iraq that, basically, we're going to run over in three days. We were fighting two wars on two fronts and we had political dissent.

We certainly had political dissent all throughout the Vietnam War. This is the kind of what I call the political patriot correct police, that, somehow or another, people can't offer their opinion. Of course they can. I don't know -- I am going to sort of temper my criticism of his war policy while people are in harm's way. But, obviously, people have always had, we've had bitter dissent. We had bitter dissent in the Civil War all throughout this country. Anybody that says that we shouldn't just doesn't know American history.

TUCKER CARLSON, CO-HOST, "CROSSFIRE": Well, nobody is saying that, luckily.


T. CARLSON: Hold on, James. Hold on.

This political -- I couldn't quite understand what you said -- but patriotic police, of course, doesn't exist. It goes without saying. A couple of candidates are basing their campaigns partly on running against this war, Dean and Sharpton, probably Carol Moseley Braun. They will continue to criticize it. I wouldn't be surprised if you hear John Kerry criticizing the president almost from the right, as he did in Afghanistan. All of that is, of course, legitimate.

I think what's not legitimate, or at least not a good idea, is to make arguments that are so untrue, with no basis at all, that they are just ludicrous on their face, like Senator Daschle did yesterday, blaming the war on George W. Bush, when everybody believes, on both sides, the war is the fault of Saddam Hussein. That is an outrageous criticism.

WOODRUFF: Well, what about this, whether it's the Daschle comment or not, the accusation from some that this president did not exhaust diplomacy before he moved toward war, James?

CARVILLE: Well, exhaust it? He never tried it. Let's be real that this was all just some sham and most people in the administration are absolutely delighted that it did. They never put anything to it.

Some reporter asked me, well, he only called the president of Turkey, the prime minister of Turkey, three times. And he ain't called Bill Frist three times. He didn't put any effort into this.

T. CARLSON: I don't know -- what world are you living in? Over the last 4 1/2


CARVILLE: I'm living in a world that says we couldn't get but four votes out of 15. We couldn't get Mexicans to be with us. You're telling me that, if we had tried, we couldn't have done that? They wanted to rub the U.N.'s face in the ground. They wanted to rub Russia's face in the ground. They wanted to rub China's face in the ground. They wanted to show the Canadians who was boss. And so they have gotten


T. CARLSON: James, you don't need this to show -- I'm not sure what world you're living in. You don't need a war to show the Canadians who is boss. That theory is beneath comment.

Look, the fact is that, for a lot of different reasons, having to do with their own domestic political situations, five countries in Europe oppose this war; 21 are on our side. We've won the vast majority of European countries. And it's been 4 1/2 months since the Security Council passed 1441 unanimously. They won't stand behind it. Whose fault is that? How is that this president's fault?

CARVILLE: You know, Judy, I must be drunk, because we said we were going to have a vote, no whip counts, no nothing. I didn't say that. Tom Daschle didn't say that. A man by the name of President Bush said that. Another man named President Bush Sunday said in Texas, you show your cards. And, of course, we don't do it. And now Tucker is blaming Tom Daschle.

T. CARLSON: You heard it right there, Judy. James is drunk.


WOODRUFF: I always hate to cut you two off, but I'm going to have to do it.

James, Tucker, good to see. We'll see you at 7:00 on "CROSSFIRE."

T. CARLSON: Thanks, Judy.

WOODRUFF: Still ahead: The world is turning even angrier, some of the world, at the United States, now that the war may be just days or hours away. Our Bill Schneider will roll out new poll numbers.


WOODRUFF: Now that President Bush has thrown down the gauntlet for Saddam Hussein, two-thirds of Americans polled say they approve of war if the Iraqi president does not leave the country. The CNN/"USA Today"/Gallup poll was taken after President Bush's televised address last night. Some of those surveyed watched the speech. Others did not.

Now let's bring in our senior political analyst, Bill Schneider.

We saw reaction at home, Bill. What about the rest of the world?

SCHNEIDER: Well, Judy, if you want to see just how isolated the United States has become, take a look at these findings from an international poll by the Pew Research Center just released.

These figures show the percentage of people in each country who have a favorable opinion of the United States now compared with last year. Gulp. The U.S. is less popular everywhere, even in Britain, our closest ally. Less than half the British now like the U.S., compared with three-quarters a year ago. And in France, Germany, Russia and Turkey, friendly feelings have collapsed by half or more.

The U.S. is even unpopular in Spain, the other ally in this war. You know, 14 percent favorable Spain -- 14 percent -- is pretty bad.

WOODRUFF: So, Bill, your able to tell if people are unhappy, angry, with the U.S. and its people or with President Bush and his policies?

SCHNEIDER: Judy, more at Bush.

Pew asked people in each country if they approved of President Bush's international policies. And you can see that support for the Bush administration's policies is, well, negligible everywhere, down to single digits in Russia, Turkey, even Spain. And the issue, of course, is the war. In every country, including Britain, a majority of people oppose war with Iraq, even though, in nearly every country, majorities say the people of Iraq would be better off if Saddam Hussein were removed from power. The issue overseas is not Saddam. It's Bush.

WOODRUFF: So are the feelings mutual?

SCHNEIDER: No. In our own poll, we asked Americans how they felt about other countries. In almost every case, Americans have a more favorable opinion of other countries than they do of the United States.

For instance, 86 percent of Americans have a favorable view of Britain, but only 48 percent of the British have a favorable view of the United States. One exception: France, where the feeling is mutual. We don't like them. They don't like us.

WOODRUFF: That may explain the freedom fries.


WOODRUFF: All right, Schneider, some very interesting numbers. Thanks.

More reaction to Tom Daschle's comments about the president and diplomacy. Bob Novak joins me next with "Inside Buzz" on the debate over Iraq.


WOODRUFF: Bob Novak here now with some "Inside Buzz" related to developments in Iraq.

Bob, what are you hearing today about reaction to Tom Daschle's harsh words yesterday about the president?

ROBERT NOVAK, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Harsh, indeed. I've been talking to several Democrats. And I find that the anti-war Democrats thought that Tom Daschle was just terrific. But I've talked with a lot of other Democrats who were appalled by it. They thought it was really the wrong thing to do on the eve of battle. And it was very interesting that Dick Gephardt, who he's stood side by side with on so many photo-ops over the last years, took an absolutely opposite position to him, that we have to support the president.

So, on this, as much else with the war, the Democratic Party is divided.

WOODRUFF: Yes, we heard Dick Gephardt tell us that on CNN last night.

Bob, what about -- you are hearing about a debate at the White House over how long the ultimatum to Saddam should be?

NOVAK: They didn't decide until the last minute. A pretty senior official told me at about 4:00 yesterday that it was going to be a 72-hour ultimatum. I understand the president said 72 hours was just too long. And the decision was made fairly late in the game that it would be a 48-hour ultimatum, which is a short one.

WOODRUFF: And now we're hearing from Suzanne Malveaux at the White House that they may send a small military signal even before that.

Finally, Romania is sending troops.

NOVAK: This...

WOODRUFF: Bob, I am going to have to interrupt you.

I'm just told that the Iraqi ambassador to the United Nations is coming before the cameras, Ambassador Aldouri.


We just want to say that this is a very angry Iraqi ambassador to the U.N., Mohammad Aldouri, essentially saying they reject what President Bush has done; this is the gravest mistake of U.S. foreign policy in over a century, and, at the very end, saying: We still have a hope for peace, because we know what will happen, not only to the Iraqi people, but to U.S. soldiers when this fighting gets under way.

CNN's U.N. correspondent, Richard Roth, is listening.

Richard, is the Iraqi ambassador calling on the U.N. Security Council to do something at this point?

RICHARD ROTH, CNN SENIOR U.N. CORRESPONDENT: Well, he appears resigned to not being able to get any action in the council.

Diplomats have told us that he would like the council to meet as soon as any war starts and to get a resolution introduced. But the mood appears to be, at the Security Council, to try to calm differences down among the big powers, the U.S. and U.K. on one side, Russia and France on the other. There will be a loud hearing where countries will vent their differences and anger over any military attack. But it appears that Iraq, at the moment, will not be able to get some resolution to be considered. It would certainly face a veto. But it was an angry ambassador.

And he said nowhere has it ever happened in history that the president of another country can tell another country to leave office. He said, are we heading towards the law of the jungle? He said Iraq has been given a clean bill of health by the inspectors.

A short time ago, Hans Blix, the chief weapons inspector, did not go that far. He said, there's still a lot we don't know, so we can't say for sure whether there are or are not any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And he says he's going to be very -- he's going to be watching with interest what happens if U.S. forces go in, as to what they may or may not find -- Judy.

WOODRUFF: All right, Richard Roth at the U.N. -- again, the Iraqi ambassador to the U.N. calling what the U.S. is planning to do madness and a crime against humanity.

That's it for INSIDE POLITICS. I'm Judy Woodruff. Thank you for joining us.


Deadline; Are Countries Turning Against America Or Just President Bush?>

International Edition
CNN TV CNN International Headline News Transcripts Advertise With Us About Us
   The Web     
Powered by
© 2005 Cable News Network LP, LLLP.
A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved.
Terms under which this service is provided to you.
Read our privacy guidelines. Contact us.
external link
All external sites will open in a new browser. does not endorse external sites.
 Premium content icon Denotes premium content.
Add RSS headlines.