Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsnight Aaron Brown
Bush Commits to Win or Lose Vote Next Week at United Nations Security Council; More talk of Compromised Language in New Resolution
Aired March 06, 2003 - 22:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
AARON BROWN, HOST: And good evening again, everyone. As you would expect, much of the program tonight will deal with Iraq. The president's news conference earlier tonight, the U.N. Security Council meeting tomorrow guarantees it. We have a lot to do.
We are clearly at an important juncture. The news conference perhaps the opening act to a real life and death drama that will play out over the next week or so.
So quickly to "The Whip." And "The Whip" tonight begins at the White House. Our senior White House correspondent John King starts us off -- John, headline tonight.
JOHN KING, CNN SR. WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Aaron, in that news conference tonight, the president committed win or lose to a vote next week at the United Nations Security Council. He said it was time for the world to show its cards when it comes to Saddam Hussein.
And Mr. Bush made clear, perhaps defiantly so, that if he loses, that does not mean he will go to war. In the president's words "When it comes to our security, we really don't need anybody's permission" -- Aaron.
BROWN: John, thank you. Back to you in a moment.
On to the U.N. next. Ahead of a hugely important day tomorrow, Hans Blix' presentation. Richard Roth is there, of course. Richard, a headline.
RICHARD ROTH, CNN SR. U.N. CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, there is more talk of compromised language tonight. But as John King mentioned, the president wants countries to show their hands. It has been a poker game here for weeks, but will the president draw a straight flush and win votes or will the U.S. fold them and attack without formal United States reauthorization of war?
BROWN: Richard, thank you. We'll be back to you as well.
A very troubling story about one way Iraq is said to be planning for a war. That comes from Pentagon and our senior Pentagon correspondent Jamie McIntyre. Jamie, a headline.
JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN SR. PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, Aaron, the latest charge from the Pentagon is that Saddam Hussein is trying to get fake American and British military uniforms so the Iraqi president can issue them to paramilitary forces so that when they commit atrocities it will be blamed on America and its allies. That's the charge -- Aaron.
BROWN: Jamie, thank you. And something a lot of people were talking about today: the hunt for Osama bin Laden. David Ensor has been working that. So, David, a headline.
DAVID ENSOR, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, Aaron, an aggressive search is underway, a manhunt really for Osama bin Laden. Officials say that the new leads they got from the arrests on Saturday and the evidence they gathered have narrowed that search down to a fairly narrow strip in the northwest of Pakistan and just over the border into Afghanistan.
BROWN: David, thank you. Back to you and the rest shortly.
Also coming up tonight, we'll bring as many voices as we can into the mix in terms of Iraq. Jeff Greenfield is here tonight. We'll also be joined by David Gergen, former presidential advisor. Also one of our favorite U.N. translators, if you will. The chief diplomatic correspondent for "The L.A. Times," Robin Wright joins us as well.
And someone who has been looking at the current battle plan for Iraq and is deeply concerned. The man who led the air war in 1991, retired Air Force Lieutenant General Buster Glosson joins us a little bit later in the hour. We have an awful lot to do tonight.
We begin with the president. He stepped up to the podium in the East Room tonight in the White House with much in play and more to come. He began with a statement making clear that Iraq has not complied with U.N. Resolution 1441, unconditional and complete disarmament. And no one expects Hans Blix to say that the Iraq has done that when he meets at the U.N. tomorrow.
The president ended by saying, win or lose, up or down, it's time for countries to "show their cards," in his words. There will be a vote on a second U.N. resolution. We start our coverage at the White House. Senior White House correspondent John King -- John, good evening.
KING: Good evening to you, Aaron. Forty-five minutes and all for the president. Eighteen questions, all but two of them on Iraq. Mr. Bush trying, one, to pressure the Security Council to see things his way and approve a new resolution, clearing the way for war. And more importantly, aides say the president trying to prepare the American people for the possibility they might seeing their president in the Oval Office in the next week to 10 days telling him that he is indeed sending U.S. troops into combat in Iraq.
One major piece of news from the president tonight at that news conference. He did commit win or lose to putting that new U.S. resolution up for a vote. The White House wants a vote next week. Some aides had said perhaps if it was clear the votes were not there, the White House would not force a vote. The president said that is not the case; he wants the world to go on record.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Yes, we'll call for a vote. No matter what the whip 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.
It's time for people to show their cards. Let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: Now by the end of next week we could hear from the president an ultimatum in those negotiations up in New York. There is talk about perhaps adding a deadline to the U.S. resolution that the president right there just demanded that vote on. Mr. Bush steering clear of the details tonight of how far he is willing to go in those negotiations, but he made crystal clear he wants the United Nations in this process wrapped up by next week.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BUSH: It's now time for this issue to come to a head at the Security Council and it will. As far as ultimatums and all the speculation about what may or may not happen after next week, we'll just wait and see. Steve (ph)? Well, we're days away from resolving this issue at the Security Council.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: The major goal was to prepare the American people for the possibility of war. Yet despite that, the president was not prepared to offer many details on the potential price. Whether how many lives might it cost, how much could it cost the U.S. economy, what is the risk of retaliatory terrorists strikes. Mr. Bush saying those assessments would come later, but he was convinced that the price of inaction was far higher than the price of acting, sending the troops into Iraq.
Two flashes of emotion. The president bristling at suggestions from some critics that this is personal, that he is fixated on Saddam Hussein. The president said that is not the case. And his eyes also welled up with tears when he was asked what role does faith play in a decision about going to war. The president said he was grateful for the prayers of thousands of Americans he will never meet and never see -- Aaron.
BROWN: John, your opinion on these things always trumps mine, but from where I sat and watched the president tonight, he was extraordinarily careful in the words he chose. Almost to the point it seemed to me eof having the words in front of him. That, in many cases, he seemed to look down at notes saying exactly what he wanted to say regardless of what the question was. KING: Well the president prepared for this. He received a thick briefing book last night with questions his staff thought he would be asked. He went through a mock question-and-answer session today with the senior staff. And, yes, he wanted to be very careful in what he said because we are at perhaps the most delicate moment of any presidency.
He still hopes to pull out a victory at the Security Council, so he did not -- even as he pressured the allies in the Security Council, he did not want to over-alienate anybody. And of course he did want to say anything that could compromise either the military planning, and he has to prepare. We may see this president within a week, 10 days, two weeks at the most making the most faithful speech any president has to give.
So this is a unique signature moment of this presidency. And while he was forceful in many regards, he was also very, very careful in what he said.
BROWN: The other thing I thought, John, if the White House view was that the president was trying to prepare -- one of the things the president was trying to do is prepare the country for the possibility of war, it strikes me that -- two things. One is the possibility is out there, and that the president himself today used phrases that he has been using quite literally for months. Does the White House believe the country has yet to focus on this?
KING: They believe the country does not see the argument in its entirety that often. That when the president holds forth for more than 45 minutes it sinks in more than what they might see -- forgive me -- in a two-minute piece on an evening newscast or something like that. So they wanted the president -- most of all, whether the American people agree or disagree with the president on this policy, White House aides believe this president's greatest strength is that the American people trust him.
Whether they agree with him on any specific issue, they trust him. So by seeing him standing there and taking questions for 45 minutes, showing that he is comfortable with where he stands, comfortable with his position, whether the people watching agree or disagree, the White House thinks the president gained simply from standing there and showing the people and trying to convince the American people that he has thought this through and that he is not doing this, as some critics say, to avenge his father or for any other reasons. That he believes in what he says.
BROWN: John, thank you. That was a great answer. John King at the White House tonight.
The president of course speaks with one voice; Congress speaks with many. Their turn for a sampling of what's been said tonight. So we'll go to Jonathan Karl, who has been checking the voices on the Hill. John, good evening to you.
JONATHAN KARL, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Good evening, Aaron. At least some of what the president said seemed to be aimed directly to his critics up here on Capitol Hill. For instance, he said he would be committed to having a stable government in post-war Iraq. That answering some critics here are worried about what happens after war.
And the other thing, the headline out of this, of course, that he will go to the U.N. for a second U.N. resolution no matter what he fears the vote may or may not be. That drew praise from one of his most persistent critics up here on Capitol Hill, Senator Chris Dodd.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. CHRIS DODD (D), CONNECTICUT: The headline here, and the very good news, I think, if you want to find the very good news here, is his commitment to go once more and to try to win U.N. support for a resolution. I was concerned, and many others were that he would walk away from that process. None of us know how that will come out. But I've got a feeling that they may do better than some people think in terms of winning support.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KARL: The view of those who I have spoken to up here tonight is that the president would not be going back to the U.N., would not have announced that if he wasn't confident that he would at least get a majority vote at the Security Council. But, Aaron, there are some up here that no matters what happens at the Security Council, even if he ultimately prevails there, they will still not be satisfied.
Perhaps the most persistent critic in that area is Senator Ted Kennedy, who has a statement out tonight that says, "I believe this administration's fixation on Saddam is making the world more dangerous for Americans, not less. By discounting the real concerns of our allies, we are squandering the good will we received after September 11 and shattering the coalition against terrorism."
That from Senator Kennedy. And earlier today, Senator Tom Daschle, of course the top Democrat in the Senate, had some of his most pointed criticism yet of how the president has handled Iraq. He said the president's efforts diplomatically have been "a failure" that have he said resulted in an extraordinary disintegration of international support. He said he agrees, of course, that Saddam Hussein is a threat. What he doesn't agree with is how the president is handling that threat.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. TOM DASCHLE (D-SD), MINORITY LEADER: In my view, what you do about it is remove the threat by dismantling the weapons and hopefully finding a way to bring about regime change in the country. That's what you do about it. But you have to do it, in my view, through the international community. I think it's a significant risk, a major problem for the United States if we do it alone or almost alone.
(END VIDEO CLIP) KARL: Aaron, the president also said that he would be sending up to Congress a request for money to pay for all of this. That, you can imagine, may be the next big battle up here when it comes to Iraq -- Aaron.
BROWN: Well, it will come after a war if there is to be a war that already starts. John, thank you very much. Jonathan Karl on Capitol Hill tonight.
Twelve hours from now all the attention will shift from Washington to the Security Council across town from where we are. Hans Blix expected to say that, while Iraq has much left to do, there are signs of both disarmament and cooperation. That will clearly not make the president's task any easier. Here's our senior U.N. correspondent Richard Roth -- Richard.
ROTH: Aaron, the president said we're in the final phase of diplomacy, and that's exactly what's been going on in the last few hours at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel near the United Nations. Secretary of State Powell first met with allies on the new and latest resolution. Jack Straw, British Foreign Secretary, and Spain's foreign minister, those are the three sponsors of the resolution.
State Department spokesman Richard Boucher saying that the United States was open to changes and that's what was discussed. And then later Powell met with one of his strongest opponents for this resolution, French Foreign Minister Dominique De Villepin. And later, the German foreign minister, Joshcka Fischer. Those two gentlemen do not want a new resolution. They say inspectors should be given more time.
The British, though, are expected tomorrow to introduce some amendments, some new language for the Security Council to consider. Russia, so far, opposed.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JACK STRAW, BRITISH FOREIGN MINISTER: Of course we were ready to discuss the wording of that second resolution and to take on board any constructive suggestions as to how the process set out in that draft resolution could be improved. And that is exactly what we are doing, and I look forward to further discussion as fellow foreign ministers arrive.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is there a possibility of an amendment?
STRAW: There's certainly a possibility of an amendment, and that's something we're looking at.
SERGEY LAVROV, RUSSIAN AMBASSADOR TO U.N.: When you say we start the war tomorrow, and then you say, OK, we'll start the war in three days. Is it a compromise? I mean, on the basis of common sense? I don't think so.
(END VIDEO CLIP) ROTH: The Russian ambassador there. He'll be listening, along with the others, to chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix tomorrow morning. Blix is expected to praise Iraq for dismantling Al Samoud 2 missiles, but no gaps (ph) in biological and chemical weapons filed (ph).
He is also, Aaron, going to submit a separate report, more than 160 pages, which will list the outstanding disarmament task Iraq would need to comply with in order to get a clean bill of health. And in one section of the report Blix will note that the Iraqis actually stored out more anthrax than originally suspected when the Gulf War ended -- Aaron.
BROWN: Richard, that all begins at 10:00 tomorrow morning?
ROTH: It will be closer to 10:30. All the ministers will meet privately with Hans Blix.
BROWN: OK. And Richard will be part of our coverage, which in fact begins at 9:30 tomorrow morning here on CNN, 9:30 Eastern Time here.
It's been quite a day on the military side, a busy day as well. A number of flights over southern Iraq tripled today. Doctors and nurses shipped out. By all measures, the military looked ready or nearly ready to go. But there is much that can't be measured, including the willingness of the Iraqi regime, to do some truly horrible things if and when a war begins.
The list of nightmare scenarios is a long one, and today it grew to include a tactic not seen since World War II in the Battle of the Bulge. Back to the Pentagon and Jamie McIntyre -- Jamie, good evening to you.
MCINTYRE: Good evening, Aaron. Well the U.S. Central Command issued a statement today that said Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has ordered the procurement of military uniforms that are identical down to the last detail of U.S. and U.K. forces. The statement went on to say, "Saddam intends to issue these uniforms to Fedayeen Saddam troops who would wear them when conducting reprisals against the Iraqi people so they could pass the atrocities off as the work of the United States and the United Kingdom."
Who is the Fedayeen Saddam? Well it literally means "men of sacrifice." It's a paramilitary force with a strength of over 15,000 founded by Saddam's son Udai (ph) in 1994. Many members are said to be in their teens and recruited from areas noted for loyalty to Saddam. And it supposedly carries out patrols and anti-smuggling duties. It's separate from the army command reporting directly to the presidential palace.
Now this prediction that atrocities would be carried out under the uniform of U.S. forces is from U.S. intelligence. Will it really happen? It's like the prediction of whether Saddam Hussein will set his own oilfields on fire. We won't know until it happens. We have no official reaction from Iraq, but I can tell you what they would say, and that is that this information from the U.S. government to cover up the atrocities it intends to commit. I can also tell you what Defense Secretary Rumsfeld would say to that. Saddam Hussein, he would say, is a proven liar -- Aaron.
BROWN: Jaime, lots of movement. I'm curious what you heard in the president's words tonight. Anything that you heard that those of us who aren't around military types all day might have missed?
MCINTYRE: Well, just reading between the lines, it sure seemed here, despite the fact that he said several times he hasn't made a decision, that the U.S. is on a clear course to war. I heard very carefully the part that there would be a warning to journalists to get out, to others to get out. And all the indications here at the Pentagon that, barring some really unforeseen event, the U.S. is heading for war within a week or two.
BROWN: Those 200,000 plus troops over there are another sign of that. Jamie, thank you. Jamie McIntyre at the Pentagon.
We've got a long way to go tonight. Much to do. More on how the president made his case.
Jeff Greenfield joins us. White House veteran David Gergen does as well. From New York, this is NEWSNIGHT.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: More now on what the president had to say tonight and what he didn't say as well. CNN's Jeff Greenfield watched with us here in New York. He has been gathering his thoughts. We're also joined from Boston tonight by David Gergen, who has seen and been a part of many of these presidential news conferences over the years. Good to see you both.
David, let me start with you. Did the president advance his case tonight in any particular way?
DAVID GERGEN, FMR. WHITE HOUSE ADVISER: I thought he did in one special way. And I think he was very persuasive on the depth of his conviction. And I think no one can doubt now that this president has reached the judgment that Iraq presents a threat and that he has a constitutional duty to meet that threat in order to protect American lives.
That is obviously a core conviction. So I thought he was persuasive on the depth of his conviction. I thought he was less persuasive on the case for war now.
BROWN: How this far out? I mean this argument has literally been going on for about nine months now. The president has been making it himself. How can they still be struggling with making the case?
GERGEN: I think they got behind the eight ball early and they just never caught up. You know the president did have some important facts tonight that the Colin Powell had already laid out previously, but most Americans have not heard. And that was Saddam, even as he destroys these missiles, is building new ones.
That he's moving things around every 12 to 24 hours. That he's got the scientists bugged. But this was an ideal opportunity to walk in with some overheads and show the country to really drive the facts home. So that as the press conference wore on, it became longer on rhetoric and shorter on facts.
And I think some people would feel he didn't really -- he didn't deal straightforwardly, with the questions, for example, of costs. And so I think he shored himself up with the public. I think most people want this president to succeed, especially in a war.
I think he certainly reinforced his standing with his own base. I doubt he brought many skeptics over either in this country or overseas.
BROWN: Jeff, let me ask you something we actually were starting to talk about early tonight. By and large, the president said what he wanted to say regardless of what the question was that was asked. Does that matter?
JEFF GREENFIELD, CNN SR. ANALYST: Well that doesn't matter. The question is whether what he wanted to say hits home. And I think -- I mean Dave Gergen, who has been in many White House -- and I used to work in politics -- I always sort of look at a speech and then try to reason backwards based on oral performance or appearance, based on what the president said repeatedly.
What was the White House worried about? What were they trying to say? And it seems to me twofold. One, as David said, that the case for war now hasn't been made. The last poll I saw still shows a majority of Americans would rather wait for the Security Council than to go it alone.
So that's why we kept hearing over and over again that Saddam equals terror. The word "terror" popped up in almost every answer whether asked or not. Because Americans would support, as they did in Afghanistan, a military action aimed at people who are aimed at us. And so the president at one point talked about Saddam Hussein financing al Qaeda-type organizations.
The second thing, and this really struck me. The degree to which the president wanted to make the case that we were going to protect innocent life as much as possible. Clearly, they are worried whether in the world community or even in the United States the concern of the United States being seen as the bad guys. Inflicting civilian casualties not deliberately, but perhaps recklessly.
And he at one point even answered the question, as you said, that wasn't asked, when he said in response to a totally different question, we will bring food to Iraq, we'll bring medicine. We're going to help those people. Two very striking themes. BROWN: On something John King said, that the White House believes that the president's greatest asset in many ways is the president himself. That people believe him to be trustworthy and honest. In that regard, how did he do tonight?
GREENFIELD: Well, I think what John also said was it makes a difference whether you're on primetime television for 45 minutes so you can reinforce that message. Look, David knows this probably better than I do. You don't stand in front of the American people as the president for 45 minutes unless you're in a Watergate situation and not get people in the short one saying, yes, I want to believe that guy.
The problem is, in this issue repeatedly, he has gotten big marks and then there has been a gradual erosion as people come back to the central question, why Iraq, why now? And I'm not sure tonight he did himself a whole lot of good in answering those questions.
BROWN: And David, in 30 seconds, I think that is what you were saying as well earlier, that on the substantive questions, the argument wasn't moved much.
GERGEN: I don't think it was. I think as much as anything he was trying to protect himself for the coming week, when the prospects are growing the United States will not succeed in the Security Council. He wanted to give himself protection and a show of support before he goes into what could be a very difficult week for him.
BROWN: David, it's good to see you. Jeff, always. Thank you both for joining us tonight.
And when we continue, we'll take a look and we'll talk to a critic of what we all believe to be the current battle plan if there is a war in Iraq. He is the man who led the air war in 1991, Retired Air Force Lieutenant General Buster Glosson joins us as NEWSNIGHT continues around the world.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: It's an old military axiom and a good one to keep in mind. No battle plan ever survives the first contact with the enemy. We're always careful not to make predictions around here, but that doesn't mean we can't look at the strategy that's expected.
And in this case, some of the criticism is generating and it comes from a source we can't afford not to listen to, retired Air Force General Buster Glosson, who directed the air campaign in the first Gulf War. The general says the plan in place may not give enough time for air strikes, which could put ground forces in jeopardy.
We'll let him explain it more. His book is called, "War with Iraq: Critical Lessons," due in stores next week. And the general joins us from Charlotte, North Carolina, tonight. Good to have you with us. Let me just start with an overview question and then we'll work in some of the particulars. The question that hangs over everyone is sort of why Iraq, why now? You want to weigh in on that?
LT. GEN. BUSTER GLOSSON (RET.), AIR FORCE: Sure, we can wait for him to attack us or we can change the regime and take his weapons away from him or let him use the chemical or biological weapons and train -- or help the al Qaeda to attack us, just like he did in 9/11. Aaron, the thing that most people forget is it was not until after that event that looking at some films that we had that were old and hadn't been analyzed properly that we saw the fuselage of an airplane south of Baghdad near (UNINTELLIGIBLE), with four and five-men teams with short knives were practicing on how to take over an airplane. That is a little bit more than a coincidence for me.
BROWN: So, it's just -- I don't want to dwell on this, but you would argue that -- and this is something the administration has not argued -- that the Iraqis were in fact involved in 9/11.
GLOSSON: That, or there is a lot of coincidences going on in the world? Would you not say that?
BROWN: OK. Let's go to the war plan. We very briefly summarized it, but basically it is a massive air attack, cruise missiles and the like, followed almost simultaneously by ground...
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Nations Security Council; More talk of Compromised Language in New Resolution>
Aired March 6, 2003 - 22:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
AARON BROWN, HOST: And good evening again, everyone. As you would expect, much of the program tonight will deal with Iraq. The president's news conference earlier tonight, the U.N. Security Council meeting tomorrow guarantees it. We have a lot to do.
We are clearly at an important juncture. The news conference perhaps the opening act to a real life and death drama that will play out over the next week or so.
So quickly to "The Whip." And "The Whip" tonight begins at the White House. Our senior White House correspondent John King starts us off -- John, headline tonight.
JOHN KING, CNN SR. WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Aaron, in that news conference tonight, the president committed win or lose to a vote next week at the United Nations Security Council. He said it was time for the world to show its cards when it comes to Saddam Hussein.
And Mr. Bush made clear, perhaps defiantly so, that if he loses, that does not mean he will go to war. In the president's words "When it comes to our security, we really don't need anybody's permission" -- Aaron.
BROWN: John, thank you. Back to you in a moment.
On to the U.N. next. Ahead of a hugely important day tomorrow, Hans Blix' presentation. Richard Roth is there, of course. Richard, a headline.
RICHARD ROTH, CNN SR. U.N. CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, there is more talk of compromised language tonight. But as John King mentioned, the president wants countries to show their hands. It has been a poker game here for weeks, but will the president draw a straight flush and win votes or will the U.S. fold them and attack without formal United States reauthorization of war?
BROWN: Richard, thank you. We'll be back to you as well.
A very troubling story about one way Iraq is said to be planning for a war. That comes from Pentagon and our senior Pentagon correspondent Jamie McIntyre. Jamie, a headline.
JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN SR. PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, Aaron, the latest charge from the Pentagon is that Saddam Hussein is trying to get fake American and British military uniforms so the Iraqi president can issue them to paramilitary forces so that when they commit atrocities it will be blamed on America and its allies. That's the charge -- Aaron.
BROWN: Jamie, thank you. And something a lot of people were talking about today: the hunt for Osama bin Laden. David Ensor has been working that. So, David, a headline.
DAVID ENSOR, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, Aaron, an aggressive search is underway, a manhunt really for Osama bin Laden. Officials say that the new leads they got from the arrests on Saturday and the evidence they gathered have narrowed that search down to a fairly narrow strip in the northwest of Pakistan and just over the border into Afghanistan.
BROWN: David, thank you. Back to you and the rest shortly.
Also coming up tonight, we'll bring as many voices as we can into the mix in terms of Iraq. Jeff Greenfield is here tonight. We'll also be joined by David Gergen, former presidential advisor. Also one of our favorite U.N. translators, if you will. The chief diplomatic correspondent for "The L.A. Times," Robin Wright joins us as well.
And someone who has been looking at the current battle plan for Iraq and is deeply concerned. The man who led the air war in 1991, retired Air Force Lieutenant General Buster Glosson joins us a little bit later in the hour. We have an awful lot to do tonight.
We begin with the president. He stepped up to the podium in the East Room tonight in the White House with much in play and more to come. He began with a statement making clear that Iraq has not complied with U.N. Resolution 1441, unconditional and complete disarmament. And no one expects Hans Blix to say that the Iraq has done that when he meets at the U.N. tomorrow.
The president ended by saying, win or lose, up or down, it's time for countries to "show their cards," in his words. There will be a vote on a second U.N. resolution. We start our coverage at the White House. Senior White House correspondent John King -- John, good evening.
KING: Good evening to you, Aaron. Forty-five minutes and all for the president. Eighteen questions, all but two of them on Iraq. Mr. Bush trying, one, to pressure the Security Council to see things his way and approve a new resolution, clearing the way for war. And more importantly, aides say the president trying to prepare the American people for the possibility they might seeing their president in the Oval Office in the next week to 10 days telling him that he is indeed sending U.S. troops into combat in Iraq.
One major piece of news from the president tonight at that news conference. He did commit win or lose to putting that new U.S. resolution up for a vote. The White House wants a vote next week. Some aides had said perhaps if it was clear the votes were not there, the White House would not force a vote. The president said that is not the case; he wants the world to go on record.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Yes, we'll call for a vote. No matter what the whip 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.
It's time for people to show their cards. Let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: Now by the end of next week we could hear from the president an ultimatum in those negotiations up in New York. There is talk about perhaps adding a deadline to the U.S. resolution that the president right there just demanded that vote on. Mr. Bush steering clear of the details tonight of how far he is willing to go in those negotiations, but he made crystal clear he wants the United Nations in this process wrapped up by next week.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BUSH: It's now time for this issue to come to a head at the Security Council and it will. As far as ultimatums and all the speculation about what may or may not happen after next week, we'll just wait and see. Steve (ph)? Well, we're days away from resolving this issue at the Security Council.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: The major goal was to prepare the American people for the possibility of war. Yet despite that, the president was not prepared to offer many details on the potential price. Whether how many lives might it cost, how much could it cost the U.S. economy, what is the risk of retaliatory terrorists strikes. Mr. Bush saying those assessments would come later, but he was convinced that the price of inaction was far higher than the price of acting, sending the troops into Iraq.
Two flashes of emotion. The president bristling at suggestions from some critics that this is personal, that he is fixated on Saddam Hussein. The president said that is not the case. And his eyes also welled up with tears when he was asked what role does faith play in a decision about going to war. The president said he was grateful for the prayers of thousands of Americans he will never meet and never see -- Aaron.
BROWN: John, your opinion on these things always trumps mine, but from where I sat and watched the president tonight, he was extraordinarily careful in the words he chose. Almost to the point it seemed to me eof having the words in front of him. That, in many cases, he seemed to look down at notes saying exactly what he wanted to say regardless of what the question was. KING: Well the president prepared for this. He received a thick briefing book last night with questions his staff thought he would be asked. He went through a mock question-and-answer session today with the senior staff. And, yes, he wanted to be very careful in what he said because we are at perhaps the most delicate moment of any presidency.
He still hopes to pull out a victory at the Security Council, so he did not -- even as he pressured the allies in the Security Council, he did not want to over-alienate anybody. And of course he did want to say anything that could compromise either the military planning, and he has to prepare. We may see this president within a week, 10 days, two weeks at the most making the most faithful speech any president has to give.
So this is a unique signature moment of this presidency. And while he was forceful in many regards, he was also very, very careful in what he said.
BROWN: The other thing I thought, John, if the White House view was that the president was trying to prepare -- one of the things the president was trying to do is prepare the country for the possibility of war, it strikes me that -- two things. One is the possibility is out there, and that the president himself today used phrases that he has been using quite literally for months. Does the White House believe the country has yet to focus on this?
KING: They believe the country does not see the argument in its entirety that often. That when the president holds forth for more than 45 minutes it sinks in more than what they might see -- forgive me -- in a two-minute piece on an evening newscast or something like that. So they wanted the president -- most of all, whether the American people agree or disagree with the president on this policy, White House aides believe this president's greatest strength is that the American people trust him.
Whether they agree with him on any specific issue, they trust him. So by seeing him standing there and taking questions for 45 minutes, showing that he is comfortable with where he stands, comfortable with his position, whether the people watching agree or disagree, the White House thinks the president gained simply from standing there and showing the people and trying to convince the American people that he has thought this through and that he is not doing this, as some critics say, to avenge his father or for any other reasons. That he believes in what he says.
BROWN: John, thank you. That was a great answer. John King at the White House tonight.
The president of course speaks with one voice; Congress speaks with many. Their turn for a sampling of what's been said tonight. So we'll go to Jonathan Karl, who has been checking the voices on the Hill. John, good evening to you.
JONATHAN KARL, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Good evening, Aaron. At least some of what the president said seemed to be aimed directly to his critics up here on Capitol Hill. For instance, he said he would be committed to having a stable government in post-war Iraq. That answering some critics here are worried about what happens after war.
And the other thing, the headline out of this, of course, that he will go to the U.N. for a second U.N. resolution no matter what he fears the vote may or may not be. That drew praise from one of his most persistent critics up here on Capitol Hill, Senator Chris Dodd.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. CHRIS DODD (D), CONNECTICUT: The headline here, and the very good news, I think, if you want to find the very good news here, is his commitment to go once more and to try to win U.N. support for a resolution. I was concerned, and many others were that he would walk away from that process. None of us know how that will come out. But I've got a feeling that they may do better than some people think in terms of winning support.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KARL: The view of those who I have spoken to up here tonight is that the president would not be going back to the U.N., would not have announced that if he wasn't confident that he would at least get a majority vote at the Security Council. But, Aaron, there are some up here that no matters what happens at the Security Council, even if he ultimately prevails there, they will still not be satisfied.
Perhaps the most persistent critic in that area is Senator Ted Kennedy, who has a statement out tonight that says, "I believe this administration's fixation on Saddam is making the world more dangerous for Americans, not less. By discounting the real concerns of our allies, we are squandering the good will we received after September 11 and shattering the coalition against terrorism."
That from Senator Kennedy. And earlier today, Senator Tom Daschle, of course the top Democrat in the Senate, had some of his most pointed criticism yet of how the president has handled Iraq. He said the president's efforts diplomatically have been "a failure" that have he said resulted in an extraordinary disintegration of international support. He said he agrees, of course, that Saddam Hussein is a threat. What he doesn't agree with is how the president is handling that threat.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. TOM DASCHLE (D-SD), MINORITY LEADER: In my view, what you do about it is remove the threat by dismantling the weapons and hopefully finding a way to bring about regime change in the country. That's what you do about it. But you have to do it, in my view, through the international community. I think it's a significant risk, a major problem for the United States if we do it alone or almost alone.
(END VIDEO CLIP) KARL: Aaron, the president also said that he would be sending up to Congress a request for money to pay for all of this. That, you can imagine, may be the next big battle up here when it comes to Iraq -- Aaron.
BROWN: Well, it will come after a war if there is to be a war that already starts. John, thank you very much. Jonathan Karl on Capitol Hill tonight.
Twelve hours from now all the attention will shift from Washington to the Security Council across town from where we are. Hans Blix expected to say that, while Iraq has much left to do, there are signs of both disarmament and cooperation. That will clearly not make the president's task any easier. Here's our senior U.N. correspondent Richard Roth -- Richard.
ROTH: Aaron, the president said we're in the final phase of diplomacy, and that's exactly what's been going on in the last few hours at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel near the United Nations. Secretary of State Powell first met with allies on the new and latest resolution. Jack Straw, British Foreign Secretary, and Spain's foreign minister, those are the three sponsors of the resolution.
State Department spokesman Richard Boucher saying that the United States was open to changes and that's what was discussed. And then later Powell met with one of his strongest opponents for this resolution, French Foreign Minister Dominique De Villepin. And later, the German foreign minister, Joshcka Fischer. Those two gentlemen do not want a new resolution. They say inspectors should be given more time.
The British, though, are expected tomorrow to introduce some amendments, some new language for the Security Council to consider. Russia, so far, opposed.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JACK STRAW, BRITISH FOREIGN MINISTER: Of course we were ready to discuss the wording of that second resolution and to take on board any constructive suggestions as to how the process set out in that draft resolution could be improved. And that is exactly what we are doing, and I look forward to further discussion as fellow foreign ministers arrive.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is there a possibility of an amendment?
STRAW: There's certainly a possibility of an amendment, and that's something we're looking at.
SERGEY LAVROV, RUSSIAN AMBASSADOR TO U.N.: When you say we start the war tomorrow, and then you say, OK, we'll start the war in three days. Is it a compromise? I mean, on the basis of common sense? I don't think so.
(END VIDEO CLIP) ROTH: The Russian ambassador there. He'll be listening, along with the others, to chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix tomorrow morning. Blix is expected to praise Iraq for dismantling Al Samoud 2 missiles, but no gaps (ph) in biological and chemical weapons filed (ph).
He is also, Aaron, going to submit a separate report, more than 160 pages, which will list the outstanding disarmament task Iraq would need to comply with in order to get a clean bill of health. And in one section of the report Blix will note that the Iraqis actually stored out more anthrax than originally suspected when the Gulf War ended -- Aaron.
BROWN: Richard, that all begins at 10:00 tomorrow morning?
ROTH: It will be closer to 10:30. All the ministers will meet privately with Hans Blix.
BROWN: OK. And Richard will be part of our coverage, which in fact begins at 9:30 tomorrow morning here on CNN, 9:30 Eastern Time here.
It's been quite a day on the military side, a busy day as well. A number of flights over southern Iraq tripled today. Doctors and nurses shipped out. By all measures, the military looked ready or nearly ready to go. But there is much that can't be measured, including the willingness of the Iraqi regime, to do some truly horrible things if and when a war begins.
The list of nightmare scenarios is a long one, and today it grew to include a tactic not seen since World War II in the Battle of the Bulge. Back to the Pentagon and Jamie McIntyre -- Jamie, good evening to you.
MCINTYRE: Good evening, Aaron. Well the U.S. Central Command issued a statement today that said Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has ordered the procurement of military uniforms that are identical down to the last detail of U.S. and U.K. forces. The statement went on to say, "Saddam intends to issue these uniforms to Fedayeen Saddam troops who would wear them when conducting reprisals against the Iraqi people so they could pass the atrocities off as the work of the United States and the United Kingdom."
Who is the Fedayeen Saddam? Well it literally means "men of sacrifice." It's a paramilitary force with a strength of over 15,000 founded by Saddam's son Udai (ph) in 1994. Many members are said to be in their teens and recruited from areas noted for loyalty to Saddam. And it supposedly carries out patrols and anti-smuggling duties. It's separate from the army command reporting directly to the presidential palace.
Now this prediction that atrocities would be carried out under the uniform of U.S. forces is from U.S. intelligence. Will it really happen? It's like the prediction of whether Saddam Hussein will set his own oilfields on fire. We won't know until it happens. We have no official reaction from Iraq, but I can tell you what they would say, and that is that this information from the U.S. government to cover up the atrocities it intends to commit. I can also tell you what Defense Secretary Rumsfeld would say to that. Saddam Hussein, he would say, is a proven liar -- Aaron.
BROWN: Jaime, lots of movement. I'm curious what you heard in the president's words tonight. Anything that you heard that those of us who aren't around military types all day might have missed?
MCINTYRE: Well, just reading between the lines, it sure seemed here, despite the fact that he said several times he hasn't made a decision, that the U.S. is on a clear course to war. I heard very carefully the part that there would be a warning to journalists to get out, to others to get out. And all the indications here at the Pentagon that, barring some really unforeseen event, the U.S. is heading for war within a week or two.
BROWN: Those 200,000 plus troops over there are another sign of that. Jamie, thank you. Jamie McIntyre at the Pentagon.
We've got a long way to go tonight. Much to do. More on how the president made his case.
Jeff Greenfield joins us. White House veteran David Gergen does as well. From New York, this is NEWSNIGHT.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: More now on what the president had to say tonight and what he didn't say as well. CNN's Jeff Greenfield watched with us here in New York. He has been gathering his thoughts. We're also joined from Boston tonight by David Gergen, who has seen and been a part of many of these presidential news conferences over the years. Good to see you both.
David, let me start with you. Did the president advance his case tonight in any particular way?
DAVID GERGEN, FMR. WHITE HOUSE ADVISER: I thought he did in one special way. And I think he was very persuasive on the depth of his conviction. And I think no one can doubt now that this president has reached the judgment that Iraq presents a threat and that he has a constitutional duty to meet that threat in order to protect American lives.
That is obviously a core conviction. So I thought he was persuasive on the depth of his conviction. I thought he was less persuasive on the case for war now.
BROWN: How this far out? I mean this argument has literally been going on for about nine months now. The president has been making it himself. How can they still be struggling with making the case?
GERGEN: I think they got behind the eight ball early and they just never caught up. You know the president did have some important facts tonight that the Colin Powell had already laid out previously, but most Americans have not heard. And that was Saddam, even as he destroys these missiles, is building new ones.
That he's moving things around every 12 to 24 hours. That he's got the scientists bugged. But this was an ideal opportunity to walk in with some overheads and show the country to really drive the facts home. So that as the press conference wore on, it became longer on rhetoric and shorter on facts.
And I think some people would feel he didn't really -- he didn't deal straightforwardly, with the questions, for example, of costs. And so I think he shored himself up with the public. I think most people want this president to succeed, especially in a war.
I think he certainly reinforced his standing with his own base. I doubt he brought many skeptics over either in this country or overseas.
BROWN: Jeff, let me ask you something we actually were starting to talk about early tonight. By and large, the president said what he wanted to say regardless of what the question was that was asked. Does that matter?
JEFF GREENFIELD, CNN SR. ANALYST: Well that doesn't matter. The question is whether what he wanted to say hits home. And I think -- I mean Dave Gergen, who has been in many White House -- and I used to work in politics -- I always sort of look at a speech and then try to reason backwards based on oral performance or appearance, based on what the president said repeatedly.
What was the White House worried about? What were they trying to say? And it seems to me twofold. One, as David said, that the case for war now hasn't been made. The last poll I saw still shows a majority of Americans would rather wait for the Security Council than to go it alone.
So that's why we kept hearing over and over again that Saddam equals terror. The word "terror" popped up in almost every answer whether asked or not. Because Americans would support, as they did in Afghanistan, a military action aimed at people who are aimed at us. And so the president at one point talked about Saddam Hussein financing al Qaeda-type organizations.
The second thing, and this really struck me. The degree to which the president wanted to make the case that we were going to protect innocent life as much as possible. Clearly, they are worried whether in the world community or even in the United States the concern of the United States being seen as the bad guys. Inflicting civilian casualties not deliberately, but perhaps recklessly.
And he at one point even answered the question, as you said, that wasn't asked, when he said in response to a totally different question, we will bring food to Iraq, we'll bring medicine. We're going to help those people. Two very striking themes. BROWN: On something John King said, that the White House believes that the president's greatest asset in many ways is the president himself. That people believe him to be trustworthy and honest. In that regard, how did he do tonight?
GREENFIELD: Well, I think what John also said was it makes a difference whether you're on primetime television for 45 minutes so you can reinforce that message. Look, David knows this probably better than I do. You don't stand in front of the American people as the president for 45 minutes unless you're in a Watergate situation and not get people in the short one saying, yes, I want to believe that guy.
The problem is, in this issue repeatedly, he has gotten big marks and then there has been a gradual erosion as people come back to the central question, why Iraq, why now? And I'm not sure tonight he did himself a whole lot of good in answering those questions.
BROWN: And David, in 30 seconds, I think that is what you were saying as well earlier, that on the substantive questions, the argument wasn't moved much.
GERGEN: I don't think it was. I think as much as anything he was trying to protect himself for the coming week, when the prospects are growing the United States will not succeed in the Security Council. He wanted to give himself protection and a show of support before he goes into what could be a very difficult week for him.
BROWN: David, it's good to see you. Jeff, always. Thank you both for joining us tonight.
And when we continue, we'll take a look and we'll talk to a critic of what we all believe to be the current battle plan if there is a war in Iraq. He is the man who led the air war in 1991, Retired Air Force Lieutenant General Buster Glosson joins us as NEWSNIGHT continues around the world.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: It's an old military axiom and a good one to keep in mind. No battle plan ever survives the first contact with the enemy. We're always careful not to make predictions around here, but that doesn't mean we can't look at the strategy that's expected.
And in this case, some of the criticism is generating and it comes from a source we can't afford not to listen to, retired Air Force General Buster Glosson, who directed the air campaign in the first Gulf War. The general says the plan in place may not give enough time for air strikes, which could put ground forces in jeopardy.
We'll let him explain it more. His book is called, "War with Iraq: Critical Lessons," due in stores next week. And the general joins us from Charlotte, North Carolina, tonight. Good to have you with us. Let me just start with an overview question and then we'll work in some of the particulars. The question that hangs over everyone is sort of why Iraq, why now? You want to weigh in on that?
LT. GEN. BUSTER GLOSSON (RET.), AIR FORCE: Sure, we can wait for him to attack us or we can change the regime and take his weapons away from him or let him use the chemical or biological weapons and train -- or help the al Qaeda to attack us, just like he did in 9/11. Aaron, the thing that most people forget is it was not until after that event that looking at some films that we had that were old and hadn't been analyzed properly that we saw the fuselage of an airplane south of Baghdad near (UNINTELLIGIBLE), with four and five-men teams with short knives were practicing on how to take over an airplane. That is a little bit more than a coincidence for me.
BROWN: So, it's just -- I don't want to dwell on this, but you would argue that -- and this is something the administration has not argued -- that the Iraqis were in fact involved in 9/11.
GLOSSON: That, or there is a lot of coincidences going on in the world? Would you not say that?
BROWN: OK. Let's go to the war plan. We very briefly summarized it, but basically it is a massive air attack, cruise missiles and the like, followed almost simultaneously by ground...
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Nations Security Council; More talk of Compromised Language in New Resolution>
