Return to Transcripts main page
Live From...
Should Saddam Hussein Have Been Ousted Years Ago?
Aired March 19, 2003 - 15:45 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
DARYN KAGAN, CNN ANCHOR: While we're here in Kuwait City, some people in Washington believe the U.S. should have gone to war to oust Saddam Hussein months, if not years ago, and many of them are a part of President Bush's inner circle. More now from our senior political correspondent, Candy Crowley.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CANDY CROWLEY, CNN SR. POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Two days after 9/11, Paul Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of defense, briefed at the Pentagon.
PAUL WOLFOWITZ, DEPUTY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: I think one has to say it's not just simply a matter of capturing people and holding them accountable, but removing the sanctuaries, removing the support systems, ending states who sponsor terrorism.
CROWLEY: According to Bob Woodward's book "Bush At War," Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld had already asked a National Security Council meeting, why shouldn't we go against Iraq, not just al Qaeda? It was a day after 9/11. Bush decided it wasn't the time to resolve what remains a dispute in his administration.
The truth is, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and other like-minded conservatives had been thinking about it for years. They came to believe the first Bush administration made a mistake when it cleared Iraq out of Kuwait, but did not clear Saddam out of Iraq.
GARY SCHMITT, PROJECT NEW AMERICAN CENTURY: Paul Wolfowitz made it clear very early on that this is a lost opportunity not removing Saddam, and that the long-term consequences would be to the detriment of the U.S. security.
CROWLEY: Outside the sphere of influence in the Clinton years, a small group of conservative foreign policy wonks set up a Washington think tank. In 1998, as Saddam was evicting U.N. weapons inspectors, the Project for a New American Century wrote a letter to President Clinton. "The only acceptable strategy," it read, "is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power that now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy."
Eighteen prominent conservatives signed the letter. Nine are currently embedded in the Bush administration, including Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, as well as the number two man at the State Department, Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage, and Undersecretary Secretary of State John Bolton.
While not a member of the Bush administration, Richard Perle is an influential conservative. He, too, signed the letter and now awaits the ouster of Saddam Hussein.
RICHARD PERLE, CHAIRMAN, DEFENSE POLICY BOARD: This is an auspicious occasion after many years of urging that we and like-minded countries take some action to liberate Iraq. It looks as if we are on the verge of an act of liberation.
CROWLEY: The project was never secret about its views, but for conspiracy theorists, this is grist for talk of a conservative cabal. For critics, it begs the question: Which came first, the decision to oust Saddam or 9/11?
SCHMITT: Well I think 9/11 really didn't change how the president himself thought about Iraq. And combine that with his existing arguments that we had made, then all that comes together with the president's policy.
CROWLEY (on camera): In fact, prior to 9/11, the Bush administration had pretty much followed Iraq policy along the Clinton lines of sanctions and containment. But 9/11 changed the president's view of the world and the U.S. role in it. His supporters say 9/11 was not the president's excuse to go after Saddam Hussein, it was his reason to.
Candy Crowley, CNN, Washington.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Aired March 19, 2003 - 15:45 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
DARYN KAGAN, CNN ANCHOR: While we're here in Kuwait City, some people in Washington believe the U.S. should have gone to war to oust Saddam Hussein months, if not years ago, and many of them are a part of President Bush's inner circle. More now from our senior political correspondent, Candy Crowley.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CANDY CROWLEY, CNN SR. POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Two days after 9/11, Paul Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of defense, briefed at the Pentagon.
PAUL WOLFOWITZ, DEPUTY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: I think one has to say it's not just simply a matter of capturing people and holding them accountable, but removing the sanctuaries, removing the support systems, ending states who sponsor terrorism.
CROWLEY: According to Bob Woodward's book "Bush At War," Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld had already asked a National Security Council meeting, why shouldn't we go against Iraq, not just al Qaeda? It was a day after 9/11. Bush decided it wasn't the time to resolve what remains a dispute in his administration.
The truth is, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and other like-minded conservatives had been thinking about it for years. They came to believe the first Bush administration made a mistake when it cleared Iraq out of Kuwait, but did not clear Saddam out of Iraq.
GARY SCHMITT, PROJECT NEW AMERICAN CENTURY: Paul Wolfowitz made it clear very early on that this is a lost opportunity not removing Saddam, and that the long-term consequences would be to the detriment of the U.S. security.
CROWLEY: Outside the sphere of influence in the Clinton years, a small group of conservative foreign policy wonks set up a Washington think tank. In 1998, as Saddam was evicting U.N. weapons inspectors, the Project for a New American Century wrote a letter to President Clinton. "The only acceptable strategy," it read, "is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power that now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy."
Eighteen prominent conservatives signed the letter. Nine are currently embedded in the Bush administration, including Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, as well as the number two man at the State Department, Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage, and Undersecretary Secretary of State John Bolton.
While not a member of the Bush administration, Richard Perle is an influential conservative. He, too, signed the letter and now awaits the ouster of Saddam Hussein.
RICHARD PERLE, CHAIRMAN, DEFENSE POLICY BOARD: This is an auspicious occasion after many years of urging that we and like-minded countries take some action to liberate Iraq. It looks as if we are on the verge of an act of liberation.
CROWLEY: The project was never secret about its views, but for conspiracy theorists, this is grist for talk of a conservative cabal. For critics, it begs the question: Which came first, the decision to oust Saddam or 9/11?
SCHMITT: Well I think 9/11 really didn't change how the president himself thought about Iraq. And combine that with his existing arguments that we had made, then all that comes together with the president's policy.
CROWLEY (on camera): In fact, prior to 9/11, the Bush administration had pretty much followed Iraq policy along the Clinton lines of sanctions and containment. But 9/11 changed the president's view of the world and the U.S. role in it. His supporters say 9/11 was not the president's excuse to go after Saddam Hussein, it was his reason to.
Candy Crowley, CNN, Washington.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
