Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

Interview with Joseph Wilson, Former U.S. Diplomat in Iraq

Aired April 29, 2002 - 07:24   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.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: The big question at this hour: Is the U.S. planning to invade Iraq sometime next year? While White House officials are downplaying a "New York Times" report that says the U.S. is considering a major air and ground assault for next year that could include as many as 250,000 American troops.

Meanwhile, Saddam Hussein celebrated his 65th birthday over the weekend with the usual well-choreographed tributes from the Iraqi people. And, in Baghdad, tens of thousands of people marched as a show of support and defiance in the face of U.S. determination to topple Hussein.

Ambassador Joseph Wilson is the former U.S. charge d'affaires to Iraq. He joins us from Washington this morning.

Welcome. Glad to have you with us, sir.

JOSEPH WILSON, FORMER U.S. CHARGE D'AFFAIRES TO IRAQ: Thank you.

ZAHN: Ambassador Wilson, what do you make of the level of detail in this "New York Times" report yesterday saying this attack will happen sometime as early as next winter.

WILSON: Well, I have no doubt that the military is doing some extensive planning. That's what the military does. That's why our operations are always so well executed.

So the question really in my mind isn't what the military may or may not be planning. The question is what are our political objectives and why are we so hell bent on regime changed as opposed to just dealing with the issue for which there is already a body of legal precedent, and that is controlling the weapons of mass destruction programs in Iraq.

ZAHN: Well, let me ask you that then because there's a man named William Hawkins who said that there is reason enough to go in as soon as possible because the longer you wait, the more opportunity Saddam Hussein has to build his stockpiles.

And William Hawkins wrote this. He said, "Every day Saddam is given is used to strengthen Iraq's ability to resist American pressure. He continues to pursue weapons of mass destruction as the ultimate trump card. Only decisive military action, including enough American ground troops to capture Baghdad, will stop the doomsday clock before Saddam gains the power to plunge the region into a long, dark night."

WILSON: I agree with part of that. I agree that every day that we delay is a day that serves Saddam's interests, but I also think that -- and so, as a consequence of that, we ought to be doing something to correct the enforcement -- or repair the enforcement mechanism that we had in place to go after his weapons of mass destruction in the first place.

That's the UNSCOM system. It's broken. It's flawed. It's not ever going to be repaired the way -- to work the way it used to work. We need to have an enhanced enforcement mechanism which includes fundamentally an ultimatum on Saddam: "Let the inspectors go in, go everywhere they want, or else we're going to assume that you've got something to hide, and we're going to hit those sites."

Now that's a lot different from regime change. Saddam is a survivalist. He would rather survive than die, but, that said, given no option, he's going to go down in a blaze of glory.

He will do everything he can to plunge the region into a broader war including drawing Israel into it. If he's got just one chemical weapon and one ability to deliver that weapon, he's going to use it to bring Israel into a broader war and turn this into an Arab-versus-the- West war.

That's not in our interest. It's not in our strategic interest. It's not in Israel's interest. It's not in the region's interest. So we should proceed really by giving him a choice, "You are going to lose your ability to do research and development on weapons of mass destruction. You can either lose that capability through an inspection mechanism which allows us to go in, take these sites apart, or we're just going to go in and start destroying the 700 sites that Hans Blix has said likely need to be surveyed just to give us a baseline of what he's got.

ZAHN: Well, let's come back to the inspection mechanism in closing. Richard Butler, who was the chief weapons inspector, said every time he went in, he knew stuff was moved in advance of his team coming to a specific location. Do you really have faith that renewed inspections are going to change that picture?

WILSON; I think that the renewed inspections need to be coupled with a willingness and an international support for a military operation to take down sites and to take down convoys that are moving when we discover that they're moving. so, basically, it's going to be enhancing the enforcement mechanism by putting air power behind it.

ZAHN: And how seriously do you take this report in "The New York Times"?

WILSON: Well, again, I...

ZAHN: I know you say the military always has to make this kind of planning, but do you think the administration's more or less made up its mind that this is the way to go? WILSON: Well, if you hear everybody who's talking about this in the administration, they certainly seem to be hell bent on doing this. I'm not sure that the decision has actually been made. The question really is whether or not they're framing the argument in such a way as to get a regime change decision down the road.

ZAHN: Ambassador Joseph Wilson, thanks for your insights this morning.

WILSON: Thanks very much.

ZAHN: Appreciate your dropping by.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com