Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

Bush Under Increasing Pressure to Back Off Possible War Plans Against Iraq

Aired August 22, 2002 - 09:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: President Bush is under increasing pressure both from inside and outside the U.S. to back off possible war plans against Iraq. Just yesterday, Canada secretary of defense said it was unlikely his nation would join the U.S. in a war on Iraq. And talking with reporters after meeting with most of his top national security advisers. The president say he is not rushing to move against Iraq, but he still wants Saddam Hussein out.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I am a patient man. When I say I am a patient man, I mean I am a patient man, in that we'll look at all options and we'll consider all technologies available to us, diplomacy and intelligence, but one thing is for certain, is that this administration agrees that Saddam Hussein is a threat.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAHN: Among the growing chorus of voices telling the president to go slowly members of his own party, including a former secretary of state from his father's administration.

Lawrence Eagleburger joins us now from Washington. Good to see you again. Welcome back.

LAWRENCE EAGLEBURGER, FMR. SECY. OF STATE: Thank you very much.

ZAHN: So, Mr. Secretary, yesterday, the House majority whip Tom DeLay had this to say about those of you who were not encouraging the president to attack Iraq anytime soon.

Let's listen.

REP. TOM DELAY (R-TX), MAJORITY WHIP: These apologists for idleness would have us believe that consensus is a first principle, but if we can't agree that those who deliberately murder innocent civilians should be actively opposed, this path offers nothing but confusion.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAHN: What is your reaction to Mr. Delay's remarks?

EAGLEBURGER: Well, he can have his thoughts if he wants. I am not arguing for inaction at all. What I have said and am continuing to say is that unless the president tells us that this move must be made now, that we must invade now because the evidence is clear that he has these weapons or will have them very soon, then I am saying that when we don't have the allies with us, when we haven't very clearly stated what we will do once we have gotten Saddam out of there, assuming we can get him out without too much agony, then we ought to take our time and do this only when it is very clear that this is the time to do it.

And I am not at all convinced now that this is something we have to do this very moment. We don't have the allies with us. We need to understand that if and when we do take Saddam on, we will have to do it with massive force, as we did the last time around, simply to be sure that we can do it successfully, and then we need to understand, that if we get him out of office, we'll probably have to stay there in Iraq for some period of time. All of those things need to be made clear to the American people. I am not opposed to getting him out when the time is appropriate for it. I am not at all clear in my own mind that this is necessarily the time to do it. That's all.

And I am tired of being called -- casts at a wimp or something like that. That's not the issue. Saddam is going to have to be dealt with. The question is whether this is the time or not.

ZAHN: Let me ask you this: I would like to throw something out William Safire wrote about in "The New York Times," who says there is a danger in waiting. And he writes "Let's not pretend we must make the case that Saddam personally directed 9-11. The need to strike at an aggressive despot before he gains the power to blackmail us with the horrific weapons he's building and hiding is apparent to most Americans. What do you say to him? That it's too late to wait for him to pull the trigger?

EAGLEBURGER: First of all, I have never claimed, nor anybody else, I think, that Saddam put the people up to the attacks on the towers. That's not the point either. And Who can argue against the point that if this man is about to do something, you ought to get at him first? I can't argue that at all.

But what I can say that I need to be told in no uncertain and clear terms that he now has his finger on a trigger for a nuclear weapon or something of this sort, that it is close to being developed, not that it is just there somewhere, may be there somewhere. I don't know, and I don't know that anybody else knows, how close he is to having these weapons. If the intelligence is clear that he either has these weapons or is very close to having them, then all of the president needs to do is say that to the American people, and at least, as far as I am concerned, I will believe him implicitly. And under those circumstances then, yes, we should go, but I need to hear that, and I need to know that our intelligence has made it very clear to the president that Saddam has these things available to him.

Because remember, again, if we don't have any allies with us, we're going to have to do this all by ourselves, it's going to cost us billions of dollars, and it's going to lead to American occupation of Iraq for some years to come. Now if that's -- if the crisis that is bad, we ought to be prepared to pay that price, but I need to know, and I think the American people have a right to know that it is that bad, and when Safire and all of these people talk about striking at these things, they're going to have to be responsible later on for saying, yes, we understood, this was the price we were going to have to pay, and we are prepared to pay it, and I certainly will be prepared to pay it, and so will the American people, if we know that this crisis is this bad.

ZAHN: So how would you respond specifically to the point that Secretary Rumsfeld continues to make, which all you have to do is look at history to understand his point, and his -- he has said -- quote -- "There were only a few lone voices suggesting that Hitler might ought to have been stopped earlier."

EAGLEBURGER: You know, if you want, you can't prove anything from history, if you try hard enough, and I am not trying to argue with Secretary Rumsfeld either. If Saddam Hussein has, as I said now three times, these weapons at his fingertips, then we have to act against him, and certainly under those circumstances, the comparison with Adolf Hitler is correct. On the other hand, if we are going to go off to war today, way with what I think are serious consequences thereafter, I would like to be sure that, in fact, we are doing the right thing at the right time.

We are now proposing to go to war by ourselves, no support from our allies, at costs of some tens of billions of dollars -- and I am not against it if it is -- if we are clear that this is what must be done now. If this is what Saddam Really has, then let's do it. But I haven't heard the evidence yet to that fact.

ZAHN: The final question for you, sir, and we've just got about 10 seconds let. What do you make of the reports in "The Washington Post" that high-ranking Al Qaeda members are living in Iraq right now?

EAGLEBURGER: They may well be. And if that's true, it is another evidence that Saddam may be involved, although, I gather they may be living in Kurdish areas, and, as you know, Saddam doesn't have much affection for or control over the Kurdish areas either.

ZAHN: Sure. Secretary Eagleburger, always good to see you. Thanks for sharing some of your insights with us this morning.

EAGLEBURGER: Thanks. Good to be here.

ZAHN: Thank you.

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