Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

Sound Off: Going into Iraq

Aired August 29, 2002 - 09:30   ET

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

BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: Let's talk about the vice president today, expected to have more words, strong words, too, in the support of attacking Iraq, when he talks to a veteran's group later in Texas. The White House, though, on the surface does not appear to have very much support around the world. Let's talk about it right now. Former Republican communications director Cliff May is with us, Democratic strategists Bob Beckel in Washington D.C.
Fresh from Boise, I guess, huh, Bob?

BOB BECKEL, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: That's right.

HEMMER: There you guys are, in our "Sound Off." Good morning to both of you.

Clint, your take on Dick Cheney, first of all. Talked with Suzanne Malveaux about an hour ago. They do not expect that he will go past what he talked about two days ago, but nonetheless, the drum is going to take a few taps again today.

CLIFF MAY, FMR. RNC DIR. OF COM.: Yes, he is beginning to make the case, and I think he's going to make it persuasively. A lot of people are saying, look, if we don't have a coalition to do this. If in 1938, Franklin Roosevelt has said it is vital that we secure regime change in Germany, there is not a single European power that would have gone along. Churchill would have said bloody right, but Churchill was in the opposition, being denounced by the "Times of London," and in the media as a warmonger.

If a year ago, Bush had said, look, we got to secure a regime change in Afghanistan, who would have been with us? Nobody. And in 1981, when the Israelis bombed the nuclear reactor that Saddam Hussein was building in Osara (ph), nobody was with Israel. They didn't ask the permission of the Saudis, or the French or the Norwegians, they did it, and they said some day people will know we are right, and guess what, people do know they are right today.

HEMMER: Is that there truth to that, Bob?

BECKEL: Well, I first of all, I'd hate to correct Cliff on history. God knows he is so much smarter than I am, but we have to remember, we were the holdout in World War II before we got in, and Roosevelt. We were outside of the coalition.

MAY: I got to correct you. In the '30s, there was nobody, including the British, including the French, nobody who wanted to take up arms or even increase military spending against Hitler. Nobody did until we did it with the British. That's the history.

BECKEL: I am sorry. I apologize. Let me get back to the point here. The core of this is, can you do this without a coalition? The answer is, absolutely no. and it seems to me, the United States has an opportunity to go back to the U.N. one more time and use weapons inspectors as their rationale, get a vote for weapons inspection, a date certain. If Hussein does not meet that date certain, which we know he won't do, then it seems to me we put together coalition.

But how do you do it alone? How do you do it? Logistically, how do you do it? Even the Brits, of all people, are, having second thoughts about this thing. And I think Cheney, frankly, is a little bit outside of Bush on this one. He is waving his saber, and I think Bush seems to be pulling back. I think the real fight right now, you know, it's like from my standpoint, the Republicans in a circling firing squad. I might as well sit back and enjoy the battle. I mean, we are going to stay out of it.

MAY: Bob, let me address your point about weapons inspections, because we could have real weapons inspections if Saddam Hussein would say anybody can go anywhere, anytime in this country, I think that could be considered, but he is nowhere near saying that.

And the problem is, he has had time to hide and disperse his weapons facilities, starting back in 1991 when the Israelis bombed his nuclear reactor, his nuclear weapons began to be dispersed, or according to intelligence sources, in 400 different locations.

In other words, if we had Saddam Hussein saying, OK, weapons inspectors can go to this city, but not that, they can go in this building but not that, we are not going to find it.

And the real question is, if we have to take on Saddam Hussein, would we rather do it before or after he has nuclear weapons? That is the question?

BECKEL: Would we rather do it before we have any friends doing it with us? Look, we got technology that we didn't have in '81 or in '91. We know where most of the weapons are. We also know he is not going to allow us in there to do it.

HEMMER: Do you think we do, Bob? Because a lot of this stuff apparently is buried and underground. If that's the case, it could be a lot more deceptive than you think?

BECKEL: Yes, Bill, it is. We got to remember our technology is much better how. My own personal view is that we have more assets on the ground there now than certainly we had in '91, and at least some of the major development areas. We know where one of them is right now, because of an Iranian security person who left and came to our side. But the fact is that Hussein is not going to do it. What we need is an excuse to rally the world community, and right now, what they're saying...

HEMMER: What is the excuse, Bob? BECKEL: Well, the excuse is Hussein will not allow us in. He hasn't done this before, but you say I'll give him one more chance, go to the U.N. get another resolution. If he doesn't do it by...

HEMMER: How long does that take, Bob? Doesn't that kind of play into his hands. I mean, all of the critics have said he is just buying time anyway.

BECKEL: The fact is you are not going to be able to wage war. Maybe he can alone. If that's what people think, we can wage war alone. How many wars are we going to wage at one time?

HEMMER: Cliff.

MAY: Let me point out, for four years, we have not had weapons inspectors, and that is a very long time. How much longer do we want to go? Secondly I don't think we have the technology to know where all those weapons plants are. We do have the technology to hit them very precisely. That's what we've been developing over the past years.

And, Bob, I wish you'd address my point. A year ago, President Bush, or President Clinton, has said we have to secure regime change in Afghanistan, what country would have gone alone? If FDR had said it, not one country in Europe would. You can not have leadership by consensus. You can't have leadership by polls. Leadership means doing the right thing, and believing that everybody will understand eventually.

BECKEL: Cliff, why do we get the support when we went to Afghanistan because of the World Trade Center and The Pentagon.

MAY: Bob, you are exactly right.

HEMMER: Seems like you are walking into the point.

MAY: Bob, you are exactly right, we waited until after 9-11, then we got it, yes. After the next 9-11, we will get it. But don't we want to prevent the next 9-11? What's our point here?

BECKEL: The question is whether we could have prevented 09-11.

(CROSSTALK)

BECKEL: And that is Cliff said. We now have much more sophisticated weapons that can target these areas, which is exactly contradicting what he just said, which is we know where they are.

HEMMER: I got to cut you. Thank you guys. Bob Beckel, Cliff May, our "Sound Off" this morning. We'll talk later in the week.

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