Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

Interview with Sandy Berger

Aired September 04, 2002 - 07:05   ET

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

PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: We're going to talk now more about the potential threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and what the president may do about it.
Sandy Burger is a former national security advisor in the Clinton White House. He joins us from Washington.

Welcome back -- good to see you, Sandy.

SANDY BERGER, FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR: Good morning, Paula.

ZAHN: Is there any doubt in your mind that the U.S. will go into Iraq sometime next year?

BERGER: Well, I think that certainly is the indication from what Vice President Cheney has said, and what others in the administration have said publicly. The president has not yet made clear a timetable or even precisely what his plans are, and I think that process has to begin very soon.

ZAHN: You mentioned the vice president, and he made it quite clear in a speech last week that Iraq is close to obtaining nuclear weapons.

And Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld went even a little further than that yesterday. Let's review what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD RUMSFELD, DEFENSE SECRETARY: To the extent inspectors have been out now for a number of years, we know that we don't know what has taken place during those period of years. To the extent that they have kept their nuclear scientists together and working on these efforts, one has to assume they have not been playing tiddlywinks, and that they have been focusing on nuclear weapons.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAHN: Do you make that same assumption, Sandy?

BERGER: Well, there certainly is uncertainty, but I think the intelligence, to the extent I know it, suggests that the Iraqis continue to have a nuclear weapons program, but it is measured probably in years, not in months.

And I think that is important, because it goes to the question of, how we go about a process of regime change. What is the timetable? Do we have the opportunity? Do we have the time to try to build the international support, which is so essential to a successful outcome?

I believe we do have that time. I believe that how we do this is extraordinarily important. The objective here is not only to get rid of Saddam Hussein, but to do so in a way in which that region is more stable, in which the world is safer. And we need then, therefore, to take the time to build international support, so that we're not acting here simply by ourselves. We're acting with a broader degree of international support.

ZAHN: When you talk about the importance of allies, there are folks out there who say that is one giant canard. That the minute the U.S. goes in, even if the U.S. goes in unilaterally, that countries like France and Germany will be there and be supportive. Is there any truth to that?

BERGER: Well, that's a, "if we do it, they will come" scenario. You know, power certainly -- the exercise of power is self- reinforcing, but I don't think we can -- we simply can assume that others will follow.

We have to make that case. We have to engage in a serious dialogue with, first, the American people, about the risks and costs associated with this enterprise. This is a consequential and very difficult and risky enterprise, and we have to have an honest discussion with the American people.

And we also, it seems to me, have to have a straightforward discussion with our allies as to the rationale the nature of the threat. There is not now a common sense of threat. We have to build that.

ZAHN: In closing this morning, Sandy, you might have heard a little bit of what John King reported about what the administration's plan seems to be, which is perhaps to push for unfettered access by U.N. weapons inspectors and set a deadline for those inspections, and if the Iraqis don't live up to that, then maybe that's a good platform on which to build allied support. Does that make sense to you?

BERGER: It makes sense to me to go to the United Nations and seek unrestricted inspections for this reason. It is a forum in which we can shift the focus to Saddam Hussein and the threat and weapons of mass destruction. Up until now, the debate has been more about the United States than it has been about Iraq.

Either Saddam will accept unrestricted inspections -- I doubt it, but that's one possibility. And if he does, and then in any way interferes with that, obviously that is a situation in which the world will see very clearly that he seeks to hide his programs. And I think we'll be on far stronger ground if we go that route than if we simply act unilaterally or act without an effort to lay that foundation of legitimacy.

ZAHN: Well, former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, always good to see you on AMERICAN MORNING. Thanks for your perspective this morning.

BERGER: Thank you, Paula.

ZAHN: Appreciate it.

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