Return to Transcripts main page
American Morning
Interview With George Mitchell
Aired September 20, 2002 - 07:03 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 Bush administration will publish today a 33-page document outlining what the "New York Times" reports will be a major shift in American military strategy from defensive to preemptive. Every president is required to submit a strategy for national security, but for President Bush, the rules changed last year when terrorists struck on September 11.
Here to discuss this dramatic policy shift of striking first, as well as what the heck is going on in the Middle East, former U.S. Senator George Mitchell.
Welcome -- good to see you again.
GEORGE MITCHELL, FORMER U.S. SENATOR: Thanks, Paula.
ZAHN: Let's talk a little bit about what "The New York Times" says will be in this 33-page report. It essentially will allow the United States to never -- quote -- "allow its military supremacy to be challenged like it was during the Cold War."
How significant of a shift is this?
MITCHELL: Well, of course, every president is required to submit such a report, and every report is different, because times and circumstances change. No one should expect that this report will be the same as the previous one, just as the previous one was not the same as the one before that.
There will be significant changes in policy to adapt to changing circumstances. I think that some of it will probably receive widespread support. Some will receive some criticism, as has been the case in the past.
ZAHN: What do you think of the shift, though, to allow for preemptive strikes?
MITCHELL: There always has been a clear right of preemption in certain circumstances, and as in all cases, the devil is in the details. Plainly, if we had known about the pending attack on 9/11 and could have prevented it through preemptive force, we would have had the right, indeed the obligation to do so. So, there is clearly a right of preemption that exists in personal relations and in relations between states.
The issue is, what are the parameters within which that right exists, and how will it be utilized in particular circumstances? And I think you've got to wait to see the full report before you make a judgment on that.
ZAHN: Could you, though, just based on what you have read this morning, give us a better understanding of how this could be used in Iraq? And would you support that idea?
MITCHELL: Well, I hope the president continues the efforts through the United Nations. He made it clear that's the course that he prefers. I think that's the right course, and we should pursue that before considering any preemptive action.
ZAHN: I want to share with our audience now a little of what the Iraq foreign minister had to say about the charges coming from the Bush administration -- let's listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NAJI SABRI, IRAQI FOREIGN MINISTER: Iraq is totally clear of all nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. If there are anyone amongst you who might still worry that the fabrications announced by American officials about Iraq may possibly be true, our country is ready to receive any scientific experts.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ZAHN: And this is the response of one of the New York dailies this morning, "Liar, Liar." If you go in really tight, you see they make him look like Pinocchio here.
Was this guy out and outright lying yesterday?
MITCHELL: Well, the best intelligence information that's been made public -- I don't have access to the top-secret, classified reports of the U.S. government -- is that Iraq does have chemical and biological weapons. It does not have nuclear weapons, but it has a program intended to achieve them. And the real debate is over how close they are to getting nuclear weapons. So, I think it is plain that what he said was not true.
ZAHN: And this is how the president shot back yesterday, after hearing some of these countercharges.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It's the same old song and dance that we've heard for 11 long years. And the United Nations Security Council must show backbone, must step up and hold this regime to account. Otherwise, the United States and some of our friends will do so.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ZAHN: So, does that mean we're closer to war?
MITCHELL: It probably does. Those words have been said many times, of course, in the last few weeks, and we won't know until we get to that point. But as I said, I think the proper course is to go through the United Nations, not primarily for the military action itself. There is such a huge imbalance between the United States and Iraq. I mean, we are a very large superpower. They are a relatively small country that's been under sanctions for 10 years with a limited military capability. So, there's no doubt about what the outcome of any military conflict would be.
But I think in terms of our relations with the rest of the region, what happens in the rest of the region as a reaction to any action against Iraq in terms of rebuilding Iraq and recreating what we hope is a democratic government -- all of those issues and other issues I think call for a broad coalition through the United Nations.
ZAHN: Final question for you about the re-eruption of violence in the Middle East, two days in a row. "The Washington Post" reporting this morning that basically what that will do is cause the position of European and Arab allies to harden their position when it comes to the issue of Iraq, because their position is to take care of things in the Middle East first.
MITCHELL: I hope very much that the administration and the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli government will undertake a new and intensified effort to try to get back to negotiation, to implement the recommendations of our committee's report, which both sides have already accepted. It's just a question of doing what they have already said they accept.
And I think it would be an important factor in terms of Iraq. I think a parallel effort would greatly help the administration, because as "The Post" reported -- I haven't seen the story -- but it's self- evident those Europeans and Arabs who oppose our action in Iraq argue that it demonstrates that we are unconcerned about what's going on in the Middle East -- the Israelis and the Palestinians -- and only care about getting rid of Saddam Hussein, when in fact we should be pursuing both, in my judgment, on a parallel track, and a real effort to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which I believe is within reach, would help in terms of relations on Iraq itself.
ZAHN: We appreciate you dropping by and sharing your perspective with us this morning.
MITCHELL: Thank you, Paula -- good to see you.
ZAHN: Always good to see you, Senator Mitchell.
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 September 20, 2002 - 07:03 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: The Bush administration will publish today a 33-page document outlining what the "New York Times" reports will be a major shift in American military strategy from defensive to preemptive. Every president is required to submit a strategy for national security, but for President Bush, the rules changed last year when terrorists struck on September 11.
Here to discuss this dramatic policy shift of striking first, as well as what the heck is going on in the Middle East, former U.S. Senator George Mitchell.
Welcome -- good to see you again.
GEORGE MITCHELL, FORMER U.S. SENATOR: Thanks, Paula.
ZAHN: Let's talk a little bit about what "The New York Times" says will be in this 33-page report. It essentially will allow the United States to never -- quote -- "allow its military supremacy to be challenged like it was during the Cold War."
How significant of a shift is this?
MITCHELL: Well, of course, every president is required to submit such a report, and every report is different, because times and circumstances change. No one should expect that this report will be the same as the previous one, just as the previous one was not the same as the one before that.
There will be significant changes in policy to adapt to changing circumstances. I think that some of it will probably receive widespread support. Some will receive some criticism, as has been the case in the past.
ZAHN: What do you think of the shift, though, to allow for preemptive strikes?
MITCHELL: There always has been a clear right of preemption in certain circumstances, and as in all cases, the devil is in the details. Plainly, if we had known about the pending attack on 9/11 and could have prevented it through preemptive force, we would have had the right, indeed the obligation to do so. So, there is clearly a right of preemption that exists in personal relations and in relations between states.
The issue is, what are the parameters within which that right exists, and how will it be utilized in particular circumstances? And I think you've got to wait to see the full report before you make a judgment on that.
ZAHN: Could you, though, just based on what you have read this morning, give us a better understanding of how this could be used in Iraq? And would you support that idea?
MITCHELL: Well, I hope the president continues the efforts through the United Nations. He made it clear that's the course that he prefers. I think that's the right course, and we should pursue that before considering any preemptive action.
ZAHN: I want to share with our audience now a little of what the Iraq foreign minister had to say about the charges coming from the Bush administration -- let's listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NAJI SABRI, IRAQI FOREIGN MINISTER: Iraq is totally clear of all nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. If there are anyone amongst you who might still worry that the fabrications announced by American officials about Iraq may possibly be true, our country is ready to receive any scientific experts.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ZAHN: And this is the response of one of the New York dailies this morning, "Liar, Liar." If you go in really tight, you see they make him look like Pinocchio here.
Was this guy out and outright lying yesterday?
MITCHELL: Well, the best intelligence information that's been made public -- I don't have access to the top-secret, classified reports of the U.S. government -- is that Iraq does have chemical and biological weapons. It does not have nuclear weapons, but it has a program intended to achieve them. And the real debate is over how close they are to getting nuclear weapons. So, I think it is plain that what he said was not true.
ZAHN: And this is how the president shot back yesterday, after hearing some of these countercharges.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It's the same old song and dance that we've heard for 11 long years. And the United Nations Security Council must show backbone, must step up and hold this regime to account. Otherwise, the United States and some of our friends will do so.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ZAHN: So, does that mean we're closer to war?
MITCHELL: It probably does. Those words have been said many times, of course, in the last few weeks, and we won't know until we get to that point. But as I said, I think the proper course is to go through the United Nations, not primarily for the military action itself. There is such a huge imbalance between the United States and Iraq. I mean, we are a very large superpower. They are a relatively small country that's been under sanctions for 10 years with a limited military capability. So, there's no doubt about what the outcome of any military conflict would be.
But I think in terms of our relations with the rest of the region, what happens in the rest of the region as a reaction to any action against Iraq in terms of rebuilding Iraq and recreating what we hope is a democratic government -- all of those issues and other issues I think call for a broad coalition through the United Nations.
ZAHN: Final question for you about the re-eruption of violence in the Middle East, two days in a row. "The Washington Post" reporting this morning that basically what that will do is cause the position of European and Arab allies to harden their position when it comes to the issue of Iraq, because their position is to take care of things in the Middle East first.
MITCHELL: I hope very much that the administration and the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli government will undertake a new and intensified effort to try to get back to negotiation, to implement the recommendations of our committee's report, which both sides have already accepted. It's just a question of doing what they have already said they accept.
And I think it would be an important factor in terms of Iraq. I think a parallel effort would greatly help the administration, because as "The Post" reported -- I haven't seen the story -- but it's self- evident those Europeans and Arabs who oppose our action in Iraq argue that it demonstrates that we are unconcerned about what's going on in the Middle East -- the Israelis and the Palestinians -- and only care about getting rid of Saddam Hussein, when in fact we should be pursuing both, in my judgment, on a parallel track, and a real effort to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which I believe is within reach, would help in terms of relations on Iraq itself.
ZAHN: We appreciate you dropping by and sharing your perspective with us this morning.
MITCHELL: Thank you, Paula -- good to see you.
ZAHN: Always good to see you, Senator Mitchell.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com.
