Return to Transcripts main page
American Morning
Bullet Point
Aired October 02, 2002 - 08:33 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.
BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: I want to turn our attention right now again to the issue that was raised in the White House briefing room yesterday. Is it war or a single bullet? White House spokesman Ari Fleischer leaving little doubt as to the cheaper solution, and possibly a quicker solution to a conflict with Iraq.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECY.: I can only say that cost of a one-way ticket is substantially less than that. The cost of one bullet the Iraqi people taking on themselves is substantially less than that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HEMMER: Fleischer says he's not advocating an assassination of Saddam Hussein or trying to send a message to the Iraqi people. Still, though, his comments raised eyebrows and questions, too, about whether eliminating Iraq's president would be a good or bad idea.
Let's talk about it now in Washington. Frank Gaffney from the Center for Security Policy, and in Boston, Jim Walsh, Harvard University and an expert on international security.
Men, good to have you both here today. Thanks for your time.
Frank, you think it's a good idea. Why?
FRANK GAFFNEY, CTR. FOR SECURITY POLICY: I think it would be an excellent idea, but also if the clique around him could be removed from power without having to effect this probably very large and expensive military operation to bring it about.
HEMMER: Would you say then the CIA goes in and has a hand in this, in your estimation?
GAFFNEY: What I think what Ari Fleischer was clearly talking about, and it's important to emphasize, is that the Iraqi people have a role to play in their own liberation. They need our help, clearly. It will require, I think, bringing down the security apparatus around Saddam.
But I think it's pretty clear that if that security apparatus cracks, people will be standing in line trying to put the bullet in Saddam Hussein. This is something we ought to help in any way we can, and I certainly don't think the United States government ought to say it's more moral to wage a war against an entire country if that can be avoided by eliminating this horrific leader.
HEMMER: What about it, Dr. Walsh? Good idea, common sense or absurd?
JIM WALSH, HARVARD UNIV.: I think it's a bad idea for the U.S. to get into the assassination business. But I think we have to be honest. I think it's a concept that's attractive to a lot of people -- pull the trigger and all of your problems go away. It is the international affairs equivalent of the magic diet pill or the get- rich-quick scheme. But it's not that simple; it's a myth to think assassination will solve our problems. It creates more problems. There are moral issues. I don't think the pope or any world religious leader will get up and endorse assassination as U.S. policy.
Second, it's not very effective. There's no systematic evidence that shows that assassination allows you to achieve your objectives. But third and most importantly, assassination actually hurts U.S. national security; it helps our enemies. We are the most powerful country in the world. We do well in a world that plays by the rules. That's because our advantages win for us when countries play by the rules. But if any one can go out...
GAFFNEY: Can we take those in a peace (ph)?
WALSH: Sure.
HEMMER: The question really is, in terms of morality, we ought to be clear, the morality of having to inflict, either through sanctions or through military action, harm on millions of innocent Iraqis is a very hard case to make, but that's more moral than taking action against Saddam Hussein. I don't disagree it's hard, and if it would have been easy, it would have been done a long time ago, or that it solves all the problems.
There needs to be a replacement to the Iraqi regime, not simply a new Saddam light who doesn't have the same baggage that the old one does. This is a long-term problem, and I don't think there are any easy quick diet pill fixes, but I do think that the idea that Saddam Hussein and the clique that has kept him in power and exercised power with him needs to be removed, and the Iraqi people have a role to play in that. I think that is what Ari Fleischer is saying.
WALSH: Well, I don't think anyone disagrees that Saddam Hussein should be removed from power, should die of natural causes, should be in a jail cell in The Hague.
GAFFNEY: Well, some people do.
WALSH: The question is whether we endorse assassination as an official U.S. policy, something that has been rejected by U.S. administrations for decades. And there is a reason why it's been rejected. And that's because, if we get in that business, we're the ones that lose in the long term. I think all of us want to see Saddam go; we want to see him go for the least possible cost. He's a guy who's gassed his own population, has violated every international law. But the question is, how do we achieve that, and do we hurt ourselves more in the long run? We don't want to get into the assassination business, because anybody can buy a 5 cent bullet, and we can be the victims of that as much as anyone.
HEMMER: Interesting thought, Frank. What about that then? If you go back to the mid '70s, before the administration, the reason why this policy was put out there anyway, in part, many argue, is because the protection and safety of our own American presidents. Do you then put people like President Bush on the line if you go forward with a policy such as the one we are talking about here, assassination?
GAFFNEY: Well, I think if you ask the Secret Service, they're operating on the assumption that people are trying to kill the president all the time.
And the notion that if we are trying to spare not only the people involved, but the world horrific consequences that might arise from the continued activities of a guy like Saddam Hussein, I think the chances there is going to be a marginal increase in the danger and exposure of our president is simply weigh that out, and I don't think that it argues for maintaining a policy that has allowed people like Saddam Hussein to persist and metasticise (ph).
I'm saying here, first, let's be clear, this is really something we ought to help the Iraqi people bring about, the end of Saddam Hussein's regime. If we can help do that, great, I don't think this is easy for Americans, whether our policy is in favor of assassination or not to accomplish. I think it can be done with our help by the Iraqi people. And, again, I think that is what Ari Fleischer was talking about, not a change in policy.
HEMMER: Understood. Almost out of time. Final word, Dr. Walsh -- go ahead.
WALSH: Well, I think it's always easy to point to one dictator and say, wouldn't it be great to kill him and we'll stop there, but that is not the way world system works. You do with Saddam, and then someone else comes along. You do it with them, and them you keep going and going and going. Americans have a lot of experience with assassination, with John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, the attack on President Reagan. We don't want to live in a world where assassination is commonplace, and if we get in that business, we will created just that world.
HEMMER: Thank you, men, Frank Gaffney, Dr. Jim Walsh, D.C. and Boston, good discussion. Appreciate you coming in and making time for us.
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 October 2, 2002 - 08:33 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: I want to turn our attention right now again to the issue that was raised in the White House briefing room yesterday. Is it war or a single bullet? White House spokesman Ari Fleischer leaving little doubt as to the cheaper solution, and possibly a quicker solution to a conflict with Iraq.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECY.: I can only say that cost of a one-way ticket is substantially less than that. The cost of one bullet the Iraqi people taking on themselves is substantially less than that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HEMMER: Fleischer says he's not advocating an assassination of Saddam Hussein or trying to send a message to the Iraqi people. Still, though, his comments raised eyebrows and questions, too, about whether eliminating Iraq's president would be a good or bad idea.
Let's talk about it now in Washington. Frank Gaffney from the Center for Security Policy, and in Boston, Jim Walsh, Harvard University and an expert on international security.
Men, good to have you both here today. Thanks for your time.
Frank, you think it's a good idea. Why?
FRANK GAFFNEY, CTR. FOR SECURITY POLICY: I think it would be an excellent idea, but also if the clique around him could be removed from power without having to effect this probably very large and expensive military operation to bring it about.
HEMMER: Would you say then the CIA goes in and has a hand in this, in your estimation?
GAFFNEY: What I think what Ari Fleischer was clearly talking about, and it's important to emphasize, is that the Iraqi people have a role to play in their own liberation. They need our help, clearly. It will require, I think, bringing down the security apparatus around Saddam.
But I think it's pretty clear that if that security apparatus cracks, people will be standing in line trying to put the bullet in Saddam Hussein. This is something we ought to help in any way we can, and I certainly don't think the United States government ought to say it's more moral to wage a war against an entire country if that can be avoided by eliminating this horrific leader.
HEMMER: What about it, Dr. Walsh? Good idea, common sense or absurd?
JIM WALSH, HARVARD UNIV.: I think it's a bad idea for the U.S. to get into the assassination business. But I think we have to be honest. I think it's a concept that's attractive to a lot of people -- pull the trigger and all of your problems go away. It is the international affairs equivalent of the magic diet pill or the get- rich-quick scheme. But it's not that simple; it's a myth to think assassination will solve our problems. It creates more problems. There are moral issues. I don't think the pope or any world religious leader will get up and endorse assassination as U.S. policy.
Second, it's not very effective. There's no systematic evidence that shows that assassination allows you to achieve your objectives. But third and most importantly, assassination actually hurts U.S. national security; it helps our enemies. We are the most powerful country in the world. We do well in a world that plays by the rules. That's because our advantages win for us when countries play by the rules. But if any one can go out...
GAFFNEY: Can we take those in a peace (ph)?
WALSH: Sure.
HEMMER: The question really is, in terms of morality, we ought to be clear, the morality of having to inflict, either through sanctions or through military action, harm on millions of innocent Iraqis is a very hard case to make, but that's more moral than taking action against Saddam Hussein. I don't disagree it's hard, and if it would have been easy, it would have been done a long time ago, or that it solves all the problems.
There needs to be a replacement to the Iraqi regime, not simply a new Saddam light who doesn't have the same baggage that the old one does. This is a long-term problem, and I don't think there are any easy quick diet pill fixes, but I do think that the idea that Saddam Hussein and the clique that has kept him in power and exercised power with him needs to be removed, and the Iraqi people have a role to play in that. I think that is what Ari Fleischer is saying.
WALSH: Well, I don't think anyone disagrees that Saddam Hussein should be removed from power, should die of natural causes, should be in a jail cell in The Hague.
GAFFNEY: Well, some people do.
WALSH: The question is whether we endorse assassination as an official U.S. policy, something that has been rejected by U.S. administrations for decades. And there is a reason why it's been rejected. And that's because, if we get in that business, we're the ones that lose in the long term. I think all of us want to see Saddam go; we want to see him go for the least possible cost. He's a guy who's gassed his own population, has violated every international law. But the question is, how do we achieve that, and do we hurt ourselves more in the long run? We don't want to get into the assassination business, because anybody can buy a 5 cent bullet, and we can be the victims of that as much as anyone.
HEMMER: Interesting thought, Frank. What about that then? If you go back to the mid '70s, before the administration, the reason why this policy was put out there anyway, in part, many argue, is because the protection and safety of our own American presidents. Do you then put people like President Bush on the line if you go forward with a policy such as the one we are talking about here, assassination?
GAFFNEY: Well, I think if you ask the Secret Service, they're operating on the assumption that people are trying to kill the president all the time.
And the notion that if we are trying to spare not only the people involved, but the world horrific consequences that might arise from the continued activities of a guy like Saddam Hussein, I think the chances there is going to be a marginal increase in the danger and exposure of our president is simply weigh that out, and I don't think that it argues for maintaining a policy that has allowed people like Saddam Hussein to persist and metasticise (ph).
I'm saying here, first, let's be clear, this is really something we ought to help the Iraqi people bring about, the end of Saddam Hussein's regime. If we can help do that, great, I don't think this is easy for Americans, whether our policy is in favor of assassination or not to accomplish. I think it can be done with our help by the Iraqi people. And, again, I think that is what Ari Fleischer was talking about, not a change in policy.
HEMMER: Understood. Almost out of time. Final word, Dr. Walsh -- go ahead.
WALSH: Well, I think it's always easy to point to one dictator and say, wouldn't it be great to kill him and we'll stop there, but that is not the way world system works. You do with Saddam, and then someone else comes along. You do it with them, and them you keep going and going and going. Americans have a lot of experience with assassination, with John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, the attack on President Reagan. We don't want to live in a world where assassination is commonplace, and if we get in that business, we will created just that world.
HEMMER: Thank you, men, Frank Gaffney, Dr. Jim Walsh, D.C. and Boston, good discussion. Appreciate you coming in and making time for us.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
