Return to Transcripts main page
American Morning
Interview with Sen. Carl Levin
Aired October 08, 2002 - 08:14 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: Act now or face a future of fear. Last evening the president laying out once again his case against Iraq to the American people. The president saying the time for delay has come to an end.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Later this week, the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands. Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations and all nations that America speaks with one voice and is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean something.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HEMMER: As you can expect, this is Topic A in Washington for both the House and the Senate. Congress will vote later this week on that resolution.
Congressional correspondent Kate Snow watching that debate, with us this morning, live at the Capitol -- Kate, how goes it the day after?
KATE SNOW, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It's going very well, Bill.
Good morning.
The House joining the Senate today, beginning their formal debate over this resolution. Last night's speech by the president still very much resonating up here. The response fairly predictable, fairly divided along party lines. Republicans like Senator John McCain, Senator John Warner came out very much in favor of the speech, saying they thought it was very convincing, the president's argument.
On the other side of the aisle, though, among Democrats, a lot more divided reaction and divided sentiment, mixed sentiment here overall. Many Democrats are supportive of the president, but there are some, one key figure emerging now, Senator Bob Byrd from West Virginia, a very prominent Democrat, very critical of the president.
He had this to say about the speech shortly afterward on "Larry King Live."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. ROBERT BYRD (D), WEST VIRGINIA: There was nothing new, nothing that we haven't known for a month, six months or a year. And I kept waiting. He continues to demonize Saddam Hussein. I agree with all of that. Nothing new in that. But what he does in doing that is he obscures the fact that the United States Senate is being asked to vote on a resolution which puts the stamp of approval on the Bush doctrine of preemptive attacks and preventive war. And I think that's wrong.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SNOW: Now, contrast that with other Democrats like, notably, Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, who has been very hawkish against Iraq and very supportive of President Bush. He gave a speech, coincidentally, last night, just after the president spoke. He gave a speech talking about what would happen in Iraq after an attack.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN (D), CONNECTICUT: The ultimate measure of a war's success is the quality of the peace that follows. If in the aftermath we leave the Iraqi people to fend for themselves in chaos and squalor without more freedom or opportunity, we will end up hindering, not advancing, the wider war against terrorism, and slowing, not speeding, the world's march toward democracy and the rule of law.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SNOW: Now, along with many Democrats, Bill, there are some key Republicans who had been opposing the president who have now come on board, among them Majority Leader Dick Armey in the House and Senator Richard Lugar over in the Senate, who had been thinking about sponsoring an alternative resolution. They're both now saying they believe in what the president is trying to do here.
So it's going to be interesting as the debate gets under way, Bill. There will be some opposition. Today in the House there are over a dozen alternatives that are going to be tried to be brought up, alternatives to what the president wants in terms of a resolution. But ultimately both sides saying they think that the president will get exactly what he's asked for -- Bill.
HEMMER: Thanks, Kate.
You bring up the ultimate question now, did that speech last night sway any of the critics in Congress?
Senator Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, is with us now live in D.C.
Senator, good to have you back.
Good morning to you.
SEN. CARL LEVIN (D-MI), CHAIRMAN, ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: Good to be with you.
HEMMER: Your position after that 29 speech last night? Did it change or alter in any way?
LEVIN: There wasn't really much new in the speech last night. He laid out very thoroughly the threat, which I think everybody agrees upon, the evil that Saddam Hussein represents. I think there's agreement on that. What he did not address is the issue we're going to be voting on. And the issue we're going to be voting on is whether or not we should authorize unilateral, go it alone force.
And I think there'll be 90 or 95 votes for authorizing force. My resolution authorizes force. But the force that we authorize is in support of a United Nations resolution. What the president wants in addition to that is authority to go it alone, to use military force to go it alone even if the U.N. does not unite the world behind this military action. And that is the question.
HEMMER: Senator, let me stop you there and let's go to the heart of that issue. You're a strong advocate of going to the U.N., working in concert with the international community. How long do you go with the U.N. before you're satisfied that either, A, Saddam Hussein is not in compliance, or B, the U.N. is not worth the paper that the resolution is printed on?
LEVIN: Well, the president himself, by the way, is going to the U.N. He wants the U.N. to act. So whatever length of time he believes is appropriate to get the U.N. to act is fine with me.
But I don't think we ought to be giving two totally inconsistent messages at the same time, one, that we want the U.N. to act, which we do, and that we're willing to use force in support of that U.N. action, on the other hand to say well, if the U.N. doesn't act, we're going to go it alone and do it anyway, that takes the U.N. off the hook and it seems to me it's the very wrong message to be sending.
There are a lot of risks in going it alone that are not there when you go as part of a U.N. authorized force. When we went in the Gulf, it was with the U.N. authority behind us. We had Muslim and Arab nations with us when we fought. The best way to force Saddam not to, the best way to force Saddam to open up to disarm is to have the world at the other end of the barrel when he looks down that gun rather than just the United States.
HEMMER: Do you believe, then, Saddam Hussein will abide by a U.N. resolution that meets your satisfaction?
LEVIN: Only if it's backed up by the member nation's threat of force. He will not respond, in my judgment, to a U.N. resolution unless it also authorizes member nations to use force. But that is the way we should be using force here, as part of a world coalition authorized by the U.N. rather than going it alone, which, again, has got very significant risks.
HEMMER: Let's talk about the element of time. It seems quite critical. How long are you willing to wait for inspectors to go back in before they say you know what, they're in compliance, or they're nowhere near in compliance? People have made the argument, inspectors themselves who used to be on the ground in Iraq, that it could take upwards of a year. Can the U.S. and its allies right now afford that 12 month period?
LEVIN: Well, I'm not sure we can afford a 12 month period, because that depends on what our intelligence determines that he's been able to get his hands on. As of right now, he's years away, five to seven years away, according to the printed reports, from getting a, from being able to produce a nuclear weapon, even if he is able to produce a nuclear weapon, he could do it within a year if he's able to smuggle in the enriched uranium, which so far he's been unable to do.
So the time is probably there. But we can decide that as we go along. What I want to happen here is for the world to act against Saddam Hussein. And so the world community, the U.N., with our leadership, can determine how long we would give him.
The question that we have to face is whether or not we want to authorize going it alone at this time. And that is going to be the issue before the Congress and the president did not address that issue. When you read his words, he said I want authorization for force in support of U.N. resolutions. That is fine. What he wants in addition to that is not so fine, which is the authority to go it unilaterally, on our own, which has got huge implications in terms of destabilization, weakening the coalition against terrorism and American casualties. Because if we go it alone, we're not going to have the air bases, we're not going to have a landing rights, we're not going to have the staging areas and so forth.
HEMMER: Let the debate begin.
Thank you.
Senator Carl Levin in D.C.
LEVIN: Thank you.
HEMMER: Again, that debate will continue not only in the Senate this week, but in the House, as well.
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 8, 2002 - 08:14 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: Act now or face a future of fear. Last evening the president laying out once again his case against Iraq to the American people. The president saying the time for delay has come to an end.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Later this week, the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands. Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations and all nations that America speaks with one voice and is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean something.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HEMMER: As you can expect, this is Topic A in Washington for both the House and the Senate. Congress will vote later this week on that resolution.
Congressional correspondent Kate Snow watching that debate, with us this morning, live at the Capitol -- Kate, how goes it the day after?
KATE SNOW, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It's going very well, Bill.
Good morning.
The House joining the Senate today, beginning their formal debate over this resolution. Last night's speech by the president still very much resonating up here. The response fairly predictable, fairly divided along party lines. Republicans like Senator John McCain, Senator John Warner came out very much in favor of the speech, saying they thought it was very convincing, the president's argument.
On the other side of the aisle, though, among Democrats, a lot more divided reaction and divided sentiment, mixed sentiment here overall. Many Democrats are supportive of the president, but there are some, one key figure emerging now, Senator Bob Byrd from West Virginia, a very prominent Democrat, very critical of the president.
He had this to say about the speech shortly afterward on "Larry King Live."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. ROBERT BYRD (D), WEST VIRGINIA: There was nothing new, nothing that we haven't known for a month, six months or a year. And I kept waiting. He continues to demonize Saddam Hussein. I agree with all of that. Nothing new in that. But what he does in doing that is he obscures the fact that the United States Senate is being asked to vote on a resolution which puts the stamp of approval on the Bush doctrine of preemptive attacks and preventive war. And I think that's wrong.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SNOW: Now, contrast that with other Democrats like, notably, Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, who has been very hawkish against Iraq and very supportive of President Bush. He gave a speech, coincidentally, last night, just after the president spoke. He gave a speech talking about what would happen in Iraq after an attack.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN (D), CONNECTICUT: The ultimate measure of a war's success is the quality of the peace that follows. If in the aftermath we leave the Iraqi people to fend for themselves in chaos and squalor without more freedom or opportunity, we will end up hindering, not advancing, the wider war against terrorism, and slowing, not speeding, the world's march toward democracy and the rule of law.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SNOW: Now, along with many Democrats, Bill, there are some key Republicans who had been opposing the president who have now come on board, among them Majority Leader Dick Armey in the House and Senator Richard Lugar over in the Senate, who had been thinking about sponsoring an alternative resolution. They're both now saying they believe in what the president is trying to do here.
So it's going to be interesting as the debate gets under way, Bill. There will be some opposition. Today in the House there are over a dozen alternatives that are going to be tried to be brought up, alternatives to what the president wants in terms of a resolution. But ultimately both sides saying they think that the president will get exactly what he's asked for -- Bill.
HEMMER: Thanks, Kate.
You bring up the ultimate question now, did that speech last night sway any of the critics in Congress?
Senator Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, is with us now live in D.C.
Senator, good to have you back.
Good morning to you.
SEN. CARL LEVIN (D-MI), CHAIRMAN, ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: Good to be with you.
HEMMER: Your position after that 29 speech last night? Did it change or alter in any way?
LEVIN: There wasn't really much new in the speech last night. He laid out very thoroughly the threat, which I think everybody agrees upon, the evil that Saddam Hussein represents. I think there's agreement on that. What he did not address is the issue we're going to be voting on. And the issue we're going to be voting on is whether or not we should authorize unilateral, go it alone force.
And I think there'll be 90 or 95 votes for authorizing force. My resolution authorizes force. But the force that we authorize is in support of a United Nations resolution. What the president wants in addition to that is authority to go it alone, to use military force to go it alone even if the U.N. does not unite the world behind this military action. And that is the question.
HEMMER: Senator, let me stop you there and let's go to the heart of that issue. You're a strong advocate of going to the U.N., working in concert with the international community. How long do you go with the U.N. before you're satisfied that either, A, Saddam Hussein is not in compliance, or B, the U.N. is not worth the paper that the resolution is printed on?
LEVIN: Well, the president himself, by the way, is going to the U.N. He wants the U.N. to act. So whatever length of time he believes is appropriate to get the U.N. to act is fine with me.
But I don't think we ought to be giving two totally inconsistent messages at the same time, one, that we want the U.N. to act, which we do, and that we're willing to use force in support of that U.N. action, on the other hand to say well, if the U.N. doesn't act, we're going to go it alone and do it anyway, that takes the U.N. off the hook and it seems to me it's the very wrong message to be sending.
There are a lot of risks in going it alone that are not there when you go as part of a U.N. authorized force. When we went in the Gulf, it was with the U.N. authority behind us. We had Muslim and Arab nations with us when we fought. The best way to force Saddam not to, the best way to force Saddam to open up to disarm is to have the world at the other end of the barrel when he looks down that gun rather than just the United States.
HEMMER: Do you believe, then, Saddam Hussein will abide by a U.N. resolution that meets your satisfaction?
LEVIN: Only if it's backed up by the member nation's threat of force. He will not respond, in my judgment, to a U.N. resolution unless it also authorizes member nations to use force. But that is the way we should be using force here, as part of a world coalition authorized by the U.N. rather than going it alone, which, again, has got very significant risks.
HEMMER: Let's talk about the element of time. It seems quite critical. How long are you willing to wait for inspectors to go back in before they say you know what, they're in compliance, or they're nowhere near in compliance? People have made the argument, inspectors themselves who used to be on the ground in Iraq, that it could take upwards of a year. Can the U.S. and its allies right now afford that 12 month period?
LEVIN: Well, I'm not sure we can afford a 12 month period, because that depends on what our intelligence determines that he's been able to get his hands on. As of right now, he's years away, five to seven years away, according to the printed reports, from getting a, from being able to produce a nuclear weapon, even if he is able to produce a nuclear weapon, he could do it within a year if he's able to smuggle in the enriched uranium, which so far he's been unable to do.
So the time is probably there. But we can decide that as we go along. What I want to happen here is for the world to act against Saddam Hussein. And so the world community, the U.N., with our leadership, can determine how long we would give him.
The question that we have to face is whether or not we want to authorize going it alone at this time. And that is going to be the issue before the Congress and the president did not address that issue. When you read his words, he said I want authorization for force in support of U.N. resolutions. That is fine. What he wants in addition to that is not so fine, which is the authority to go it unilaterally, on our own, which has got huge implications in terms of destabilization, weakening the coalition against terrorism and American casualties. Because if we go it alone, we're not going to have the air bases, we're not going to have a landing rights, we're not going to have the staging areas and so forth.
HEMMER: Let the debate begin.
Thank you.
Senator Carl Levin in D.C.
LEVIN: Thank you.
HEMMER: Again, that debate will continue not only in the Senate this week, but in the House, as well.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
