Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

President Bush Back on Campaign Trail for Fellow Republican Candidates

Aired October 28, 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.


PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: President Bush is back on the campaign trail today for fellow Republican candidates. But some of his stump speech is devoted to Iraq and he hopes United Nations members are listening. The U.S. resolution to disarm Iraq is bogged down at the U.N., but that's not changing the president's mind.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: And if the U.N. does not pass a resolution which holds him to account and that has consequences, then, as I have said in speech after speech after speech, if the U.N. won't act, if Saddam Hussein won't disarm, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAHN: Joining me now is Kenneth Pollack, a former CIA analyst on Iraq and author of "The Threatening Storm," in which he argues for an invasion of Iraq.

Welcome.

Good to see you.

KENNETH POLLACK, FORMER CIA IRAQ ANALYST: Thank you, Paula. It's nice to be here.

ZAHN: I want to start off by showing some pictures of the anti- war demonstrations that took place over the weekend in Europe, just to give people a broad perspective on what we're looking at here. And I know you favor a coalition invasion of Iraq, but you don't think President Bush has made his case for going in there.

What's wrong with his argument?

POLLACK: That's right. Well, first, I think that the administration hasn't really laid out the best case against Saddam Hussein. What I tried to do in the book is to talk about the threat from Saddam Hussein once he acquires nuclear weapons, the virtual certainty that he is going to acquire nuclear weapons in a few years and what that could mean for the Persian Gulf, for the United States, for the world.

I think that it's a very compelling case. It's a case that convinced me that we were going, indeed, to do this at some point in time. And when I've been going around talking to people, that's what I hear from others, as well. I think the administration's focus on trying to tie Iraq to al Qaeda, which so far they're really not been able to make a very strong case for, has led a lot of people to believe that the evidence is actually quite flimsy against Saddam when, in point of fact, the nuclear case, the threat from Saddam once he acquires nuclear weapons, I think, is really quite compelling.

ZAHN: The rationale for going in now is something that's widely debated, too. Is now the time to go in, when you're talking about January as being the most likely time of this military action, if there is this action.

POLLACK: Right. I've got some concerns about that, as well. Going to war against Saddam is obviously going to be a very big operation. Potentially is could be quite costly and then at the end of the day we're going to wind up having to rebuild Iraq, which is going to be perhaps the most difficult part of the whole process at all.

I want to make sure that before we go in we've got all of our ducks in a row, we have built an international coalition that's ready to help us both with the invasion and the reconstruction, that we've helped to calm the waters in the Middle East.

You know, right now it's extremely tense over there. A lot of the Arab states are saying to us if you attack Iraq right now, with this level of violence between Israelis and Palestinians, we could face real troubles at home. I'd like to see the United States doing more on the peace process between the Israelis and Palestinians before we go in. I'd also like to see us run down al Qaeda much further. You know, the threat that seems to be out there that we've heard the FBI, the CIA, others in the administration talk about, seems to suggest that al Qaeda might still be in a position to take advantage of us if we are off in Iraq and not able to devote our full resources there.

ZAHN: So given the restrictions of when the optimal time would be to attack Iraq, what kind of timetable are you talking about? Are you suggesting that you put this off for a year?

POLLACK: We may have to at the end of the day. You know, I think this is something we could do this year. I think that there are things that the administration could still take action on. In particular on the peace process, many of the Arab states are telling us that the time is there, the window is open, we should take advantage of Crown Prince Abdullah's initiative and that we could make great strides in a short period of time.

But if we can't make sure that we have all of our preparations for invasion done, then, yes, I think we should wait another year. I think that the threat from Saddam is mainly his nuclear threat and most of the intelligence communities are pretty much convinced that he is unlikely to have a nuclear weapon in another year, which suggests that we probably do have a bit more time.

ZAHN: Let me ask you to look through the crystal ball and tell us what you think is going to happen in the U.N. you know how France is saying it might even offer its own resolution. How long is it going to take for all that to play out? And do you think the Bush administration is going to have patience to see that process through to its, what some say should be its rightful end?

POLLACK: The Bush administration does have a bit of a tough act right now. They've got a real challenge, twofold. One, they have to convince the rest of the United Nations that this really is a different United States and we are willing to make Iraq the highest priority and are willing to sacrifice our bilateral relations with other countries to get what we want with Iraq.

The second thing is that we have to convince the United Nations that we really mean it and we're going to stick this out and that we're going to get a resolution of, demand a resolution that gets us what we want. By the time this is all over, though, what I'm afraid of is that we are going to get some kind of a resolution. But if the United States really puts its muscle behind this effort, we'll get new inspections. But what we found in 1996 to 1998 is that the Iraqis have gotten so good at hiding their weapons of mass destruction...

ZAHN: Yes, inspectors said they just opened the back door and the stuff goes out.

POLLACK: Exactly. That we probably won't have, while we will get new inspections, I am very doubtful that those new inspections are actually going to find any of Saddam's prohibited materials.

ZAHN: Chilling to think about that.

Ken Pollack, the author of "The Threatening Storm," appreciate your dropping by.

POLLACK: Thank you, Paula.

ZAHN: Nice to meet you in person. Husband of Andrea Koppel, a newlywed. Congratulations.

POLLACK: Sure. Thanks.

ZAHN: Happy to hear that news.

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





Republican Candidates>


Aired October 28, 2002 - 08:14   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: President Bush is back on the campaign trail today for fellow Republican candidates. But some of his stump speech is devoted to Iraq and he hopes United Nations members are listening. The U.S. resolution to disarm Iraq is bogged down at the U.N., but that's not changing the president's mind.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: And if the U.N. does not pass a resolution which holds him to account and that has consequences, then, as I have said in speech after speech after speech, if the U.N. won't act, if Saddam Hussein won't disarm, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAHN: Joining me now is Kenneth Pollack, a former CIA analyst on Iraq and author of "The Threatening Storm," in which he argues for an invasion of Iraq.

Welcome.

Good to see you.

KENNETH POLLACK, FORMER CIA IRAQ ANALYST: Thank you, Paula. It's nice to be here.

ZAHN: I want to start off by showing some pictures of the anti- war demonstrations that took place over the weekend in Europe, just to give people a broad perspective on what we're looking at here. And I know you favor a coalition invasion of Iraq, but you don't think President Bush has made his case for going in there.

What's wrong with his argument?

POLLACK: That's right. Well, first, I think that the administration hasn't really laid out the best case against Saddam Hussein. What I tried to do in the book is to talk about the threat from Saddam Hussein once he acquires nuclear weapons, the virtual certainty that he is going to acquire nuclear weapons in a few years and what that could mean for the Persian Gulf, for the United States, for the world.

I think that it's a very compelling case. It's a case that convinced me that we were going, indeed, to do this at some point in time. And when I've been going around talking to people, that's what I hear from others, as well. I think the administration's focus on trying to tie Iraq to al Qaeda, which so far they're really not been able to make a very strong case for, has led a lot of people to believe that the evidence is actually quite flimsy against Saddam when, in point of fact, the nuclear case, the threat from Saddam once he acquires nuclear weapons, I think, is really quite compelling.

ZAHN: The rationale for going in now is something that's widely debated, too. Is now the time to go in, when you're talking about January as being the most likely time of this military action, if there is this action.

POLLACK: Right. I've got some concerns about that, as well. Going to war against Saddam is obviously going to be a very big operation. Potentially is could be quite costly and then at the end of the day we're going to wind up having to rebuild Iraq, which is going to be perhaps the most difficult part of the whole process at all.

I want to make sure that before we go in we've got all of our ducks in a row, we have built an international coalition that's ready to help us both with the invasion and the reconstruction, that we've helped to calm the waters in the Middle East.

You know, right now it's extremely tense over there. A lot of the Arab states are saying to us if you attack Iraq right now, with this level of violence between Israelis and Palestinians, we could face real troubles at home. I'd like to see the United States doing more on the peace process between the Israelis and Palestinians before we go in. I'd also like to see us run down al Qaeda much further. You know, the threat that seems to be out there that we've heard the FBI, the CIA, others in the administration talk about, seems to suggest that al Qaeda might still be in a position to take advantage of us if we are off in Iraq and not able to devote our full resources there.

ZAHN: So given the restrictions of when the optimal time would be to attack Iraq, what kind of timetable are you talking about? Are you suggesting that you put this off for a year?

POLLACK: We may have to at the end of the day. You know, I think this is something we could do this year. I think that there are things that the administration could still take action on. In particular on the peace process, many of the Arab states are telling us that the time is there, the window is open, we should take advantage of Crown Prince Abdullah's initiative and that we could make great strides in a short period of time.

But if we can't make sure that we have all of our preparations for invasion done, then, yes, I think we should wait another year. I think that the threat from Saddam is mainly his nuclear threat and most of the intelligence communities are pretty much convinced that he is unlikely to have a nuclear weapon in another year, which suggests that we probably do have a bit more time.

ZAHN: Let me ask you to look through the crystal ball and tell us what you think is going to happen in the U.N. you know how France is saying it might even offer its own resolution. How long is it going to take for all that to play out? And do you think the Bush administration is going to have patience to see that process through to its, what some say should be its rightful end?

POLLACK: The Bush administration does have a bit of a tough act right now. They've got a real challenge, twofold. One, they have to convince the rest of the United Nations that this really is a different United States and we are willing to make Iraq the highest priority and are willing to sacrifice our bilateral relations with other countries to get what we want with Iraq.

The second thing is that we have to convince the United Nations that we really mean it and we're going to stick this out and that we're going to get a resolution of, demand a resolution that gets us what we want. By the time this is all over, though, what I'm afraid of is that we are going to get some kind of a resolution. But if the United States really puts its muscle behind this effort, we'll get new inspections. But what we found in 1996 to 1998 is that the Iraqis have gotten so good at hiding their weapons of mass destruction...

ZAHN: Yes, inspectors said they just opened the back door and the stuff goes out.

POLLACK: Exactly. That we probably won't have, while we will get new inspections, I am very doubtful that those new inspections are actually going to find any of Saddam's prohibited materials.

ZAHN: Chilling to think about that.

Ken Pollack, the author of "The Threatening Storm," appreciate your dropping by.

POLLACK: Thank you, Paula.

ZAHN: Nice to meet you in person. Husband of Andrea Koppel, a newlywed. Congratulations.

POLLACK: Sure. Thanks.

ZAHN: Happy to hear that news.

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





Republican Candidates>