Return to Transcripts main page
American Morning
Iraq Promising to 'Deal' with U.N. Resolution
Aired November 14, 2002 - 09:04 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: Iraq is promising to deal with the U.N. resolution. What that means exactly remains to be seen. The Bush administration says words are meaningless at this point. It's up to the Iraqis' actions to determine what the next course of action will be.
John King standing by on the White House lawn now with an update.
So let's start off, John, by talking about the White House and what they are saying about this letter. I know the president didn't make a direct reference yesterday to it, did he?
JOHN KING, CNN SR. WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: The White House does not believe anything the government of Iraq says. So what the White House says is, let's not look at words from the Iraqi government; let's look instead at what happens. They believe the inspectors will go back in now, the next key deadline the 8th of December, Iraq must give the United Nations documentation of any and all programs dealing with weapons of mass destruction.
In that letter, the Iraqi ambassador to the U.N. saying Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction. That could be the next flashpoint, if you will. If that is Iraq's official response, the United Nations, the United States will say that is a lie, that could be the next key point which we test how quick this administration is willing to go towards a military conflict.
ZAHN: I didn't know you were coming back to me, let's talk about what could happen on December 8th. You have British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw saying, OK, the Iraqis have denied they have the weapons we're talking about. So if they come back and they say they don't have them, you don't have the inspectors in there to prove that, then what happens?
KING: Well, some believe the United States could present intelligence data and say, that's it, Iraq is in material breach. Most believe the United States will be a bit more patient and show its list, show its baseline of intelligence to the U.N. weapons inspectors and say, call their bluff, go to the locations in Iraq, knock the at door, demand access, prove that Saddam is lying.
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan was here yesterday, and said he does have a concern that the United States' threshold for provoking a military confrontation might be considerably lower, considerably different than most other members of the Security Council. You heard it directly from the president yesterday. He says he will have zero tolerance for any violations. The question is, if Iraq says it has no weapons of mass destruction, will the president at that point say enough, or will he ask the inspectors to call that bluff?
ZAHN: John, what is the strategy for coming up with a plan that would actually mollify the allies as to what would constitute a material breach?
KING: There are continued efforts of diplomacy led by Secretary of State Colin Powell. But mostly, it is just a tough message to the administration, to Russia, France, and the others on the Security Council, saying that the administration hung in there for those weeks of tough negotiations, it made compromises to get that unanimous vote out of Security Council, and in return for that diplomacy, the administration is expecting key allies to stand firm and not have a debate about whether it is a minor infraction or a major infraction.
Mr. Bush says any infraction is enough, in his view, but we could have another debate, another divide, if you will, in the Security Council down the road, if the administration says enough, pull the inspectors out, we believe there should be a military confrontation, and if others disagree. There is that potential looming just ahead.
ZAHN: You said the administration is pretty consistent here in saying it never believes what the Iraqis have to say anyway, and yet how would they characterize the harshness of the language in this letter from the Iraqis?
KING: They say it is to be expected. Saddam Hussein's government criticizing President Bush and his -- quote -- "lackey," Tony Blair, saying many of the things proposed in this new, tough resolution, are, in Iraq's view, violations of international law. The White House say it's fully expected bombastic language, if you will, from the Iraqi government. That is why it says it won't even discuss most of the details of the letter. It will simply judge Iraq by how it performs, but again, even in that letter, some of the maybe warning signs of what could lie ahead. Iraq says the resolution violates international law here at the White House. They think that means, if the inspectors go to those so-called presidential palaces, Iraq will say, those be off limits under international law. The White House says it will not negotiate, that those inspectors must be let in, or else.
ZAHN: All right, thanks, John, 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
Aired November 14, 2002 - 09:04 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: Iraq is promising to deal with the U.N. resolution. What that means exactly remains to be seen. The Bush administration says words are meaningless at this point. It's up to the Iraqis' actions to determine what the next course of action will be.
John King standing by on the White House lawn now with an update.
So let's start off, John, by talking about the White House and what they are saying about this letter. I know the president didn't make a direct reference yesterday to it, did he?
JOHN KING, CNN SR. WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: The White House does not believe anything the government of Iraq says. So what the White House says is, let's not look at words from the Iraqi government; let's look instead at what happens. They believe the inspectors will go back in now, the next key deadline the 8th of December, Iraq must give the United Nations documentation of any and all programs dealing with weapons of mass destruction.
In that letter, the Iraqi ambassador to the U.N. saying Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction. That could be the next flashpoint, if you will. If that is Iraq's official response, the United Nations, the United States will say that is a lie, that could be the next key point which we test how quick this administration is willing to go towards a military conflict.
ZAHN: I didn't know you were coming back to me, let's talk about what could happen on December 8th. You have British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw saying, OK, the Iraqis have denied they have the weapons we're talking about. So if they come back and they say they don't have them, you don't have the inspectors in there to prove that, then what happens?
KING: Well, some believe the United States could present intelligence data and say, that's it, Iraq is in material breach. Most believe the United States will be a bit more patient and show its list, show its baseline of intelligence to the U.N. weapons inspectors and say, call their bluff, go to the locations in Iraq, knock the at door, demand access, prove that Saddam is lying.
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan was here yesterday, and said he does have a concern that the United States' threshold for provoking a military confrontation might be considerably lower, considerably different than most other members of the Security Council. You heard it directly from the president yesterday. He says he will have zero tolerance for any violations. The question is, if Iraq says it has no weapons of mass destruction, will the president at that point say enough, or will he ask the inspectors to call that bluff?
ZAHN: John, what is the strategy for coming up with a plan that would actually mollify the allies as to what would constitute a material breach?
KING: There are continued efforts of diplomacy led by Secretary of State Colin Powell. But mostly, it is just a tough message to the administration, to Russia, France, and the others on the Security Council, saying that the administration hung in there for those weeks of tough negotiations, it made compromises to get that unanimous vote out of Security Council, and in return for that diplomacy, the administration is expecting key allies to stand firm and not have a debate about whether it is a minor infraction or a major infraction.
Mr. Bush says any infraction is enough, in his view, but we could have another debate, another divide, if you will, in the Security Council down the road, if the administration says enough, pull the inspectors out, we believe there should be a military confrontation, and if others disagree. There is that potential looming just ahead.
ZAHN: You said the administration is pretty consistent here in saying it never believes what the Iraqis have to say anyway, and yet how would they characterize the harshness of the language in this letter from the Iraqis?
KING: They say it is to be expected. Saddam Hussein's government criticizing President Bush and his -- quote -- "lackey," Tony Blair, saying many of the things proposed in this new, tough resolution, are, in Iraq's view, violations of international law. The White House say it's fully expected bombastic language, if you will, from the Iraqi government. That is why it says it won't even discuss most of the details of the letter. It will simply judge Iraq by how it performs, but again, even in that letter, some of the maybe warning signs of what could lie ahead. Iraq says the resolution violates international law here at the White House. They think that means, if the inspectors go to those so-called presidential palaces, Iraq will say, those be off limits under international law. The White House says it will not negotiate, that those inspectors must be let in, or else.
ZAHN: All right, thanks, John, 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
