Return to Transcripts main page
American Morning
Interview With Joseph Wilson
Aired November 21, 2002 - 07:17 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: In Prague this morning, a diplomat says NATO leaders are ready to take -- quote -- "effective action in the effort to disarm Iraq." The alliance seems to be lining up behind the U.N. weapons inspection resolution. Does this step up the pressure on Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to cooperate with the inspection team?
Well, joining us now from Washington is Ambassador Joseph Wilson, a former U.S. charge d'affairs in Iraq and the last U.S. official to sit down and meet with Saddam.
Welcome back, Mr. Ambassador.
AMB. JOSEPH WILSON, FMR. CHARGE D'AFFAIRS IN IRAQ: Good morning, Paula. You're a brave lady. Not even my wife believes I'm ready for public consumption at 7:00 in the morning.
ZAHN: Well, we are, and we're going to make you work this morning.
I want you to react to a little bit of what former CIA analyst Ken Pollock had to say on our show yesterday, shortly after hearing what Hans Blix said about the quality of questions that the Iraqis asked of the inspection team -- let's listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KEN POLLOCK, "THE THREATENING STORM": The Iraqis are going to cooperate with the inspectors. That's what they've made clear. They're going to cooperate, they're going to let the inspectors go wherever they want to.
But they're not going to comply with the resolution. The resolution says that Iraq must disarm itself. It must give up all of its weapons of mass destruction, and everything that we're hearing from the Iraqis is, they have no intention of doing so.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ZAHN: You're the last American to sit down and negotiate with the guy. Do you agree with Ken Pollock that they simply will not comply?
WILSON: Well, I think to a certain extent Ken is right. They are showing signs of cooperating. I suspect that the suspension of Saddam's son's newspaper may be an indication of their desire not to get crosswise with the international community on less-than- substantive issues.
The question really is one of full compliance, and whether or not they're prepared to give up every one of their core technologies and every one of their weapons and missiles I think remains to be seen. Certainly, we should not assume that they're going to do so just because they say they're going to.
ZAHN: So, what happens then if we realize on December 8, this list that they hand over doesn't fully reflect what they've got?
WILSON: Well, I think then, of course, it will go back to the United Nations, or at least Hans Blix and company will go back to the United Nations and will ferret out what the discrepancies might be. I've always believed that enhancing the enforcement mechanism for the disarmament regime has been a good thing. It's a good idea.
We've now summoned the political will again, and any discrepancies and any obstacles potentially are real that he puts in the way of this inspection regime ought to be dealt with forcefully, swiftly and decisively. But the response ought to also be targeted to the transgression that we identify.
So, for example, if he refuses to allow us into a palace, the next sound you hear should be a cruise missile taking that palace out.
ZAHN: But there has to be a Security Council process in the middle, no?
WILSON: Well, the president, of course, has said that he has enough now with this new U.N. Security Council resolution. He's also made it very clear that the objective of the United States here is to disarm Saddam, either through the U.N. process or forcibly with a coalition of allies and friends.
And furthermore, he's made it clear that he will stand for zero tolerance, and I would interpret zero tolerance as meaning that anytime that Saddam messes around with the U.N. inspection regime, then we will go in and we will take out that particular site.
ZAHN: We need your help this morning in dissecting a little bit of what the president had to say yesterday, because there appear to be two different messages here.
At one point, he said, if Saddam Hussein denies his arsenal of terror -- quote: "He will have entered his final stage with a lie, and deception this time will not be tolerated. Delay and defiance will invite the severest of consequences." Yet more than once, Bush also held out the possibility that a war could be avoided.
What is it do you think we're supposed to read into these statements?
WILSON: Boy, I have no idea. I noticed that the administration decided not to clarify what the president may have said when he was talking about the "severest consequences." Clearly, there is still this notion out there that the only way that you could disarm Saddam is through decapitation of the regime. The president has not alluded to that. The president in his most recent statements, before this last one you cited, has always talked about disarmament peacefully or disarmament by force.
Now, the question really comes down to whether you can forcibly disarm Saddam without decapitating the regime. There is no love anywhere in the world for this brutal regime of Saddam Hussein, but as we go forward in our attempt to disarm him, we need to make some fundamental decisions as to what is in our own national security interest in the event that we have to undertake any military action.
I personally cannot imagine the upside of a military ground invasion of Iraq that would result in 250,000 American troops occupying Iraq for the foreseeable future. I would see that as the last option as opposed to the first option.
ZAHN: Ambassador Wilson, tell your wife she was wrong. You are ready for public consumption at 7:15 in the morning. Thanks for your insights this morning -- glad to have you back.
WILSON: Thank you, Paula -- nice to be with you.
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 21, 2002 - 07:17 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: In Prague this morning, a diplomat says NATO leaders are ready to take -- quote -- "effective action in the effort to disarm Iraq." The alliance seems to be lining up behind the U.N. weapons inspection resolution. Does this step up the pressure on Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to cooperate with the inspection team?
Well, joining us now from Washington is Ambassador Joseph Wilson, a former U.S. charge d'affairs in Iraq and the last U.S. official to sit down and meet with Saddam.
Welcome back, Mr. Ambassador.
AMB. JOSEPH WILSON, FMR. CHARGE D'AFFAIRS IN IRAQ: Good morning, Paula. You're a brave lady. Not even my wife believes I'm ready for public consumption at 7:00 in the morning.
ZAHN: Well, we are, and we're going to make you work this morning.
I want you to react to a little bit of what former CIA analyst Ken Pollock had to say on our show yesterday, shortly after hearing what Hans Blix said about the quality of questions that the Iraqis asked of the inspection team -- let's listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KEN POLLOCK, "THE THREATENING STORM": The Iraqis are going to cooperate with the inspectors. That's what they've made clear. They're going to cooperate, they're going to let the inspectors go wherever they want to.
But they're not going to comply with the resolution. The resolution says that Iraq must disarm itself. It must give up all of its weapons of mass destruction, and everything that we're hearing from the Iraqis is, they have no intention of doing so.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ZAHN: You're the last American to sit down and negotiate with the guy. Do you agree with Ken Pollock that they simply will not comply?
WILSON: Well, I think to a certain extent Ken is right. They are showing signs of cooperating. I suspect that the suspension of Saddam's son's newspaper may be an indication of their desire not to get crosswise with the international community on less-than- substantive issues.
The question really is one of full compliance, and whether or not they're prepared to give up every one of their core technologies and every one of their weapons and missiles I think remains to be seen. Certainly, we should not assume that they're going to do so just because they say they're going to.
ZAHN: So, what happens then if we realize on December 8, this list that they hand over doesn't fully reflect what they've got?
WILSON: Well, I think then, of course, it will go back to the United Nations, or at least Hans Blix and company will go back to the United Nations and will ferret out what the discrepancies might be. I've always believed that enhancing the enforcement mechanism for the disarmament regime has been a good thing. It's a good idea.
We've now summoned the political will again, and any discrepancies and any obstacles potentially are real that he puts in the way of this inspection regime ought to be dealt with forcefully, swiftly and decisively. But the response ought to also be targeted to the transgression that we identify.
So, for example, if he refuses to allow us into a palace, the next sound you hear should be a cruise missile taking that palace out.
ZAHN: But there has to be a Security Council process in the middle, no?
WILSON: Well, the president, of course, has said that he has enough now with this new U.N. Security Council resolution. He's also made it very clear that the objective of the United States here is to disarm Saddam, either through the U.N. process or forcibly with a coalition of allies and friends.
And furthermore, he's made it clear that he will stand for zero tolerance, and I would interpret zero tolerance as meaning that anytime that Saddam messes around with the U.N. inspection regime, then we will go in and we will take out that particular site.
ZAHN: We need your help this morning in dissecting a little bit of what the president had to say yesterday, because there appear to be two different messages here.
At one point, he said, if Saddam Hussein denies his arsenal of terror -- quote: "He will have entered his final stage with a lie, and deception this time will not be tolerated. Delay and defiance will invite the severest of consequences." Yet more than once, Bush also held out the possibility that a war could be avoided.
What is it do you think we're supposed to read into these statements?
WILSON: Boy, I have no idea. I noticed that the administration decided not to clarify what the president may have said when he was talking about the "severest consequences." Clearly, there is still this notion out there that the only way that you could disarm Saddam is through decapitation of the regime. The president has not alluded to that. The president in his most recent statements, before this last one you cited, has always talked about disarmament peacefully or disarmament by force.
Now, the question really comes down to whether you can forcibly disarm Saddam without decapitating the regime. There is no love anywhere in the world for this brutal regime of Saddam Hussein, but as we go forward in our attempt to disarm him, we need to make some fundamental decisions as to what is in our own national security interest in the event that we have to undertake any military action.
I personally cannot imagine the upside of a military ground invasion of Iraq that would result in 250,000 American troops occupying Iraq for the foreseeable future. I would see that as the last option as opposed to the first option.
ZAHN: Ambassador Wilson, tell your wife she was wrong. You are ready for public consumption at 7:15 in the morning. Thanks for your insights this morning -- glad to have you back.
WILSON: Thank you, Paula -- nice to be with you.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com.
