Return to Transcripts main page
American Morning
Iraqi Weapons Declaration Full of Holes?
Aired December 18, 2002 - 07:03 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: Back to the issue of Iraq. At the White House today, a National Security Council meeting is scheduled for this morning, and the president is expected to discuss whether to declare Iraq in violation of the UN disarmament resolution. Unnamed officials say the declaration is -- quote -- "full of holes."
Still to be decided, though: How strong should the language be? And there apparently is a very big debate among administration officials on that one.
Let's turn to senior White House correspondent John King for the very latest.
Good morning -- John.
JOHN KING, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Good morning to you, Paula.
The president will meet with that National Security Council today, and we are told by senior officials, he will accept their recommendation that Iraq is in violation of its commitment to the United Nations.
U.S. officials, as we have been reporting in the 10 days now since the Iraqi document reached the United Nations, says that Iraq has, in their view, simply failed the test, not given an accounting of mustard gas stockpiles, other chemical and biological weapons stockpiles, not given almost any new information at all on Iraq's nuclear program over the past decade.
U.S. officials have decided Iraq has flunked the test, but they also have decided they will not push for immediate military confrontation.
At yesterday's principal's meeting, the president's top national security advisors meeting to prepare for today's meeting. The discussion was: How do we declare Iraq in violation, but not move immediately to a military confrontation?
We are told the strategy is this: The president will settle on tough language, the United States will present its findings to the United Nations and say, yes, we will not push for a material breach finding, a war, right now, but we do want the inspectors to be much more aggressive, including the use of that provision that allows them to take Iraqi scientists outside of the country to interview them.
So, the president will meet with the National Security team today, continue on what, U.S. officials say, is a measured course here right now. As for any public statements from the president, no big speech planned on his findings just yet, but he does meet and has reporters in to a meeting this morning when the prime minister of Spain is here, another diplomatic meeting here at the White House tomorrow. More likely tomorrow, we are told, we will hear a more expansive view of the president of his review, his recommendations now that the administration has reviewed this Iraqi document -- Paula.
ZAHN: John, help us understand the importance of language here this morning. According to a couple of published reports, there is disagreement between Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and other members of the administration in exactly how you qualify this violation. He apparently is opposed to the use of the phrase, "material breach," because he thinks that conveys almost the immediate threat of war. What's going on there?
KING: Well, there is a debate within the administration over when to use that term. There seems to be little disagreement that ultimately the United States will come to that finding unless Iraq suddenly has a change of heart and starts showing the inspectors either the existing stockpiles of weapons or where it destroyed stockpiles of weapons that are known to exist.
What U.S. officials said, if you declare Iraq in material breach now, you put the president's credibility on the line, because he said he would have zero tolerance for any violation. Material breach is the specific language in the UN resolution that says, if there is a material breach, then there can and will be serious consequences, meaning possible military action.
U.S. officials, because there is not support in the Security Council and because the inspectors are just really up and running, in their view, want to be more patient and want to give this at least several more weeks. Using the term "material breach" would put pressure on the president to say, I said if there was a breach, we would not have patience.
So, they want to take a slow, more measured approach for now. No question here the administration that unless they see a significant change of conduct from Iraq soon, we will get to that debate soon.
ZAHN: John King, thanks so much.
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 December 18, 2002 - 07:03 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: Back to the issue of Iraq. At the White House today, a National Security Council meeting is scheduled for this morning, and the president is expected to discuss whether to declare Iraq in violation of the UN disarmament resolution. Unnamed officials say the declaration is -- quote -- "full of holes."
Still to be decided, though: How strong should the language be? And there apparently is a very big debate among administration officials on that one.
Let's turn to senior White House correspondent John King for the very latest.
Good morning -- John.
JOHN KING, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Good morning to you, Paula.
The president will meet with that National Security Council today, and we are told by senior officials, he will accept their recommendation that Iraq is in violation of its commitment to the United Nations.
U.S. officials, as we have been reporting in the 10 days now since the Iraqi document reached the United Nations, says that Iraq has, in their view, simply failed the test, not given an accounting of mustard gas stockpiles, other chemical and biological weapons stockpiles, not given almost any new information at all on Iraq's nuclear program over the past decade.
U.S. officials have decided Iraq has flunked the test, but they also have decided they will not push for immediate military confrontation.
At yesterday's principal's meeting, the president's top national security advisors meeting to prepare for today's meeting. The discussion was: How do we declare Iraq in violation, but not move immediately to a military confrontation?
We are told the strategy is this: The president will settle on tough language, the United States will present its findings to the United Nations and say, yes, we will not push for a material breach finding, a war, right now, but we do want the inspectors to be much more aggressive, including the use of that provision that allows them to take Iraqi scientists outside of the country to interview them.
So, the president will meet with the National Security team today, continue on what, U.S. officials say, is a measured course here right now. As for any public statements from the president, no big speech planned on his findings just yet, but he does meet and has reporters in to a meeting this morning when the prime minister of Spain is here, another diplomatic meeting here at the White House tomorrow. More likely tomorrow, we are told, we will hear a more expansive view of the president of his review, his recommendations now that the administration has reviewed this Iraqi document -- Paula.
ZAHN: John, help us understand the importance of language here this morning. According to a couple of published reports, there is disagreement between Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and other members of the administration in exactly how you qualify this violation. He apparently is opposed to the use of the phrase, "material breach," because he thinks that conveys almost the immediate threat of war. What's going on there?
KING: Well, there is a debate within the administration over when to use that term. There seems to be little disagreement that ultimately the United States will come to that finding unless Iraq suddenly has a change of heart and starts showing the inspectors either the existing stockpiles of weapons or where it destroyed stockpiles of weapons that are known to exist.
What U.S. officials said, if you declare Iraq in material breach now, you put the president's credibility on the line, because he said he would have zero tolerance for any violation. Material breach is the specific language in the UN resolution that says, if there is a material breach, then there can and will be serious consequences, meaning possible military action.
U.S. officials, because there is not support in the Security Council and because the inspectors are just really up and running, in their view, want to be more patient and want to give this at least several more weeks. Using the term "material breach" would put pressure on the president to say, I said if there was a breach, we would not have patience.
So, they want to take a slow, more measured approach for now. No question here the administration that unless they see a significant change of conduct from Iraq soon, we will get to that debate soon.
ZAHN: John King, thanks so much.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com.
