Return to Transcripts main page
American Morning
Interview with U.S. Senator Carl Levin
Aired March 13, 2003 - 07:43 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: Is dialing for disarmament paying dividends for President Bush? Mr. Bush has spent days doing telephone diplomacy over Iraq.
Among those who say the U.S. should not go to war without U.N. approval is Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee. He joins us from Capitol Hill this morning.
Good morning -- welcome back.
SEN. CARL LEVIN (D-MI), ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: Good morning, Paula.
ZAHN: Senator, nine, of course, is the magic number. Do you think the president will get there?
LEVIN: Well, according to this morning's paper, it's still up in the air very much as to whether he'll get to nine or not. But it does not look like the U.N. Security Council has come together on this at all, and that he's got a long way to go.
ZAHN: So, if he doesnt get to nine, or if there is a veto along the way, then what?
LEVIN: Then the decision would be made by the president as to whether to go without the authority of the U.N., and it has always struck me that unless there's an immediate threat or an imminent threat against the United States, that there are high risks in going without the support of the world community acting through the United Nations Security Council.
After all, Paula, it is those U.N. Security Council resolutions, which have been invoked by the president as the basis for going to war. It's the noncompliance with Security Council Resolution 1441, which was over and over again stated by the president as to be the reason for attacking Saddam. That being true if we invoke those resolutions as the basis for going to war, I don't see how the president can ignore the decision of that same Security Council if they reject a military attack at this time.
ZAHN: But as you probably would acknowledge, Senator, the administration could also argue that implicit in 1441 is the authorization to take military action. The whole idea of going after a second resolution is, in part, to give Prime Minister Tony Blair some political cover at home. LEVIN: Well, the 1441 can be read either way. Serious consequences can mean anything to anybody, and that's the way it was written in an ambiguous way. But the president can argue that, except right now two things are true. One is that Blair has said he needs a second resolution. The president has said there will be a vote on a second resolution. So those things seem to be in concrete, that there will be a vote and that it is needed by the British.
ZAHN: You have said that if the U.S. takes military action without the support of the U.N., it could potentially -- quote -- "Unleash and fuel a terrorist response." You sit on the Intelligence Committee. Have you see intelligence that would support that conclusion?
LEVIN: We have. As a matter of fact, we've seen open testimony by the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Admiral Jacoby (ph), who says that the growth of anti-Americanism in this world is a real threat to us.
And since the terrorist threat is the big threat that we face, the threat here at home, if we act unilaterally without the U.N. authority and if that creates a greater backlash against us, terrorists fundamentalists, a violent backlash against us, because then it would appear to be the West, just a few Western nations going against an Islamic nation. If that follows, it seems to me we will have fueled the very terrorist response, which is the No. 1 threat against us here in the United States.
ZAHN: Sir, we've just got 10 seconds left. What do you say to the folks out there that anticipate attacks no matter what action the U.S. takes?
LEVIN: The president has been given authority by the majority of the Congress to do that. We live in a democracy. If that happens, we will then rally behind our troops, because they deserve our support. Whether or not it is a mistaken decision or not on the part of the president, this is a democracy and I may disagree with the president on going unilaterally, and I do in the absence of an imminent threat, but when it comes time to rallying behind our forces, the American people will be there.
ZAHN: Senator Carl Levin, as always, good to see you. Thanks for your time this morning.
LEVIN: Thank you, Paula.
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 March 13, 2003 - 07:43 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: Is dialing for disarmament paying dividends for President Bush? Mr. Bush has spent days doing telephone diplomacy over Iraq.
Among those who say the U.S. should not go to war without U.N. approval is Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee. He joins us from Capitol Hill this morning.
Good morning -- welcome back.
SEN. CARL LEVIN (D-MI), ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: Good morning, Paula.
ZAHN: Senator, nine, of course, is the magic number. Do you think the president will get there?
LEVIN: Well, according to this morning's paper, it's still up in the air very much as to whether he'll get to nine or not. But it does not look like the U.N. Security Council has come together on this at all, and that he's got a long way to go.
ZAHN: So, if he doesnt get to nine, or if there is a veto along the way, then what?
LEVIN: Then the decision would be made by the president as to whether to go without the authority of the U.N., and it has always struck me that unless there's an immediate threat or an imminent threat against the United States, that there are high risks in going without the support of the world community acting through the United Nations Security Council.
After all, Paula, it is those U.N. Security Council resolutions, which have been invoked by the president as the basis for going to war. It's the noncompliance with Security Council Resolution 1441, which was over and over again stated by the president as to be the reason for attacking Saddam. That being true if we invoke those resolutions as the basis for going to war, I don't see how the president can ignore the decision of that same Security Council if they reject a military attack at this time.
ZAHN: But as you probably would acknowledge, Senator, the administration could also argue that implicit in 1441 is the authorization to take military action. The whole idea of going after a second resolution is, in part, to give Prime Minister Tony Blair some political cover at home. LEVIN: Well, the 1441 can be read either way. Serious consequences can mean anything to anybody, and that's the way it was written in an ambiguous way. But the president can argue that, except right now two things are true. One is that Blair has said he needs a second resolution. The president has said there will be a vote on a second resolution. So those things seem to be in concrete, that there will be a vote and that it is needed by the British.
ZAHN: You have said that if the U.S. takes military action without the support of the U.N., it could potentially -- quote -- "Unleash and fuel a terrorist response." You sit on the Intelligence Committee. Have you see intelligence that would support that conclusion?
LEVIN: We have. As a matter of fact, we've seen open testimony by the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Admiral Jacoby (ph), who says that the growth of anti-Americanism in this world is a real threat to us.
And since the terrorist threat is the big threat that we face, the threat here at home, if we act unilaterally without the U.N. authority and if that creates a greater backlash against us, terrorists fundamentalists, a violent backlash against us, because then it would appear to be the West, just a few Western nations going against an Islamic nation. If that follows, it seems to me we will have fueled the very terrorist response, which is the No. 1 threat against us here in the United States.
ZAHN: Sir, we've just got 10 seconds left. What do you say to the folks out there that anticipate attacks no matter what action the U.S. takes?
LEVIN: The president has been given authority by the majority of the Congress to do that. We live in a democracy. If that happens, we will then rally behind our troops, because they deserve our support. Whether or not it is a mistaken decision or not on the part of the president, this is a democracy and I may disagree with the president on going unilaterally, and I do in the absence of an imminent threat, but when it comes time to rallying behind our forces, the American people will be there.
ZAHN: Senator Carl Levin, as always, good to see you. Thanks for your time this morning.
LEVIN: Thank you, Paula.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com.
