Return to Transcripts main page
American Morning
Interview with Sen. John Warner
Aired March 13, 2003 - 09:15 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: The Security Council remains deeply divided this morning. And now, the White House is actually leaving open the option there might not be a vote on the second resolution at all. If the U.S. goes to war without Iraq, without the U.N.'s blessing, what will be the consequences? Joining me now, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, John Warner.
Good morning, Senator. Thank you for joining us.
You want to try to take a stab at that question? What would the consequences be?
SEN. JOHN WARNER (R), VIRGINIA: Well, first, we're fortunate of a nation who has a president that doesn't blink and doesn't flinch, and he's not reacting to polls or politics; he's acting on principle, that the Constitution gives him the authority to protect the citizens of this country.
And I share with the president that Saddam Hussein and his possession of weapons of mass destruction present a real threat to the security of this nation.
Now, the president committed to follow a diplomatic course. He continues to do that. Flexibility is being shown in some quarters by the administration this morning. And I think probably over the course of the weekend, we will see early next week, I hope, a vote. Because I stand with the president. They ought to show the cards and see exactly who is For it and who's against it.
ZAHN: Senator, when you say flexibility is being shown by some corners of the administration this morning, what evidence do you have of that? And where do you think they would be willing to compromise?
WARNER: Fine. I followed your piece this morning, and you had John Negroponte, the United States ambassador to the U.N. on, and he indicated that, perhaps, the 17th date line may have just a little flexibility, not a lot, not months, as Hans Blix requires, but maybe a day or two to let votes reconcile in the U.N.
May I point out, Paula, that this is a changing world. And with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, with the problems in North Korea the growing threats in Iran, now is the hour, perhaps more so in history, that this world needs a strong, resolved, United Nations to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction and the potential use of them.
ZAHN: But, Senator, I know you believe resolution 1441 gives the president the ability to take military action, particularly when almost everyone agrees we have not see complete disarmament here; but the question is, down the road, what would be the impact of the United States going to war without the passage of the second resolution? How will it affect its other relationships with these very important countries?
WARNER: Well, first, I respectfully disagree with several words you use there, near disarmament. We're a long way. Saddam Hussein has not cooperated. He's not given information accurately. He's not provided cooperation to Hans Blix, and thusfar shows no indication of doing it, even though the British proposal laid on the table, could draw him out and give him an opportunity to show a willingness, at this point in time, to start cooperation.
But you must also ask the question, what are the costs of not acting now? And I think the cost of not acting and standing firm, as the president's doing, will be far more serious against this country and others in the near future.
ZAHN: Senator, is there any doubt in your mind that there will be a war?
WARNER: Of course. You should always think that in the last minute diplomacy could prevail. This diplomacy we see unfolding is confusing. I understand people are perplexed about the varying opinions.
But I suppose it's a form of Democracy at work, the dissension. But in the end, it's 200,000-plus men and women of the armed forces of the United States, together with those of Great Britain, that have enabled this diplomacy to get where it is today.
So let's hope for the best next week that diplomacy may finally bring Saddam Hussein around to reality, to cooperate, and force can be avoided. But if that doesn't happen, this president will not flinch. He will do what he feels is necessary, pursuant to our constitution.
ZAHN: Senator, on to a completely different issue now, that's the issue of World War II veterans and the rate at which they're dying, I know you have a very important message for Jack Cafferty today. You said you were on the exercise cycle when you heard he said at the rate they were dying off, that they would all be gone in five years. What do you want to tell Jack this morning, sir?
WARNER: Well, the facts are very simple. I was re-elected to a six-year term in November. I was on my exercise bike every morning, watching you folks up there. And you said, well, all the veterans will be dead in five years. Jack, I want to finish out my six-year term.
JACK CAFFERTY, CNN ANCHOR: I hope you have a couple more terms after that. I was quoting some study that said we were losing our WWII veterans.
WARNER: On a serious note, they're dying at over 1,000 a day. You were quite right about that. But I just said that was a very happy moment for me, having won re-election to a six-year term.
But anyway, I'm not a Strom Thurmond, but I'll hang in as long as the good Lord gives me strength.
CAFFERTY: I hope you do, and it's a pleasure to have you on the broadcast, and I'm sorry to startle you during your early morning workout there the other day.
WARNER: Pleasure to see all of you. You do a fine job for this country. You got a good balance, tough programming.
CAFFERTY: Thank you very much.
ZAHN: Senator John Warner, thank you, again, for joining us this morning.
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 - 09:15 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: The Security Council remains deeply divided this morning. And now, the White House is actually leaving open the option there might not be a vote on the second resolution at all. If the U.S. goes to war without Iraq, without the U.N.'s blessing, what will be the consequences? Joining me now, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, John Warner.
Good morning, Senator. Thank you for joining us.
You want to try to take a stab at that question? What would the consequences be?
SEN. JOHN WARNER (R), VIRGINIA: Well, first, we're fortunate of a nation who has a president that doesn't blink and doesn't flinch, and he's not reacting to polls or politics; he's acting on principle, that the Constitution gives him the authority to protect the citizens of this country.
And I share with the president that Saddam Hussein and his possession of weapons of mass destruction present a real threat to the security of this nation.
Now, the president committed to follow a diplomatic course. He continues to do that. Flexibility is being shown in some quarters by the administration this morning. And I think probably over the course of the weekend, we will see early next week, I hope, a vote. Because I stand with the president. They ought to show the cards and see exactly who is For it and who's against it.
ZAHN: Senator, when you say flexibility is being shown by some corners of the administration this morning, what evidence do you have of that? And where do you think they would be willing to compromise?
WARNER: Fine. I followed your piece this morning, and you had John Negroponte, the United States ambassador to the U.N. on, and he indicated that, perhaps, the 17th date line may have just a little flexibility, not a lot, not months, as Hans Blix requires, but maybe a day or two to let votes reconcile in the U.N.
May I point out, Paula, that this is a changing world. And with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, with the problems in North Korea the growing threats in Iran, now is the hour, perhaps more so in history, that this world needs a strong, resolved, United Nations to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction and the potential use of them.
ZAHN: But, Senator, I know you believe resolution 1441 gives the president the ability to take military action, particularly when almost everyone agrees we have not see complete disarmament here; but the question is, down the road, what would be the impact of the United States going to war without the passage of the second resolution? How will it affect its other relationships with these very important countries?
WARNER: Well, first, I respectfully disagree with several words you use there, near disarmament. We're a long way. Saddam Hussein has not cooperated. He's not given information accurately. He's not provided cooperation to Hans Blix, and thusfar shows no indication of doing it, even though the British proposal laid on the table, could draw him out and give him an opportunity to show a willingness, at this point in time, to start cooperation.
But you must also ask the question, what are the costs of not acting now? And I think the cost of not acting and standing firm, as the president's doing, will be far more serious against this country and others in the near future.
ZAHN: Senator, is there any doubt in your mind that there will be a war?
WARNER: Of course. You should always think that in the last minute diplomacy could prevail. This diplomacy we see unfolding is confusing. I understand people are perplexed about the varying opinions.
But I suppose it's a form of Democracy at work, the dissension. But in the end, it's 200,000-plus men and women of the armed forces of the United States, together with those of Great Britain, that have enabled this diplomacy to get where it is today.
So let's hope for the best next week that diplomacy may finally bring Saddam Hussein around to reality, to cooperate, and force can be avoided. But if that doesn't happen, this president will not flinch. He will do what he feels is necessary, pursuant to our constitution.
ZAHN: Senator, on to a completely different issue now, that's the issue of World War II veterans and the rate at which they're dying, I know you have a very important message for Jack Cafferty today. You said you were on the exercise cycle when you heard he said at the rate they were dying off, that they would all be gone in five years. What do you want to tell Jack this morning, sir?
WARNER: Well, the facts are very simple. I was re-elected to a six-year term in November. I was on my exercise bike every morning, watching you folks up there. And you said, well, all the veterans will be dead in five years. Jack, I want to finish out my six-year term.
JACK CAFFERTY, CNN ANCHOR: I hope you have a couple more terms after that. I was quoting some study that said we were losing our WWII veterans.
WARNER: On a serious note, they're dying at over 1,000 a day. You were quite right about that. But I just said that was a very happy moment for me, having won re-election to a six-year term.
But anyway, I'm not a Strom Thurmond, but I'll hang in as long as the good Lord gives me strength.
CAFFERTY: I hope you do, and it's a pleasure to have you on the broadcast, and I'm sorry to startle you during your early morning workout there the other day.
WARNER: Pleasure to see all of you. You do a fine job for this country. You got a good balance, tough programming.
CAFFERTY: Thank you very much.
ZAHN: Senator John Warner, thank you, again, for joining us this morning.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
