Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

Intelligence Issues

Aired July 22, 2003 - 09:35   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.


BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: A newly released report shows that some in the intelligence community believe that Saddam Hussein would be more dangerous if attacked than if Iraq had been left alone. Let's talk more about that. Former CIA analyst, now CNN analyst, Ken Pollack, is our guest here on AMERICAN MORNING.
Good to see you again. It's been a long, long time, more than a month since we have spoken. First things first at the U.N.

Does the U.N. and Security Council say, OK, you know what, things have gotten a bit tough right now in Iraq. We're willing to help out and do our part?

KEN POLLACK, CNN ANALYST: Listen if they're willing to do that, that seems to be the signal that they're sending, that's a very positive step. I think Kofi Annan's statement today calling for the U.S. to set a date for when we're going to withdraw, that's a huge mistake. That will terrify the Iraqis, that will complicate the process of getting a new Iraqi government together. It's fine to say when will the United States transition turn things over to either an Iraqi government or to a U.N. presence, but simply saying when are you going to get out of Iraq, that is a huge mistake. Putting any kind of end date on this would be a mistake.

HEMMER: He's saying clearly that democracy has to come within Iraq. He's staking his position now, he believes the U.S. can't do this job on their own, unless they get the Iraqis to come over and say, all right, we're on board.

POLLACK: I think that's absolutely the case, and I think that it is going to be necessary to build an Iraqi democracy for Iraq to be a stable, prosperous country, and I think you've got to find ways to bring Iraqis into that process, but simply calling for an end date for the U.S. occupation doesn't help that process.

HEMMER: Let's get back to Iraq again. More specifically, these intelligence reports prior to the war, Saddam Hussein will not attack unless provoked. Well, it never really happened. The WMD were never launched. When the U.S. moved towards Baghdad, essentially, the Republican Guard as we all know right now, dispersed and scattered, and where they are at this point, we don't know. Why wasn't this intelligence thrown into the mix prior to the war?

POLLACK: Well, that is the $64,000 question. I don't think it wasn't thrown into the mix. It was simply that I think some of the Bush administration saw the intelligence in different ways. What the intelligence community said, and this was the consensus, not only of the U.S. intelligence committee, but I think of all Iraq experts, inside and outside the government, which was that Saddam Hussein was very unlikely to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorists, or to attack the United States directly with chemical or biological weapons, unless the United States was actually attacking Iraq.

In other words, if we left him alone, it was unlikely that he would do those things. Now there were other things out there that the intelligence community and Iraq experts were very concerned about, particularly that he would at some point acquire a nuclear weapon. And once he acquired that, that he would feel like he could once again embark on regional ambitions, attack on his neighbors, do things like that. But I think the Bush administration, when it was looking to build the case, picked what it wanted to from the intelligence. There was enough out there that was threatening that they could say, yes, we're going to focus on this and that, and they tended to overlook some of the stuff from the CIA and other intelligence agencies that were more cautionary.

HEMMER: Go back to June 30th. Three weeks ago you were here on CNN talking about the presence of Saddam Hussein and the fact he has not yet been accounted for. You said, I don't think we should get obsessed with Saddam. We shouldn't assume that just getting rid of Saddam Hussein is going to get rid of all these problems that we're seeing everyday with U.S. soldiers are being popped off in that Sunni Triangle north of Baghdad. Why is that not the solution? If you get Saddam Hussein, you tell the resistance, ball game over?

POLLACK: I'm not convinced that it will tell the resistance, ball game over. I'm convinced that it will tell the resistance ball game over. I think that the resistance, unfortunately, is getting enough traction right now that there are people out there who are going to want to resist the United States, regardless of the circumstances. Certainly, getting Saddam is a positive, and I said that at that time, but I continue to believe, and I think that we're getting too fixated on Saddam Hussein the person. We have problems out there that go way beyond Saddam Hussein, and we shouldn't assume that there's some kind of a silver bullet solution that if we can put a bullet in this one man's head, all the problems we're going to have in Iraq are going be solved.

HEMMER: Come back again, will you? Ken Pollack, thanks. Good to see 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 July 22, 2003 - 09:35   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: A newly released report shows that some in the intelligence community believe that Saddam Hussein would be more dangerous if attacked than if Iraq had been left alone. Let's talk more about that. Former CIA analyst, now CNN analyst, Ken Pollack, is our guest here on AMERICAN MORNING.
Good to see you again. It's been a long, long time, more than a month since we have spoken. First things first at the U.N.

Does the U.N. and Security Council say, OK, you know what, things have gotten a bit tough right now in Iraq. We're willing to help out and do our part?

KEN POLLACK, CNN ANALYST: Listen if they're willing to do that, that seems to be the signal that they're sending, that's a very positive step. I think Kofi Annan's statement today calling for the U.S. to set a date for when we're going to withdraw, that's a huge mistake. That will terrify the Iraqis, that will complicate the process of getting a new Iraqi government together. It's fine to say when will the United States transition turn things over to either an Iraqi government or to a U.N. presence, but simply saying when are you going to get out of Iraq, that is a huge mistake. Putting any kind of end date on this would be a mistake.

HEMMER: He's saying clearly that democracy has to come within Iraq. He's staking his position now, he believes the U.S. can't do this job on their own, unless they get the Iraqis to come over and say, all right, we're on board.

POLLACK: I think that's absolutely the case, and I think that it is going to be necessary to build an Iraqi democracy for Iraq to be a stable, prosperous country, and I think you've got to find ways to bring Iraqis into that process, but simply calling for an end date for the U.S. occupation doesn't help that process.

HEMMER: Let's get back to Iraq again. More specifically, these intelligence reports prior to the war, Saddam Hussein will not attack unless provoked. Well, it never really happened. The WMD were never launched. When the U.S. moved towards Baghdad, essentially, the Republican Guard as we all know right now, dispersed and scattered, and where they are at this point, we don't know. Why wasn't this intelligence thrown into the mix prior to the war?

POLLACK: Well, that is the $64,000 question. I don't think it wasn't thrown into the mix. It was simply that I think some of the Bush administration saw the intelligence in different ways. What the intelligence community said, and this was the consensus, not only of the U.S. intelligence committee, but I think of all Iraq experts, inside and outside the government, which was that Saddam Hussein was very unlikely to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorists, or to attack the United States directly with chemical or biological weapons, unless the United States was actually attacking Iraq.

In other words, if we left him alone, it was unlikely that he would do those things. Now there were other things out there that the intelligence community and Iraq experts were very concerned about, particularly that he would at some point acquire a nuclear weapon. And once he acquired that, that he would feel like he could once again embark on regional ambitions, attack on his neighbors, do things like that. But I think the Bush administration, when it was looking to build the case, picked what it wanted to from the intelligence. There was enough out there that was threatening that they could say, yes, we're going to focus on this and that, and they tended to overlook some of the stuff from the CIA and other intelligence agencies that were more cautionary.

HEMMER: Go back to June 30th. Three weeks ago you were here on CNN talking about the presence of Saddam Hussein and the fact he has not yet been accounted for. You said, I don't think we should get obsessed with Saddam. We shouldn't assume that just getting rid of Saddam Hussein is going to get rid of all these problems that we're seeing everyday with U.S. soldiers are being popped off in that Sunni Triangle north of Baghdad. Why is that not the solution? If you get Saddam Hussein, you tell the resistance, ball game over?

POLLACK: I'm not convinced that it will tell the resistance, ball game over. I'm convinced that it will tell the resistance ball game over. I think that the resistance, unfortunately, is getting enough traction right now that there are people out there who are going to want to resist the United States, regardless of the circumstances. Certainly, getting Saddam is a positive, and I said that at that time, but I continue to believe, and I think that we're getting too fixated on Saddam Hussein the person. We have problems out there that go way beyond Saddam Hussein, and we shouldn't assume that there's some kind of a silver bullet solution that if we can put a bullet in this one man's head, all the problems we're going to have in Iraq are going be solved.

HEMMER: Come back again, will you? Ken Pollack, thanks. Good to see 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