Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Sunday Morning

Insight & Input

Aired January 19, 2003 - 09:31   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.


MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: All right. It's time now for interrogation and invective, right? Is that it.
HEIDI COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: Honey, it's Insight and Input. It's going to be for a long time.

O'BRIEN: OK, well. You've been e-mailing us -- whatever the segment may be called -- questions about Iraq. And we're opening our phone lines to you now. The number, once again, 800-807-2620.

COLLINS: All right. Here to answer your questions, in Washington, David Albright, a former weapons inspector. Thanks for being here, David.

DAVID ALBRIGHT, FORMER WEAPONS INSPECTOR: Good to be here.

COLLINS: You bet.

ALBRIGHT: Though I'm a little nervous.

COLLINS: You're a little nervous?

ALBRIGHT: Yes, invective and -- yes.

COLLINS: All right. At the White House, correspondent Dana Bash. Dana, are you nervous?

DANA BASH, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: I don't think so, but David Albright just is making me nervous. If he's nervous, I think I should be.

ALBRIGHT: Gosh, she's trying to put people at ease, too. I feel terrible now.

COLLINS: And also from Baghdad, we have CNN's Rym Brahimi.

Thank you all for being here.

RYM BRAHIMI, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hi there.

O'BRIEN: All right. Let's start with you, Dana. Here's a good one that sort of sends the top of the discussion toward the White House.

Martin Brown in Tupper Lake, N.Y., says, "Why can't we show world democracy at its best? Let's hold a binding special referendum on war with Iraq. As I see it, the biggest obstacle is getting this government to honor the results."

BASH: Well, that's an interesting question. And I don't know if -- I'm trying to think if historically we've ever done anything like that.

Of course, the White House would say that they did something of the sort by throwing it in Congress's lap last year and saying to Congress, hey, you know, give us some support on Iraq, and which they did overwhelmingly.

So, you know, in terms of the way America and democracy works, you know, the people elect Congress to make decisions for the people, and so far, they've done that.

I don't know what David Albright or Rym Brahimi would think about that, but...

COLLINS: David, why don't you go ahead and weigh in on that.

ALBRIGHT: Well, I think it's -- the Security Council has certainly already weighed in that they take the situation in Iraq very serious. It's been in material breach and the resolution and the will of the Security Council was give Iraq one more chance.

So I think it's important that the Security Council weigh in again about what should happen in the future.

COLLINS: All right. I think we have caller on the line as well. Margie from New York, what's your question?

CALLER: I'd like to know if the religious areas, such as the mosques that were built by Saddam Hussein, the areas for chemical storing weapons, and also if the U.N. inspectors are checking or considering checking these areas out.

COLLINS: Rym, why don't you tackle that one?

BRAHIMI: Well, yes, from what we understand, the U.N. weapons inspectors have said and they've repeated, part of their mandate that was given to them from the new U.N. Security Council resolution is that there are no sanctuaries, neither religious sanctuaries nor private sanctuaries.

They've been to the homes of two scientists. They say that they could even go to mosques. They may be planning to do that at one point.

That said, they do receive information from on a regular basis from other countries but also from the previous reports that have been made by other weapons inspectors as to where they're more likely to find things or traces of things.

But they have emphasized that they have a lot of equipment with them and they're prepared to go absolutely anywhere. And the resolution calls for Iraq letting them go anywhere. So far, that's been the case, and they want a little more cooperation. But so far, they have been allowed to go everywhere, including, for instance, the palaces of President Saddam Hussein.

O'BRIEN: You know, Rym, remind me. I have a good question about the palaces for you in just a moment.

Condoleezza Rice making the rounds on the morning talk shows this morning. The administration doing a full-court press this Sunday. She said, and this is a quote, that the U.N. Weapons inspectors will mark the start of a last phase for Iraq, referring to the January 27 deadline.

Dana, first of all, it's interesting that the entire administration is out today. What is uppermost on their agenda this morning? What's the message they're trying to get out?

BASH: Well, Miles, I think you just really hit on an important point here, just in terms of the way they're doing this. I mean, you see Condoleezza Rice; the defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld; Secretary of State Colin Powell. We'll see all of them in the Sunday morning talk show world this morning, talking about the need to press hard on Iraq.

Just that quote you put up from Condoleezza Rice, they want to make sure that while Mohammed El Baradei and Hans Blix, the folks who are heading the inspections, while they're in Iraq talking to them and they're also talking about, you know, maybe taking this thing, this process in the next couple of months through March.

The U.S. wants to put the pressure on them and say, you know, January 27 is the day that their report is due and that's a very important date. And from there on in, the pressure is going to be on them to -- and on other countries to really say, look, Saddam Hussein has not done what the U.N. has told him to do, and it's time to act.

COLLINS: All right, Dana, we have another phone call from Tom in Pennsylvania. Tom?

CALLER: Hi.

COLLINS: What's your question?

CALLER: My question is, if we send in 100 covert operatives to Iraq to take out the government hierarchy, you know, the top 10, 12 people in the government, we're considered criminals.

If we send in troops and planes and kill those same people, along with thousands of Iraqi women and children, we're considered, you know, justified, at least in some corners of the world, on the basis of making war.

Why is that? Why can't we go in and just topple their government covertly?

COLLINS: Is this a Rym question? Rym Brahimi, why don't you take it?

BRAHIMI: It's a very, very difficult question. I think the key of a lot of people have been asking that there are two things there, I think.

One is maybe overestimating the capability of any covert operation, especially in a country like Iraq. You're dealing with a leadership here that has been aware that it has to secure its power seat. And for the past maybe decades, I'd say, they have been working very hard on that. There have been, from what we hear, there may have been a few attempts, they've all been really maybe killed in the egg, I would say.

And that's because there's a very, very tight-knit, very tight- knit network here that really makes it extremely difficult from anyone, for anybody from the outside to even be able to penetrate anyone remotely close to the leadership.

There have been a lot of stories about people who are close to the president, Saddam Hussein, and, you know, you have to wonder if they're not doing anything and a lot of people are armed here, well, there must be a reason for that.

And so it's -- I think it goes beyond just going in and maybe, you know, toppling them. It's a much more complicated issue as far as Iraq goes.

O'BRIEN: All right, David Albright, I have a question for you from Peter Weyman, Providence, R.I.

"The U.S. should really push for effective inspections," he says, "instead of 200 inspectors in Baghdad, let's have 5,000 throughout Iraq. Wouldn't an inspections program that continues to grow in size and effectiveness have the effect of disarming Saddam without costing billions of dollars and tens of thousands of American lives?"

Great question, Peter.

ALBRIGHT: It's a very important question. And the problem is that inspections in Iraq fundamentally depend on Iraqi cooperation.

The inspectors cannot go everywhere. And even if you had 5,000, you still can't go everywhere. Fundamentally, Iraq has not been cooperating adequately with the inspectors, and so their job has become much harder, and simple numbers is not going to solve that problem.

There is a need, certainly, for the inspectors to try to be as effective as possible with the cooperation they get. And that effectiveness depends very much on getting intelligence information from member states, particularly the United States, from really focusing on investigations, and using other tools at their disposal to try to find the things that Iraq is hiding.

O'BRIEN: We have time for one final e-mail.

COLLINS: This one comes to us from frank. We're not sure where Frank is, but he does want to know, "If we go to war with Iraq, why not hit Saddam where it hurts: level his palaces."

David?

ALBRIGHT: Well, he moves around a lot. He doesn't stay in the same place very long at all. And if he felt there was an attack coming, he certainly would not stay in his palaces. He's been known to stay in homes of people. So I think he's a very difficult target. And the chance of killing him in an attack is almost zero.

O'BRIEN: All right. Thank you, panelists. We're out of time, unfortunately David Albright, Rym Brahimi, Dana Bash, in the segment that we currently call Insight & Input.

COLLINS: Good job, Miles. That's a first.

O'BRIEN: Feel better already.

COLLINS: Sure you do.

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 January 19, 2003 - 09:31   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: All right. It's time now for interrogation and invective, right? Is that it.
HEIDI COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: Honey, it's Insight and Input. It's going to be for a long time.

O'BRIEN: OK, well. You've been e-mailing us -- whatever the segment may be called -- questions about Iraq. And we're opening our phone lines to you now. The number, once again, 800-807-2620.

COLLINS: All right. Here to answer your questions, in Washington, David Albright, a former weapons inspector. Thanks for being here, David.

DAVID ALBRIGHT, FORMER WEAPONS INSPECTOR: Good to be here.

COLLINS: You bet.

ALBRIGHT: Though I'm a little nervous.

COLLINS: You're a little nervous?

ALBRIGHT: Yes, invective and -- yes.

COLLINS: All right. At the White House, correspondent Dana Bash. Dana, are you nervous?

DANA BASH, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: I don't think so, but David Albright just is making me nervous. If he's nervous, I think I should be.

ALBRIGHT: Gosh, she's trying to put people at ease, too. I feel terrible now.

COLLINS: And also from Baghdad, we have CNN's Rym Brahimi.

Thank you all for being here.

RYM BRAHIMI, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hi there.

O'BRIEN: All right. Let's start with you, Dana. Here's a good one that sort of sends the top of the discussion toward the White House.

Martin Brown in Tupper Lake, N.Y., says, "Why can't we show world democracy at its best? Let's hold a binding special referendum on war with Iraq. As I see it, the biggest obstacle is getting this government to honor the results."

BASH: Well, that's an interesting question. And I don't know if -- I'm trying to think if historically we've ever done anything like that.

Of course, the White House would say that they did something of the sort by throwing it in Congress's lap last year and saying to Congress, hey, you know, give us some support on Iraq, and which they did overwhelmingly.

So, you know, in terms of the way America and democracy works, you know, the people elect Congress to make decisions for the people, and so far, they've done that.

I don't know what David Albright or Rym Brahimi would think about that, but...

COLLINS: David, why don't you go ahead and weigh in on that.

ALBRIGHT: Well, I think it's -- the Security Council has certainly already weighed in that they take the situation in Iraq very serious. It's been in material breach and the resolution and the will of the Security Council was give Iraq one more chance.

So I think it's important that the Security Council weigh in again about what should happen in the future.

COLLINS: All right. I think we have caller on the line as well. Margie from New York, what's your question?

CALLER: I'd like to know if the religious areas, such as the mosques that were built by Saddam Hussein, the areas for chemical storing weapons, and also if the U.N. inspectors are checking or considering checking these areas out.

COLLINS: Rym, why don't you tackle that one?

BRAHIMI: Well, yes, from what we understand, the U.N. weapons inspectors have said and they've repeated, part of their mandate that was given to them from the new U.N. Security Council resolution is that there are no sanctuaries, neither religious sanctuaries nor private sanctuaries.

They've been to the homes of two scientists. They say that they could even go to mosques. They may be planning to do that at one point.

That said, they do receive information from on a regular basis from other countries but also from the previous reports that have been made by other weapons inspectors as to where they're more likely to find things or traces of things.

But they have emphasized that they have a lot of equipment with them and they're prepared to go absolutely anywhere. And the resolution calls for Iraq letting them go anywhere. So far, that's been the case, and they want a little more cooperation. But so far, they have been allowed to go everywhere, including, for instance, the palaces of President Saddam Hussein.

O'BRIEN: You know, Rym, remind me. I have a good question about the palaces for you in just a moment.

Condoleezza Rice making the rounds on the morning talk shows this morning. The administration doing a full-court press this Sunday. She said, and this is a quote, that the U.N. Weapons inspectors will mark the start of a last phase for Iraq, referring to the January 27 deadline.

Dana, first of all, it's interesting that the entire administration is out today. What is uppermost on their agenda this morning? What's the message they're trying to get out?

BASH: Well, Miles, I think you just really hit on an important point here, just in terms of the way they're doing this. I mean, you see Condoleezza Rice; the defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld; Secretary of State Colin Powell. We'll see all of them in the Sunday morning talk show world this morning, talking about the need to press hard on Iraq.

Just that quote you put up from Condoleezza Rice, they want to make sure that while Mohammed El Baradei and Hans Blix, the folks who are heading the inspections, while they're in Iraq talking to them and they're also talking about, you know, maybe taking this thing, this process in the next couple of months through March.

The U.S. wants to put the pressure on them and say, you know, January 27 is the day that their report is due and that's a very important date. And from there on in, the pressure is going to be on them to -- and on other countries to really say, look, Saddam Hussein has not done what the U.N. has told him to do, and it's time to act.

COLLINS: All right, Dana, we have another phone call from Tom in Pennsylvania. Tom?

CALLER: Hi.

COLLINS: What's your question?

CALLER: My question is, if we send in 100 covert operatives to Iraq to take out the government hierarchy, you know, the top 10, 12 people in the government, we're considered criminals.

If we send in troops and planes and kill those same people, along with thousands of Iraqi women and children, we're considered, you know, justified, at least in some corners of the world, on the basis of making war.

Why is that? Why can't we go in and just topple their government covertly?

COLLINS: Is this a Rym question? Rym Brahimi, why don't you take it?

BRAHIMI: It's a very, very difficult question. I think the key of a lot of people have been asking that there are two things there, I think.

One is maybe overestimating the capability of any covert operation, especially in a country like Iraq. You're dealing with a leadership here that has been aware that it has to secure its power seat. And for the past maybe decades, I'd say, they have been working very hard on that. There have been, from what we hear, there may have been a few attempts, they've all been really maybe killed in the egg, I would say.

And that's because there's a very, very tight-knit, very tight- knit network here that really makes it extremely difficult from anyone, for anybody from the outside to even be able to penetrate anyone remotely close to the leadership.

There have been a lot of stories about people who are close to the president, Saddam Hussein, and, you know, you have to wonder if they're not doing anything and a lot of people are armed here, well, there must be a reason for that.

And so it's -- I think it goes beyond just going in and maybe, you know, toppling them. It's a much more complicated issue as far as Iraq goes.

O'BRIEN: All right, David Albright, I have a question for you from Peter Weyman, Providence, R.I.

"The U.S. should really push for effective inspections," he says, "instead of 200 inspectors in Baghdad, let's have 5,000 throughout Iraq. Wouldn't an inspections program that continues to grow in size and effectiveness have the effect of disarming Saddam without costing billions of dollars and tens of thousands of American lives?"

Great question, Peter.

ALBRIGHT: It's a very important question. And the problem is that inspections in Iraq fundamentally depend on Iraqi cooperation.

The inspectors cannot go everywhere. And even if you had 5,000, you still can't go everywhere. Fundamentally, Iraq has not been cooperating adequately with the inspectors, and so their job has become much harder, and simple numbers is not going to solve that problem.

There is a need, certainly, for the inspectors to try to be as effective as possible with the cooperation they get. And that effectiveness depends very much on getting intelligence information from member states, particularly the United States, from really focusing on investigations, and using other tools at their disposal to try to find the things that Iraq is hiding.

O'BRIEN: We have time for one final e-mail.

COLLINS: This one comes to us from frank. We're not sure where Frank is, but he does want to know, "If we go to war with Iraq, why not hit Saddam where it hurts: level his palaces."

David?

ALBRIGHT: Well, he moves around a lot. He doesn't stay in the same place very long at all. And if he felt there was an attack coming, he certainly would not stay in his palaces. He's been known to stay in homes of people. So I think he's a very difficult target. And the chance of killing him in an attack is almost zero.

O'BRIEN: All right. Thank you, panelists. We're out of time, unfortunately David Albright, Rym Brahimi, Dana Bash, in the segment that we currently call Insight & Input.

COLLINS: Good job, Miles. That's a first.

O'BRIEN: Feel better already.

COLLINS: Sure you do.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com