Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Sunday Morning
Insight & Input
Aired January 26, 2003 - 09:29 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.
CHARLES MOLINEAUX, CNN ANCHOR: Our team of reporters is here to answer your questions. Joining us from the White House is CNN's Suzanne Malveaux, from the United Nations, senior correspondent Richard Roth, and from Paris, CNN's Alessio Vinci.
Let us take a look at some of what we're hearing already, because the e-mails are coming in, and predictably pretty divided. So we'll start off with the first one, that actually comes from Dave who writes, "not everyone in this country feels that Germany and France owe us from World War II. We were all in that together. We had losses together. There are many that think our president is a cowboy."
Let's go to Alessio for some of that, because we're looking at international reaction. What are we hearing over there?
ALESSIO VINCI, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, you do hear quite often here when you speak to western diplomats, to analysts, to even just the people in the streets, not just here in Paris, but even from Italy, where I'm usually based, or even by just talking to friends and colleagues across Europe, you do hear that there is a perception that George W. Bush is a president who wants to go it alone. He is a unilateralist.
If you remember, even before September the 11th when he became president, he was ruling out many of the international agreements that his predecessors had signed with countries around the world. So there is definitely a perception here that President Bush is a person who wants to go it alone, is a cowboy, as you said, because he also has a style of presenting his opinions.
Many of the people here are -- do not have something against the Americans in general. They do at the end believe that Saddam Hussein, for example, is a dangerous person and he should be removed from power, but they do not believe that perhaps the way the United States wants to do it is the only way or the best way.
HEIDI COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: All right, Alessio, thanks so much.
We're going to go onto our next one now. This one is from Bob, who is from Canada. He says: "George W. Bush now finds himself in the same position as Sir Winston Churchill in World War II, when the British public did not want to go to war." Suzanne Malveaux, can you comment for us on that one?
SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, the White House realizes they're looking at those polls and they see, yes, that most Americans want to give at least some months for those weapons inspectors to continue their jobs, and what the administration is arguing is that they don't need months to do that, that they already have the evidence necessary to show that Saddam Hussein is not going to comply with this U.N. Security Council resolution.
Having said that, the administration certainly wants the support of the American people. Ultimately, they say they believe that the president will outline a very convincing case. That if it's necessary to go to war, that the American people will be behind him, and history shows that generally speaking, once the State of the Union address has already been delivered, once the president makes the case that, yes, war is necessary that generally speaking, the American people do support the president, but, of course, yes, there's still a lot of questions, there's a lot of doubt, and White House officials realizing that they have yet to make a convincing case to the American people that this is really necessary, if the president decides he's going to go in that direction.
MOLINEAUX: Actually, that would very much appear to be the case, that a case does have to be made. Let's go to Richard Roth with this next e-mail. Richard, we have one that says -- "The case has not been made for war. We have at least a dozen countries with us, huh? Who are they? And where is this so-called evidence the White House keeps saying it has? This is wrong, wrong, wrong."
Is it clear that the evidence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was ample back in the '90s and what is being demanded of Iraq today is that it proved that it has destroyed those weapons? Is that clear with the U.N.?
RICHARD ROTH, CNN SR. U.N. CORRESPONDENT: No, it's not clear regarding the weapons. A different story from 1991, obviously. Iraq had invaded a U.N. member state, Kuwait. And thus, it was much easier for the members of the U.N. -- you even had Syria involved in the coalition alongside the United States -- to rally and try to push Iraq out of Kuwait.
But then the U.N., under existing resolutions right before the Gulf War said that when this war is over, the U.N. would have a weapons inspection team go in and work with the Iraqis to dismantle any weapons of mass destruction. It was envisioned that the weapons inspectors would be there only a matter of months.
Well, now we've been out 12 years, and still, tomorrow, at the United Nations when the lead international weapons inspectors brief the Security Council, they will say that they are unable, at this point, to guarantee that Iraq does or does not have nuclear weapons, or its biological, chemical and missile files have been totally disarmed. They're far from saying that.
COLLINS: Richard, I think I have another one here for you. I'd love your opinion on. "It's good to know," this is coming to us from Mark in San Francisco, "it's good to know that Bush has a plan to protect the Iraqi oil fields in the event of a military strike, and that the oil will be held in trust for the Iraqi people. However, I wonder if the Iraqi people might be more interested in a plan to protect civilian lives in the event of a military strike. To them, staying alive is more important than oil. But those Iraqis have different values than we Americans do."
ROTH: Well, I think that's a broad generalization on a pleasant Sunday morning like this. I think the Iraqi people, and many Iraqis throughout society there, do value life just as people in other countries. Some would say that the Iraqi government has a different view, and it's the Iraqi leadership that has taken the country down this road. There has been a massive brain drain, so to speak, with other key levels of society. Those that could flee in the last 12 or 13 years, so you have this huge gap between the people at the top and those who have now struggled under sanctions, and, of course, the type of rule shown here by Saddam Hussein and his government.
MOLINEAUX: We have one, let's talk to Alessio about this one, from Dale. Dale is concerned about some comments we've heard, actually from Saddam Hussein's son Uday over the past couple of days. He just said that if American soldiers go into Iraq, they'll go back in plastic bags. Of course, what he had said was that we could see something that makes September 11 look like a picnic. The question is, "has there been any international reaction to the recent comments made by Uday about the consequences of war with Iraq?"
VINCI: Well, I'm not aware of any direct response to what Saddam Hussein's son said in the past few days coming from French officials. But in general, everybody here in Europe understands that war is a dirty thing, and therefore, that's why, primarily, they're opposing it.
But more than just to follow up on something that my colleague, Richard, said earlier, following up on what will happen after the war, this is what the people here in Europe do not understand. I mean, they do understand that there is a plan to remove Saddam Hussein from power and they do know that the Americans have an overwhelming power to do so. But what -- the question that still many Europeans have is what will happen afterwards? What will happen to Iraq once the United States and its coalition, or the coalition of the willing, have removed Saddam Hussein from power? Who will run Iraq? Who will -- who will control the oil? Who -- what kind of government will be put in place? All these are questions that so far have not received as far as Europeans are concerned a good answer.
And therefore, there is a tremendous amount of uncertainty about whether or not war is the right thing at this time. Again, Europeans are very much opposed to Saddam Hussein, just as the Americans are. The big question is, how to do it, what is the best way to remove it. And as far as the Europeans are concerned right now, the best way is to contain Saddam Hussein.
COLLINS: And we do have another phone call, another question, I should say. Christina is on the line from Virginia. Richard, I think this one is going to out to you. Go ahead, Christina.
CALLER: Hi. It just occurred to me that since our capabilities military are much better than Iraq's, doesn't it sound like Saddam Hussein's son saying that it would look like a picnic if we attacked their country, is not an admission that they have really bad weapons? Because it sounds like an admission to me.
ROTH: Well, I've heard this type of comment from callers over the weekend on other programs. I think it's a little too easy and simplified to be able to say something like that. I was in Baghdad in 1990 before the '91 Gulf War, and you're going to hear all kinds of tough, vehement statements, bravado from Iraqi officials. In 1990, I heard someone say the American planes will never reach Baghdad. Well, that proved to be quite different, of course.
Times have changed. They've had many years to possibly build up and use weapons. And some have always questioned why didn't President Saddam Hussein issue the order to use chemical weapons in 1991 when the American forces drove Iraq out of Kuwait. I think it's a little too easy to say that right now. No one knows what they have or what their capability will have. But President Bush is worried about it, and he has said quite a few times, giving a veiled order to Iraqi generals, if Saddam Hussein gives you an order, don't follow it.
MOLINEAUX: Let's go to some of that bluster in the White House. Suzanne Malveaux, any response there to some of the latest, what, inflammatory rhetoric, bluster, saber rattling?
MALVEAUX: The administration largely dismisses that. They don't really respond to a lot of that because they feel like they're really focusing on the U.S. allies.
I want to bring up something that Alessio mentioned before about what is this post-Saddam going to look like, this regime. The administration has, in bits and pieces, actually talked about that, saying that afterwards, that there would be some sort of coalition, U.S.-led, that would actually be a combination of military and civilian forces that would be on the ground to help this kind of transition with the Iraqi people, but that it would not be in the control of the Iraqi people. Their own regime, their country immediately following Saddam Hussein's ouster, that there would be some sort of interim period where the United States would really lead that effort.
But that ultimately, they don't want that to last for years on end, really just months before they're able to kind of transition and see where they are in terms of getting infrastructure and their own government institutions together. That's one of the things that the administration talks about.
But also, they're very much aware of the sensibilities and the sensitivities of the European allies, and still realize they have yet to make their case against Saddam Hussein.
COLLINS: All right, Suzanne, thanks so much. And we thank all of our reporters today. We have Richard Roth in New York and we have Alessio Vinci -- I'm terrible at names. Alessio, I'm so sorry.
VINCI: Vinci.
COLLINS: Vinci.
VINCI: Vinci.
COLLINS: ... in Paris today.
VINCI: That's all right, Heidi.
COLLINS: Thank you so much.
MOLINEAUX: And thank you, all of you at home who actually sent us in your input, that's what it's all about. This is interactive.
COLLINS: That's right.
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 26, 2003 - 09:29 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
CHARLES MOLINEAUX, CNN ANCHOR: Our team of reporters is here to answer your questions. Joining us from the White House is CNN's Suzanne Malveaux, from the United Nations, senior correspondent Richard Roth, and from Paris, CNN's Alessio Vinci.
Let us take a look at some of what we're hearing already, because the e-mails are coming in, and predictably pretty divided. So we'll start off with the first one, that actually comes from Dave who writes, "not everyone in this country feels that Germany and France owe us from World War II. We were all in that together. We had losses together. There are many that think our president is a cowboy."
Let's go to Alessio for some of that, because we're looking at international reaction. What are we hearing over there?
ALESSIO VINCI, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, you do hear quite often here when you speak to western diplomats, to analysts, to even just the people in the streets, not just here in Paris, but even from Italy, where I'm usually based, or even by just talking to friends and colleagues across Europe, you do hear that there is a perception that George W. Bush is a president who wants to go it alone. He is a unilateralist.
If you remember, even before September the 11th when he became president, he was ruling out many of the international agreements that his predecessors had signed with countries around the world. So there is definitely a perception here that President Bush is a person who wants to go it alone, is a cowboy, as you said, because he also has a style of presenting his opinions.
Many of the people here are -- do not have something against the Americans in general. They do at the end believe that Saddam Hussein, for example, is a dangerous person and he should be removed from power, but they do not believe that perhaps the way the United States wants to do it is the only way or the best way.
HEIDI COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: All right, Alessio, thanks so much.
We're going to go onto our next one now. This one is from Bob, who is from Canada. He says: "George W. Bush now finds himself in the same position as Sir Winston Churchill in World War II, when the British public did not want to go to war." Suzanne Malveaux, can you comment for us on that one?
SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, the White House realizes they're looking at those polls and they see, yes, that most Americans want to give at least some months for those weapons inspectors to continue their jobs, and what the administration is arguing is that they don't need months to do that, that they already have the evidence necessary to show that Saddam Hussein is not going to comply with this U.N. Security Council resolution.
Having said that, the administration certainly wants the support of the American people. Ultimately, they say they believe that the president will outline a very convincing case. That if it's necessary to go to war, that the American people will be behind him, and history shows that generally speaking, once the State of the Union address has already been delivered, once the president makes the case that, yes, war is necessary that generally speaking, the American people do support the president, but, of course, yes, there's still a lot of questions, there's a lot of doubt, and White House officials realizing that they have yet to make a convincing case to the American people that this is really necessary, if the president decides he's going to go in that direction.
MOLINEAUX: Actually, that would very much appear to be the case, that a case does have to be made. Let's go to Richard Roth with this next e-mail. Richard, we have one that says -- "The case has not been made for war. We have at least a dozen countries with us, huh? Who are they? And where is this so-called evidence the White House keeps saying it has? This is wrong, wrong, wrong."
Is it clear that the evidence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was ample back in the '90s and what is being demanded of Iraq today is that it proved that it has destroyed those weapons? Is that clear with the U.N.?
RICHARD ROTH, CNN SR. U.N. CORRESPONDENT: No, it's not clear regarding the weapons. A different story from 1991, obviously. Iraq had invaded a U.N. member state, Kuwait. And thus, it was much easier for the members of the U.N. -- you even had Syria involved in the coalition alongside the United States -- to rally and try to push Iraq out of Kuwait.
But then the U.N., under existing resolutions right before the Gulf War said that when this war is over, the U.N. would have a weapons inspection team go in and work with the Iraqis to dismantle any weapons of mass destruction. It was envisioned that the weapons inspectors would be there only a matter of months.
Well, now we've been out 12 years, and still, tomorrow, at the United Nations when the lead international weapons inspectors brief the Security Council, they will say that they are unable, at this point, to guarantee that Iraq does or does not have nuclear weapons, or its biological, chemical and missile files have been totally disarmed. They're far from saying that.
COLLINS: Richard, I think I have another one here for you. I'd love your opinion on. "It's good to know," this is coming to us from Mark in San Francisco, "it's good to know that Bush has a plan to protect the Iraqi oil fields in the event of a military strike, and that the oil will be held in trust for the Iraqi people. However, I wonder if the Iraqi people might be more interested in a plan to protect civilian lives in the event of a military strike. To them, staying alive is more important than oil. But those Iraqis have different values than we Americans do."
ROTH: Well, I think that's a broad generalization on a pleasant Sunday morning like this. I think the Iraqi people, and many Iraqis throughout society there, do value life just as people in other countries. Some would say that the Iraqi government has a different view, and it's the Iraqi leadership that has taken the country down this road. There has been a massive brain drain, so to speak, with other key levels of society. Those that could flee in the last 12 or 13 years, so you have this huge gap between the people at the top and those who have now struggled under sanctions, and, of course, the type of rule shown here by Saddam Hussein and his government.
MOLINEAUX: We have one, let's talk to Alessio about this one, from Dale. Dale is concerned about some comments we've heard, actually from Saddam Hussein's son Uday over the past couple of days. He just said that if American soldiers go into Iraq, they'll go back in plastic bags. Of course, what he had said was that we could see something that makes September 11 look like a picnic. The question is, "has there been any international reaction to the recent comments made by Uday about the consequences of war with Iraq?"
VINCI: Well, I'm not aware of any direct response to what Saddam Hussein's son said in the past few days coming from French officials. But in general, everybody here in Europe understands that war is a dirty thing, and therefore, that's why, primarily, they're opposing it.
But more than just to follow up on something that my colleague, Richard, said earlier, following up on what will happen after the war, this is what the people here in Europe do not understand. I mean, they do understand that there is a plan to remove Saddam Hussein from power and they do know that the Americans have an overwhelming power to do so. But what -- the question that still many Europeans have is what will happen afterwards? What will happen to Iraq once the United States and its coalition, or the coalition of the willing, have removed Saddam Hussein from power? Who will run Iraq? Who will -- who will control the oil? Who -- what kind of government will be put in place? All these are questions that so far have not received as far as Europeans are concerned a good answer.
And therefore, there is a tremendous amount of uncertainty about whether or not war is the right thing at this time. Again, Europeans are very much opposed to Saddam Hussein, just as the Americans are. The big question is, how to do it, what is the best way to remove it. And as far as the Europeans are concerned right now, the best way is to contain Saddam Hussein.
COLLINS: And we do have another phone call, another question, I should say. Christina is on the line from Virginia. Richard, I think this one is going to out to you. Go ahead, Christina.
CALLER: Hi. It just occurred to me that since our capabilities military are much better than Iraq's, doesn't it sound like Saddam Hussein's son saying that it would look like a picnic if we attacked their country, is not an admission that they have really bad weapons? Because it sounds like an admission to me.
ROTH: Well, I've heard this type of comment from callers over the weekend on other programs. I think it's a little too easy and simplified to be able to say something like that. I was in Baghdad in 1990 before the '91 Gulf War, and you're going to hear all kinds of tough, vehement statements, bravado from Iraqi officials. In 1990, I heard someone say the American planes will never reach Baghdad. Well, that proved to be quite different, of course.
Times have changed. They've had many years to possibly build up and use weapons. And some have always questioned why didn't President Saddam Hussein issue the order to use chemical weapons in 1991 when the American forces drove Iraq out of Kuwait. I think it's a little too easy to say that right now. No one knows what they have or what their capability will have. But President Bush is worried about it, and he has said quite a few times, giving a veiled order to Iraqi generals, if Saddam Hussein gives you an order, don't follow it.
MOLINEAUX: Let's go to some of that bluster in the White House. Suzanne Malveaux, any response there to some of the latest, what, inflammatory rhetoric, bluster, saber rattling?
MALVEAUX: The administration largely dismisses that. They don't really respond to a lot of that because they feel like they're really focusing on the U.S. allies.
I want to bring up something that Alessio mentioned before about what is this post-Saddam going to look like, this regime. The administration has, in bits and pieces, actually talked about that, saying that afterwards, that there would be some sort of coalition, U.S.-led, that would actually be a combination of military and civilian forces that would be on the ground to help this kind of transition with the Iraqi people, but that it would not be in the control of the Iraqi people. Their own regime, their country immediately following Saddam Hussein's ouster, that there would be some sort of interim period where the United States would really lead that effort.
But that ultimately, they don't want that to last for years on end, really just months before they're able to kind of transition and see where they are in terms of getting infrastructure and their own government institutions together. That's one of the things that the administration talks about.
But also, they're very much aware of the sensibilities and the sensitivities of the European allies, and still realize they have yet to make their case against Saddam Hussein.
COLLINS: All right, Suzanne, thanks so much. And we thank all of our reporters today. We have Richard Roth in New York and we have Alessio Vinci -- I'm terrible at names. Alessio, I'm so sorry.
VINCI: Vinci.
COLLINS: Vinci.
VINCI: Vinci.
COLLINS: ... in Paris today.
VINCI: That's all right, Heidi.
COLLINS: Thank you so much.
MOLINEAUX: And thank you, all of you at home who actually sent us in your input, that's what it's all about. This is interactive.
COLLINS: That's right.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
