Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Saturday Morning News
Reporter's Notebook: War in Iraq
Aired September 21, 2002 - 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.
CATHERINE CALLAWAY, CNN ANCHOR: The conflict between Baghdad and Washington has been a war of words so far in a fight for world public opinion. And coming up in this segment now in our Reporter's Notebook, we're going to get two perspectives on the conflict.
We have CNN's Rula Amin in Baghdad, who we were trying to punch up so we could see if she was there. She's going to let us know how the story is playing out there. Also White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux, there she is, she's joining us from Washington.
And we are of course taking your phone calls on this. We have a 800 number out there for you to call us. And boy, have we been getting e-mails this morning on this topic, a lot of people wanting to weigh in on it.
MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: OK, let's go to the e-mail, shall we? Welcome, ladies.
"The U.S. and allies are still flying missions over Iraq, and we still have ground troops in the area, and there was never any kind of resolution or statement of an end of hostilities after Desert Storm. My question is, why do we need any new resolutions from the U.N. or from Congress or from anyone else? Why not just finish Desert Storm?" Bruce Wilson has that from Charlotte, North Carolina. Suzanne?
SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, the thinking of the administration really was, there was a lot of debate over that very issue, whether or not there was just going to be a new U.N. resolution, or if they were going to take a look at the old ones and say, Well, this is good enough, he's already been in breach of these old resolutions.
But the White House, the Bush administration, after several weeks of debating this, thought that, Let's wipe the slate clean, and let's go in there with a fresh start and say, outline, make it extremely clear that there is no question what it is that the united Nations is requiring of Iraq at this time.
That's why they decided they'd go ahead with a new resolution. They also thought it would be a way that world leaders would be able to sign, to get on board with this, that there would be no confusion over what it is that Saddam Hussein has or has not been able to do.
A part of that resolution, however, really is an outlining, a listing, if you will, of all of those previous resolutions that Saddam Hussein has broken, the promises that -- those things that he has not complied, the second part of it being what he needs to do to come into compliance.
And the third component, what the United States is hoping for, but does not look like it's going to get, is some sort of force, some way of making sure that Saddam Hussein complies.
O'BRIEN: All right. Let's go out to Rula in Baghdad. John L. in Sacramento has this for you, Rula. "Based on recognition that terror is a psychological effect, is there an indication that the Iraqi people are reacting to George Bush's threats of attack as an international act of terror on his part?"
RULA AMIN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, the way that Iraq is actually -- are reacting to President Bush is by just pure (UNINTELLIGIBLE) -- they just don't comprehend what's going on here. Whenever we go to the street and we pose questions to people, most of the times they ask us back instead of answering our questions.
For example, they say, How come President Bush says this is -- he's doing this for us to establish democracy here, to get rid of a dictatorship that exists in Iraq, when he knows that if there is a war here, the civilians are the ones who will pay the highest price? There will be civilian casualties, and those civilian casualties are the Iraqi people, the same people President Bush says he's waging this war partly in their interest.
The second thing they say is that they have been under 12 years of U.N. sanctions, suffering. Their economy has been devastated. Their children are starving. No education, no medical supplies. And they wonder, how come they can go through this with the U.S. insisting the sanctions should stay, at the same time with President Bush saying that he cares about them?
So they're really confused, and they don't get it...
CALLAWAY: Let's try to get some of our...
AMIN: ... Miles.
CALLAWAY: Let's try to get some of our phone calls on right now.
Paulette from Canada is on the line.
Good morning, Paulette. What's your question?
CALLER: I just wanted to know, even if they go in there and clear him completely, what's to stop him the second those -- they raise the airplane off of the tarmac carrying the inspectors away?
CALLER: Suzanne, do you want to address that?
MALVEAUX: I'm sorry, what would deter him from...
CALLER: Starting over once the inspectors have cleared him, and they leave the country, then what?
CALLAWAY: Well, isn't -- the U.S. has made no secret that they are looking for an entirely new regime there in Iraq.
MALVEAUX: Well, certainly, that's part of it, I mean, that's the main part of the policy is regime change. And also, they would go in there really to get all those -- to look at all the sites. It's going to be a totally new way of doing things. It's not inspections as usual, as we saw the last time around. They say that they want unfettered access, any time, any place.
Really, the goal would be is that Saddam Hussein would not be allowed really to upstart this whole thing all over again, and that Saddam Hussein would be powerless in doing so.
CALLAWAY: Let's...
O'BRIEN: All right, let's get -- want to get an e-mail to Rula here?
CALLAWAY: Yes.
O'BRIEN: Let's do that.
CALLAWAY: Go ahead.
O'BRIEN: All right. Dale Friesen, one of our frequent e- mailers, perhaps our most frequent e-mailer out of Burnaby, has this. "Is Baghdad trying to sabotage the inspections before they begin? Does the bellicose rhetoric indicate that the current Iraqi regime is not serious in its intent?"
AMIN: I'm supposed to answer that question?
O'BRIEN: Yes, Rula, that's for you.
AMIN: First thing, let me answer one aspect of the last question, which -- OK. Let's answer one aspect of the last question, which is the inspectors' task. The inspectors are supposed to come here, not just to rid Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction, but also to make sure that Iraq won't acquire them, or won't try to acquire such weapons in the future.
So their task has two aspects. One is to verify that they don't have them anymore, and second is to monitor. When the inspectors were here in 1998, they had a lot of cameras in different places in Iraq, in facilities they suspected that Iraq may be able to use to produce weapons. So they had cameras there connected to original sensor in Baghdad where the inspectors were able to monitor all these places for 24 hours to make sure the Iraqis were not using them for any other purpose than what is listed there.
And so they were hoping, the inspectors were hoping and the U.N. was hoping, that this kind of monitoring system would actually continue even after the inspectors verified that Iraq doesn't have any more weapons of mass destruction.
Now, what's the other question?
O'BRIEN: It was the e-mail question, Rula. And the question is, is Baghdad trying to sabotage the inspections before they begin?
AMIN: Well, it's hard for us to say that at this point, because we have a turn in the Iraqi position, at least officially, where the Iraqi officials are saying they are going to accept the return of inspectors without any conditions. And Iraqi officials off the record say they will give them all kind of access.
However, today we had a statement from the Iraqi leadership where they said that they are not going to be willing to deal with a new Security Council resolution that is in contrary to what they have agreed with Kofi Annan upon.
And actually, what they are referring to is an agreement they made with the U.N. secretary general in 1999 on how will the inspectors inspect the presidential site, meaning all the palaces, all the kind of compounds that are related to the Iraqi president.
And according to that agreement, the inspectors would only go there if they are escorted by diplomats, and they had to notify the Iraqis prior to their visit.
So the Iraqis are now saying, today, just this afternoon, that they want to make sure that if those inspectors return, these guidelines are still in place.
And actually we heard from the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, who said actually these guidelines are still valid and will be applied -- Miles.
CALLAWAY: Let's take another phone call now, this one from Joe in Georgia. Good morning, Joe.
CALLER: Good morning. First, you know, the focus seems to be on starting the war. I'm more interested in the end game, how do we get out of it? And I don't hear the Bush administration talking much about the necessity for a five- to 10-year U.S. military occupation, $100 billion-plus program to rebuild Iraq. And I think the American taxpayers are going to be caught with a huge bill at the end of all this.
CALLAWAY: Suzanne?
MALVEAUX: Well, actually, there's been a lot of discussion about that. You mentioned that figure as well. That came up just this past week. There has been some debate over just how much this war is actually going to cost. But the United States is hoping, of course, that the allies are going to pick up a lot of that.
But that is really a very good question. It's one of the things that the administration is concerned about is the cost of the war, and whether or not seeing if these other world leaders are really going to sign on board with the costs.
I do want to bring up another point too that Rula had mentioned, about this latest development this morning, with them saying that, We're not going to go along with the U.N. resolution. The White House responding to that, saying that this is really no surprise, that it was expected, that the president earlier in the week, as well as Secretary Powell, both saying they thought this was a ploy, this offer to allow inspectors back inside, that Saddam Hussein cannot be trusted.
But really the point of the administration that they are making this morning is that it really doesn't matter what Saddam Hussein says or what he agrees to, because even a U.N. resolution, whether or not they get one or not, the United States is willing to go in and make sure that Saddam Hussein complies either way.
So this is something that was expected and that the White House is dismissing this morning.
O'BRIEN: All right, let's get -- Suzanne, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) -- Let's get a quick one in for Rula. Rula, quick answer, if you could, because we're just about out of time. This is -- a lot of people are curious about this.
Richard in Ontario has this. "How is it for you on a daily basis? We hear stories of American women pilots having to wear headdresses and sit in the backs of Jeeps in Saudi Arabia. What's your day like?"
AMIN: Not in Iraq. This is a secular country. And it used to be even more secular. In the last few years during the sanctions time, the deterioration of the economy, more and more people got more religious. There were new rules, people can't drink alcohol in restaurants.
But for example, for us, we don't have to cover our hair. We can go to restaurants. We socialize. There are no restrictions, not on us, and not on Iraqi women -- Miles.
CALLAWAY: All right, thank you...
O'BRIEN: Thank you, Rula.
(CROSSTALK)
CALLAWAY: ... Rula Amin, joining us in Baghdad this morning. Thanks, Rula. And Suzanne Malveaux, who's in Washington this morning, but Suzanne will be back coming up next hour.
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 September 21, 2002 - 09:35 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
CATHERINE CALLAWAY, CNN ANCHOR: The conflict between Baghdad and Washington has been a war of words so far in a fight for world public opinion. And coming up in this segment now in our Reporter's Notebook, we're going to get two perspectives on the conflict.
We have CNN's Rula Amin in Baghdad, who we were trying to punch up so we could see if she was there. She's going to let us know how the story is playing out there. Also White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux, there she is, she's joining us from Washington.
And we are of course taking your phone calls on this. We have a 800 number out there for you to call us. And boy, have we been getting e-mails this morning on this topic, a lot of people wanting to weigh in on it.
MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: OK, let's go to the e-mail, shall we? Welcome, ladies.
"The U.S. and allies are still flying missions over Iraq, and we still have ground troops in the area, and there was never any kind of resolution or statement of an end of hostilities after Desert Storm. My question is, why do we need any new resolutions from the U.N. or from Congress or from anyone else? Why not just finish Desert Storm?" Bruce Wilson has that from Charlotte, North Carolina. Suzanne?
SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, the thinking of the administration really was, there was a lot of debate over that very issue, whether or not there was just going to be a new U.N. resolution, or if they were going to take a look at the old ones and say, Well, this is good enough, he's already been in breach of these old resolutions.
But the White House, the Bush administration, after several weeks of debating this, thought that, Let's wipe the slate clean, and let's go in there with a fresh start and say, outline, make it extremely clear that there is no question what it is that the united Nations is requiring of Iraq at this time.
That's why they decided they'd go ahead with a new resolution. They also thought it would be a way that world leaders would be able to sign, to get on board with this, that there would be no confusion over what it is that Saddam Hussein has or has not been able to do.
A part of that resolution, however, really is an outlining, a listing, if you will, of all of those previous resolutions that Saddam Hussein has broken, the promises that -- those things that he has not complied, the second part of it being what he needs to do to come into compliance.
And the third component, what the United States is hoping for, but does not look like it's going to get, is some sort of force, some way of making sure that Saddam Hussein complies.
O'BRIEN: All right. Let's go out to Rula in Baghdad. John L. in Sacramento has this for you, Rula. "Based on recognition that terror is a psychological effect, is there an indication that the Iraqi people are reacting to George Bush's threats of attack as an international act of terror on his part?"
RULA AMIN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, the way that Iraq is actually -- are reacting to President Bush is by just pure (UNINTELLIGIBLE) -- they just don't comprehend what's going on here. Whenever we go to the street and we pose questions to people, most of the times they ask us back instead of answering our questions.
For example, they say, How come President Bush says this is -- he's doing this for us to establish democracy here, to get rid of a dictatorship that exists in Iraq, when he knows that if there is a war here, the civilians are the ones who will pay the highest price? There will be civilian casualties, and those civilian casualties are the Iraqi people, the same people President Bush says he's waging this war partly in their interest.
The second thing they say is that they have been under 12 years of U.N. sanctions, suffering. Their economy has been devastated. Their children are starving. No education, no medical supplies. And they wonder, how come they can go through this with the U.S. insisting the sanctions should stay, at the same time with President Bush saying that he cares about them?
So they're really confused, and they don't get it...
CALLAWAY: Let's try to get some of our...
AMIN: ... Miles.
CALLAWAY: Let's try to get some of our phone calls on right now.
Paulette from Canada is on the line.
Good morning, Paulette. What's your question?
CALLER: I just wanted to know, even if they go in there and clear him completely, what's to stop him the second those -- they raise the airplane off of the tarmac carrying the inspectors away?
CALLER: Suzanne, do you want to address that?
MALVEAUX: I'm sorry, what would deter him from...
CALLER: Starting over once the inspectors have cleared him, and they leave the country, then what?
CALLAWAY: Well, isn't -- the U.S. has made no secret that they are looking for an entirely new regime there in Iraq.
MALVEAUX: Well, certainly, that's part of it, I mean, that's the main part of the policy is regime change. And also, they would go in there really to get all those -- to look at all the sites. It's going to be a totally new way of doing things. It's not inspections as usual, as we saw the last time around. They say that they want unfettered access, any time, any place.
Really, the goal would be is that Saddam Hussein would not be allowed really to upstart this whole thing all over again, and that Saddam Hussein would be powerless in doing so.
CALLAWAY: Let's...
O'BRIEN: All right, let's get -- want to get an e-mail to Rula here?
CALLAWAY: Yes.
O'BRIEN: Let's do that.
CALLAWAY: Go ahead.
O'BRIEN: All right. Dale Friesen, one of our frequent e- mailers, perhaps our most frequent e-mailer out of Burnaby, has this. "Is Baghdad trying to sabotage the inspections before they begin? Does the bellicose rhetoric indicate that the current Iraqi regime is not serious in its intent?"
AMIN: I'm supposed to answer that question?
O'BRIEN: Yes, Rula, that's for you.
AMIN: First thing, let me answer one aspect of the last question, which -- OK. Let's answer one aspect of the last question, which is the inspectors' task. The inspectors are supposed to come here, not just to rid Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction, but also to make sure that Iraq won't acquire them, or won't try to acquire such weapons in the future.
So their task has two aspects. One is to verify that they don't have them anymore, and second is to monitor. When the inspectors were here in 1998, they had a lot of cameras in different places in Iraq, in facilities they suspected that Iraq may be able to use to produce weapons. So they had cameras there connected to original sensor in Baghdad where the inspectors were able to monitor all these places for 24 hours to make sure the Iraqis were not using them for any other purpose than what is listed there.
And so they were hoping, the inspectors were hoping and the U.N. was hoping, that this kind of monitoring system would actually continue even after the inspectors verified that Iraq doesn't have any more weapons of mass destruction.
Now, what's the other question?
O'BRIEN: It was the e-mail question, Rula. And the question is, is Baghdad trying to sabotage the inspections before they begin?
AMIN: Well, it's hard for us to say that at this point, because we have a turn in the Iraqi position, at least officially, where the Iraqi officials are saying they are going to accept the return of inspectors without any conditions. And Iraqi officials off the record say they will give them all kind of access.
However, today we had a statement from the Iraqi leadership where they said that they are not going to be willing to deal with a new Security Council resolution that is in contrary to what they have agreed with Kofi Annan upon.
And actually, what they are referring to is an agreement they made with the U.N. secretary general in 1999 on how will the inspectors inspect the presidential site, meaning all the palaces, all the kind of compounds that are related to the Iraqi president.
And according to that agreement, the inspectors would only go there if they are escorted by diplomats, and they had to notify the Iraqis prior to their visit.
So the Iraqis are now saying, today, just this afternoon, that they want to make sure that if those inspectors return, these guidelines are still in place.
And actually we heard from the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, who said actually these guidelines are still valid and will be applied -- Miles.
CALLAWAY: Let's take another phone call now, this one from Joe in Georgia. Good morning, Joe.
CALLER: Good morning. First, you know, the focus seems to be on starting the war. I'm more interested in the end game, how do we get out of it? And I don't hear the Bush administration talking much about the necessity for a five- to 10-year U.S. military occupation, $100 billion-plus program to rebuild Iraq. And I think the American taxpayers are going to be caught with a huge bill at the end of all this.
CALLAWAY: Suzanne?
MALVEAUX: Well, actually, there's been a lot of discussion about that. You mentioned that figure as well. That came up just this past week. There has been some debate over just how much this war is actually going to cost. But the United States is hoping, of course, that the allies are going to pick up a lot of that.
But that is really a very good question. It's one of the things that the administration is concerned about is the cost of the war, and whether or not seeing if these other world leaders are really going to sign on board with the costs.
I do want to bring up another point too that Rula had mentioned, about this latest development this morning, with them saying that, We're not going to go along with the U.N. resolution. The White House responding to that, saying that this is really no surprise, that it was expected, that the president earlier in the week, as well as Secretary Powell, both saying they thought this was a ploy, this offer to allow inspectors back inside, that Saddam Hussein cannot be trusted.
But really the point of the administration that they are making this morning is that it really doesn't matter what Saddam Hussein says or what he agrees to, because even a U.N. resolution, whether or not they get one or not, the United States is willing to go in and make sure that Saddam Hussein complies either way.
So this is something that was expected and that the White House is dismissing this morning.
O'BRIEN: All right, let's get -- Suzanne, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) -- Let's get a quick one in for Rula. Rula, quick answer, if you could, because we're just about out of time. This is -- a lot of people are curious about this.
Richard in Ontario has this. "How is it for you on a daily basis? We hear stories of American women pilots having to wear headdresses and sit in the backs of Jeeps in Saudi Arabia. What's your day like?"
AMIN: Not in Iraq. This is a secular country. And it used to be even more secular. In the last few years during the sanctions time, the deterioration of the economy, more and more people got more religious. There were new rules, people can't drink alcohol in restaurants.
But for example, for us, we don't have to cover our hair. We can go to restaurants. We socialize. There are no restrictions, not on us, and not on Iraqi women -- Miles.
CALLAWAY: All right, thank you...
O'BRIEN: Thank you, Rula.
(CROSSTALK)
CALLAWAY: ... Rula Amin, joining us in Baghdad this morning. Thanks, Rula. And Suzanne Malveaux, who's in Washington this morning, but Suzanne will be back coming up next hour.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
