Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Saturday Morning News
Reporter's Notebook
Aired November 30, 2002 - 09:45 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: Time now for our Reporter's Notebook. We have asked for your e-mail questions about Iraq and the Kenya attack. And you've sent them in. You can still join the conversation, though, right?
KRIS OSBORN, CNN ANCHOR: Absolutely. And there is a spectrum of things to discuss. Go right ahead and call us at 1-800-807-2620.
Here to answer your questions, a panel of several people, including CNN's Nic Robertson. He is live in Baghdad right now. Jim Walsh, a national security expert from the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, and CNN security analyst Kelly McCann.
Thank you, and welcome to all of you.
JIM WALSH, KENNEDY SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT: Thank you.
OSBORN: Let's start with the first e-mail. It is from Steve. And let's direct this to Nic Robertson, who is live in Baghdad. Nic, of course, you have been going along with the inspectors. This e-mail asks, "Shouldn't the Bush administration put its entire focus on destroying al Qaeda before it executes another type of September 11 attack, instead of focusing so much on removing Saddam Hussein from power?"
Obviously, as you go along with these inspections, there is a high degree of concern about anything that could potentially trigger military action. Wanted to get your thoughts on that and the general issue it brings up.
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, certainly, the appearance of the inspections right now is that they are getting the cooperation that they are looking for. That's what the inspection team leaders have been telling us in their nightly briefings. So perhaps at that level, it appears as if the inspection program is going OK, and therefore the chance of a trigger happening to precipitate potential crisis whereby there could be conflict here, that doesn't seem to be on the cards right now.
Of course, that could happen at any time, but that doesn't seem to be the case right now. On the situation with al Qaeda, clearly it's going to take huge resources to deal with al Qaeda. There is an organization that has not only a global reach, it has global bases, it has a very sophisticated way of trying to -- of avoiding detection. Some of its -- even some of its senior operatives essentially aren't even known about. So it's going to take a lot of resources to do that. Whether or not the administration should focus less on Iraq and more on al Qaeda, that was seen to be a decision for the administration. But certainly al Qaeda is a very, very big organization to try and tackle.
CALLAWAY: On the phone with us now is Robin from Michigan.
Robin, good morning. What is your question, and who would you like to answer it?
CALLER: Hi, good morning. It doesn't matter who (UNINTELLIGIBLE). I have a concern that we've put the cart before the horse. Shouldn't the Bush administration first protect the homeland before going and stirring up the hornet's nest in Iraq? Or are there things in place here, and we as citizens just don't know and haven't been told what we should do or not do?
CALLAWAY: All right, Kelly, is homeland security taking a back seat?
KELLY MCCANN, CNN SECURITY ANALYST: I don't know whether it's taking a back seat. I mean, it's a good question, Robin. There are parallel interests here. And, you know, international politics, of course, is dynamic, and it's action-reaction. If we have an action in Iraq, we may see a reaction here domestically.
But large governments like the United States should be capable of having concurrent operations going. Both of these are significant operations. However, we have been assured that they have the manpower and the assets to do that. So it's a good question, but is it of concern.
OSBORN: Well, from domestic security, homeland security, to the international terrorism issue and the recent attacks against Israelis, we have an e-mail from Mark here. This is a good question for Dr. Jim Walsh, a Harvard national security fellow.
It reads, "Can you please give me a more detailed report on the specific missiles used?" A lot of talk about them. The e-mail goes on to read, "What is the availability of the ammunition and weapon, the ammunition for it?" Jim?
MCCANN: Well, Mark, that -- the missiles used in this attack are called in SA7 or Strela missile. First produced by the Russians, put into play in 1967. It's a widespread missile used by a variety of countries in a variety of conflicts.
Earlier in January of this year, you may remember, the Israelis intercepted a shipment with SA7s, with these surface-to-air missiles, that they believed were on their way to the Palestinian Authority. There is belief Hezbollah has this, that the Somalis have these weapons, and that al Qaeda has these weapons. The CIA actually provided SA7s to the mujahadeen in the Soviet-Afghan war.
So there are a lot of them around. They're not the best surface- to-air missiles in the world, they're rather primitive, but they're out there, and they're dangerous.
CALLAWAY: All right, let's go back to the phone lines now and talk with Ann. You're on the line. Where are you from, and what is your question this morning?
Ann, are you there?
Well, we lost Ann.
Let's go on to our next e-mail, and boy, do we have a lot of them. This one, I believe, is from Joseph. "Victims from Israel were given much attention. What about the other equally important victims who were from Kenya?" They're talking about the attacks this week, as we saw, three Israeli victims killed in the hotel bombing, and some 10 Kenyans killed in that.
And Jim, I'll go back to you for a moment on this. It does seem as if the Israeli victims were given a lot of attention, perhaps because it was believed that the attacks were aimed at Israelis. But indeed, we have seen a number of Kenyans die in this, and back in the 1998 embassy bombings, more Kenyans than anyone else. So shouldn't Kenya be more than anyone else perhaps concerned about terrorism in their country?
MCCANN: Absolutely, Catherine. There were over 200 people killed in the 1998 bombing attack, most of those were African nationals. A smaller number, in the teens, of Americans were killed. And naturally, if your own countrymen and women are killed, you tend to focus on that.
But I think it's important to highlight this. Terrorism kills not only the targets but the people who live in the countries where those terrorist attacks take place. That's also true in Bali and everywhere.
And I think Kenya has a strong interest, should have a strong interest in doing a better job in trying to protect their citizens and our citizens. It's not by accident that al Qaeda has picked Kenya. It picks Kenya because it thinks it's easier to carry out an operation. They can carry it off successfully and get out of town.
So Kenya has to do a lot better job than they are doing right now.
CALLAWAY: All right, Jim, and we also have Nic Robertson standing by in Baghdad for us, and Kelly McCann, our CNN security analyst, still standing by to answer your questions. But we need to take a break, right?
OSBORN: That's right. Stay tuned, though, all of the panelists will be right back after this break, take more of your questions and answer them live on the air.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
OSBORN: We welcome you back as we continue with our Reporter's Notebook. There are several people standing by, Jim Walsh, a national security expert, along with J. Kelly McCann, a CNN security expert, and, of course, CNN's Nic Robertson, who joins us now live from Baghdad.
Nic, let's go right back out to you. We have an e-mail from Terry in Simi Valley, California, which says, about the inspections process, you of course have been close to this since it began. "How many inspectors are there in Baghdad? Can the equipment that they're using detect underground hidden weapons of mass destruction? What if Saddam ordered all the nuclear and biological weapons to be stored in underground bunkers that they were impossible to detect by our equipment? Is this possible?"
ROBERTSON: Well, today there are 17 inspectors here. By Christmas the U.N. tells us there may be as many as 100 inspectors.
As for detecting underground sites, that is something that will prove difficult. There certainly is radar type of equipment that can be used from our helicopters that will enhance the inspectors' ability to try and see under the ground. There is surveillance photography that will allow them to try and analyze if a ground has been recently disturbed.
So there are some techniques to do that. But, of course, the inspectors have said all along the real trick to finding out where this documentation, where this equipment may be, if it exists, is going to be through the scientists who have worked on these programs.
That is going to be where the real breakthroughs and information come from. If one remembers, the real breakthrough in the '90s for the inspectors was when Hussein Kamal, President Saddam Hussein's son- in-law, defected to Jordan. He took with him a huge amount of information. That was when the inspectors learned about the biological warfare program.
It's going to take events like that to push these particular inspectors along that path of discovery.
CALLAWAY: All right. Thank you, Nic.
Now on the line with us is Richard from Virginia.
Good morning, Richard. Your question?
CALLER: Good morning. Are you there?
CALLAWAY: Yes, we're here. And you're live on the air. What is your question?
CALLER: Yes. I'm concerned in that what's going to happen if they don't find anything over there? Won't it make us look rather foolish?
CALLAWAY: Richard, is -- thank you, Richard. Let me go to Kelly with this one. Kelly, is the U.S. really concerned about that? MCCANN: Well, there's always a danger from the operational side of trust. In other words, we have to trust that the standards that we agreed on are actually being followed. And, of course, any operational entity wants to have firsthand intelligence that they can believe in. So there will always be that issue, and it's not weighted to the U.S. side.
And in fact, Mr. Blix has said that we're not in anybody's pocket, meaning the inspectors. So it's a good question. If we find nothing, I think that in fact there may be some discussions about why we didn't find anything, since the intel going into it indicated that in fact we should find something.
So that will be a interesting question to follow over the next couple of weeks.
CALLAWAY: All right. Kelly, you made a statement earlier about the fact that only 3 percent of the cargo ships that are coming into the U.S., 3 to 7 percent, are being inspected. And Dale from Canada has sent us an e-mail, he wants to know if that would -- shouldn't be the first step in improving homeland security. I mean, we're talking about inspections, of course, and looking for items such as the rockets, the surface-to-air missiles, that were fired at that Israeli charter jet leaving Kenya.
What are your thoughts on that? Should that be the next move for homeland security, to be more concerned about what is coming in, being shipped into the U.S.?
MCCANN: If this was a lottery, he would have won the bonus, because there are two problems. One is, of course, cargo, the other one is people. Without those two elements, you don't have an attack. So, I mean, being able to verify who is here or who is trying to get here and what they are bringing or what they have sent is critical.
With only 3 to 7 percent of the container ships being looked at, you can imagine that if you have a redundancy -- and remember, bin Laden, of course, was an expert in import-export. He made a lot of money doing that, they know the port facilities, they know bills of lading, they know how that works.
So even if only 20 percent of what they sent into the U.S. to be used here actually made it, that's still 20 percent too much. So those are two glaring problems we have, people and cargo, yes.
OSBORN: I wanted to get Jim Walsh, I wanted to get your perspective on one of the e-mails that came in. It was a very interesting question that's receiving a lot of attention right now, which is, what happens if the inspectors wind up, at least thus far, finding nothing? There's been a lot of talk about Saddam's attempt to divide members of the Security Council. How will material breach be assessed, and what happens if throughout the process not much is turned up, if anything?
WALSH: Well, I think it's a good question, Chris. But I would keep in mind that simply finding a buried weapon is not the only way Iraq may be found in material breach. They could find nothing, but if Iraq interferes or otherwise obstructs the inspectors, that can also be an independent cause for finding them in material breach.
But let's say Iraq is fully cooperative, they're able to go everywhere they want to go, interview everyone they want to interview, and they don't find anything at the end of the period. I think that's highly unlikely. If that happens, I'll buy both of you breakfast later this month.
But if that does happen, I think then it puts the administration in a difficult political position, because they'll have to go back to the Security Council, and that -- with a clean bill of health, it will make sort of military action after that, I think, politically difficult.
CALLAWAY: We have run out of time. But Nic, I want to ask you one last question on what is going to be taking place next. And you have mentioned this repeatedly that these -- this is just clearly the beginning of the inspections. Nothing can be determined at this point.
ROBERTSON: One of the things we know that's going to happen next is the U.N. is going to bring in a helicopter. There is just one of a fleet of eight that's going to help them get around the country more quickly, perhaps do some more of that aerial surveillance we have talked about.
But it looks like it's going to be a lot of long, slow legwork. I mean, another three sites today, 17 people to do that. So let's say we have 100 by Christmas, multiply that by five, that's, what, are we saying 15 sites today? We know they have at least 700, and that's before Iraq makes its declaration or they visit any of these surprise sites.
It's a huge task. And it looks like it's going to be a lot of long, slow legwork to even figure out what's happened over the last four years.
CALLAWAY: All right, CNN's Nic Robertson in Baghdad, Jim Walsh here with us in Atlanta from the Kennedy School of Government, and CNN security analyst Kelly McCann. Thank you all three for being with us this morning.
WALSH: Thank you.
MCCANN: You bet.
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 November 30, 2002 - 09:45 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
CATHERINE CALLAWAY, CNN ANCHOR: Time now for our Reporter's Notebook. We have asked for your e-mail questions about Iraq and the Kenya attack. And you've sent them in. You can still join the conversation, though, right?
KRIS OSBORN, CNN ANCHOR: Absolutely. And there is a spectrum of things to discuss. Go right ahead and call us at 1-800-807-2620.
Here to answer your questions, a panel of several people, including CNN's Nic Robertson. He is live in Baghdad right now. Jim Walsh, a national security expert from the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, and CNN security analyst Kelly McCann.
Thank you, and welcome to all of you.
JIM WALSH, KENNEDY SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT: Thank you.
OSBORN: Let's start with the first e-mail. It is from Steve. And let's direct this to Nic Robertson, who is live in Baghdad. Nic, of course, you have been going along with the inspectors. This e-mail asks, "Shouldn't the Bush administration put its entire focus on destroying al Qaeda before it executes another type of September 11 attack, instead of focusing so much on removing Saddam Hussein from power?"
Obviously, as you go along with these inspections, there is a high degree of concern about anything that could potentially trigger military action. Wanted to get your thoughts on that and the general issue it brings up.
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, certainly, the appearance of the inspections right now is that they are getting the cooperation that they are looking for. That's what the inspection team leaders have been telling us in their nightly briefings. So perhaps at that level, it appears as if the inspection program is going OK, and therefore the chance of a trigger happening to precipitate potential crisis whereby there could be conflict here, that doesn't seem to be on the cards right now.
Of course, that could happen at any time, but that doesn't seem to be the case right now. On the situation with al Qaeda, clearly it's going to take huge resources to deal with al Qaeda. There is an organization that has not only a global reach, it has global bases, it has a very sophisticated way of trying to -- of avoiding detection. Some of its -- even some of its senior operatives essentially aren't even known about. So it's going to take a lot of resources to do that. Whether or not the administration should focus less on Iraq and more on al Qaeda, that was seen to be a decision for the administration. But certainly al Qaeda is a very, very big organization to try and tackle.
CALLAWAY: On the phone with us now is Robin from Michigan.
Robin, good morning. What is your question, and who would you like to answer it?
CALLER: Hi, good morning. It doesn't matter who (UNINTELLIGIBLE). I have a concern that we've put the cart before the horse. Shouldn't the Bush administration first protect the homeland before going and stirring up the hornet's nest in Iraq? Or are there things in place here, and we as citizens just don't know and haven't been told what we should do or not do?
CALLAWAY: All right, Kelly, is homeland security taking a back seat?
KELLY MCCANN, CNN SECURITY ANALYST: I don't know whether it's taking a back seat. I mean, it's a good question, Robin. There are parallel interests here. And, you know, international politics, of course, is dynamic, and it's action-reaction. If we have an action in Iraq, we may see a reaction here domestically.
But large governments like the United States should be capable of having concurrent operations going. Both of these are significant operations. However, we have been assured that they have the manpower and the assets to do that. So it's a good question, but is it of concern.
OSBORN: Well, from domestic security, homeland security, to the international terrorism issue and the recent attacks against Israelis, we have an e-mail from Mark here. This is a good question for Dr. Jim Walsh, a Harvard national security fellow.
It reads, "Can you please give me a more detailed report on the specific missiles used?" A lot of talk about them. The e-mail goes on to read, "What is the availability of the ammunition and weapon, the ammunition for it?" Jim?
MCCANN: Well, Mark, that -- the missiles used in this attack are called in SA7 or Strela missile. First produced by the Russians, put into play in 1967. It's a widespread missile used by a variety of countries in a variety of conflicts.
Earlier in January of this year, you may remember, the Israelis intercepted a shipment with SA7s, with these surface-to-air missiles, that they believed were on their way to the Palestinian Authority. There is belief Hezbollah has this, that the Somalis have these weapons, and that al Qaeda has these weapons. The CIA actually provided SA7s to the mujahadeen in the Soviet-Afghan war.
So there are a lot of them around. They're not the best surface- to-air missiles in the world, they're rather primitive, but they're out there, and they're dangerous.
CALLAWAY: All right, let's go back to the phone lines now and talk with Ann. You're on the line. Where are you from, and what is your question this morning?
Ann, are you there?
Well, we lost Ann.
Let's go on to our next e-mail, and boy, do we have a lot of them. This one, I believe, is from Joseph. "Victims from Israel were given much attention. What about the other equally important victims who were from Kenya?" They're talking about the attacks this week, as we saw, three Israeli victims killed in the hotel bombing, and some 10 Kenyans killed in that.
And Jim, I'll go back to you for a moment on this. It does seem as if the Israeli victims were given a lot of attention, perhaps because it was believed that the attacks were aimed at Israelis. But indeed, we have seen a number of Kenyans die in this, and back in the 1998 embassy bombings, more Kenyans than anyone else. So shouldn't Kenya be more than anyone else perhaps concerned about terrorism in their country?
MCCANN: Absolutely, Catherine. There were over 200 people killed in the 1998 bombing attack, most of those were African nationals. A smaller number, in the teens, of Americans were killed. And naturally, if your own countrymen and women are killed, you tend to focus on that.
But I think it's important to highlight this. Terrorism kills not only the targets but the people who live in the countries where those terrorist attacks take place. That's also true in Bali and everywhere.
And I think Kenya has a strong interest, should have a strong interest in doing a better job in trying to protect their citizens and our citizens. It's not by accident that al Qaeda has picked Kenya. It picks Kenya because it thinks it's easier to carry out an operation. They can carry it off successfully and get out of town.
So Kenya has to do a lot better job than they are doing right now.
CALLAWAY: All right, Jim, and we also have Nic Robertson standing by in Baghdad for us, and Kelly McCann, our CNN security analyst, still standing by to answer your questions. But we need to take a break, right?
OSBORN: That's right. Stay tuned, though, all of the panelists will be right back after this break, take more of your questions and answer them live on the air.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
OSBORN: We welcome you back as we continue with our Reporter's Notebook. There are several people standing by, Jim Walsh, a national security expert, along with J. Kelly McCann, a CNN security expert, and, of course, CNN's Nic Robertson, who joins us now live from Baghdad.
Nic, let's go right back out to you. We have an e-mail from Terry in Simi Valley, California, which says, about the inspections process, you of course have been close to this since it began. "How many inspectors are there in Baghdad? Can the equipment that they're using detect underground hidden weapons of mass destruction? What if Saddam ordered all the nuclear and biological weapons to be stored in underground bunkers that they were impossible to detect by our equipment? Is this possible?"
ROBERTSON: Well, today there are 17 inspectors here. By Christmas the U.N. tells us there may be as many as 100 inspectors.
As for detecting underground sites, that is something that will prove difficult. There certainly is radar type of equipment that can be used from our helicopters that will enhance the inspectors' ability to try and see under the ground. There is surveillance photography that will allow them to try and analyze if a ground has been recently disturbed.
So there are some techniques to do that. But, of course, the inspectors have said all along the real trick to finding out where this documentation, where this equipment may be, if it exists, is going to be through the scientists who have worked on these programs.
That is going to be where the real breakthroughs and information come from. If one remembers, the real breakthrough in the '90s for the inspectors was when Hussein Kamal, President Saddam Hussein's son- in-law, defected to Jordan. He took with him a huge amount of information. That was when the inspectors learned about the biological warfare program.
It's going to take events like that to push these particular inspectors along that path of discovery.
CALLAWAY: All right. Thank you, Nic.
Now on the line with us is Richard from Virginia.
Good morning, Richard. Your question?
CALLER: Good morning. Are you there?
CALLAWAY: Yes, we're here. And you're live on the air. What is your question?
CALLER: Yes. I'm concerned in that what's going to happen if they don't find anything over there? Won't it make us look rather foolish?
CALLAWAY: Richard, is -- thank you, Richard. Let me go to Kelly with this one. Kelly, is the U.S. really concerned about that? MCCANN: Well, there's always a danger from the operational side of trust. In other words, we have to trust that the standards that we agreed on are actually being followed. And, of course, any operational entity wants to have firsthand intelligence that they can believe in. So there will always be that issue, and it's not weighted to the U.S. side.
And in fact, Mr. Blix has said that we're not in anybody's pocket, meaning the inspectors. So it's a good question. If we find nothing, I think that in fact there may be some discussions about why we didn't find anything, since the intel going into it indicated that in fact we should find something.
So that will be a interesting question to follow over the next couple of weeks.
CALLAWAY: All right. Kelly, you made a statement earlier about the fact that only 3 percent of the cargo ships that are coming into the U.S., 3 to 7 percent, are being inspected. And Dale from Canada has sent us an e-mail, he wants to know if that would -- shouldn't be the first step in improving homeland security. I mean, we're talking about inspections, of course, and looking for items such as the rockets, the surface-to-air missiles, that were fired at that Israeli charter jet leaving Kenya.
What are your thoughts on that? Should that be the next move for homeland security, to be more concerned about what is coming in, being shipped into the U.S.?
MCCANN: If this was a lottery, he would have won the bonus, because there are two problems. One is, of course, cargo, the other one is people. Without those two elements, you don't have an attack. So, I mean, being able to verify who is here or who is trying to get here and what they are bringing or what they have sent is critical.
With only 3 to 7 percent of the container ships being looked at, you can imagine that if you have a redundancy -- and remember, bin Laden, of course, was an expert in import-export. He made a lot of money doing that, they know the port facilities, they know bills of lading, they know how that works.
So even if only 20 percent of what they sent into the U.S. to be used here actually made it, that's still 20 percent too much. So those are two glaring problems we have, people and cargo, yes.
OSBORN: I wanted to get Jim Walsh, I wanted to get your perspective on one of the e-mails that came in. It was a very interesting question that's receiving a lot of attention right now, which is, what happens if the inspectors wind up, at least thus far, finding nothing? There's been a lot of talk about Saddam's attempt to divide members of the Security Council. How will material breach be assessed, and what happens if throughout the process not much is turned up, if anything?
WALSH: Well, I think it's a good question, Chris. But I would keep in mind that simply finding a buried weapon is not the only way Iraq may be found in material breach. They could find nothing, but if Iraq interferes or otherwise obstructs the inspectors, that can also be an independent cause for finding them in material breach.
But let's say Iraq is fully cooperative, they're able to go everywhere they want to go, interview everyone they want to interview, and they don't find anything at the end of the period. I think that's highly unlikely. If that happens, I'll buy both of you breakfast later this month.
But if that does happen, I think then it puts the administration in a difficult political position, because they'll have to go back to the Security Council, and that -- with a clean bill of health, it will make sort of military action after that, I think, politically difficult.
CALLAWAY: We have run out of time. But Nic, I want to ask you one last question on what is going to be taking place next. And you have mentioned this repeatedly that these -- this is just clearly the beginning of the inspections. Nothing can be determined at this point.
ROBERTSON: One of the things we know that's going to happen next is the U.N. is going to bring in a helicopter. There is just one of a fleet of eight that's going to help them get around the country more quickly, perhaps do some more of that aerial surveillance we have talked about.
But it looks like it's going to be a lot of long, slow legwork. I mean, another three sites today, 17 people to do that. So let's say we have 100 by Christmas, multiply that by five, that's, what, are we saying 15 sites today? We know they have at least 700, and that's before Iraq makes its declaration or they visit any of these surprise sites.
It's a huge task. And it looks like it's going to be a lot of long, slow legwork to even figure out what's happened over the last four years.
CALLAWAY: All right, CNN's Nic Robertson in Baghdad, Jim Walsh here with us in Atlanta from the Kennedy School of Government, and CNN security analyst Kelly McCann. Thank you all three for being with us this morning.
WALSH: Thank you.
MCCANN: You bet.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
