Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Sunday
Interview With Jim Walsh
Aired April 27, 2003 - 18:05 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.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: The president used weapons of mass destruction to make his case for war in Iraq. So far, of course, none have been found. And there are some renewed calls for U.N. weapons inspectors to return to Iraq and resume their search. CNN's Chris Burns joins us now from the White House with more -- Chris.
CHRIS BURNS, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Anderson. Well, some of these calls coming in the talk shows today here in Washington. As those new chemical agents, at least suspected chemical agents were found, however, the Bush administration even today is saying that they're standing by their policy to remain in charge of those inspections.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BURNS (voice-over): It's a mission to find what President Bush went to war over. U.S.-led experts scouring Iraq for weapons of mass destruction.
GEN. TOMMY FRANKS, COMMANDER, U.S. CENTRAL COMMAND: We do not want to come across like -- like Baghdad Bob and say we have it before we have it. But we do believe that it is there.
BURNS: There's fresh criticism, however, that even if the United States confirms it's found WMDs, that won't be enough.
SEN. CARL LEVIN (D), MICHIGAN: The skepticism about America in this world is so deep that if we find and when we find weapons of mass destruction, that many people will not believe it. They'll think -- many people around the world will think we planted those weapons unless the U.N. inspectors are there with us.
MOHAMED ELBARADEI, DIRECTOR GENERAL, IAEA: We need to go back as soon as we can, not only for credibility purpose, but we still have a mandate under the Security Council resolution.
BURNS: The U.N. resolutions call for Iraq to be declared WMD- free before lifting sanction the U.S. now wants lifted, sanctions barring trade and investments that could now help rebuild Iraq. President Bush is maintaining a tough line on the U.S.-led coalition, keeping firm control of post-war Iraq, at least for now.
ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The president is looking forward, not backward. And we will reassess the framework designed to disarm the Iraqi regime, given the new facts on the ground. (END VIDEOTAPE)
BURNS: Now, the Bush administration argues that it has its own team of international inspectors, including former U.N. inspectors. And that it could eventually work with the United Nations in verifying any smoking guns that might be found. But that still doesn't douse the criticism even here in Washington that even with -- that without U.N. participation from the very start, there could still be a lot of uncertainty and suspicion -- Anderson.
COOPER: All right, Chris Burns at the White House, thanks very much. We're going to continue on this topic, talking a little bit more about the calls for the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq. We're joined by Jim Walsh. He is a research fellow at Harvard University, and an expert on weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, as well as the Middle East. Jim, good to see you, as always.
So we heard Ari Fleischer saying that the president is looking forward, not back, the implication being that Hans Blix and the U.N. weapons inspectors are part of the past. Do you think that's a mistake?
JIM WALSH, HARVARD UNIV.: Well, I really don't know what that means, I'm looking forward, not back. There really was no rationale, no reason given why you wouldn't bring in U.N. inspectors. And I think there's every reason to. The U.N. inspectors have a lot of expertise. They have more experience looking for weapons in Iraq than anyone does. And while it's true that some of the military personnel looking for those weapons have gone through coursework and training to look for them. They don't have nearly the experience that the U.N. guys have.
Now, the Pentagon has hired some of those, but they need all the help they can get. And so I think it's a mistake for them not to bring in IAEA and UNMOVIC to help out with this job.
COOPER: But you know full well the reasons they wouldn't bring the U.N. inspectors in. Perhaps it doesn't make sense on the ground in terms of finding the weapons, but from the larger political implications of bringing in the U.N., allowing the U.N. a foothold in after there was so much trouble in the U.N. getting resolutions passed, I suppose that's the rationale for not wanting to have them to be brought in.
WALSH: Well, I think there are a couple reasons, Anderson, and here I'm simply speculating, but there may be some bad blood between the Department of Defense and the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency and UNMOVIC, because both Hans Blix and Dr. ElBaradei opposed military action in Iraq. They wanted to continue inspections, so there may be some bitter feelings there.
And frankly, this is what the Pentagon did in Afghanistan. They took control of the situation and took all the evidence themselves. They may be saying we want any intelligence to stay with us, we don't want to give up that intelligence to other folks, and we want to control it. But I think that's short-sighted because the real issue here, and it was raised by Senator Carl Levin, is one of credibility. We want the rest of the world to know that these are weapons of mass destruction, and so we need an independent body, particularly one that might have opposed war in Afghanistan, an independent body to come in and be able to verify those findings.
COOPER: So your argument is bring the U.N. weapons inspectors in not so much because U.S. weapons inspectors, some of which are formerly U.N. weapons inspectors, are not up to the task; it's more the larger political implications, the quest for, as you said, credibility to a larger world audience?
WALSH: I think that's absolutely right, but I would actually answer it's both those. The first issue is credibility, but there's -- I'd say the second reason is that not all these experts within the Pentagon are as expert as we would like. Judy Miller in the "New York Times" reported last week that some of the folks on those inspection teams were violating Army protocol and actually opening up (UNINTELLIGIBLE) to look inside and to see what was there. Well, that's a good way to get folks killed. I think we really ought to leave this to the people who have been doing this for 13 years. That's the safest way to go about it. And also I think the one that's most politically wise.
COOPER: OK, let's just briefly talk about this discovery of possibly, well, at least initially tested positive for -- for traces of cyclosarin, perhaps another agent, mustard gas. Your thoughts on the significance of this?
WALSH: Well, I have mixed feelings about it, in part because I've been predicting that there are chemical weapons in Iraq so I keep waiting for them to find them. I think that they're there, I think they'll find them, but I do think we have to be cautious here, because as Nic pointed out, we've had several instances now where people in the field have used field tests and then claimed that there was a smoking gun, claimed that there was bio, claimed that there was chem, claimed that there were radioactive materials, and then it turned out not to be what they thought it was.
So I think we ought to take a deep breath here and let the tests be conducted. But I think as was pointed out, the environment in which they were found does lead to some suspicion that they may be chemical weapons.
COOPER: All right, Jim Walsh, thanks for joining us today, appreciate it.
WALSH: Thank you, Anderson.
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 April 27, 2003 - 18:05 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: The president used weapons of mass destruction to make his case for war in Iraq. So far, of course, none have been found. And there are some renewed calls for U.N. weapons inspectors to return to Iraq and resume their search. CNN's Chris Burns joins us now from the White House with more -- Chris.
CHRIS BURNS, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Anderson. Well, some of these calls coming in the talk shows today here in Washington. As those new chemical agents, at least suspected chemical agents were found, however, the Bush administration even today is saying that they're standing by their policy to remain in charge of those inspections.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BURNS (voice-over): It's a mission to find what President Bush went to war over. U.S.-led experts scouring Iraq for weapons of mass destruction.
GEN. TOMMY FRANKS, COMMANDER, U.S. CENTRAL COMMAND: We do not want to come across like -- like Baghdad Bob and say we have it before we have it. But we do believe that it is there.
BURNS: There's fresh criticism, however, that even if the United States confirms it's found WMDs, that won't be enough.
SEN. CARL LEVIN (D), MICHIGAN: The skepticism about America in this world is so deep that if we find and when we find weapons of mass destruction, that many people will not believe it. They'll think -- many people around the world will think we planted those weapons unless the U.N. inspectors are there with us.
MOHAMED ELBARADEI, DIRECTOR GENERAL, IAEA: We need to go back as soon as we can, not only for credibility purpose, but we still have a mandate under the Security Council resolution.
BURNS: The U.N. resolutions call for Iraq to be declared WMD- free before lifting sanction the U.S. now wants lifted, sanctions barring trade and investments that could now help rebuild Iraq. President Bush is maintaining a tough line on the U.S.-led coalition, keeping firm control of post-war Iraq, at least for now.
ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The president is looking forward, not backward. And we will reassess the framework designed to disarm the Iraqi regime, given the new facts on the ground. (END VIDEOTAPE)
BURNS: Now, the Bush administration argues that it has its own team of international inspectors, including former U.N. inspectors. And that it could eventually work with the United Nations in verifying any smoking guns that might be found. But that still doesn't douse the criticism even here in Washington that even with -- that without U.N. participation from the very start, there could still be a lot of uncertainty and suspicion -- Anderson.
COOPER: All right, Chris Burns at the White House, thanks very much. We're going to continue on this topic, talking a little bit more about the calls for the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq. We're joined by Jim Walsh. He is a research fellow at Harvard University, and an expert on weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, as well as the Middle East. Jim, good to see you, as always.
So we heard Ari Fleischer saying that the president is looking forward, not back, the implication being that Hans Blix and the U.N. weapons inspectors are part of the past. Do you think that's a mistake?
JIM WALSH, HARVARD UNIV.: Well, I really don't know what that means, I'm looking forward, not back. There really was no rationale, no reason given why you wouldn't bring in U.N. inspectors. And I think there's every reason to. The U.N. inspectors have a lot of expertise. They have more experience looking for weapons in Iraq than anyone does. And while it's true that some of the military personnel looking for those weapons have gone through coursework and training to look for them. They don't have nearly the experience that the U.N. guys have.
Now, the Pentagon has hired some of those, but they need all the help they can get. And so I think it's a mistake for them not to bring in IAEA and UNMOVIC to help out with this job.
COOPER: But you know full well the reasons they wouldn't bring the U.N. inspectors in. Perhaps it doesn't make sense on the ground in terms of finding the weapons, but from the larger political implications of bringing in the U.N., allowing the U.N. a foothold in after there was so much trouble in the U.N. getting resolutions passed, I suppose that's the rationale for not wanting to have them to be brought in.
WALSH: Well, I think there are a couple reasons, Anderson, and here I'm simply speculating, but there may be some bad blood between the Department of Defense and the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency and UNMOVIC, because both Hans Blix and Dr. ElBaradei opposed military action in Iraq. They wanted to continue inspections, so there may be some bitter feelings there.
And frankly, this is what the Pentagon did in Afghanistan. They took control of the situation and took all the evidence themselves. They may be saying we want any intelligence to stay with us, we don't want to give up that intelligence to other folks, and we want to control it. But I think that's short-sighted because the real issue here, and it was raised by Senator Carl Levin, is one of credibility. We want the rest of the world to know that these are weapons of mass destruction, and so we need an independent body, particularly one that might have opposed war in Afghanistan, an independent body to come in and be able to verify those findings.
COOPER: So your argument is bring the U.N. weapons inspectors in not so much because U.S. weapons inspectors, some of which are formerly U.N. weapons inspectors, are not up to the task; it's more the larger political implications, the quest for, as you said, credibility to a larger world audience?
WALSH: I think that's absolutely right, but I would actually answer it's both those. The first issue is credibility, but there's -- I'd say the second reason is that not all these experts within the Pentagon are as expert as we would like. Judy Miller in the "New York Times" reported last week that some of the folks on those inspection teams were violating Army protocol and actually opening up (UNINTELLIGIBLE) to look inside and to see what was there. Well, that's a good way to get folks killed. I think we really ought to leave this to the people who have been doing this for 13 years. That's the safest way to go about it. And also I think the one that's most politically wise.
COOPER: OK, let's just briefly talk about this discovery of possibly, well, at least initially tested positive for -- for traces of cyclosarin, perhaps another agent, mustard gas. Your thoughts on the significance of this?
WALSH: Well, I have mixed feelings about it, in part because I've been predicting that there are chemical weapons in Iraq so I keep waiting for them to find them. I think that they're there, I think they'll find them, but I do think we have to be cautious here, because as Nic pointed out, we've had several instances now where people in the field have used field tests and then claimed that there was a smoking gun, claimed that there was bio, claimed that there was chem, claimed that there were radioactive materials, and then it turned out not to be what they thought it was.
So I think we ought to take a deep breath here and let the tests be conducted. But I think as was pointed out, the environment in which they were found does lead to some suspicion that they may be chemical weapons.
COOPER: All right, Jim Walsh, thanks for joining us today, appreciate it.
WALSH: Thank you, Anderson.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
