Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Talkback Live

Should the U.S. Go it Alone in Iraq?

Aired January 23, 2003 - 15:00   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.


ARTHEL NEVILLE, HOST: Welcome. I'm Arthel Neville. Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE.
Some U.S. allies sound a word of caution about a possible war with Iraq. France says the decision must come from the United Nations. Germany says don't expect a vote of approval.

And as Iraq's neighbors meet to figure out how to avert war, the Bush Administration knows it has a lot of convincing to do. White House officials are speaking out, trying to sell their strategy on Iraq.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMAN: It is entirely conceivable that at the end of the day when Europe answers the call, France won't be on the line. That is a distinct possibility. That's up to the French.

No matter what the decision French make, the president will respect France, will respect France's leaders, and the United States, and the people of the United States will continue to have the strong relationship with the people of France.

It will not stop the president from doing what he believes is necessary to protect the world from the threat of Saddam Hussein.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEVILLE: Now, if the U.S. doesn't have complete international support, should it go it alone in Iraq?

We have two guests joining us now from Washington for some perspective on that story. Bruce Shapiro is a contributing editor for "The Nation." Also with us is former assistant secretary of defense, Frank Gaffney. He is the president of the Center for Security Policy.

Want to welcome both of you to TALKBACK LIVE today.

FRANK GAFFNEY, FORMER ASST. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Thank you, Arthel.

BRUCE SHAPIRO, CONTRIBUTING EDITOR, "THE NATION": Glad to be here.

NEVILLE: Good. Frank, let me start with you today.

Why aren't France and Germany convinced?

GAFFNEY: I don't think it, frankly, has very much to do with convincing them. I think what it has to do with is their perception of their national interests.

The French, let's remember, have been running interference with Saddam Hussein for a decade. They believe it's in their national interest to have a France and an Iraq doing business together. And if it's with Saddam Hussein, who is able to maintain very severe control and sell oil, and perhaps France could once again sell nuclear reactors to Iraq, then this is a very commercially-driven view of France's interests.

And I think they also see, and perhaps Germany does as well, some desirability in forging a European alternative to America as a real super power.

So for these reasons, I don't think they're likely to be convinced, and I think, as we just heard Ari Fleischer say, you know, the president has to act on the basis of what he believes is America's vital interests, as well as what may be a less sort of pecuniary notion of the world's interests.

SHAPIRO: But I think there's more to it than that. I mean, let's not forget that this is a policy which is in trouble not only in Europe, where never mind France and Germany, NATO may actually not be able to participate, if France and Germany can't be persuaded.

It's in trouble at home. The support for unilateral action by the United States has actually eroded. Americans, like Europeans, see no more imminent threat from Saddam Hussein than they did four months ago, six months ago, ten months ago.

And what's more, Americans who know about imminent threat, who know about the Cuban missile crisis, who know about World War II, who remember all these things, have a tremendous sense that the U.S. should not go it alone here. That there are good reasons, if you're going to unleash the massive cost financially, the massive cost in lives, all the unknowns of a regional war, to have international consensus before moving forward.

GAFFNEY: But Arthel, we should be clear. There's no such thing as international consensus. Iraq is not going to agree, for example.

SHAPIRO: No, but the United Nations exists, and the Security Council exists...

GAFFNEY: Wait a minute, wait just a moment -- just a moment.

SHAPIRO: To secure some kind of consensus among the world's nations.

GAFFNEY: If I may, there is not going to be international consensus, especially if you have people who are, indeed, running interference with Saddam Hussein sitting at the table, perhaps as France has indicated it might do, casting a veto.

What you will have, assuredly, is international support for American leadership. And this notion we will be doing alone...

NEVILLE: Frank, I'm not sure that there is overwhelming international support here.

GAFFNEY: There isn't overwhelming international support, but I will guarantee you this, Arthel.

If, as I think we will, the United States takes the lead, stops this sort of, well, maybe we will, maybe we won't, we sure hope we don't have to, and decides that we will liberate the people of Iraq, first of all, you will have them responding positively.

And second of all, I think you will have very few people saying, you know, that was really a mistake. We should have left Saddam Hussein in power. We should have continued to ignore what is before our very eyes...

SHAPIRO: You know, you can talk...

GAFFNEY: ... the continuing weapons of mass destruction...

SHAPIRO: You know, you can talk as much as you want about American leadership and France and Germany having pecuniary interests. It's not only France and Germany.

In England, where the Blair government is our staunchest ally, a vast, an overwhelming number of British people are deeply reluctant to get engaged here. This could actually sink the Blair government, who already has his own issues.

This policy is arousing huge skepticism across Europe, as it is across the United States.

Look, Americans have a greater sense of imminent threat coming from North Korea. And they understand that there, the administration's focus on Iraq, its drive to launch a war, regardless of whether inspections are going as they are in Iraq...

NEVILLE: And Bruce...

SHAPIRO: ... cause us to, in fact, neglect a real crisis brewing in North Korea over genuine weapons.

GAFFNEY: ... calling for an invasion of North Korea, nor should they.

The problem here, and it is a positive thing, is that democracies don't like to make war. We don't want to go to war, neither Americans nor Brits nor others in Europe. And that is a good thing, and it is genuinely translated into them not starting war.

SHAPIRO: And what... NEVILLE: Frank, tell me -- help us understand this -- Bruce, let me jump in for a second. Bruce, excuse me for a second. Bruce -- Frank.

GAFFNEY: What we just need to do is make sure that we're providing for our own security.

NEVILLE: I'm sorry, I wanted to jump in there, if I could. And Frank, I wanted to ask you this.

Earlier today Secretary of State Colin Powell said, listen, the problem is not the inspectors and whether they find something or don't find something; the problem is Saddam Hussein and his unwillingness to disarm.

Is that talk that sort of diverts attention away from the importance of the inspections?

GAFFNEY: Look, I think Condi Rice put it very well in an op-ed piece that she has in today's "New York Times".

She says, look, this man is not, in any way, shape or form, fitting the profile of somebody who wants to disarm. He is not complying. He is not treating constructively and honorably and honestly with people who are there to monitor his disarmament.

In short, this is not about disarmament. It won't be about disarmament unless and until Saddam is overthrown...

NEVILLE: This is not about disarmament...

SHAPIRO: This is disingenuous for two reasons.

First of all, the other countries that have disarmed, South Africa and so on, yes, did so willingly. They didn't have a sanctions and inspections regime which is designed to be coercive, which is designed for a bad guy. And we all agree that Saddam Hussein is a bad guy.

The question is...

GAFFNEY: What's the question?

SHAPIRO: The question is, should the inspection process go on? Is it producing results? And is there an imminent threat to justify the enormous financial and human cost of a regional war?

NEVILLE: Then, Bruce, here is where...

GAFFNEY: Yes. There is no knowing. Yes.

NEVILLE: Hang on, Frank, before you answer that, I want to go ahead and look a little bit more at Condoleezza Rice's piece op-ed piece from the "New York Times" today.

"Instead of implementing national initiatives to disarm, Iraq maintains institutions whole, sole purpose is to thwart the work of the inspectors. And instead of full cooperation and transparency, Iraq has filed a false declaration to the United Nations that amounts to a 12,200-page lie."

So, Bruce, has Condi Rice made the case for war?

SHAPIRO: I don't think she has.

First of all, I think that's a huge smoke screen to cover the administration's failures to deal with North Korea and failures to engage diplomatically elsewhere. Number one.

Number two, even if what she's saying is 100 percent true, that doesn't mean there's any more imminent threat from Iraq than there was two months ago, six months ago, ten months ago.

That doesn't mean that the inspections are not turning up pay dirt, because they are.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't give this United Nations sanctions process as much time as it can to produce the desired result.

Americans only want to go to war if there's an imminent threat. They don't see it. They only want to go to war if there's an international coalition, as there was even in the first Gulf War, and they don't see that either.

NEVILLE: OK, Frank, you said the answer is, no, no and yes?

GAFFNEY: There is a threat today. I think what Condi Rice and Don Rumsfeld and Colin Powell and the president will be saying in the days ahead, as they have in recent days is, whether Americans perceive it yet or not whether they believe that they will have all of the company that in an ideal world that would like or not, we really have no choice but to deal with the fact of a Saddam Hussein that is not disarming, that is a metastasizing cancer, as we've talked about before, Arthel, in the region.

And it has the potential, if left unchecked, to do what I think he's already done a couple of times before, which is participate in attacks on this country, perhaps in the future using weapons of mass destruction. It's the danger that the president has correctly said we cannot tolerate.

NEVILLE: Mike from North Carolina. Excuse me, guys. Mike, are you convinced that there should be military action? Yes or no?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, I do. I am a veteran of the United States Marine Corps, served for eight years. Our guys sitting over there; they're ready to go.

NEVILLE: But is that reason enough? Because your guys are sitting there?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, it's up to the president. The president tells us to go, they're going to go.

NEVILLE: Thank you very much for standing up and speaking out. And listen, I have to take a break right now.

But coming up on TALKBACK LIVE, our question of the day: "Should the U.S. seek U.N. backing before going to war?" What do you think? Give me a call at 1-800-310-4CNN or e-mail me at TalkBack@CNN.com.

And later this hour, why was a man who once called AIDS the gay plague under consideration to advise the president about AIDS prevention? We'll have the story and the uproar. Don't go anywhere. The talk continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: Coming up on TALKBACK LIVE, despite opposition from key allies, the Bush Administration tries to make its case against Iraq. We're going to hear if Secretary Powell thinks the U.S. will have to go it alone. The talk continues in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: Some key members of the United Nations say Iraq needs more time. Michael Okwu joins us live from the United Nations now in New York with the latest.

Michael?

MICHAEL OKWU, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Arthel, you know, Hans Blix, the chief weapons inspector, is probably the most sought after, perhaps the most photographed man in midtown Manhattan these days.

And today was absolutely no different. He arrived here this morning and was having discussions, actually spoke for about four hours with his college of commissioners.

Now think of Dr. Blix, really, as a chairman of the board. The college of commissioners are basically his advisers, the board room, each representing some 16 countries around the world.

And what they do customarily is they sit back and they talk about how inspections are going. There's a back and forth.

You can imagine today, Arthel, that the really, the very big issue was the highly anticipated January 27 report that Hans Blix and his team of inspectors will be providing to the Security Council.

One of the issues they were not able to resolve, Mr. Blix said, was this whole issue of U-2 spy planes that the inspectors want to use over Baghdad and other parts of Iraq. The Iraqis have not complied with this yet.

So still, lots of question, lots of discussions. They go back into their private consultations, their private meetings this afternoon -- Arthel. NEVILLE: And Michael, as you know, per a rotating schedule, France and Germany will head up the Security Council January and February. They're against war, so could they possibly block a vote?

OKWU: You know, that's an excellent question, actually. The fact is, the Security Council doesn't really work the way it might in Congress. The president of the Security Council, you rightly said, France is the president this month. Germany very vocal in its opposition to war as the president of next month.

And the president of the Security Council essentially has a role of providing the schedule, arranging what the schedule of the council will be any given month. So they could, for example, delay a vote by a week or two if they want to put something else forward.

But the fact is, there's a sense of goodwill among the council members. Don't forget, these are diplomats. And they don't want to risk any kind of goodwill. So it's likely that that would happen.

One other point on that, Arthel, is the fact that you need nine votes and no vetoes to push through a resolution. To actually get that resolution on the table, you need at least seven votes for other members to say, OK, this resolution has to go forward.

So in the example of the United States, if the German president, the German ambassador said, look, we don't want this on the table, which is unlikely, all the United States needed would be seven votes from other council members.

NEVILLE: So, Michael, is it likely that the United States would seek a second resolution?

OKWU: Well, nobody here is ready to actually start talking that second resolution. They really want to wait until Blix's report on Monday.

But the U.S. coming forward, saying now that they're willing to at least start talking about it, if that's something that somebody else wants to put on the agenda.

As you know, the U.S.' biggest ally in all this, at least on the Security Council, are the British. And the British have said all along that they really would prefer for a second resolution.

So if we end up going to some sort of war over Iraq, it will likely, if you look at the tea leaves now, it will likely include a second resolution. But that, of course, is all subject to change.

NEVILLE: Michael, are the inspectors feeling any pressure from the U.S. at this point?

OKWU: All along the way, you could bet that Hans Blix has been feeling some pressure from the United States. But, you know, he's a pretty cool customer. He said all along that he really is a servant of the Security Council. And that includes the United States.

So whatever the Security Council wants, that's what Hans Blix is willing to do.

It sure appears now that he has received some intelligence from the United States, and perhaps from Great Britain. That is something that he had been pushing for all along.

And so all he wants to do is let the inspections work, and the feeling among a lot of people, including the inspectors here at the U.N., is that these inspections are much more strong. They are tougher. They're working with a great deal more intelligence.

So who knows what you might be able to find there in another week or two.

NEVILLE: And Michael, what is the word there regarding January 27? Is it a D-day or is it just, look, another update?

OKWU: You know, I'm glad you brought that up, because there's been probably a little over-reporting about whether January 27 is D- day.

It is not D-day. If you talk to anybody here. It's just not.

But the U.S., specifically the Bush Administration, has been looking at January 27 increasingly as, really, the beginning of the final phase, if you will, of dealing with Iraqis diplomatically.

It's become very clear in the course of this week, beginning on Monday, that they are ratcheting up the rhetoric, trying to win over other members of the Security Council, and I dare say probably trying to change public opinion to some extent to make sure to get people on their side.

So January 27 is not D -day for anybody. It's really the date by which they want to get all the information from Hans Blix, and Mohammed ElBaradei, the director general of the IAEA, so they can move forward.

But certainly, the United States is looking at this as a new phase.

NEVILLE: OK. We're going to talk a little bit more about public opinion later in the show.

Michael Okwu, thank you so much for the report.

And bringing in Frank Gaffney and Bruce Shapiro back into the conversation.

Frank, Secretary of State Colin Powell mentioned this morning, this coalition of the willing. I keep reading this and hearing about this. Who's a part of this coalition?

GAFFNEY: Arthel, I don't know to be sure what we expect. Certainly what I expect, I assume what the administration is expecting when they use that term is, once the president has decided that there really is no alternative but to use force to liberate Iraq that they will enjoy the support of people in the region, including, presumably, the Kuwaitis, the Katharis (ph), the Yemenis. I suspect the Turks, maybe the Saudis, as well as Great Britain and probably others.

Because at that point, let's remember, what the president said almost a year ago is, in this war on terror, and that's what this is. A front in the war on terror, you are with us or you are against us. And I think there will be very few people...

SHAPIRO: Now, wait -- just a minute, please!

GAFFNEY: There will be very few who want to be on that side rather than with us.

SHAPIRO: It's fine to talk about a coalition of the willing. But the reality is that unlike the previous Gulf War, unlike World War II, it is overwhelmingly American children who will be doing the bleeding here.

And that is the reason why American public opinion is so uneasy about going it alone, about going into the...

GAFFNEY: The people who are going to die in war are the Iraqis and the Iraqis, I think...

(CROSSTALK)

SHAPIRO: ... that American children have didn't...

GAFFNEY: ... their liberation. That's where we are right now. Where we help free a people who yearn to be free, and who are more likely to die at Saddam's hands, have been dying at Saddam's hands, than Americans have.

And I believe that it's high time that we do that, having betrayed them in the past and knowing that that's the only way actually to end this weapons of mass destruction threat.

SHAPIRO: Again, nobody doubts that Saddam Hussein is a bad guy. But let's also be honest about this, OK?

The reality is that what the administration actually wants, has very little to do with freeing the Iraqi people, and very little to do, in fact, with disarmament. Instead...

GAFFNEY: I disagree completely.

SHAPIRO: There's a theory here that if Iraq can somehow be made into a western American client, then the whole calculus of the Middle East will change.

GAFFNEY: That's what we hope for down the road. You agree. But this is a theory...

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: All right, gentlemen, the music is playing. I do have to go to break.

Frank Gaffney, Bruce Shapiro. Hey, Frank, before you go, I want to tell you, metastasize.

GAFFNEY: You got it, girl!

NEVILLE: Inside joke between Frank and I.

OK, listen. Coming up next, you've heard what American allies in Europe are saying, but do the American people support war with Iraq? Our next two guests will help us take the pulse of the people, after this break.

Don't go anywhere. The talk continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: And we're talking about whether the U.S. is ready for a possible war with Iraq, with or without the United Nations' backing.

Radio America talk show host Alan Nathan joins us from Washington; and from New York we have policy analyst Walter Fields, publisher and CEO of the NorthstarNetwork.com, a public affairs web site. Want to welcome you, gentlemen, to the show.

WALTER FIELDS, NORTHSTARNETWORK.COM: Thanks for having me.

NEVILLE: Now right off the top, I want to get to something press secretary Ari Fleischer said earlier today.

He says, "If, in the president's judgment, force had to be used to protect the American people and that had virtually no support by the American people, or had unanimous support of the American people, the president would not be guided by what the polls say. He would be guided by what he views, in his role as commander-in-chief as to what is necessary to protect the country."

And Alan? Alan?

FIELD: I think that's a dangerous thought.

NEVILLE: I'm sorry?

ALAN NATHAN, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Arthel, I'll tell you the reason I'm in agreement with him is for the following: if you have sustained polls holding views antithetical to the president, and they were month after month after month after month, he would have to embrace those polls.

However, if we're talking about fly-by-night polls or the latest...

NEVILLE: These are not fly-by-night polls. This seems to be pretty consistent. And in fact, you know what I'll do right now, I'll go ahead...

NATHAN: Actually, the polls have overwhelmingly showed support for the president, although recently...

FIELD: That's not true.

NEVILLE: Now I'm going to share with you "Wall Street" -- Hang on for me, there, Walter. "Wall Street Journal"/NBC News poll says "After Jan. 27 inspection deadline, should U.S. give the inspectors more time?"

Sixty-one percent said, yes, give more time. And 32 percent say, go ahead and plan to take military action. And 7 percent, they just said it depends on other factors. So 61 percent said more time is needed.

FIELD: Arthel, that's because there's a growing sense in the American public that there's a moral imperative to resist this rush to war.

Clearly, this president is intent on engaging military contact in Iraq. The problem here is that there's been no substantial evidence to prove that number one, Iraq poses an imminent threat; and number two, that there are indeed weapons of mass destruction.

What really disturbs me is that one of the reasons why this president said he wants to engage in this war, you may recall him making a statement at a press conference, that these people tried to kill my Daddy. That is no reason to engage our young men and women in combat. And...

NATHAN: Arthel, with all due respect, that is a very simplistic characterization of why the president wishes to move forward.

FIELDS: It's not simplistic. It's not simplistic at all.

NATHAN: I'm cite more than...

FIELDS: One of the problems here...

(CROSSTALK)

NATHAN: You're taking a peripheral observation and you're...

NEVILLE: OK, I'm jumping in now, because I can't hear either of you. Jerry, do you think -- excuse me, gentlemen. Do you think this is personal on the part of President Bush?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, I don't. I think this is a policy, this is a job that should have been done 11 years ago. If it was done 11 years ago, you'd still have a World Trade Center and we'd be paying 80 cents a gallon for gasoline.

The other thing is that the last time we let the French halfway influence our foreign policy, we wound up in Southeast Asia for 10 years and lost 60,000 of our troops.

Third, France is probably paying $6 a gallon for gas for now. FIELDS: You know, it's interesting because number one, since the Vietnam War -- To lay the Vietnam War at the foot of the French, I think, is really denying history.

The United States engaged in that combat on its own after a certain period of time and stayed in Vietnam on its own, way past the period of time when most people in the world believed that it was...

NATHAN: Arthel, if I might interpose here for a second, because this man's giving a soliloquy, I would like a chance to speak.

FIELDS: Speak.

NATHAN: Now, the bottom line reality is, I'm a centrist. I have an aversion to war. I am somebody who was against the Vietnam War, still proud to have been against that Vietnam War.

But this is the epitomizing of apple and orange comparisons.

Look, if you make a demand with conditional consequences attached in response to massive life-threatening behavior, and then those conditions are violated and you don't deliver those consequences, you're setting a very bad precedent. You are losing the seriousness of your leverage.

FIELDS: Where is the evidence? Where is the evidence?

NATHAN: It seems you're forgetting that U.N. Resolution 1441 was put together by a 15-0 vote and...

FIELDS: Where is the evidence?

NEVILLE: I'm going to break right now, gentlemen.

Don't forget, everybody, our question of the day: Should the U.S. seek U.N. backing before going to war?" Go ahead and give me a call or e-mail me, and we'll hear your responses later this hour.

Stay with us. The lively conversation will continue after the break.

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(NEWS ALERT)

NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. We are talking about what kind of support President Bush might have if he calls for war with Iraq.

Going to Michigan now. Ken (ph), would you support the president if he calls for war with Iraq?

KEN: I sure would. I just don't think we can wait any longer. If anybody honestly believes that Saddam, given two months or six months, is going to step up to the plate and do the right thing, they're just wrong.

NEVILLE: OK, Ken (ph). Thanks for calling in.

Walter, I ask you, what are the risks of going to war without U.N. approval?

FIELDS: Well, number one, one risk is real isolation in the world community. The second risk is destabilizing that region. Our Arab allies are scared to death because they know military action in that part of the world will destabilize their community.

You know, in this rush to judgment to war, what we've created is a Frankenstein monster. We've created Osama Hussein. We've taken our tragedy from September 11 and molded it into this global Frankenstein that we've created without producing any real verifiable evidence that we have an imminent threat here. And by doing that, we are going to jeopardize the lives of not only our young men and women, but innocent children in a region of the world that's been devastated. I have yet to hear anything from this administration that would have me believe that we should march into this part of the world with our forces and unleash that type of hell and havoc upon those communities.

NEVILLE: OK. Alan, so what's at stake if there is no military action?

NATHAN: That the status quo be allowed to maintain, and that thousands of lives always be jeopardized by this man's kaleidoscopic behavior. Look, if you're against war because you're against killing, fine. But you know you have to be against all war.

There's war that's waged between countries. That's what a lot of these peace activists are all about. But what about the war being waged by individual governments against their own people? And what do we do when the only way to ensure that this is curtailed is through outside force? If I was something inside Iraq and I was watching all these peace protesters, I would realize these peace protesters are enablers of the murderer under whom I'm finding myself...

FIELDS: That's an awful statement. I would think that those people would look at this country and say that is the world's greatest democracy. That citizens in that country have the right to descent, to voice their opinion and take on their own government if they felt their government was about to commit an immoral act. This isn't about whether you love war or hate war. It's about morality; it's about justice. And I think...

NATHAN: If it's about morality, then why is it we should allow this despotic leader to continue killing with impunity without any kind of curtailing of this nefarious behavior?

NEVILLE: Alan, if I many ask you another question.

NATHAN: Double standards (UNINTELLIGIBLE) an evil until it's convenient...

(CROSSTALK) NEVILLE: Hello, Alan? Do you hear me, sir, please? OK.

NATHAN: Go ahead.

NEVILLE: I would like to ask you a question. You will have another chance to speak. And the question is, are you confident that if there is military action, that the U.S. and whatever allies that might go there could, for lack of a better -- actually, I want to be blunt about this -- take out Saddam Hussein? It didn't happen the first time around.

NATHAN: No, it didn't, because the first President Bush decided to adhere to the U.N. mandate, which said once we extracted Iraq out of Kuwait, we would not march on Baghdad. This time, however, it's a different mission. And I don't think that we'd be unilateralists whatsoever, as your guested pointed out earlier. I don't think we can at all be unilateralists.

How can you be a unilateralist when all you wish to do is implement consequences for non-compliance as written in these multilateralist documents called U.N. resolutions? We would do it well and we would...

NEVILLE: So Alan, I'm sorry, I didn't hear your answer. Did you say you're confident that Saddam Hussein would be gone if there were military action this time around?

NATHAN: I think -- I'm very confident that he would be gone and the people would rejoice in Iraq, because people prefer self- determination as opposed to slavery.

FIELDS: It's amazing how we can speak for other people. That's what's really troubling here.

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: Hang on, Alan. Hang on, Alan. Hang on please.

FIELDS: You are on national TV speaking for the Iraqi people. I think that's the problem here. And history teaches us that when empires determine that they are larger than the world itself, those empires have crumbled.

We are now on the verge of unleashing havoc. We have a world that's been destabilized in all corners. We have North Korea, we have India and Pakistan. We have the Middle East. To begin destabilizing regions is a very dangerous game that will end up on our doorstep if we're not careful.

NATHAN: Sir, your argument is at the mercy of the following assumption: that we're in a very stable era right now. And I would put it to you that, Saddam Hussein, somebody who has unilaterally launched missiles against his neighbors, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Israel, Kuwait, is far more injurious to the safety of the region than even North Korea. Because even though they have more in the way of arms and troops, they haven't done anything in 50 years. FIELDS: What is injurious to the United States is when we begin to violate the very ideals that we espouse. If really want to talk about weapons of mass destruction, let's talk about corporate greed that's ruining our economy.

NATHAN: No, I agree with you on corporate greed.

FIELDS: Let's talk about continuing poverty. Let's talk about all of the intrinsic problems that affect the United States.

NATHAN: I agree with you on corporate greed, but the two are not usually exclusive.

FIELDS: But we don't have to look beyond our borders to talk about destabilization.

NEVILLE: The music has begun, the segment has ended. Alan Nathan, thank you very much. Walter Fields, thank you very much. Do appreciate the conversation. We'll have you guys back on again.

And we are going to change things up a little bit right now. Next, we'll tell you about a man who was up for a post within President Bush's AIDS Council. His possible appointment has some folks crying foul. We'll tell you all about it. Don't go anywhere. The "Talk" continues in a moment.

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: And coming up on TALKBACK LIVE: a man who once called AIDS the "gay plague" as (ph) considered to advise the president about AIDS prevention. Gay rights activists protest, but Jerry Thacker supporters say he's being smeared. Well have the story when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. A Christian activist under consideration for a presidential AIDS advisory panel is withdrawing his name today. Jerry Thacker once characterized the disease as the "gay plague," and gay rights activists protested his selection.

Now he reportedly also referred to gay people as practicing a death style instead of a lifestyle, and said homosexuality was a sin that can be cured. Today, Thacker said many of his remarks have been taken out of context or misreported. Here to help us understand this story is CNN correspondent Patty Davis -- Patty.

PATTY DAVIS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well Arthel, Thacker did indeed withdraw his name this afternoon. That came in a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson. Thacker says that his comments using the words "gay plague" had been taken out of context. It was a commonly used term in the '80s, he says. Now he is also quoted, as you said, calling the gay lifestyle a death style. Now he says he requested some of those comments on the Bob Jones University Web site be taken off. And he says they were filtered through a writer and gave the wrong impression about what he really thinks.

Thacker says he is not anti-gay. He is anti-AIDS and HIV, however. Now Thacker has the AIDS virus and he says he got it from his wife after she had a blood transfusion. And that his daughter also has the virus. Now how did he get the nomination?

A Health and Human Services spokesman tells me that it was Thacker's reach to the conservative religious community. That he was out there already talking about HIV as an AIDS activist, and that was seen as very valuable to them.

As for why his apparent anti-gay comments were not flagged by someone in this administration, spokesmen telling me that he doesn't have an answer to that. The HHS, the Health and Human Services Department, saying that the withdrawal today by Thacker was a personal choice. They didn't force him to do it -- Arthel.

NEVILLE: OK. Patty Davis, thank you very much.

And joining us now from Washington is the director of the Culture and Family Institute, Robert Knight -- hello, Bob. Also with us...

ROBERT KNIGHT, CULTURE AND FAMILY INSTITUTE: Hello.

NEVILLE: Hi -- is David Smith, spokesman for the Humans Rights Campaign. And I want to welcome you as well, sir.

DAVID SMITH, HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN: Thanks, Arthel.

NEVILLE: Bob, let me start with you. Why do you think Thacker would have been a great addition to the committee?

KNIGHT: Well, if you look at his Web site, he said he wanted to reach out and show compassion towards people with AIDS. He also has the orthodox Christian view, which is that homosexuality is a sin. That it is medically dangerous but that it can be overcome.

Now I don't think these should be disqualifying remarks from the guy. Something really disturbed me. Ari Fleischer, the president's spokesman, was quoted in The Associated Press today, saying that the president believes the opposite of what Mr. Thacker believes, and that he is far, far away from his views. And I'm thinking, if the president's a Christian, then why would he disagree with the idea homosexuality is a sin and that Jesus Christ can redeem sinners, or that it's dangerous?

You know after 30 years of the AIDS epidemic, at least two-thirds of the AIDS victims, hundreds of thousands of men, have been homosexual. They have died. This is deadly behavior. And to say it's just normal and healthy and happy is not compassion. It's the opposite of compassion. NEVILLE: OK. Bob, hang on for me, because I do have that sound bite from Ari Fleischer that you were commenting on. Let's share it with you now.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: That remark is far removed from what the president believes and what the president stands for. The president, in terms of what he has done for the issue of AIDS, has brought a real focus to increasing funds both domestic and foreign policy to help people with AIDS.

The president's view is totally the opposite of that. The president's view is people with AIDS need to be treated with care, compassion. And that's why his budget has provided so much money to help in the fight against AIDS.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEVILLE: OK David, I don't think you agree with the idea that...

SMITH: Are you talking to me?

NEVILLE: Yes, David, I'm sorry.

SMITH: No problem.

NEVILLE: I don't think that you agree with the idea that Thacker was even under consideration in the first place.

SMITH: No. It's pretty mind-boggling. While we're pleased to see the president distance himself or a spokesperson distance the president from these remarks, we're certainly pleased to see that this nomination has been withdrawn, whether it was voluntary or not. But it does beg the question, what were they thinking in the first place?

This gentleman has espoused views that demean and persecute an entire class of people that are impacted by this disease. I'm sorry, saying that AIDS is spread by the homosexual death style is far outside of the mainstream of thinking. But it reflects a broader problem, and the underlying problem continues to exist. And that is that this administration's sort of obsessive focus on abstinence as the sole mechanism for preventing transmission of this disease before marriage is not real, it's not reality based, it's, more importantly, not scientifically based.

And what we would like to see is this administration approach scientifically based, sound principles for prevention of the transmission of HIV. And unfortunately they're not doing it.

NEVILLE: Gentlemen -- jumping in here.

SMITH: We're seeing more ideology rather than scientific substance.

NEVILLE: OK. Bob, I'll give you a chance to speak out when we come back. I do have to take a break right now. More on this AIDS panel controversy when we come back.

And then later, I'll take your questions or answers to our "Question of the Day," which is, should the U.S. seek U.N. backing before going to war? The "Talk" continues in a moment.

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. We're talking about the controversial remarks made by Jerry Thacker. With us from Washington is the director of the Culture and Family Institute, Robert Knight. Also from Washington, David Smith, spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign. And Bob, we have an audience question for you.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I was just wondering, you mentioned homosexuality being cured by Christianity. And I was wondering what about individuals who aren't Christians?

KNIGHT: Well there is something called reparative therapy, and it's just basically psychological counseling, where you get to the bottom of what caused the person to have homosexual desires in the first place. There's a group called the National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality. These guys, by and large, aren't Christians, and stead they just use a therapeutic approach.

But I think the most valuable thing to do is to point out to someone that he's created in the image of God. God loves him and god has a better plan for his life.

NEVILLE: OK. And Bob, I'm going to jump in. Excuse me, one second, David. Tom (ph) from Minnesota.

TOM: Bob, I have a quick question. My wife and I have worked in an AIDS hospice the past three and a half years. And I would hope that what I'm about to say will be on their behalf. I think it's time that the rhetoric stop, that we get beyond the theological implications and look at the humanitarian aspects of this.

(APPLAUSE)

TOM: We have entire tribes in Zimbabwe, in Zambia, who are suffering terminal AIDS. We're losing generations of young people overseas in Africa. Step aside from the rhetoric, the fighting that will never be resolved. Let's, from a humanitarian standpoint, look at solving the problem medically.

(APPLAUSE)

KNIGHT: Well I'm all for that. And I think one of the problems is that sound medical practices were not put into effect in the beginning of the AIDS epidemic. Partner tracing, early diagnostic, that is testing. Even blood wasn't screened at blood banks at first because a political agenda took over the epidemic.

Now I hope we've gone beyond that and we can use sound medical procedures. And David, you took a shot at abstinence education, but that's what's working out there. A lot of kids are now staying abstinent before marriage more than many 10 years ago. This is the one thing that's working. I'm amazed you're criticizing it.

SMITH: Arthel, if I can respond real quick to a couple of things he said. First of all, as far as I can tell, gay people aren't allowed to marry in any state in this country. So abstinence before marriage certainly doesn't apply to gay people. The second thing...

KNIGHT: Of course it does.

SMITH: The second thing, he said something about gay people changing sexual orientation through prayer. That's all a bunch of nonsense, it's snake oil. What we should do is work on making sure that gay people are not the problem. Prejudice against gay people is the problem. That's what we need to focus on.

NEVILLE: OK. And gay marriages are allowed in Hawaii and Vermont.

SMITH: No they're not.

KNIGHT: No they're not. Not anywhere in the United States.

SMITH: Gay marriage is not legal in any state. Vermont has civil unions, which is very similar, but it's a separate legal code and it is, in fact, not marriage.

KNIGHT: And it's wrong because it helps people stay trapped in homosexuality instead of helping them get out of it.

NEVILLE: All right. I'm going to have to go now.

SMITH: Thanks, Arthel. That would be another show. That will be another show.

NEVILLE: I have to go to break. Bob Knight -- it's another show. Bob Knight, thank you. David Smith, thank you as well.

OK. Coming up next, I'll take your answers to our "Question of the Day." Should the U.S. seek U.N. backing before going to war? We'll be back in a moment. Don't go anywhere. The "Talk" continues after this break.

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: "Question of the Day" is should the U.S. seek U.N. backing before going to war?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, definitely. Without international organizational support I don't see how we can get the Arab support that we need. And without Arab support, I don't think we can go in and expect to really accomplish anything.

NEVILLE: Quickly.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, I mean it would certainly be helpful if we had it. But if we really believe (UNINTELLIGIBLE) important, we should go through with it anyway.

NEVILLE: I'm Arthel Neville. We'll see you again tomorrow, 3:00 Eastern. Judy Woodruff, "INSIDE POLITICS" up next.

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 23, 2003 - 15:00   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ARTHEL NEVILLE, HOST: Welcome. I'm Arthel Neville. Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE.
Some U.S. allies sound a word of caution about a possible war with Iraq. France says the decision must come from the United Nations. Germany says don't expect a vote of approval.

And as Iraq's neighbors meet to figure out how to avert war, the Bush Administration knows it has a lot of convincing to do. White House officials are speaking out, trying to sell their strategy on Iraq.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMAN: It is entirely conceivable that at the end of the day when Europe answers the call, France won't be on the line. That is a distinct possibility. That's up to the French.

No matter what the decision French make, the president will respect France, will respect France's leaders, and the United States, and the people of the United States will continue to have the strong relationship with the people of France.

It will not stop the president from doing what he believes is necessary to protect the world from the threat of Saddam Hussein.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEVILLE: Now, if the U.S. doesn't have complete international support, should it go it alone in Iraq?

We have two guests joining us now from Washington for some perspective on that story. Bruce Shapiro is a contributing editor for "The Nation." Also with us is former assistant secretary of defense, Frank Gaffney. He is the president of the Center for Security Policy.

Want to welcome both of you to TALKBACK LIVE today.

FRANK GAFFNEY, FORMER ASST. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Thank you, Arthel.

BRUCE SHAPIRO, CONTRIBUTING EDITOR, "THE NATION": Glad to be here.

NEVILLE: Good. Frank, let me start with you today.

Why aren't France and Germany convinced?

GAFFNEY: I don't think it, frankly, has very much to do with convincing them. I think what it has to do with is their perception of their national interests.

The French, let's remember, have been running interference with Saddam Hussein for a decade. They believe it's in their national interest to have a France and an Iraq doing business together. And if it's with Saddam Hussein, who is able to maintain very severe control and sell oil, and perhaps France could once again sell nuclear reactors to Iraq, then this is a very commercially-driven view of France's interests.

And I think they also see, and perhaps Germany does as well, some desirability in forging a European alternative to America as a real super power.

So for these reasons, I don't think they're likely to be convinced, and I think, as we just heard Ari Fleischer say, you know, the president has to act on the basis of what he believes is America's vital interests, as well as what may be a less sort of pecuniary notion of the world's interests.

SHAPIRO: But I think there's more to it than that. I mean, let's not forget that this is a policy which is in trouble not only in Europe, where never mind France and Germany, NATO may actually not be able to participate, if France and Germany can't be persuaded.

It's in trouble at home. The support for unilateral action by the United States has actually eroded. Americans, like Europeans, see no more imminent threat from Saddam Hussein than they did four months ago, six months ago, ten months ago.

And what's more, Americans who know about imminent threat, who know about the Cuban missile crisis, who know about World War II, who remember all these things, have a tremendous sense that the U.S. should not go it alone here. That there are good reasons, if you're going to unleash the massive cost financially, the massive cost in lives, all the unknowns of a regional war, to have international consensus before moving forward.

GAFFNEY: But Arthel, we should be clear. There's no such thing as international consensus. Iraq is not going to agree, for example.

SHAPIRO: No, but the United Nations exists, and the Security Council exists...

GAFFNEY: Wait a minute, wait just a moment -- just a moment.

SHAPIRO: To secure some kind of consensus among the world's nations.

GAFFNEY: If I may, there is not going to be international consensus, especially if you have people who are, indeed, running interference with Saddam Hussein sitting at the table, perhaps as France has indicated it might do, casting a veto.

What you will have, assuredly, is international support for American leadership. And this notion we will be doing alone...

NEVILLE: Frank, I'm not sure that there is overwhelming international support here.

GAFFNEY: There isn't overwhelming international support, but I will guarantee you this, Arthel.

If, as I think we will, the United States takes the lead, stops this sort of, well, maybe we will, maybe we won't, we sure hope we don't have to, and decides that we will liberate the people of Iraq, first of all, you will have them responding positively.

And second of all, I think you will have very few people saying, you know, that was really a mistake. We should have left Saddam Hussein in power. We should have continued to ignore what is before our very eyes...

SHAPIRO: You know, you can talk...

GAFFNEY: ... the continuing weapons of mass destruction...

SHAPIRO: You know, you can talk as much as you want about American leadership and France and Germany having pecuniary interests. It's not only France and Germany.

In England, where the Blair government is our staunchest ally, a vast, an overwhelming number of British people are deeply reluctant to get engaged here. This could actually sink the Blair government, who already has his own issues.

This policy is arousing huge skepticism across Europe, as it is across the United States.

Look, Americans have a greater sense of imminent threat coming from North Korea. And they understand that there, the administration's focus on Iraq, its drive to launch a war, regardless of whether inspections are going as they are in Iraq...

NEVILLE: And Bruce...

SHAPIRO: ... cause us to, in fact, neglect a real crisis brewing in North Korea over genuine weapons.

GAFFNEY: ... calling for an invasion of North Korea, nor should they.

The problem here, and it is a positive thing, is that democracies don't like to make war. We don't want to go to war, neither Americans nor Brits nor others in Europe. And that is a good thing, and it is genuinely translated into them not starting war.

SHAPIRO: And what... NEVILLE: Frank, tell me -- help us understand this -- Bruce, let me jump in for a second. Bruce, excuse me for a second. Bruce -- Frank.

GAFFNEY: What we just need to do is make sure that we're providing for our own security.

NEVILLE: I'm sorry, I wanted to jump in there, if I could. And Frank, I wanted to ask you this.

Earlier today Secretary of State Colin Powell said, listen, the problem is not the inspectors and whether they find something or don't find something; the problem is Saddam Hussein and his unwillingness to disarm.

Is that talk that sort of diverts attention away from the importance of the inspections?

GAFFNEY: Look, I think Condi Rice put it very well in an op-ed piece that she has in today's "New York Times".

She says, look, this man is not, in any way, shape or form, fitting the profile of somebody who wants to disarm. He is not complying. He is not treating constructively and honorably and honestly with people who are there to monitor his disarmament.

In short, this is not about disarmament. It won't be about disarmament unless and until Saddam is overthrown...

NEVILLE: This is not about disarmament...

SHAPIRO: This is disingenuous for two reasons.

First of all, the other countries that have disarmed, South Africa and so on, yes, did so willingly. They didn't have a sanctions and inspections regime which is designed to be coercive, which is designed for a bad guy. And we all agree that Saddam Hussein is a bad guy.

The question is...

GAFFNEY: What's the question?

SHAPIRO: The question is, should the inspection process go on? Is it producing results? And is there an imminent threat to justify the enormous financial and human cost of a regional war?

NEVILLE: Then, Bruce, here is where...

GAFFNEY: Yes. There is no knowing. Yes.

NEVILLE: Hang on, Frank, before you answer that, I want to go ahead and look a little bit more at Condoleezza Rice's piece op-ed piece from the "New York Times" today.

"Instead of implementing national initiatives to disarm, Iraq maintains institutions whole, sole purpose is to thwart the work of the inspectors. And instead of full cooperation and transparency, Iraq has filed a false declaration to the United Nations that amounts to a 12,200-page lie."

So, Bruce, has Condi Rice made the case for war?

SHAPIRO: I don't think she has.

First of all, I think that's a huge smoke screen to cover the administration's failures to deal with North Korea and failures to engage diplomatically elsewhere. Number one.

Number two, even if what she's saying is 100 percent true, that doesn't mean there's any more imminent threat from Iraq than there was two months ago, six months ago, ten months ago.

That doesn't mean that the inspections are not turning up pay dirt, because they are.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't give this United Nations sanctions process as much time as it can to produce the desired result.

Americans only want to go to war if there's an imminent threat. They don't see it. They only want to go to war if there's an international coalition, as there was even in the first Gulf War, and they don't see that either.

NEVILLE: OK, Frank, you said the answer is, no, no and yes?

GAFFNEY: There is a threat today. I think what Condi Rice and Don Rumsfeld and Colin Powell and the president will be saying in the days ahead, as they have in recent days is, whether Americans perceive it yet or not whether they believe that they will have all of the company that in an ideal world that would like or not, we really have no choice but to deal with the fact of a Saddam Hussein that is not disarming, that is a metastasizing cancer, as we've talked about before, Arthel, in the region.

And it has the potential, if left unchecked, to do what I think he's already done a couple of times before, which is participate in attacks on this country, perhaps in the future using weapons of mass destruction. It's the danger that the president has correctly said we cannot tolerate.

NEVILLE: Mike from North Carolina. Excuse me, guys. Mike, are you convinced that there should be military action? Yes or no?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, I do. I am a veteran of the United States Marine Corps, served for eight years. Our guys sitting over there; they're ready to go.

NEVILLE: But is that reason enough? Because your guys are sitting there?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, it's up to the president. The president tells us to go, they're going to go.

NEVILLE: Thank you very much for standing up and speaking out. And listen, I have to take a break right now.

But coming up on TALKBACK LIVE, our question of the day: "Should the U.S. seek U.N. backing before going to war?" What do you think? Give me a call at 1-800-310-4CNN or e-mail me at TalkBack@CNN.com.

And later this hour, why was a man who once called AIDS the gay plague under consideration to advise the president about AIDS prevention? We'll have the story and the uproar. Don't go anywhere. The talk continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: Coming up on TALKBACK LIVE, despite opposition from key allies, the Bush Administration tries to make its case against Iraq. We're going to hear if Secretary Powell thinks the U.S. will have to go it alone. The talk continues in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: Some key members of the United Nations say Iraq needs more time. Michael Okwu joins us live from the United Nations now in New York with the latest.

Michael?

MICHAEL OKWU, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Arthel, you know, Hans Blix, the chief weapons inspector, is probably the most sought after, perhaps the most photographed man in midtown Manhattan these days.

And today was absolutely no different. He arrived here this morning and was having discussions, actually spoke for about four hours with his college of commissioners.

Now think of Dr. Blix, really, as a chairman of the board. The college of commissioners are basically his advisers, the board room, each representing some 16 countries around the world.

And what they do customarily is they sit back and they talk about how inspections are going. There's a back and forth.

You can imagine today, Arthel, that the really, the very big issue was the highly anticipated January 27 report that Hans Blix and his team of inspectors will be providing to the Security Council.

One of the issues they were not able to resolve, Mr. Blix said, was this whole issue of U-2 spy planes that the inspectors want to use over Baghdad and other parts of Iraq. The Iraqis have not complied with this yet.

So still, lots of question, lots of discussions. They go back into their private consultations, their private meetings this afternoon -- Arthel. NEVILLE: And Michael, as you know, per a rotating schedule, France and Germany will head up the Security Council January and February. They're against war, so could they possibly block a vote?

OKWU: You know, that's an excellent question, actually. The fact is, the Security Council doesn't really work the way it might in Congress. The president of the Security Council, you rightly said, France is the president this month. Germany very vocal in its opposition to war as the president of next month.

And the president of the Security Council essentially has a role of providing the schedule, arranging what the schedule of the council will be any given month. So they could, for example, delay a vote by a week or two if they want to put something else forward.

But the fact is, there's a sense of goodwill among the council members. Don't forget, these are diplomats. And they don't want to risk any kind of goodwill. So it's likely that that would happen.

One other point on that, Arthel, is the fact that you need nine votes and no vetoes to push through a resolution. To actually get that resolution on the table, you need at least seven votes for other members to say, OK, this resolution has to go forward.

So in the example of the United States, if the German president, the German ambassador said, look, we don't want this on the table, which is unlikely, all the United States needed would be seven votes from other council members.

NEVILLE: So, Michael, is it likely that the United States would seek a second resolution?

OKWU: Well, nobody here is ready to actually start talking that second resolution. They really want to wait until Blix's report on Monday.

But the U.S. coming forward, saying now that they're willing to at least start talking about it, if that's something that somebody else wants to put on the agenda.

As you know, the U.S.' biggest ally in all this, at least on the Security Council, are the British. And the British have said all along that they really would prefer for a second resolution.

So if we end up going to some sort of war over Iraq, it will likely, if you look at the tea leaves now, it will likely include a second resolution. But that, of course, is all subject to change.

NEVILLE: Michael, are the inspectors feeling any pressure from the U.S. at this point?

OKWU: All along the way, you could bet that Hans Blix has been feeling some pressure from the United States. But, you know, he's a pretty cool customer. He said all along that he really is a servant of the Security Council. And that includes the United States.

So whatever the Security Council wants, that's what Hans Blix is willing to do.

It sure appears now that he has received some intelligence from the United States, and perhaps from Great Britain. That is something that he had been pushing for all along.

And so all he wants to do is let the inspections work, and the feeling among a lot of people, including the inspectors here at the U.N., is that these inspections are much more strong. They are tougher. They're working with a great deal more intelligence.

So who knows what you might be able to find there in another week or two.

NEVILLE: And Michael, what is the word there regarding January 27? Is it a D-day or is it just, look, another update?

OKWU: You know, I'm glad you brought that up, because there's been probably a little over-reporting about whether January 27 is D- day.

It is not D-day. If you talk to anybody here. It's just not.

But the U.S., specifically the Bush Administration, has been looking at January 27 increasingly as, really, the beginning of the final phase, if you will, of dealing with Iraqis diplomatically.

It's become very clear in the course of this week, beginning on Monday, that they are ratcheting up the rhetoric, trying to win over other members of the Security Council, and I dare say probably trying to change public opinion to some extent to make sure to get people on their side.

So January 27 is not D -day for anybody. It's really the date by which they want to get all the information from Hans Blix, and Mohammed ElBaradei, the director general of the IAEA, so they can move forward.

But certainly, the United States is looking at this as a new phase.

NEVILLE: OK. We're going to talk a little bit more about public opinion later in the show.

Michael Okwu, thank you so much for the report.

And bringing in Frank Gaffney and Bruce Shapiro back into the conversation.

Frank, Secretary of State Colin Powell mentioned this morning, this coalition of the willing. I keep reading this and hearing about this. Who's a part of this coalition?

GAFFNEY: Arthel, I don't know to be sure what we expect. Certainly what I expect, I assume what the administration is expecting when they use that term is, once the president has decided that there really is no alternative but to use force to liberate Iraq that they will enjoy the support of people in the region, including, presumably, the Kuwaitis, the Katharis (ph), the Yemenis. I suspect the Turks, maybe the Saudis, as well as Great Britain and probably others.

Because at that point, let's remember, what the president said almost a year ago is, in this war on terror, and that's what this is. A front in the war on terror, you are with us or you are against us. And I think there will be very few people...

SHAPIRO: Now, wait -- just a minute, please!

GAFFNEY: There will be very few who want to be on that side rather than with us.

SHAPIRO: It's fine to talk about a coalition of the willing. But the reality is that unlike the previous Gulf War, unlike World War II, it is overwhelmingly American children who will be doing the bleeding here.

And that is the reason why American public opinion is so uneasy about going it alone, about going into the...

GAFFNEY: The people who are going to die in war are the Iraqis and the Iraqis, I think...

(CROSSTALK)

SHAPIRO: ... that American children have didn't...

GAFFNEY: ... their liberation. That's where we are right now. Where we help free a people who yearn to be free, and who are more likely to die at Saddam's hands, have been dying at Saddam's hands, than Americans have.

And I believe that it's high time that we do that, having betrayed them in the past and knowing that that's the only way actually to end this weapons of mass destruction threat.

SHAPIRO: Again, nobody doubts that Saddam Hussein is a bad guy. But let's also be honest about this, OK?

The reality is that what the administration actually wants, has very little to do with freeing the Iraqi people, and very little to do, in fact, with disarmament. Instead...

GAFFNEY: I disagree completely.

SHAPIRO: There's a theory here that if Iraq can somehow be made into a western American client, then the whole calculus of the Middle East will change.

GAFFNEY: That's what we hope for down the road. You agree. But this is a theory...

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: All right, gentlemen, the music is playing. I do have to go to break.

Frank Gaffney, Bruce Shapiro. Hey, Frank, before you go, I want to tell you, metastasize.

GAFFNEY: You got it, girl!

NEVILLE: Inside joke between Frank and I.

OK, listen. Coming up next, you've heard what American allies in Europe are saying, but do the American people support war with Iraq? Our next two guests will help us take the pulse of the people, after this break.

Don't go anywhere. The talk continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: And we're talking about whether the U.S. is ready for a possible war with Iraq, with or without the United Nations' backing.

Radio America talk show host Alan Nathan joins us from Washington; and from New York we have policy analyst Walter Fields, publisher and CEO of the NorthstarNetwork.com, a public affairs web site. Want to welcome you, gentlemen, to the show.

WALTER FIELDS, NORTHSTARNETWORK.COM: Thanks for having me.

NEVILLE: Now right off the top, I want to get to something press secretary Ari Fleischer said earlier today.

He says, "If, in the president's judgment, force had to be used to protect the American people and that had virtually no support by the American people, or had unanimous support of the American people, the president would not be guided by what the polls say. He would be guided by what he views, in his role as commander-in-chief as to what is necessary to protect the country."

And Alan? Alan?

FIELD: I think that's a dangerous thought.

NEVILLE: I'm sorry?

ALAN NATHAN, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Arthel, I'll tell you the reason I'm in agreement with him is for the following: if you have sustained polls holding views antithetical to the president, and they were month after month after month after month, he would have to embrace those polls.

However, if we're talking about fly-by-night polls or the latest...

NEVILLE: These are not fly-by-night polls. This seems to be pretty consistent. And in fact, you know what I'll do right now, I'll go ahead...

NATHAN: Actually, the polls have overwhelmingly showed support for the president, although recently...

FIELD: That's not true.

NEVILLE: Now I'm going to share with you "Wall Street" -- Hang on for me, there, Walter. "Wall Street Journal"/NBC News poll says "After Jan. 27 inspection deadline, should U.S. give the inspectors more time?"

Sixty-one percent said, yes, give more time. And 32 percent say, go ahead and plan to take military action. And 7 percent, they just said it depends on other factors. So 61 percent said more time is needed.

FIELD: Arthel, that's because there's a growing sense in the American public that there's a moral imperative to resist this rush to war.

Clearly, this president is intent on engaging military contact in Iraq. The problem here is that there's been no substantial evidence to prove that number one, Iraq poses an imminent threat; and number two, that there are indeed weapons of mass destruction.

What really disturbs me is that one of the reasons why this president said he wants to engage in this war, you may recall him making a statement at a press conference, that these people tried to kill my Daddy. That is no reason to engage our young men and women in combat. And...

NATHAN: Arthel, with all due respect, that is a very simplistic characterization of why the president wishes to move forward.

FIELDS: It's not simplistic. It's not simplistic at all.

NATHAN: I'm cite more than...

FIELDS: One of the problems here...

(CROSSTALK)

NATHAN: You're taking a peripheral observation and you're...

NEVILLE: OK, I'm jumping in now, because I can't hear either of you. Jerry, do you think -- excuse me, gentlemen. Do you think this is personal on the part of President Bush?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, I don't. I think this is a policy, this is a job that should have been done 11 years ago. If it was done 11 years ago, you'd still have a World Trade Center and we'd be paying 80 cents a gallon for gasoline.

The other thing is that the last time we let the French halfway influence our foreign policy, we wound up in Southeast Asia for 10 years and lost 60,000 of our troops.

Third, France is probably paying $6 a gallon for gas for now. FIELDS: You know, it's interesting because number one, since the Vietnam War -- To lay the Vietnam War at the foot of the French, I think, is really denying history.

The United States engaged in that combat on its own after a certain period of time and stayed in Vietnam on its own, way past the period of time when most people in the world believed that it was...

NATHAN: Arthel, if I might interpose here for a second, because this man's giving a soliloquy, I would like a chance to speak.

FIELDS: Speak.

NATHAN: Now, the bottom line reality is, I'm a centrist. I have an aversion to war. I am somebody who was against the Vietnam War, still proud to have been against that Vietnam War.

But this is the epitomizing of apple and orange comparisons.

Look, if you make a demand with conditional consequences attached in response to massive life-threatening behavior, and then those conditions are violated and you don't deliver those consequences, you're setting a very bad precedent. You are losing the seriousness of your leverage.

FIELDS: Where is the evidence? Where is the evidence?

NATHAN: It seems you're forgetting that U.N. Resolution 1441 was put together by a 15-0 vote and...

FIELDS: Where is the evidence?

NEVILLE: I'm going to break right now, gentlemen.

Don't forget, everybody, our question of the day: Should the U.S. seek U.N. backing before going to war?" Go ahead and give me a call or e-mail me, and we'll hear your responses later this hour.

Stay with us. The lively conversation will continue after the break.

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(NEWS ALERT)

NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. We are talking about what kind of support President Bush might have if he calls for war with Iraq.

Going to Michigan now. Ken (ph), would you support the president if he calls for war with Iraq?

KEN: I sure would. I just don't think we can wait any longer. If anybody honestly believes that Saddam, given two months or six months, is going to step up to the plate and do the right thing, they're just wrong.

NEVILLE: OK, Ken (ph). Thanks for calling in.

Walter, I ask you, what are the risks of going to war without U.N. approval?

FIELDS: Well, number one, one risk is real isolation in the world community. The second risk is destabilizing that region. Our Arab allies are scared to death because they know military action in that part of the world will destabilize their community.

You know, in this rush to judgment to war, what we've created is a Frankenstein monster. We've created Osama Hussein. We've taken our tragedy from September 11 and molded it into this global Frankenstein that we've created without producing any real verifiable evidence that we have an imminent threat here. And by doing that, we are going to jeopardize the lives of not only our young men and women, but innocent children in a region of the world that's been devastated. I have yet to hear anything from this administration that would have me believe that we should march into this part of the world with our forces and unleash that type of hell and havoc upon those communities.

NEVILLE: OK. Alan, so what's at stake if there is no military action?

NATHAN: That the status quo be allowed to maintain, and that thousands of lives always be jeopardized by this man's kaleidoscopic behavior. Look, if you're against war because you're against killing, fine. But you know you have to be against all war.

There's war that's waged between countries. That's what a lot of these peace activists are all about. But what about the war being waged by individual governments against their own people? And what do we do when the only way to ensure that this is curtailed is through outside force? If I was something inside Iraq and I was watching all these peace protesters, I would realize these peace protesters are enablers of the murderer under whom I'm finding myself...

FIELDS: That's an awful statement. I would think that those people would look at this country and say that is the world's greatest democracy. That citizens in that country have the right to descent, to voice their opinion and take on their own government if they felt their government was about to commit an immoral act. This isn't about whether you love war or hate war. It's about morality; it's about justice. And I think...

NATHAN: If it's about morality, then why is it we should allow this despotic leader to continue killing with impunity without any kind of curtailing of this nefarious behavior?

NEVILLE: Alan, if I many ask you another question.

NATHAN: Double standards (UNINTELLIGIBLE) an evil until it's convenient...

(CROSSTALK) NEVILLE: Hello, Alan? Do you hear me, sir, please? OK.

NATHAN: Go ahead.

NEVILLE: I would like to ask you a question. You will have another chance to speak. And the question is, are you confident that if there is military action, that the U.S. and whatever allies that might go there could, for lack of a better -- actually, I want to be blunt about this -- take out Saddam Hussein? It didn't happen the first time around.

NATHAN: No, it didn't, because the first President Bush decided to adhere to the U.N. mandate, which said once we extracted Iraq out of Kuwait, we would not march on Baghdad. This time, however, it's a different mission. And I don't think that we'd be unilateralists whatsoever, as your guested pointed out earlier. I don't think we can at all be unilateralists.

How can you be a unilateralist when all you wish to do is implement consequences for non-compliance as written in these multilateralist documents called U.N. resolutions? We would do it well and we would...

NEVILLE: So Alan, I'm sorry, I didn't hear your answer. Did you say you're confident that Saddam Hussein would be gone if there were military action this time around?

NATHAN: I think -- I'm very confident that he would be gone and the people would rejoice in Iraq, because people prefer self- determination as opposed to slavery.

FIELDS: It's amazing how we can speak for other people. That's what's really troubling here.

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: Hang on, Alan. Hang on, Alan. Hang on please.

FIELDS: You are on national TV speaking for the Iraqi people. I think that's the problem here. And history teaches us that when empires determine that they are larger than the world itself, those empires have crumbled.

We are now on the verge of unleashing havoc. We have a world that's been destabilized in all corners. We have North Korea, we have India and Pakistan. We have the Middle East. To begin destabilizing regions is a very dangerous game that will end up on our doorstep if we're not careful.

NATHAN: Sir, your argument is at the mercy of the following assumption: that we're in a very stable era right now. And I would put it to you that, Saddam Hussein, somebody who has unilaterally launched missiles against his neighbors, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Israel, Kuwait, is far more injurious to the safety of the region than even North Korea. Because even though they have more in the way of arms and troops, they haven't done anything in 50 years. FIELDS: What is injurious to the United States is when we begin to violate the very ideals that we espouse. If really want to talk about weapons of mass destruction, let's talk about corporate greed that's ruining our economy.

NATHAN: No, I agree with you on corporate greed.

FIELDS: Let's talk about continuing poverty. Let's talk about all of the intrinsic problems that affect the United States.

NATHAN: I agree with you on corporate greed, but the two are not usually exclusive.

FIELDS: But we don't have to look beyond our borders to talk about destabilization.

NEVILLE: The music has begun, the segment has ended. Alan Nathan, thank you very much. Walter Fields, thank you very much. Do appreciate the conversation. We'll have you guys back on again.

And we are going to change things up a little bit right now. Next, we'll tell you about a man who was up for a post within President Bush's AIDS Council. His possible appointment has some folks crying foul. We'll tell you all about it. Don't go anywhere. The "Talk" continues in a moment.

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: And coming up on TALKBACK LIVE: a man who once called AIDS the "gay plague" as (ph) considered to advise the president about AIDS prevention. Gay rights activists protest, but Jerry Thacker supporters say he's being smeared. Well have the story when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. A Christian activist under consideration for a presidential AIDS advisory panel is withdrawing his name today. Jerry Thacker once characterized the disease as the "gay plague," and gay rights activists protested his selection.

Now he reportedly also referred to gay people as practicing a death style instead of a lifestyle, and said homosexuality was a sin that can be cured. Today, Thacker said many of his remarks have been taken out of context or misreported. Here to help us understand this story is CNN correspondent Patty Davis -- Patty.

PATTY DAVIS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well Arthel, Thacker did indeed withdraw his name this afternoon. That came in a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson. Thacker says that his comments using the words "gay plague" had been taken out of context. It was a commonly used term in the '80s, he says. Now he is also quoted, as you said, calling the gay lifestyle a death style. Now he says he requested some of those comments on the Bob Jones University Web site be taken off. And he says they were filtered through a writer and gave the wrong impression about what he really thinks.

Thacker says he is not anti-gay. He is anti-AIDS and HIV, however. Now Thacker has the AIDS virus and he says he got it from his wife after she had a blood transfusion. And that his daughter also has the virus. Now how did he get the nomination?

A Health and Human Services spokesman tells me that it was Thacker's reach to the conservative religious community. That he was out there already talking about HIV as an AIDS activist, and that was seen as very valuable to them.

As for why his apparent anti-gay comments were not flagged by someone in this administration, spokesmen telling me that he doesn't have an answer to that. The HHS, the Health and Human Services Department, saying that the withdrawal today by Thacker was a personal choice. They didn't force him to do it -- Arthel.

NEVILLE: OK. Patty Davis, thank you very much.

And joining us now from Washington is the director of the Culture and Family Institute, Robert Knight -- hello, Bob. Also with us...

ROBERT KNIGHT, CULTURE AND FAMILY INSTITUTE: Hello.

NEVILLE: Hi -- is David Smith, spokesman for the Humans Rights Campaign. And I want to welcome you as well, sir.

DAVID SMITH, HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN: Thanks, Arthel.

NEVILLE: Bob, let me start with you. Why do you think Thacker would have been a great addition to the committee?

KNIGHT: Well, if you look at his Web site, he said he wanted to reach out and show compassion towards people with AIDS. He also has the orthodox Christian view, which is that homosexuality is a sin. That it is medically dangerous but that it can be overcome.

Now I don't think these should be disqualifying remarks from the guy. Something really disturbed me. Ari Fleischer, the president's spokesman, was quoted in The Associated Press today, saying that the president believes the opposite of what Mr. Thacker believes, and that he is far, far away from his views. And I'm thinking, if the president's a Christian, then why would he disagree with the idea homosexuality is a sin and that Jesus Christ can redeem sinners, or that it's dangerous?

You know after 30 years of the AIDS epidemic, at least two-thirds of the AIDS victims, hundreds of thousands of men, have been homosexual. They have died. This is deadly behavior. And to say it's just normal and healthy and happy is not compassion. It's the opposite of compassion. NEVILLE: OK. Bob, hang on for me, because I do have that sound bite from Ari Fleischer that you were commenting on. Let's share it with you now.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: That remark is far removed from what the president believes and what the president stands for. The president, in terms of what he has done for the issue of AIDS, has brought a real focus to increasing funds both domestic and foreign policy to help people with AIDS.

The president's view is totally the opposite of that. The president's view is people with AIDS need to be treated with care, compassion. And that's why his budget has provided so much money to help in the fight against AIDS.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEVILLE: OK David, I don't think you agree with the idea that...

SMITH: Are you talking to me?

NEVILLE: Yes, David, I'm sorry.

SMITH: No problem.

NEVILLE: I don't think that you agree with the idea that Thacker was even under consideration in the first place.

SMITH: No. It's pretty mind-boggling. While we're pleased to see the president distance himself or a spokesperson distance the president from these remarks, we're certainly pleased to see that this nomination has been withdrawn, whether it was voluntary or not. But it does beg the question, what were they thinking in the first place?

This gentleman has espoused views that demean and persecute an entire class of people that are impacted by this disease. I'm sorry, saying that AIDS is spread by the homosexual death style is far outside of the mainstream of thinking. But it reflects a broader problem, and the underlying problem continues to exist. And that is that this administration's sort of obsessive focus on abstinence as the sole mechanism for preventing transmission of this disease before marriage is not real, it's not reality based, it's, more importantly, not scientifically based.

And what we would like to see is this administration approach scientifically based, sound principles for prevention of the transmission of HIV. And unfortunately they're not doing it.

NEVILLE: Gentlemen -- jumping in here.

SMITH: We're seeing more ideology rather than scientific substance.

NEVILLE: OK. Bob, I'll give you a chance to speak out when we come back. I do have to take a break right now. More on this AIDS panel controversy when we come back.

And then later, I'll take your questions or answers to our "Question of the Day," which is, should the U.S. seek U.N. backing before going to war? The "Talk" continues in a moment.

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. We're talking about the controversial remarks made by Jerry Thacker. With us from Washington is the director of the Culture and Family Institute, Robert Knight. Also from Washington, David Smith, spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign. And Bob, we have an audience question for you.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I was just wondering, you mentioned homosexuality being cured by Christianity. And I was wondering what about individuals who aren't Christians?

KNIGHT: Well there is something called reparative therapy, and it's just basically psychological counseling, where you get to the bottom of what caused the person to have homosexual desires in the first place. There's a group called the National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality. These guys, by and large, aren't Christians, and stead they just use a therapeutic approach.

But I think the most valuable thing to do is to point out to someone that he's created in the image of God. God loves him and god has a better plan for his life.

NEVILLE: OK. And Bob, I'm going to jump in. Excuse me, one second, David. Tom (ph) from Minnesota.

TOM: Bob, I have a quick question. My wife and I have worked in an AIDS hospice the past three and a half years. And I would hope that what I'm about to say will be on their behalf. I think it's time that the rhetoric stop, that we get beyond the theological implications and look at the humanitarian aspects of this.

(APPLAUSE)

TOM: We have entire tribes in Zimbabwe, in Zambia, who are suffering terminal AIDS. We're losing generations of young people overseas in Africa. Step aside from the rhetoric, the fighting that will never be resolved. Let's, from a humanitarian standpoint, look at solving the problem medically.

(APPLAUSE)

KNIGHT: Well I'm all for that. And I think one of the problems is that sound medical practices were not put into effect in the beginning of the AIDS epidemic. Partner tracing, early diagnostic, that is testing. Even blood wasn't screened at blood banks at first because a political agenda took over the epidemic.

Now I hope we've gone beyond that and we can use sound medical procedures. And David, you took a shot at abstinence education, but that's what's working out there. A lot of kids are now staying abstinent before marriage more than many 10 years ago. This is the one thing that's working. I'm amazed you're criticizing it.

SMITH: Arthel, if I can respond real quick to a couple of things he said. First of all, as far as I can tell, gay people aren't allowed to marry in any state in this country. So abstinence before marriage certainly doesn't apply to gay people. The second thing...

KNIGHT: Of course it does.

SMITH: The second thing, he said something about gay people changing sexual orientation through prayer. That's all a bunch of nonsense, it's snake oil. What we should do is work on making sure that gay people are not the problem. Prejudice against gay people is the problem. That's what we need to focus on.

NEVILLE: OK. And gay marriages are allowed in Hawaii and Vermont.

SMITH: No they're not.

KNIGHT: No they're not. Not anywhere in the United States.

SMITH: Gay marriage is not legal in any state. Vermont has civil unions, which is very similar, but it's a separate legal code and it is, in fact, not marriage.

KNIGHT: And it's wrong because it helps people stay trapped in homosexuality instead of helping them get out of it.

NEVILLE: All right. I'm going to have to go now.

SMITH: Thanks, Arthel. That would be another show. That will be another show.

NEVILLE: I have to go to break. Bob Knight -- it's another show. Bob Knight, thank you. David Smith, thank you as well.

OK. Coming up next, I'll take your answers to our "Question of the Day." Should the U.S. seek U.N. backing before going to war? We'll be back in a moment. Don't go anywhere. The "Talk" continues after this break.

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: "Question of the Day" is should the U.S. seek U.N. backing before going to war?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, definitely. Without international organizational support I don't see how we can get the Arab support that we need. And without Arab support, I don't think we can go in and expect to really accomplish anything.

NEVILLE: Quickly.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, I mean it would certainly be helpful if we had it. But if we really believe (UNINTELLIGIBLE) important, we should go through with it anyway.

NEVILLE: I'm Arthel Neville. We'll see you again tomorrow, 3:00 Eastern. Judy Woodruff, "INSIDE POLITICS" up next.

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