Return to Transcripts main page

On the Story

Bush Nears Decision on War in Iraq; Iraqis React to Upcoming War; Protesters March Against Military Action in Iraq

Aired March 08, 2003 - 10:00   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.


DANA BASH, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Welcome to CNN's ON THE STORY, where our journalists have the inside word on the stories we covered this week.
I'm Dana Bash. I'm on the story of President Bush as he nears the decision on whether to wage war.

RYM BRAHIMI, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I'm Rym Brahimi in Baghdad. I'm on the story of how the possibility of war hits home for Iraqis and President Saddam Hussein.

ANDREA KOPPEL, CNN STATE DEPARTMENT CORRESPONDENT: I'm Andrea Koppel in New York with the story behind the U.S.-British compromise proposal introduced at the U.N. yesterday and how Britain's prime minister hopes it will keep him in government after a war with Iraq begins.

MARIA HINOJOSA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I'm Maria Hinojosa in Washington, D.C., and I'm on the story of how protesters are on the march against war and against the administration.

LIZ NEISLOSS, CNN PRODUCER: I'm Liz Neisloss at the United Nations, on the story of diplomatic deadlock and the deadline for Iraq.

KATHLEEN HAYS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: And I'm Kathleen Hays, on the story of how all of the attention paid to possible war is a big, wet blanket on the U.S. economy.

We'll talk about all of these stories, and we want to hear from you. Our e-mail address is onthestory@cnn.com. We'll also listen to the president's weekly radio address at the end of the hour, but first a check of what's making news right now from CNN headquarters in Atlanta.

(NEWSBREAK)

BRAHIMI: Here in Baghdad this week, President Saddam Hussein has accused the U.S. of panicked policies. He's also warning the U.S. to remember the mistakes of Vietnam before attacking his country.

BASH: Rym, I have a question -- this is Dana Bash -- I have a question for you. The White House is really -- feels pretty confident that once they get into Iraq and they show the Iraqi people that they are there, as they say, as liberators, not conquerors, that the Iraqi people will really welcome this with open arms.

I know it's hard to get kind of honest answers there, but do you get the sense from the Iraqi people that this will be a welcome attack, if it happens?

BRAHIMI: As you say, Dana, this is a very difficult question to answer from here. Of course people you talk to all vow that they will get up in arms and defend their country, if not their home. A lot of people do say that whatever their beliefs with regard to the local Iraqi policy, well, they don't want the U.S. to come as invaders.

And a lot of people will even say, well, if we want to do business with the U.S., that would be fine. We could sell them oil, they could sell us technology. But if they come as invaders, that's a no. That's what people say here.

Dana?

HAYS: Rym, Kathleen, wanting to follow up on that. But there's certainly some practical preparations being made, no? The population presumably thinking about getting water, getting food, getting the basic necessities of life, when and if a war starts?

BRAHIMI: Absolutely. It's taken a while, I think, for that mode of preparation to sink in. But right now, definitely, people are actively preparing. We know that some people are digging wells in their gardens to make sure that they'll have enough water if that happens.

The government has also been giving them advanced food rations. They're now being given stocks of food for until June and July, so that will last. But of course there's a whole segment of the population that can't even afford to stock up food, that's just living day to day. So that's something that they'll have to face if anything happens here.

HINOJOSA: Hey, Rym, I just wanted to know, you know, there are a lot of people who want to know what the feeling is like among the people, the women, the family members. I'm at a demonstration right now where it's all women, and they say that their concerns are for women and children.

Can you put us into the mindset of the women that you speak to? What are they feeling right now? How are they getting by day by day?

BRAHIMI: Among the women, there is maybe less defiance. Of course, some of them will still say, "We're ready to fight. Even as women, we'll take our kitchen knives. We'll go out and fight. We won't let anyone invade."

But at the same time, you do sense a lot of resignation, a sense that there's nothing they can do. Certainly, they're going to be watching their husbands, sons, brothers, possibly be called to fight if there is a U.S.-led attack. And that's something, of course, that worries a lot of women. And of course, the notion of protecting their children, of being able to provide for their children. Again, if something happens, the U.N. agencies say this could be a humanitarian catastrophe. And I think it hits home a lot with the women, who are faced with the day- to-day task of having to deal with that.

KOPPEL: Rym, we know that President Saddam Hussein is now calling for the sanctions to be lifted after hearing the Blix-Baradei report yesterday. It certainly seems as if, even though President Bush is declaring war essentially, that he is quite confident at this point.

BRAHIMI: Well, you know, in the past week it's been quite interesting. We've seen a series of meetings broadcast on Iraqi TV showing President Saddam Hussein at times smoking a cigar, very relaxed seemingly, talking to his military commanders, giving them advice on how to prepare this or that, giving advice even to the people, saying, "You should be preparing shelters in your homes," asking the military to also dig trenches.

Actually, now it's quite an interesting scene around Baghdad. There are areas where they've been digging trenches in town, and there are other areas in certain neighborhoods, you see sandbags in the middle of the pavement.

But as far as the president goes, he's been quite relaxed, and also dismissing the U.S. threats, saying, "The U.S. thinks they can overthrow government by dropping leaflets against us?"

So that's the mood it seems, anyway.

NEISLOSS: Rym, at the United Nations, they're saying they're really hoping for clear signals from the U.S. to give enough time to pull out U.N. workers if they need to in a military strike. What are you seeing actually and what are you hearing about the withdrawal of U.N. workers?

BRAHIMI: Well, so far, we still see a lot of U.N. workers. There's quite a lot of them, normally about 900 of them in normal times. Now they would have been down-scaled quite substantially. But they're still, I would say, in the hundreds for now.

That said, there's also a lot of diplomatic missions. There used to be some 55 diplomatic missions, and now there's about half of them. And those that are here have already sent their children and their wives home. That, of course, creates a sense of panic and concerns among people. As soon as they see foreigners leave, they start worrying more than usual.

BASH: Well, Rym, we see the sun is going down behind you. It sounds like the evening call to prayer is also going on behind you.

And both in Baghdad and in Washington, they are pitching their policies to their own people and to the world. The president went prime-time to make his case. I'm back on the story in two minutes to talk about that. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The cost of an attack is significant. If I thought we were safe from attack, I would be thinking differently. But I see a gathering threat. I mean, this is a true, real threat to America. And therefore, we will deal with it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BASH: The president making his case to the country and the world Thursday night.

We're ON THE STORY. Welcome back.

Saddam Hussein is a threat, that's what President Bush said. And the U.S. is not going to wait until he does attack.

And it was kind of interesting on Thursday morning when the White -- first of all, this White House loves the element of surprise. So they announce the press conference on Thursday morning, that it will occur later.

HAYS: It got the market's attention for sure.

BASH: Right, and later that evening, well, there was a joke -- it's funny that you said that, because there was a joke, I'm told, in the senior staff meeting, the next morning that they should do this every night because it was a stimulus for the economy, because one reporter ran out and got new shoes, one reporter got a new sweater set, one reporter got a haircut.

So this White House definitely had the element of surprise going for them.

But I wanted to know from Rym, was there any coverage at all? Did you see this press conference at all, and did you hear what the president had to say in Iraq?

BRAHIMI: Well, it wasn't broadcast on Iraqi TV or on official Iraqi media, but a lot of people do get access to that. And they listened to it on international radio stations.

And those people who listened to it, they're really taking their cue from that speech or that address, rather than from whatever happened at the United Nations Security Council. They think that was Bush's -- President Bush's declaration for war.

BASH: And of course this idea, the idea of doing it prime-time was to get the message out to the American people. I mean, the president has said a lot of what he said on Thursday night, over and over and over again. But the idea of doing it in prime-time, knowing that the networks would break in -- and they did. No "Friends" that night, or at least not at that time. So they really thought it was important for the president to get his message out, to talk about why he thinks Saddam Hussein is a threat in a way that is kind of uninterrupted, not in a seven-second soundbite.

HINOJOSA: I'm wondering, Dana, as a journalist, I'm just wondering whether or not there was a certain level of frustration though. I mean, there were a lot of really good questions. Certainly the anti-war protesters that I've been following said that they felt that a lot of their perspectives were asked, but the frustration of the president not really answering the specific questions.

I mean, how do you handle that as journalist when you're there and you're asking the question, but he's just staying so on-message that he's not answering the specific questions?

BASH: Well, I'll tell you, Maria, the president was, as you saw, very, very well prepared for his press conference. Apparently on Tuesday morning, his aides went to him and said, "You know, we think it's time to do this."

And on Wednesday, he got a whole list of potential questions and suggested answers. And then on Thursday he went through what most politicians do before they have press conferences, kind of a firing squad with his senior aides in the Oval Office and then in the residence, going over every question that he would be asked and potential answers.

And a funny story, apparently what the president likes to do in these kind of firing-squad moments is, at a certain point when he's asked the question a number of times and he feels like he's got the answer down pat, he'll give a wild answer, something that will just throw his aides off and make them very nervous, just to see if they're paying attention. He kind of likes to lighten the mood a little bit in those sessions.

BRAHIMI: Well, Dana, let me ask you this from Baghdad. As I was saying, a lot of people are really taking what Bush said in that address, or in that press conference, as his declaration for war.

Is there a feeling in Washington that whatever happens at the U.N. Security Council now is purely cosmetic, but that the decision has been taken and that war is imminent?

BASH: There is a feeling in Washington that perhaps it is inevitable, especially with this new deadline of March 17th. But the White House is trying, Rym, to be very careful about saying that they have not -- the president has not made his decision yet, he has not decided to use military action.

But if you read the signs, see the number of troops that are in the region right around where you are, it's hard to see that this would be something that would not happen.

Especially, you know, talking to senior officials, when they give this deadline, what they want is total disarmament. And they say they do not expect -- they can't see at all the chance that Saddam Hussein would actually fully disarm. They just don't see it.

KOPPEL: Dana, I was sort of struck by the fact that President Bush didn't really talk about the Blix-Baradei report, which were going to be happening the day after, not making his case again, sort of rebutting the points that they've made.

Is that because the president has pretty much decided at that stage that the Blix-Baradei reports had -- there was no way that they were going to give him further ammunition?

BASH: It's really interesting that you ask that question, Andrea, because it really struck me that the morning of the -- yesterday morning, the morning of the report, other times in the past when Blix has given his report, there's been a sense that the White House had some hope that perhaps Hans Blix would make it clear that Saddam Hussein is not disarming.

Not at all. Ari Fleischer and the gaggle, when he was actually point-blank asked, "What do you expect from the Blix report," kind of blew off the question and said, you know, "When history looks back on the United Nations, they're not going to look at these Blix reports. They're going to look at the president giving a speech there in September and Resolution 1441 passing."

So they essentially had no hope that Hans Blix was going to give them any kind of ammunition to show that Saddam Hussein isn't disarming, and he sure didn't.

HINOJOSA: Well, that's certainly going to be looked at very closely in Baghdad.

We want to say good-bye to Rym Brahimi. Rym, stay safe. We're thinking of you.

BRAHIMI: Thank you.

HINOJOSA: When we come back, more on protesters wanting to get the White House to listen to what they have to say. We're ON THE STORY and back in two minutes.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HINOJOSA: Well, more voices being raised against a possible war with Iraq earlier this week in Philadelphia, where I was, and today in Washington, D.C., where I'm with women who are protesting for International Women's Day.

Welcome back to ON THE STORY.

I have to say, you know, I've been covering now the anti-war movement for over a month. And what surprises me is the kind of people who I am seeing who are part of this.

When we first arrived in Philadelphia on Wednesday to do this student walkout, there was this young man who was a varsity baseball player, he's never been to demonstrations. He lost some friends on September 11th, and that's what has motivated him to become part of this. And he's gone so far as to even go to Baghdad.

But interestingly, a lot of high school kids, sorority young women, high schoolers from prep -- from high school prep schools, as well as inner-city schools, all of them just very concerned about what this means. And they say that they want to be heard, even if they're young people. And that's what the women here are saying, that they want to be heard today for International Women's Day.

HAYS: Well, Maria, it is interesting that you find, I think, in every community, this war is really already tending to polarize people. I asked one Wall Street investment strategist this week, "Is Wall Street supporting this war?" He said, "Yes, I think it is." Bill Gross, who's the big bond guru out in California, in his monthly letter went out on a limb. He said, "I'm against this war."

What I want to ask you is how people feel now. War looks inevitable, so how do the anti-war protesters feel? Do they feel fruitless, or do they feel that they are just going to double down and try even harder, even if a war starts?

HINOJOSA: They continue to say that they believe that they are the second superpower, the superpower of public opinion. So that even, yes, you know, you'll talk to many of them who say, "Look, we really think that we can't stop this." But many of them will tell you that they feel so strongly, though, that they have to speak out. That after February 15th, where it was worldwide, that they feel that they have this international community.

And on campuses, where I was earlier in the week, you know, people have said that when they would, you know, three or four months ago be handing out leaflets that a lot of students would walk away, just kind of apathetic. And that now when they're giving out these leaflets, students are stopping, looking at it and reading it, wanting to get educated. So they continue to feel like their roles are increasing across the country.

NEISLOSS: Maria, I wondered, actually, about the sense of hopelessness myself. Because, as one diplomat here said to me recently, well, the planes are already down the runway.

But do you have a sense that, looking beyond what they are immediately protesting right now, that there is any kind of growing movement or solidification of opinion shaping, maybe, political forces against the Bush administration, for the Bush administration? Any kind of change that will continue after a war?

HINOJOSA: Well, that's one of the interesting things and one of the problems for the anti-war movement.

Perhaps you can hear some of the music that's gearing up behind me, so don't get confused, I'm not at a rock party, I'm at a demonstration.

(LAUGHTER)

But, you know, the thing is, is that it's such a broad movement, where, for example, earlier this week, Coleen Rowley, the former FBI agent, came out and said that they're concerned. So anti-war protesters might think that they have a colleague there, someone who supports them, with an FBI agent.

So it's huge, which means that finding allegiances beyond being against this war makes it more difficult. I mean, I've talked to some activists who say, God, you know, wouldn't it be great if we could just get one person on an international level, a Nelson Mandela, a Harry Belafonte, and that he would spearhead this movement? But then someone else said, but you know what, that's just not part of the process.

You know, the progressive groups, they're always concerned about process. But there are some who wonder whether or not the process may actually be holding back the movement. So there are concerns that it needs to be moving even faster.

KOPPEL: Maria, how much of this is people who are just opposed to war under any circumstances, or people who feel that President Bush just has not made a good enough case to go to war with Iraq?

HINOJOSA: It's a real interesting mix, Andrea, because there are many of these people who are anti-war against any circumstance. But there are a lot of them who say if this war were declared with the U.N. backing, if it were really an international response to Iraq, then perhaps they would have less problems with it. I think so many are just concerned that at this precise moment the United States is going to isolate itself and throw the world into a very -- what they say, a very dangerous and precarious situation, that that's why they're against this now.

BASH: Well, Maria, you know, the build-up for a possible war of course has a huge impact on military families -- men and women heading off and those left behind.

This weekend, a special edition of "People in the News" looks at how families are coping. Let's take a look at an excerpt from (ph) Bruce Burkhardt's story on one family that already knows the sacrifice and pain that war can demand.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Those yellow P.T. (ph) shorts? Well, I ain't had no choice but to wear them things.

(LAUGHTER)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You was off that day!

(LAUGHTER)

BRUCE BURKHARDT, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): A Sunday near Ft. Hood, Texas. Tim Stephens, his wife and two of his children spend the afternoon with Tim's extended family. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now he got the whole outfit on. The shirt, the shorts, and the socks.

(LAUGHTER)

BURKHARDT: It feels like a normal get-together. But along with the laughter and the joking, there's an undercurrent of uncertainty.

The Stephens are waiting to see if Tim, an Army staff sergeant and Gulf War veteran, will get the call to fight again.

TIM STEPHENS: I have not reservations about going. I mean, I feel that where I'm at, we're trained, we're ready. If we got to go, we're going to go and we're going to do well.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Tim is saying, "It's all right, Mom, you know. If it's my time to go, I'm going." I said, "Right, Tim, right," you know. But I keep saying, "Lord, I know you're going to take my child. I know you're going to protect my child and send him back home."

BURKHARDT: This mom has a reason to be worried. She already knows the sacrifices of sending a baby off to war. Twelve years ago, four of her boys were sent to the Middle East to fight Iraq. Only three returned.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BASH: You can see this and the stories of other families, as well, in a special edition of CNN's "PEOPLE IN THE NEWS: Leaving Home," in the next hour, 11:00 a.m. Eastern, 8:00 a.m. Pacific.

HAYS: And, you know, we talk so much about the costs of war, and we worry about a budget deficit, but ultimately there is really only one cost that matters, that's the loss of human life. And it's so interesting to me to see people in our military forces who are so prepared to go and do this.

And I wonder, I think it's very difficult for people in the anti- war movement to keep making that point -- "We're against the war; we're not against you." Because you just know that these men and women going over, they need support, they need to feel, you know, the emotion of the country behind them.

HINOJOSA: Right. Well, that's why a lot of the anti-war protesters carry signs that say, "We support our troops; don't send them to war."

Another interesting group that's formed, as well, is called Military Families Speak Out. They'll actually be speaking at the demonstration today here in Washington. These are relatives of the men and women who are in the armed services who are against this war.

I spoke earlier this week with a woman who lost her son on September 11th. She's not sure how she feels about this possible action, but she did say that in her own community in Nyack (ph), New York, she's heard of young men and women who are actually going to sign up to go to serve in the military now.

And then I spoke to another young person at the demonstration earlier this week who said, "You know, I have a brother who's in the military, and he says that a lot of his fellow soldiers don't want this war either." So it's a hard nut to crack there.

But there are -- one interesting thing that's happened is the groups that are calling themselves pro-war are going to be holding several demonstrations over this weekend in front of military bases. They'll certainly be holding those signs that say, "We support our troops," in a very clear way, not "We support our troops; bring them home," but just, "We support our troops."

HAYS: Well, all these movements are such an important part of the story, Maria. Thanks for joining us. I know the demonstrations start in about a half an hour, so you've got things to do. Maria Hinojosa, thank you.

Possible war is prompting protests and pessimism among consumers, investors and business leaders. We're ON THE STORY and back in two minutes with a CNN news alert.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(NEWSBREAK)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN SNOW, TREASURY SECRETARY: You hardly ever make a mistake when you bet on allowing the productivity and creativity and energy of the American worker and businesses to be -- to come to full fruition.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYS: Treasury Secretary John Snow tries to break through the barrage of war talk, to push forward the administration's economic policies.

We're ON THE STORY. Welcome back.

And of course, that task, very difficult. War drums beating very loudly. But it had to have beaten on the White House's, the country's consciousness this week, that this economy looks more and more like it's in trouble.

The big news: In February, the economy lost 308,000 jobs. Maybe there were some reservists who got called up, undoubtedly. Maybe some cold weather made it worse. But most economists said there are more than one distress signal coming out of the economy right now, and this was just the latest big one.

NEISLOSS: Kathleen, is this sign that the whole economy is heading south? What does this mean? HAYS: Well, I think among the more pessimistic people, Liz, that's beginning to be the worry. We interviewed an economist yesterday who said she thinks, when we look back, we're going to say February was the first month of recession. The economy has now lost jobs four of the past six months.

And I think what some people will say, "No, no, no. The fundamentals are sound. When we got past the war, everything will be fine." The problem is, the longer the war worries linger, the longer people keep their decisions on hold, businesses don't hire. And there is some damage being inflicted right now.

BASH: That's exactly what I wanted to ask you. We've talked so many times eon this program about the fact that the entire economy is kind of -- there's a hold button, a pause button on it, waiting for a war, a potential war to start.

You talked about all of these different factors that are going into what you might be -- you even used the "R" word, which is so scary, the recession. Is it still, you think, waiting for war, or are other things out there?

HAYS: Well, I think it becomes a little bit of a snowball effect. If you were waiting for war and you don't hire somebody, or if you just know your company isn't hiring or might lay off, then you hold back on purchases. You're more cautious. So it kind of sends a chill across the entire economy. I think that's the worry.

And meanwhile, Dana, the White House, again, so focused on war, more and more talk that the budget deficit is going to be so big the president will have to give up some part of the tax cuts. And right now, just so many more questions than answers.

BASH: Certainly not (UNINTELLIGIBLE) there yet.

KOPPEL: Is there any guarantee though, Kathleen, after a war, that people would start -- businesses would start hiring, more people start taking on more projects? Or are we just being a little too optimistic?

HAYS: Well, that's the big question, isn't it? And a lot of people, Andrea, are saying, "You know, if you're an investor out there, you should just, you know, hold your breath, take the plunge, buy stocks now, because the stock market is beaten up. We're going to see a big rally in stocks when the war starts."

But I think a lot of people are saying, "Yes, maybe we'll get the big rally in stocks, but how long will it last," because it is more than war worries holding down the economy right now.

NIESLOSS: Kathleen, what's the latest feeling? I know it feels like we always talk about this, but what is the latest feeling in the oil markets, given what's going on with Iraq?

HAYS: Well, the oil prices will probably spike higher. Again, quick move into Baghdad, quick victory, it looks like the U.S. is going to sew this thing up quickly if the war starts.

I've got to keep putting the "if" in, though I'm maybe one of the last people on the planet doing it.

Then people think that energy prices, oil prices are going to fall fairly quickly.

But you know, it's not just oil. We also have natural gas prices a lot higher. I think that the concern is now that energy prices, sure they'll pull back, but they have already been high, and that is again taking some money out of our pockets. The winter has been very cold, and that that is something that we don't get back.

And remember, the past four recessions, people say over and over, were all proceeded by energy price spikes.

KOPPEL: Well, Kathleen, thanks. This reminder that your new show on CNNfn starts on Monday, which we'll all be watching of course. It's called "The Flip Side." It runs daily at 11:00 a.m. eastern, 8:00 a.m. Pacific. Congratulations on that.

From business and economic troubles, back to the diplomatic challenges facing the president and his team, especially Secretary of State Colin Powell, we are back ON THE STORY in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COLIN POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE: None of us wants to live in a world where facts are defeated by deceit, where the words of the Security Council mean nothing, where Saddam and the likes of Saddam are emboldened to acquire and wield weapons of mass destruction.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KOPPEL: Secretary of State Colin Powell, saying Iraq's actions are too little too late.

We are ON THE STORY. Welcome back.

You know, when the new language came out in the resolution, that was announced by the British foreign minister, Jack Straw, I called up one of my sources and was trying to get at where the language came from. Obviously, this is a compromise.

"Was it to get the undecided six," I asked him. The U.S. at this point has four votes; it needs five more. And I said, "Was this Mexico, was this Chile, whose ideas were reflected in this?" And he kept saying, "It's the British, it's the British."

And I said, "But that doesn't make sense. You know, why would the British, which had cosponsored the original resolution, why would they want an amendment to this? They don't need to be convinced."

And my source said, "Andrea, don't you get it? It's about Prime Minister Tony Blair. It's about saving his government, or at least trying to, and trying to show the British people that Tony Blair has gone the extra mile."

BASH: Andrea, at the White House, a senior administration official also kind of made it clear that that is the whole reason why they did this, of course, that they said that there's a much better chance of getting a resolution passed if they give Saddam Hussein one last chance.

But do you get the sense from the State Department that this is something that is actually going to work?

KOPPEL: They don't know. And at this stage, you know, it's really anyone's estimated guess as to whether or not they're going to get the nine votes that they need.

But what I also found so interesting is that earlier in the week we heard Prime Minister Blair on MTV. He was asked by one of the kids there, "What happens if Russia or China or France vetoes this?" And he said, "Well, if there's a veto, we will be standing side by side, the British military along with the American military, going into Iraq."

And that was what this extra 10 days was all about. It was about giving Tony Blair political cover, so that even if it's vetoed -- and, Liz, you are following this just as closely, that is a real strong possibility that the U.S. and Great Britain and Australia and their coalition of the wiling will go into Iraq without the U.N.

NEISLOSS: Yes, no, that's definitely the feeling here as well. And you absolutely hear that echo of this is about saving face for Tony Blair, this is why the U.S. is doing it, because otherwise it really doesn't amount to that much in terms of pulling votes over.

Are you hearing, Andrea, within the State Department, how do they feel about these diplomatic ruptures? And do they really matter at this point? Are they worried about them?

KOPPEL: I tell you, I spoke to one source who said that he doesn't think that the American people yet appreciate just how dramatically the transatlantic alliance has been affected by this, and how really the paradigm of we always would rely on the French or on the Germans and the other close European allies, how that has been irreparably damaged. And the fallout is something that we will be experiencing for years to come, that you can't turn the clock back after this, even if the resolution passes.

NEISLOSS: Well, the decision on war will obviously become clear in the days ahead. And what will be the fallout for the U.S., and what will be the fallout for the U.N.? And is the United States violating U.N. resolutions on Iraq?

We're ON THE STORY and back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HANS BLIX, CHIEF U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: We've had a couple of months of inspection, and it seems to me to be a rather short time to just close the door and say, "This is it."

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEISLOSS: Not one to give fodder for either side of the argument, that's Hans Blix, chief U.N. weapons inspector, this week, finally really saying, "My inspectors could use some more time."

This week, Blix and his nuclear counterpart went to the Security Council. They gave what was expected, a mixed-bag report. They did say that military pressure was getting cooperation from Iraq.

ElBaradei, perhaps slightly surprising, took a real swipe at some major U.S. evidence, or what the U.S. says is evidence, pointing toward Iraq trying to get ahold of nuclear weapons. ElBaradei said the documents that prove Iraq was importing uranium, these are really forgeries.

But all this, all this took a total back seat to the diplomatic showdown that was taking place. We had a sort of thunder bolt this week from three countries -- France, Germany and Russia -- as they basically stood firm and said, "No way are we authorizing war." Inside the Security Council, in closed consultations, the atmosphere was described politely as "feisty."

And meanwhile, it seems that positions are pretty much standing firm. Actually, today, the Chilean president, who was one of the uncommitted votes, Chile, said, "This deadline that you're proposing, that is too short for us."

KOPPEL: Liz, getting back to your point about the three other permanent members, this really is the ultimate diplomatic dare that the Bush administration and the Blair administration are making to the French, the Germans, and the Chinese, to throw the cards down on the table. And they're saying, "Go ahead and veto."

NEISLOSS: Yes, well, they are really -- they've very much toughened their positions. And when you listen to what the foreign minister said in the meeting, they really paint this as an historic moment. The Russian foreign minister said, "We are laying the foundations for peace and security in our time." The German foreign minister said, "We are at an historic turning point." Clearly, George Bush has made no secret of the fact that this is a sink-or-swim moment for the U.N.

KOPPEL: And not just -- I was just going to say, this is about so much more, as we heard during those speeches yesterday, saying this is about so much more than just Iraq.

What do you think the ramifications of this will be for the United Nations if the U.S., Great Britain go it alone?

NEISLOSS: Well, it really depends on who you talk to. I believe some people feel that this really strengthens the hand of the U.N. It has shown the value of a place to go, a place where people can talk diplomacy and band together to prevent war. Others will say, "Well, look, you didn't prevent war, so it's a complete failure of the U.N." Certainly, it has cast a lot of light on the role of the United Nations.

HAYS: Liz, there's been a lot of question, I think, outside of just what the U.N. is talking about, that this has a lot to do with what happens in Iraq after a war. Some people saying that nations like France are worried about preserving oil contracts, things that are going to be very important after a potential war.

If the U.S. goes in as victorious, they're going to be kind of doing things out. And people wondering behind the scenes, ultimately, if it looks like the U.S. is going to go and it looks like the U.S. is going to win, at the last minute if some people don't abstain and quietly fall behind this effort just to make sure they have a hand in what happens after a possible war.

NEISLOSS: There are so many theories on how people will vote, what will influence them, is it economics? Will Russia look at the picture and say, "You know, we're not going to get our guarantees on oil"? The big picture is standing against the U.S. France clearly has been painted as wanting to take a stand for Europe. It depends on who you ask.

One reporter said to me, "We are no longer mathematicians just counting votes. We have to be psychologists now, figuring out, analyzing, reading the tea leaves." But it is a very difficult time to tell.

But the reaction was clear this week to this move by the U.S. to put a deadline down. I think the line of the week has to go to the diplomat who said, "Look, I have as much chance of getting a date with Julia Roberts as Saddam Hussein does of disarming by that March 17th deadline, so that is totally not realistic."

One diplomat also said, "Look, we are being asked to choose between Saddam Hussein and George Bush." It is an impossible position, it is not what those undecided votes wanted to have to face.

BASH: Liz, I just want to ask you quickly, Ari Fleischer said something really interesting on Friday. He said that this is a moral issue. And for the people at the Security Council, the countries there who vote against this, they are going to have to face a liberated Iraqi people who are going to turn around and say, "Who was with me, and who was against me?"

Is that kind of argument going to have any sway on the middle six, as you call them, the undecided at the Security Council?

NEISLOSS: I really don't think so. I think they are looking kind of at the big picture, considering their own national interests, considering alliances right now with the U.S. I think that really takes a front seat. And I just want to squeeze in one thing -- I'm not sure I have time -- and it is the fact that the U.N. actually is reporting this week violations of the demilitarized zone between Iraq and Kuwait by U.S. Marines. Holes are being cut in the fence by Kuwaiti workers, presumably to let tanks in.

BASH: Liz, thank you very much.

And thank you to all my colleagues.

Thank you for watching ON THE STORY. We'll be back next week.

But still ahead, "PEOPLE IN THE NEWS," with military personnel telling their stories of leaving home. We heard part of that earlier.

And at 12:00 noon Eastern, 9:00 a.m. Pacific, a special two-hour "SHOWDOWN: IRAQ," with Martin Savidge anchoring from Kuwait.

And at 2:00 p.m. Eastern, "CNN LIVE SATURDAY."

Coming up at the top of the hour, a news alert, but first, the president's weekly radio address.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BUSH: Good morning.

This has been an important week on two fronts of our war against terror. First, American and Pakistani authorities captured the mastermind of the September the 11th attacks against our country, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. This is a landmark achievement in disrupting the Al Qaida network, and we believe it will help us prevent future acts of terror.

We are currently working with over 90 countries and have dealt with over 3,000 terrorists who have been detained, arrested, or otherwise will not be a problem for the United States.

Second, the chief United Nations weapons inspector reported yesterday to the Security Council on his efforts to verify Saddam Hussein's compliance with Resolution 1441. This resolution requires Iraq to fully and unconditionally disarm itself of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons materials, as well as the prohibited missiles that could be used to deliver them.

Unfortunately, it is clear that Saddam Hussein is still violating the demands of the United Nations by refusing to disarm. Iraq's dictator has made a public show of producing and destroying a few prohibited missiles. Yet our intelligence shows that, even as he is destroying these few missiles, he has ordered the continued production of the very same type of missiles.

Iraqi operatives continue to play a shell game with inspectors, moving suspected prohibited materials to different locations every 12 to 24 hours. And Iraqi weapons scientists continue to be threatened with harm should they cooperate in interviews with U.N. inspectors. These are not the actions of a regime that is disarming. These are the actions of a regime engaged in a willful charade. If the Iraqi regime were disarming, we would know it because we would see it. Iraq's weapons would be presented to inspectors and destroyed.

Inspection teams do not need more time or more personnel. All they need is what they have never received: the full cooperation of the Iraqi regime.

The only acceptable outcome is the outcome already demanded by a unanimous vote of the Security Council: total disarmament. Saddam Hussein has a long history of reckless aggression and terrible crimes. He possesses weapons of terror. He provides funding and training and safe haven to terrorists who would willingly deliver weapons of mass destruction against America and other peace-loving countries.

The attacks of September the 11th, 2001, showed what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with weapons of mass destruction. We're determined to confront threats wherever they arise, and as a last resort, we must be willing to use military force.

We're doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq. But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm peacefully, he will be disarmed by force.

Across the world and in every part of America, people of good will are hoping and praying for peace. Our goal is peace, for our own nation, for our friends, for our allies, and for all the peoples of the Middle East.

People of good will must also recognize that allowing a dangerous dictator to defy the world and build an arsenal for conquest and mass murder is not peace at all, it is pretense. The cause of peace will be advanced only when the terrorists lose a wealthy patron and protector and when the dictator is fully and finally disarmed.

Thank you for listening.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

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




Upcoming War; Protesters March Against Military Action in Iraq>


Aired March 8, 2003 - 10:00   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
DANA BASH, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Welcome to CNN's ON THE STORY, where our journalists have the inside word on the stories we covered this week.
I'm Dana Bash. I'm on the story of President Bush as he nears the decision on whether to wage war.

RYM BRAHIMI, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I'm Rym Brahimi in Baghdad. I'm on the story of how the possibility of war hits home for Iraqis and President Saddam Hussein.

ANDREA KOPPEL, CNN STATE DEPARTMENT CORRESPONDENT: I'm Andrea Koppel in New York with the story behind the U.S.-British compromise proposal introduced at the U.N. yesterday and how Britain's prime minister hopes it will keep him in government after a war with Iraq begins.

MARIA HINOJOSA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I'm Maria Hinojosa in Washington, D.C., and I'm on the story of how protesters are on the march against war and against the administration.

LIZ NEISLOSS, CNN PRODUCER: I'm Liz Neisloss at the United Nations, on the story of diplomatic deadlock and the deadline for Iraq.

KATHLEEN HAYS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: And I'm Kathleen Hays, on the story of how all of the attention paid to possible war is a big, wet blanket on the U.S. economy.

We'll talk about all of these stories, and we want to hear from you. Our e-mail address is onthestory@cnn.com. We'll also listen to the president's weekly radio address at the end of the hour, but first a check of what's making news right now from CNN headquarters in Atlanta.

(NEWSBREAK)

BRAHIMI: Here in Baghdad this week, President Saddam Hussein has accused the U.S. of panicked policies. He's also warning the U.S. to remember the mistakes of Vietnam before attacking his country.

BASH: Rym, I have a question -- this is Dana Bash -- I have a question for you. The White House is really -- feels pretty confident that once they get into Iraq and they show the Iraqi people that they are there, as they say, as liberators, not conquerors, that the Iraqi people will really welcome this with open arms.

I know it's hard to get kind of honest answers there, but do you get the sense from the Iraqi people that this will be a welcome attack, if it happens?

BRAHIMI: As you say, Dana, this is a very difficult question to answer from here. Of course people you talk to all vow that they will get up in arms and defend their country, if not their home. A lot of people do say that whatever their beliefs with regard to the local Iraqi policy, well, they don't want the U.S. to come as invaders.

And a lot of people will even say, well, if we want to do business with the U.S., that would be fine. We could sell them oil, they could sell us technology. But if they come as invaders, that's a no. That's what people say here.

Dana?

HAYS: Rym, Kathleen, wanting to follow up on that. But there's certainly some practical preparations being made, no? The population presumably thinking about getting water, getting food, getting the basic necessities of life, when and if a war starts?

BRAHIMI: Absolutely. It's taken a while, I think, for that mode of preparation to sink in. But right now, definitely, people are actively preparing. We know that some people are digging wells in their gardens to make sure that they'll have enough water if that happens.

The government has also been giving them advanced food rations. They're now being given stocks of food for until June and July, so that will last. But of course there's a whole segment of the population that can't even afford to stock up food, that's just living day to day. So that's something that they'll have to face if anything happens here.

HINOJOSA: Hey, Rym, I just wanted to know, you know, there are a lot of people who want to know what the feeling is like among the people, the women, the family members. I'm at a demonstration right now where it's all women, and they say that their concerns are for women and children.

Can you put us into the mindset of the women that you speak to? What are they feeling right now? How are they getting by day by day?

BRAHIMI: Among the women, there is maybe less defiance. Of course, some of them will still say, "We're ready to fight. Even as women, we'll take our kitchen knives. We'll go out and fight. We won't let anyone invade."

But at the same time, you do sense a lot of resignation, a sense that there's nothing they can do. Certainly, they're going to be watching their husbands, sons, brothers, possibly be called to fight if there is a U.S.-led attack. And that's something, of course, that worries a lot of women. And of course, the notion of protecting their children, of being able to provide for their children. Again, if something happens, the U.N. agencies say this could be a humanitarian catastrophe. And I think it hits home a lot with the women, who are faced with the day- to-day task of having to deal with that.

KOPPEL: Rym, we know that President Saddam Hussein is now calling for the sanctions to be lifted after hearing the Blix-Baradei report yesterday. It certainly seems as if, even though President Bush is declaring war essentially, that he is quite confident at this point.

BRAHIMI: Well, you know, in the past week it's been quite interesting. We've seen a series of meetings broadcast on Iraqi TV showing President Saddam Hussein at times smoking a cigar, very relaxed seemingly, talking to his military commanders, giving them advice on how to prepare this or that, giving advice even to the people, saying, "You should be preparing shelters in your homes," asking the military to also dig trenches.

Actually, now it's quite an interesting scene around Baghdad. There are areas where they've been digging trenches in town, and there are other areas in certain neighborhoods, you see sandbags in the middle of the pavement.

But as far as the president goes, he's been quite relaxed, and also dismissing the U.S. threats, saying, "The U.S. thinks they can overthrow government by dropping leaflets against us?"

So that's the mood it seems, anyway.

NEISLOSS: Rym, at the United Nations, they're saying they're really hoping for clear signals from the U.S. to give enough time to pull out U.N. workers if they need to in a military strike. What are you seeing actually and what are you hearing about the withdrawal of U.N. workers?

BRAHIMI: Well, so far, we still see a lot of U.N. workers. There's quite a lot of them, normally about 900 of them in normal times. Now they would have been down-scaled quite substantially. But they're still, I would say, in the hundreds for now.

That said, there's also a lot of diplomatic missions. There used to be some 55 diplomatic missions, and now there's about half of them. And those that are here have already sent their children and their wives home. That, of course, creates a sense of panic and concerns among people. As soon as they see foreigners leave, they start worrying more than usual.

BASH: Well, Rym, we see the sun is going down behind you. It sounds like the evening call to prayer is also going on behind you.

And both in Baghdad and in Washington, they are pitching their policies to their own people and to the world. The president went prime-time to make his case. I'm back on the story in two minutes to talk about that. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The cost of an attack is significant. If I thought we were safe from attack, I would be thinking differently. But I see a gathering threat. I mean, this is a true, real threat to America. And therefore, we will deal with it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BASH: The president making his case to the country and the world Thursday night.

We're ON THE STORY. Welcome back.

Saddam Hussein is a threat, that's what President Bush said. And the U.S. is not going to wait until he does attack.

And it was kind of interesting on Thursday morning when the White -- first of all, this White House loves the element of surprise. So they announce the press conference on Thursday morning, that it will occur later.

HAYS: It got the market's attention for sure.

BASH: Right, and later that evening, well, there was a joke -- it's funny that you said that, because there was a joke, I'm told, in the senior staff meeting, the next morning that they should do this every night because it was a stimulus for the economy, because one reporter ran out and got new shoes, one reporter got a new sweater set, one reporter got a haircut.

So this White House definitely had the element of surprise going for them.

But I wanted to know from Rym, was there any coverage at all? Did you see this press conference at all, and did you hear what the president had to say in Iraq?

BRAHIMI: Well, it wasn't broadcast on Iraqi TV or on official Iraqi media, but a lot of people do get access to that. And they listened to it on international radio stations.

And those people who listened to it, they're really taking their cue from that speech or that address, rather than from whatever happened at the United Nations Security Council. They think that was Bush's -- President Bush's declaration for war.

BASH: And of course this idea, the idea of doing it prime-time was to get the message out to the American people. I mean, the president has said a lot of what he said on Thursday night, over and over and over again. But the idea of doing it in prime-time, knowing that the networks would break in -- and they did. No "Friends" that night, or at least not at that time. So they really thought it was important for the president to get his message out, to talk about why he thinks Saddam Hussein is a threat in a way that is kind of uninterrupted, not in a seven-second soundbite.

HINOJOSA: I'm wondering, Dana, as a journalist, I'm just wondering whether or not there was a certain level of frustration though. I mean, there were a lot of really good questions. Certainly the anti-war protesters that I've been following said that they felt that a lot of their perspectives were asked, but the frustration of the president not really answering the specific questions.

I mean, how do you handle that as journalist when you're there and you're asking the question, but he's just staying so on-message that he's not answering the specific questions?

BASH: Well, I'll tell you, Maria, the president was, as you saw, very, very well prepared for his press conference. Apparently on Tuesday morning, his aides went to him and said, "You know, we think it's time to do this."

And on Wednesday, he got a whole list of potential questions and suggested answers. And then on Thursday he went through what most politicians do before they have press conferences, kind of a firing squad with his senior aides in the Oval Office and then in the residence, going over every question that he would be asked and potential answers.

And a funny story, apparently what the president likes to do in these kind of firing-squad moments is, at a certain point when he's asked the question a number of times and he feels like he's got the answer down pat, he'll give a wild answer, something that will just throw his aides off and make them very nervous, just to see if they're paying attention. He kind of likes to lighten the mood a little bit in those sessions.

BRAHIMI: Well, Dana, let me ask you this from Baghdad. As I was saying, a lot of people are really taking what Bush said in that address, or in that press conference, as his declaration for war.

Is there a feeling in Washington that whatever happens at the U.N. Security Council now is purely cosmetic, but that the decision has been taken and that war is imminent?

BASH: There is a feeling in Washington that perhaps it is inevitable, especially with this new deadline of March 17th. But the White House is trying, Rym, to be very careful about saying that they have not -- the president has not made his decision yet, he has not decided to use military action.

But if you read the signs, see the number of troops that are in the region right around where you are, it's hard to see that this would be something that would not happen.

Especially, you know, talking to senior officials, when they give this deadline, what they want is total disarmament. And they say they do not expect -- they can't see at all the chance that Saddam Hussein would actually fully disarm. They just don't see it.

KOPPEL: Dana, I was sort of struck by the fact that President Bush didn't really talk about the Blix-Baradei report, which were going to be happening the day after, not making his case again, sort of rebutting the points that they've made.

Is that because the president has pretty much decided at that stage that the Blix-Baradei reports had -- there was no way that they were going to give him further ammunition?

BASH: It's really interesting that you ask that question, Andrea, because it really struck me that the morning of the -- yesterday morning, the morning of the report, other times in the past when Blix has given his report, there's been a sense that the White House had some hope that perhaps Hans Blix would make it clear that Saddam Hussein is not disarming.

Not at all. Ari Fleischer and the gaggle, when he was actually point-blank asked, "What do you expect from the Blix report," kind of blew off the question and said, you know, "When history looks back on the United Nations, they're not going to look at these Blix reports. They're going to look at the president giving a speech there in September and Resolution 1441 passing."

So they essentially had no hope that Hans Blix was going to give them any kind of ammunition to show that Saddam Hussein isn't disarming, and he sure didn't.

HINOJOSA: Well, that's certainly going to be looked at very closely in Baghdad.

We want to say good-bye to Rym Brahimi. Rym, stay safe. We're thinking of you.

BRAHIMI: Thank you.

HINOJOSA: When we come back, more on protesters wanting to get the White House to listen to what they have to say. We're ON THE STORY and back in two minutes.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HINOJOSA: Well, more voices being raised against a possible war with Iraq earlier this week in Philadelphia, where I was, and today in Washington, D.C., where I'm with women who are protesting for International Women's Day.

Welcome back to ON THE STORY.

I have to say, you know, I've been covering now the anti-war movement for over a month. And what surprises me is the kind of people who I am seeing who are part of this.

When we first arrived in Philadelphia on Wednesday to do this student walkout, there was this young man who was a varsity baseball player, he's never been to demonstrations. He lost some friends on September 11th, and that's what has motivated him to become part of this. And he's gone so far as to even go to Baghdad.

But interestingly, a lot of high school kids, sorority young women, high schoolers from prep -- from high school prep schools, as well as inner-city schools, all of them just very concerned about what this means. And they say that they want to be heard, even if they're young people. And that's what the women here are saying, that they want to be heard today for International Women's Day.

HAYS: Well, Maria, it is interesting that you find, I think, in every community, this war is really already tending to polarize people. I asked one Wall Street investment strategist this week, "Is Wall Street supporting this war?" He said, "Yes, I think it is." Bill Gross, who's the big bond guru out in California, in his monthly letter went out on a limb. He said, "I'm against this war."

What I want to ask you is how people feel now. War looks inevitable, so how do the anti-war protesters feel? Do they feel fruitless, or do they feel that they are just going to double down and try even harder, even if a war starts?

HINOJOSA: They continue to say that they believe that they are the second superpower, the superpower of public opinion. So that even, yes, you know, you'll talk to many of them who say, "Look, we really think that we can't stop this." But many of them will tell you that they feel so strongly, though, that they have to speak out. That after February 15th, where it was worldwide, that they feel that they have this international community.

And on campuses, where I was earlier in the week, you know, people have said that when they would, you know, three or four months ago be handing out leaflets that a lot of students would walk away, just kind of apathetic. And that now when they're giving out these leaflets, students are stopping, looking at it and reading it, wanting to get educated. So they continue to feel like their roles are increasing across the country.

NEISLOSS: Maria, I wondered, actually, about the sense of hopelessness myself. Because, as one diplomat here said to me recently, well, the planes are already down the runway.

But do you have a sense that, looking beyond what they are immediately protesting right now, that there is any kind of growing movement or solidification of opinion shaping, maybe, political forces against the Bush administration, for the Bush administration? Any kind of change that will continue after a war?

HINOJOSA: Well, that's one of the interesting things and one of the problems for the anti-war movement.

Perhaps you can hear some of the music that's gearing up behind me, so don't get confused, I'm not at a rock party, I'm at a demonstration.

(LAUGHTER)

But, you know, the thing is, is that it's such a broad movement, where, for example, earlier this week, Coleen Rowley, the former FBI agent, came out and said that they're concerned. So anti-war protesters might think that they have a colleague there, someone who supports them, with an FBI agent.

So it's huge, which means that finding allegiances beyond being against this war makes it more difficult. I mean, I've talked to some activists who say, God, you know, wouldn't it be great if we could just get one person on an international level, a Nelson Mandela, a Harry Belafonte, and that he would spearhead this movement? But then someone else said, but you know what, that's just not part of the process.

You know, the progressive groups, they're always concerned about process. But there are some who wonder whether or not the process may actually be holding back the movement. So there are concerns that it needs to be moving even faster.

KOPPEL: Maria, how much of this is people who are just opposed to war under any circumstances, or people who feel that President Bush just has not made a good enough case to go to war with Iraq?

HINOJOSA: It's a real interesting mix, Andrea, because there are many of these people who are anti-war against any circumstance. But there are a lot of them who say if this war were declared with the U.N. backing, if it were really an international response to Iraq, then perhaps they would have less problems with it. I think so many are just concerned that at this precise moment the United States is going to isolate itself and throw the world into a very -- what they say, a very dangerous and precarious situation, that that's why they're against this now.

BASH: Well, Maria, you know, the build-up for a possible war of course has a huge impact on military families -- men and women heading off and those left behind.

This weekend, a special edition of "People in the News" looks at how families are coping. Let's take a look at an excerpt from (ph) Bruce Burkhardt's story on one family that already knows the sacrifice and pain that war can demand.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Those yellow P.T. (ph) shorts? Well, I ain't had no choice but to wear them things.

(LAUGHTER)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You was off that day!

(LAUGHTER)

BRUCE BURKHARDT, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): A Sunday near Ft. Hood, Texas. Tim Stephens, his wife and two of his children spend the afternoon with Tim's extended family. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now he got the whole outfit on. The shirt, the shorts, and the socks.

(LAUGHTER)

BURKHARDT: It feels like a normal get-together. But along with the laughter and the joking, there's an undercurrent of uncertainty.

The Stephens are waiting to see if Tim, an Army staff sergeant and Gulf War veteran, will get the call to fight again.

TIM STEPHENS: I have not reservations about going. I mean, I feel that where I'm at, we're trained, we're ready. If we got to go, we're going to go and we're going to do well.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Tim is saying, "It's all right, Mom, you know. If it's my time to go, I'm going." I said, "Right, Tim, right," you know. But I keep saying, "Lord, I know you're going to take my child. I know you're going to protect my child and send him back home."

BURKHARDT: This mom has a reason to be worried. She already knows the sacrifices of sending a baby off to war. Twelve years ago, four of her boys were sent to the Middle East to fight Iraq. Only three returned.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BASH: You can see this and the stories of other families, as well, in a special edition of CNN's "PEOPLE IN THE NEWS: Leaving Home," in the next hour, 11:00 a.m. Eastern, 8:00 a.m. Pacific.

HAYS: And, you know, we talk so much about the costs of war, and we worry about a budget deficit, but ultimately there is really only one cost that matters, that's the loss of human life. And it's so interesting to me to see people in our military forces who are so prepared to go and do this.

And I wonder, I think it's very difficult for people in the anti- war movement to keep making that point -- "We're against the war; we're not against you." Because you just know that these men and women going over, they need support, they need to feel, you know, the emotion of the country behind them.

HINOJOSA: Right. Well, that's why a lot of the anti-war protesters carry signs that say, "We support our troops; don't send them to war."

Another interesting group that's formed, as well, is called Military Families Speak Out. They'll actually be speaking at the demonstration today here in Washington. These are relatives of the men and women who are in the armed services who are against this war.

I spoke earlier this week with a woman who lost her son on September 11th. She's not sure how she feels about this possible action, but she did say that in her own community in Nyack (ph), New York, she's heard of young men and women who are actually going to sign up to go to serve in the military now.

And then I spoke to another young person at the demonstration earlier this week who said, "You know, I have a brother who's in the military, and he says that a lot of his fellow soldiers don't want this war either." So it's a hard nut to crack there.

But there are -- one interesting thing that's happened is the groups that are calling themselves pro-war are going to be holding several demonstrations over this weekend in front of military bases. They'll certainly be holding those signs that say, "We support our troops," in a very clear way, not "We support our troops; bring them home," but just, "We support our troops."

HAYS: Well, all these movements are such an important part of the story, Maria. Thanks for joining us. I know the demonstrations start in about a half an hour, so you've got things to do. Maria Hinojosa, thank you.

Possible war is prompting protests and pessimism among consumers, investors and business leaders. We're ON THE STORY and back in two minutes with a CNN news alert.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(NEWSBREAK)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN SNOW, TREASURY SECRETARY: You hardly ever make a mistake when you bet on allowing the productivity and creativity and energy of the American worker and businesses to be -- to come to full fruition.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYS: Treasury Secretary John Snow tries to break through the barrage of war talk, to push forward the administration's economic policies.

We're ON THE STORY. Welcome back.

And of course, that task, very difficult. War drums beating very loudly. But it had to have beaten on the White House's, the country's consciousness this week, that this economy looks more and more like it's in trouble.

The big news: In February, the economy lost 308,000 jobs. Maybe there were some reservists who got called up, undoubtedly. Maybe some cold weather made it worse. But most economists said there are more than one distress signal coming out of the economy right now, and this was just the latest big one.

NEISLOSS: Kathleen, is this sign that the whole economy is heading south? What does this mean? HAYS: Well, I think among the more pessimistic people, Liz, that's beginning to be the worry. We interviewed an economist yesterday who said she thinks, when we look back, we're going to say February was the first month of recession. The economy has now lost jobs four of the past six months.

And I think what some people will say, "No, no, no. The fundamentals are sound. When we got past the war, everything will be fine." The problem is, the longer the war worries linger, the longer people keep their decisions on hold, businesses don't hire. And there is some damage being inflicted right now.

BASH: That's exactly what I wanted to ask you. We've talked so many times eon this program about the fact that the entire economy is kind of -- there's a hold button, a pause button on it, waiting for a war, a potential war to start.

You talked about all of these different factors that are going into what you might be -- you even used the "R" word, which is so scary, the recession. Is it still, you think, waiting for war, or are other things out there?

HAYS: Well, I think it becomes a little bit of a snowball effect. If you were waiting for war and you don't hire somebody, or if you just know your company isn't hiring or might lay off, then you hold back on purchases. You're more cautious. So it kind of sends a chill across the entire economy. I think that's the worry.

And meanwhile, Dana, the White House, again, so focused on war, more and more talk that the budget deficit is going to be so big the president will have to give up some part of the tax cuts. And right now, just so many more questions than answers.

BASH: Certainly not (UNINTELLIGIBLE) there yet.

KOPPEL: Is there any guarantee though, Kathleen, after a war, that people would start -- businesses would start hiring, more people start taking on more projects? Or are we just being a little too optimistic?

HAYS: Well, that's the big question, isn't it? And a lot of people, Andrea, are saying, "You know, if you're an investor out there, you should just, you know, hold your breath, take the plunge, buy stocks now, because the stock market is beaten up. We're going to see a big rally in stocks when the war starts."

But I think a lot of people are saying, "Yes, maybe we'll get the big rally in stocks, but how long will it last," because it is more than war worries holding down the economy right now.

NIESLOSS: Kathleen, what's the latest feeling? I know it feels like we always talk about this, but what is the latest feeling in the oil markets, given what's going on with Iraq?

HAYS: Well, the oil prices will probably spike higher. Again, quick move into Baghdad, quick victory, it looks like the U.S. is going to sew this thing up quickly if the war starts.

I've got to keep putting the "if" in, though I'm maybe one of the last people on the planet doing it.

Then people think that energy prices, oil prices are going to fall fairly quickly.

But you know, it's not just oil. We also have natural gas prices a lot higher. I think that the concern is now that energy prices, sure they'll pull back, but they have already been high, and that is again taking some money out of our pockets. The winter has been very cold, and that that is something that we don't get back.

And remember, the past four recessions, people say over and over, were all proceeded by energy price spikes.

KOPPEL: Well, Kathleen, thanks. This reminder that your new show on CNNfn starts on Monday, which we'll all be watching of course. It's called "The Flip Side." It runs daily at 11:00 a.m. eastern, 8:00 a.m. Pacific. Congratulations on that.

From business and economic troubles, back to the diplomatic challenges facing the president and his team, especially Secretary of State Colin Powell, we are back ON THE STORY in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COLIN POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE: None of us wants to live in a world where facts are defeated by deceit, where the words of the Security Council mean nothing, where Saddam and the likes of Saddam are emboldened to acquire and wield weapons of mass destruction.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KOPPEL: Secretary of State Colin Powell, saying Iraq's actions are too little too late.

We are ON THE STORY. Welcome back.

You know, when the new language came out in the resolution, that was announced by the British foreign minister, Jack Straw, I called up one of my sources and was trying to get at where the language came from. Obviously, this is a compromise.

"Was it to get the undecided six," I asked him. The U.S. at this point has four votes; it needs five more. And I said, "Was this Mexico, was this Chile, whose ideas were reflected in this?" And he kept saying, "It's the British, it's the British."

And I said, "But that doesn't make sense. You know, why would the British, which had cosponsored the original resolution, why would they want an amendment to this? They don't need to be convinced."

And my source said, "Andrea, don't you get it? It's about Prime Minister Tony Blair. It's about saving his government, or at least trying to, and trying to show the British people that Tony Blair has gone the extra mile."

BASH: Andrea, at the White House, a senior administration official also kind of made it clear that that is the whole reason why they did this, of course, that they said that there's a much better chance of getting a resolution passed if they give Saddam Hussein one last chance.

But do you get the sense from the State Department that this is something that is actually going to work?

KOPPEL: They don't know. And at this stage, you know, it's really anyone's estimated guess as to whether or not they're going to get the nine votes that they need.

But what I also found so interesting is that earlier in the week we heard Prime Minister Blair on MTV. He was asked by one of the kids there, "What happens if Russia or China or France vetoes this?" And he said, "Well, if there's a veto, we will be standing side by side, the British military along with the American military, going into Iraq."

And that was what this extra 10 days was all about. It was about giving Tony Blair political cover, so that even if it's vetoed -- and, Liz, you are following this just as closely, that is a real strong possibility that the U.S. and Great Britain and Australia and their coalition of the wiling will go into Iraq without the U.N.

NEISLOSS: Yes, no, that's definitely the feeling here as well. And you absolutely hear that echo of this is about saving face for Tony Blair, this is why the U.S. is doing it, because otherwise it really doesn't amount to that much in terms of pulling votes over.

Are you hearing, Andrea, within the State Department, how do they feel about these diplomatic ruptures? And do they really matter at this point? Are they worried about them?

KOPPEL: I tell you, I spoke to one source who said that he doesn't think that the American people yet appreciate just how dramatically the transatlantic alliance has been affected by this, and how really the paradigm of we always would rely on the French or on the Germans and the other close European allies, how that has been irreparably damaged. And the fallout is something that we will be experiencing for years to come, that you can't turn the clock back after this, even if the resolution passes.

NEISLOSS: Well, the decision on war will obviously become clear in the days ahead. And what will be the fallout for the U.S., and what will be the fallout for the U.N.? And is the United States violating U.N. resolutions on Iraq?

We're ON THE STORY and back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HANS BLIX, CHIEF U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: We've had a couple of months of inspection, and it seems to me to be a rather short time to just close the door and say, "This is it."

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEISLOSS: Not one to give fodder for either side of the argument, that's Hans Blix, chief U.N. weapons inspector, this week, finally really saying, "My inspectors could use some more time."

This week, Blix and his nuclear counterpart went to the Security Council. They gave what was expected, a mixed-bag report. They did say that military pressure was getting cooperation from Iraq.

ElBaradei, perhaps slightly surprising, took a real swipe at some major U.S. evidence, or what the U.S. says is evidence, pointing toward Iraq trying to get ahold of nuclear weapons. ElBaradei said the documents that prove Iraq was importing uranium, these are really forgeries.

But all this, all this took a total back seat to the diplomatic showdown that was taking place. We had a sort of thunder bolt this week from three countries -- France, Germany and Russia -- as they basically stood firm and said, "No way are we authorizing war." Inside the Security Council, in closed consultations, the atmosphere was described politely as "feisty."

And meanwhile, it seems that positions are pretty much standing firm. Actually, today, the Chilean president, who was one of the uncommitted votes, Chile, said, "This deadline that you're proposing, that is too short for us."

KOPPEL: Liz, getting back to your point about the three other permanent members, this really is the ultimate diplomatic dare that the Bush administration and the Blair administration are making to the French, the Germans, and the Chinese, to throw the cards down on the table. And they're saying, "Go ahead and veto."

NEISLOSS: Yes, well, they are really -- they've very much toughened their positions. And when you listen to what the foreign minister said in the meeting, they really paint this as an historic moment. The Russian foreign minister said, "We are laying the foundations for peace and security in our time." The German foreign minister said, "We are at an historic turning point." Clearly, George Bush has made no secret of the fact that this is a sink-or-swim moment for the U.N.

KOPPEL: And not just -- I was just going to say, this is about so much more, as we heard during those speeches yesterday, saying this is about so much more than just Iraq.

What do you think the ramifications of this will be for the United Nations if the U.S., Great Britain go it alone?

NEISLOSS: Well, it really depends on who you talk to. I believe some people feel that this really strengthens the hand of the U.N. It has shown the value of a place to go, a place where people can talk diplomacy and band together to prevent war. Others will say, "Well, look, you didn't prevent war, so it's a complete failure of the U.N." Certainly, it has cast a lot of light on the role of the United Nations.

HAYS: Liz, there's been a lot of question, I think, outside of just what the U.N. is talking about, that this has a lot to do with what happens in Iraq after a war. Some people saying that nations like France are worried about preserving oil contracts, things that are going to be very important after a potential war.

If the U.S. goes in as victorious, they're going to be kind of doing things out. And people wondering behind the scenes, ultimately, if it looks like the U.S. is going to go and it looks like the U.S. is going to win, at the last minute if some people don't abstain and quietly fall behind this effort just to make sure they have a hand in what happens after a possible war.

NEISLOSS: There are so many theories on how people will vote, what will influence them, is it economics? Will Russia look at the picture and say, "You know, we're not going to get our guarantees on oil"? The big picture is standing against the U.S. France clearly has been painted as wanting to take a stand for Europe. It depends on who you ask.

One reporter said to me, "We are no longer mathematicians just counting votes. We have to be psychologists now, figuring out, analyzing, reading the tea leaves." But it is a very difficult time to tell.

But the reaction was clear this week to this move by the U.S. to put a deadline down. I think the line of the week has to go to the diplomat who said, "Look, I have as much chance of getting a date with Julia Roberts as Saddam Hussein does of disarming by that March 17th deadline, so that is totally not realistic."

One diplomat also said, "Look, we are being asked to choose between Saddam Hussein and George Bush." It is an impossible position, it is not what those undecided votes wanted to have to face.

BASH: Liz, I just want to ask you quickly, Ari Fleischer said something really interesting on Friday. He said that this is a moral issue. And for the people at the Security Council, the countries there who vote against this, they are going to have to face a liberated Iraqi people who are going to turn around and say, "Who was with me, and who was against me?"

Is that kind of argument going to have any sway on the middle six, as you call them, the undecided at the Security Council?

NEISLOSS: I really don't think so. I think they are looking kind of at the big picture, considering their own national interests, considering alliances right now with the U.S. I think that really takes a front seat. And I just want to squeeze in one thing -- I'm not sure I have time -- and it is the fact that the U.N. actually is reporting this week violations of the demilitarized zone between Iraq and Kuwait by U.S. Marines. Holes are being cut in the fence by Kuwaiti workers, presumably to let tanks in.

BASH: Liz, thank you very much.

And thank you to all my colleagues.

Thank you for watching ON THE STORY. We'll be back next week.

But still ahead, "PEOPLE IN THE NEWS," with military personnel telling their stories of leaving home. We heard part of that earlier.

And at 12:00 noon Eastern, 9:00 a.m. Pacific, a special two-hour "SHOWDOWN: IRAQ," with Martin Savidge anchoring from Kuwait.

And at 2:00 p.m. Eastern, "CNN LIVE SATURDAY."

Coming up at the top of the hour, a news alert, but first, the president's weekly radio address.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BUSH: Good morning.

This has been an important week on two fronts of our war against terror. First, American and Pakistani authorities captured the mastermind of the September the 11th attacks against our country, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. This is a landmark achievement in disrupting the Al Qaida network, and we believe it will help us prevent future acts of terror.

We are currently working with over 90 countries and have dealt with over 3,000 terrorists who have been detained, arrested, or otherwise will not be a problem for the United States.

Second, the chief United Nations weapons inspector reported yesterday to the Security Council on his efforts to verify Saddam Hussein's compliance with Resolution 1441. This resolution requires Iraq to fully and unconditionally disarm itself of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons materials, as well as the prohibited missiles that could be used to deliver them.

Unfortunately, it is clear that Saddam Hussein is still violating the demands of the United Nations by refusing to disarm. Iraq's dictator has made a public show of producing and destroying a few prohibited missiles. Yet our intelligence shows that, even as he is destroying these few missiles, he has ordered the continued production of the very same type of missiles.

Iraqi operatives continue to play a shell game with inspectors, moving suspected prohibited materials to different locations every 12 to 24 hours. And Iraqi weapons scientists continue to be threatened with harm should they cooperate in interviews with U.N. inspectors. These are not the actions of a regime that is disarming. These are the actions of a regime engaged in a willful charade. If the Iraqi regime were disarming, we would know it because we would see it. Iraq's weapons would be presented to inspectors and destroyed.

Inspection teams do not need more time or more personnel. All they need is what they have never received: the full cooperation of the Iraqi regime.

The only acceptable outcome is the outcome already demanded by a unanimous vote of the Security Council: total disarmament. Saddam Hussein has a long history of reckless aggression and terrible crimes. He possesses weapons of terror. He provides funding and training and safe haven to terrorists who would willingly deliver weapons of mass destruction against America and other peace-loving countries.

The attacks of September the 11th, 2001, showed what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with weapons of mass destruction. We're determined to confront threats wherever they arise, and as a last resort, we must be willing to use military force.

We're doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq. But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm peacefully, he will be disarmed by force.

Across the world and in every part of America, people of good will are hoping and praying for peace. Our goal is peace, for our own nation, for our friends, for our allies, and for all the peoples of the Middle East.

People of good will must also recognize that allowing a dangerous dictator to defy the world and build an arsenal for conquest and mass murder is not peace at all, it is pretense. The cause of peace will be advanced only when the terrorists lose a wealthy patron and protector and when the dictator is fully and finally disarmed.

Thank you for listening.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

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




Upcoming War; Protesters March Against Military Action in Iraq>