News and Document archive source
copyrighted material disclaimer at bottom of page
NewsMine — cabal-elite — w-administration — bush-team — perle — Viewing Item |
Perle calls hersh terrorist There's an article in the New Yorker magazine by Seymour Hersh that's just coming out today in which he makes a serious accusation against you that you have a conflict of interest in this because you're involved in some business that deals with homeland security, you potentially could make some money if, in fact, there is this kind of climate that he accuses you of proposing.
Let me read a quote from the New Yorker article, the March 17th issue, just out now. "There is no question that Perle believes that removing Saddam from power is the right thing to do. At the same time, he has set up a company that may gain from a war."
PERLE: I don't believe that a company would gain from a war. On the contrary, I believe that the successful removal of Saddam Hussein, and I've said this over and over again, will diminish the threat of terrorism. And what he's talking about is investments in homeland defense, which I think are vital and are necessary.
Look, Sy Hersh is the closest thing American journalism has to a terrorist, frankly.
BLITZER: Well, on the basis of -- why do you say that? A terrorist?
PERLE: Because he's widely irresponsible. If you read the article, it's first of all, impossible to find any consistent theme in it. But the suggestion that my views are somehow related for the potential for investments in homeland defense is complete nonsense.
BLITZER: But I don't understand. Why do you accuse him of being a terrorist?
PERLE: Because he sets out to do damage and he will do it by whatever innuendo, whatever distortion he can -- look, he hasn't written a serious piece since Maylie (ph).
BLITZER: All right. We're going to leave it right there.
Richard Perle, thank you very much.
************************************
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0303/09/le.00.html
CNN LATE EDITION WITH WOLF BLITZER
Showdown: Iraq
Aired March 9, 2003 - 12:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
WOLF BLITZER, HOST: It's noon in Washington, 9:00 a.m. in Los Angeles, 5:00 p.m. in London, and 8:00 p.m. in Baghdad. And wherever you're watching from around the world, thanks for joining us for this special LATE EDITION, Showdown: Iraq.
We'll get to my interview with the U.S. secretary of state, Colin Powell, in just a few minutes, but first, a CNN news alert.
(NEWSBREAK)
BLITZER: A short while ago I spoke with the United States secretary of state, Colin Powell, about the proposed March 17th deadline for Iraq to disarm, the divided U.N. Security Council, and how the Bush administration plans to proceed.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: Mr. Secretary, thanks once again for joining us.
Critical moments right now, obviously, in a potential war with Iraq. What's the rush?
COLIN POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE: I don't think there has been a rush. There has been 12 years of disobedience on the part of Saddam Hussein and Iraq, of the obligations that they have under the various U.N. resolutions. It has been six months since the president gave his speech, four months since Resolution 1441 was put down. How much more time should we wait for the kind of total compliance expected in Resolution 1441?
BLITZER: Hans Blix, the chief weapons inspector, says give them a few more months. You've got the country surrounded. They are doing intrusive inspections. They're destroying missiles. Why not let them have a few more months?
POWELL: Because Iraq continues to deceive, Iraq continues to find ways to divert the inspectors, providing them some level of passive cooperation and there are obviously some things that are going on, but what is causing these things to be going on on the part of the Iraqis? Is it the inspections process or is it just the presence of military force, and Iraq is trying to do as little as it can to remove that political pressure and that military pressure so they can go right back to the old ways.
Look at what Saddam Hussein said yesterday. He started placing demands on the United Nations. He wants the sanctions to end right away. He wants to be free again to continue with his original intent, and that is to develop weapons of mass destruction. I have not seen that strategic change of direction on the part of Iraq and on the part of Saddam Hussein.
Dr. Blix, while he did give a report that described some of the cooperation that he has experienced, and Dr. ElBaradei did the same thing, he also handed out a document, close to 200 pages long, that lists page after page of unanswered questions about the most deadly things one can imagine -- anthrax, botulinum toxin, mustard gas bombs, RPVs that are being developed that are just now turned up.
BLITZER: So are you saying that if you gave them a few more months, three, four, five months, even while you surrounded Iraq, even while the inspectors are there, during that period, there would be an imminent, potential threat to U.S. interests?
POWELL: I think that there is a threat to U.S. interests, there is a threat to stability in that part of the world, and with the post- 9/11 nexus between countries such as Iraq to develop weapons of mass destruction and terrorists who are trying to acquire them, I think the world just cannot sit back, and what he's really trying to do is to stretch this out until the troops can't stay there any longer, and they go home, and he has not fully complied at that point, and he is quite sure that the will of the international community will be broken at that point.
And so the international community came together on the 8th of November with 1441 and said he's guilty, he's got to now fix this, he's got to come into full, immediate, unconditional, not conditional, not later, and also active cooperation, not passive cooperation.
We still have not seen that. We must not be deceived by these limited steps that he's taken.
BLITZER: Well, Dr. Blix suggested that he has seen some active cooperation. I want you to listen to what he told the U.N. Security Council on Friday. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HANS BLIX, CHIEF U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: The destruction undertaken constitutes a substantial measure of disarmament, indeed, the first since the middle of the 1990s. We are not watching the breaking of toothpicks. Lethal weapons are being destroyed.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: Almost 50 Al-Samoud 2 missiles, potentially with chemical, biological warheads. They could kill a lot of U.S. troops.
POWELL: They could kill a lot of people, and I'm glad that they are being destroyed. I just don't know how many there are, and we don't know where the infrastructure may be to produce more of them. And so, I don't view this as a definitive statement of Iraq's change of position with respect to giving up its weapons of mass destruction. And how did it come about that these weapons are being destroyed? Only grudgingly, only when the U.N. placed a demand, and only when Saddam Hussein realized that he had better start destroying these, because the Security Council was liable to be no longer deceived by his efforts, and there was the possibility of a war.
So this is grudging response; this isn't the kind of full, active, unconditional response that 1441 was looking for.
BLITZER: But France and Germany, Russia, some of your closest allies suggest even grudging response is better than war.
POWELL: Well, that is a point of view that they are entitled to. We believe that we have given him more than enough time, that it's time for the Council to make a decision this week, that he has blown his last chance. We simply have not seen that strategic change of direction or intent that 1441 and all the previous resolutions called for.
If he was serious, he wouldn't be placing demands on the U.N., as he did yesterday. He would be saying, "Here are all the people you want to interview, here are all the facilities that I have. Here are all the weapons that I have, here are all the documents that I have."
They are master documenters, as Dr. Blix noted on Friday. They have records. Where are these records? Why aren't they coming forward? Why are they only now suddenly discovering them -- discovering more R-400 bomb fragments and pieces to show to the inspectors? They're doing it grudgingly and they are doing it only to try to keep us from getting to the truth.
BLITZER: Is there something that the U.S. government knows that the governments of France and Germany, for example, don't know about what's going on inside Iraq right now?
POWELL: I can't answer that question, because I don't know how much more we may or may not know, or less than they do, but I do know that their intelligence services, France and Germany, I am quite sure of it, their intelligence services are fully aware of the simple fact that Iraq continues to have and develop weapons of mass destruction, but those intelligence services are shared with policy makers, I can't answer.
BLITZER: Speaking of intelligence, on the nuclear front, Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, the chief nuclear inspector, says that some of the information you and the British government were providing was simply wrong, for example, forged documents suggesting that Niger was providing some sort of uranium to Iraq. Who forged those documents?
POWELL: Well, I have no idea, and if that issue is resolved, that issue is resolved. But we don't believe that all issues with respect to development of a nuclear weapon have been resolved. The issue of the centrifuges, and I know that Dr. ElBaradei has said he doesn't see any evidence that the centrifuges, the aluminum tubes were being used for centrifuges. But we still have an open question with respect to that, and we see more information from a European country this week that suggests that that is exactly what those tubes were intended to be used for. Our CIA believes strongly, and I think it's an open question.
They have deceived the IAEA previously with respect to their nuclear weapons program, and we have seen this week Iran has got the more aggressive nuclear development program than the IAEA thought it had, and surprised the IAEA when this information finally came to the attention of the IAEA, and they were able to verify it in Iran. So you have to be very careful before you close the book on the potential to develop a nuclear weapon.
BLITZER: They've deceived the IAEA in the '80s, when Dr. Blix was in charge. Are you raising some concerns about how good of an inspector he might be?
POWELL: No, I am raising concerns about how good the Iraqis are at deception, at diverting attention, as being very clever at breaking the will of the international community and on using that desire that all people have for peace.
Everybody wants peace, but sometimes, you know, you simply have to do what is right, and hopefully when you have done what is right, if it includes the use of military force, in the aftermath you can demonstrate to the world that you had done the right thing, and that you have provided a better life for the people of Iraq, and you have created a new nation that will live in peace with its neighbors, and we won't have to be worrying about issues like this.
Because there will be a new leadership in Iraq that is not committed to the development of weapons of mass destruction, and you will not have another 12-year sordid story of deception on the part of an Iraqi regime.
BLITZER: The March 17 proposal, the deadline the British have put forward, you support that; the French government says that's not a good idea. Listen to what Dominique de Villepin, the French foreign minister, says.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DOMINIQUE DE VILLEPIN, FRENCH FOREIGN MINISTER: We said very clearly, we said it in Paris with our Russian friend, that as permanent members, we won't accept this new resolution.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: Is there any flexibility in that March 17 date?
POWELL: It is a date that is before the council now, and we have sponsored it with the British, and the Spanish have also signed on to it, and there it is -- it's in a resolution, and we have no plans to change that date.
BLITZER: Do you have the votes to get it passed? POWELL: Well, we don't know yet. We are working very hard over this weekend, as you might imagine, and we'll be working very hard over the next several days to talk to our friends in the Security Council, and I think we're making some progress with the elected 10 members, but as you know, the French have taken a strong position to oppose any resolution, although they haven't used the word "veto," they're certainly indicating that.
BLITZER: When will the vote take place?
POWELL: Sometime this week. I can't predict which day; I don't -- it won't be tomorrow, but sometime this week I think we'll push it to a vote. I think everybody needs a little more time to reflect on what they heard Friday. The modified resolution was introduced on Friday, so we have to give people time to reflect on it over the weekend and into the early part of the week.
BLITZER: As you're doing this final diplomacy, though, are you open to revising somewhat the language in that amended resolution, if necessary, to pick up the nine affirmative votes and not necessarily get a veto?
POWELL: Well, we think the language is quite good, but obviously, most nations only saw it for the first time on Friday afternoon, so we're open to hear responses from them, and if they have ideas that make sense, it's certainly possible to modify the language. We think the resolution is pretty good as it stands.
BLITZER: And possible to modify the date as well?
POWELL: I am not inclined toward a modification of the date, and nobody has so far suggested that to us, but I can't -- I can't tell you now what people might suggest over the next 48 hours.
BLITZER: The whole notion of if you don't get the resolution passed, what happens then? Will the president still be determined, if necessary, to go to war?
POWELL: The president has shown determination to disarm Iraq, and to disarm Saddam Hussein of his weapons of mass destruction, and if we get the vote, fine, then the international community is unified behind that effort.
If we don't get the vote, the president then will have to make a judgment as to whether or not we're prepared now to lead a coalition of the willing to disarm Saddam Hussein, to change the regime, because that seems to be the only way to get him to disarm, and I would not prejudge what the president might do, but I think the president has spoken rather clearly on this point for many, many months.
BLITZER: Some have suggested he's put himself in a box, given U.S. credibility around the world, he can't back down now.
POWELL: Well, the president can -- has all the options available to him until he picks one of those options, and then we'll move forward. And I've been in situations like this a number of times before in my career where public opinion was against you, where there were demonstrations against you, but if you did what was right, and it turned out to be the correct thing to do because you have made a region of the world a safer, better place, then you can be vindicated in the aftermath, and I think that's the situation we're facing right now.
BLITZER: We only have a few seconds left. How close is Iran to building a bomb?
POWELL: Well, this is a good issue. I mean, here we suddenly discover that Iran is much further along, with a far more robust nuclear weapons development program than anyone said it had, and now the IAEA has found that out -- we've provided them information, they have discovered it -- and it shows you how a determined nation that has the intent to develop a nuclear weapon can keep that development process secret from inspectors and outsiders, if they really are determined to do it, and we know that Saddam Hussein has not lost his intent.
BLITZER: Finally, Mr. Secretary, North Korea. The North Koreans say simply talk to North Korea, and you can resolve this nuclear tension. Why not establish a direct link?
POWELL: I think eventually we will be talking to North Korea, but we're not going to simply fall into what I believe is a bad practice of saying the only way you can talk to us is directly, when it affects other nations in the region. And this time, we need a solution that all nations have bought into.
We talked directly to North Korea when we signed the Agreed Framework in 1994, and it turned out that that just became something that was part (ph) as they went on to develop nuclear weapons through another technology. This time, we want a better solution.
We want a solution that involves all the countries in the region, and I hope North Korea understands that it is also in their interests to have all the nations in the region part of this dialogue, and within that broader dialogue, we'll be talking to the North Koreans.
BLITZER: Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for joining us. Good luck to you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: Still to come, a debate between the former Pentagon official Richard Perle and the anti-war activist, former Congressman Tom Andrews.
But when we return, the United States and Britain want to give Iraq eight more days to fully disarm. Is it Saddam Hussein's last chance to avoid war? We'll talk with two top members of the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee, Republican John Warner of Virginia, he's the chairman, and the ranking Democrat, Carl Levin of Michigan.
LATE EDITION, Showdown: Iraq, will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The world needs him to answer a single question: Has the Iraqi regime fully and unconditionally disarmed?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: President Bush stating his bottom line regarding the Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.
Welcome back to LATE EDITION, Showdown: Iraq.
We're joined now by the leaders of the United States Senate Armed Services Committee. Here in Washington, the committee's chairman, the Republican Senator John Warner of Virginia and in Detroit, the panel's top Democrat, Senator Carl Levin of Michigan.
Senators, welcome back to LATE EDITION.
And, Mr. Chairman, let me begin with you. Secretary Powell seemed to suggest there really isn't much flexibility in this March 17th date. What's wrong with giving the inspectors what they say they want, some more time, even if it takes a few more months?
SEN. JOHN WARNER (R), VIRGINIA: Well, of course, we've been at it for 12 years, Wolf. We've not had a rush to war. The president doesn't want war. He has fully explored the diplomatic options, and now we have a very fine secretary of state diligently working right now to get the votes for a resolution.
It's terribly important that the U.N. remain in the minds of the people all over the world as an organization that will hold accountable rogue nations. We're faced with problems in North Korea, and this morning we find that Iran is on the brink.
BLITZER: But, Senator, if in order to get the French, the Germans, the Russians and the Chinese and get a real consensus on the Security Council, it takes another month or two or even three, what's wrong with that?
WARNER: You know, Wolf, members of Congress are not entrusted with negotiations, but clearly I listened, as you did, just a minute ago, I did not see the door slammed. He simply said that's the date. I see no reason to move it.
I think this morning I saw one report out of London that Great Britain might want to see whether or not you could add a little time to the 17th. But that's left for the secretaries of state and others to deal with. It may come about. I think in the next few days you'll see a battle in there between the 17th and the months that Blix lays down.
But it's a slippery slope and if we step on that one more time, I fear that we could be giving Saddam Hussein the option to work his way out of this and remain in power with those weapons.
BLITZER: All right. What about that, Senator Levin? Where do you stand on perhaps extending this deadline by a few months?
SEN. CARL LEVIN (D), MICHIGAN: Well, I think we ought to make our case to the U.N. but then we ought to stick with the U.N. Basically it doesn't make a lot of sense to me, nor is it wise in my judgment, to invoke the U.N. in the first place, invoke its resolutions as the basis for our proceeding and then ignore the U.N. if they disagree with us.
So we should make the case. If we win the case, fine. Then the authority from the world community acting through the U.N. is there for us, and the risks are much less of military action in that case...
BLITZER: Senator Levin...
LEVIN: ... and the likelihood of success without military action is greater. But if we can't persuade the U.N., I don't think we should walk away from it.
BLITZER: Well, are you saying that if France were to use its veto and veto this resolution, then the U.S. just simply withdraw its troops and not go to war?
LEVIN: No, I think the military pressure's obviously been an important point and the U.N. wants that military pressure to remain. The questions is whether we initiate an attack with that military pressure, not whether or not military pressure remains there.
BLITZER: So you're willing to give France, for example Senator Levin, that kind of veto authority for the United States to make a decision whether it's in the U.S. best national security interests...
LEVIN: No.
BLITZER: ... to attack Saddam Hussein.
LEVIN: Not at all. I'm not willing to give anybody a veto over whether it's in our security interest to attack or initiate an attack on Saddam Hussein. If we are threatened, if there's an imminent threat or an immediate threat against us, we obviously will use military force. But there is no immediate or imminent threat against us.
So then the question is, is it wise for us without the U.N. authority to initiate that attack? And it seems to me that there the risks are huge. We will be isolated in the world. A likely terrorist response would be even fueled if we proceed without U.N. authority.
So, of course, we'd retain the right to proceed without U.N. authority at any time we want. We're not going to give anybody a veto. We don't need anybody's permission. The question is the wisdom of proceeding without U.N. authority where we have invoked the resolutions of the U.N. as the basis for an attack.
BLITZER: All right.
LEVIN: So, we should stick with the U.N. Security Council and not ignore its outcome.
BLITZER: All right. Let me bring back Senator Warner.
Senator Warner, he makes a fair point. It's a point similarly raised in an editorial in the New York Times earlier in the week. I'll put it up on the screen.
"The rupture is not just another bump in the road in the showdown with Iraq, it could lead to a serious, possibly fatal breakdown in the system of collective security which has been so instrumental to maintaining the peace since World War II."
WARNER: No one discounts the seriousness of these risks, especially our president. You know, this president is not driven by politics, not driven by polls.
He's driven by principles and values and his duty as he sees it under our Constitution to protect ourself. Carl Levin is setting us up for a veto situation of that presidential power if we fail to go along with whatever the U.N. may do in the next few weeks.
I'd like to remind my good friend, because we've served on this committee together for a quarter of a century, Bill Clinton bombed in Kosovo for 80 days and then sent American troops in. No U.N. action.
Bill Clinton bombed Iraq in '98, December, I remember well when the inspectors left. No U.N. action. So why all of a sudden say to this president, you cannot act unless the U.N. gives you the approval?
BLITZER: Senator Levin, that's a fair question.
LEVIN: I'm not saying he cannot act. I'm saying it is not wise, it is not in our interests, that we will unleash and fuel a terrorist response.
In Kosovo, it's very interesting, number one, the NATO was together when it came to Kosovo. Number two, the Charter of the United Nations says that regional organizations such as NATO are authorized to take actions in security of the region, and in the case of Kosovo we had the U.N., excuse me, we had the NATO organization totally and thoroughly behind us, and we were acting in support of a Muslim community.
Here it's the opposite. Here we don't have U.N. authority yet. We might get it. We don't have it yet, NATO is divided, and this would be an attack on a Muslim nation.
So the circumstances are very different.
WARNER: Could I say to my good friend, Carl, you know, it was hoped that NATO would come in this time, and guess what, it was France and Germany that put the marker down to block the help to Turkey.
BLITZER: And Belgium.
LEVIN: Now we have other problems, too, like Canada.
WARNER: Let me just make one point. I've been on planet Earth a little longer than most, and I remember in the late '30s, on the eve of World War II, Neville Chamberlain coming out and holding that piece of paper, you remember, he said "Peace in our time."
That's basically what France is doing now.
BLITZER: You're saying that this is appeasement?
WARNER: You cannot appease, we've proved it with Hitler in World War II, appeasement didn't work. Fortunately, Churchill had the strength to succeed Chamberlain and not let that happen.
This president, our president, hasn't blinked, hasn't flinched. He's listened very carefully to the dissent, all sides of this issue, and stayed the course.
LEVIN: Well, it's a good thing that we agree on that, that appeasement doesn't work. But here we have a U.N. Security Council that is determined to disarm Saddam, and it is not appeasement to have troops that are there to contain and restrain Saddam, and to have the world community putting huge pressure on Saddam, which we are, through inspections which the inspectors say are succeeding.
So it's a totally different situation to have him contained and to have him surrounded and to have inspectors going throughout in a very thorough way his country than what was existing in the 1930s.
BLITZER: All right. Senators, stand by. We're going to take a quick break.
We have a lot more to discuss with Senators Warner and Levin. LATE EDITION, Showdown: Iraq, will return in just a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Welcome back to LATE EDITION, Showdown: Iraq. We're talking with the two top members of the United States Senate Armed Services Committee, the chairman, Republican John Warner of Virginia, and the ranking Democrat, Carl Levin of Michigan.
Senator Levin, you've suggested that the U.S. intelligence community is holding back vital information from the inspectors, information that could help them pinpoint Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities.
What evidence do you have that the U.S. government isn't sharing that kind of information with the inspectors to help them do their job?
LEVIN: Well, what I've said is that we have a huge amount of information that we've said we have, relative to suspect sites, and that we've not shared all that information. And the basis of it is the letters, which I've shared with my colleagues, including Senator Warner, Senator Roberts, Senator Rockefeller, which show that there is this many suspect sites, but we've not come close to sharing all the information about all those sites.
Now, Tenet, the head of the CIA, has said, "Well, we have already now shared all of the actionable intelligence," but there is a conflict between what he says in public and what he's written me in those classified letters. We have asked him over and over again to clarify that discrepancy, and he has not done so.
BLITZER: All right. Senator Warner, what about that?
WARNER: Carl, I've brought with me this morning the letter that I received from him, and a copy was given to you on Friday. And you know that I've been with you, I think, in most of those conversations with Condoleezza Rice, with Tenet and with Tenet's team.
And you and I have worked together 25 years, but on this one we have a difference of view. I think America has, as this letter states, given all of the relevant information that we have regarding sites to Hans Blix. Now, whether he's had time to use it, that remains to be seen.
But, Carl, if Hans Blix was concerned as you, I'm sure he'd have made a mention of that...
LEVIN: He did.
WARNER: ... in his most recent report.
LEVIN: He did indeed.
WARNER: But not. Not...
LEVIN: He specifically said that he wants more intelligence from the United States. And I've shared with you, John, my answer to this letter, where I have asked...
WARNER: Yes and no.
LEVIN: ... I have asked Tenet to say, OK, what percentage of sites that you have said are suspect sites have we actually shared? He refuses to make public that percentage.
WARNER: But, Carl, you raise the presumption that we, the United States, are purposely contriving not to make the inspections work.
LEVIN: I'm stating a fact.
WARNER: That's a serious indictment...
LEVIN: No.
WARNER: ... and that is wrong, my friend.
LEVIN: I've stated a fact: that he has said in letters to me that I've shared with you, that a small percentage of the sites that we believe are suspect sites have been shared with the inspectors at the U.N. He's not been willing to make public what percentage we have, and I think he ought to. That is not something which would disclose sources or methods. There's nothing there which needs to be classified.
WARNER: Well, this says, "We have" -- and I'm reading -- "We have provided detailed information on all of the high-value and moderate-value sites."
Now, I just accept that representation.
BLITZER: Senator Levin, you want the last word?
LEVIN: Yes, there's a conflict between what he has said in public in that letter and what he has said in classified letters to me which I shared with Senator Warner, a conflict on that very important issue.
BLITZER: All right.
LEVIN: And he has also said -- Tenet has also acknowledged that there were some errors in his testimony. And it seems to me he ought to give us the percentage of the suspect sites which have been shared with the U.N. And Hans Blix specifically asked for more information about suspect sites from our intelligence community just a few days ago.
BLITZER: All right. Senators, let's take a phone call from Georgia.
Georgia, go ahead.
CALLER: Thank you very much, Wolf, a very informative and interesting program.
I'd like to ask your distinguished senators, Senators, if we go into Iraq and achieve a quick win, which I think we would, would that not energize the economy and the stock market, which have both been down a lot lately?
BLITZER: Senator Warner?
WARNER: Well, first, I would caution you on the words, "a quick" conclusion. All of us are looking at this, including the president, who is deeply moved and recognizes the seriousness of the situation -- I wouldn't make that prediction.
As to the outcome, I think, once the world sees that Saddam Hussein no longer has control over weapons of mass destruction, I think we'll breathe a great sigh of relief, and work with the Iraqi people to reestablish a government of their own choosing and to keep that nation together.
BLITZER: All right. We're going to ask Senators Warner and Levin to stand by, because we have to take another quick break. We'll continue our conversation with them, also take more of your phone calls. LATE EDITION, Showdown: Iraq, will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Welcome back to LATE EDITION, Showdown: Iraq.
We're continuing our discussion with the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner of Virginia and the committee's top Democrat, Carl Levin of Michigan.
Senator Levin, the president had a news conference, as you well know, prime-time news conference, Thursday night. He said, for the U.S. everything seemed to change after 9/11. He then went on to make the case for the possibility of war. Listen to this brief excerpt.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BUSH: The price of doing nothing exceeds the price of taking action if we have to. We will do everything we can to minimize the loss of life.
The cost of the attacks on America on September the 11th were enormous. They were significant, and I am not willing to take that chance again.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: That argument resonates with a lot of Americans. Does it with you?
LEVIN: Sure. The cost of doing nothing is huge, and we should not do nothing. We should act. We should act against terrorism. We should act relative to Iraq in a way where we contain Iraq and deter Iraq.
But there's been no connection which has been made between Iraq and 9/11. And the suggestion that there's been some kind of a participation of Iraq in the events of 9/11, it seems to me, has not been substantiated.
So we have a lot of work to do to fight terrorism, and we ought to address the Iraqi threat in a way which does not fuel terrorism. And the point that I've been making is that if we get U.N. authority, that is one thing. It is very different to go after Iraq the way we did in 1991, where we had 28 nations, including Muslim nations, with us. It is very different.
Once we have asked the U.N. for authority, we've invoked their resolutions as the reasons for going in against Iraq. If we do not get the Security Council support for us to then go without that support -- that is the major difference.
BLITZER: Have you seen any evidence, Senator Warner, linking Iraq to 9/11?
WARNER: Not what you'd call a smoking gun, but clearly, Iraq has been a training ground for terrorists. And, you know, it's interesting, this whole doctrine of wait-and-see with Saddam Hussein and say we can contain him.
People don't realize that the structure of weapons has changed since the containment policies of the Cold War. Indeed, the containment policies prior to the most recent outbreak on the Korean Peninsula worked. You cannot contain weapons of mass destruction nor the training of those and filtering those weapons out into the international terrorism group. One half-ounce of an unopened envelope of anthrax kind of paralyzed the Senate.
BLITZER: Senator Levin, before I let you go, a quick reaction to this report in Time magazine suggesting Iran, not Iraq, Iran may be much closer to developing a nuclear bomb than previously thought.
LEVIN: It's a very, very disturbing, but not surprising, development. The same thing has been true of North Korea. We've got to deal with these issues, and we've got to deal with a world community rallying at our side. These are the great threats.
The one that Senator Warner just mentioned, for instance -- those envelopes that a terrorist could get, and we've got to have the world on our side. We've got to lead the world. We shouldn't be treating the U.N. as an obstacle, but as an opportunity to rally the world against terrorist threats and not take unilateral actions which could fuel the terrorist response against the United States.
Anti-Americanism is a threat to us. We were told that by the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Admiral Jacoby. We have to got to act with the world and not divide ourselves against the world through either our rhetoric or unilateral actions.
BLITZER: Senator Warner, I'm going to give you the last word. How close is Iran to building a bomb?
WARNER: You know, I don't think any of us have the specifics, but the evidence is mounting. And we've invited the IAEA to go in, Carl, as you know.
And I share your views, Carl -- the importance of keeping a strong United Nations. Because it is that forum, I think, that can help deal with, not only the Korean Peninsula problem, eventually, but certainly Iran.
But they've got to stand tall here and stand firm in the next weeks in the face of the fact that Saddam Hussein has shown no real substantial cooperation in compliance with their own resolutions, most particularly 1441.
LEVIN: And it'll strengthen them if we stand with them.
BLITZER: Senators, unfortunately, we have to leave it there. Two influential members of the Senate, Senator John Warner, Senator Carl Levin, thanks to both of you for joining us.
LEVIN: Good being with you, Wolf.
BLITZER: Thank you very much.
WARNER: Good being with you, Carl.
LEVIN: So long, John.
BLITZER: And up next, the White House says it has a strong case for war with Iraq, but the anti-war movement is by no means convinced. We'll debate the issue with the former U.S. assistant defense secretary, Richard Perle, and Win Without War founder, the former congressman, Tom Andrews.
LATE EDITION, Showdown: Iraq, will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Welcome back. There are sharp divisions among U.N. Security Council members about going to war with Iraq and strong anti- war sentiment around the world.
Joining us now are two guests with very different points of view. Richard Perle served as the assistant U.S. defense secretary during the Reagan administration. Tom Andrews is the founder of the organization Win Without War. He's also a former Democratic congressman from Maine.
Gentlemen, welcome to LATE EDITION.
And Richard, let me begin with you. Why can't the U.S. wait a few more months, if necessary, to bring France, Germany, Russia, China potentially on board?
RICHARD PERLE, FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. DEFENSE SECRETARY: Because in those months the capability that we've now amassed in the region would deteriorate rapidly. We'd, as a practical matter, have to bring the forces home, and it would amount to a decision not to enforce the U.N. resolutions.
BLITZER: You mean to say the U.S. military doesn't have the flexibility to stand down, wait, maybe rotate troops if necessary?
PERLE: As a practical matter, we do not have, in my view, the capability to sustain months of waiting around while we hope that France, whose interests are quite different from ours, will change its mind.
The French are not going to change their mind. President Chirac has a good relationship with Saddam Hussein. He is actually called Saddam his friend. They have commercial and other relationships and it is foolish to believe that France is going to change its attitude and France will continue to have the ability to veto any United Nations resolution.
BLITZER: All right. Tom, what do you say about that?
TOM ANDREWS, FORMER U.S. CONGRESSMAN: Wolf, you don't go to war just because you're there. You go to war when it's absolutely necessary. And if we take a look at what's happening right now in that region, we've boxed Saddam Hussein in. He is contained. He is being disarmed.
We're at the very point when this weapons inspection process of seeking out and destroying weapons are at its most successful point. The weapons inspections -- weapons inspectors are telling us, "Give us the time to complete the job, we're doing the job. We are being successful."
Why not give them the job to say, I'm sorry, we're going to go in and we're going to invade and occupy Iraq even though it may not be necessary because we're there is simply unacceptable.
PERLE: I'm sorry. I didn't say it may not be necessary. I happen to believe it is absolutely necessary. There's a practical consideration about whether you can move forces back and forth and undertake a necessary action.
And I think it's quite wrong to say the inspectors are disarming Iraq. They're not disarming Iraq at all. Saddam has inventories of chemical and biological weapons that he's hidden, that he's not revealed to the inspectors. What the inspectors are doing is minor gestures and that's all it is. They're playing Saddam's game.
ANDREWS: Wolf, we've heard lots of allegations of what is there or wasn't -- or what is not there. What I'm trying to do is figure out, what are the facts? What are the things that we know?
Well, we know that, in the last few days, Saddam Hussein has been forced to destroy 40 Al-Samoud 2 weapons, missiles. We know that he has destroyed weapons, mustard gas. We know that he is now in the process of revealing documents, hitherto not provided, that will give us a chance to be able to find any of the stockpiles of weapons that were not revealed before.
And we know that we are going to go in and we're going to be inspecting with very sophisticated technology those disposal facilities in which he allegedly destroyed these materials. Now, that is highly significant. That is progress.
BLITZER: Yes, but let's let Richard respond.
PERLE: It's a good point. Saddam Hussein was required by the United Nations under its last resolution, 1441, to make a full, final and complete account of what happened to the weapons of mass destruction and the chemical weapons, the biological weapons, the existence of which was recorded and documented by the previous U.N. inspectors.
He didn't do that. He lied. He failed to provide any information that could be verified by the inspectors.
ANDREWS: But, Mr. Perle...
PERLE: Now you're telling me, five months later, that we should trust Saddam Hussein and that he is now going to tell us what he did with the things he denies he has. It's preposterous.
ANDREWS: No, no one is saying that we trust Saddam Hussein.
PERLE: But that's exactly what you're saying.
ANDREWS: And you don't -- no, but of course we're not. Of course we're not.
PERLE: You're saying -- but see...
ANDREWS: Listen. No, no, no, that's not implied at all. I'm being very clear. You don't trust Saddam Hussein. You look him right in the eye and you say we're going to take out any and all weapons of mass destruction. We're going to force you to dismantle them, and if you don't, we will dismantle them ourselves.
This is not a matter of trust, and it's very, very important for people to understand that we're not appeasing, we're not stepping back from Saddam Hussein, we're standing up to Saddam Hussein.
BLITZER: But...
ANDREWS: But you don't invade a country, sir, when it's on the basis of a lie or a deception.
BLITZER: All right. Hold your thought for one second, Richard. We're just getting started. This debate is just getting under way. We have a lot more to go through point by point by point.
Stand by. We're going to take a quick break.
Coming up in the next hour of LATE EDITION, more on our debate between Richard Perle and Tom Andrews. We'll also explore the prospect of chemical warfare. Are U.S. military personnel really prepared? Plus, the activist Bianca Jagger and the actor Ron Silver square off on the possibility of war.
All that, plus your phone calls. LATE EDITION will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Welcome back to LATE EDITION. We'll continue our discussion with the former U.S. assistant defense secretary Richard Perle and Win Without War founder Tom Andrews shortly.
In the first hour of LATE EDITION, the secretary of state, Colin Powell, insisted President Bush has not yet made a final decision on whether to go to war against Iraq, but he also said time is quickly running out.
Joining us now from the White House with the latest, our White House correspondent, Dana Bash.
(NEWSBREAK)
BLITZER: Let's check some other news that's going on. CNN's Fredricka Whitfield is in Atlanta with a quick CNN news alert.
(NEWSBREAK)
BLITZER: Is now the time to go to war with Iraq? We're talking with the former assistant U.S. defense secretary, Richard Perle, and Win Without War founder, the former congressman, Tom Andrews.
Richard, there's a lot of concern that there are so many unpredictables out there -- that the Iraqis could use chemical or biological warfare, terrorism could be unleashed, you don't know if there will be instability for a long time to come inside Iraq, the neighborhood could disintegrate, if you will -- is it worth it right now to do this effectively with Britain, Australia, some other allies, without getting the international coalition that existed in '91 together?
PERLE: We're not going to be able to get that coalition from 1991 together, so the question is, should we do this or should we not do it?
And while there are great uncertainties, as you indicate, there are no certainties if we fail to take this action, if we turn around and come home and leave Saddam in place, leave him to continue with his weapons of mass destruction, leave him to continue to brutalize the people of Iraq.
BLITZER: But can't he be contained with that -- he's encircled right now by a lot of U.S. troops, he's got inspectors with these intrusive inspections, they're actually destroying missiles.
Can't he be contained, at least in the short term?
PERLE: The concept of containment is a geographic concept. As long as he's in his own country, people argue that he is contained. But the fact is, he is working away, as he has been, at weapons of mass destruction. He has significant concealed inventories, and he can break out at any moment.
What is the future policy supposed to be? Are we to continue sanctions forever against Saddam Hussein?
BLITZER: All right, what about that, Tom?
ANDREWS: Well, first of all, Wolf, we do have the 1991 coalition. It is in place. It is working right now on the policy of disarming and containing Saddam Hussein, using the United Nations Security Council, and using this weapons inspection process that we know does work. So that's very, very important.
And the question is, do we keep this coalition together? Do we keep putting the pressure on Saddam Hussein? And do we use that coalition to find out whether claims that are being made by Mr. Perle, for example, are substantiated or not? We don't know that unless we go in, we inspect and we find the truth.
PERLE: I'm sorry. You keep repeating, Congressman, that the inspection process is working.
ANDREWS: Well, it is.
PERLE: Well, I don't see how you can say it's working since...
ANDREWS: Well, those missiles are being destroyed as we speak.
PERLE: That is not the inspection process.
ANDREWS: They're being destroyed.
PERLE: The anthrax, the botulism, the sarin, the VX, that is all hidden. You are clinging at straws. You are hoping that this...
ANDREWS: That's...
PERLE: Forgive me. You are hoping that the symbolic gesture of destroying a few missiles, which he's not even supposed to have, which he's not entitled to, which he denied having, that the destruction of a few missiles in order to protect and preserve the rest of his weapons of mass destruction suggests that this system is working? It is not working.
ANDREWS: Wolf, Wolf, a few missiles. We destroyed 95 percent of the weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein had during the 1990s. That's more weapons of mass...
PERLE: What do you base that on?
ANDREWS: That's more weapons of mass destruction than we destroyed in the entire Gulf War. The fact of the matter is...
BLITZER: Well, let me just pick up there.
Do you dispute that?
PERLE: No, I'm asking what the evidence is.
BLITZER: What's the evidence of that?
ANDREWS: The evidence is independent reports, the United Nations inspections teams and every piece of tangible evidence that is on the record.
Now, there may be things that aren't on the record, information that you might have that we don't know, and we'd -- I'd love to see it...
PERLE: No, no. I'm, I'm...
ANDREWS: But as far as what we know, we know that enormous amounts -- for example...
BLITZER: Hold on a second. There was extensive destruction. After the son-in-law defected to Jordan, he came back, he provided a wealth of information.
PERLE: No, no. I'm pleased to accept, for purposes of this argument, that the 95 percent figure, which is a figure offered by the previous inspectors, is correct.
But the previous inspectors also identified large quantities of the weapons that remain hidden. So if you're going to accept the correctness of the previous inspectors, then you must acknowledge, surely, that the inspectors now have not found any of the things that the previous inspectors, in the same report you're referring to...
ANDREWS: Not true.
PERLE: ... said Saddam had.
ANDREWS: Not true, not true.
BLITZER: But Richard Butler, in his final report, Richard Butler, when he was the UNSCOM -- the chief weapons inspector, in that report that came out after '98, after the withdrawal in early '99, he did say there is a ton of stuff that's unaccounted for, and is still unaccounted for.
ANDREWS: That's exactly right, Wolf. And that's why it is so important that right now, we are going into those disposal facilities that Saddam Hussein has alleged are the facilities in which they destroyed the VX and the anthrax and other materials -- go in and inspect those facilities. Use sophisticated technology, which is available, and determine whether or not it's been destroyed. So that process is going on right now.
PERLE: Did Saddam, did Saddam document the destruction in the full, final and complete report that he delivered on December 7?
ANDREWS: You know, Saddam Hussein -- no, of course, he didn't. Why? Why? Because he's Saddam Hussein. And do we trust anything that he reports in a final report? No, we don't.
PERLE: Look, on the one hand...
ANDREWS: We verify. And that, Mr. Perle...
PERLE: But you cannot...
ANDREWS: ... is exactly what we're doing as we speak.
PERLE: That's, in fact, the point about these inspections. These inspections were intended to verify claims made by Iraq about the disposition of the weapons of mass destruction. But he lied about the disposition. He said he didn't have any of these weapons. There was no practical mission for the inspectors because there was nothing to verify. They are going -- they are going from one empty facility to another empty facility. You've seen the evidence from the secretary of state. Iraqis talking to one another about moving things before the inspectors arrive.
I think you are hopelessly naive if you believe that 100 inspectors on the ground in Iraq, that territory controlled entirely by Saddam Hussein are going to disarm them.
ANDREWS: Well, Mr. Perle, you, yourself, just a few minutes ago, accepted the 95 percent figure -- 95 percent destruction back in the 1990s.
Now, let's look at how those 95 percent of those weapons were destroyed. They weren't destroyed because Saddam Hussein came forward and said, "Gosh, I made a big mistake. Here they are. Verify them."
No. They did it by taking investigative techniques, looking at all the information available, finding reports that otherwise were not available and putting those together, finding them and destroying them.
That's their role. That's what we should allow them to continue to do. We shouldn't be going to war while this process is reaping the results that it is.
PERLE: The inspectors were thrown out in 1998 because Saddam Hussein wanted to relocate, wanted to hide his remaining weapons of mass destruction, which he has 'til this day and he will have available for his use if we allow him to continue in this manner.
ANDREWS: And why was that? It was not because of a failure of weapons inspections, Wolf. It was a failure of political will. And certainly if the results, the net results, of this confrontation is that the international community has the backbone and the stamina to stand up to Saddam Hussein, look him in the eye and require him to disarm, this will have been a success but we don't have to invade...
BLITZER: But the critics...
ANDREWS: ... and occupy.
BLITZER: Your critics suggest that by your speaking out the way you are, in effect what you're doing is sending a mixed message to Saddam Hussein and giving him some comfort in suspecting that if he plays out this game, he's going to be able to get his way.
ANDREWS: Absolutely not, Wolf. If you listen to what the majority of Americans are saying, they're saying that we want to have the full cooperation, support and coordination with the Security Council of the United Nations before we go in.
We want to be able to take out Saddam Hussein without unnecessarily -- that is, take out his weapons of mass destruction -- without unnecessarily putting our own men and women at risk.
BLITZER: Basically, Richard...
ANDREWS: That's what we're doing.
BLITZER: ... what the congressman is suggesting, the former congressman, is that he wants the same objective -- he has the same goal you have but he thinks it can be done through containment and inspections. You don't believe that.
PERLE: I'm quite sure that it's not possible. And while he talks about being tough with Saddam, the real message is that we're not prepared to take military action. That is the only thing Saddam Hussein understands and I think it's naive to think otherwise.
ANDREWS: We are prepared to take military action...
PERLE: We won't be prepared if we listen to you.
ANDREWS: ... but if it is necessary. And...
PERLE: It is necessary (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
ANDREWS: For example, Wolf, you know, if they have some weapons of mass destruction that they're not willing to destroy, we take them out on a surgical strike. But that's different than invading and occupying for five to 10 years an Arab country...
BLITZER: All right.
ANDREWS: ... in one of the most volatile...
PERLE: Forgive me.
ANDREWS: ... regions of the world.
PERLE: Forgive me. No one is talking about occupying Iraq for five to 10 years. Let's be a little more careful about the statements you make.
ANDREWS: The State Department...
PERLE: I'm sorry.
ANDREWS: The State Department official said two weeks ago that it could be five years.
PERLE: I'm sorry. There is no U.S. plan for anything like that...
ANDREWS: But we don't know the plan. We don't know the plan.
PERLE: ... and let me just suggest to you that your recipe would leave the people of Iraq subject to the continuing murder, rape and brutality of this vicious regime.
ANDREWS: Absolutely not. PERLE: I see no sensitivity in your argument to the plight of the Iraqi people, none whatsoever. And it's tragic, because Iraqis are (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
BLITZER: Go ahead and respond.
ANDREWS: We feel very strongly that Saddam Hussein has to be contained, disarmed and that the people of Iraq must be protected. You don't have to invade and occupy to protect innocent men, women and children. We have seen this time and again.
We're calling for...
PERLE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)
ANDREWS: Please, if you will. Some of our members have stood up just two days ago and said "We'd like to have Saddam Hussein indicted as a war criminal." We're talking about placing human rights monitors throughout Iraq so that he can't continue to create the havoc inside of Iraq.
There are whole series of things, Wolf, that we can...
BLITZER: We're almost out of time. Richard, go ahead and respond to that.
PERLE: Well, I think it's just hopelessly impractical. I don't think this is a serious approach to the protection of the people of Iraq who have been murdered in substantial numbers by Saddam Hussein and who will continue to be murdered by him as long as he's in power.
BLITZER: All right. Tom, hold on a minute. You know, we are basically all out of time for this segment. But before you go, Richard, I want to give you a chance to respond.
There's an article in the New Yorker magazine by Seymour Hersh that's just coming out today in which he makes a serious accusation against you that you have a conflict of interest in this because you're involved in some business that deals with homeland security, you potentially could make some money if, in fact, there is this kind of climate that he accuses you of proposing.
Let me read a quote from the New Yorker article, the March 17th issue, just out now. "There is no question that Perle believes that removing Saddam from power is the right thing to do. At the same time, he has set up a company that may gain from a war."
PERLE: I don't believe that a company would gain from a war. On the contrary, I believe that the successful removal of Saddam Hussein, and I've said this over and over again, will diminish the threat of terrorism. And what he's talking about is investments in homeland defense, which I think are vital and are necessary.
Look, Sy Hersh is the closest thing American journalism has to a terrorist, frankly.
BLITZER: Well, on the basis of -- why do you say that? A terrorist?
PERLE: Because he's widely irresponsible. If you read the article, it's first of all, impossible to find any consistent theme in it. But the suggestion that my views are somehow related for the potential for investments in homeland defense is complete nonsense.
BLITZER: But I don't understand. Why do you accuse him of being a terrorist?
PERLE: Because he sets out to do damage and he will do it by whatever innuendo, whatever distortion he can -- look, he hasn't written a serious piece since Maylie (ph).
BLITZER: All right. We're going to leave it right there.
Richard Perle, thank you very much.
Tom Andrews, thanks for a good debate. I appreciate it very much to you, as well.
ANDREWS: Wolf, thank you.
BLITZER: Up next, the United States prepares for battle in the Persian Gulf, but can it count on the support of other nations in the region. We'll talk with Kuwait's ambassador to the U.S., Salem Al- Sabah.
LATE EDITION will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Welcome back to LATE EDITION.
The United States has had solid and public backing from Arab nations. They had it, at least, during the 1991 Gulf War. But support in the region for a new war against Iraq is lukewarm at best.
Joining us now is Kuwait's ambassador to the United States, Salem Al-Sabah.
Mr. Ambassador, welcome back to LATE EDITION.
Your country of course supportive of the United States, hosting at least 100,000, if not more, U.S. troops in northern Kuwait right now.
We've heard in recent days they've started opening up the fence, breaking down some of the barriers, as if getting ready for U.S. troops to move in. Is that what's going on on the ground?
SALEM AL-SABAH, KUWAITI AMBASSADOR TO U.S.: That's all fairly accurate.
The fence -- you know, we have a 120-mile-long border between Iraq and Kuwait, and in the early '90s, we built a fence on our side of the border to stop infiltrators, Iraqi infiltrators, from coming in to our territory.
So, routinely, we maintain this fence. We take some parts down, we put some parts up. So what's happening now in Kuwait is a regular maintenance work on the fence.
And then again, I have to remind your viewers that this fence is on Kuwaiti territory, it's a Kuwaiti fence, and ultimately it's our decision if we take parts of it down or keep parts of it up.
BLITZER: So, you're denying that this is being potentially used as an opening for U.S. armor, tanks, APCs to go into southern Iraq?
AL-SABAH: I'm not denying, because, if any war happens, of course that's going to be the entry point of Iraq. But what I'm trying to say is that any work that's going on on the fence now is maintenance work, making ready for any potential war in Iraq.
BLITZER: If it comes down to a war, and U.S. troops move into southern Iraq from Kuwait, will Kuwaiti troops go along with them?
AL-SABAH: No, no. Kuwaiti troops are never going to leave Kuwaiti territory. Our troops are stationed on our border with Iraq, and they're going to remain there.
BLITZER: The whole notion of -- already reports coming out from southern Iraq that some U.S. troops in camouflage or in civilian clothes have gone on scouting missions in southern Iraq. Have you heard about those reports?
AL-SABAH: No, I have not heard about...
BLITZER: You haven't heard anything?
AL-SABAH: No.
BLITZER: You haven't seen any evidence along those lines?
AL-SABAH: No, no.
BLITZER: We are getting a lot of indications right now that these sandstorms in southern Iraq, in Kuwait, potentially could be a military hindrance for U.S. troops.
You're very familiar with Kuwait, obviously. How big a deal are these sandstorms, which could affect helicopters and other aircraft and tanks?
AL-SABAH: Well, for Kuwaitis they're not a big deal, because we're fairly used to them. But I can understand their negative effect on equipment and machinery in the region.
But these storms are fairly short. I mean, they sometimes are there for a day, maybe less than a day, maybe a bit more than a day. And then the weather clears up. So it's not a major phemonenon that would hinder any major military operation.
BLITZER: I've heard some U.S. military experts say they're more concerned about sand than they are the heat.
AL-SABAH: That's fairly true, because they're not used to that kind of climate. But as I mentioned before, it's a fairly fast phenomenon that comes and goes...
BLITZER: When do the sandstorms end?
AL-SABAH: Well, now we are in the season of sandstorms, but as I mentioned before, the sandstorms are not constant. They come in phases.
BLITZER: They're unpredictable?
AL-SABAH: They're unpredictable.
BLITZER: But at some point they -- in the summertime, as the weather gets warmer, they stop, right?
AL-SABAH: Right, right.
BLITZER: So that's something that they worry about right now, but they don't necessarily have to worry in the coming months?
AL-SABAH: Right.
BLITZER: Have you ever seen an Arab world as divided as it is right now? I refer specifically to this Islamic conference in Doha the other day. One of the Iraqi officials who was there called your minister of state for foreign affairs a monkey.
AL-SABAH: Right.
Well, I guess -- I mean, the use of profanities by the Iraqi chief of delegation in an international conference that's televised worldwide, I think it stands to show the caliber and the background of the people that are in control in Iraq, and it stands to show also that Iraq still harbors ill intentions toward Kuwait.
And you know, Iraq called us a traitor. My definition of a traitor is a person that stabs his friend in the back. Excuse me, isn't that what Iraq did to us in 1990? Didn't Iraq stab us in the back?
BLITZER: When they invaded Kuwait?
AL-SABAH: Right. And they're accusing us of being traitors?
BLITZER: How worried are you that Iraq could retaliate with chemical or biological warfare against Kuwait?
AL-SABAH: Well, we're very worried. I mean, it's a real threat. We have no illusions about his willingness and intent to use these weapons of mass destruction if he has the chance. And we are under no illusion that he still harbors ill intentions against us.
We are very worried that he might retaliate against us, but I'm very, very confident in the policies that my government has taken to safeguard Kuwait and the people of Kuwait.
BLITZER: Well, have people, the citizens of Kuwait, been provided gas masks and protective gear?
AL-SABAH: Right, gas masks are available. There's a lot of orientation going on in our media, and I think the Kuwait people are quite ready.
BLITZER: Is war inevitable?
AL-SABAH: Well, I hope not. You know, the window of opportunity is not closed yet.
I've heard
|
| Files Listed: 22 |
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been
specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material
available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political,
human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.
We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with
Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research and educational purposes. For more information,
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use
copyrighted material from this site for purpose of your own that go beyond
'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
|
