Skip to main content
CNN.com /TRANSCRIPTS

CNN TV
EDITIONS





CNN TALKBACK LIVE

Town Hall Meeting on Potential War with Iraq

Aired August 27, 2002 - 15:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


(APPLAUSE)
LEON HARRIS, HOST: All right. Not bad. We've got a pretty feisty crowd for a Tuesday here. Not too bad.

Hello, everyone, and welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Leon Harris. Arthel Neville is enjoying a few days off.

Today, we're going to be holding an open town hall meeting on U.S. plans for Iraq, in particular President Saddam Hussein. Now, there are so many questions out there about this whole issue. Does President Bush need congressional approval to go after Saddam? Is the Iraqi leader even a threat? And can the U.S. do it by going alone?

Well, right now, Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the U.S., Prince Bandar bin Sultan, is at President Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas. And sources say that he will be telling Mr. Bush that Saudi Arabia will not support a war on Iraq.

CNN White House correspondent Kelly Wallace is in Crawford, Texas, right now. And she would be with us at the moment, but she's getting a briefing on that meeting that is under way right now. And she'll be joining us in just a few minutes to fill us in on the outcome.

But in the meantime, we want to go ahead and pick up our discussion this afternoon. And we are going to be joined by a couple of people who have some opinions about whether or not President Bush needs congressional approval to attack Saddam's regime. White House lawyers are saying, no, he doesn't. However, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said yesterday that the president is going to be consulting with Congress.

Well, let's get a feel for congressional reaction right now from Texas Democratic Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee, who is going to be joining us in just a moment.

And we have with us right now Colorado Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo, who is with us.

And as I understand it, Congressman, you have actually already written and published a request for President Bush, released a suggestion to Mr. Bush to go ahead and seek congressional approve, correct?

REP. TOM TANCREDO (R), COLORADO: I absolutely did. I did it the first time when we attacked Afghanistan, attacked the Taliban. I have done it again when we are in the preparations for attacking Iraq.

HARRIS: Now, what I understand -- and I have a copy of something that we've gotten off of one of your Web sites. And it says that, in addition to your suggesting to Mr. Bush that he seek congressional approval, you also say that, frankly, the case has not been made clear.

Do you think that it ought to be, you ought to have the congressional approval of a move against Saddam Hussein before the case is actually made or vice versa?

TANCREDO: No, I think what you have to do is this.

For two reasons, you have to come to the Congress and ask for a declaration of war; one, because the Constitution requires it. I recognize that there are lawyers out there that disagree with me. But I guarantee you that I can find as many lawyers on our side to suggest that it is a legalistic requirement.

It is good to do what the Constitution requires. And it is also good, frankly, because, in the debate that will ensue after the president comes to the Congress and asks for a declaration of war, the president will have the ability to make the case as to why we have to do it. And up to this point in time, it has not been clearly established.

I happen to personally believe that it is the right action to take. But I do not think that we have clearly made the case. I don't think the American public is totally supportive of this venture. And I think they have to be informed. The way you do that is to have a thorough and healthy debate in the Congress of the United States. Nothing focuses the attention of the American people on an issue like a request for a declaration of war.

HARRIS: Well, let me ask you this. How, then, do you read the situation? And what do you think is on the minds of those in the White House at this particular time? This debate has been raging for some time. It is not a big surprise. It hasn't come out of the clear blue. And yet we are only hearing, just in the last couple of days, really forceful words coming from the administration.

We heard Dick Cheney speak out yesterday. We did not hear President Bush making the announcement we heard Vice President Cheney make yesterday. What do you make of all that?

TANCREDO: Well, I certainly believe that they are in the process of trying to actually start this debate. It still would be better if it is done not just at a news conference or at a speech somewhere, if it is done in the formal process of a declaration -- of requesting a declaration of war.

You know, I just can't tell you how important this is, because, frankly, we are going to ask the nation to -- and we are going to ask the Congress to appropriate funds to put people into harm's way. And I don't take that -- I don't take that step carelessly. I think about how I would feel, in fact, if I were voting to send my own son to war. That's the nature of this thing. That's how serious this is.

It may not be as clean a situation, as antiseptic a situation as the last adventure into the Middle East. It may be a lot bloodier, have much more significant implications. I just think it is imperative that the nation be made aware of those implications and be aware of exactly why we have to do what we are about to do in order to actually develop the kind internal moral support that is necessary to win the war.

HARRIS: Do you think President Bush has his mind made up already?

TANCREDO: I do. I do. I think so. And I think that -- I think he knows a lot of what needs to be said to the people. He just has to get out there and do it. He has to make the case.

HARRIS: We have got someone joining us on the telephone from Florida.

Helen, are you there?

CALLER: Yes, I am.

HARRIS: And I take it, from what I understand right now, you disagree with this assessment, correct?

CALLER: I sure do, because I think he shouldn't get in it, because we have a war. We finish one war before we start another. We will have all our young men dead. This is crazy. You do one war at a time. I think he is biting off more than he can chew.

HARRIS: Thanks. That's a very interesting point, Helen.

How about that, Congressman? Many people have been saying that, if you do this, there is a good risk that you could be basically just kissing goodbye this war against terror that President Bush has been trying to get the rest of the world to join him in.

TANCREDO: One of the things that I mentioned at the beginning is, I do in fact believe we should go ahead and deal with Iraq.

And the reason I say that and the reason I think a case needs to be made, which has not been made, is that it is really not two separate wars that we are fighting here. They may be two separate entities. Just like in World War II, we fought a totalitarian dictatorship in Japan, a monarchy, and we also fought ideologies. We fought Nazism and we fought fascism. It all really part of one war, but they were two different entities, if you will.

It is the same thing here. We are fighting in this case a dictatorship in Iraq that is capable of doing great damage to the United States in a relatively short time and to its neighbors. And we are fighting an ideology called fundamentalist Islam. I do not believe for a moment that it is just a group of people that have hijacked a religion. I believe it is much broader than that. I do believe it is fundamentalist Islam. And the two in fact go together in this case in Iraq. They may not -- you can't call Saddam Hussein an Islamist, but you can call him an ally of fundamentalist Islam, because they both hate the West.

HARRIS: All right, let's let one of our audience members here weigh in.

We've got -- this is Don from Pennsylvania.

CHRIS: This is Don, a veteran of the U.S. Navy.

DON: Yes, yes, I am.

And I personally feel we should do this. We went over before. We did not finish the job. And if we do go over, I only hope and pray that we do finish the job this time.

(APPLAUSE)

HARRIS: What do you mean by finish the job?

DON: Let's get this Saddam and get him out of there.

HARRIS: Would you feel the same way if you knew going in that getting the job done, as you say, is going to take 10 years? Would that change your mind?

DON: It's going to take time.

HARRIS: Congressman, how long do you think it would take?

TANCREDO: I think we can establish, frankly, our political objectives. We can achieve our -- excuse me -- we can achieve our military objectives in a relatively short period of time, maybe even less than a month. That is what some of the analysts tell us.

That is not really the final issue. The final issue is what happens in Iraq subsequent to any sort of military objective being achieved, because then there are all kinds of political objectives we also need to try to achieve. You have to try to keep Iraq, as a nation, together. We have to try to make sure that it does not split up into various parts, with the Kurds going with the Kurds into Southeastern Turkey and forming their own sort of political, geopolitical arrangement. The Turks are very concerned about that, as well they should be.

We have to worry about the Shia in the south. These are very complex problems that are not solved just with the military, just with the acquisition of a military objective. So, there is a longer period of time than just would be the case if we were only talking about when the flag is dropped over Baghdad.

HARRIS: That is a pretty big agenda that you just mentioned there. And it strikes me...

TANCREDO: It is an enormous agenda. HARRIS: Well, to prepare that agenda and to at least prepare to actually execute it successfully, don't you think it would take a lot of time and a lot of diplomacy to get things to a point where you could actually do that and pull it off?

TANCREDO: Yes, I do. But I've got to tell you that part of that rests upon the willingness of America to act. The Arab world is a -- we have seen this over and over again.

Right before we went into Afghanistan, you may recall that almost the entire Arab world said: "Absolutely not. Don't do it. We won't support you." But the minute we did it, and especially when we were successful, all those cries died way. All those calls for us to cease and desist died away.

The Arabs do understand power and the projection of power. And part of that is used to acquire those diplomatic ends that we are talking about.

HARRIS: All right, we are going to take a break right now.

Congressman Tancredo, stay there. We appreciate you carrying the load for us for this first segment.

We understand now that Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee is now in studio. And she is going to be joining us coming up after the break.

And I'm going to talk about whether the Bush administration has any good reasons for wanting Saddam Hussein out of Iraq in the first place. Is Saddam as dangerous as the vice president says that he is?

Let us know what you think. Call us at 1-800-310-4CNN or e-mail TALKBACKLIVE@CNN.com. We want to hear from you.

We'll be right back after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS: Right now on TALKBACK LIVE, join our town hall on target Iraq. Are you convinced that Saddam must go?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There are a lot of Americans out there who simply don't understand why it is the administration feels that this is such a burning priority.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARRIS: What will it cost? Who will pay? And, with Saddam out, who will be in?

Let your voice be heard today as TALKBACK LIVE continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) HARRIS: And welcome back to our TALKBACK LIVE town hall meeting on Iraq. We have been talking with Colorado Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo.

Joining us now is Texas Democratic Representative Sheila-Jackson Lee.

We thank you for making it in. We understand you had a tough time getting into the studio.

I want to give you a chance to weigh in on some of the questions that we tossed to Congressman Tancredo earlier.

First of all, do you believe that President Bush should be seeking congressional approval before he makes any actions here?

REP. SHEILA JACKSON-LEE (D), TEXAS: First of all, let me say to you and your audience that this is such an important discussion that I hope we have town hall meetings like this across the nation.

Absolutely, it is imperative that the debate not only include the United States Congress, but the American people. And I am not sure of the interpretation that has been given by the president's lawyers. And I think it is very important, Leon, that we recognize that the counsel that has advised the president is in fact that, the counsel to the president of the United States. It is not the American people's counsel. It is White House counsel. And, therefore, their interpretation leaves much to question.

Any suggestion that the president has full authority, full legal authority is inaccurate. And let me cite for you the basis of my argument. First of all, President Bush I, if you will, not only laid out a plan and laid out the argument for our allies to join us, but he did engage Congress. And the 1991 resolution that the counsel of the White House at this point are relying on clearly said that this resolution was passed pursuant to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. So the facts are different.

Also, when you look at history, the War Powers Act of 1973 -- which, as many of us know, were on the heels of the Vietnam War, the men and women we acknowledge and praise as our heroes -- but we lost 58,000 Americans in that war. In the War Powers Resolution, it clearly said the purpose of that resolution was to ensure that the founding fathers dictate that the Congress and the president should work together on these issues was memorialized.

And it indicated that it should be either statutory authority, attack on the United States, or some imminent basis or a declaration of war upon which the president needs to move with congressional cooperation, if you will.

HARRIS: Well, let's get to the point about whether or not the case has been made adequately. And many have said that it has not.

But, yesterday, Vice President Dick Cheney did make the case for moving against Saddam Hussein sooner and not later. He says that it makes no sense to wait around until after the Iraqi leader has acquired nuclear weapons.

Before we go on, let's take a listen right now to what he told a meeting of the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Nashville, Tennessee, yesterday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DICK CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Many of us are convinced that Saddam will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon. Just how soon, we cannot really gauge.

There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARRIS: There you have it, Vice President Cheney saying there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has amassed these weapons of mass destruction to use against us.

Congresswoman Jackson-Lee, is that not strong enough a case there?

JACKSON-LEE: You know what? That is a speech of a policy of one administration. It happens to be the administration that is in power now.

It is speculative. It is without data. It is without substance. And when I say that, we in Congress, the president, the administration, the secretary of state, the secretary of defense have made no real argument or real case for this. I can get up and say and suggest what Saddam Hussein has.

We all know that, over the years, Saddam Hussein has not been the good citizen. He is absolutely a bad actor. He absolutely has no friends. And that is not the point. The point has to be: What happens to the lone ally that is in that region, Israel? What happens with respect to our other allies, Jordan? What happens with respect to our European allies and the other allies that joined us in the Gulf War? No case has been made.

The suggestion that terrorism abounds, we now know, after September 11 and the enormous tragedy, that terrorism is in the world. We also realize that Americans will stand together united, irrespective of whose party politics are involved, against fighting terrorism. The president came to the Congress for the resolution which we insisted in fighting terrorism. And he had almost unanimous support.

He does not have that now. We do not have a plan. And, in fact, he does not have the full legal authority to do this without involvement of the United States Congress.

HARRIS: All right, before we go to break, Congressman Tancredo, I want to hear what you have to say about that, Vice President Cheney's words yesterday. That not a strong enough case for you?

TANCREDO: No, it is not. I agree with Sheila Jackson-Lee on that.

First of all, I believe everything he said is true. I believe exactly that -- I do believe that Saddam Hussein is acquiring weapons of mass destruction. I simply believe that all of those things have to be said in a different venue. They have to be said by the president of the United States. And I certainly agree with my colleague that, legally, he has to come to the Congress for that purpose.

And you know what? We are going to send people into harm's way to defend the principle of a rule of law, the principle of America, the rule of law. That means you ask for a declaration of war or at least a resolution allowing you to conduct it.

HARRIS: All right, we have got to stick with the principle of capitalism right now. We've got to go to a commercial break.

Stick around, folks. We're going to talk some more about it when we come back. Stick with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS: And welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE.

That graphic you just saw there is just a sampling of some of the questions that people are raising around the country in this debate about what to do about Iraq.

We have some folks here in the audience who want to jump in right now.

Gloria.

GLORIA: Hi.

I have three small things to say. One, the first thing I have to say is, since 9/11, it frightens me very much to think that we would go to another country and do violence, because I feel that, if we teach our young people that violence is not the answer, then it never is the answer, because we always have to go back to conferences and peace talks after we have the violence. So I don't understand using violence.

The other thing is, is that, how many times -- we did not kill Osama bin Laden. So what makes us think that, if we are going to kill the president of Iraq, a president of a country, how many -- what happens if every male in Iraq stands up and says "I am Osama bin Laden" or "I am the Iraqi president"? How many times can we kill that guy? And how do we know if we did?

HARRIS: Congressman Tancredo, let me ask you that. Since you say that you do believe that some sort of campaign should be waged against Saddam Hussein, how about that? Do you think that the consequences of that, of creating so many more -- possibly creating so many more Osama bin Ladens there by doing something like that may be a price too high to pay?

TANCREDO: Well, if anybody thinks that we are not creating them today, and if anybody thinks that fundamentalist Islam is not working as hard today to create those terrorists that will do exactly what Mr. bin Laden did and do it worse, they are wrong.

The fact is this, that...

HARRIS: Sorry, Congressman, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but I'm being told now we have got some breaking news that we have to go back to the CNN newsroom for.

And Kyra Phillips is standing by there.

Kyra, what do you have?

KYRA PHILLIPS, CNN ANCHOR: The breaking news we have for you is coming out of Nashville, Tennessee, the office of former Vice President Al Gore.

We are told that an aide to Al Gore opened up a letter, and a white powdery substance fell on to the floor. Now the hazmat team is on the scene. The office has been quarantined, including all the employees employed in the office of former Vice President Al Gore. They, too, have been quarantined. Hazmat is on the scene. It is a long and tedious process to try and detect if and indeed this could be anthrax-related.

Once again, an aide to Al Gore in Nashville, Tennessee, at the office of the former vice president opening a latter, a white powdery substance falling to the floor, now is under investigation. The Hazmat team is there. The office has been quarantined, including the employees there in that office.

We will continue to follow this breaking news story, bring you as much information as possible -- now back to TALKBACK LIVE and Leon Harris.

HARRIS: All right, thank you, Kyra Phillips there, reporting for us from the CNN Center in Atlanta, the kind of news that basically makes us all understand what it is that we are talking about and the consequences there.

I want to get back to that conversation.

First of all, since we have a couple of congresspeople with us this afternoon, let's get some reaction to the news that we just heard there.

Congressman Tancredo?

TANCREDO: Well, of course, we certainly don't have any idea as to the perpetrator of this thing. But it's an example of what we are talking about here: that this war is ongoing, that there are going to be events like this, and, dear God, I hope no more even serious ones. But we certainly have to anticipate that.

And, really, what I would say to the American public is that, how many times do we actually have to take the first punch? In 1941 December, we got a pretty good idea of what it was like to have to wait, because we waited too long to act. How many times do we have to take the first punch until we realize that we have to go in and cut that guy's arm off?

HARRIS: Congresswoman Jackson-Lee, let me get your quick response please.

JACKSON-LEE: Well, let me say this. We as Americans have never run away from a fight. And we realize that, after September 11, all of our lives have changed.

But I think the viewer, the participant in your audience said something that is very important. And that is that we also have values and beliefs in freedom and justice, but we also are a country that knows how to engage in discussions of peace and diplomacy. This issue that just broke, the anthrax, that is a question that we have to consider. But, again, we have to know where it came from. And, as you well know, the investigation on anthrax is still ongoing.

HARRIS: That's right.

JACKSON-LEE: And it may be domestic-based.

The key here, I think, that is so very important is that we know how to win a fight, to finish a fight. That is not the question. But, even in our darkest times, the president went to the United States Congress, including after Pearl Harbor, to work collaboratively together, to engage the American people. We would do wrong if we proceeded -- the president proceeded with no support from the American people, no support from our world allies, because the 58,000 men and women who lost their lives in Vietnam have still left families that are mourning.

I have been to Afghanistan, as many of my members of Congress -- or the members of Congress have been. I have seen the brave men and women who are on the front lines. We will not stop that fight when we go into Iraq. And so, therefore, it is important to seek the support and collaboration of the American people, as the Constitution provides.

HARRIS: All right, we are going to leave it there. We have just to got to move. We've got too many things to talk about in such a short period of time.

Congressman Tancredo and Congresswoman Jackson-Lee, thank you very much for joining us.

JACKSON-LEE: Thank you.

TANCREDO: Thank you.

HARRIS: We sure do appreciate your words and your insight this afternoon.

Now, folks, coming up next, we're going to hear from some insiders about what the U.S. is really going to be thinking about putting together as a plan and about what the U.S. has to fear from Saddam Hussein.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS: Just moments ago, we understand that Ari Fleischer, the White House press secretary, wrapped up this afternoon's press briefing, and we're going to play back that tape for you now live.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

QUESTION: The Bush administration has widened the concept of executive privilege to cover (ph) information the president apparently didn't even know about. Is this administration working under the idea that past administrations were too permissive, too cooperative in turning over information to Congress, and this administration is trying to wipe (ph) a balance here?

ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: No, this question deals with standard issues involving the Freedom of Information Act, not -- not executive privilege. In fact, if you looked halfway through that article this morning, it made clear that the issue was about Freedom of Information Act provisions and the Exemption 5 under the Freedom of Information Act.

It is not about executive privilege, even though the top part of the article curiously referred to executive privilege, the middle of the article said it deals with freedom of information, which is a different matter.

In this manner, we are following a standard, straightforward case, dealing with the Freedom of Information Act. The Department of Justice has concluded that documents sought by Judicial Watch are protected under the laws dealing with the freedom of information.

Mark?

QUESTION: Can you tell us about the president's meeting with Prince Bandar? And your favorite question: Was Iraq mentioned?

FLEISCHER: Prince Bandar and his family came to visit the president today at his ranch. It was both a social visit, as well as a business visit. The two met privately, along with Dr. Rice, for a little bit over an hour. And then, the families stayed, and they had lunch. And the president just now finished a tour of the ranch with Prince Bandar and his family.

They discussed a variety of issues, including prospects of enhancing peace in the Middle East. They discussed the war on terrorism and Saudi Arabia's cooperation in the war. They discussed -- and the president raised the issue of child custody cases in Saudi Arabia dealing with American citizens. Specifically the president brought up the issue of Amjad Radwan's case in Saudi Arabia, and asked for that issue to be resolved, so she can be brought back to the United States.

On the topic of Iraq, the president stressed that he has made no decisions, that he will continue to engage in consultations with Saudi Arabia and other nations about steps in the Middle East, steps in Iraq. And the president made very clear, again, that he believes Saddam Hussein is a menace to world peace and a menace to regional peace, and that the world and the region would be safer and better off without Saddam Hussein.

QUESTION: ... the prince's reaction or the ambassador's reaction to those?

FLEISCHER: No, I'll let the Saudis characterize their own reaction to it. I don't believe it would be appropriate for me to do so.

QUESTION: Can you say if the conversation that was quoted in the Saudi press by the Saudi Press Agency today was quoted accurately?

FLEISCHER: The gist of the conversation is correct. I saw that. There has been some, I guess you could call it a game of telephone, as the version gets told and told and told to different parties. The original Saudi News Agency story did not have direct quotes from the president, and then I saw on some American accounts direct quotes from the president. Those quotes are not accurate, they're not verbatim. They do have the gist of the conversation accurate, but none of those verbatim quotes were accurate, for what that's worth.

The president and the crown prince did have an 18-minute conversation yesterday, in which the president spoke to him about overall U.S.-Saudi relations. They did discuss the recent Defense Board's statements that the president conveyed to the crown prince had nothing to do with the views of any senior level government administration officials, including himself, including the secretary of defense or the vice president.

And they also talked about peace in the Middle East. The topic of Iraq did not come up in the conversation with the two, the crown prince and the president.

Ron?

QUESTION: Back on the custody case, did I hear you correctly? Did the president ask him to make sure the child is brought back?

FLEISCHER: That's correct.

QUESTION: And can you give us the spelling on that name.

FLEISCHER: A-M-J-A-D, R-A-D-W-A-N. And the president cited in this case and in other cases the current humanitarian concerns, the issues involving justice and the rights of people to come back to the United States, if that's their desire. And I will tell you on this, the ambassador said he would relay the message back to officials in Saudi Arabia, but the president made a very powerful case based on humanitarian reasons, based on America's sense of justice, and based on what the president views as a matter of right and wrong.

QUESTION: ... response on that issue, but not on Iraq?

FLEISCHER: Because this is a conveyance of information. The decisions on these things will be made by Saudi officials, and Saudi officials can inform you of what the decision is. When it comes to a routine conveyance, I'm happy to pass that on to you.

Randy?

QUESTION: ... either in the meeting today or in the president's...

FLEISCHER: I don't have anything specific on that. I just know, as I indicated yesterday, the Saudis have a long-standing policy, which we have seen carried out in action, in addition to rhetoric about not using oil as a weapon.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HARRIS: All right. We have been listening just to a segment of the press briefing carried out this afternoon by White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer. That was tape replay. That actually happened live a while ago.

And as you may have heard there, he was talking about the president's meeting with Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan at Mr. Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas -- very, very interesting and delicate talks going on there.

We're going to get a reality check, though, on just how big a threat Saddam Hussein is, because that's what President Bush has been talking to the Saudis about. We understand that the Saudis have said they do not believe that they will participate -- and they will not participate, I should say, in any action against Iraq right now.

Joining us now to talk some more about this, and the consequences of that, is Denis Halliday. He is the former assistant secretary- general of the United Nations. In 1997 and in '98, he was the U.N.'s humanitarian coordinator in Iraq.

Also with us is former U.S. Army Major Dana Dillon. He is now a senior policy analyst with the Heritage Foundation.

Gentlemen, thank you very much for coming in and sharing your thoughts with us this afternoon.

Mr. Halliday, I would love to begin with you. Secretary Halliday, what are your thoughts right now about what we have been seeing, from the outside looking in, about these talks between U.S. and Saudi Arabia about what's going to happen, and the complications and implications of any U.S. action? Could the U.S. or should the U.S. act alone here, if the Saudi Arabian government is not going to participate and back us up as allies?

DENIS HALLIDAY, FMR. U.N. COORDINATOR IN IRAQ: Well, it seems to me, Mr. Harris, that we should pay close attention to the position of the Saudis. They are close neighbors of Iraq. They know both the president and the Baath Party and the Iraqi system very well.

If they indicate that they are not afraid of Saddam Hussein or any ambitions he may or may not have, why are we so paranoid? Why are we drumming up fear in this country to stir up what I consider is a very inappropriate, unjust and totally -- a war in breach of international laws?

So I think the Saudis are really very key players. And I believe the Kuwaitis agree with the Saudis. We should listen to our friends and our allies in the Arab world.

HARRIS: And if you are just joining us now, Dana Dillon, going to you now. That's sort of the comments that we have been hearing from a lot of the critics, who are standing by on the outside looking in, saying this is proof, once again, that President Bush has not made strong enough a case here about why Saddam Hussein is a threat.

DANA DILLON, HERITAGE FOUNDATION: Well, I think with the vice president's speech yesterday, they are starting to make the case in the administration. They started at lower levels. They are working their way up. They are going to make the case. They are making the case that Iraq is a producer of weapons of mass destruction, and that's a direct threat to the United States.

HARRIS: Does the argument that we just heard the assistant secretary-general here just make about if the Saudi Arabians are not concerned about Saddam Hussein, why should we be? Is that not a valid argument?

DILLON: Well, I agree with the first part of his statement, that we should consult closely with the Saudi Arabians and other governments in the region, and we should listen to what they have to say. But in the final analysis, President Bush is responsible to the American people, for the lives and property of the United States, and he has to make a decision on what he thinks is best in our best interests. And the threat from 9/11 shows that terrorists are out there, and Iraq, that they sponsor those terrorists.

HARRIS: All right, stand by, folks. We'll talk some more about this right after a break. Don't go away -- much more coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(INTERRUPTED FOR "BREAKING NEWS")

HARRIS: And welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE.

We are continuing our discussion about the U.S. plans -- or a discussion of plans about what to do about Iraq. We are holding a town hall meeting on that.

And our guests with us are Dana Dillon with the Heritage Foundation, and the former U.N. secretary-general, Denis Halliday.

But we also have someone who is joining us on the phone. I would like to get to her comment right away before we lose her.

Jeannie (ph), are you there from Illinois?

CALLER: Yes. I have a daughter who is an Air Force veteran, and she is now in the Air National Guard and was in college. And after September 11, she dropped out of school and voluntarily went on active duty, because it was a just cause.

This is different. None of our past allies are supporting this invasion. I think we are being lied to about the real reasons behind this. Iraq has the world's second-largest oil reserves. We have an oil-driven administration. And this is about oil, and I am not donating a child for oil.

HARRIS: Jeannie, is there any reason you would, as you say, "donate a child?"

CALLER: Well...

HARRIS: Is there any cause for which you wouldn't see a problem with doing that?

CALLER: You know, as a mother, when she called me and she told me that she was dropping out of school to go on active duty after September 11, my heart sank. I was scared to death, but I was also very proud of her.

My youngest daughter, her baby sister, and I had just been in New York about six weeks before that. And she said, "Mom, that could have been you and Laura (ph) at the World Trade Center." And I was so proud of her. That was for a reason.

This -- we are being lied to about the reasons behind this, and I think we're going to have to go in this alone. It's going to -- and there are so many armchair quarterbacks that are sitting there, waiting for the war to start. It's disgusting.

HARRIS: Yes, thank you, Jeannie. We understand. Thank you very much -- appreciate you calling in with that comment.

CALLER: Thank you.

HARRIS: Secretary Halliday, let me ask you a question, and I'm trying to find the most, I guess, diplomatic way of saying it. But would you have any suspicion, as we just heard that caller had, that perhaps what's afoot here is not necessarily specifically something targeting Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, but perhaps something else?

HALLIDAY: I think our caller, Jeannie, is absolutely correct, and I can understand her concern completely. You know, the fact is war is not necessarily a patriotic endeavor. The fact is we need to look at the interests of the American people. And as this caller says, why would you risk the life of American troops to go into Iraq? There's no justification, there's no evidence of nuclear weapons, there is no right under international law for the United States to attack Iraq.

This is a crazy way to use the lives and the funds and the resources of the United States. It undermines the credibility of this great country. It will undermine the leadership of President Bush.

HARRIS: Dana Dillon, what does President Bush have to do, what does President Bush have to say, to combat those kind of arguments and erase those kinds of doubts?

DILLON: Well, again, I think the Bush administration is already making those arguments. The vice president's arguments yesterday were telling on what the Bush administration wants to say and do about this war. They very much are making the argument that Saddam Hussein is a producer of weapons of mass destruction, a state sponsor of terrorism, and he is a demonstrated aggressor against countries throughout the region. And there is no reason to believe that he is not going to use those weapons if he gets a chance.

And the attack against -- or a possible attack against Al Gore's office, using possibly anthrax or whatever, is just a perfect example of the kind of thing that is going on in the -- or the kind of feeling in the United States, I guess, about the terrorist attacks, and now is not the time to stop in the war on terrorism.

HARRIS: Well, this is just the beginning of this debate, no doubt, especially right here on CNN.

We want to thank our guests this afternoon, former U.N. Assistant Secretary-General Denis Halliday, and Dana Dillon -- thank you very much. We sure do appreciate you being guests here.

DILLON: Thanks, Leon.

HARRIS: All right, coming up next: "Street Talk." Some radio talk show hosts are going to come on and share what they've been hearing from their audiences. And we'll get some more of what you have to say about the U.S. targeting Saddam -- we'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS: And welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE'S town hall on Iraq.

But now, before we go on, I just want to get back to a quick point that we hit on in our last block.

We had a caller who called in, who said that she would not let her daughter re-enlist to go and fight in this war, because she thought it was all about oil. There was a strange reaction that I saw and noticed in this room. I want to hear by just a -- by a show of applause, don't raise your hands, let me get a show of applause here. How many people in here think that that's what this is all about? That it's about oil and not necessarily about what we have been hearing?

(APPLAUSE)

HARRIS: That's probably evidence of some kind of a crisis of confidence here.

Well, let's get right now to our other guests who are among the folks who keep tabs on the voices of America. Radio talk show host, Joe Madison, who can be heard on Radio One XM Radio around the country and WOL in Washington, D.C. He is the former executive director of the Detroit NAACP.

Good to see you again.

JOE MADISON, RADIO ONE XM TALK SHOW HOST: Thank you.

HARRIS: Also, James Hirsen, an attorney and nationally syndicated radio talk show host on the American Freedom Network. He is also a columnist at newsmax.com.

Glad to have you with us, James.

JAMES HIRSEN, NEWSMAX.COM: Good to be with you.

HARRIS: Joe, let's start with you. Tell us, what have you been hearing from the callers that have been calling in to your show?

MADISON: Well...

HIRSEN: Well, you know...

MADISON: Go on.

HIRSEN: ... America is a very moral nation, and I think war is always very serious. So this debate is excellent, and it's what America always does.

And the polls, I think, show -- are indicative of what we are hearing on talk radio, and that is that about 70 percent of people, the majority of people support some kind of action. But the numbers go down when the issue of cost is discussed, and I think that's because we've had three wars -- the Gulf War, Bosnia, Afghanistan -- that have been long-distance wars, where there hasn't been the norm effect of body bags. And I think that changes the equation, and that's why there needs to be more debate and more discussion.

HARRIS: OK, Joe, what have you been hearing?

MADISON: Well, my audience pretty much reacts, I think, the same way your studio audience, at least some of them, did. They know what this is really all about. If you took it all out of the equation, it would just be a desert. But that's not the point I want to make. The thing I talked about today, Leon, was very simple. We are going. I hate to tell that mother that, and I hate to tell the world...

HARRIS: What makes you say that?

MADISON: ... but we are going, because we are building the case little by little. I think a giant step forward was Vice President Cheney's speech yesterday. But that's not the concern I have.

The reason we haven't gone yet is because, I believe, what the White House and the administration is doing is trying to figure out what is the in-game. Once you go in, how do you get out? And does Iraq become a "tar baby" that you won't be able to get your hands off of?

HARRIS: Yes, a lot of people have been saying that.

We've got some folks here in the audience who want to weigh in on it as well.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Gene (ph), go ahead.

GENE (ph): Yes, according to the -- a couple of points here. The Afghan war that we are fighting now, compared to going in and fighting Saddam Hussein, is two different things. Once we get over there, in my opinion -- this is about big business and oil. Once we get over there and occupy Iraq, and then again, it's going to be oil or the big business that's going to be taking advantage of Iraq.

Now, my opinion is that I think that the interest of the American people should be at-hand here, not political, because this is a political thing here. We are going to send young men and women over there in harm's way basically to die to capture just one man. In my opinion, I think that's very ludicrous.

MADISON: But I would also quickly add that this one man may or may not have weapons of mass destruction. And I think that's a legitimate concern that we all have to be very concerned about. But he is not the only one in the region that has weapons of mass destruction. And how did he get these weapons of mass destruction? Quietly, let it be known, we helped him.

HARRIS: Well, I have actually heard the case being made in that, if you want to use that as a criteria, North Korea actually may be a bigger threat. Now, that's just one of the other debates I've heard. But we'll talk about this some more after we take a break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS: All right, let's continue our debate. We've only got a couple of minutes left to try to squeeze in as much as we possibly can.

We also have with us James Hirsen and Joe Madison, two radio talk show hosts, nationally known. But we have on the phone right now with us Ed from Florida, who has been waiting to get on.

Ed, what's your comment?

ED: My comment is, sir, that you people have no idea the lengths we went through to try to get that guy. I was there. He is as bad, if not worse, than Osama bin Laden, and needs to be removed. Period. End of sentence.

HARRIS: At any cost?

ED: At any cost.

HARRIS: How about that, James? Is that the kind of comments that you have been hearing from your callers? Or are your callers saying that there is a limit to which they think they'd be willing to go ahead and pay for something like this?

HIRSEN: I think there's a general consensus that he has to be removed. He has violated the U.S. resolutions. He is stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, and he has proved he has enough lunacy to use it on his neighbors and his own people.

It's not a question of removal. It's a question of how, it's a question of when, and it's a question of whether we correspond with our rule of law and the Constitution. I was gratified to see two members of Congress from two political parties, both saying that we have to have constitutional integrity.

HARRIS: Yes. Well, then again, the guy is 65-years-old. How much longer can he do this? I mean, how much longer...

MADISON: Oh, he could live to be 100. I mean, who knows? And my goodness...

HIRSEN: Yes, and I...

MADISON: I mean, you can't put that into the equation. And I don't disagree with most of what's being said. But I am telling you, Congress also has to ask the question: What is the in-game? How do we get out once we get in? We knew how to get out when it was Kuwait, because we wanted him out of Kuwait.

The question is: What is the in-game? And the Bush administration has to answer that question.

HARRIS: All right, let's see what Joanne (ph) from Georgia here in the audience has to say.

JOANNE: OK, I have lived a long time, and I've been through Pearl Harbor, I've been through it all. I know the United States has to be hit time and time and time again before we react, because we are good people. We don't want to hurt people. We don't want to move into Iraq if we don't have to. But I wonder sometimes if the people of this country know what weapons of mass destruction is. We are talking about wiping out the whole city of New York or the whole city of Atlanta. This lady talks about, what are we going to tell our children? What children? We may not have any children left to talk to.

MADISON: Well, the United States knows...

JOANNE: We have to move in on anybody now that's a threat to this country, because we have seen what they can do to us.

MADISON: Well, we know what weapons of mass destruction are. We used it.

HIRSEN: Well, but what she underscores is that there is a risk of inaction, and the risk of inaction can be worse than the risk of war. 9/11 shows us what the risk of inaction can be. And so...

MADISON: I don't disagree with that, I really don't.

HARRIS: We're going to have to leave it there, gentlemen, because we are out of time.

HIRSEN: Thanks, Leon.

HARRIS: I wish we had a weapon that would give us more time. We don't have that.

So, Joe Madison, James Hirsen, thank you very much.

MADISON: Thank you.

HARRIS: We appreciate both of you joining us today. And thanks to all of you folks out there for watching. Thanks to the audience for chipping in today. You guys have all been great.

I'm Leon Harris. Now, you can catch me at my regular time on "CNN LIVE" at 10:00 a.m. Eastern tomorrow. And I'll be back again tomorrow here filling in for Arthel Neville once again on TALKBACK LIVE.

Stay tuned, because "INSIDE POLITICS" is next. We'll see you tomorrow.

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





 
 
 
 


 Search   

Back to the top