Inhofe, Nelson Debate Possible War on Iraq
WOLF BLITZER, HOST: It's noon in Washington and here in Atlanta; 9:00 a.m. in Los Angeles; 11:00 a.m. in Crawford, Texas; and 8:00 p.m. in Baghdad. Wherever you're watching from around the world, thanks for joining us for LATE EDITION. Our focus this hour, Iraq. Will President Bush order U.S. military strikes against Saddam Hussein's regime. We'll talk with two key United States senators shortly, but first a news alert.</s>BLITZER: Over the past few days, the president has been taking what many see as a decidedly more cautious tone about Iraq, at least when speaking in public. But behind the scenes, U.S. officials say contingency planning for military action is moving full speed ahead. Joining us now to talk about Iraq are two members of the United States Senate: In Tulsa, Oklahoma, the Republican Senator James Inhofe, he's a member of the Armed Services as well as the Select Intelligence Committee. And in Tallahassee, Florida, Democrat Bill Nelson, he's a member of the Armed Services Committee. He also serves on the Foreign Relations Committee. Senators, welcome back to LATE EDITION. And, Senator Inhofe, let me begin with you. Why do you believe the United States should preemptively attack Iraq at least in the next few weeks if not perhaps even sooner?</s>SEN. JAMES INHOFE (R), OKLAHOMA: Well, I think, first of all, the president of the United States is our leader, and if he has confidential information that it not out in the press that one of our cities is in danger of an attack, he has the responsibility to do that. I think right now the media has put on an enormous pressure on our president to say -- to make demands as to when are you going to do it, why are you going to do it. And then we have all these senators and members of the House who say the president hasn't made his case yet. Let's look at this, Wolf. If it is true, and I believe it is, that Saddam Hussein has all three of the types, classes of weapons of mass destruction and if he is very, very close to having a missile that would deliver those to an American city, the president has to do something. So that's my feeling. Let me also quote our secretary of defense. He talks about the consequences of a wrong decision. We made a wrong decision in Somalia in 1993, and it cost 18 lives. Made a wrong decision in 1999 in Yemen, and it cost 17 lives. But as Secretary Rumsfeld says, if we make the wrong decision now, it could cost hundreds of thousands of American lives.</s>BLITZER: You have said, Senator Inhofe, in Oklahoma that you believe an attack against Iraq might even be imminent. Just tell our viewers what you meant by that.</s>INHOFE: No, I think -- there's no time frame. I was erroneously quoted by saying within 30 days. That wasn't true at all. I just think that it's going to be when the president has to make that decision, he's going to have to make it because he knows something has happened that you don't see on TV, and you know, it's going to be classified information. So imminent could mean -- it could mean any number of days or months.</s>BLITZER: All right. What about that, Senator Nelson? Where do you stand on a possible preemptive U.S. strike against Iraq?</s>SEN. BILL NELSON (D), FLORIDA: Is Saddam a threat? Of course he is. Would we like to take him out? Of course we would. Would that be in the interest of the United States? Yes. But the president has to get the support of the American people. The American people are split right down the middle. The president's own administration is split right down the middle. And so the president would be well advised to go to the country and lay out why it is that we would need to attack Iraq now. For example, what are we going to do in terms of cost of American lives? What are we going to do with getting our allies behind us? How is it going to affect our enormous interest in that part of the world with regard to Israel and trying to solve that problem? So the president would be well advised to go to the American people. By the way, Wolf, I have been all over the country in the last three weeks in town hall meetings, and I can tell you, the country is split. And the ones that are vigorously wanting to know answers are the moms of this country. They want to know, why are their sons and daughters going to be sent into battle.</s>BLITZER: All right. Let's bring back Senator Inhofe. And follow up on that specific point, Senator Inhofe. And as we do, I want to show you and our viewers a poll that CNN-USA Today Gallup did this past week, asking the question, should U.S. troops be sent to Iraq if there's no support from the Western allies? Look at this. Only 20 percent favor that dispatch of U.S. troops. 75 percent of the respondents said they would oppose it, which is a point actually made by Senator Nelson. The president obviously has a lot more explaining if he wants to win the support of the American public.</s>INHOFE: Yes, I would respond, Wolf, that it doesn't make any difference what the town hall meetings say and what the polls say. Leadership is recognizing a threat and going and doing something about it. Bill, I'm a little surprised. I thought we'd be in -- Bill and I are very good friends. I thought we'd be in total agreement. Here is a quote you made last week. You said, "If we have evidence that Saddam Hussein is about to use his weapons of mass destruction, we would have to move on him." And I disagree wholeheartedly with that. And I think that the president will know when that time comes. And it might be that the country is not going to be with him in polls. Wolf, you remember very well in 1986 when President Reagan had to send 29 F-111s over to Libya. And there was no support at that time. We couldn't even get fly-over permission from the French. And yet, it had to be done. He had the leadership, and he did it.</s>BLITZER: Senator Nelson, do you want to respond to that?</s>NELSON: I'd like to. There are exceptions to everything. But the general rule of constitutional law is that the president has to make the case to the people and to the Congress in order for the Congress to declare a war. If Saddam was about to use a weapon of mass destruction, of course the president could enter into a war with Iraq. If Saddam is harboring and fostering al Qaeda, he already has the legal authority, under the war resolution that we granted to go on the war against terrorists. So there are always exceptions. But what we have is an administration that it is beating its breast with all this rhetoric about how they're going to do this or that. The president needs the country behind him.</s>BLITZER: Senator...</s>INHOFE: No, I...</s>BLITZER: Senator Inhofe, go ahead.</s>INHOFE: I would agree with Bill, ideally. I'd much prefer to have a lot of allies out there, both in the Middle East and in Western Europe. I'd like to have the American people solidly behind the president. But again, if the president has to do it, he has to do it. And that's what leadership is all about. Now, I would probably disagree with your interpretation, Bill. I think the president, if he sees it's necessary to defend America, has the right to go ahead and send them. It does say under the War Powers Act, you'd have to come back after a period of time, 60 days, and then make the case. But to try to demand that the president make his case prior to taking actions -- everything that you know, Bill, and that I know and Wolf Blitzer knows and is on CNN, you can be sure that Saddam Hussein knows that, too. So we can't be talking this thing to death, as we did in the case of Osama bin Laden.</s>NELSON: Jim, I've been a captain in the Army. You and I both serve on the Armed Services Committee. A military action in Iraq is going to be a lot different than in Afghanistan. It's going to cause the prepositioning of personnel and materiels. There's going to have to be a major reserve force to go in if we go into Baghdad first, to back them up. So we've got a lot of explaining to do, and we've got a lot of preparation to do if we are, in fact, going in Iraq.</s>BLITZER: Let me get back...</s>INHOFE: Well, Bill, I would respond by -- let me just respond to this thing...</s>BLITZER: Yes, go ahead, sir.</s>INHOFE: I wasn't a lofty captain, I was only an enlisted man when I was in, but have been on the committee for quite some time. If we had not had the denigration of our military over the last 10 years that we have had, and so that we're down right now to one half the force strength that we had during the Persian Gulf War, then I would agree with you. It's terrible to be in this situation right now where we're totally dependent upon guard and reserve. But they're great guys. They have -- and gals. They have resolve. And we're just going to have to give this president the opportunity to rebuild our end strength and our might and our modernization programs so that we're not faced with this again.</s>BLITZER: Senator Inhofe, I want to pick up and move this discussion to the old issue of U.N. weapons inspectors. The chief U.N. weapons inspector, Hans Blix, was on NBC earlier today. And he basically suggested, yes, he wants to get back in, but there's no clear-cut evidence one way or another whether Saddam Hussein is, in fact, ready to use weapons of mass destruction.</s>BLITZER: Listen to what Mr. Blix had to say.</s>HANS BLIX, CHIEF U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: There are open questions, but proof we do not have. The intelligence agencies may have it, maybe Scott Ritter has some. Maybe Mr. Butler has evidence in the opposite direction. But I think the inspectors should be objective, and we should answer and tell the world only what we have seen. And we cannot tell the world that, yes, positively, they have weapons of mass destruction.</s>BLITZER: You're privy to sensitive U.S. information. Do you agree with Mr. Blix?</s>INHOFE: No, I agree with all the rest of the weapons inspectors -- with Richard Butler, with David Kay, and with Scott Ritter when he first came back. Bill, I don't think you were in the Senate yet when they left Iraq, the weapons inspectors, in 1998. But we had them before our committee, the Senate Armed Services Committee, and I remember specifically asking them the question, you know, how long will it be until Saddam Hussein will have weapons of destruction, specifically biological, chemical and nuclear, and the missile means of delivering them? At that time, they said, he could do that in six months. This was 1998. And that's the scary thing, because we can sit around here, again, talking this thing to death and wringing our hands and finding out he has something ready to go. Would he use it? You bet he would use it.</s>BLITZER: Senator Nelson?</s>NELSON: Jim, I was on the Foreign Relations Committee just recently when we had Butler in front of us. He had no proof that there are weapons of mass destruction. And my own personal view is, I think Saddam has chemical and biological weapons, and I expect that he is trying to develop a nuclear weapon. So at some point, we might have to act precipitously. But that still -- that does not change the fact that the president, instead of making these pronouncements about be patient and all this other stuff, he needs to go to the American people and make the case. How are we going to put it together? How are we going to have the support? How are we going to have the backup troops to be able to move in, in the case that the frontline troops have to have the reserves? And then the tactics, the specific strategy, all of that is secret. And the time, that of course is secret as well.</s>BLITZER: Senator Inhofe, stand by. We have to take a quick commercial break. I'm going to pick up the conversation with you when we come back. We're also going to talk about the former secretary of state, James Baker. He was secretary of state under the first President Bush during the Persian Gulf War. He's weighing in today with an article in the New York Times. A lot more to talk about with Senators Inhofe and Nelson. They'll also be taking your phone calls when LATE EDITION returns.