CNN INTERVIEW WITH
SENATORS RICHARD J. DURBIN
AND CHARLES HAGEL

March 24, 2002

Excerpts

. . .

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GENERAL TOMMY FRANKS, U.S. CENTRAL COMMAND: I have not been involved personally with other unified commanders to try to put together some approach to Saddam Hussein. Does that mean that there never would be an operation against Iraq? I don't think I'm prepared to say that. I think the president of the United States will make the decision about what it is our nation chooses to do about the problem of Saddam Hussein. (END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: It does sound, based on what General Franks is saying, Senator Durbin, I'm sure you'll agree, that it doesn't look like there is going to be any immediate strike against the Iraqis, if he says he hasn't personally been involved in discussing operational plans with other unified commanders.

DURBIN: I think that's probably the case, and I don't have any information otherwise. The biggest mistake we've made in foreign policy in the last 20 years was not to pursue Saddam Hussein into Iraq and to remove him from power when we had that opportunity during the Persian Gulf war. But that's history. And we look at the current situation and realize we have a dangerous leader in that country with weapons of mass destruction, threatening his own people, the region and even the United States. And we have to take him very seriously. But I'm trying to sort out our foreign policy. On the one hand, it appears that we are prepared unilaterally to remove him. On the other hand, we are engaging in these discussions with the United Nations and our allies about how to have more inspection and to make certain that he is not engaging in this renegade activity. It seems we're at dual purposes now, and we have to sort that out and come with a common plan to deal with Iraq and Saddam Hussein.

BLITZER: Is that a dual -- is there inconsistency there, Senator Hagel?

HAGEL: Well, I think we start with this: We've got an obviously very complicated scenario here and set of circumstances. Let me address at the beginning, to answer your question, the point Senator Durbin makes about why we didn't go and eliminate him 10 years ago. The fact is, that was not the mandate that the United Nations gave us. It was a different mandate. We would have lost all the Arab support. What was the alternative? Who would have replaced them?

BLITZER: The mandate then was to liberate Kuwait.

HAGEL: Was get him out of Kuwait, and we did that. Now, let's rotate forward here to where we are today. I think what the vice president did, the diplomatic efforts that we are undergoing now, taking us through those point by point is the way to do this. Certainly, there are contingency plans ongoing, have been, on how we deal with Iraq as to the military option.

HAGEL: All those things are prudent, important, in the best interest of our country. But I've always said this cannot happen, a military option, without the coalition being with us on this; not everybody, but certainly Turkey and other Arab nations. Then the question has to be asked, what comes after? What's the alternative? Do we in fact stabilize the area, or do we destabilize the area? All those are tough questions the administration has to deal with. These are imperfect, imprecise. They can't defer them, and they're working their way through it.

. . .