CNN Saturday Interview With Donald Rumsfeld

CNN.com ^ | 9/21/02 | Rumsfeld, McIntyre

[Hipixs]

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

RENAY SAN MIGUEL, CNN ANCHOR: With more on this morning's developments in Iraq, as well as a closer look at the U.S. war on terror, here is CNN's senior Pentagon correspondent Jamie McIntyre -- Jamie.

[Hipixs]

To find all articles tagged or indexed using Rumsfeld, click below:
	click here >>>	Rumsfeld	<<< click here
(To view all FR Bump Lists, click here)

[cactusSharp]

Rummy is one great American....thanks God.

[Spyder]

A friend of my husband's has what he calls the 30-point I.Q. rule - i.e. that if more than 30 I.Q. points exist between two individuals a coherent conversation becomes almost impossible. We're getting close to that between the reporter and Rumsfeld. Rummy's awesome!

[okimhere]

The 30-point IQ rule is excellent. It calmed the sputtering fit I was having after reading this interview. I realize that reporters have to ask the "tough" questions but when they continually ask for details of a mission, its purpose and plans, that is beyond imbecilic. But Rummy answers without sarcasm or rancor (I didn't see the live interview). What a gem of an American! Isn't it fortunate for us that President Bush was able to bring him out of the civilian world and back into government???

Thanks again for your work, Hipixs. It's such a pleasure to read words from a man who thinks on his feet, and who doesn't cloud the answers with nonanswers.

[Ann Archy]

Jamie MacIntyre is one, if not THE, biggest Bush-HATER!!! Rummy was a little taken back about the 20 year old clip, but he recovered very quickly and rang the usual rings around the boy reporter.

[hgro]

And what does Ted Turdner think?

[okimhere]

Oh, thanks for the insight. I don't watch CNN so I didn't know anything about this person. I was taken off guard just reading about the 20-year-old clip because it smelled immediately of a trap. I just knew he was going to somehow weave a web around the USA help given to Saddam way back when, and try to ensnare Secretary Rumsfeld as being responsible. Our true professional, imperturbable as he is, walked right around the trap, smiling as he went. (I didn't see him, but I KNEW....(big grin)....)

[The Great Satan]

If Saddam Hussein decided to take a handful of his family and senior leaders and go away and no longer would Iraq have those weapons and no longer would they threaten their neighbor, I think that would be a -- I personally think that would be a good thing for the world.

Interesting.

[Molly Pitcher]

Ping

[The Great Satan]

What they're hoping for is to isolate Hussein sufficiently that he will take that out. His life is a bargaining chip we need -- much as the Israelis need Arafat's life, although the stakes are much higher in our case.

The interaction between this policy goal -- Saddam removed, but not killed -- and the question of public finger-pointing at Saddam for 9-11 is somewhat complicated. To say, "Saddam did 9-11, no question" and then offer him exile would sound pretty weak, although the people could be conditioned to accept it by appropriate manipulation (they don't want to die either).

There may be a hope that they can squeeze Saddam out without having to go all the way on finger-pointing. As long as things are left ambiguous, Saddam can be given an out without loss of face to the US -- in fact we would look tough in that circumstance. Then the Atta-Prague meeting and the anthrax can simply be consigned to the category of "unsolved mysteries," which will please everybody.

However, it is still quite likely, IMO, that Saddam will resist long enough that a full disclosure is required. For example, if they reach a standoff where we have to put a nuclear bomber over Baghdad to show earnest of intent, that's going to require getting pretty explicit about Saddam's threat.

There is a continuum here between half-accusations and atmospherics and full disclosure, and the manipulation of our position on that continuum is of vital interest to the national command authority.

To understand the anthrax story, or the Prague story, you have to grasp the problem the administration faces, and the tools at its disposal to address them. If you don't -- if you just take everything at face value -- you'll never understand what's really going on.

[EternalHope]

Agreed.

A cardinal rule in negotiating is to always give the other guy an out. We cannot simply say, "Give up so we can kill you without destroying your country."

His only out is an arranged abdication. However, I am not certain that he would ever abdicate. It may be that he would rather die than go into a powerless exile. He may also feel that he is so hated by his own people that exile would mean certain death by assassination at some point in the future anyway.

In other words, he may not be willing to abdicate even to save his life. Or, he may feel abdication would not save him no matter what the assurances were. In either case, the only way to get rid of him would be to kill him.

My guess is that he will never leave. Instead, I think he will try to take as many people down with him when he goes as he can.

The biggest question, to me, is whether he will wait until we attack, or stike first. My hunch is that he will strike first. He may think/hope he can hit us hard enough to somehow survive himself, or he may simply want to watch the "fun" before he dies.

BTW: One overlooked possibility is that his cancer is about to kill him. As you may recall, he went through a bout with cancer a couple of years ago. I do not recall what kind of cancer it was, but he won the first round. If the cancer has relapsed he may not have much time left. What would Saddam do if he knew the cancer was going to get him anyway?

[EternalHope]

Just did a Google check on Saddam's cancer.

The rumors started in 1996, with a lot of speculation in 2000. Supposedly he had/has "Lymph Cancer". However, that is too broad a term to know what it really was/is.

It could be a cancer that spread to his lymph nodes, or it could be a lymphoma. Either way would be very serious, but many of the possibilities would be treatable.

If he really had cancer, he may have been completely cured, or simply have bought some more time.