U.S. Warplanes Attack Air Defense Target in Iraq
JUDY WOODRUFF, CNN ANCHOR: Let's go to Persian Gulf now, where U.S. warplanes attacked an air defense target in Southern Iraq today, the first such attack in more than six weeks. The Defense Department says the attack was in response to continued Iraqi threats to U.S. and British jets that are patrolling the no-fly zone. The attack came as Iraq rejected President Bush's call to permit United Nations arms inspectors back into Iraq. Asked yesterday what would happen if Saddam Hussein refused to allow those inspections to resume, the president replied: "Well, he will find out." Joining me now to discuss Iraq possibly being the next target in the war on terrorism: Ron Brownstein of "The Los Angeles Times." Ron, I know you were listening in as I was talking to Terry Jeffrey just a little bit ago about this whole question of whether Iraq. The president did use some different words, though, yesterday.</s>RON BROWNSTEIN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: He absolutely did. From the beginning, from September, he has had a very clear litany. He said states that harbor terrorists or support terrorists will be viewed as terrorists. He has used that language over and over again in all his big speeches, the congressional speech, the speech to U.N. Even in his appearance last week before the troops down in Kentucky, he used the same language. Yesterday, he added something new. He says if you harbor a terrorist, if you support a terrorist, and if you develop weapons of mass destruction that can be used to terrorize the world, then we will hold you accountable. And in that, he seemed to be going beyond the earlier definitions and basically saying that, whatever our view has been about nations like Iraq over the last few years, and the degree to which we can live with their program to develop weapons of mass destruction, perhaps he seemed to be suggesting, to many analysts, that our willingness to abide that has changed after September 11 because of the risk that Iraq could be become a source of such weapons for terrorists like al Qaeda.</s>WOODRUFF: Do you think it is at all possible, Ron, that it is coincidental that he added those few words yesterday?</s>BROWNSTEIN: You know, Judy, I personally don't think so. I mean, I know there is some discussion and debate about this. He has been so specific in using this litany all the way through. As I said, in every major address, he has used the same language. And yesterday, he used new language not once, but twice. And he added it at each time right at the end of that earlier progression of conditions. So it seemed like something that was deliberate. It also falls in while they are negotiating with Russia, trying to get them to toughen the sanctions at the United Nations against Iraq. So it would seem to be that it was part. And it also fits in with a general escalation of rhetoric from other administration officials. I mean, Condi Rice a couple weeks ago on one of the Sunday shows said that the world would be better off if Saddam Hussein was not in power. It's a very strong public statement to make. So I think this sort of fits in with a general pattern. It's hard to see it as simply coincidental.</s>WOODRUFF: At the same time, Ari Fleischer, the spokesman, said no, there is nothing new. We are simply restating, reiterating what our policy has been all along. And yet I noticed today that Ari Fleischer also said there has been some movement on Russia's part on those sanctions.</s>BROWNSTEIN: And that's what administration officials were saying to me yesterday as well, that Russia is being a little more cooperative. It's not clear that they're going to have a deal by Friday when the current sanctions expire to go to a new regime. The administration wants to toughen the sanctions on military imports and ease them on civilian imports into Iraq. It's not clear they are going to have a deal. They may have to simply have an agreement to roll over what we have now, with some language in there agreeing to come back and revisit the issue at a later date.</s>WOODRUFF: But do you think -- and, obviously, we are in the realm of speculation here, Ron. It's too early to know the answers to all these questions. But do you think the fact that the president is out there talking about this might mean that they have resolved their differences in the administration over what the next step to take is?</s>BROWNSTEIN: Actually, many people that I have spoken with since yesterday think that it is a sign that they have not resolved the differences and this is a way to bridge the differences. In effect, what he said was, he gave Iraq an escape, an out. He basically said: We are going to do something -- you will find out what -- if you don't allow the inspectors in. So, on the one hand, he is not simply pointing toward military action at this point. He is allowing them to try to allow -- give them the opportunity to say: OK, we will allow the inspectors back in. And if they don't, there are consequences. Now, there are many more hawkish analysts who say that, in effect, the worst thing that could happen now would be for Saddam to say yes at some point and to move us back into an inspection regime that was found to be insufficient in mid and late '90s, which led to our pulling out of and bombing them in the first place. To some extent, this may be an effort to create a predicate by setting a set of conditions that they won't accept.</s>WOODRUFF: All right, Ron Brownstein, "The Los Angeles Times," you can bet this is something we are going to come back to again and again and again.</s>BROWNSTEIN: As the administration does, too.</s>WOODRUFF: That's right. All right, Ron Brownstein, thanks very much.