Return to Transcripts main page

CNN SHOWDOWN: IRAQ

Showdown: Iraq

Aired March 8, 2003 - 12:00   ET

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

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MOHAMED ELBARADEI, IAEA DIRECTOR: On the one hand, there is there a lot of indication in the intelligence community that Iraq still have chemical and biological weapons. On the other hand, none of the inspectors are able to find any of these weapons, so there is no smoking gun.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MARTIN SAVIDGE, CNN ANCHOR: Despite another mixed report from the U.N.'s chief weapons inspectors, the diplomatic window and one last chance to avert war with Iraq is expected to slam shut just days from now.

Hello, I'm Martin Savidge in Kuwait City. It's great to be with you.

Here is what is expected in the days ahead.

Monday: Baghdad may report to the United Nations on a plan to confirm that it has destroyed its chemical and biological weapons in the 1990s.

A vote on the amended resolution before the Security Council could come Monday or Tuesday. That resolution would set a March 17 deadline for Iraq's full, unconditional and immediate cooperation.

In our around the world live coverage this hour we will hear from CNN's Dana Bash from the White House, Richard Roth at the United Nations and Nic Robertson in Baghdad.

So let's get started. And we begin in Washington, where the Bush administration is stepping up pressure on the reluctant allies to support the amended resolution now before the U.N. Security Council. We turn to our White House correspondent, Dana Bash -- Dana.

DANA BASH, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Martin, as you said the White House did agree to go along with giving Saddam Hussein a deadline of March 17 to fully disarm.

But I should tell you at the White House they are very candid that they don't that think there's much of a chance at all that Saddam Hussein will comply, that he will fully disarm, because that is what the White House wants Iraq to do. And they are saying that -- that the president himself feels he is going to have to do whatever it takes to protect the American people. He addressed that in his radio address today.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We're determined to confront threats wherever they arise and as a last resort, we must be willing to use military force. We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq. But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm peacefully, he will be disarmed by force.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

BASH: Now, what the administration is doing from the president, to Secretary of State Colin Powell to national security adviser Condoleezza is dialing around the world today, making calls, working the diplomatic channels to try to get the votes to pass this resolution next week at the Security Council. A senior administration official is saying that they're not even ruling out traveling to have some face-to-face meetings with the senior officials if they feel that that's necessary.

But what we're told that the president is saying as he's making these calls is that he wants to have their vote, that the U.N. -- the future of this U.N. is really at stake here, that he believes in the United Nations, in the process, going through the United Nations. But he is saying, reminding the leaders as he talks to them, we're told that he feels he does have the authority already to use military force to get rid of Saddam Hussein, and that he will use it if he feels the need to, but he hopes that he can do it with international consensus at the U.N. -- Martin.

SAVIDGE: Dana, is the president still saying that he has not yet made a decision whether to go to war with Iraq or not?

BASH: That's correct. They're being very careful here at the White House to say, really, at every chance they get that the president has not made the decision. He has not signaled to the Pentagon that he is ready to do it. They are careful not to do it.

However, a senior administration official made very clear that the March 17 deadline does close the diplomatic window in dealing with Iraq. So you can read into that what you will. But they are being very careful to say he has not made the decision to use military force.

SAVIDGE: Got it. Dana Bash at the White House. Thanks very much.

All right. Let's now turn to the situation at the United Nations. Our senior U.N. correspondent, Richard Roth, is keeping track of the latest developments there. And just a short time ago he interviewed chief nuclear inspector, Mohamed ElBaradei -- Richard.

RICHARD ROTH, CNN SR. U.N. CORRESPONDENT: Martin, here at the United Nations there's still smoke in the air. It's from the cigarettes of all the diplomats from yesterday, a haze hanging in the hallways. And it was a fiery debate inside the Security Council as the United States, France, Britain, Russia, China all mixed up; various arguments over the use of war at this time instead of giving the inspectors more time.

There's Secretary of State Powell with the Russian foreign minister, Ivanov, Powell, again, working one-on-one contacts with various foreign ministers. Here he is with China's foreign minister and then later, the Chilean foreign minister and the ambassador from Cameroon.

But the U.S. still doesn't have the nine votes needed, and inside the Security Council last evening the U.S. told fellow delegates, be ready to possibly vote as early as Tuesday, the council giving Iraq a March 17 deadline.

I asked today, the top nuclear watchdog, Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, what is the impact on his nuclear work of the March 17 deadline?

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ROTH: What does the March 17 deadline, if the Security Council approves it do for your efforts to look at Iraq's nuclear program?

ELBARADEI: Well, what it does, Richard, that we need to accelerate our efforts. We need to continue to press the Iraqis to come with whatever they have left to be able to convince the Security Council before that deadline, if that deadline is accepted, that Iraq does not have a nuclear weapon program, has not revived that nuclear weapon program.

I would hope that Hans Blix will be able, also, to do something similar. Because unless both of us are able to register dramatic progress before that deadline, we're not sure of the outcome.

ROTH: So you oppose this deadline?

ELBARADEI: Well, not oppose the deadline. The deadline is not my own making. But what I am saying that we are making progress in the nuclear area. Hans Blix also said he is making some progress, not as much as he would like to do.

And whether the Security Council will give us additional time to complete the job, whether they think that's not -- that's not in the cards, Iraq is not cooperating enough and we should think of other alternative, that's obviously the prerogative of the Security Council.

I believe that we still have a chance. I believe that war is not inevitable, but the ball is very much in Iraq's court. And there is, as you know, a mission going this week, you know, from the Arab League to Iraq to impress on Saddam Hussein the need to make something which clearly indicate a change of heart, clearly indicate a change in past behavior.

ROTH: What you told the Security Council on Friday, that you really can't say at all that it appears that Iraq is reviving its nuclear program. How do you know that? ELBARADEI: Well, based on a lot of work, a lot of analysis, a lot of inspections, a lot of samples, we have been working, you know, full time, 24 hours in the last three months to come to that conclusion.

That is still a tentative conclusion. We have looked at all areas of concern that was presented to us, new buildings in Iraq, efforts to import uranium, effort to import tubes that could be used for enrichment. And I think we systematically exclude a lot of these possibilities.

But I do not want to rush to a conclusion. I said give me three weeks, possibly two to three months, and then I'd be able to come to a credible conclusion that Iraq does not have a nuclear weapons program.

ROTH: So what happens with a war, you need months? What is the impact of a war, then, to the possibilities of a nuclear program in Iraq?

ELBARADEI: Well, I think if there were to be a war it would really center on the inability or frustration to come forward with evidence or items in the chemical and biological. I don't think anybody is really centering right now on the nuclear. I think everybody acquiescing that we are moving forward on the nuclear issue.

So if there were to be a war, it is really on the doubt about Iraq retention of some chemical and biological weapons. And that's why I very much hope that my colleague, Hans Blix, will be able to make similar progress. If both of us are reporting substantive progress, I see no reason why we should stop the inspection process.

ROTH: Now, in the Security Council on Friday, you, in effect, once again, like your counterpart, Dr. Blix, challenged U.S. and British intelligence assertions in one area, that the African country of Niger was doing business with Iraq regarding prospective sales of uranium for nuclear production.

What did you and your advisers and outside experts discover about these accusations?

ELBARADEI: Well, let me say first we did not challenge the U.S. and the U.S. was not the only source of that intelligence. They expressed concern. They provide us with certain documents that alleged that Iraq had tried to import uranium from Niger in 2000 -- in 2000.

We went through a thorough analysis of the document, we went through interviews of many people that were supposed to be involved, we got forensic expert and we have come to the conclusion that these documents are forgery.

That does not cast a doubt on the intelligence. The intelligence information is very important to us. It is not -- what we have done is not anti-intelligence, it's really pro-inspection. It shows the usefulness of an inspection. You give us information, but we need to corroborate that -- this information. ROTH: But do U.S. says that this shows that Iraq is not cooperating, thus leading it to go to war over items like this.

ELBARADEI: Not really on this issue. I think on the nuclear issues, I think Iraq has been, in fact, cooperating.

ROTH: How do you know those documents are forgeries?

ELBARADEI: Well, because we went through a lot of comparison with original Niger documents' format, content, signature, emblem. We analyzed the documents in term of forensic evidence, and we have come to the conclusion that these documents are not authentic.

ROTH: All right. Aluminum tubes, the U.S. sometimes saying it's a confusing picture, other times still saying that Iraq has been importing aluminum tubes for production for centrifuges for nuclear use. And you still, now, practically conclusively, you're saying not so?

ELBARADEI: That's correct. We have done -- again we assembled the best team of international expert on centrifuges, on enrichment. They have gone to Iraq, they have looked at the records, they have discussed in details why Iraq has been trying to import these tubes, the diameter of these tubes. And we are still of the belief that these tubes were for conventional rockets.

However, we're not closing the file, Richard, we're still looking into all these issues.

ROTH: Why do you say you now think it would be a good idea to interview Iraqi scientists out of the country, when the U.S. had been pressing for this months ago? Why now say it, when you could have done it or pressed for it then?

ELBARADEI: Because we need additional assurance. I mean, there was a lot of work we needed to do before. I didn't find the kind of scientists we want to interview. We would like to see where the areas when we need additional assurance through interviews.

Interviews abroad also has a lot -- had and continues to have a lot of problems. I mean, the humanitarian aspect of it. How do you define a family? How can you force a person to go out?

ROTH: But they've taken months to agree to interviews without tape recorders or monitors.

ELBARADEI: That's correct. They were not -- they were not very forthcoming at the beginning. Now, they are ready. And I would like to make use of that facility. I would like to, again, take people out to interview because that again is -- will be, if you like, the icing on the cake, in some of our areas to make sure that we have exhausted all the evidence that we need to work on.

ROTH: Very briefly, in five seconds, what's the impact on U.N. and international community if there's a war?

ELBARADEI: I think the U.N. is not Iraq, the U.N. will be there after Iraq. We need to maintain the unity of the United Nations.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ROTH: Dr. ElBaradei doesn't rule out another trip to Iraq. He's made three of them with Hans Blix. But of course, that would mean Iraq has something to say in the quest to avoid that deadline of March 17.

Meanwhile, Marty, President Chirac of France again reiterating today that he would like to have a heads of state summit, an emergency summit, here at the United Nations Security Council to work out a compromise -- Martin.

SAVIDGE: Thanks, Richard, very much. CNN's Richard Roth at the United Nations, where the action is these days.

Tomorrow, on "LATE EDITION," Wolf Blitzer will interview Secretary of State Colin Powell. That's at noon eastern on "LATE EDITION."

Now, how's all this playing out inside Iraq? Well, for that we turn to CNN's senior international correspondent, Nic Robertson. He's live in Baghdad and joins us now to bring us up to date -- Nic.

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN SR. INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Marty, plenty of action here today. Iraqi officials and the U.N. confirming that another six of the Al Samoud 2 missiles were destroyed, including three of the warheads that go with those missiles.

That brings to a total of 40 Al Samoud 2 missiles destroyed. That is about one-third of Iraq's declared Al Samoud missile stock.

Also, U.N. inspectors here saying that they have held another private interview with an Iraqi scientist. That would be the eleventh private interview of an Iraqi scientist with the chemical, biological and missile teams here.

We have seen from the Iraqi government on Iraqi television positive reaction to the statements by Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei.

And we saw this afternoon on television President Saddam Hussein meeting with some of the top politicians in the country, the news announcer there saying that it was clear to the governments around the world what the United States and Great Britain were trying to, that they were trying to cover up Iraq's cooperation with the U.N. weapons inspectors.

The announcer going on to say that it was time that the United Nations Security Council called the United States and Great Britain liars, time that the embargo on Iraq was lifted, time, as well, that paragraph 14 of U.N. Resolution 687, demanding an end or a riddance of all weapons of mass destruction, in this region including Israel, the announcer noted that being put into effect, and also calling on Israel, as well, to withdraw from Palestinian territories. So quite an extensive list of demands coming from the top leaders in Iraq today.

But the overall view, Marty, Hans Blix, Mohamed ElBaradei putting forward a positive view, in Iraq's opinion.

SAVIDGE: Nic, with the United States saying that March 17 could be a hard deadline, then I'm wondering is the U.N. weapons inspectors there preparing for the evacuation that they may be required to take?

ROBERTSON: They have always said that they have had evacuation plans since the first day they came here. They have said that their evacuation would take place by air. They fly in here from Larnica on a special L-130 aircraft that is chartered for their use. They say that that is the method that they would use the leave here if they did, in fact, leave.

But at this time, they say they have absolutely no intentions of doing that. They are rotating staff on a normal basis. And for right now, they say they're here, they're working and that's what they intend to continue to do.

SAVIDGE: All right. Nic Robertson of Baghdad. Thanks for the view from there.

Here in Kuwait, another sign that the U.S. is inching toward war. All you have to do is look at what has been going on at the DMZ, that is, the border, the demilitarized zone that exists between Iraq and Kuwait.

It stretches for about 120 miles on land. For years, it has been a very quiet place. It is observed by U.N. peacekeepers.

Recently, though, in the past couple of days things have been getting active up there, according to the United Nations. They have been seeing a number of civilians, or at least people dressed in civilian clothing, driving in SUVs. When they've approached these civilians, those people have identified themselves as U.S. marines at times.

What are they doing up there? Well, they haven't said exactly. It would be prudent, though, to think that they're probably on a scouting mission. You see, there are a lot of defenses that Kuwait put in place up at the border there. Huge earthen berms, as well as very deep trenches, designed to keep the Iraqis out. It also would make it difficult for U.S. military forces trying to get into Iraq.

We are being told that the Kuwaiti government, or Kuwaiti officers, have opened holes in the electric fence there, not small holes but about 15 holes said to be 300 meters wide. Preparation, perhaps, for what may come next.

Well, as military activity heats up in the Persian Gulf region, those against the war are ramping up their protests. We'll check in on the rally in Washington expected to draw thousands of anti-war demonstrators, most of them women.

And later, picking the brain of Saddam Hussein, a former CIA analyst predicts how the Iraqi leader might react in war.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SAVIDGE: Some demonstrations around the globe highlight the emotional debate over Iraq.

Thousand of protesters took to the streets of Tokyo today. Some say they want the world to know that their government does not speak for them. Japan has endorsed the idea of a new resolution that would impose a deadline on Iraq.

In Italy, tens of thousands of anti-war demonstrators chanted no to the war outside a U.S. military base in Tuscany. Demonstrators tied messages opposing attacking Iraq on the fence at Camp Darby. Italy's government has back the U.S. position on Iraq, but polls show about 70 percent of the public is against any military action.

You may not be aware today is International Women's Day. Thousands are marching and marking the observance with anti-war protest in Washington. They call it Code Pink. CNN's Maria Hinojosa joins us live from D.C. with more on that -- Maria.

MARIA HINOJOSA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Marty. Yes, well, the theme for today is Code Pink, in response to what they say is the terror alerts of code orange and code yellow and code red. They say they're calling today to be the day of Code Pink for peace.

So, we're seeing about maybe a thousand, 2,000, perhaps 3,000 women who are gathered here at Malcolm X Park in Washington D.C. They're hearing from speakers. They will be marching to the White House. The idea that they have is that they want to try to encircle the White House with pink, perhaps with pink scarves, pink ribbons. Whether or not they're going to be able to do that, we shall see. But the plan is to march down there.

And one of the women who is here is Janeane Garofalo, who is certainly a well-known actress. And you have become now, Janeane, really one of the spokespersons for the anti-war movement.

JANEANE GAROFALO, ACTOR: No, no, no, I wouldn't say that. I don't think I'm one of the spokespersons for the anti-war movement. I think I'm one of many voices.

HINOJOSA: Why do you want to be here today? What's the message that you have as a woman today?

GAROFALO: Well, I guess I want to be at any kind of rally that supports finding a diplomatic solution to this situation in Iraq.

I don't think that the administration is being particularly honest with the American people about what this is going to cost in life and dollars, what the dangers are of retaliatory strikes once it happens. This is not a war that needs to happen immediately, if ever.

I believe this is a plan that certain people in the administration, Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Abrams, Libby have had for many years and they're manipulating 9-11 to perpetuate their agenda.

HINOJOSA: So, Janeane, there would be people who say, how do you keep your hope up when it seems that the road to war seems somewhat inexorable?

GAROFALO: Well, I'm shifting my hope now to the 2004 election. I do believe this is an administration that does not listen to the voice of people around the world, nor do they listen to the voice of people in their own country. I think that they, like I said, have had this idea to go into Iraq for many years, not George Bush necessarily but the men who advise them. So they're going in no matter what.

HINOJOSA: Do you think they'll listen? I mean, this is not a huge crowd here today.

GAROFALO: It doesn't matter the size of the crowd today, because there's been millions and millions of people marching every day all around the world. There's been people e-mailing, calling, faxing the White House every day.

Like I said, this administration, I'll agree with Senator Byrd on this one. They do not listen. They don't listen to the Congress; they don't listen to the American people. They really just only listen to their inner circle. And so they're probably going to do whatever they want anyway.

But you know, silence does not equal patriotism, obedience is not the American way. You know, it's our obligation to watchdog the government, since for the most part the media has not done so.

HINOJOSA: OK, thank you very much. Janeane Garofalo, who will be speaking here. And we will be covering this live throughout the day. So back to you, Marty.

SAVIDGE: Maria Hinojosa in Washington D.C., thanks very much.

Inside the mind of Saddam Hussein. Will he back down? Or how might he react to an attack? We'll look at his options.

Plus where is Osama bin Laden? Coming up, narrowing down the search for one of the world's most wanted men.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SAVIDGE: Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein knows that his regime is in the crosshairs of the United States and Britain. As he prepares for possible war, what might the Iraqi leader be thinking?

CNN analyst Kenneth Pollack wrote the book "The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq." He is also with the Sabine Center for Middle East Policy at the Brooking Institution and he joins us from Washington as always.

Great to have you with us, Ken. Let me ask you this, first of all, do you think that Saddam Hussein will resort to his weapons of mass destruction? KENNETH POLLACK, CNN ANALYST: I think there's no question, Marty, that at some point in time, Saddam will use everything in his arsenal. The key issue is when that happens.

On the one hand, Saddam is extremely unpredictable, he's extremely difficult to fathom, he's capable of coming up with rationales, strategies that make no sense to anyone but himself. So it's possible that he might start popping off his weapons of mass destruction very early on.

But that said, there is, perhaps, a more rational approach to this, one more in keeping with the way that we've seen Saddam handle other situations that suggests that Saddam may actually hold off on his weapons of mass destruction until we actually get to Baghdad.

He understands he doesn't really have much of a military chance of winning this war, but we have most of the military cards in our hand. And his game is very much to basically win the war at Baghdad, present us with the threat of a horrible fight in the city of Baghdad. And that will somehow deter us from taking that final step and giving him the opportunity to negotiate his way out.

What we've seen in the past is, Saddam believes that if he starts using weapons of mass destruction, we might start using nuclear weapons. And obviously, he doesn't want that to happen. And what's more, if he holds off on weapons of mass destruction until we get to Baghdad, there's still a very important psychological threshold that the U.S. will have to cross.

If we've driven the length of Messopotamia, driven the length all the way up to Baghdad and we haven't hit any weapons of mass destruction, but when we get to Baghdad, we know there's V.X. and a whole bunch of other stuff waiting for us there, that might make the actual attack on Baghdad a much higher psychological threshold for the U.S. to cross.

SAVIDGE: Any indication that his generals would carry out that order, if told to fire off those weapons?

POLLACK: Well, this, of course, is one of the $64,000 questions lying out there. We just don't know the answer. We're certainly hoping that they won't be willing to carry out that answer.

And I think that the U.S. military is really stepping up its operations as much as they can to really inject into the Iraqi military system two very important thoughts.

One, Saddam Hussein is a goner. He is not going to be there in three or four months. All you have to do is ride this thing out. And he will not be able to seek retribution if you don't carry out his orders.

And two, if you do carry out his orders, we will seek retribution. You will be held accountable as a war criminal, and if you value your life and your family's reputation, you won't do this. And I think that there probably will be a number of Iraqi generals who will be persuaded by this. But the problem is, Saddam has also surrounded himself with some extremely loyal troops. Those are the troops who are likely to have their hands on the triggers of the weapons of mass destruction, and you can't rule out the fact these guys will follow Saddam's orders.

SAVIDGE: Well, real quick before we go, Ken, let me ask you one last thing. As far as exile, that's still being talked about in this part of the world. Do you think that Saddam at the last minute could go into exile?

POLLACK: I think it's extremely unlikely. When the U.S. tanks get to Baghdad, it's a possibility. Before then, I think there's no question it will not happen. You heard Saddam tell Dan Rather, he was born in Baghdad, born in Iraq, he plans to die there.

He's a man, we've seen many times, he understands that his life expectancy if he is not in power in Iraq would probably be measured in minutes, not even days. And what's more, he think he's has a historic destiny, which includes striking some great blow to Israel. He's also driven by revenge.

And what we saw him do in 1991 during the Gulf War was he made no plans for escape. Instead, what he made plans for was that if he were going down with the ship, he was going to try to pull as many people down with him.

I think that's the bigger problem we face. He's unlikely to go into exile, even at the last minute. He's much more likely to lash out and kill as many people before he goes as he possibly can.

SAVIDGE: Well, we will see just what kind of soothsayer Saddam Hussein is, I guess, in the coming weeks. Ken Pollack, CNN analyst, thanks very much for joining us.

POLLACK: Thank you, Mary.

SAVIDGE: A hunt for bin Laden, when we come back, we will look at the strategies he may be using now to avoid capture.

And safe houses, are they the perfect investment for the paranoid homeowner

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SAVIDGE: Now, the hunt for the world's most wanted man.

After the arrest of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in Pakistan, there is a vigorous renewed effort to find bin Laden in that region. For the latest, we go live via videophone to CNN's Tom Mintier in Islamabad, Pakistan -- Tom.

TOM MINTIER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Marty, that arrest took place a week ago, and the interrogations have been going on, I'm sure, around the clock since then. The man -- One man who probably knows where Osama bin Laden is, is he talking or isn't he?

He has, as I said, been in custody for a week now. And at his home, where he was arrested, they picked up a lot of material from his laptop computer to notes and things like that, that they're able to go through. Possibly might indicate where Osama bin Laden might be.

There were indications, 24 hours ago, that the noose may be tightening around Osama bin Laden, they may be close to capturing him somewhere along the boarder of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Just 24 hours ago, there was a report that Osama bin Laden's two sons were involved in a shootout with both U.S. and Pakistani troops along the border. Both governments have denied that that took place, denied that the two are in custody, denied that the incident even took place. So we're waiting to see what the truth really is.

The interior minister of Baluchistan, a local official, in an interview with a television station, indicated that there was a shoot- out, that there were two of Osama's sons that were wounded and captured, along with several other al Qaeda suspects. But that story was later knocked down by both Pakistani and U.S. officials as simply not being true.

So we'll have to wait and see in the next few days if, indeed, there are operations going on along the border. And we're pretty sure there are. Whether they bear any fruit and whether they're able to locate and capture Osama bin Laden is the open question in Islamabad tonight that everyone is asking just about anywhere you go -- Marty.

SAVIDGE: All right. CNN's Tom Mintier in Islamabad. We'll stay in touch with you. Thanks very much.

President Bush has said that wants bin Laden captured, dead or alive. If hunting bin Laden is the mission, how is it accomplished? And is the goal to capture him or kill him?

For some answers, we turn to CNN security analyst Kelly McCann in Washington.

Thanks, Kelly, for being with us again. What do you think? How close are we, really, to Osama bin Laden at this particular moment?

KELLY McCANN, CNN ANALYST: The sources have told me, obviously, at the end of a capture, you want to accelerate an investigation, not decelerate or to just kind of sit on your laurels.

So we are better off now. It's not imminent. And I don't think anyone in the administration is saying that it's imminent. But we are steps closer because of capturing the brain.

SAVIDGE: Well, the rumors have been flying, as you heard Tom Mintier say, this report of Osama bin Laden's sons being arrested and wounded. Have you heard anything to back that up?

McCANN: I've not. The only important point there, Marty, is out of the 23 children, there's really only three and, in fact, one of extreme interest to the U.S. intelligence authorities, which would be Saad.

Saad has, in recent years, stepped up to kind of take over a leadership role in al Qaeda. And so they have obvious interest in speaking to him. The other 20 children really are minor players, if at all, the three being most important to Osama bin Laden.

SAVIDGE: Well, tell us something about the area where this search is being conducted. It's obviously near the Pakistani-Afghani border. And I'm just wondering why is that area the possible place where Osama bin Laden may be?

McCANN: Well, there's a couple of reasons. One is of course, Kamen (ph) is -- there's a refuge camp located there. And we all know that there's problems with the porosity borders, documentation or false documentation, al Qaeda has a history of using, so that the movement between these countries -- Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan -- is fairly free and open.

In the northwest province, as searches are going on there as well, it's very craggy, it's a difficult signals intelligence environment because of radio wave propagation. It's difficult to put people into that region without staying ahead of the tribal communication methodology.

So it's a very challenge environment for U.S. forces to try to pinpoint where Osama bin Laden is.

SAVIDGE: Excuse me. This most recent arrest that we had a week ago, do you think that came about as a result of the $25 million price tag or do you think it was done through good investigative work? Do we know yet?

McCANN: It's an interesting question. I'm not sure that there are any indications that it was, in fact, a money issue. Although if you remember, Al Kanzi (ph) was given up by very much tribal leaders in the northwest province for money. There is nothing to suggest that KSM met his fate as a result of that $25 million bounty on his head.

I think more it's an indication of the unraveling of the network, and as we start to do investigations at length, we're surfacing inconsistencies and running it to ground. Good police work, if you will.

SAVIDGE: You started out by saying that you don't think the capture of Osama bin Laden is imminent, yet there are others who think it could happen any moment. What are you basing your opinion on there?

McCANN: There are two real schools of thought. It would be ideologically consistent for him to remain in the northwest province, living the life that's hard and basically, leading by example. In other words, staying up there and keeping the troops motivated, et cetera.

It would be tactically consistent for him to be in a city area, where it would be the exact opposite of what you might think he would do.

Until we get significant intelligence that pinpoints where we think he is, by virtue of communications intelligence, signals intelligence, human intelligence or the long-term reconnaissance surveillance assets we have out, it's almost impossible to split the 50/50 question.

SAVIDGE: All right, Kelly McCann, CNN security analyst. Thanks. You always make it interesting. We look forward to having you back.

McCANN: Thanks, Marty.

SAVIDGE: We have this programming note for you. Monday we begin a special series called "Eye on bin Laden." Where is the most wanted man? We'll explore whether the arrest of his deputy, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, will help lead to his capture. That's on "AMERICAN MORNING" with Paula Zahn, beginning at 7 a.m. Eastern time.

Well, many people believe the question about war isn't if, but when. And plenty of American citizens aren't taking chances if an Iraq attack spurs terrorism at home. We'll talk to two mayors from a big city and a small one about concerns in their home towns.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SAVIDGE: Ahead of any war with Iraq, Americans are thinking about security and safety. Gas masks and duct tape just may not cut it.

Some homeowners are opting for safe rooms or panic runs. They're made of high-tech steel with air purification systems that promise to protect you from a chemical or biological attack. The rooms are on tour this weekend at the Washington Home and Garden Show. Not your typical spring fixer-upper.

American cities and towns, they are also preparing for the worst. The National League of Cities will discuss homeland security during a meeting in Washington this weekend.

Mayor Karen Anderson of Minnetonka, Minnesota, and Mayor Anthony Williams of the District of Columbia are both attending. They also sit on a committee for the president's Homeland Security Advisory Council.

Thanks to both of you for joining us.

Obviously, there is a lot of concern, a lot of concern and a lot of money that is being spent. Let me start by asking you, Mayor Anderson, in Minnetonka, financially, how are you able to cope with the pressures that are being placed upon you with all these security alerts?

KAREN ANDERSON, MAYOR, MINNETONKA, MINNESOTA: In Minnetonka, Martin, as throughout the country, cities and towns have already been preparing for the last 18 months since a year ago September 11, doing a number of things to prepare for potential terrorist attacks. And those include updating our emergency preparedness plans and making our public facilities, our infrastructure, more safe and secure, more training and exercising. People practicing for whatever a terrorist attack might take. We've been doing those things. So we've been doing those things.

We have, of course, been doing those entirely with our own resources and we're hoping that we can get more assistance from the federal government, now that the threat of war seems even more real.

Cities are understanding that there will be new challenges now, in our role as first responders, in our role of taking care of and protecting America's home front right here on our own soil. So we're taking that very seriously.

We're going to be sharing lots of ideas on the things that we'll need to do to help deal with increased community anxiety, or what does a red alert mean now for our cities and towns? We'll be covering a lot of those issues within the next few days.

SAVIDGE: Mayor Anderson, obviously, or actually let me turn to Mayor Williams. Washington D.C., obviously, many of us think is high on the potential target list of terrorists.

I can't think of how you are coping, again, financially. It's a tough economy out there and you're being asked to do all of these procedures, extra manpower, extra overtime, extra security. How do you keep up and still maintain the security?

ANTHONY WILLIAMS, MAYOR, WASHINGTON, D.C.: Well, Washington D.C., is an interesting situation in that the federal government has provided special funding for the District of Columbia.

In our emergency preparedness, we receive reimbursement now for major events, for example, like the big demonstration that's coming up this next weekend.

But my point is that this is an example, this is a demonstration of how this preparedness takes money. And my heart goes out to, and my concerns are with other cities across the country that need the same kind of support to get the job done.

SAVIDGE: Well, are you having to sacrifice other services, city services, in order to have the security you want?

WILLIAMS: Well, let me put it this way. All of us, mayor and council people across the country, when we're looking at emergency preparedness, when we're looking at terrorism response, are always making the choice between major targets versus neighborhood deployment. National concerns versus local concerns. And we try to strike that balance.

But often and too often, it's at a cost in terms of local coverage. That's why that support is needed.

You're talking about... SAVIDGE: Are you getting additional -- go ahead, sir.

WILLIAMS: You're talking about neighborhood forces out there on the street for the garden variety of crimes. And we ought to be aware of the fact that in many of our communities across the country, particularly in center cities, our crime is way too high and people are being terrorized all the time, unfortunately.

SAVIDGE: Mayor Anderson, is Minnetonka receiving more federal money these days to help deal with the situation?

ANDERSON: Absolutely not. We were promised in the president's 2003 budget over a year ago $3.5 billion more for our first responders. And we've seen none of that money. Some of it was appropriated about a week ago for the 2003 budget, but it -- it certainly wasn't $3.5 billion. We may be receiving, perhaps a million dollars more.

There's now a promise for the 2004 budget of another $3.5 billion. Well, we've gotten nothing so far and now we're seeing these increased responsibilities and increased challenges coming to us. And I'm quite concerned.

This is all happening at the same time that we're having severe budget shortfalls in at least 46 states throughout the country, and that often exhibits itself by reduced revenues to our cities. So we're seeing cities who are actually cutting the number of police officers, cutting the number of firefighters in our communities, while we have these new challenges.

So it's a very -- it's of serious concern to our city leaders throughout the country.

SAVIDGE: It is a concern. All right. Mayor Karen Anderson of Minnetonka and also Mayor Anthony Williams of Washington, D.C. I hope that both of your cities and your people will always be safe. Thank you for joining us.

ANDERSON: Thank you.

WILLIAMS: Thank you.

SAVIDGE: Talking about the discussion of the potential terror. Thank you.

CNN, of course, is not the only news network gearing up for war coverage. Next, a look at the Arab networks. But is journalism there really objective?

And in the second hour of showdown Iraq, preparing for the worst- case scenario right here in Kuwait.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SAVIDGE: One battle the U.S. has to fight in case of war with Iraq won't be on the ground, won't be in the air, it will be on the air.

CNN's Sheila MacVicar takes a look at the coming media battle for hearts and minds in the Middle East as new Arab television networks hit the airwaves.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: U.S. President George W. Bush warned...

SHEILA MacVICAR, CNN SR. INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice- over): New faces in the media war for hearts, minds and influence as war looms.

This is Al Manar's 24 hour TV news operation. The U.S. administration calls it a Hezbollah mouthpiece. Hezbollah, the party of God, on the State Department's terror list.

Ibrahim Mousawi is the English language broadcast editor, and he has big plans for war coverage.

IBRAHIM MOUSAWI, AL MANAR EDITOR: It's going to be on professional lines. You have three things in Iraq the Iraqis are going to broadcast the things and what all happened there.

MacVICAR: Broadcasting from the Gulf state of Qatar, the most powerful of the Arab satellite channels, Al Jazeera gears up for its nightly newscast.

The newsroom is small. There's only one real studio, but more than 35 million viewers tune in, giving it the biggest voice in the region.

IBRAHIM HILAL, AL JAZEERA EDITOR-IN-CHIEF: We have an agenda of accurate information. Even if this accurate information is frustrating the American administration.

MacVICAR: Al Jazeera made its break through in Afghanistan. American critics then called it, quote, "the voice of bin Laden." Now the network is being accused of being the voice of Iraq.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): The truth is we represent all of those. Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Ariel Sharon, the Mossad, the CIA, because that is where the news is.

MacVICAR: The U.S. administration may not like Al Jazeera, but this time its editors expect to have their correspondents on the ground with U.S. forces.

HILAL: This is American mentality now. They need us to convince the hearts and minds of the Arab audience that they are doing the right thing.

MacVICAR: Regimes throughout the region can't stop people watching, but they have closed Al Jazeera's bureaus and tried to subject their correspondents to the restrictions faced by many newspaper editors. DR. LABIB KAMHAWI, JORDANIAN POLITICAL ANALYST: Write about tomatoes and potatoes and fashion and maybe you get away with it. Maybe not.

MacVICAR: More and more, there are media voices getting away with it, delivering perspectives that people here say matter and that will likely shape how people think about this threatening war and what comes after.

Sheila McVicar, CNN, Qatar.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SAVIDGE: Ahead in the second hour of SHOWDOWN: IRAQ, the harsh realities of desert deployment. We'll tell you about the sandstorms that have been plaguing Kuwait.

And the search for Scuds, the challenges of locating and destroying Scud missiles in western Iraq.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SAVIDGE: Welcome back to SHOWDOWN: IRAQ, I'm Martin Savidge in Kuwait City. Let's push on now in our around the world live coverage this hour. We'll hear from CNN's Nic Robertson in Baghdad, where more missiles were destroyed today. Matthew Chance in London with British reaction to the Iraq crisis, and Maria Hinojosa in Washington at the Code Pink anti-war protest in Washington.

Let's get the view now from inside Iraq. Iraqi officials destroyed six more Al Samoud 2 missiles today, as debate continues over whether Iraq is really cooperating with orders to disarm.

With more on this is Nic Robertson in Baghdad -- Nic.

ROBERTSON: Martin, the very latest from here, Iraq's news agency reporting that coalition aircraft struck civilian and service facilities in the Anbar province west of Baghdad.

Now, coalition Central Command had said that overnight they had struck some air defense facilities in that same region. Iraq's news agency noting that some 225 what they call armed sorties, armed violations of their air space, have taken place. This number a significant increase even over the last few weeks, where the number of sorties Iraq's news agency was reporting were perhaps in the hundreds, a few months before that even down in the 50's, 60's, 70's. So this, a very significant number of over flights over Iraq's space coming by coalition aircraft over flying the northern and southern no-fly zones in Iraq.

Today here, however, U.N. and Iraqi officials saying that another six Al Samoud 2 missiles have been destroyed, including three warheads with those missiles. U.N. also says though, there has been another interview with an Iraqi scientist. That brings the total of private interviews with Iraqi scientists to 11. Also, we've been seeing positive reaction in Iraq to the statements at the U.N. Security Council by the U.N. weapons chief, Hans Blix and head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei. Their reports have been praised for being positive. But we also saw on Iraqi television, President Saddam Hussein meeting with his top ministers, and government officials and politicians. The news announcer reading there that it is clear to the world now that the United States and Great Britain are trying to cover up Iraq's compliance with U.N. weapon inspectors' work. The news announcer said that there were four demands now coming from the president and the other leaders of Iraq.

That is that, number one, the -- number one, that Britain and the United States should be called liars. That the embargo against Iraq should be lifted. That paragraph 14 of U.N. Resolution 687 should be lifted, that should be enforced. That would mean the end of all weapons of mass destruction, not just in Iraq they say, but within the whole of the Middle East, including Israel, the news announcer pointed out. And the other demand that Israel pulls out of Palestinian areas. That coming in this news announcement today -- Marty.

SAVIDGE: A lot of territory to cover there. Nic Robertson in Baghdad, thanks.

The British government is under enormous pressure as it continues to back the United States in the Iraq crisis. For more on that, we go to CNN's Matthew Chance in London -- Matthew.

MATTHEW CHANCE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Thank you, Martin. And that deadline of March 17 put forward by Britain hoped very much by Jack Straw, the British foreign secretary, to be enough to win over the doubters on the Security Council, to bring them on board to vote for a second Security Council resolution once it's tabled.

But we're talking there, of course, about France, about China and about Russia. All countries who have voiced their opposition to the possibility of military action at this point, also countries that have United Nations Security Council veto. Those countries as well as the so-called U-Six, the undecided six countries on the Security that Britain and the United States want to bring around to their position, countries that don't have a Security Council veto.

Once again, since that announcement in the Security Council by Jack Straw, British officials have been saying they're still optimistic that they can get enough support for their amendments in the Security Council. Very few people though, analysts, observers that I have been speaking to here in London give them much chance of doing that. Potentially placing Tony Blair, the British prime minister, in a very difficult situation politically. He has so far failed essentially to win over public support here to persuade the British public that the need for a war in Iraq is urgent.

There have been more renewed protests, anti-war protests across Britain on this day, Saturday. The biggest one here in Manchester, attracting 10,000 people according to the police in the northern English city. People in Britain will, of course, be watching very closely which way the Security Council votes, once that amended resolution is tabled, if it is tabled to them in the early days of next week.

But again, Tony Blair has made it clear that he will go to war alongside the United States even if there is not a second Security Council resolution. That makes people here extremely angry.

SAVIDGE: Matthew, how has Blair's political party, his own party reacted to this new resolution?

CHANCE: Well, they've reacted in a very strong terms. Members of the Labour Party, the party of which governs this country and which Tony Blair heads, has already expressed its opposition, or many people within that party, have expressed their opposition to a possible war with Iraq without a second United Nations Security Council resolution. Only last week there was a rebellion in a vote in parliament here in Britain where 120 of his own MPs voted against the government. Rather government people, MPs of Tony Blair's party have said that hey want to be consulted in the House of Commons, the British Parliament, before a decision is taken to send British troops into war. If that doesn't happen they say Blair will face an even bigger rebellion -- Martin.

SAVIDGE: Matthew Chance in London, thanks very much.

Well, right now across the Atlantic in the United States, women are converging on the White House in his part of a world wide anti-war demonstration. They are calling Code Pink.

Maria Hinojosa has more from the scene -- Maria.

HINOJOSA: Hi, Marty. Well, the atmosphere here I have to say, is pretty festive, of course. That has to do with the fact that everyone here is wearing some form of not just pink, but flamingo pink. And it started out early this morning around 11:00. What started out with about a couple hundred women has now turned into over 3,000 people filling up Malcolm X Park.

This is part of a national campaign to celebrate International Women's Day and to call for no war with Iraq. And that includes cities across the country: New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Ft. Wayne, Indiana, Madison, Wisconsin and Laramie, Wyoming. Again, part of a national effort to get women's voices out in terms of their position against the war with Iraq

Now, joining me here are Maxine Hong Kingston and Alex Walker, well known authors. I want to ask you, as a writer, why are you taking issue now with this war?

MAXINE HONG KINGSTON, AUTHOR: This war is -- it will be the most destructive thing that has ever happened on this planet. And the people who are planning it do not look at consequences. They just jump into this. It's all shortcuts. This is what bombs are all about. We're trying to do shortcuts. I was horrified when Bush, the other night, said that the time for negotiations is over. To me, negotiations, words, dialogue goes on forever. HINOJOSA: And, Alice Walker, very high-profile writer. You don't have to be taking part in protests. What as a citizen is motivating you to come out to the streets now?

ALICE WALKER, AUTHOR: I have been taking part in protests my entire life, and I know that they work. I mean the president may pretend that he doesn't want to hear us, he doesn't see us, but believe me eventually he will see us, and he will hear us.

HINOJOSA: Are you convinced that today he will in fact be listening, but do you think that that will change anything?

WALKER: You know, we can only hope that it will change things. But that's not my main concern. My main concern is that we do what we are supposed to do. We are supposed to be here in this park. We are supposed to demonstrate and protest and make our thoughts known.

KINGSTON: And what we're doing...

HINOJOSA: Thank you, Maxine Hong Kingston and Alice Walker. They are part of some of the very high profile people who are joining -- well, women really, who are joining here. Their plan is to march to the White House. Their plan, Marty, to encircle the White House in pink. Whether or not that's going to happen, well, we'll just have to wait and see. Back to you, Marty.

SAVIDGE: The view from Washington this Saturday. Thank you, Maria Hinojosa.

If there is war in Iraq, northern Israel would become the next hot spot. We'll tell you why. And literal hot spots from the '91 Gulf War, we'll explain why fighting oil well fires could be even more difficult if they're set ablaze now.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SAVIDGE: It's been quiet along Israel's northern border with Lebanon in recent weeks. It is a place where Israeli soldiers and Hezbollah militia are on constant alert. But that calm should change and change quickly if the United States launches an attack on Iraq.

Kelly Wallace talked to people on both sides of that tense border to gauge their move. And she joins us from Jerusalem -- Kelly.

KELLY WALLACE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Marty, neither side knows what the other will do. And so you have a great deal of uncertainty, and uncertainty is always dangerous especially in a place as tense as the Israeli-Lebanese border.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

WALLACE (voice-over): Face to face with an enemy. At this Israeli army post along the border with Lebanon, only a few feet and an electronic fence separate Israeli soldiers from members of Hezbollah, the Shiite Muslim militia backed by Iran and Syria and on the U.S. State Department's list of terrorist groups. The Hezbollah fighters try to intimidate with gestures and with this, a billboard showing the severed head of an Israeli navy SEAL. It says in Hebrew, "Ariel Sharon, don't forget your soldiers are still in Lebanon."

Since Israeli forces unilaterally withdrew from Southern Lebanon almost three years ago, this is one way Israel tries to keep its eye on Hezbollah.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You can see the black figures are the armed Hezbollah gunmen.

WALLACE: Young women soldiers monitoring images from cameras along the entire Israeli Lebanese border. The border has remained tense, with periodic firing by Hezbollah on Israeli positions, and Israeli warplanes flying surveillance missions into Lebanese air space. But what has Israel so concerned now is the belief Hezbollah has as many as 10,000 rockets just across the border. A senior Israeli military official says some may have enough range to reach large Israeli cities such as Haifa.

The question facing Israel's soldiers, will Hezbollah try to embroil Israel in a regional conflict if the Iraqi crisis erupts into war? Privately, Israeli military officials say they believe Hezbollah, such as these men right across the border, will likely lie low during any U.S. war against Iraq. The thinking is that Hezbollah, along with Iran and Syria, don't want to do anything to become the next front in the global War On Terror. But at the same time, Israel is sending a message to Hezbollah and the country it considers the group's primary backer, Syria. Said one top Israeli military official, Israel will not rule out a preemptive strike to deal with a, quote, "gigantic threat."

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It might be that when there is a lot of activity going on, when the United States is leading the attack against Iraq, they may calculate that that's a good time for them to attack Israel with the hope or expectation that Israel will be limited in its ability to counterattack massively because the United States will say no, sit tight in this situation.

WALLACE: And what will happen here if there's a war with Iraq? These Hezbollah fighters said they didn't understand English, but when I mentioned Saddam Hussein, they had lots to say.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): We are not interested in the war against Saddam Hussein, but we are waiting for the beginning of the war to show these enemies what they are worth because they are oppressing all the Arab people, especially the Palestinians.

WALLACE: A waiting game across this region, as old enemies watch to see what a war with Iraq could mean for them.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WALLACE: One top Israeli military official we talked to said he'd be surprised if there was not a major clash with Hezbollah at some point. But whether that would be weeks, months or years away, no one seems to know -- Marty.

SAVIDGE: Thank you very much, Kelly Wallace, reporting to us from Jerusalem. Thank you.

Well, there is much more ahead on SHOWDOWN: IRAQ. Is there such a thing as a just war? There's sharp disagreement among religious leaders in the United States. We'll hear from both sides just ahead.

And is it morality or cold, hard pranks motivating the French opposition to a war with Iraq? We'll look at how finance effects fighting when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SAVIDGE: Now, in our weekly "Sound Off" segment, there are different messages from different pulpits in churches across the United States. Is a war against Saddam Hussein morally justified? An inter-faith peace walk in Washington this afternoon is one of several adding more protests scheduled in the U.S. Capitol today. Marchers plan to end their walk at the district's Islamic Center.

Joining us now from Nashville, Tennessee, Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics Commission and Reverend Jim Wallace, editor of "Christian Magazine for Justice and Peace." Thank you gentlemen for both being with us.

Let me start by asking you, Mr. Land, where does the Baptist Church stand? Are you endorsing war or how is it the best way to put where the Baptist Church stands on this particular issue?

RICHARD LAND, PRESIDENT, SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION: No, Southern Baptist speaks for all Southern Baptists. But I think it's clear that by about a three and a half to four or to one margin or higher, Southern Baptists support the president's policies. They believe that the president's policies do meet just war criteria, and that we have reached, after 12 years of delaying and denying an deceiving, that we have reached a last resort. And it is a just cause that we will not target noncombatants and that we are not -- we are going to liberate the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator.

So, I think that it's clear that a significant majority of people support the president's policies. Which shouldn't be surprising because about 75 to 80 percent of Southern Baptists voted for George Bush in the 2000 election.

SAVIDGE: Jim Wallace, where does your faith stand regarding war, or the possibility of it?

REV. JIM WALLACE, "SOJOURNER'S" MAGAZINE: Well, it's the 11th hour and the country is torn between two fears, I think -- the fear of war on the one hand and fear of inaction against Iraq on the other hand. So we need a third way.

And so yesterday, religious leaders have begun to offer one. Church leaders around the world have talked about the dangers, unpredictable, unintended consequences of war: high civilian casualties, American lives lost, instability in the region, more terrorism here at home. And yet there is a real concern about the threat of Saddam Hussein, his weapons of mass destruction and if they fall in the hands of terrorists, the fear is even greater.

So I think we need to do something different here. Not just say no to war, but to find a better way. How do we in fact, accomplish these goals of disarming Iraq and regime change, but without war? And so, we now in the last 24 hours, those of us who met with Tony Blair 10 days ago, American religious leaders are offering a plan. It's on our Web site, sojo.net, S-O-J-O-dot-net, a six-point plan to try and indeed solve this problem but without resorting to war.

Richard, let me ask you this. What is your definition of a just war?

LAND: Well, it's a war first of all, where you have -- it's a last resort. It is a just cause. You can't make war against entire peoples. You must have noncombatant immunity. It must be authorized by a legitimate authority, and I think for a majority of Southern Baptist, the legitimate authority is the Congress of the United States. Not the Security Council of the United Nations.

It must have -- it must meet the test of proportionality that the good gained will not be outweighed by the lives lost. I think that's the chief difference between Saddam Hussein's present situation and North Korea. The test of proportionality wouldn't be met with North Korea because we know millions of people would die. That's not going to be the case if we have to resort to armed hostilities to disarm Saddam Hussein and remove Saddam Hussein from power and use those 12 or 13 linear feet of files of evidence that we have, for a war crimes trial against Saddam Hussein for crimes against his own people and against humanity.

(CROSSTALK)

SAVIDGE: A question to Richard as well. Let me just say something. Richard is right in that there are times when war, I guess is justified. The Second World War obviously comes to mind. Is this war justified in your mind?

WALLACE: Well, with all due respect, except for the Southern Baptists, every church body in the world, which has spoken on this question, from the pope to the churches here and around the world have said a war with Iraq is not just. There is still things that we must do. Richard and I both would like to see this threat resolve without recourse to war, I believe. And so I am saying that at this 11 hour, you know Martin King would say we're five minutes before midnight now. It's not the time to debate whether the war is just or not. It is to say, how can we in fact avoid war?

And so, religious leaders having met with Tony Blair 10 days ago, having talked to each other, are saying, can we find a way to in fact -- I agree with Richard. Let's indict Saddam Hussein. Let's send a clear signal that he has no future in any solution for Iraq. Let's set into motion those forces that might remove him from power. Let's have more coercive inspections to disarm Iraq. Let's do humanitarian aid right now, not after war.

We're facing a humanitarian disaster in Iraq unless we move right now. Let's plan for a democratic Iraq and let's focus our attention on the Middle East, a timetable, and a road map for peace. And let's focus now on the deeper enemies of al Qaeda, these shadowy networks of terror. I don't believe that going to war right now would be, in fact, either just or would resolve these problems. We would have even more difficulties. But I do believe that we have to find an answer to Saddam Hussein's threat. And so we're offering one 11 hour, it's a plea, a prayer for peace. I hope we can consider a third way at this critical moment.

SAVIDGE: Jim Wallace, I'm afraid you've had the last word there; and Richard Land, thank you very much, both of you, for joining us. It is a very difficult subject to talk about, faith and war, but you both did it very well. Thank you.

WALLACE: Thank you.

SAVIDGE: Ahead on SHOWDOWN: IRAQ, who is with the U.S. and well, who is against them on the U.N. Security Council? We'll take a close view, that is of France and its position on using force against Iraq. And a voice from the past, Mikhail Gorbachev and his ideas of how a second war with Iraq can be prevented.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SAVIDGE: France has fought against a military solution in Iraq, but are the French motivated by peace or financial interests? Let's get a perspective now from Washington.

Simon Serfaty is with the Center for Strategic and International Studies and has some insight on the French business dealings with Iraq. Mr. Serfaty, thanks very much for being with us.

SIMON SERFATY, STRATEGIC & INT. STUDIES CENTER: Good to be here, Marty.

SAVIDGE: What do we know -- thank you. What do we know about the connections, financially business-wise, between France and Iraq? Are they strong, are they significant?

SERFATY: Well, actually they are rather marginal, quite frankly. The commercial volume of the relationship between France and Iraq is below three tenths of one percent of the totality of the French trade. There is some money owed by the Iraqi government to the French government in the amount of about $5 billion. But that money clearly will not be repaid so long as Saddam is in power.

As to the contractual deal that had been negotiated over the years in the oil field, energy field, none of these can be enforced so long as the sanctions are not lifted and clearly they are not about to be lifted. So as a matter of fact, the French would be better served by the removal of Saddam from the standpoint of sheer economic interest than they are by the continuation of Saddam's regime. SAVIDGE: So from what you're saying and what you're seeing, apparently it is not any sort of financial connection to Iraq that has the French objecting to the possibility of war?

SERFATY: No, it is my judgment a relatively marginal factor. They are economic interests to be sure on the part of the French, the other Europeans, everyone else, for that matter. Nothing here with regard to Iraq, but with regard to the totality of the region. But those economic interests in and of themselves are not enough to shave the French policy at this particular point in time, mainly as it involves the imminent use of military force in the region.

SAVIDGE: What about the grand prize that many talk about that Iraq holds, and that is oil? Were the French and Russia involved in working a deal regarding that?

SERFATY: Well, they will certainly insist on or seek at least, participation in the days after and the management of post-war Iraq. And there's no doubt that the fact that there will be reserves of up to 115 billion barrels of oil in Iraq has not escaped their attention any more than it has escaped anybody else's attention. But to reuse this issue, I think on both sides of the Atlantic to the sole significance of those economic interests and assets, I think, is to misrepresent the nature of the serious debate that is taking place over a serious issue, namely that of war in the region.

SAVIDGE: Thank you very much. Simon Serfaty is with the Center For Strategic And International Studies. And he's given us some information on France's dealings with Iraq financially. We appreciate it.

Well, they were Iraq's weapons of choice during the Gulf War? But how dangerous could Scuds be, if they are used now? Plus looking for signs of weapons of mass destruction right here in Kuwait. What's being done to protect the civilian population? We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SAVIDGE: A former world leader is lining up against war in Iraq. CNN's Jill Dougherty spoke with the man who brought glasnost to the Soviet Union and helped end to the Cold War.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JILL DOUGHERTY, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): To former Soviet President Gorbachev, talk of war against Iraq sounds too familiar. Twelve years ago he tried to prevent the U.S.-led first Gulf War by using the political power of the United Nations. But if that war was sparked by Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, this war, Gorbachev says, is being fueled by the demands of a consumer society out of control, dependent on imported oil.

MIKHAIL GORBACHEV, FMR PRESIDENT, SOVIET UNION (through translator): The U.S. is facing real troubles with its consumer society. On the one hand it could be a stimulus for development and initiative. But there is also an abnormal aspect to it, super consumption, too many goods. It's almost to the point that moral criteria are set aside. Five percent of the world's population is using 42 percent of the world's energy. How much further can you develop? Where can you find resources?

DOUGHERTY: The real threat to the West Gorbachev says is terrorism, and you can't fight it with huge armies and massive weapons.

GORBACHEV: Especially when circumstances are throwing billions of people into poverty. Then it's easy for any terrorist organization to recruit people for its cause. We need to fight poverty and disease and protect our ecology.

DOUGHERTY: Twelve years ago Mikhail Gorbachev sent his top Middle East adviser, Yevgeny Primakov, to Baghdad to try to head off a war. Two weeks ago Russian President Vladimir Putin did the same thing. Even at this 11th hour, Gorbachev believes there may be one extraordinary chance to avert war.

GORBACHEV: Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is a decisive person. You don't need to demonize him. I would approach him. In his position, in order not to expose his people to this escalating situation, he could say, OK, I'm stepping down from the presidency. Then the Iraqi people can decide who the new government is. In that case, I think the U.N. Security Council should offer him a guarantee of security.

DOUGHERTY (on camera): Gorbachev says he agrees, Iraq must be disarmed, but you don't need a war to do that. If there is a war, he says, no one knows how it will end. And the world, he believes will never be the same.

Jill Dougherty, CNN, Moscow.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SAVIDGE: If U.S. forces take military action against Iraq one of their first missions will be to locate and destroy Scud missile batteries in Western Iraq. It could be dangerous and it could be filled with decoys as well. Just what will that involve?

Joining us now from Oakbrook, Illinois is retired General David Grange. General, thanks for being back with us.

Remind us again if we've forgotten in the 12-year interim, exactly what is a Scud missile?

GEN. DAVID GRANGE (RET), CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Well, it's surface-to-surface missile that can usually -- it was developed to deliver not only conventional munitions, you know, high explosive munition but also it can deliver chemical and biological weaponry as well. The concern here is that -- chemical delivery probably -- but he, you know, killed several dozen Americans in the first war. They can reach Israel, they can reach Kuwait.

So, that's a big concern is the Scud missiles and a lot of effort went to find them the first go round.

SAVIDGE: And in the first go round a lot of them were found in Western Iraq, is that right?

GRANGE: Western Iraq, because it's about 600 to 700 kilometer distance from parts of you know -- western Iraq is of course a large area. But they call the Scud box an area in western Iraq where they could fire from to hit Israel. It's about 600, 700 kilometers to Israel as an example. And that is the range that these Scuds can be deployed.

SAVIDGE: How difficult was it to hunt down Scuds then and how has the situation really gotten any better technology wise or informationally wise this go round?

GRANGE: Well, it was difficult the first go round, very poor performance by air and ground, and I was involved in that. And it was very frustrating to find the Scuds underground, to have units, direct air strikes on identified Scuds that were thought to be at ties but they were excellent with use of decoys. In fact, they were decoys made in former East Germany that looked just like the real thing. And it was very difficult from gun tapes and other sources to verify that they're, in fact, were live Scuds. So it's hard to find.

And a lot was learned from the first go around in '91 both in reconnaissance underground and in the air. And I think lot of those lessons learned from the first war would be taken now if we go to war to, in fact, find the Scuds, because ideally you want to get them on the ground before they're fired. And then of course, there are procedures in place that are better than before if they are fired and you have to intercept them in the air today.

SAVIDGE: Well, if there is a concern that perhaps the Scuds today could be tipped with chemical or biological weapons and you blow them up or you hit them in such a way, how do you not try to prevent the release of very thing you're trying to stop?

GRANGE: Well, it -- you know, there may be some release. But a lot of the release of the chemical biological agent would be destroyed from the explosion. It's not a very practical way to deliver chemical or biological agents unless you had multiple firings. And I don't think you would see that. So lot of them are engaged for instance, with the Arrow System or the Patriot Pack Three System at altitude it would dissipate before it came down into civilian areas. And so, you know, the concern is actually getting them before they impact, than really the magnitude of spread of chemical, biological agent.

SAVIDGE: You mentioned the new Patriot version. Israel has a new weapon system as well defensively, don't they?

GRANGE: Right. So what you would have, let's say that you did not find a Scud on the ground before it was fired, and if it was fired satellite systems would pick it up. Other means like Jay Stars the Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicle or Predator-unmanned aerial vehicle. Those things could pick up a Scud launch and then as it gets closer to its target area, then the radar systems of the Arrow, the Israeli version of the Patriot and the Patriot, the new version of the American Patriot, the radar systems involved in that could pick up the Scud as it's coming back into the atmosphere to strike, let's say Israel as an example.

And then you even have another line of defense. You have some capability from the Hawk missile system. You have the Arrow, the Patriot and the Hawk that could intercept a Scud launch before it hits the ground. And I think the Arrow they're estimating it may be as good as 90 percent effectiveness, though it hasn't been proven in war yet.

SAVIDGE: All right, General David Grange, thanks very much. CNN military analyst, we will see how things play out. We appreciate it.

As Kuwaiti civilians prepare for war, they are getting advice from troops who spent years staring down the weapons of mass destruction. CNN's Richard Blystone reports these soldiers from the former Eastern Bloc are preparing for the unthinkable.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

RICHARD BLYSTONE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): They're not from Mars; they're from what used to be the Soviet Bloc. Czechs and Slovaks operating now under U.S. command with equipment they say matches anything in NATO. It's called Consequence Management, dealing with the aftermath of what nobody likes to think about, nuclear, biological or chemical attack.

COL. DUSAN LUPULJEC, CZECH ARMY: Sorry to tell, but I think that the probability is quite high.

BLYSTONE: Vehicles like this will soon be familiar around Kuwait. Reaction teams to detect identify and locate the threat.

DUSAN: Then we will send people who will do the total extortion. Jobe (ph), which means they will take people out and they will decontaminate them.

BLYSTONE: They unit also can provide limited medical help, but actually caring for civilians is not its job.

BRIG. GEN. CORNELL WILSON, MARINE CORPS: The Kuwaiti government has been working very hard to ensure that they have what is needed to protect their citizens. We've been provided as an organization to assist them.

BLYSTONE: Last time Czech and Slovak specialists worked here it was for Operation Desert Storm, and they were part of one country, Czechoslovakia. Now the Czechs are part of NATO and the Slovaks are waiting to join.

CNN's own adviser on chemical, biological and nuclear protection is Ian Day.

IAN DAY, CNN ADVISER: The equipment they have is top level. They're very well capable of picking up the pieces after the event. The problem still is, That the local population have nothing to protect themselves for that first 30 minutes.

BLYSTONE: The prevailing winds here could be a delivery system for an attack launched far away. If a lethal cloud drifts down here, the west way to counter it would be a respirator or gas mask. Relatively few Kuwaitis have those.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BLYSTONE: In terms of equipment and detection, that is about as good as it gets. The big question remaining is how well has the Kuwaiti government prepared its people for staying alive?

Richard Blystone, CNN, Kuwait.

SAVIDGE: Before you go, Dick, a real quick question. We were talking about prevailing winds this time of year. And they are coming down from Iraq. So, Iraq essentially did not, if it wanted to launch chemical attack, have to fire a missile?

BLYSTONE: Doesn't need a missile. The people CNN has hired to coach us in staying alive are appalled at the situation here. They say the wind, the prevailing wind in this part of the world could sweep a cloud of contamination down over this city where 70 percent of the Kuwaiti people live.

SAVIDGE: And they could do it without even coming here to Kuwait. Dick Blystone, thanks very much.

Well, as the Bush administration continues to make its case on Iraq to the rest of the world, Secretary of State Colin Powell will join Wolf Blitzer on CNN's "LATE EDITION" Sunday at noon Eastern Time.

Still ahead on SHOWDOWN: IRAQ, great blazes. The oil fires in Kuwait during the Gulf War were an environmental disaster. Could it be worse if there's another war in Iraq? And like sands through the hourglass so are the days in Kuwait.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SAVIDGE: In war, the term "fire fight" means an exchange of gunfire but in Iraq it could take on a whole different dimension, if Saddam Hussein torches the country's 1500 oil wells. Specially trained firefighters would have to be called in to snuff them all out.

And joining me now from Houston is Les Skinner of Cudd Pressure Control. Thanks very much for being with us.

You were actually here in Kuwait back in 1991 and helped get the oil wells online back then. Can you tell us about that, quickly?

LES SKINNER, CUDD WELL CONTROL: Yes. I was working both in London and in the United States in the pre-war era doing some planning. And then I ended up in Kuwait at the end of the fire fighting and stayed for five months after that to help with the post capping work.

SAVIDGE: Now, back in Kuwait at that time I believe there may have been 700 oil wells burning. Potential in Iraq could be 1500. Describe for us just the scenario of how it works to try to shut down and control one of these oil wells once it's burning.

SKINNER: Well, most of the time we start by pouring water on the fire and trying to cool the entire arena. After that we try to use an extinguishing method that will knock the fire out and following that we end up capping. Now, on the particular well that's -- that this videotape is on, we actually used a bag of what's called Purple K; it's a solid powdered fire extinguishing agent and set a charge off. And it blew this powder all over the site, extinguished the fire, then we could go in and put valves on top of the well to control the flow.

SAVIDGE: One of the things that struck me, and I think I have heard you talk about it before, is that the sand, it gets so hot actually sand melts.

SKINNER: Yes. The sand is actually more of -- it's formation that comes out in the plume. And it ends up forming glass when it goes through the fire. And this collects around the wellheads. And this material has got to be removed from the wellhead area because there's a lot of times there is fire that's trapped underneath this glass layer.

SAVIDGE: And so the person could actually you know, step right through and then fall into the oil if they're not careful?

SKINNER: Yes. We've had a couple occasions where fellows have stepped through this coke layer and actually there was fire underneath it and they got some very serious burns on their legs.

SAVIDGE: Les Skinner, thank you very much for giving us a graphic depiction of what it could be like if Iraq does set its wells on fire. Thank you.

SKINNER: Thanks, Martin.

SAVIDGE: Well, could the weather also hamper a U.S. military operation in the Gulf? We've had some terrible sand storms here in the past few days and this is that season.

A violent storm was kicked up in the Kuwaiti Desert. Earlier, U.S. troops in Kuwait are dealing with the sand that has been swirling around, well, driven by 50 mile an hour winds. Military authorities say that those sand storms interfere with laser-guided weapons; gun sites and the dust could clog engines and grind down helicopter blades. Sandstorms could run anywhere from a few hours to a few days. And if you think they're bad now, the winds get up to 85 miles an hour in the summertime.

Well, it has -- we'll move on to coming up what is next on CNN, and that is going to be a special two-hour edition of "CNN SATURDAY," which will be hosted by Fredricka Whitfield. And then at 4 PM, "AMERICAN STORIES" followed by another special two-hour edition of "CNN SATURDAY," and that begins at 5 p.m.

In the meantime, I'm Martin Savidge from Kuwait. A check of the top stories right after the break.

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