Bush seeks to convince skeptics on Iraq

Story Tools

(CNN) -- President Bush is scheduled to address Americans on Monday night in Cincinnati, Ohio, to explain his case against Iraq.

Administration officials said Bush's speech would provide an extensive, detailed argument that Iraq is violating U.N. resolutions. Bush's address comes as Congress considers a resolution to give Bush the authority to invade Iraq. Will the president win over skeptics with his speech?

U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, and Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, stepped into the "Crossfire" with hosts Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala to debate the issue.

CARLSON: Now Congressman Kucinich, the president is speaking in your state on Monday. He's expected to lay out the case for why the United States ought to go to war with Iraq. Is there anything he could say that would change your mind and put you on his team and [House Minority Leader] Dick Gephardt's team?

KUCINICH: Well, I'm hopeful that the United States will not launch a pre-emptive strike against Iraq, which would be in violation of international law. It would actually lead to instability in the region.

I'm hopeful that the United States will work through the U.N. for weapons inspections. And as we focus on weapons inspections, make sure that we get any and all weapons that may exist in Iraq that may pose a threat to anywhere in the world and to eliminate those weapons. That ought to be our first priority.

CARLSON: OK. So it sounds like your mind is made up and closed. But I want to hit you with a quote from your leader in the House of Representatives, Dick Gephardt. Many Democrats -- I hope you're not among them -- have implied that plans to go to war against Iraq are a political move on the part of the White House to achieve some advantage in the midterm elections. Pretty vulgar point of view, but Democrats have made it.

Here's what Dick Gephardt says to that charge: "I'm a parent of three children. If I thought that some politician was playing with their lives for political purposes, I'd be morally outraged."

He shoots down the idea as ludicrous. I hope you agree with him.

KUCINICH: Well, the question here goes beyond politics. We're talking about war. And, in a sense, war should be above crass politics, and it should be above elections. And it should really be about, "Does America face an imminent threat from Iraq?"

And if I thought America faced an imminent threat, maybe I'd be with Mr. Gephardt. However, no case has been presented which would suggest that.

Iraq in fact does not present an imminent threat. Iraq has no technology to reach America with anything they may have. And so I think that the point here is to keep working through the United Nations [and] to be patient. When you have great power, it requires great restraint.

BEGALA: Sen. Shelby, you're the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee. You have access to information you maybe can't share with our audience, but I want to ask you to answer that question. And one of your colleagues in Time magazine this week says, in fact, the White House is -- some in the White House, and he named Carl Rove, the president's chief political adviser -- using this for political advantage.

What has changed on the ground in Iraq in the last six months or year to provoke an imminent threat against the United States of America?

SHELBY: First of all, I don't believe this is political in any way despite the elections coming up. What's changed in the last six months? I can tell you what's happened in the last six weeks. [Iraqi President] Saddam Hussein is acquiring, is building and going to have the ability to disperse weapons of mass destruction such as chemical, biological for sure.

What we want to make sure he doesn't have and pray that he doesn't get ever is the nuclear option. If he does, that will change the whole political equation in the Persian Gulf, the Middle East and everything else.

Should we wait? If we wait, we wait at our peril. I think we should not wait. I believe the events of September 11 a little over a year ago changed a lot of things like that.

We used to have the privilege or opportunity to wait until somebody struck us. And some people argue that. We don't have that today.

I think we've got to go where the problems come from, and we've got to pre-empt them. And that's what the president is basically talking about.

Story Tools


Panel: Spy agencies in dark about threats

• White House calls pope inspiration for millions
• Lott delays vote on base closing nominee
• Former Clinton adviser Berger to plead guilty


CNN/Money: Security alert issued for 40 million credit cards

• Bin Laden deputy sends message
• U.S. House votes to keep U.N. dues
• Iran poll to go to run-off