Art Bell’s 1996 Coast to Coast AM episode dissects U.S. cruise missile strikes on Iraq (Sept. 3), targeting Saddam’s forces near the 33rd parallel amid Gulf tensions, with $2B oil-for-food aid temporarily halted. Retired diplomat Andrew Kilgore argues 60% of strikes stem from Clinton’s election-year politics, while callers debate motives—preemptive war, destabilization, or oil control—amid coalition fractures (France wavering, Turkey blocking). Kilgore doubts an invasion’s success but warns unilateral action risks provoking Saddam without clear strategy. The episode underscores U.S. foreign policy’s murky, election-driven calculus in the Middle East. [Automatically generated summary]
From the high desert and the great American Southwest, I bid you all good evening, good morning across all these many time zones and welcome to Coast to Coast AM live talk radio covering areas bordering the Hawaiian Islands, Tahiti, all across this great country to the Caribbean, the U.S. Virgin Islands, south into South America, north to the Pole, and worldwide on the internet.
This evening, this morning, depending on your time zone, we're going to talk about Iraq, of course.
I had the night off last night when the first attack occurred.
Bopped in at about 12 midnight and gave you an update.
Basically, the U.S., with only the active and enthusiastic assistance of Britain, hit Iraq south of the 33rd parallel, the new border parallel, no-fly zone, in response to Iraqi attacks north of the 36th parallel on Kurdish elements at war apparently with each other, one in league with Iran, and the other now in league with Saddam.
Now, Saddam has about 40,000 troops, tanks, artillery in the north, has already taken Herbal and now may or may not proceed to try and take other objectives in the north.
Has said he's pulling back, really hasn't.
The first strike was 27 cruise missiles fired by the Navy and Air Force at command and control facilities as well as SAM sites below the 33rd parallel.
Most of the action, I think, was concentrated between the 32nd and 33rd parallel, the new border no-fly zone.
During this attack, Iraq claimed, and I think we may have verified five dead and 19 wounded.
Apparently, the full job was not done because just hours ago, we did it again.
I understand Washington had to actually fact some sort of communication to the Iraqi embassy.
They refused to accept any kind of message otherwise.
So there has been now a second strike, 17 more cruise missiles fired at roughly the same targets, or about half that number, with half the number of missiles, designed to destroy what was missed first time around.
It was this time a naval operation only.
The attacks have been justified by what the U.S. calls, quote, a clear and present danger posed by Baghdad to other Gulf states and the flow of oil, end quote.
Wow, is that interesting or what?
A clear and present danger posed by Baghdad to other Gulf states and the flow of oil.
Okay, but that has nothing to do with the Kurds.
As a matter of fact, the Kurds were not even mentioned.
Remember, the Kurds are in the north.
Our attack was in the south.
Between the 32nd and 33rd parallel, the new border, there are MiGs.
Iraq has MiGs.
And basically, the U.S. has told them to remove those MiGs by 1 a.m. Pacific time, less than two hours from now, or else we will remove them and they will not fly again once removed, if you follow me.
Now, Saddam Hussein's reaction to all of this thus far has been one, to say, okay, no more no-fly zones at all.
We will no longer, as much as they ever did, recognize the no-fly zones.
Moreover, if we get the opportunity, no matter where you fly, any foreign aircraft caught violating Iraqi airspace will be shot down.
So that is his reaction, not exactly caving in.
The coalition has fallen apart.
That may be one of the goals of what he did.
France, sitting on the fence, no active support there.
Turkey wouldn't let U.S.-based aircraft participate.
Russia, outright hostility there, calling the strikes unacceptable.
You can only imagine what they're up to.
Jordan, Saudi Arabia, both hands off, so the old coalition ain't what she used to be.
The loyal opposition, meanwhile, back here, Dole, the Republicans, doing as expected, supporting the strike and American troops with a bit of grumbling about the policy that made all of this necessary.
Now, I have as a guest coming up in a moment, Ambassador Andrew Kilgore, Ambassador U.S. of A, retired.
He publishes the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.
Born on a farm in Alabama.
Bachelor of Science degree, University of West Alabama, Livingston.
Juris Doctorate degree from the University of Alabama.
43 to 46 during the war.
He was a U.S. naval officer, served in the Southwest Pacific.
49 to 50, the U.S. Displaced Persons Commission in Germany.
From 1950 to 1980, was with the U.S. Diplomatic Service assigned to U.S. embassies and consulates in Get This, Frankfurt, London, the U.S. State Department in Washington, Beirut, Jerusalem, Amman, Baghdad, Dhaka, Bangladesh, Tehran, Bahrain, New Zealand, and Qatar.
In 1977 to 80, he was the U.S. Ambassador to the Emirate of Qatar.
I hope I'm pronouncing that correctly.
A board member of the American Near East Refugee Aid, president of the American Trust.
And you might want to know that the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs has the largest individually paid circulation of any North American magazine specializing in U.S.-Middle East relations.
So it's big.
And he would be the one to answer questions about what's going on.
And in a moment, he'll be here.
Ambassador Andrew Kilgore is getting up in the middle of the night for us.
It is after, well after now, 2 o'clock in the morning back there.
Now, what portion of it, put you right out on a branch here already.
What portion of it, percentage-wise, would you think political, and what portion military necessity?
unidentified
Oh, I'd say at least probably 60% political, I would guess.
I don't think this constitutes any military threat to anybody at this point, except that Saddam Hussein has a uniquely terrible reputation as a ruthless killer.
But you know what?
This is not the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
After all, this is Iraqi territory he has moved into.
And the no-fly zone, or this area where Kurds are supposed to be protected, I don't think it applied to ground forces, so far as I can remember.
And there is a kind of civil war between more or less equally balanced in numbers, Kurdish factions in northern Iraq.
And the claim by Barazlani is a faction, the one that invited Saddam Hussein to come in says that the Iranians are helping the Talibani faction, the opposing faction.
That's a faction that's physically closer to Iran.
I understand that one is close to Iran, the other then felt forced to go to Saddam to get some heavy assistance.
But what I want to know is, why is it, Mr. Ambassador, that these two factions, which probably ought to be making common cause if they ever want to see Kurdistan ever, the Kurdistan of their dreams, they ought to be making common cause.
Instead, they are fighting with each other.
Why?
unidentified
Well, these are ancient rivalries inside the Kurdish movement.
One account I read said that the thing came to a head now because of a kind of tax that's been levied against Iraqi and other trucks taking Iraqi fuel, gasoline and benzene, into Turkey.
Somehow one side is getting all the money now and the other side is not getting any.
So there's a big traffic up there back and forth across the border in trucks.
And that's what brought it to a head.
Another thing that helped bring it to a head is apparently, and I'm not positive of this, is a rather increased aid for the Talibani faction coming from the Iranians.
And there is this deep, ancient, ancient rivalry and hatred between the Iranians on the one side and the Arabs on the other.
And so it is, don't forget the Iraqis and the Iranians fought an eight-year war, very bloody, between 1980, 1988, at which six, seven hundred thousand men were killed.
So I think it's the Iranian factor that's come into it and a division of the tax, effectively a tax on the Iraqi fuel that's moving into Turkey that's brought it to a head now.
Also, I think a third factor here is Saddam Hussein, I think he's, despite the fact his timing is just terrible as far as Iraq is concerned, he's always wrong, is a thought on his part that it would be difficult for the coalition to move against him at this time.
First place, to get in physically on the ground with forces is just about impossible.
Also, the Kurdish enclave is unpopular with the Turks.
They don't like it.
They see it as the possible nucleus of some hoped-for or feared Kurdish state.
Don't forget the Turks have probably 12 million Kurds themselves and are fighting a low-level war with them and have been for years.
So all the factors combined, I think, have brought it to a head now.
I mean, but here it says a clear and present danger posed by Baghdad to other Gulf states.
Now, what am I missing here?
You're saying there is no clear and present danger, and we're saying that's why we're doing this.
unidentified
Well, I think clear and present danger is a phrase that's in legal cases that just it's just a phrase.
I don't see how it's clear, and I don't see how it's present, frankly, but nevertheless, it just may be that the administration selected a phrase that it's hard to back up.
But nevertheless, the administration had to act given all the circumstances.
If that was the mission, then what is the mission now?
unidentified
Well, that is, I think, unstated.
There has been an unstated goal of trying to bring down Saddam Hussein.
I think it was assumed, Art, when the Iraqi forces racing for their lives out of Kuwait.
Do you remember those fantastic television pictures of turkeys and jeeps and tanks all jumbled up together with no fighting capability?
Just a 10,000-vehicle traffic jam with the Iraqis fleeing.
We stopped hitting them, I think, just because it looked like a turkey shoot.
It didn't look like they had any chance whatever of defending themselves.
And also, the UN resolution that we were under which we were operating with the coalition that President George Bush put together, that goal was to, as clearly stated, was to get the Iraqi military out of Kuwait.
Yeah, there he is, and that's what General Schwarzkopf said last night on NBC.
Incredibly, there he still is.
But again, what are we doing this time?
In other words, what is our mission this time?
Are we the President said the attack had limited objectives, and I can't figure out what makes us think that squeezing Saddam, and that's what we're doing, we're squeezing him, we're probably trying to make him angry, you know, we're shrinking his country, his control and autonomy.
What makes us think this will achieve anything other than getting him really angry and retaliating in some way?
Because every assassination attempt, every coup attempt has ended up with his enemies having bullets in the back of their heads.
unidentified
Well, I think that I don't think it really will weaken Saddam Hussein.
The move to ship the $2 billion worth of Iraqi oil every quarter, every three months, to buy food and medicine is on hold, I believe.
I don't think we're going to say we're going to hold it as long as Saddam Hussein is alive.
I don't think we'll do that.
I think there's people are uneasy a bit and feel bad about the suffering that the Iraqi people have been undergoing for all these years with reduced medicine, reduced food, and Saddam Hussein with apparently an airtight security enforced by an utter ruthlessness on his part to kill anyone who hooled around with him.
it's even difficult to see the game as it's underway right now ambassador because i can't i have not yet figured out why we're doing what we're doing That doesn't mean to say I don't support it in view of the Saddam's history, but I can't figure out why we're doing it, Ambassador.
Stand by.
Bottom of the hour break.
We'll be right back.
I'm Art Bell.
This is Coast to Coast AF.
unidentified
This is Premier Networks.
That was Art Bell hosting Coast to Coast AM on this Somewhere in Time.
Networks presents Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
Tonight, featuring Coast to Coast AM from September 3rd, 1996.
On the first time caller line, you're on the air with Ambassador Andrew Kilgore in Washington, D.C. Hello.
unidentified
Yes, good evening, Arn and Ambassador.
Good evening.
My name is Tim, and I'm calling you from WRVA in Richmond, Virginia.
Yes, sir.
Basically, I wanted to make a quick observation of my own.
I think this is just an attempt by President Clinton to try to shore himself up in the polls and such a little bit more than he already is.
And we really shouldn't be meddling in Iraq's internal affairs.
But beyond that, I wanted to ask the ambassador a question here.
It occurs to me that the Sunni Muslims are, of the two Muslim groups, the Shiites and the Sunnis, the two predominant ones, the Sunnis are the ones who are really the more peaceful and more friendly towards us.
Lubbock's Dilemma00:15:20
unidentified
And isn't it true that Iraq is really the only military giant, I mean, other than Egypt, which is removed from the situation?
Aren't they the only ones standing, as you said earlier, the only ones standing between Iran and Syria, who are obviously Shiite Muslims who are obviously hostile to the Americans?
Well, they have a big army and a pretty good army in Iraq.
I don't know if I would get in if I would quite agree with you.
I think, obviously, that the action by the President does have obviously the political campaign is going on, and he had to do what he did, otherwise, he would have been bastard as weak, particularly in view of the fact he didn't have any military career at all and did not address the American Legion, as I believe he was invited to do.
But I don't, well, I put it this way.
I would be very reluctant to see Iraq destroyed militarily.
There needs to be some sort of a balance in the whole Arab-Iranian context.
And without the Iraqi army there and the Iraqi military, then you'd have to get the Egyptians and everyone else.
Someone would show up that line so that the Iranians would not be able to push into Iraq or into Kuwait.
So there is a balance along there that I would be afraid to see overthrown.
But, Mr. Ambassador, if we think that we can maintain this strange little balance of keeping Saddam weak, but not too weak, then we're as crazy as he is.
unidentified
Well, it's our situation there is a little strange.
It's a little strange.
Mr. Ambassador, is it worth it really, though, for us to fool with the situation just for President Clinton's presidential ambitions there?
Well, mostly people who mixed around and tried to help, quote, unquote, help the Kurds are playing some sort of a game, not so much designed to help the Kurds, but to grind their own axes, has been my impression.
The Kurds have been revolting ever since when Iraq was established at the end of World War I, when the Ottoman Empire collapsed.
It seemed like to me that, in a sense, this is a problem set up by President Bush, who I consider to be a relatively weak leader after one such as Reagan, for example.
But it seemed like to me that Bush walked away from two victories first in the Cold War, kind of one, but then just walked away from it, didn't accept their surrender as should have been done.
And the same thing at the end of the Gulf War, fought to what would have ordinarily been considered a victory, but then refused to accept a surrender terms, where we could have gone in and set up an administration.
We wouldn't have had to fight.
We wouldn't have had to stay there.
It would have been more like after World War II in Japan, I think, if we would have handled it properly.
I mean, there was that moment when that could have been done politically in every other way.
It could have been done, I guess.
I don't know what the back-channel communications were from other Arab countries toward the end of the war.
Maybe you could help with that, Mr. Ambassador.
Were the other Arab countries saying, you've got to stop now, that's it, stop there, or was that our decision?
unidentified
Well, I think the coalition, which was put together by President Bush on the telephone to everybody, had one thing in mind.
That's getting the Iraqi army out of Kuwait, expelling them from there.
And that was a U.N. resolution.
That was the limit.
It didn't go beyond expelling freeing Kuwait from Iraqi domination.
Now, when the Iraqi army was fleeing for its life and it set all the oil wells in Kuwait on fire and a fantastic kind of Holocaust, an incredible thing, that was the option.
Some people said at the time, well, we stopped too soon.
We should have kept going.
I don't think we would have had anyone with us.
The gentleman from Lubbock, Texas, we wouldn't have had the Allies with us.
We wouldn't have had the Arabs with us, I don't think.
And Iraq is a big country.
I lived a couple of years at the U.S. Embassy in the mid-1960s.
Around 20 million people now.
I don't know.
It would have taken an occupation army.
I think we would have invited endless trouble for ourselves if we'd tried that.
I realize, as obviously in the mind of the caller from Lubbock, the situation, looking back on it, it would be tempting to say, well, if we'd just gone, we could have got rid of Saddam Hussein, and the situation would be much easier than it is now.
But we didn't, and I don't think we could at the time.
I have a straightforward, hard question for you, Mr. Ambassador.
If you were the President of the United States and all options were open to you and you could sign a paper, the death warrant for Saddam Hussein, order him to be assassinated, would you do that?
unidentified
I don't think if you could get him, but I understand he doesn't stay in the same place any night.
An Iraqi fellow down in Qatar when I was ambassador there said, I've got a video, which I'll show you if you want to see it of a meeting of the bot of the ruling group in Baghdad.
This is when the war was going on between Iraq and Iran.
And the Iranians were saying, well, if Saddam Hussein would step aside, maybe we could make peace.
And Saddam Hussein said to this group, you know, maybe there's something to that.
And the Minister of Health or maybe another couple of ministers said, well, you know, that's an idea worth considering.
Whereupon Saddam Hussein, according to this man, I didn't see the video myself, pulled out a gun and shot them both dead.
So a person of incredible ruthlessness, a kind of madman, really, although with a certain, obviously ability to surround himself with this kind of security where he has dominated a nation of 20 million people now for how many years has he been there?
Well, he's been more or less the dominant force for 25 years.
And again, the other is there they are about equally divided when they've got common cause, and they're not coming together for that.
So I think the answer to the question would be not in our lifetimes.
unidentified
I think I agree with you, Art.
As the caller said, they are sort of a uniquely malevolent kind of star.
They're divided among all these countries out there.
Not a single one of those countries with any considerable Kurdish population is going to agree to an independent Kurdistan because that would mean they lose part of their country.
No, and they're divided.
And rivalries of other rivalries get, for example, Arab-Iranian rivalry is involved in this very situation that's happening in northern Iraq now.
No, it's a sad show for them.
And the Kurds are very attractive people, tough mountain people.
I used to know a lot of them when I was in Baghdad.
I like them.
And, of course, hundreds of thousands of Kurds live in Baghdad.
Well, I think right now, because we've been on a number of Richard Curtis Editor, I've been on a number of radio programs today and yesterday.
And the telephone recorder may be clogged up, but by 9 o'clock tomorrow, Washington time, 8:30, there'll be people can actually answer the phone and take your orders.
Well, what's going on in Iraq is absolutely nothing short of fascinating.
And I really mean that.
Fascinating.
The one question the ambassador did not seem to answer, and I don't hold that against him because I don't think there is a cool answer to it or a right answer to it, and that is: what are we doing?
I mean, that's a really, really good question.
What are we doing?
What is the mission?
What do we hope to accomplish?
And where does it go from here?
We'll consider all of that with open lines coming up next.
unidentified
This is Premier Networks.
That was Art Bell hosting Coast to Coast AM on this Somewhere in Time.
now, I will summarize the news again at the top of the hour, and I'm not going to do it right now.
I presume that those of you that have been listening know what it is we're talking about, and I'll add to the news up at the top of the hour, and we'll open it up for anything you want to talk about.
But look, it really is fascinating.
I have watched every minute of the coverage in the last two days of what has happened in Iraq, two attacks now, both with missiles.
And what I am interested in, in terms of discussion on this issue, is the following: what are we trying to do?
What is the mission?
Are we trying to piss off Saddam Hussein to the point that, in other words, pick a fight?
Are we trying to produce a Gulf of Tonkin, in effect, so the U.S. can go in and do whatever it is we're going to do in Iraq?
Because we will make him very angry.
If you look at the new map with the 33rd parallel, we're just right to the south of Baghdad, and this is absolutely going to provoke Saddam.
Are we preparing for an invasion?
Now, if we shut down the skies south of Baghdad and north of the 36th, which we have done, we are then in a position where we could carry out air attacks on Baghdad, not with impunity, because you can't ever do that, and there are still air defenses in Baghdad.
Are we going to go after Saddam?
And moreover, and most interestingly, the ambassador very diplomatically suggested there is a law, of course, that prevents an ordered assassination.
But you heard him.
He said, in all likelihood, the army would, if Saddam was knocked off, the army would take over, and it would, in all likelihood, be a, if not friendly, not so negative administration in, or dictatorship, I suppose I ought to say, in Iraq.
So that makes the prospect of assassination very attractive if you're not stuck up in the morality of ordering an assassination or the immorality of it, Or you're not keen on the law that prevents it.
It's an attractive option.
So what are we doing?
What are we doing in Iraq?
Our president talked about a clearing present danger in oil supplies, didn't even mention the Kurds.
Not in the official, I mean, he did in his little news conference.
But you and I both know, anybody with any common sense knows, this is not all about some great compassion for the Kurds.
It doesn't have a damn thing to do with that.
Has to do with something else.
And I'm not sure.
I can't.
I really can't figure out what we're doing.
The ambassador really couldn't answer that question and finally ended up, when I pressed him to the wall far enough, said it's a great puzzle.
Well, Clinton, it's most certain that he's right because Senator Warner, Senator Nunn, Brent Skrokoff, Secretary of State James Baker are all supporting President Clinton in a very strong way.
That's a ham radio operator, folks, who got a QSLX confirmation card of conduct from JY1, who is King Hussein, and his wife, JY2.
That's nice.
Gosh, I love ham radio, and I've been spending more time with it recently, as a matter of fact.
I just wish conditions would improve it.
High art?
Well, I'll say it.
I think the mission is pure politics.
President Clinton will do anything to get re-elected.
He's trying to look strong in foreign affairs.
And with the use of the military, President Clinton could provoke Hussein to retaliate against Israel or anyone in the Middle East, then drag us into an all-out war.
If President Clinton could get Hussein's head, would he something the nation, I can't read this, oh, I see, would the nations of the world thank him and see him as a hero?
Whatever happens, the mission is to re-elect President Clinton.
That's Diane KGA's bookan.
Well, Diane, I don't fully agree or disagree with you.
I think that that is going to be one result, in other words, re-election of the president of his action.
But, Diane, he could not have done otherwise.
If he had done otherwise, Bob Dole would have taken him apart politically, and I mean taken him apart.
Sociologically, it doesn't appear to be doing anything positive in the U.S. What has happened is that more questions have been raised about exactly what is it that we are doing over there.
In other words, we ought to be able to understand clearly why we're doing what we're doing, even though we're doing it fairly safely at the moment, you know, launching cruise missiles from a safe distance.
And that's probably not going to be sufficient for that part of the world because that part of the world is just going to become angrier and angrier, and he's going to start collecting allies, and pretty soon we're going to have our hands totally full.
I'm not going to burden you with reciting all the details of the events of the last couple of days.
Basically, I would presume, I would hope that you would know what's going on.
We have now attacked Iraq twice, both times at a relatively safe distance with robotic weapons.
A very accurate satellite-controlled cruise missiles.
What we have attacked is air defense installations, SAM sites, stuff like that, below the 33rd parallel.
That is southern Iraq.
We have extended the no-fly zone to the 33rd parallel.
That brings it just barely about 30 miles to the south of Baghdad.
We're shrinking his country.
We are doing this in response to his aiding one of the Kurdish factions in northern Iraq with about 40,000 of his best Republican Guard tanks, artillery, all that kind of stuff.
He's up there aiding one faction, the faction not aligned with the Iranians, because they're fighting each other.
Everybody claims to care about the Kurds.
nobody really seems to uh... the united states uh... the united states seems to be saying that uh... we are doing this We are doing this in defense of the Kurds, but we're really not.
I mean, we're saying that there is a clear and present danger of Iraq attacking its neighbors.
Actually, quote, a clear and present danger posed by Baghdad to other Gulf states and the flow of oil, end quote.
Now, in that assessment, I didn't hear one word about the Kurds.
President did mention the Kurds.
But the Kurds are not why we're doing this.
We're not getting any help from anybody other than the British.
And the big question is, why are we doing this?
What are we trying to do here?
If we're trying to pick fight, we probably will get one because Saddam's country is shrinking, and he's not going to let that happen.
He said he'll no longer respect the no-fly zones.
He'll shoot our airplanes down.
So my question goes to the core of what the hell are we doing?
Trying to pick a fight with Saddam?
Are we preparing for an invasion, trying to clear air defense zones south of Baghdad because we're going to bomb Baghdad?
And there were some references and criticism of his policy, the president's policy, but that basically evaporated because it's seen as almost un-American to criticize like that.
And I'm not really criticizing, actually.
I'm not.
What I am doing is honestly asking you what you think we're doing here.
That is a central core question.
What are we doing?
If we're trying to keep Saddam weak, but not too weak, so Iran will be tempted, then we're out of our mind.
If we think we can keep that balance of keeping him weak but not too weak, we're crazy.
It's happened before, and I'm sure it will happen again.
However, I would say this: you know, it is their decision to make play music, of course.
But a number of affiliates that we've had in the past have done that, gone to music, and realized two or three months later that they made a mistake, and then they go back to talk.
Well, in the meantime, you lose an awful lot of momentum when you kind of change audiences or try to change audiences.
And it is my personal opinion that you're bumping right into a brick wall when you try to put music on AM, because if that's what people wanted, they'd be on FM, where they can get stereo.
This is San Diego, California, and I'm just calling to pose a question.
The question you had was: what was the purpose of bombing Iraq?
Yeah.
I sort of feel that it would carry through with the president having his political reasons because I think the possibility of maybe cleaning up the embarrassment of like two missiles missing from the Flight 800, I think that would kind of erase all the bad publicity around that.
Well, I have not heard one public utterance that would A, affirm that it was a missile or even an act, a bomb or a missile.
They haven't made that determination.
Number two, they're not even close to naming who might be responsible.
And number three, they've not said publicly that it has a thing to do with Flight 800.
Not a thing.
unidentified
Oh, yes, I know that, sir.
But the point that I'm trying to make is that like prior shows that I have listened to here recently since I tuned in your station, you did point out that there was like two missing missiles.
But again, the likely suspects, if you want to discuss missing missiles or missiles that are presently loose, would be, for example, the Mujahideen.
As a source of missiles, I'm not accusing them, of course, of shooting down Flight 800, don't get me wrong.
But they had a number of shoulder-fired stingers that we supplied to them when they were fighting the Soviets.
There are many of those out there yet.
And because from our arsenal there may be a couple of missiles missing, I don't think we can even begin to conjecture about who might have acquired them and used them.
East of the Rockies, you're on the air.
Hi.
unidentified
Yes, this is Sandy calling from east of St. Louis.
Art, I think the real reason for our attack on Iraq is buried in the psychology of our president.
Even before his election, President Clinton was labeled a draft Dodger hater of the armed services after the election.
Clinton seemed to be looking for any reason to use the armed forces, Haiti, Bosnia, just the ticket to show the American people he wasn't afraid to use the forces that he had held in contempt.
Now, a couple of months before the election, Saddam has pulled Clinton's chain.
What can he do?
Clinton is trapped.
Got to do something.
If he lets Saddam run amok, he'll look weak.
If he gets us involved in another war with Iraq or an internal conflict, he'll probably lose the election.
The possible irony in this situation is incredible.
Saddam made President Bush look unbeatable in 92, and he still lost Clinton.
By ending the war and not going after Saddam, President Bush may have inadvertently cost President Clinton his re-election.
Maybe character doesn't matter after all.
Scott in Butte Creek Farm, Oregon.
Well, I don't know about that.
Is this political?
Well, surely there are going to be points in it for the president unless we get involved in some massive war.
And I'll tell you, when you stick little pins in Saddam, or maybe big ones like we are right now, you might expect a reaction, and I think there is going to be one.
Anyway, we'll be right back.
unidentified
You're listening to Art Bell somewhere in Time.
Tonight featuring Coast to Coast AM from September 3rd, 1996.
If I was walking in your shoes, I wouldn't bury them.
But you and your friends Networks presents Art Bell, somewhere in time.
Tonight featuring Coast to Ghost AM from September 3rd, 1996.
Well, I mean, you know, he is a bad guy, and what he's doing is bad and has been doing is bad, but I just don't understand what we're wanting to achieve by hitting these anti-aircraft installations and shrinking his country.
It's just like we're tempting him to war.
I wonder if we're ready to go to war if we've got to.
Okay, if you take wars from a moral or ethical standpoint, which is what the United States has always said it does, and let's assume that the United States usually tells the truth.
Saddam attacked defenseless people.
And when you attack defenseless people, then somebody has to come to their rescue.
So whether it's Bill Clinton or George Bush or Bob Dole, I think all of them would have taken the same action.
All right, but just one little fly in that ointment, and that is that the defenseless people are still being attacked in northern Iraq, and his force is 40,000 men and tanks and armor and artillery and all that stuff.
They're all there unimpeded by our action.
unidentified
But we can ratchet the action up.
In other words, we can show him that we're serious, and then we can slowly ratchet it up, and then eventually he'll get the message.
In other words, if we did it all at one time, then there'd be people criticizing us for just butchering a lot of troops and innocent people.
But this way we can knock out his installations first.
If that doesn't do it, we can ratchet the action up.
If you are the president and you do what the president has done to date, the two attacks, and Saddam responds by actively going after every aircraft that he can that goes over, shooting at him with whatever he's got left, what is your next move?
unidentified
Well, first of all, we saw in the last Persian Gulf War in the last desert storm that they weren't very effective at shooting our aircraft down.
And I don't think we have to send aircraft over his gunneries in order to act like a bunch of ducks and decoys.
I mean, we can simply sit offshore and we can bomb the hell out of him with B-52s and with Tomahawk missiles on the Navy ship until the year 2000 if we have to.
I mean, we're in a perfect position to just sort of wait him out, hurt him a little bit more each day or each week until he finally gets the message and gets tired of it and retracts his troops and stops the aggression.
I would begin to put into the hands of those who would use them in a dastardly way missiles that could shoot down airplanes.
I'd begin to send human bombs all over the place.
I might attack Israel with some scuds.
I'd generally stir things up and escalate things until you, Mr. President, would have to end up sending another half million troops back into that same theater again.
Or I'd bring down airplanes.
I'd do all kinds of awful things.
unidentified
Well, terrorism is something that we always risk any time we go after an aggressor.
Saddam is testing us again, and he's going to test us again and again.
But the thing about it is, whenever innocent people or defenseless people are being killed and destroyed by this, and everybody agrees that he's a terrorist and he's a madman, that we have to do something.
And if we did nothing, especially in an election year, the sitting president, especially this president, would be relentlessly attacked by Bob Dole, who has nothing to say except complaining about what the president does.
He has no ideas except to complain against what Bill Clinton does.
Bob Dole surely would have climbed all over the president had the president done nothing.
And we had continued to see Iraqi troops and armor tromping.
And, you know, I mean, once you get away with one thing, Saddam would sort of try it and look back and see if anything happened, if nothing happened.
Then you can be assured he would consolidate more of northern Iraq and so forth and so on.
In for an inch, in for a mile.
Definitely would have done that.
So, you know, the caller's right.
Now, the president had to do something.
It's just the only part of this that I can't quite figure out is where it's headed, what the end game is, what it's going to mean the U.S. is going to have to do.
To some degree, of course, it will depend on his reaction, but I don't think he's going to just sit there and take it indefinitely.
Ross Perot, yeah, before we get to that, Ross Perot isn't going to win the election, but I am in favor of his being included in the debate because his talk about our debt is exactly right.
And if he forces the other two to have to address that issue, then we all win.
So I don't think Ross is going to win.
I don't think I'm going to.
No, he won't.
I'm not going to vote for him this time.
I did last time.
unidentified
I'm going to say there's a reform party finally now.
Because if we could connect Flight 800 in any way to Saddam or Iraq, sir, I assure you that that would have been proffered as a definite reason for the attack, and there would have been a lot more than what you just saw.
But look, if we had it connected to Iraq, I guarantee you they would have said so, and it would have been politically a 90 percenter to go after Iraq for that.
I'm Art Bell, and we'll get back to Ed in L.A. in a moment.
Now to Ed in L.A. Ed, the way I understand the intelligence developed about Saddam's moves, we did not fully understand what he was doing until several days ago.
We understood there was some troop movements going on, but we didn't really understand what he was doing.
And frankly, moving troops north is not in violation of any agreement.
There's only an agreement with regard to aircraft above the 36th parallel, not ground troops.
For one thing, that may be when they got wind of it and they had every right to preempt.
And I understand that you think it's for political reasons.
Let me tell you something, Ed.
I'm in a business where there are technical problems.
Okay?
Every now and then, an affiliate will lose the satellite signal of my show.
Every now and then, something will go wrong and a little piece of something or another will be lost somewhere, or a listener won't be able to hear something, or there'll be a show not archived up on the internet.
And inevitably, Ed, when that happens, I get a million faxes and telephone calls, and people say it was an agenda.
Now, why wasn't that particular show available?
Why wasn't I able to hear that?
Why did they do their transmitter maintenance on this certain night?
It's obviously because you had a hot show and they didn't want the information out.
I don't think so, Ed.
I think that there was every justification for a bulletin for breaking into regular programming and that you just saw it that way because you're seeing things through ideological, ideologically tinted glasses, Ed.
So I would say you're probably wrong.
And that there was plenty of justification for breaking into programming to report the U.S. is dropping, not dropping, firing more missiles at Iraq.
That is a legitimate break-in, let's stop the presses kind of story.
First time caller line, you're on the air, hi.
unidentified
My God, don't tell me I finally made it, the great art bell.
You know, they have to make the big splash because of one thing, Art.
You cannot get into people's minds and hearts and guts unless you excite them.
However, if we had a system where, as in Australia, you had to vote or pay, people would pay attention because the people who wouldn't pay would have to support the elections of those who do.
And then, of course, if the multimedia, you know, the ones that have licenses, had to give free time to politicians, guess what?
Well, yeah, and also out of the pockets of broadcasters, ma'am.
That's not fair.
There is this little thing called freedom that we're supposed to have in this country, and believe it or not, that means that you don't force private enterprise to do the state's bidding, and that includes broadcasters.
That includes broadcasters.
I would object violently if the FCC said broadcasters must give the following.
Must do this, must do that.
Then you don't really have freedom of speech anymore.
I know that may seem a hard sell to you, but it's not really.
I mean, there's supposed to be freedom.
And regarding paying if you don't vote, I would now owe them money.
Now, upset as I am about the fact that I missed it yesterday, I don't, you know, we shouldn't have to pay.
I mean, that's not free.
Look, freedom means freedom to be engaged or not be engaged.
And I don't think that you can fine or should find people for not being engaged.
If they don't want to vote, and if they don't care about politics, then so what?
They should be free to do that.
I do understand the spirit of what you're saying, but you need to think it through a little further.
You don't charge people who don't vote.
You don't punish people who don't vote.
Voting is a right, not a right of passage.
I mean, you're allowed to pass whether or not you vote.
It's just right, something you can do, something you don't have to do.
East of the Rockies, you're on the air.
Hi.
unidentified
Yeah, hi, Art.
First of all, you said to keep an eye on Russia, and I think we should always keep an eye on Russia.
And I would like, I didn't hear how the people were with the mood of the people and the prices in Russia.
Local Affiliates and Chemical Agents00:12:44
unidentified
If you could maybe say something about that.
But another thing, there's a biblical astronomer named Robert Wiseworth.
He's with the Prophecy Club, if you want to get a hold of him.
And he said that the stars are right, all the moon, the planets, everything.
That there would be something regarding Israel in the month of September, which may tie in with this coincidental Saddam's current conflict.
In other words, he could fire a scud at Israel, and I don't put it past him.
How would he's going to retaliate in one way or another?
He's going to retaliate one way or the other, and it'll be by firing something at Israel, shooting down some of our aircraft, an act of terrorism, A, B, C, D, you pick the appropriate choice.
I don't know which, but he's going to do something.
You can depend on it.
You can only poke the tiger so many times, and then we're going to be engaged.
With regard to Russia, not much has changed.
The people over there still embrace, if not long for, the Iron Hand.
The people over there still react and act as though the Iron Hand is there now.
And frankly, it is behind the scenes.
There's still very much an Iron Hand there.
And I think Russia has not greatly changed.
And I think the statement yesterday from the Russians with regard to what we did tells you that.
They said what you have done is unacceptable.
I mean, they didn't even bother to couch it.
They said unacceptable with regard to the missiles that hit Iraq.
i understand i had uh... and read reno radio stations get bought and sold and uh... a lot of times for example when somebody will come in and buy a radio station whatever it's doing they feel they have to do something different so they can put their own personal stamp on it.
Do you think anything could be tied with the results of the government coming up and saying, hey, yeah, there possibly was chemical weapons, and we possibly did get a lot of our troops infected with it, and maybe we're going to be getting more news about that that is not going to make us happy, and this might be a retaliatory thing for that also.
However, it now is obvious that our troops were exposed to chemical agents, not chemical agents, at least as far as we know, that were dispersed intentionally by Iraq, but by chemical agents that were blown up with our ordinance.
Now, my recollection is scientists said, well, if you use a certain kind of weapon producing a certain kind of heat, there will not be a disbursement of these chemical weapons.
They will be virtually incinerated.
I guess it didn't work out that way, and scientists weren't all right.
If the news had broken during the Iraq war that chemical agents, that our troops were exposed to chemical agents, then there would have been very little political alternative other than to use a weapon of mass destruction, and that is exactly what they warned about, by the way.
They privately told Iraq, you use chemicals, we'll use nukes.
And that was fairly common knowledge at the time of that conflict.
So if word had gotten out that our troops were exposed, we would not have known for sure that it was not an intentional act on the part of the Iraqis, and that might have forced the use of some sort of nuclear device.
Wildcard line, you're on the air.
unidentified
Hello?
Yeah, 270-plus affiliates for phone lines that I got through.
As a matter of fact, a lot of our well heads are capped.
Thank you very much for the call.
We do produce a significant amount of oil from Alaska, and we produce some domestically, very much less than we did a long time ago.
I've always been in favor of keeping our domestic reserves, because I'll tell you, in about 40 years or so, we're going to run out of oil.
And it is better that strategically that we use other people's oil.
This sounds very selfish, I know, but use OPO, that would be other people's oil, until that's gone, and then we still have a little bit of time in which to develop alternate energy resources while we use our own domestic oil.
Selfish, but it's really the way to go.
Of course, they ought to be out working on alternative methods right now, and they're not.
But and as you know, we do everything by crisis in this country.
So when the crisis arrives, at least we'll have a little bit of time bought by the conservation of our domestic oil reserves.
I mean, I just finished explaining very carefully that in the process of radio from here up to satellite, down to Oregon, up to satellite again, down.
No, wait a minute.
Let me finish.
Down to New Jersey, back up again, down to the various radio stations, and then correctly transmitted to the radio that you're listening to, a lot of stuff can happen.
unidentified
It can happen.
No, I realize that.
I realize that.
But I just think that it's rather odd, you know, that should happen.
Perhaps maybe the people at the local radio station here are just well, let's take it a step further then.
That would require lots of local affiliates doing it, right?
unidentified
Yeah, but he was in a in a in a large market area where perhaps they could they would have a little bit more uh influence upon you know people in that in that area.
I mean, there's a larger population there, you know, so it would be more, I don't know what the word I'm looking for.
Harry Brown, the Libertarian candidate, has chimed in on Iraq, and he's basically saying the missile attack on Iraq shows U.S. military policy of perpetual war.
He said, quote, this missile attack on Iraq is another example of how government foreign policy does not work.
He said, instead of defending America, our government is attacking nations that pose no military threat to us and is making our country a more tempting target for murderous terrorists.
He said, what was lacking in Clinton's statement was an explanation of how this attack makes America more secure, which is the alleged goal of our military.
Interesting.
So that is the position you would expect Harry Brown to take, and he has taken it.
And he's the only one out there that far so far.
Surely Bob Dole has clammed up now.
Art, a few questions with respect to Clinton's Iraq war.
Saddam's character and collateral questions aside.
One, by what authority does a sovereign U.S. Invade and wage war against another sovereign nation when no direct provocation exists?
Well, the answer to that may be in the agreement signed after the Iraqi war.
Two, if human rights is the issue, then why not invade Russia, Cuba and China, where the problem has existed for many years and in a greater magnitude, that's true.
Three, what law authorizes this action?
What law mandates that we act?
Um, There is None.
Four, if a Saddam or Castro or Khrushchev had observed our civil rights problems in the early 60s and had sent an invading force to our southern states in the name of human rights, would they have been as right as Clinton is telling us that we are now?
What would be and should be the response of Americans to such an invasion?
What should be the correct response of the Iraqis to our present attacks?
Carson from Houston.
That's an interesting question.
What should be the correct response of the Iraqis to our present attacks?
Well, my guess is they will do one of two things.
They will either provoke a larger response from the U.S. and eventually an all-out war, which they would lose at great expense of our human life, I might add, and theirs, or they will respond with terrorism.
With regard to why it took so long to fess up, my guess I gave a little while ago, at least one of them, and that is we clearly told the Iraqis that any use of chemical weapons would be responded to with a nuclear answer.
And had they let it leak out early or during the war that there was that exposure, there would have been a clamoring for a nuclear response on our part.
Major Dames had located some chemical weapons, which were then later found to be exactly where he said they would be in the configuration which he said they would find them.
It it's sometimes aggravating with some of the people who call in believe that Democrats are the party of family values and stuff, but it helps pass the night away when you're talking about.
I just have a basic feeling that a talk show host worth his salt can take a call, no matter what the content, and either make it informative or entertaining or interesting one way or the other.
On the other hand, if you just sit there like a log, a bump on a log, and let people sit here and make three-minute speeches of irrelevant, disconnected, discombobulated thinking, then you're going to bore the audience to death.
But I mean, if you engage a caller, and one way or the other, you will make that call interesting if you are good at your craft.
And so, for that reason, I think I don't like to screen calls because I like the unexpected nature of what happens when you don't.
I'm no happier with what Bill Clinton did in Vietnam than anybody else.
But this man was elected.
He's a legitimate president of the United States.
He is the commander-in-chief, whether you like it or not.
And no matter what, I'm telling you right now, if our armed services are ordered to accomplish a mission by the commander-in-chief of the United States, they will damn well do it.
And I guess I don't like much as I too am disgusted with his record on Vietnam.
I don't like the suggestion that our troops ought not follow orders or ought not do what they're doing and should feel disgust and disdain and not be ordered about by somebody who himself avoided service.
Be that as it may, he is the commander-in-chief and the president of this country.
And it rankles me to hear that kind of suggestion.
And I want to point out that in Daniel, you know, when they had the Cuban crisis and the ships turned around, it's in the Bible, and Iran is mentioned in the Bible just before a big war.
And I think you're right on with Russia.
I think that it says in the Bible that when the Israelis say peace and safety, all hell is going to break loose.
But we may have a little reprieve there because they've got Benjamin now at Yahoo.
And I don't think he's going to seek safety.
Nor is he particularly going to seek peace.
And so there's a little reprieve there.
I'm really satisfied with, boy, I'll tell you, if I'd been an Israeli, he's the one I would have voted for.
And, of course, he is staunchly standing behind what the U.S. is doing right now and suggesting that he's got reason to be concerned for his own country, and he does.
She said, Rossan Johnny from Iran, the prime minister or whatever he is, is making a tour of Africa over there of several nations, and he's going to end up in South Africa.
And the American government had warned the South African government that it might strain relations between the United States and South Africa, inasmuch as their intelligence services have led them to believe that Iran is the chief suspect in the downing of TWA Flight 800.
unidentified
And my jaw dropped.
I've never heard anything in our media about that.
There has leaked out, though, recently, the FBI has virtually come right out and said they're not telling us everything.
They're keeping a lot of things very close to their chest, and that would be one of them.
And that's why I keep telling the American people: if you want to hear the news, that which is omitted here, then you need to listen to the rest of the world.
But the reason I'm calling is I think it was about an hour ago or about an hour and a half ago, a guy called, and I know the point he was trying to make, but he didn't make it really clearly when he used the term cowardly missiles.
He was wrong about that.
I mean, because obviously the point is they don't have a pilot on them.
They don't have a family back home, and the president doesn't have to write a letter of regret to General Dynamics.
Well, to me, the only people that would regard our missiles as cowardly would be those on the receiving end and people in sympathy with them.
unidentified
Well, see, that's part of my problem with using them alone.
I'm hoping that they're part of a larger strategy because if the message is, you know, here have 27 pilotless missiles, that's not a message that Saddam Hussein gets.
That's a message that the Swiss would get.
But Saddam doesn't get that unless you put something at risk.
And this was an absolutely risk-free operation.
I'm hoping that the reason he's doing this is to enforce or make it safer in the no-fly zone.
Yeah, like I say, if he intends to do more than this, then I think that was a good opening gambit.
But if this is the message in itself, then I think it's not only lost in Saddam, but it's a bad message to send.
Because, like I say, he only understands risk.
You know, that's the coin of the realm in the Middle East, and he only understands putting lives at risk.
And we, to really show a commitment to this cause, need to put American pilots in American planes to go and cluster bomb his young men in their armored columns outside of Erbil.
Now, if we're deciding that that is not our fish to fry and our fish to fry is in the South, then fine.
Like I say, this is a terrific opening military move.
But as a political statement, you know, if the Israelis had invented the cruise missile, they would never use it like this because they understand.