TIM RUSSERT: General Scowcroft, welcome. You raised a lot of eyebrows in Washington, particularly at the Bush White House, when you wrote this in The Wall Street Journal on August 11th, and let me show you:

"Don't Attack Saddam…. An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken. ...Ignoring that clear [world] sentiment [against an attack] would result in a serious degradation in international cooperation with us against terrorism. And make no mistake, we simply cannot win that war without enthusiastic international cooperation, especially on intelligence."

Have you changed your view?

BRENT SCOWCROFT: No, I haven't changed my view. The title to that article was not my title. But, no, I think- there are three things going on in the region. There's the war on terrorism. There's the problem with Iraq. And there's the Israeli-Palestinian. Those are all interconnected. And what I was saying-first of all, I was not-do not consider myself in opposition to the president. When the president talked about Iraq, I think, without exception, he would end his comments saying, "I've not made a decision. I'm considering all options." And, usually, "I hope for a peaceful resolution." What I saw was a series of sequencing, which was wrong. We were talking about-well, not only would going back for a new sanctions regime not work because it hasn't worked before, it would be counterproductive...

TIM RUSSERT: Inspections.

BRENT SCOWCROFT: Inspections would be counterproductive. And we didn't need the Congress to do whatever we wanted to do. And I think that was building up a sentiment which would make it-which would really detract from the war on terrorism, which the president has said is the number-one mission of the United States. That's what was concerning me.

TIM RUSSERT: You are chairman of the president's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, very close friends with former President Bush. Did you advise anyone in the current White House that you were going to write such a forceful piece?

BRENT SCOWCROFT: No, I did not, but I had been on a Sunday talk show about 10 days before, and I, as a matter of fact, had been saying, essentially, the same thing for quite some time.

TIM RUSSERT: Let me show you something else you wrote, which also received a strong response from many within the Republican Party: "There is scant evidence to tie Saddam to terrorist organizations, and even less to the Sept. 11 attacks. Indeed Saddam's goals have little in common with the terrorists who threaten us, and there is little incentive for him to make common cause with them. ...There is little evidence to indicate that the United States itself is an object of his aggression."

And people will point out that in 1990, Iraq was put on the State Department's list of nations which sponsor state-sponsored terrorism. In 1993, Saddam tried to assassinate former President Bush in Kuwait. What more evidence do you need of Saddam's terrorists inclinations?

BRENT SCOWCROFT: There's one thing, with him, sponsoring different aspects of terrorism; there is another, saying that he has some relationship to al-Qaida. Indeed, I suspect that he's on Osama bin Laden's execution list. He is a secular leader, not a Muslim leader. He is a socialist in terms of heading the Ba'athist Party. Does he seek weapons of mass destruction? Absolutely, including nuclear weapons. No question about it. If he gets a nuclear weapon, it's hard for me to see that he's going to turn that weapon over to a group to use for their own purposes rather than to use it for his own purposes. That's what I meant.

MR. RUSSET: Does he pose a clear and imminent danger to the United States right now?

BRENT SCOWCROFT: He is a serious problem. And he has been a serious problem. And he has fought two wars-I mean, invaded two countries, fought a war with the United Nations. He's bending every effort to get weapons of mass destruction. You bet he's a problem. What I was saying, he is a serious problem-he is not a problem because of terrorism.

TIM RUSSERT: If the United Nations sends-votes a resolution to send inspectors back in, and Saddam refuses, and then the United Nations authorizes all necessary means, would you then support a military invasion of Iraq?

BRENT SCOWCROFT: Look, I think the president is pursuing a brilliant bit of diplomacy now. I think his speech was terrific. I think he's put the ball exactly where it belongs. He said, "We want the U.N. to be successful and respected. We want to work with the U.N. This is a U.N. problem. If the U.N. doesn't solve it, it will not fulfill the promise of its founders," which was what we were hoping in 1990 – to use the U.N. and make it an instrument for security. So I would say, "Yes." As a matter of fact, the end of my article said one of the ways around this is to go back and get sanctions. If he agrees to the sanctions, then we're prowling around in his country; even if we don't find anything, it's difficult. It will keep him off balance. And if we don't, we have the casus belli that many of the countries in the world don't think we have right now.

TIM RUSSERT: If the U.N, does not authorize military action, should the United States go it alone?

BRENT SCOWCROFT: I think then I would not object to us going alone. We have gone the last mile now to work within the world community. We have reached out to the Congress. We're doing exactly what I think we ought to do and I applaud the president for it.

TIM RUSSERT: Have you spoken to former President Bush about this?

BRENT SCOWCROFT: Well, since my article came out.

TIM RUSSERT: What did he say to you?

BRENT SCOWCROFT: He-I'm not going to comment on what he said to me.

TIM RUSSERT: Were you taken to the wood shed?

BRENT SCOWCROFT: I'm not going to comment about my conversation.

TIM RUSSERT: Has anyone in the current administration spoken to you?

BRENT SCOWCROFT: Yes.

TIM RUSSERT: And what have they said?

BRENT SCOWCROFT: I'm not going to comment on that, either.

TIM RUSSERT: Where do you think we're headed? Will there be war?

BRENT SCOWCROFT: Oh, that's really speculation. I believe that we have a better chance than I would have imagined several months ago because I believe that the-I won't say friends of Iraq. Iraq doesn't have any friends. But those with the most influence, like the Russians, like the Chinese, like the French, are likely to go to Saddam and say, "Look, you know, whatever you thought you could get away with in 1990, you ought to know, you know, this is it. This is it. And, you know, we'll do what we can,but you ought to know you're history if you don't agree to the inspectors." Do I think he's likely to? His history says, no, he's not. But I think he's facing something he has never faced before, and he's got to realize that.

TIM RUSSERT: General Brent Scowcroft, as always, we thank you for your views.

BRENT SCOWCROFT: Thank you.