Clinton’s Advisors Put on Defensive at Debate on Iraq

President Clinton’s national security team, traveling into America’s heartland Wednesday to build support for military action against Iraq, ran instead into a raucous, emotional debate that showed a nation far from convinced of the administration’s course in the Persian Gulf.

In an atmosphere that at times crackled with confrontation and raw emotion, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Defense Secretary William S. Cohen and National Security Advisor Samuel R. “Sandy” Berger often found themselves on the defensive against a vocal minority among about 6,000 students and local residents participating in what was billed as a “town meeting” at the Ohio State University basketball arena.

The debate, with all its divisions, was beamed to 200 million homes around the world by the Cable News Network. It certainly was seen not only by U.S. allies, both staunch and wavering, but also in nations opposed to U.S. plans, including the Iraq of Saddam Hussein.

During the 90-minute session, Clinton’s closest advisors doggedly made their central point--that the United States prefers a diplomatic solution to the standoff with the Iraqi president, who has refused to allow unrestricted U.N. weapons inspections. But they also warned that, if necessary, the United States will use force to diminish Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction.

“There are some things worth fighting for, and those include fighting aggression, those who threaten their neighbors and fighting to make this world a safer, more secure place for my children and yours,” Berger said.

Wednesday’s town meeting was the latest--and easily the liveliest--of the efforts by the Clinton administration to make a case for armed force, if necessary, against Iraq. It was the first in which U.S. leaders faced a live audience, filled with ordinary Americans. And as the discussion unfolded, the mood in the arena swung wildly.

The event grew increasingly unruly as emboldened protesters often shouted above panelists’ answers and chanted, “One, two, three, four! We don’t want your dirty war!” One demonstrator resisted efforts by ushers to confiscate a sign saying “No War” and was whisked out by campus police; at least two others also were taken away by officers after they persisted in their shouting. University spokesman Malcolm Baroway said one person was arrested and charged with criminal trespass.

When Albright stated, “We need your support,” an audience member shouted back, “You don’t have it!”

CNN hosts Bernard Shaw and Judy Woodruff, as well as the administration panelists, seemed surprised by the protesters’ intensity. In the first commercial break, Shaw walked to the edge of the stage, glowered at the audience and shouted, “This program runs for 90 minutes, you’re not going to be allowed to disrupt it!”

Although most protesters seemed to oppose the prospect of military strikes against Iraq, some argued the opposite--that the United States needed to go further and make its main goal the ouster of Hussein. The arena fell silent as a veteran, barely able to control his emotion, recounted how he had served in World War II, lost a son in Vietnam and yet was prepared to support military action against Iraq as long as the goal was to “go the whole way” and remove Hussein by force.

But the majority of those here seemed either to back the administration position or to be honestly worried and uncertain. As the meeting came to a close, a clear majority stood and applauded Albright, Berger and Cohen.

Throughout the discussion, the officials underscored the administration’s preference for a diplomatic solution but left little doubt that a military strike would be big. “The strike, if it has to happen, will be substantial, and he’ll need more than a Band-Aid,” Albright bristled at a participant who questioned the value of military action that Hussein could too easily survive.

While the administration officials, afterward, dismissed the scenes of dissent here as little more than American democracy at work, broadcasts of the spectacle are bound to send mixed signals to the Persian Gulf, where support for military action against Hussein has shown signs of weakening.

Although the town meeting was billed as an attempt to bring the case against Iraq to the American people, the international television audience enabled the administration to address those far beyond U.S. shores, including the Iraqi leadership in Baghdad. Indeed, State Department officials who helped arrange Wednesday’s event said they asked CNN to host it because of its global reach.

Some commentators argued that pictures of such dissent could encourage Hussein to maintain his defiance, just as United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan embarks for Baghdad on a possible last-ditch try for a diplomatic solution. But administration officials rejected such conclusions.

“This meeting shouldn’t be defined by 40 people who decide to scream,” Berger said. “What Saddam Hussein saw was that the secretary of State, the secretary of Defense and the national security advisor had a strong determination to get this thing resolved one way or another. So, if he watched us, there was no ambiguity.”

Berger and other officials insisted that Hussein should not read much into the protests, since a fierce debate also occurred in the United States before the 1991 Persian Gulf War. At that time the Senate voted 52-48 to back military action--and the United States then pounded Iraq.

Some of the 1,000 invited guests and the estimated 5,000 people who lined up and passed through security to listen to the debate also expressed surprise at the vehemence of the protests. “It was interesting, but kind of scary,” said Gina Schwieterman, an OSU junior. “I didn’t expect it to be so confrontational. I came away feeling that nobody really knows what’s going on.”

Others were disappointed that key issues were not addressed. “There’s been a lot of discussion around here about the environmental issue, what happens if the bombing generates a cloud of anthrax,” said Mary Shore, a Columbus resident. “No one addressed that here.”

At the United Nations, the 15 ambassadors on the Security Council gave Annan unanimous support for the secretary-general’s Baghdad trip. Asked if he regarded himself as the last hope before military action, Annan told reporters, “I’ve been described in those terms, and I don’t think that is misplaced.”

Despite Washington’s insistence that it would accept nothing less than Iraqi acceptance of unfettered U.N. weapons inspections, Annan made clear that he still felt he would have flexibility in his talks in Baghdad. He said he had talked with Clinton by phone and that “he knows what I am trying to do.”

Spokesman Fred Eckhard said Annan would depart for Paris today and proceed to Baghdad on Friday. The meetings with Iraqi officials would begin Saturday, Eckhard said, adding, “We have no specifics on the program in Baghdad.” Annan said he anticipated no more than two days of talks in Baghdad.

The U.N. also said it would reduce its staff in Iraq, temporarily moving personnel out of Baghdad.

Also Wednesday, Robert Bell, a senior national security advisor, said the United States has “no plans, no planning, no intention, no policy of using nuclear weapons preemptively to go after, take out, whatever you want to call it, the weapons of mass destruction storage or production facilities” in Iraq.

“We have every conventional option we need to deal with our ability to target these facilities that store weapons of mass destruction,” Bell said in reaction to what the administration has termed misguided reports and fears.

Times staff writer Stanley Meisler at the United Nations contributed to this report.