Return to Transcripts main page
American Morning
Analysis of President's Message
Aired January 29, 2003 - 07:11 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: We're going to take a closer look now at the president's performance. Joining us from Washington, "TIME" magazine columnist, Joe Klein. And with us here in our New York studio, CNN senior analyst, Jeff Greenfield.
Good morning, gentlemen. Glad to have both of you with us.
JEFF GREENFIELD, CNN SENIOR ANALYST: Good morning, Paula.
ZAHN: Joe, I know that it was made very clear going into this speech the president had a couple of different audiences he needed to address: the American public and our allies. How well-received do you think his speech will be by either one of those groups?
JOE KLEIN, "TIME" MAGAZINE COLUMNIST: Well, I think that we're about the worst people to talk to, those of us who follow this thing really closely, about how effective he's going to be with the American public. The substance of the speech last night wasn't all that different from the substance of speeches and appearances that were made by administration officials last week. Paul Wolfowitz made -- the deputy defense secretary made exactly the same points about Saddam Hussein hiding his weapons of mass destruction to an elite audience last week in New York.
Most of the American people are hearing this for the first time -- heard it for the first time last night, and so it's hard to tell exactly whether, you know, he made the case with them.
For the allies, there is nothing new here. For those of us in Washington who have been following this story, there is nothing new here. He kicked the can down -- you know, down the road until next week when Colin Powell goes to the United Nations.
But the most striking thing about this speech -- and I was in the room last night, Paula -- was the tone of it, how quiet he was. He practically whispered. People had to lean forward in their seats to listen to him. It was very different from the kind of bravado he had shown in the past in major speeches. I think the tone more than the substance was what counted.
ZAHN: Although he became quite fiery when he talked about Iraq last night, Jeff. And I guess the question I have for you that he made it very clear, although as Joe just said we've heard this before, that the course of the U.S. does not necessarily depend on our allies.
GREENFIELD: The reason I think why a public that may have been focused on the economy took away from the speech Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, was because that's where the steel was in this speech. I was struck by the fact that in the whole first part of the speech, the economic case, which the president was going to do in part because of his agenda, and in part because he remembers what happened to his father who was seen to be not attendant to the economy.
It was what I would consider a modular speech. That is, it was a speech you might have heard in terms of substance and tone anytime.
When he got to the Iraq part, I think it wasn't just the Congress that quieted down. I think the country quieted down. We heard for the first time, many people who haven't been following this, that this is about as close to a declaration-of-war speech as you can give without declaring war. And I think for the 50-odd million people watching it, who maybe don't watch C-SPAN too regularly, they heard this is the case that we are taking into Iraq if he doesn't disarm, and we mean it. There's no way it couldn't have overwhelmed the economic message. It's life and death.
ZAHN: Joe...
KLEIN: Paula, could I...
ZAHN: Please.
KLEIN: Could I just make a point on Iraq and the economy? You know, we treat them as if they're two separate issues, but in many people's minds, they are now becoming interlinked, because Iraq is having a profound effect on the stock market. For many people, the stock market has become kind of the score card for the economy. And I think that until the Iraq issue is settled, the economy has to take a back seat, and I think people are beginning to realize that, you know, almost subliminally.
ZAHN: Final thought, Jeff, on what the president said about winning the war on terrorism.
GREENFIELD: Well, I mean, I thought in a tactical sense, the list of all of the al Qaeda suspects that have been arrested or put away was the answer to the question: What ever happened to Osama bin Laden? His name didn't come up any more than the deficit came up.
There were things that were left out of the speech which indicated in my view that the president realizes that he doesn't have a strong case on, given what he told us before. Last year, sharp, short deficit. Not much mention about that, because it's going to be longer and bigger. Osama bin Laden, who he? We've disrupted them, and we're winning the war on terrorism in very general terms. Iraq, axis of evil, kind of kissed off in one half of a paragraph, you know, they're developing nuclear weapons.
So, if you listened to the speech and realized what was left out, you see, I think, where the president thinks his weak as well as his strong points are.
ZAHN: Joe, did you think the president built a convincing case about the al Qaeda linkages to Iraq last night? KLEIN: Well, no, he just mentioned it. And in fact, the striking thing about his Iraq case in general was that it was a historical case. It wasn't a contemporaneous case. He was going on data that has been around since 1988 and 1999 when the inspectors left Iraq last time. You know, for him to make a really convincing case for the rest of the world and probably ultimately for the American public, he's got to show exactly -- he's got to make a case for what's happening in Iraq right now. What they have, what they're not showing and prove to use that they are hiding things.
ZAHN: We have to leave it there this morning, gentlemen. Joe Klein, Jeff Greenfield, thanks for your insights this morning.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Aired January 29, 2003 - 07:11 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: We're going to take a closer look now at the president's performance. Joining us from Washington, "TIME" magazine columnist, Joe Klein. And with us here in our New York studio, CNN senior analyst, Jeff Greenfield.
Good morning, gentlemen. Glad to have both of you with us.
JEFF GREENFIELD, CNN SENIOR ANALYST: Good morning, Paula.
ZAHN: Joe, I know that it was made very clear going into this speech the president had a couple of different audiences he needed to address: the American public and our allies. How well-received do you think his speech will be by either one of those groups?
JOE KLEIN, "TIME" MAGAZINE COLUMNIST: Well, I think that we're about the worst people to talk to, those of us who follow this thing really closely, about how effective he's going to be with the American public. The substance of the speech last night wasn't all that different from the substance of speeches and appearances that were made by administration officials last week. Paul Wolfowitz made -- the deputy defense secretary made exactly the same points about Saddam Hussein hiding his weapons of mass destruction to an elite audience last week in New York.
Most of the American people are hearing this for the first time -- heard it for the first time last night, and so it's hard to tell exactly whether, you know, he made the case with them.
For the allies, there is nothing new here. For those of us in Washington who have been following this story, there is nothing new here. He kicked the can down -- you know, down the road until next week when Colin Powell goes to the United Nations.
But the most striking thing about this speech -- and I was in the room last night, Paula -- was the tone of it, how quiet he was. He practically whispered. People had to lean forward in their seats to listen to him. It was very different from the kind of bravado he had shown in the past in major speeches. I think the tone more than the substance was what counted.
ZAHN: Although he became quite fiery when he talked about Iraq last night, Jeff. And I guess the question I have for you that he made it very clear, although as Joe just said we've heard this before, that the course of the U.S. does not necessarily depend on our allies.
GREENFIELD: The reason I think why a public that may have been focused on the economy took away from the speech Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, was because that's where the steel was in this speech. I was struck by the fact that in the whole first part of the speech, the economic case, which the president was going to do in part because of his agenda, and in part because he remembers what happened to his father who was seen to be not attendant to the economy.
It was what I would consider a modular speech. That is, it was a speech you might have heard in terms of substance and tone anytime.
When he got to the Iraq part, I think it wasn't just the Congress that quieted down. I think the country quieted down. We heard for the first time, many people who haven't been following this, that this is about as close to a declaration-of-war speech as you can give without declaring war. And I think for the 50-odd million people watching it, who maybe don't watch C-SPAN too regularly, they heard this is the case that we are taking into Iraq if he doesn't disarm, and we mean it. There's no way it couldn't have overwhelmed the economic message. It's life and death.
ZAHN: Joe...
KLEIN: Paula, could I...
ZAHN: Please.
KLEIN: Could I just make a point on Iraq and the economy? You know, we treat them as if they're two separate issues, but in many people's minds, they are now becoming interlinked, because Iraq is having a profound effect on the stock market. For many people, the stock market has become kind of the score card for the economy. And I think that until the Iraq issue is settled, the economy has to take a back seat, and I think people are beginning to realize that, you know, almost subliminally.
ZAHN: Final thought, Jeff, on what the president said about winning the war on terrorism.
GREENFIELD: Well, I mean, I thought in a tactical sense, the list of all of the al Qaeda suspects that have been arrested or put away was the answer to the question: What ever happened to Osama bin Laden? His name didn't come up any more than the deficit came up.
There were things that were left out of the speech which indicated in my view that the president realizes that he doesn't have a strong case on, given what he told us before. Last year, sharp, short deficit. Not much mention about that, because it's going to be longer and bigger. Osama bin Laden, who he? We've disrupted them, and we're winning the war on terrorism in very general terms. Iraq, axis of evil, kind of kissed off in one half of a paragraph, you know, they're developing nuclear weapons.
So, if you listened to the speech and realized what was left out, you see, I think, where the president thinks his weak as well as his strong points are.
ZAHN: Joe, did you think the president built a convincing case about the al Qaeda linkages to Iraq last night? KLEIN: Well, no, he just mentioned it. And in fact, the striking thing about his Iraq case in general was that it was a historical case. It wasn't a contemporaneous case. He was going on data that has been around since 1988 and 1999 when the inspectors left Iraq last time. You know, for him to make a really convincing case for the rest of the world and probably ultimately for the American public, he's got to show exactly -- he's got to make a case for what's happening in Iraq right now. What they have, what they're not showing and prove to use that they are hiding things.
ZAHN: We have to leave it there this morning, gentlemen. Joe Klein, Jeff Greenfield, thanks for your insights this morning.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
