Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Today

Blair Taking Heat for No WMDs

Aired June 06, 2003 - 10:30   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.


LEON HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: We turn our eyes overseas, where Prime Minister Tony Blair is hoping for an end to the latest Iraq-related controversy to hit his government. We've been talking this morning about the questions of the existence of weapons of mass destruction and the administration here, stateside, now trying to deal with that issue.
Guess who's here? Our Richard Quest is here from London. He's usually overseas in the bureau in London, but Richard is visiting us here in Atlanta, and since you are here, we figure we might as well go ahead and beg upon you and use your expertise to talk about this matter some, because we have not really been paying that close attention to how Tony Blair is dealing with the same questions that are now being tossed his way about weapons of mass destruction.

RICHARD QUEST, CNN CORRESPONDENT: The fundamental problem is that this was a war that was sold. It was sold to a large number of people who didn't actually believe in it. And therefore, it was sold on the basis of it being an imminent and immediate threat, and this famous line that there's chemical, biological weapons, within 45 minutes, could be used.

Now it comes out that that's not true. So there are two issues that Tony Blair is in deep trouble over. The first is, did he actually believe what he said? And the secondly, did they take the intelligence material and fabricate it, obfuscate it, twist it to their best advantage. And the difference, Leon, here is -- the difference, I think the crucial difference is this was a war that had to be sold to a large number of people that didn't believe in it. This wasn't like Whitewater, that sort of escalated gradually. There were a million people on the streets of London who were against it, and they are now saying we were lied to.

HARRIS: So, what are the consequences here for Tony Blair, and really are they serious enough to perhaps end his career?

QUEST: Earlier this week, the prime minister announced two investigations, one an intelligence investigation, the other a parliamentary investigation. Neither of them is a judicial inquiry or an independent inquiry in the same line as, for example, after the Falklands War.

Could this bring down the government? Probably not, because he has a huge majority. We're only seeing small cracks within that. However -- and this is key, this is also a government that has a dreadful reputation for spin, pretty much like the Clinton administration. Always putting a favorable position, always taking the facts and turning them to their advantage, never quite telling you all. So there's no credibility in the bank for Tony Blair on this one.

HARRIS: You notice the big difference between the way the British public and the British government is treating their administration, their leading administration versus the way it is happening here and unfolding here in the U.S., even though the administration right now -- the administration believes right now, here, the Bush administration believes that they don't really have to fully address this because the public is still going to support them.

QUEST: And in Britain, Blair would like to say and he keeps saying, look, we got rid of a nasty man. We got rid of a nasty man. We got rid of a nasty man.

HARRIS: We are hearing the same things here.

QUEST: Exactly. Now, if they'd gone to war saying we're going to get rid of a nasty man, they would probably have been OK. But they didn't. They went to war saying we're going because of chemical, biological, and weapons of mass destruction. And that's what people are saying. Hang on, you may at best have obfuscated or, at least denied. Worst, you lied.

Now, the difference, I think, between the U.S. and the U.K. is our parliamentary system. At the end of the day, Rumsfeld may have to go before a Congressional committee. He will be politely questioned, but there's no parliamentary system in the same way that Blair has to stand up once a week for half an hour and get browbeaten over the head with a wet kipper.

HARRIS: In a process that is not polite at all. We've been watching it from time to time here.

QUEST: Not at all.

HARRIS: And of course, you'll have to check back in with us later on once the next shoe drops on this. Richard Quest, good to see you here in the flesh.

QUEST: Thank you.

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 June 6, 2003 - 10:30   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
LEON HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: We turn our eyes overseas, where Prime Minister Tony Blair is hoping for an end to the latest Iraq-related controversy to hit his government. We've been talking this morning about the questions of the existence of weapons of mass destruction and the administration here, stateside, now trying to deal with that issue.
Guess who's here? Our Richard Quest is here from London. He's usually overseas in the bureau in London, but Richard is visiting us here in Atlanta, and since you are here, we figure we might as well go ahead and beg upon you and use your expertise to talk about this matter some, because we have not really been paying that close attention to how Tony Blair is dealing with the same questions that are now being tossed his way about weapons of mass destruction.

RICHARD QUEST, CNN CORRESPONDENT: The fundamental problem is that this was a war that was sold. It was sold to a large number of people who didn't actually believe in it. And therefore, it was sold on the basis of it being an imminent and immediate threat, and this famous line that there's chemical, biological weapons, within 45 minutes, could be used.

Now it comes out that that's not true. So there are two issues that Tony Blair is in deep trouble over. The first is, did he actually believe what he said? And the secondly, did they take the intelligence material and fabricate it, obfuscate it, twist it to their best advantage. And the difference, Leon, here is -- the difference, I think the crucial difference is this was a war that had to be sold to a large number of people that didn't believe in it. This wasn't like Whitewater, that sort of escalated gradually. There were a million people on the streets of London who were against it, and they are now saying we were lied to.

HARRIS: So, what are the consequences here for Tony Blair, and really are they serious enough to perhaps end his career?

QUEST: Earlier this week, the prime minister announced two investigations, one an intelligence investigation, the other a parliamentary investigation. Neither of them is a judicial inquiry or an independent inquiry in the same line as, for example, after the Falklands War.

Could this bring down the government? Probably not, because he has a huge majority. We're only seeing small cracks within that. However -- and this is key, this is also a government that has a dreadful reputation for spin, pretty much like the Clinton administration. Always putting a favorable position, always taking the facts and turning them to their advantage, never quite telling you all. So there's no credibility in the bank for Tony Blair on this one.

HARRIS: You notice the big difference between the way the British public and the British government is treating their administration, their leading administration versus the way it is happening here and unfolding here in the U.S., even though the administration right now -- the administration believes right now, here, the Bush administration believes that they don't really have to fully address this because the public is still going to support them.

QUEST: And in Britain, Blair would like to say and he keeps saying, look, we got rid of a nasty man. We got rid of a nasty man. We got rid of a nasty man.

HARRIS: We are hearing the same things here.

QUEST: Exactly. Now, if they'd gone to war saying we're going to get rid of a nasty man, they would probably have been OK. But they didn't. They went to war saying we're going because of chemical, biological, and weapons of mass destruction. And that's what people are saying. Hang on, you may at best have obfuscated or, at least denied. Worst, you lied.

Now, the difference, I think, between the U.S. and the U.K. is our parliamentary system. At the end of the day, Rumsfeld may have to go before a Congressional committee. He will be politely questioned, but there's no parliamentary system in the same way that Blair has to stand up once a week for half an hour and get browbeaten over the head with a wet kipper.

HARRIS: In a process that is not polite at all. We've been watching it from time to time here.

QUEST: Not at all.

HARRIS: And of course, you'll have to check back in with us later on once the next shoe drops on this. Richard Quest, good to see you here in the flesh.

QUEST: Thank you.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com