Return to Transcripts main page
American Morning
Durbin Blames Unnamed People at White House for Including 16 Disputed Words About Iraq's Nuclear Ambitions in State of the United
Aired July 18, 2003 - 08:15 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.
SOLEDAD O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: Now to the growing controversy surrounding the president's State of the Union address. In a speech on the Senate floor yesterday, Senator Richard Durbin blamed unnamed people at the White House for including the 16 disputed words about Iraq's nuclear ambitions.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. RICHARD DURBIN (D), ILLINOIS: The president has within his ranks, on his staff, some person who was willing to spin and hype and exaggerate and cut corners on the most important speech the president delivers in any given year. That, to me, is inexcusable.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O'BRIEN: The chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Pat Roberts, says mistakes were made all the way up the chain and they'll go wherever the investigation leads them.
CNN White House correspondent Dana Bash joins us from the front lawn this morning -- good morning to you, Dana.
DANA BASH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Soledad.
Well, the White House says that Senator Durbin's claim that they were, anybody here that was trying to pressure the CIA to get this sentence is -- in the speech is outrageous and that is nonsense. That's what Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, said yesterday. But this whole thing came about, Senator Durbin made his remarks after a closed door Senate Intelligence hearing on Wednesday, where they were trying to get to the bottom of just how this information got into the address.
And what was discussed, according to several sources there, was that a White House official who worked to vet the line in question was somebody, a National Security Council official, Robert Joseph. The sources say that at that closed hearing, the CIA analyst Alan Foley named Joseph as the individual he talked to about the situation, about the controversial allegation, about Iraq's alleged attempts to buy uranium from Africa.
Foley, according to these sources, initially objected, but when Joseph attributed the charge to the British government, he agreed it was technically correct and that the British had made the charge. He then signed off on those now famous 16 words, but never brought this line to the attention of CIA Director George Tenet. Now, the White House says that some of these accusations and the claims about the back and forth between Foley and Joseph are not exactly accurate. Senator Pat Roberts, as you mentioned, Soledad, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, says he, too, wants to get to the bottom of this and he very well may call some of these White House officials to testify before Congress, to ask them for their account, and he said it would be very unusual for them to go, but he says he thinks that they might go -- Soledad.
O'BRIEN: CNN's Dana Bash for us at the White House this morning.
Dana, thanks for that.
We've been talking all morning about Prime Minister Blair's appearance in Washington, D.C. And some of what he and what the president said was pretty clear. But what about the not so obvious messages?
Here is our senior analyst, Jeff Greenfield -- good morning.
Nice to see you.
JEFF GREENFIELD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good morning.
O'BRIEN: Let's start by talking about the similarities between the two speeches.
GREENFIELD: OK, I think in essence both Blair and Bush struck the same key thing, keep your eye on the bigger picture. This debate over the one assertion about Saddam Hussein and the uranium from Africa, they argued, that pales in comparison to the nature of his regime and to the broader threat that the U.N. had recognized for 12 years.
Blair put it most simply when he said, look, if there weren't any weapons of mass destruction, OK, we'll be forgiven for that, because we ended his reign. If there were -- and he still thinks there were -- and we hadn't acted, we wouldn't be forgiven.
Bush deflected it. He was asked at the press conference, "Do you take responsibility for the words in your speech?," and what he said was, "I take responsibility for dealing with the threat of Saddam Hussein." I think that shows they were exactly on the same message.
O'BRIEN: How about where they were sort of giving different messages?
GREENFIELD: Well, I think Tony Blair was talking to two audiences, the American Congress and people -- but for him, more important, a skeptical British audience, including members of his own Labor Party, who are increasingly unhappy. So part of Blair's talk was to gently remind Americans of European concerns about the environment, about the Middle East and on American unilateralism. Blair placed a lot of emphasis on the need for the United States to stand with Europe.
Here's part of what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TONY BLAIR, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: Be a serious partner. Europe must take on and defeat the anti-Americanism that sometimes passes for its political discourse and what America must do is show that this is a partnership built on persuasion, not command.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GREENFIELD: Persuasion, you know, as the key, because the Europeans are worried about us as a superpower. So in that sense they were not saying the same thing.
O'BRIEN: Do they help each other or do they sort of net out hurt each other?
GREENFIELD: I think that it's a highly unequal situation. Remember, Blair is under the charge back home that he's been a poodle, a lap dog -- choose your canine reference -- for the United States. So when Blair comes to the United States and praises Bush, I'm not so sure that's likely to help him back home.
By contrast, Prime Minister Blair, I believe, helps Bush because he's from a very different political tradition. He's the Labor Party leader. He's a liberal, much more like Clinton than Bush in his domestic politics, clearly, not a conservative Republican. And however Blair is seen back in Britain, as a slick Tony, he has staked his political future on this very strong stand with the United States.
Listen to what, for me at least, was the most eloquent part of his speech.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BLAIR: And I know it's hard on America. I know out there there's a guy getting on with his life perfectly happily, minding his own business, saying to you, the political leaders of this country, why me and why us and why America? And the only answer is because destiny put you in this place in history in this moment in time and the task is yours to do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GREENFIELD: Now, that's a lot like what Winston Churchill used to say during WWII when he came to the United States, and it's very hard for me, Soledad, to imagine anything that President Bush could say to the Brits or the Europeans that would be as welcome there as the words Blair spoke were welcomed here.
He got a tremendous reaction from the Congress because of that.
O'BRIEN: So unity is critical for the prime minister. But is unity between those two men as critical for President Bush?
GREENFIELD: I don't think so, because I think what Blair has done is to take a very high political risk by putting Britain with the United States. The Labor Party, which is still a left party, is much more skeptical about America. For Bush, I think the very fact that we're the superpower makes it slightly less relevant. It helps Bush broaden his argument when a liberal left politician from Great Britain says I'm with a president on this.
O'BRIEN: Oh, no question about that.
Jeff Greenfield, nice to see you.
Thanks, as always.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
16 Disputed Words About Iraq's Nuclear Ambitions in State of the United>
Aired July 18, 2003 - 08:15 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
SOLEDAD O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: Now to the growing controversy surrounding the president's State of the Union address. In a speech on the Senate floor yesterday, Senator Richard Durbin blamed unnamed people at the White House for including the 16 disputed words about Iraq's nuclear ambitions.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. RICHARD DURBIN (D), ILLINOIS: The president has within his ranks, on his staff, some person who was willing to spin and hype and exaggerate and cut corners on the most important speech the president delivers in any given year. That, to me, is inexcusable.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O'BRIEN: The chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Pat Roberts, says mistakes were made all the way up the chain and they'll go wherever the investigation leads them.
CNN White House correspondent Dana Bash joins us from the front lawn this morning -- good morning to you, Dana.
DANA BASH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Soledad.
Well, the White House says that Senator Durbin's claim that they were, anybody here that was trying to pressure the CIA to get this sentence is -- in the speech is outrageous and that is nonsense. That's what Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, said yesterday. But this whole thing came about, Senator Durbin made his remarks after a closed door Senate Intelligence hearing on Wednesday, where they were trying to get to the bottom of just how this information got into the address.
And what was discussed, according to several sources there, was that a White House official who worked to vet the line in question was somebody, a National Security Council official, Robert Joseph. The sources say that at that closed hearing, the CIA analyst Alan Foley named Joseph as the individual he talked to about the situation, about the controversial allegation, about Iraq's alleged attempts to buy uranium from Africa.
Foley, according to these sources, initially objected, but when Joseph attributed the charge to the British government, he agreed it was technically correct and that the British had made the charge. He then signed off on those now famous 16 words, but never brought this line to the attention of CIA Director George Tenet. Now, the White House says that some of these accusations and the claims about the back and forth between Foley and Joseph are not exactly accurate. Senator Pat Roberts, as you mentioned, Soledad, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, says he, too, wants to get to the bottom of this and he very well may call some of these White House officials to testify before Congress, to ask them for their account, and he said it would be very unusual for them to go, but he says he thinks that they might go -- Soledad.
O'BRIEN: CNN's Dana Bash for us at the White House this morning.
Dana, thanks for that.
We've been talking all morning about Prime Minister Blair's appearance in Washington, D.C. And some of what he and what the president said was pretty clear. But what about the not so obvious messages?
Here is our senior analyst, Jeff Greenfield -- good morning.
Nice to see you.
JEFF GREENFIELD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good morning.
O'BRIEN: Let's start by talking about the similarities between the two speeches.
GREENFIELD: OK, I think in essence both Blair and Bush struck the same key thing, keep your eye on the bigger picture. This debate over the one assertion about Saddam Hussein and the uranium from Africa, they argued, that pales in comparison to the nature of his regime and to the broader threat that the U.N. had recognized for 12 years.
Blair put it most simply when he said, look, if there weren't any weapons of mass destruction, OK, we'll be forgiven for that, because we ended his reign. If there were -- and he still thinks there were -- and we hadn't acted, we wouldn't be forgiven.
Bush deflected it. He was asked at the press conference, "Do you take responsibility for the words in your speech?," and what he said was, "I take responsibility for dealing with the threat of Saddam Hussein." I think that shows they were exactly on the same message.
O'BRIEN: How about where they were sort of giving different messages?
GREENFIELD: Well, I think Tony Blair was talking to two audiences, the American Congress and people -- but for him, more important, a skeptical British audience, including members of his own Labor Party, who are increasingly unhappy. So part of Blair's talk was to gently remind Americans of European concerns about the environment, about the Middle East and on American unilateralism. Blair placed a lot of emphasis on the need for the United States to stand with Europe.
Here's part of what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TONY BLAIR, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: Be a serious partner. Europe must take on and defeat the anti-Americanism that sometimes passes for its political discourse and what America must do is show that this is a partnership built on persuasion, not command.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GREENFIELD: Persuasion, you know, as the key, because the Europeans are worried about us as a superpower. So in that sense they were not saying the same thing.
O'BRIEN: Do they help each other or do they sort of net out hurt each other?
GREENFIELD: I think that it's a highly unequal situation. Remember, Blair is under the charge back home that he's been a poodle, a lap dog -- choose your canine reference -- for the United States. So when Blair comes to the United States and praises Bush, I'm not so sure that's likely to help him back home.
By contrast, Prime Minister Blair, I believe, helps Bush because he's from a very different political tradition. He's the Labor Party leader. He's a liberal, much more like Clinton than Bush in his domestic politics, clearly, not a conservative Republican. And however Blair is seen back in Britain, as a slick Tony, he has staked his political future on this very strong stand with the United States.
Listen to what, for me at least, was the most eloquent part of his speech.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BLAIR: And I know it's hard on America. I know out there there's a guy getting on with his life perfectly happily, minding his own business, saying to you, the political leaders of this country, why me and why us and why America? And the only answer is because destiny put you in this place in history in this moment in time and the task is yours to do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GREENFIELD: Now, that's a lot like what Winston Churchill used to say during WWII when he came to the United States, and it's very hard for me, Soledad, to imagine anything that President Bush could say to the Brits or the Europeans that would be as welcome there as the words Blair spoke were welcomed here.
He got a tremendous reaction from the Congress because of that.
O'BRIEN: So unity is critical for the prime minister. But is unity between those two men as critical for President Bush?
GREENFIELD: I don't think so, because I think what Blair has done is to take a very high political risk by putting Britain with the United States. The Labor Party, which is still a left party, is much more skeptical about America. For Bush, I think the very fact that we're the superpower makes it slightly less relevant. It helps Bush broaden his argument when a liberal left politician from Great Britain says I'm with a president on this.
O'BRIEN: Oh, no question about that.
Jeff Greenfield, nice to see you.
Thanks, as always.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
16 Disputed Words About Iraq's Nuclear Ambitions in State of the United>
