Return to Transcripts main page

Live From...

Interview With Tom Friedman

Aired June 03, 2003 - 15:13   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.


(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: This is the beginning of a process where all of us must not allow the few to destroy the hopes of the many. May god bless our work.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JUDY WOODRUFF, CNN ANCHOR: With me now to talk about President Bush's peace mission to the Middle East, Tom Friedman of "The New York Times".

There have been so many attempts before to find peace in this deeply troubled region. What's different, if anything, about this one?

TOM FRIEDMAN, "THE NEW YORK TIMES": Well, what's different from the last two years, Judy, are several things. First of all, we have an American administration that's committed to pushing this process forward. And a lot of that is the result of the war in Iraq and the need for the United States, I think, to prove that it's committed to a better Middle East all around.

Secondly, we have a new Palestinian leader we're negotiating with. Yasser Arafat has really been shunted aside for the time being. We have a new Palestinian prime minister, who, most importantly, the Israelis are ready to deal with.

And lastly, we have an Israeli government that is ready, I think, at this stage to take a little different approach to these negotiations. For two years, Ariel Sharon kind of took the approach of, you Palestinians do these six different things and when you do them I'll think about doing something else. That's because he was dealing with Yasser Arafat.

Now that Sharon has a different Palestinian interlocutor, Mahmoud Abbas, the new prime minister, Sharon is taking the attitude of, what three things do I need to do for you to help you? And here are the three things I need you to do for me. When you move from the old way to that way, it is a cause for at least cautious optimism.

WOODRUFF: All right. Those are the different ingredients on the ground there. You also have an American president who now, at this point in his administration, after the war in Iraq, appears to be ready to be engaged. You've described it as a full-time job monitoring what's going on. And yet, we read there are reports that this president doesn't particularly want to get into the nitty-gritty of negotiations and the process itself.

FRIEDMAN: Well, I don't think he has to be in there necessarily like President Clinton saying, this hill and -- you've got to trade this hill for this settlement or whatever. But I do think that the president has got to be in there pushing on the phone every day, making clear that this matters to him. Because without that there is a tendency of the parties to go back to their old ways.

At the same time, in destroying the regime of Saddam Hussein, the United States has removed from Israel the biggest threat on its eastern front. And that's also created a much more comfortable context for the Israelis, I think, to move ahead, as well. Time will tell, as the cliche goes, but there's room for some cautious optimism here.

WOODRUFF: So are you persuaded, Tom Friedman, that the president is now ready to expend the kind of energy and effort that you just described is going to be necessary?

FRIEDMAN: Well, I don't think he has a choice, Judy, because I think that we're not going to be able to succeed in Iraq unless we can create a wider context in the Middle East to make a new Iraq receptive. And I think that depends...

WOODRUFF: So this is connected very much to Iraq?

FRIEDMAN: This is connected, and I think it's connected to George Bush's re-election, to put it so bluntly. That is, I think that, unless we build a better Iraq and partnership with Iraqis -- and part of that will require creating a different context in the Middle East -- I think this will be a political problem for George Bush in another year and a half. So this is -- this isn't just altruism; it isn't just strategy. There's also, I think, a political element here that is working for his energetic involvement instead of against it.

WOODRUFF: In a way, you're saying he has no choice.

FRIEDMAN: Exactly. I fundamentally believe that.

WOODRUFF: To Iraq very quickly, the search for weapons of mass destruction. The president says they have been found, referring to these two mobile labs. Others say, but, wait a minute, you promised much more than that. How much of a problem is that for the administration in terms of its credibility worldwide?

FRIEDMAN: Well, you know, clearly, credibility is the issue. And why -- just to give you an example going forward, Iran now. We're suggesting Iran may have weapons of mass destruction.

Well, unless the president can prove that he was right about his intelligence on Iraq, why should anyone believe it on Iran? Now I, as a columnist, have taken a different view. I happen to believe that buried skulls, buried mass graves are much more important than buried WMD. But that's Tom Friedman's war.

George Bush fought a different war. He fought his war on the basis of weapons of mass destruction, which he told us with great specificity were an immediate threat to the United States of America. If that proves not to be true, and it proves not to be true either because we were deliberately misled or the intelligence was cooked, that is something that will undermine his credibility and American credibility, and, therefore, American national security as we wrestle with all these other problems, like Iran, like North Korea.

WOODRUFF: And quickly, is there a timetable on how long the administration has to find that out?

FRIEDMAN: No. I think that, you know, certainly weeks, months, whatever. But, at the same time, there is a real question. There's something missing in this story, very simply, Judy, which is, if Saddam didn't have these weapons of mass destruction, what in the world was he doing?

He had a nice corrupt little kingdom going. Why in the world would he have behaved the way he did and basically thrown it all away for nothing? So maybe we'll still find something.

WOODRUFF: Tom Friedman, columnist for "The New York Times". It's always great to read you and it's great to see you.

FRIEDMAN: Yes, a pleasure. Thanks, Judy.

WOODRUFF: Thanks for coming by. We appreciate it.

FRIEDMAN: My pleasure.

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 3, 2003 - 15:13   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: This is the beginning of a process where all of us must not allow the few to destroy the hopes of the many. May god bless our work.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JUDY WOODRUFF, CNN ANCHOR: With me now to talk about President Bush's peace mission to the Middle East, Tom Friedman of "The New York Times".

There have been so many attempts before to find peace in this deeply troubled region. What's different, if anything, about this one?

TOM FRIEDMAN, "THE NEW YORK TIMES": Well, what's different from the last two years, Judy, are several things. First of all, we have an American administration that's committed to pushing this process forward. And a lot of that is the result of the war in Iraq and the need for the United States, I think, to prove that it's committed to a better Middle East all around.

Secondly, we have a new Palestinian leader we're negotiating with. Yasser Arafat has really been shunted aside for the time being. We have a new Palestinian prime minister, who, most importantly, the Israelis are ready to deal with.

And lastly, we have an Israeli government that is ready, I think, at this stage to take a little different approach to these negotiations. For two years, Ariel Sharon kind of took the approach of, you Palestinians do these six different things and when you do them I'll think about doing something else. That's because he was dealing with Yasser Arafat.

Now that Sharon has a different Palestinian interlocutor, Mahmoud Abbas, the new prime minister, Sharon is taking the attitude of, what three things do I need to do for you to help you? And here are the three things I need you to do for me. When you move from the old way to that way, it is a cause for at least cautious optimism.

WOODRUFF: All right. Those are the different ingredients on the ground there. You also have an American president who now, at this point in his administration, after the war in Iraq, appears to be ready to be engaged. You've described it as a full-time job monitoring what's going on. And yet, we read there are reports that this president doesn't particularly want to get into the nitty-gritty of negotiations and the process itself.

FRIEDMAN: Well, I don't think he has to be in there necessarily like President Clinton saying, this hill and -- you've got to trade this hill for this settlement or whatever. But I do think that the president has got to be in there pushing on the phone every day, making clear that this matters to him. Because without that there is a tendency of the parties to go back to their old ways.

At the same time, in destroying the regime of Saddam Hussein, the United States has removed from Israel the biggest threat on its eastern front. And that's also created a much more comfortable context for the Israelis, I think, to move ahead, as well. Time will tell, as the cliche goes, but there's room for some cautious optimism here.

WOODRUFF: So are you persuaded, Tom Friedman, that the president is now ready to expend the kind of energy and effort that you just described is going to be necessary?

FRIEDMAN: Well, I don't think he has a choice, Judy, because I think that we're not going to be able to succeed in Iraq unless we can create a wider context in the Middle East to make a new Iraq receptive. And I think that depends...

WOODRUFF: So this is connected very much to Iraq?

FRIEDMAN: This is connected, and I think it's connected to George Bush's re-election, to put it so bluntly. That is, I think that, unless we build a better Iraq and partnership with Iraqis -- and part of that will require creating a different context in the Middle East -- I think this will be a political problem for George Bush in another year and a half. So this is -- this isn't just altruism; it isn't just strategy. There's also, I think, a political element here that is working for his energetic involvement instead of against it.

WOODRUFF: In a way, you're saying he has no choice.

FRIEDMAN: Exactly. I fundamentally believe that.

WOODRUFF: To Iraq very quickly, the search for weapons of mass destruction. The president says they have been found, referring to these two mobile labs. Others say, but, wait a minute, you promised much more than that. How much of a problem is that for the administration in terms of its credibility worldwide?

FRIEDMAN: Well, you know, clearly, credibility is the issue. And why -- just to give you an example going forward, Iran now. We're suggesting Iran may have weapons of mass destruction.

Well, unless the president can prove that he was right about his intelligence on Iraq, why should anyone believe it on Iran? Now I, as a columnist, have taken a different view. I happen to believe that buried skulls, buried mass graves are much more important than buried WMD. But that's Tom Friedman's war.

George Bush fought a different war. He fought his war on the basis of weapons of mass destruction, which he told us with great specificity were an immediate threat to the United States of America. If that proves not to be true, and it proves not to be true either because we were deliberately misled or the intelligence was cooked, that is something that will undermine his credibility and American credibility, and, therefore, American national security as we wrestle with all these other problems, like Iran, like North Korea.

WOODRUFF: And quickly, is there a timetable on how long the administration has to find that out?

FRIEDMAN: No. I think that, you know, certainly weeks, months, whatever. But, at the same time, there is a real question. There's something missing in this story, very simply, Judy, which is, if Saddam didn't have these weapons of mass destruction, what in the world was he doing?

He had a nice corrupt little kingdom going. Why in the world would he have behaved the way he did and basically thrown it all away for nothing? So maybe we'll still find something.

WOODRUFF: Tom Friedman, columnist for "The New York Times". It's always great to read you and it's great to see you.

FRIEDMAN: Yes, a pleasure. Thanks, Judy.

WOODRUFF: Thanks for coming by. We appreciate it.

FRIEDMAN: My pleasure.

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