Return to Transcripts main page

Live From...

Pressure Building on White House to Explain How Discredited Information Made it Into State of the Union Speech

Aired July 11, 2003 - 13:31   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.


MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: The pressure appears to be building on the Bush administration to further explain how did now-discredited information make it into President Bush's State of the Union Speech this year. The administration has now backed away from their claim, at the time, that Iraq was seeking uranium from the country of Niger for use in its weapons program.
Now today, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice told reporters the speech had been -- we quote her now -- "cleared in its entirety by the CIA," her words.

Democrats, especially those running for president, are pressing the White House over the issue. And with us to discuss all the finger pointing this is Daniel Benjamin, a former national security adviser in the Clinton administration as well as a former journalist.. He joins us now from Washington. Good to have you with us, Daniel.

DANIEL BENJAMIN, CTR. FOR STRATEGIC & INTERNATIONAL STUDIES: Thanks for having me.

O'BRIEN: I suppose there's two possibilities, incompetence or insincerity. Neither a good avenue to go down. But let's talk about incompetence first. How could something like this mistakenly end up in such an important speech?

BENJAMIN: Well, it's a very good question, particularly because the quality of that information seems to have been much discussed well before the speech. It's been reported that the CIA asked British intelligence to remove references to the supposed Niger purchase of uranium in its documents. It was supposedly also discussed that there were doubts about this in the national intelligence estimate about Iraq.

At a minimum, it was mentioned, and then it was noted there were doubts. So, clearly this was information that was by no means certain and it's strange it got into the speech despite that.

O'BRIEN: Let's talk about this particular speech for just a moment and remind people what we're talking about. We're not talking about a stump speech on the campaign. We're talking about a State of the Union address. The bar is a little bit higher, isn't it?

BENJAMIN: The bar is as high as it could be.

Remember, first of all, the president's word is the coin of the realm. It's as valuable a tool as he has. And the State of the Union is mandated by the Constitution. It's, I believe, unique in that regard. And the numbers of people involved in putting it together, the level of scrutiny is quite extraordinary. And you would have imagined every single phrase would have been scrubbed many, times.

O'BRIEN: So what's your best guess as to the scenario which led to that little nugget being in that speech?

BENJAMIN: I'm not sure I have a best guess right now. And I think that there will probably be plenty of blame to go around.

Right now senior CIA officials are blaming the White House saying that they knew how doubtful that information was while Condoleezza Rice is saying the CIA cleared the speech.

Well, again, this information -- doubts have been cast on this information for some time. And it's very questionable when anything like that would make it into a speech like that. It's bad because it was part of discussion with the country about going to war. But it's equally bad because you never want to expose the president to the possibility of this kind of embarrassment.

O'BRIEN: Let's talk about marching forward here. First of all, what should the administration do? Should the president perhaps apologize for what is now acknowledged to be a misstatement, whatever the reason for the misstatement?

BENJAMIN: I'm not sure that an apology is what is specifically called for. I think that Americans probably want to know not that it was wrong that went into the speech. That's clear to everyone. But why it went into the speech. And what does this say about the rest of the information the administration put forward to make its case for the war in Iraq?

This does not by itself make any of the other information false, but it is important to know whether or not there was an atmosphere in which everyone was going to trying to press the envelope and try to use information that was of questionable quality. I think that needs to be aired. That is really the question of the moment.

O'BRIEN: What about a formal inquiry? Should this be aired to the extent that is possible, given the fact this is an area involving intelligence and security clearances? But should this be aired in public somewhat?

BENJAMIN: Well, it's already been aired in public. And it doesn't seem to me that the intelligence equities, that the questions of sources and methods, are very much engaged here. This goes to the question of why people would want such a piece of information if it was dubious in the speech? Or why senior leadership at the CIA signed off on it? Whether there was an organizational glitch, which would be quite remarkable, given how many people looked at that and considered it. Or whether, in fact this was all about making the case for war, and trying to use every arrow in the quiver.

O'BRIEN: Daniel Benjamin, with the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Thanks very much. BENJAMIN: 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





Discredited Information Made it Into State of the Union Speech>


Aired July 11, 2003 - 13:31   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: The pressure appears to be building on the Bush administration to further explain how did now-discredited information make it into President Bush's State of the Union Speech this year. The administration has now backed away from their claim, at the time, that Iraq was seeking uranium from the country of Niger for use in its weapons program.
Now today, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice told reporters the speech had been -- we quote her now -- "cleared in its entirety by the CIA," her words.

Democrats, especially those running for president, are pressing the White House over the issue. And with us to discuss all the finger pointing this is Daniel Benjamin, a former national security adviser in the Clinton administration as well as a former journalist.. He joins us now from Washington. Good to have you with us, Daniel.

DANIEL BENJAMIN, CTR. FOR STRATEGIC & INTERNATIONAL STUDIES: Thanks for having me.

O'BRIEN: I suppose there's two possibilities, incompetence or insincerity. Neither a good avenue to go down. But let's talk about incompetence first. How could something like this mistakenly end up in such an important speech?

BENJAMIN: Well, it's a very good question, particularly because the quality of that information seems to have been much discussed well before the speech. It's been reported that the CIA asked British intelligence to remove references to the supposed Niger purchase of uranium in its documents. It was supposedly also discussed that there were doubts about this in the national intelligence estimate about Iraq.

At a minimum, it was mentioned, and then it was noted there were doubts. So, clearly this was information that was by no means certain and it's strange it got into the speech despite that.

O'BRIEN: Let's talk about this particular speech for just a moment and remind people what we're talking about. We're not talking about a stump speech on the campaign. We're talking about a State of the Union address. The bar is a little bit higher, isn't it?

BENJAMIN: The bar is as high as it could be.

Remember, first of all, the president's word is the coin of the realm. It's as valuable a tool as he has. And the State of the Union is mandated by the Constitution. It's, I believe, unique in that regard. And the numbers of people involved in putting it together, the level of scrutiny is quite extraordinary. And you would have imagined every single phrase would have been scrubbed many, times.

O'BRIEN: So what's your best guess as to the scenario which led to that little nugget being in that speech?

BENJAMIN: I'm not sure I have a best guess right now. And I think that there will probably be plenty of blame to go around.

Right now senior CIA officials are blaming the White House saying that they knew how doubtful that information was while Condoleezza Rice is saying the CIA cleared the speech.

Well, again, this information -- doubts have been cast on this information for some time. And it's very questionable when anything like that would make it into a speech like that. It's bad because it was part of discussion with the country about going to war. But it's equally bad because you never want to expose the president to the possibility of this kind of embarrassment.

O'BRIEN: Let's talk about marching forward here. First of all, what should the administration do? Should the president perhaps apologize for what is now acknowledged to be a misstatement, whatever the reason for the misstatement?

BENJAMIN: I'm not sure that an apology is what is specifically called for. I think that Americans probably want to know not that it was wrong that went into the speech. That's clear to everyone. But why it went into the speech. And what does this say about the rest of the information the administration put forward to make its case for the war in Iraq?

This does not by itself make any of the other information false, but it is important to know whether or not there was an atmosphere in which everyone was going to trying to press the envelope and try to use information that was of questionable quality. I think that needs to be aired. That is really the question of the moment.

O'BRIEN: What about a formal inquiry? Should this be aired to the extent that is possible, given the fact this is an area involving intelligence and security clearances? But should this be aired in public somewhat?

BENJAMIN: Well, it's already been aired in public. And it doesn't seem to me that the intelligence equities, that the questions of sources and methods, are very much engaged here. This goes to the question of why people would want such a piece of information if it was dubious in the speech? Or why senior leadership at the CIA signed off on it? Whether there was an organizational glitch, which would be quite remarkable, given how many people looked at that and considered it. Or whether, in fact this was all about making the case for war, and trying to use every arrow in the quiver.

O'BRIEN: Daniel Benjamin, with the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Thanks very much. BENJAMIN: 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





Discredited Information Made it Into State of the Union Speech>