Return to Transcripts main page
Live From...
Analysis of Bush Speech
Aired February 11, 2004 - 15:05 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: David Albright, who is an expert on weapons proliferation matters, has been listening with us.
First of all, it's not news that the Cold War is over and mutually assured destruction is a thing of the past. Perhaps the world has been a little slow to respond to all this?
DAVID ALBRIGHT, INSTITUTE FOR SCIENCE & INTERNATIONAL SECURITY: Well, I think it has.
And I think the president is clearly trying to articulate some new norms that -- or at least some norms that need to be put forward much more aggressively, the idea of countries have got to accept that the new norm is intrusive inspections, as set by this additional protocol he's mentioned, that no more reprocessing enrichment plants, calling for a cap on the means to make the nuclear explosive material.
He supported an UNMOVAR (ph) initiative, that it's important that countries protect their nuclear materials, keep it out of the hands of other countries that want to misuse it, keep it out of the hands of terrorists. And so I think that part of the speech is very good. And it's needed.
The nonproliferation regime, in a certain sense, has been kind of adrift. There's been a lot of divisions among the players, a lot of bad feelings as a result of Iraq. And I think the president is taking steps to try to address some of that. And I really commend him for that, very good idea to extend the PSI initiative, to go after these illicit networks, to bring in law enforcement. And so I think that, on this idea of norms, it's long overdue.
O'BRIEN: Let me ask you this. Watching this from the view of outside the United States, would it have been, perhaps from that perspective, too much to ask for the United States to offer up some sort of unilateral reduction in its own stockpile?
ALBRIGHT: Well, that's the part that's disappointing.
In nonproliferation -- and President Bush is asserting this -- is, certain countries are being asked to give up a lot. And the United States and the other nuclear weapons states are not being asked to give up anything. And I think one of the first criticisms of this speech will be that it's hypocritical, that, again, it's more demands on those in the developing country who are seeking modern technology, i.e. nuclear fuel cycle activities. And the nuclear weapons states, and particularly the United States, want to even build new nuclear weapons potentially. At least that will be the change. And so there is an element of unfairness to this. And I think that balance of countries giving up things, nuclear weapons states also giving up things in terms of nuclear weapons has still not been reestablished.
And I think there's also, there's no new treaties in this. I mean, there's an appreciation for the treaties that exist. And on the Nonproliferation Treaty, there's a good recognition of the loophole in the Nonproliferation Treaty that does need to be fixed. But, on the other hand, treaties do work. And the fact that he's strengthening the Nonproliferation Treaty by trying to plug a loophole shows the value of the Nonproliferation Treaty.
He's strengthening, he's building on it. And I do think that it's disappointing that there isn't some more discussion of treaties. For example, one thing that is clearly missing is, if you're going to ban reprocessing enrichment plants from being constructed, why not get a treaty that's been discussed for decades that bans the production of any nuclear explosive material for nuclear weapons.
That would immediately affect Israel, India, and Pakistan, and also the five nuclear weapons states. But none of that is included in this speech.
O'BRIEN: All right, David Albright, we're going to have to leave it there, as we're running into some other live events that are coming up. Thank you very much for your instant analysis on that. We'll get back to you as time goes on.
And we get a little more perspective on what the president just had to say. John King was listening from his perch at the White House.
That notion that David Albright just brought up, John, that whole notion of whether the U.S. should at least symbolically offer to reduce its own stockpile, obviously doesn't have a lot of traction at the White House right now.
JOHN KING, CNN SR. WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, it does not at the moment.
As David was noting, the United States is trying to negotiate with Russia right now and has a commitment with Russia right now to significantly reduce the number of warheads. In the treaty, it is allowed to keep that nuclear material. Over time, the United States says it probably will not need all of that, but it has not committed to reducing and setting aside its nuclear stockpile, in terms of the nuclear materials capable of being put in nuclear weapons.
So that will be -- one of the charges will be, how is this fair? Why is it that the United States and the other powers get to decide they can have nuclear weapon and we cannot? The president, of course, is saying that, in a post-September 11 world, that that is just -- that is where his focus is, Miles. And he's trying to encourage this debate. He knows, of course, not everything in his speech will be welcome.
O'BRIEN: All right, let's turn the corner a little bit, because while we were listening to this speech, the secretary of state, Colin Powell, was on the Hill testifying before -- I believe it was the House International Relations Committee.
The subject, ostensibly, was the whole notion of intelligence failures and intelligence gaps. But it got into other area, John King. And why don't you walk us through what happened there. It got a little testy.
KING: It got a little testy, Miles.
Earlier today, we were telling our viewers about remarks by the White House press secretary, Scott McClellan, who says that some are interested in what he called gutter politics, in terms of continuing to raise questions about whether the president somehow went AWOL or did not complete his commitment to the National Guard back 30 years ago, during the Vietnam War.
Well, Secretary Powell, as you noted, live on Capitol Hill right now at this hearing, where he thought he would be discussing U.S. foreign policy challenges, including the whole debate over prewar intelligence in Iraq. But Congressman Sherrod Brown, a Democrat of Ohio, wanted to raise the president's National Guard record.
Listen in.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. SHERROD BROWN (D), OHIO: We count on you. The president may have been AWOL. The vice president said he had other priorities during Vietnam. Other high administrative officials never served. You understand war. We absolutely count on you. And I think a lot of us wonder what happened between that post-interview and your statement the next day, when you said the president made the right decision.
COLIN POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE: First of all, Mr. Brown, I won't dignify your comments about the president, because you don't know what you're talking about.
Secondly, let me get to the points that you were raising.
BROWN: I'm sorry. I don't know what you mean, Mr. Secretary.
POWELL: You made reference to the president...
BROWN: Said he may been AWOL.
POWELL: Mr. Brown, let's not go there. Let's just not go there. Let's not go there in this hearing.
If you want to have a political fight with -- on this matter that is very controversial and I think is being dealt with by the White House, fine, but let's not go there.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: Secretary Powell getting a taste, perhaps, of what will be a recurring election-year theme on Capitol Hill, Miles.
At the White House earlier today, prior to this exchange, Press Secretary Scott McClellan saying there were a number of Democrats out there simply -- he said he expected them to throw the garbage can at the White House and at the president in this election year. But, again, he called this gutter politics. He said the president has answered the relevant questions about his National Guard service. But, as you can see, some Democrats aren't done asking -- Miles.
O'BRIEN: I suspect we will be going there quite a bit. The mean season well under way.
John King at the White House, thank you very much.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: David Albright>
Aired February 11, 2004 - 15:05 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: David Albright, who is an expert on weapons proliferation matters, has been listening with us.
First of all, it's not news that the Cold War is over and mutually assured destruction is a thing of the past. Perhaps the world has been a little slow to respond to all this?
DAVID ALBRIGHT, INSTITUTE FOR SCIENCE & INTERNATIONAL SECURITY: Well, I think it has.
And I think the president is clearly trying to articulate some new norms that -- or at least some norms that need to be put forward much more aggressively, the idea of countries have got to accept that the new norm is intrusive inspections, as set by this additional protocol he's mentioned, that no more reprocessing enrichment plants, calling for a cap on the means to make the nuclear explosive material.
He supported an UNMOVAR (ph) initiative, that it's important that countries protect their nuclear materials, keep it out of the hands of other countries that want to misuse it, keep it out of the hands of terrorists. And so I think that part of the speech is very good. And it's needed.
The nonproliferation regime, in a certain sense, has been kind of adrift. There's been a lot of divisions among the players, a lot of bad feelings as a result of Iraq. And I think the president is taking steps to try to address some of that. And I really commend him for that, very good idea to extend the PSI initiative, to go after these illicit networks, to bring in law enforcement. And so I think that, on this idea of norms, it's long overdue.
O'BRIEN: Let me ask you this. Watching this from the view of outside the United States, would it have been, perhaps from that perspective, too much to ask for the United States to offer up some sort of unilateral reduction in its own stockpile?
ALBRIGHT: Well, that's the part that's disappointing.
In nonproliferation -- and President Bush is asserting this -- is, certain countries are being asked to give up a lot. And the United States and the other nuclear weapons states are not being asked to give up anything. And I think one of the first criticisms of this speech will be that it's hypocritical, that, again, it's more demands on those in the developing country who are seeking modern technology, i.e. nuclear fuel cycle activities. And the nuclear weapons states, and particularly the United States, want to even build new nuclear weapons potentially. At least that will be the change. And so there is an element of unfairness to this. And I think that balance of countries giving up things, nuclear weapons states also giving up things in terms of nuclear weapons has still not been reestablished.
And I think there's also, there's no new treaties in this. I mean, there's an appreciation for the treaties that exist. And on the Nonproliferation Treaty, there's a good recognition of the loophole in the Nonproliferation Treaty that does need to be fixed. But, on the other hand, treaties do work. And the fact that he's strengthening the Nonproliferation Treaty by trying to plug a loophole shows the value of the Nonproliferation Treaty.
He's strengthening, he's building on it. And I do think that it's disappointing that there isn't some more discussion of treaties. For example, one thing that is clearly missing is, if you're going to ban reprocessing enrichment plants from being constructed, why not get a treaty that's been discussed for decades that bans the production of any nuclear explosive material for nuclear weapons.
That would immediately affect Israel, India, and Pakistan, and also the five nuclear weapons states. But none of that is included in this speech.
O'BRIEN: All right, David Albright, we're going to have to leave it there, as we're running into some other live events that are coming up. Thank you very much for your instant analysis on that. We'll get back to you as time goes on.
And we get a little more perspective on what the president just had to say. John King was listening from his perch at the White House.
That notion that David Albright just brought up, John, that whole notion of whether the U.S. should at least symbolically offer to reduce its own stockpile, obviously doesn't have a lot of traction at the White House right now.
JOHN KING, CNN SR. WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, it does not at the moment.
As David was noting, the United States is trying to negotiate with Russia right now and has a commitment with Russia right now to significantly reduce the number of warheads. In the treaty, it is allowed to keep that nuclear material. Over time, the United States says it probably will not need all of that, but it has not committed to reducing and setting aside its nuclear stockpile, in terms of the nuclear materials capable of being put in nuclear weapons.
So that will be -- one of the charges will be, how is this fair? Why is it that the United States and the other powers get to decide they can have nuclear weapon and we cannot? The president, of course, is saying that, in a post-September 11 world, that that is just -- that is where his focus is, Miles. And he's trying to encourage this debate. He knows, of course, not everything in his speech will be welcome.
O'BRIEN: All right, let's turn the corner a little bit, because while we were listening to this speech, the secretary of state, Colin Powell, was on the Hill testifying before -- I believe it was the House International Relations Committee.
The subject, ostensibly, was the whole notion of intelligence failures and intelligence gaps. But it got into other area, John King. And why don't you walk us through what happened there. It got a little testy.
KING: It got a little testy, Miles.
Earlier today, we were telling our viewers about remarks by the White House press secretary, Scott McClellan, who says that some are interested in what he called gutter politics, in terms of continuing to raise questions about whether the president somehow went AWOL or did not complete his commitment to the National Guard back 30 years ago, during the Vietnam War.
Well, Secretary Powell, as you noted, live on Capitol Hill right now at this hearing, where he thought he would be discussing U.S. foreign policy challenges, including the whole debate over prewar intelligence in Iraq. But Congressman Sherrod Brown, a Democrat of Ohio, wanted to raise the president's National Guard record.
Listen in.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. SHERROD BROWN (D), OHIO: We count on you. The president may have been AWOL. The vice president said he had other priorities during Vietnam. Other high administrative officials never served. You understand war. We absolutely count on you. And I think a lot of us wonder what happened between that post-interview and your statement the next day, when you said the president made the right decision.
COLIN POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE: First of all, Mr. Brown, I won't dignify your comments about the president, because you don't know what you're talking about.
Secondly, let me get to the points that you were raising.
BROWN: I'm sorry. I don't know what you mean, Mr. Secretary.
POWELL: You made reference to the president...
BROWN: Said he may been AWOL.
POWELL: Mr. Brown, let's not go there. Let's just not go there. Let's not go there in this hearing.
If you want to have a political fight with -- on this matter that is very controversial and I think is being dealt with by the White House, fine, but let's not go there.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: Secretary Powell getting a taste, perhaps, of what will be a recurring election-year theme on Capitol Hill, Miles.
At the White House earlier today, prior to this exchange, Press Secretary Scott McClellan saying there were a number of Democrats out there simply -- he said he expected them to throw the garbage can at the White House and at the president in this election year. But, again, he called this gutter politics. He said the president has answered the relevant questions about his National Guard service. But, as you can see, some Democrats aren't done asking -- Miles.
O'BRIEN: I suspect we will be going there quite a bit. The mean season well under way.
John King at the White House, thank you very much.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: David Albright>
