Return to Transcripts main page
American Morning
Interview With Cliff May, Jennifer Palmieri
Aired October 21, 2002 - 07:45 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.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: They are both part of what President Bush calls the axis of evil, but while the U.S. is poised for a potential or possibility of attack against Iraq, the White House is sounding diplomatic since North Korea admitted that it's been developing nuclear weapons.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CONDOLEEZZA RICE, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR: This is a big deal, because North Korea has, in effect, told us that a political arrangement between the United States, North Korea and several other parties has been nullified. They are the ones who have blown a hole in this political arrangement.
It is a matter that we believe that we have some leverage to be able to achieve a diplomatic solution to it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ZAHN: So, is the administration being inconsistent here, and if so, why?
Joining us now from Washington, Cliff May, from the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, and Jennifer Palmieri, press secretary of the Democratic National Committee.
Welcome to you both.
CLIFF MAY, FOUNDATION FOR THE DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACIES: Good morning.
JENNIFER PALMIERI, DNC PRESS SECRETARY: Good morning.
ZAHN: All right, Cliff, I'm going to start with you this morning. You have folks like Senator Graham saying that North Korea, he thinks at this point, represents a bigger threat than Iraq. Why talk of a diplomatic solution with Iraq and threats of military action against Iraq? Did I just say North Korea? I meant North Korea first, and then Iraq. You knew what I meant, right?
MAY: I know what you mean. Look, it is very important in what you heard yesterday from Condoleezza Rice and Secretary Powell that they did not rule out the use of military force against North Korea.
On the other hand, all diplomatic means have not yet been exhausted. For example, where Iraq is concerned, we've had sanctions for more than a decade. Where North Korea is concerned, North Korea is actually the largest aid recipient from the United States in all of East Asia. We give -- we have given them $6 billion. We give them food aid, fuel (ph), we promised to build two nuclear reactors.
So, there is -- and this is a nation, unlike Iraq, North Korea that's on the verge of economic collapse. And what we need to be saying to North Korea is, if you want to get any of these benefits from economic aid and cooperation, you know what you have to do. We will stop all of that and the possibility of military action is behind it if you do not cooperate with us. In other words, you still...
(CROSSTALK)
ZAHN: But, Cliff, there are people out there saying North Korea is systematically starving its own people. And to hold this whole, you know, threat card of the economy over the United States is ridiculous.
MAY: There is no question they are starving their own people, and many people may, in fact, starve. And it's going to be very difficult, because if we cut off food aid, a lot more will starve, or it will be left to China or Japan or South Korea to decide whether or not to feed those folks.
But the fact if they are on the verge of economic collapse means we can try to see if Kim Jung Il, the dictator, the homicidal dictator of North Korea, may be willing to be rational and save some of his people.
Look, it would be better for the people of North Korea if we secured regime change there tomorrow. Nonetheless, that may not be in the best interest of the United States or the people of South Korea, because although the people of North Korea are starving, they have 11,000 long-range artillery pieces pointed at Seoul right now.
So, let's play out the cards carefully, and let's also show...
ZAHN: All right.
MAY: ... the North Korean regime that we are willing to use force when necessary. They haven't believed that up until now.
ZAHN: As this plays out, Jennifer, what do you think is in the best interest of the United States?
PALMIERI: Well, I would say that for the botched (ph) phrase for this past week is, welcome to the NFL (ph), Mr. President, the world is a little more complicated than it seems.
I mean, it's clear that North Korea poses as big of a threat and as dangerous, as immediate, as Iraq does, if not more so. But I think that the administration is right to not employ the type of unilateralist and moral absolutist rhetoric with regard to North Korea, as they did with Iraq. I think they've realized that type of rhetoric ultimately is reckless and short-sighted.
And the ironic thing is that after all of the call for the administration that they didn't need a congressional resolution to go to war with Iraq, that they don't need allied support, they don't necessarily need the U.N. support, in the end, I think that the administration -- you know, we are pursuing all of these diplomatic avenues with regard to Iraq and with regard to North Korea, and that's the right thing to do. It's just too bad that they didn't start out that way.
ZAHN: Cliff, do you think Congress should have known about this nuclear weapons program of North Korea before they voted on this congressional resolution on Iraq?
MAY: This was no great surprise. As you know and as you said just a couple of minutes ago, we had the axis of evil, three nations: Iraq, North Korea and Iran.
(CROSSTALK)
ZAHN: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) supposed to mind read here, Cliff?
MAY: No, no. What makes -- what puts you in the axis of evil? We discussed this on this program. One, is you have a homicidal dictator running the country. Two, is you're developing weapons of mass destruction. Three, is you're conspiring with terrorists.
The fact of the matter is, because we now have proof and they've admitted it, although plenty of people knew this a long time ago, that only makes the case more strongly that we need to take action where Iraq is concerned.
If Jennifer wants to say that members of Congress...
(CROSSTALK)
MAY: No, what...
ZAHN: You didn't answer the question.
MAY: Yes.
ZAHN: You said that everybody should have known that, but would it have made a difference when it came to voting on the congressional resolution?
MAY: I think -- I would hope that more...
(CROSSTALK)
MAY: I would hope that more Democrats would have voted for the resolution, because it's...
PALMIERI: Oh, that is absurd. It is unconscionable...
MAY: OK, you tell me...
PALMIERI: It's unconscionable that the administration suppressed this information. MAY: Oh, interesting.
PALMIERI: The United States Congress is debating a resolution to go to war...
MAY: Let's...
ZAHN: Hang on, Cliff.
PALMIERI: ... with Iraq on either because this is a rogue nation that possesses weapons of mass destruction. The administration meanwhile knew that another rogue nation, another one-third of the axis of evil, was facing a similar situation, and they didn't tell Congress?
MAY: OK.
PALMIERI: And let's keep in mind...
MAY: Jennifer...
PALMIERI: And let's keep in mind that the only reason we know about North Korea now is because the information was getting ready to be leaked by news organizations, so the administration...
MAY: Jennifer, you...
PALMIERI: ... thought they needed to get ahead of it.
MAY: Jennifer, give me...
PALMIERI: Bad news doesn't get better with time.
MAY: Jennifer -- Jennifer...
PALMIERI: They absolutely should have told Congress. It's unconscionable.
MAY: Jennifer, you're...
ZAHN: All right, Cliff...
MAY: Jennifer...
ZAHN: ... you get 10 seconds, and we've got to go.
MAY: Jennifer, you've been taking cheap shots...
PALMIERI: Cheap shots!
MAY: ... from the beginning of this thing at President Bush's administration.
(CROSSTALK)
MAY: Let me -- let's make some news in this program. Tell me which members of the Democratic Caucus in the House and Senate would have a different vote if they could right now, which by the way they can.
PALMIERI: The point is -- the point is...
MAY: Tell me, name them, which ones.
(CROSSTALK)
PALMIERI: ... relevant information that the Congress should have absolutely known about.
MAY: It would have...
PALMIERI: And you know, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) administration...
MAY: It wasn't withheld. If they had told right away without going to the Japanese and the South Koreans, you would have accused them...
(CROSSTALK)
PALMIERI: ... losing its credibility on foreign policy with the Congress. That really hurts that they didn't tell them
MAY: Jennifer, you would have accused them of unilateralism if they had before had gone to the Japanese...
ZAHN: Jennifer...
PALMIEIR: Yes, ma'am.
ZAHN: ... would Senator Wellstone's vote had changed?
PALMIERI: That, I don't -- well, I don't think that it would have.
MAY: Whose vote would have changed, Jennifer? Name one.
PALMIERI: But the point is, is that these are -- look, the point isn't that whether or not the votes would change. The point is that this is relevant information that the United States Congress had a constitutional duty...
MAY: They were...
PALMIERI: ... responsibility and privilege to know.
MAY: They were briefing members -- they were briefing...
ZAHN: All right, you two, unfortunately, we've got to leave it there.
MAY: You would have said...
PALMIERI: OK, thank you, Paula. ZAHN: We've got to bring you guys back at another time.
MAY: Thank you.
ZAHN: Because we've got other stuff we've got to cover.
(CROSSTALK)
ZAHN: Thank you, both. Jennifer Palmieri, Cliff May. Glad to have both of you with us.
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 October 21, 2002 - 07:45 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: They are both part of what President Bush calls the axis of evil, but while the U.S. is poised for a potential or possibility of attack against Iraq, the White House is sounding diplomatic since North Korea admitted that it's been developing nuclear weapons.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CONDOLEEZZA RICE, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR: This is a big deal, because North Korea has, in effect, told us that a political arrangement between the United States, North Korea and several other parties has been nullified. They are the ones who have blown a hole in this political arrangement.
It is a matter that we believe that we have some leverage to be able to achieve a diplomatic solution to it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ZAHN: So, is the administration being inconsistent here, and if so, why?
Joining us now from Washington, Cliff May, from the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, and Jennifer Palmieri, press secretary of the Democratic National Committee.
Welcome to you both.
CLIFF MAY, FOUNDATION FOR THE DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACIES: Good morning.
JENNIFER PALMIERI, DNC PRESS SECRETARY: Good morning.
ZAHN: All right, Cliff, I'm going to start with you this morning. You have folks like Senator Graham saying that North Korea, he thinks at this point, represents a bigger threat than Iraq. Why talk of a diplomatic solution with Iraq and threats of military action against Iraq? Did I just say North Korea? I meant North Korea first, and then Iraq. You knew what I meant, right?
MAY: I know what you mean. Look, it is very important in what you heard yesterday from Condoleezza Rice and Secretary Powell that they did not rule out the use of military force against North Korea.
On the other hand, all diplomatic means have not yet been exhausted. For example, where Iraq is concerned, we've had sanctions for more than a decade. Where North Korea is concerned, North Korea is actually the largest aid recipient from the United States in all of East Asia. We give -- we have given them $6 billion. We give them food aid, fuel (ph), we promised to build two nuclear reactors.
So, there is -- and this is a nation, unlike Iraq, North Korea that's on the verge of economic collapse. And what we need to be saying to North Korea is, if you want to get any of these benefits from economic aid and cooperation, you know what you have to do. We will stop all of that and the possibility of military action is behind it if you do not cooperate with us. In other words, you still...
(CROSSTALK)
ZAHN: But, Cliff, there are people out there saying North Korea is systematically starving its own people. And to hold this whole, you know, threat card of the economy over the United States is ridiculous.
MAY: There is no question they are starving their own people, and many people may, in fact, starve. And it's going to be very difficult, because if we cut off food aid, a lot more will starve, or it will be left to China or Japan or South Korea to decide whether or not to feed those folks.
But the fact if they are on the verge of economic collapse means we can try to see if Kim Jung Il, the dictator, the homicidal dictator of North Korea, may be willing to be rational and save some of his people.
Look, it would be better for the people of North Korea if we secured regime change there tomorrow. Nonetheless, that may not be in the best interest of the United States or the people of South Korea, because although the people of North Korea are starving, they have 11,000 long-range artillery pieces pointed at Seoul right now.
So, let's play out the cards carefully, and let's also show...
ZAHN: All right.
MAY: ... the North Korean regime that we are willing to use force when necessary. They haven't believed that up until now.
ZAHN: As this plays out, Jennifer, what do you think is in the best interest of the United States?
PALMIERI: Well, I would say that for the botched (ph) phrase for this past week is, welcome to the NFL (ph), Mr. President, the world is a little more complicated than it seems.
I mean, it's clear that North Korea poses as big of a threat and as dangerous, as immediate, as Iraq does, if not more so. But I think that the administration is right to not employ the type of unilateralist and moral absolutist rhetoric with regard to North Korea, as they did with Iraq. I think they've realized that type of rhetoric ultimately is reckless and short-sighted.
And the ironic thing is that after all of the call for the administration that they didn't need a congressional resolution to go to war with Iraq, that they don't need allied support, they don't necessarily need the U.N. support, in the end, I think that the administration -- you know, we are pursuing all of these diplomatic avenues with regard to Iraq and with regard to North Korea, and that's the right thing to do. It's just too bad that they didn't start out that way.
ZAHN: Cliff, do you think Congress should have known about this nuclear weapons program of North Korea before they voted on this congressional resolution on Iraq?
MAY: This was no great surprise. As you know and as you said just a couple of minutes ago, we had the axis of evil, three nations: Iraq, North Korea and Iran.
(CROSSTALK)
ZAHN: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) supposed to mind read here, Cliff?
MAY: No, no. What makes -- what puts you in the axis of evil? We discussed this on this program. One, is you have a homicidal dictator running the country. Two, is you're developing weapons of mass destruction. Three, is you're conspiring with terrorists.
The fact of the matter is, because we now have proof and they've admitted it, although plenty of people knew this a long time ago, that only makes the case more strongly that we need to take action where Iraq is concerned.
If Jennifer wants to say that members of Congress...
(CROSSTALK)
MAY: No, what...
ZAHN: You didn't answer the question.
MAY: Yes.
ZAHN: You said that everybody should have known that, but would it have made a difference when it came to voting on the congressional resolution?
MAY: I think -- I would hope that more...
(CROSSTALK)
MAY: I would hope that more Democrats would have voted for the resolution, because it's...
PALMIERI: Oh, that is absurd. It is unconscionable...
MAY: OK, you tell me...
PALMIERI: It's unconscionable that the administration suppressed this information. MAY: Oh, interesting.
PALMIERI: The United States Congress is debating a resolution to go to war...
MAY: Let's...
ZAHN: Hang on, Cliff.
PALMIERI: ... with Iraq on either because this is a rogue nation that possesses weapons of mass destruction. The administration meanwhile knew that another rogue nation, another one-third of the axis of evil, was facing a similar situation, and they didn't tell Congress?
MAY: OK.
PALMIERI: And let's keep in mind...
MAY: Jennifer...
PALMIERI: And let's keep in mind that the only reason we know about North Korea now is because the information was getting ready to be leaked by news organizations, so the administration...
MAY: Jennifer, you...
PALMIERI: ... thought they needed to get ahead of it.
MAY: Jennifer, give me...
PALMIERI: Bad news doesn't get better with time.
MAY: Jennifer -- Jennifer...
PALMIERI: They absolutely should have told Congress. It's unconscionable.
MAY: Jennifer, you're...
ZAHN: All right, Cliff...
MAY: Jennifer...
ZAHN: ... you get 10 seconds, and we've got to go.
MAY: Jennifer, you've been taking cheap shots...
PALMIERI: Cheap shots!
MAY: ... from the beginning of this thing at President Bush's administration.
(CROSSTALK)
MAY: Let me -- let's make some news in this program. Tell me which members of the Democratic Caucus in the House and Senate would have a different vote if they could right now, which by the way they can.
PALMIERI: The point is -- the point is...
MAY: Tell me, name them, which ones.
(CROSSTALK)
PALMIERI: ... relevant information that the Congress should have absolutely known about.
MAY: It would have...
PALMIERI: And you know, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) administration...
MAY: It wasn't withheld. If they had told right away without going to the Japanese and the South Koreans, you would have accused them...
(CROSSTALK)
PALMIERI: ... losing its credibility on foreign policy with the Congress. That really hurts that they didn't tell them
MAY: Jennifer, you would have accused them of unilateralism if they had before had gone to the Japanese...
ZAHN: Jennifer...
PALMIEIR: Yes, ma'am.
ZAHN: ... would Senator Wellstone's vote had changed?
PALMIERI: That, I don't -- well, I don't think that it would have.
MAY: Whose vote would have changed, Jennifer? Name one.
PALMIERI: But the point is, is that these are -- look, the point isn't that whether or not the votes would change. The point is that this is relevant information that the United States Congress had a constitutional duty...
MAY: They were...
PALMIERI: ... responsibility and privilege to know.
MAY: They were briefing members -- they were briefing...
ZAHN: All right, you two, unfortunately, we've got to leave it there.
MAY: You would have said...
PALMIERI: OK, thank you, Paula. ZAHN: We've got to bring you guys back at another time.
MAY: Thank you.
ZAHN: Because we've got other stuff we've got to cover.
(CROSSTALK)
ZAHN: Thank you, both. Jennifer Palmieri, Cliff May. Glad to have both of you with us.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com.
