Return to Transcripts main page
American Morning
Discussion With Senator Carl Levin
Aired June 09, 2003 - 08:10 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.
BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: Two top advisers for the president deny that evidence of banned weapons in Iraq were exaggerated to justify that war. Also yesterday the secretary of state, Colin Powell, called the suggestion "nonsense."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLIN POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE: I think the case is clear, the case has been substantiated over the years. Every nation that voted for Security Council Resolution 1441 voted for a resolution that began with the statement that Iraq was in material breach of its obligations. And so there was nothing bogus about the intelligence.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HEMMER: No weapons of mass destruction so far have been found on the ground in Iraq. But the White House insists they will be found.
Senator Carl Levin is among those calling for an investigation, possibly hearings, on the prewar intelligence. He's the ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee and also serves on the Intelligence Committee.
Senator Levin is our guest this hour live in D.C.
Thanks for coming back on AMERICAN MORNING.
Good morning to you, Senator.
SEN. CARL LEVIN (D-MI), CHAIRMAN, ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: Good morning.
HEMMER: Do you believe this, the information prewar was exaggerated or embellished?
LEVIN: I do think there's evidence that the CIA did shade and embellish this information in a number of areas and that it is significant enough, because of the importance that were placed on weapons of mass destruction and on the alleged connection of Iraq to al Qaeda, that Congress inquire into this in a very bipartisan but in a very thorough way. And both Democrats and Republicans have called for that kind of a thorough investigation.
HEMMER: Take it a step further. How did, in your estimation, the CIA shade this information?
LEVIN: Well, a number of areas. For instance, the area of aluminum tubes. We were told flat out by the vice president that the aluminum tubes were there as part of a nuclear program. But, as a matter of fact, there was significant evidence that the CIA was in possession of that those aluminum tubes were there for some other purpose. There was a dispute within the intelligence community as to whether those aluminum tubes were proper or improper and that was not at all reflected in the administration's position and I assume that the CIA, in talking to the administration, shaded their position on that one.
We had the question of whether uranium was bought from Africa by Iraq. The CIA apparently gave the statement to the president -- because he used it in his State of the Union message -- that that uranium was purchased. As a matter of fact, there was significant evidence that that was bogus.
Even on this most recent issue, which is the vans, the CIA paper that is on their Web site makes a much stronger statement about these vans being used to produce biological weapons when, in fact, apparently, according to the "New York Times" on Saturday, there is a third independent group which was used by the Defense Department to look at these vans which has serious reservations as to whether or not these vans were used for that purpose.
None of those qualifiers, none of those uncertainties are reflected in the CIA statements. Instead, they make it into much more black and white than it really is. And I think that's troubling if it's true because we have to be able to rely on the intelligence information and the assessments given to us by the CIA. The world has to trust in these statements that we make if we're going to successfully lead the world in the war on terrorism.
HEMMER: Senator, let's split some hairs here. Do you believe this argument comes down to whether or not the intelligence was flawed from the beginning or do you believe the intelligence was twisted and distorted in order to fit a particular argument for war?
LEVIN: Well, we're not sure exactly what the -- all of the facts are at this point. All I am confident of is this. There is significant evidence that the intelligence was shaded in order to support a policy, presumably of the administration.
I've had a big issue with the CIA about whether or not they would simply release publicly what percentage of suspect sites -- remember, there were 900 of these suspect sites, perhaps 150 significant suspect sites. What percentage of those were shared with U.N. inspectors?
And the CIA has refused to release that publicly because it does not support their position.
HEMMER: Condoleezza Rice has said Iraq has billed its program, I want to quote her, on "concealment" and that any sort of haring right now and any conclusions, things that you're discussing right now, are entirely too premature.
Also go back to August of 2002, on CNN you said, and quoting now, "There's no doubt that if we attacked him" -- being Saddam Hussein -- "that he would use every weapon of mass destruction that he has." You were convinced then, correct?
LEVIN: I was, indeed, satisfied based on the intelligence given to us that he had weapons of mass destruction. I think it's very likely still that we may be able to show that he has weapons. But that is a separate issue from whether or not the intelligence relating to those weapons was shaded to support a particular position.
If it was not a black and white issue, if it was a probability or a possibility, that's what we should have been told. Instead, it was a certainty which was stated by the administration and that, it seems to me, is where the evidence is that there was not certainty about this issue, as the intelligence community apparently told the administration, and the administration told the public, because it was that certainty that he currently possessed weapons of mass destruction which was the justification for the attack on Iraq at that time. That is what the president said, presumably based on the intelligence, that he currently has weapons of mass destruction.
HEMMER: Senator Saxby Chambliss, a Republican from Georgia, was with us last hour.
Democrat from Michigan, Carl Levin, is our guest now.
Thank you, Senator.
We'll talk again on this topic and more.
LEVIN: Sure. Good being with you.
HEMMER: All right.
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 9, 2003 - 08:10 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: Two top advisers for the president deny that evidence of banned weapons in Iraq were exaggerated to justify that war. Also yesterday the secretary of state, Colin Powell, called the suggestion "nonsense."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLIN POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE: I think the case is clear, the case has been substantiated over the years. Every nation that voted for Security Council Resolution 1441 voted for a resolution that began with the statement that Iraq was in material breach of its obligations. And so there was nothing bogus about the intelligence.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HEMMER: No weapons of mass destruction so far have been found on the ground in Iraq. But the White House insists they will be found.
Senator Carl Levin is among those calling for an investigation, possibly hearings, on the prewar intelligence. He's the ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee and also serves on the Intelligence Committee.
Senator Levin is our guest this hour live in D.C.
Thanks for coming back on AMERICAN MORNING.
Good morning to you, Senator.
SEN. CARL LEVIN (D-MI), CHAIRMAN, ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: Good morning.
HEMMER: Do you believe this, the information prewar was exaggerated or embellished?
LEVIN: I do think there's evidence that the CIA did shade and embellish this information in a number of areas and that it is significant enough, because of the importance that were placed on weapons of mass destruction and on the alleged connection of Iraq to al Qaeda, that Congress inquire into this in a very bipartisan but in a very thorough way. And both Democrats and Republicans have called for that kind of a thorough investigation.
HEMMER: Take it a step further. How did, in your estimation, the CIA shade this information?
LEVIN: Well, a number of areas. For instance, the area of aluminum tubes. We were told flat out by the vice president that the aluminum tubes were there as part of a nuclear program. But, as a matter of fact, there was significant evidence that the CIA was in possession of that those aluminum tubes were there for some other purpose. There was a dispute within the intelligence community as to whether those aluminum tubes were proper or improper and that was not at all reflected in the administration's position and I assume that the CIA, in talking to the administration, shaded their position on that one.
We had the question of whether uranium was bought from Africa by Iraq. The CIA apparently gave the statement to the president -- because he used it in his State of the Union message -- that that uranium was purchased. As a matter of fact, there was significant evidence that that was bogus.
Even on this most recent issue, which is the vans, the CIA paper that is on their Web site makes a much stronger statement about these vans being used to produce biological weapons when, in fact, apparently, according to the "New York Times" on Saturday, there is a third independent group which was used by the Defense Department to look at these vans which has serious reservations as to whether or not these vans were used for that purpose.
None of those qualifiers, none of those uncertainties are reflected in the CIA statements. Instead, they make it into much more black and white than it really is. And I think that's troubling if it's true because we have to be able to rely on the intelligence information and the assessments given to us by the CIA. The world has to trust in these statements that we make if we're going to successfully lead the world in the war on terrorism.
HEMMER: Senator, let's split some hairs here. Do you believe this argument comes down to whether or not the intelligence was flawed from the beginning or do you believe the intelligence was twisted and distorted in order to fit a particular argument for war?
LEVIN: Well, we're not sure exactly what the -- all of the facts are at this point. All I am confident of is this. There is significant evidence that the intelligence was shaded in order to support a policy, presumably of the administration.
I've had a big issue with the CIA about whether or not they would simply release publicly what percentage of suspect sites -- remember, there were 900 of these suspect sites, perhaps 150 significant suspect sites. What percentage of those were shared with U.N. inspectors?
And the CIA has refused to release that publicly because it does not support their position.
HEMMER: Condoleezza Rice has said Iraq has billed its program, I want to quote her, on "concealment" and that any sort of haring right now and any conclusions, things that you're discussing right now, are entirely too premature.
Also go back to August of 2002, on CNN you said, and quoting now, "There's no doubt that if we attacked him" -- being Saddam Hussein -- "that he would use every weapon of mass destruction that he has." You were convinced then, correct?
LEVIN: I was, indeed, satisfied based on the intelligence given to us that he had weapons of mass destruction. I think it's very likely still that we may be able to show that he has weapons. But that is a separate issue from whether or not the intelligence relating to those weapons was shaded to support a particular position.
If it was not a black and white issue, if it was a probability or a possibility, that's what we should have been told. Instead, it was a certainty which was stated by the administration and that, it seems to me, is where the evidence is that there was not certainty about this issue, as the intelligence community apparently told the administration, and the administration told the public, because it was that certainty that he currently possessed weapons of mass destruction which was the justification for the attack on Iraq at that time. That is what the president said, presumably based on the intelligence, that he currently has weapons of mass destruction.
HEMMER: Senator Saxby Chambliss, a Republican from Georgia, was with us last hour.
Democrat from Michigan, Carl Levin, is our guest now.
Thank you, Senator.
We'll talk again on this topic and more.
LEVIN: Sure. Good being with you.
HEMMER: All right.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
