Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

Interview With James Woolsey

Aired September 30, 2003 - 09:33   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: Former CIA Director James Woolsey our guest now also in Washington, D.C. Here to pick up where Dana left off. Good morning, sir. Thanks for joining us here.
WOOLSEY: Bill, good to be with you.

HEMMER: Listen, what do you make of this right now at the outset?

WOOLSEY: The situation with respect to the investigation? Sorry. I've lost sound on you.

HEMMER: Lost you too actually.

(CROSSTALK)

HEMMER: ... re-queue this bad boy because you're in Montreal, you're not in Washington, D.C. The Justice Department last night says hold on to your e-mails, preserve the evidence. Pretty standard fare or does it mean more at this point?

WOOLSEY: No. I think that's normally what they'd do in an investigation. CIA refers crimes report over about once a week to the Department of Justice whenever there's a leak or any other potential violation of law that they come across.

And it's relatively routine thing. These leaks get investigated all the time. Occasionally somebody gets caught, but it's pretty rare. It's a lot rarer any directors of Central Intelligence would wish.

HEMMER: Listening to your answer there, it appears that you're throwing water on to this story. Are you?

WOOLSEY: No, not necessarily. It was a bad thing to identify an agent, an asset, an officer actually who is identified as a CIA officer. And whoever did it ought to be caught and punished. It's just that it rarely happens.

HEMMER: I want to listen to a piece of tape from yesterday. This is Bob Novak on "CROSSFIRE" explaining, in part anyway, how he went about finding out the name of Joe Wilson's wife and how he then went about printing it in mid July. Here is Bob Novak from yesterday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERT NOVAK, CO-HOST, "CROSSFIRE": They asked me not to use her name, but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else. According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operative. And not in charge of undercover operatives.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HEMMER: What does it mean if she's an analyst or operative and not a spy? Is that less serious? Is that the suggestion?

WOOLSEY: Well, most of the time in the business, people don't really use the word "operative." Analyst would normally mean -- if that's true -- that she worked usually in Washington, that she would be able to admit to people that she worked at the CIA. And it would not be nearly so serious a thing.

If she was a clandestine service officer, an officer who worked in the field, recruiting informants, spies, or undertaking covert action, then naming her really would be a serious matter. And we apparently have a factual dispute, from what Mr. Novak said there, about whether she was a clandestine service officer or not.

HEMMER: Back up a little bit here to your first answer about these leaks. Some reports say the CIA asked the Justice Department to investigate about 50 a year, which would average about one a week.

(CROSSTALK)

HEMMER: Is that incorrect?

WOOLSEY: I don't think it's 50 leaks. I would say it's probably 50 crimes reports a year. About one a week on the average.

HEMMER: OK. Given that then, why is this one such a big deal this early?

WOOLSEY: Well I don't know. You all will have to tell me. It's probably because Mr. Novak said they were senior administration sources or words to that effect in his original story. But I can never figure out exactly why the media burrows in on what it burrows in on.

HEMMER: We'll switch terms next time around here.

Quickly, some predictions are very tough and dangerous game. Does this have, do you believe at the outset based on the little we do know, whether or not it has, as we say in the industry, legs to carry on for weeks or maybe months?

WOOLSEY: I don't know. It doesn't seem to me that there's likely to be a string of revelations. Either the Justice Department investigation is going to find out who did it, or not.

And normally, they don't conduct their investigations with a series of leaks to the press, or in public. I would hope and trust they'd go about this in a business-like fashion.

HEMMER: Thanks for your candor. James Woolsey in Montreal, nonetheless. Thanks.

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 September 30, 2003 - 09:33   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: Former CIA Director James Woolsey our guest now also in Washington, D.C. Here to pick up where Dana left off. Good morning, sir. Thanks for joining us here.
WOOLSEY: Bill, good to be with you.

HEMMER: Listen, what do you make of this right now at the outset?

WOOLSEY: The situation with respect to the investigation? Sorry. I've lost sound on you.

HEMMER: Lost you too actually.

(CROSSTALK)

HEMMER: ... re-queue this bad boy because you're in Montreal, you're not in Washington, D.C. The Justice Department last night says hold on to your e-mails, preserve the evidence. Pretty standard fare or does it mean more at this point?

WOOLSEY: No. I think that's normally what they'd do in an investigation. CIA refers crimes report over about once a week to the Department of Justice whenever there's a leak or any other potential violation of law that they come across.

And it's relatively routine thing. These leaks get investigated all the time. Occasionally somebody gets caught, but it's pretty rare. It's a lot rarer any directors of Central Intelligence would wish.

HEMMER: Listening to your answer there, it appears that you're throwing water on to this story. Are you?

WOOLSEY: No, not necessarily. It was a bad thing to identify an agent, an asset, an officer actually who is identified as a CIA officer. And whoever did it ought to be caught and punished. It's just that it rarely happens.

HEMMER: I want to listen to a piece of tape from yesterday. This is Bob Novak on "CROSSFIRE" explaining, in part anyway, how he went about finding out the name of Joe Wilson's wife and how he then went about printing it in mid July. Here is Bob Novak from yesterday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERT NOVAK, CO-HOST, "CROSSFIRE": They asked me not to use her name, but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else. According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operative. And not in charge of undercover operatives.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HEMMER: What does it mean if she's an analyst or operative and not a spy? Is that less serious? Is that the suggestion?

WOOLSEY: Well, most of the time in the business, people don't really use the word "operative." Analyst would normally mean -- if that's true -- that she worked usually in Washington, that she would be able to admit to people that she worked at the CIA. And it would not be nearly so serious a thing.

If she was a clandestine service officer, an officer who worked in the field, recruiting informants, spies, or undertaking covert action, then naming her really would be a serious matter. And we apparently have a factual dispute, from what Mr. Novak said there, about whether she was a clandestine service officer or not.

HEMMER: Back up a little bit here to your first answer about these leaks. Some reports say the CIA asked the Justice Department to investigate about 50 a year, which would average about one a week.

(CROSSTALK)

HEMMER: Is that incorrect?

WOOLSEY: I don't think it's 50 leaks. I would say it's probably 50 crimes reports a year. About one a week on the average.

HEMMER: OK. Given that then, why is this one such a big deal this early?

WOOLSEY: Well I don't know. You all will have to tell me. It's probably because Mr. Novak said they were senior administration sources or words to that effect in his original story. But I can never figure out exactly why the media burrows in on what it burrows in on.

HEMMER: We'll switch terms next time around here.

Quickly, some predictions are very tough and dangerous game. Does this have, do you believe at the outset based on the little we do know, whether or not it has, as we say in the industry, legs to carry on for weeks or maybe months?

WOOLSEY: I don't know. It doesn't seem to me that there's likely to be a string of revelations. Either the Justice Department investigation is going to find out who did it, or not.

And normally, they don't conduct their investigations with a series of leaks to the press, or in public. I would hope and trust they'd go about this in a business-like fashion.

HEMMER: Thanks for your candor. James Woolsey in Montreal, nonetheless. Thanks.

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