Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Sunday Morning
Interview With Peter Fenn, Kelly Ann Conway
Aired July 13, 2003 - 09:31 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.
JOHN VAUSE, CNN ANCHOR: When the president speaks, most Americans, in fact, most people around the world, expect him to speak truthfully. But President Bush, and Bill Clinton before him, have both had their credibility challenged. With President Clinton, it was Monica Lewinsky; with President Bush, it's rationale for going to war with Iraq.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, UNITED STATES PRESIDENT: The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VAUSE: Joining us now to compare notes, Peter Fenn, Democratic strategist in Washington, and Kelly Ann Conway, who is president of an opinion firm called The Polling Company.
Let's start with Peter. Is there a link? Can you compare these two? Is it apples and oranges, or are both men facing a similar challenge?
PETER FENN, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, I think what you have with President Bush is potentially a lot more serious than lying about sex. I think the real question here is, once you examine that State of the Union address and you examine the other things that have been said about this war and the rationale for going to war, did he manipulate intelligence information? Did he, in fact, not tell the truth?
You know, we found out in "The Washington Post" this morning that George Tenet, the CIA director, in fact, had urged and called for the president to take that -- the business of the uranium from Africa out of his October 7th Cincinnati speech, which he did. And then it was back in again.
I mean, you know, here we have Tenet taking the fall for this. I mean, how do you spell hari-kari? And here's a president that takes credit for things that he thinks are good, but doesn't accept any of the blame for when he makes mistakes. It's too bad.
VAUSE: OK. Kelly, is this a fair comp? Should President Bush be held accountable for this, or is he passing the buck to the CIA director? KELLY ANN CONWAY, PRESIDENT, THE POLLING COMPANY: The president has apologized. I saw on your network this morning something that is curiously is not part of this report right now. But I saw the secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, in a live press opportunity saying that it should not have been in the State of the Union. Apologies and corrections have been made for that. But the reason that we went to Iraq, to liberate the Iraqi people, give them a taste of democracy we all enjoy, and certainly to rid them of Saddam Hussein's terror, that's all been accomplished.
And if the media look at themselves as a vanguard and protectors of the public, then I think this is very askew, because the public has not bought into this premise. If you look at the president's poll numbers and want to compare them to Clinton, let's go there. That actually surprises me. If you look at the veracity and truthfulness with which each of these men have been held as president, George W. Bush's belief that he is honest and trust worthy as a commander in chief is higher than his overall approval rating. The opposite was true of Clinton, where he had this high approval rating, because people were fascinated and entertained by him, him being a very skillful liar, but nobody believed he was honest and trustworthy.
I'd like Peter, or anybody else, to tell me one person in this country who said I'm for against the Iraqi war because of what the president said about Uranium. Did anybody say, eureka, uraniums from Niger? I'm for the war.
VAUSE: OK. Kelly, you brought up the issue of poll numbers. So let's just have a quick look at a comparison between the polling numbers. We did the research here.
Back in the midst of the impeachment crisis, August 18, 1998, let's have a look at those numbers there. Approval for Bill Clinton, 66 percent. Disapprove, 29 percent.
Let's fast forward to the latest Gallup poll, July 7 to 9 on Mr. Bush. Very similar, 62 percent to 34 percent. What does that say?
CONWAY: Well, it says that the economy was really good then. We didn't have 9/11 in 1998, unfortunately, and that the president and his wife made that issue not about right versus wrong, but right versus left, something we're still all waiting for apologies from the vast right-wing conspiracy. But if people believe that was about sex, and they didn't believe he had lied to the grand jury, that was three months before he was impeached, when in fact, he was impeached. But making the comparisons between the two, and actually making comparisons between whether someone knows who they had sex with, I think...
VAUSE: Let's give Peter a go. Peter?
FENN: Yes. Let me just make this point. I mean, for two years he was investigated and harassed because of that affair.
CONWAY: And impeached. FENN: That's fine. You know, the problem we have now is that not only the uranium, but the aluminum tubes, that's clearly a problem. And the International Atomic Energy Agency has said that that's not right. What about the other claims that he has been making for going to war?
All of us agree that Saddam Hussein was a terrible man. But the rationale for war, it may have been a put-up job. And I think, right now, what we ought to have is a very serious investigation of the intelligence agencies, the relationships with the National Security Council, why Vice President Cheney was sitting over at the CIA. Was he manipulating some of this intelligence information?
VAUSE: OK, Kelly, if I can just interrupt. Kelly, you've raised that you don't believe the public is buying into this just yet. But I want to share with you guys an e-mail, which is very typical of the e- mails which we have been getting here over the last few days. If we can put on the screen, "The Bush pattern of deceit is vastly more serious than lying about having an affair. Where's Ken Starr now that we have something that matters? Why aren't the Republicans clamoring for impeachment?"
CONWAY: What is impeachable here? Ladies and gentlemen, if you want to accuse the president of lying, the burden of proof rests with you, not with the president. You need to show what this pattern of lying is.
Does anybody truly believe, and if they do, anybody on this panel believes, please speak up. I'll give you the rest of my time. Does anybody truly believe that the president of the United States, the vice president, the secretary of defense, the national security adviser manipulated data to send us to war where 200 Americans have died? Does anybody believe that?
FENN: I'll tell you what I believe. I served in the Senate Intelligence Committee, and I believe that this intelligence was manipulated, that this was not solid intelligence data, and if we have an investigation, I think we will find that this president, you know, took the very best case for himself on this intelligence information.
VAUSE: Peter, don't mince your words. Did the president lie about this, yes or no, in your opinion?
FENN: Well, certainly they lied about the Niger issue.
CONWAY: Lied?
VAUSE: The president, yes or no?
FENN: Yes.
VAUSE: Do you think he lied?
FENN: Yes.
CONWAY: Is he impeachable? FENN: I think we should investigate it and find out.
CONWAY: Did anyone say, yes, eureka, we should go to war based on uranium -- that one claim about uranium being sold to Saddam Hussein in Niger? Americans don't even know what you're talking about.
FENN: No. But weapons of mass destruction have not been found. Chemical or biological weapons have not been found. The 38,000 deliverables that he talked about in his state of the union speech that were going to deliver these weapons have not been found. The question is, you know, is -- was -- were there false statements made about why we should go to war. And I think we should investigate that.
CONWAY: I have a very important question. What did this president gain if he lied about going to war? What was gained? His entire domestic agenda, including the economic recovery, had to be put on ice to fight this war. This war has cost a great deal of money. Secretary Rumsfeld said this last week, it's cost twice as much per month as we anticipated. You can argue about a lack of preparedness.
VAUSE: But, Kelly, I don't think a lack of motive can allow you to know if somebody has lied or not. A lack of motive does not indicate whether a lie is being told. So what we're getting from a lot of people is that President Clinton was impeached and dragged before the Senate, and because of an affair, but...
CONWAY: No. That is not why he was.
VAUSE: ... but you can have American lives, and soldiers who are dying on a daily basis, that there's no independent investigation into this?
CONWAY: That's great spin. However, let me say this. That you cannot be impeached under the United States constitution for being an adulterer. You cannot be impeached. That is not why the president of the United States was impeached.
What were the charges? Obstruction of justice, because he lied under oath about some facts that were material. They were obstruction of justice, and something else that was impeachable. But not about having an affair. And I can't believe, five years later, that smart people are still buying into the fact that that was about having an affair.
Who cares who he cheats on his wife with? She's been proving herself as this victimized doormat. That was because the president of the United States raised his right hand and swore to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and lied.
FENN: But Kelly Ann, these are issues that...
CONWAY: Not about uranium.
FENN: ... about substance. You're right. I mean, the question now becomes whether the president of the United States felt that he was unable to make the case to go after Saddam Hussein, because that he was a bad, evil man; he had used weapons of mass destruction in the past, but the imminent threat may not have been there. That's part of the question. And did he go so far as to manipulate intelligence data?
The other question I think about this is, here's a president of the United States who had three legs of his foreign policy stool. He said, we need clear and defined objectives, we need a clear exit strategy, and no nation building. Well, all three of those he has violated with Iraq. Fine. He wants to violate them.
But now we're in there. Are we in a quagmire? People are getting killed every week. What is our exit strategy? You know, we can't find Saddam, we can't find Osama.
CONWAY: Who needs to find them?
VAUSE: If I could ask Kelly, if the administration has, as you say, has apologized for that, why has it taken so long, when the secretary of state did not use that information a week later on the February 5 presentation to the U.N.?
CONWAY: I have no idea. But why is that relevant? In other words, we're all focused on this uranium being sold to Saddam Hussein from Niger. You know, this needle in a haystack. It's been apologized for being included in the State of the Union address. However, it does not aggregate whatsoever; does not confuse why we went to war and what missions was accomplished there.
And here, I'm sorry, gentlemen, but the American people agree with both of you. They believe the war was a success, they believe that the reason that we went to war, to liberate the Iraqi people and remove Saddam Hussein, has been accomplished.
And I want to know, Peter, why all the democrats, including your client, Joe Lieberman, voted in favor of the war. It was not the issue of uranium.
(CROSSTALK)
FENN: Harry Truman had a great phrase. The buck stops here. John Kennedy took the responsibility for the Cuban invasion.
VAUSE: And Peter, the buck has to stop right there, because we are out of time. Thank you both very much for your time today. Peter Fenn, as well as Kelly Ann Conway, thank you both for joining us on CNN.
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 July 13, 2003 - 09:31 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
JOHN VAUSE, CNN ANCHOR: When the president speaks, most Americans, in fact, most people around the world, expect him to speak truthfully. But President Bush, and Bill Clinton before him, have both had their credibility challenged. With President Clinton, it was Monica Lewinsky; with President Bush, it's rationale for going to war with Iraq.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, UNITED STATES PRESIDENT: The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VAUSE: Joining us now to compare notes, Peter Fenn, Democratic strategist in Washington, and Kelly Ann Conway, who is president of an opinion firm called The Polling Company.
Let's start with Peter. Is there a link? Can you compare these two? Is it apples and oranges, or are both men facing a similar challenge?
PETER FENN, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, I think what you have with President Bush is potentially a lot more serious than lying about sex. I think the real question here is, once you examine that State of the Union address and you examine the other things that have been said about this war and the rationale for going to war, did he manipulate intelligence information? Did he, in fact, not tell the truth?
You know, we found out in "The Washington Post" this morning that George Tenet, the CIA director, in fact, had urged and called for the president to take that -- the business of the uranium from Africa out of his October 7th Cincinnati speech, which he did. And then it was back in again.
I mean, you know, here we have Tenet taking the fall for this. I mean, how do you spell hari-kari? And here's a president that takes credit for things that he thinks are good, but doesn't accept any of the blame for when he makes mistakes. It's too bad.
VAUSE: OK. Kelly, is this a fair comp? Should President Bush be held accountable for this, or is he passing the buck to the CIA director? KELLY ANN CONWAY, PRESIDENT, THE POLLING COMPANY: The president has apologized. I saw on your network this morning something that is curiously is not part of this report right now. But I saw the secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, in a live press opportunity saying that it should not have been in the State of the Union. Apologies and corrections have been made for that. But the reason that we went to Iraq, to liberate the Iraqi people, give them a taste of democracy we all enjoy, and certainly to rid them of Saddam Hussein's terror, that's all been accomplished.
And if the media look at themselves as a vanguard and protectors of the public, then I think this is very askew, because the public has not bought into this premise. If you look at the president's poll numbers and want to compare them to Clinton, let's go there. That actually surprises me. If you look at the veracity and truthfulness with which each of these men have been held as president, George W. Bush's belief that he is honest and trust worthy as a commander in chief is higher than his overall approval rating. The opposite was true of Clinton, where he had this high approval rating, because people were fascinated and entertained by him, him being a very skillful liar, but nobody believed he was honest and trustworthy.
I'd like Peter, or anybody else, to tell me one person in this country who said I'm for against the Iraqi war because of what the president said about Uranium. Did anybody say, eureka, uraniums from Niger? I'm for the war.
VAUSE: OK. Kelly, you brought up the issue of poll numbers. So let's just have a quick look at a comparison between the polling numbers. We did the research here.
Back in the midst of the impeachment crisis, August 18, 1998, let's have a look at those numbers there. Approval for Bill Clinton, 66 percent. Disapprove, 29 percent.
Let's fast forward to the latest Gallup poll, July 7 to 9 on Mr. Bush. Very similar, 62 percent to 34 percent. What does that say?
CONWAY: Well, it says that the economy was really good then. We didn't have 9/11 in 1998, unfortunately, and that the president and his wife made that issue not about right versus wrong, but right versus left, something we're still all waiting for apologies from the vast right-wing conspiracy. But if people believe that was about sex, and they didn't believe he had lied to the grand jury, that was three months before he was impeached, when in fact, he was impeached. But making the comparisons between the two, and actually making comparisons between whether someone knows who they had sex with, I think...
VAUSE: Let's give Peter a go. Peter?
FENN: Yes. Let me just make this point. I mean, for two years he was investigated and harassed because of that affair.
CONWAY: And impeached. FENN: That's fine. You know, the problem we have now is that not only the uranium, but the aluminum tubes, that's clearly a problem. And the International Atomic Energy Agency has said that that's not right. What about the other claims that he has been making for going to war?
All of us agree that Saddam Hussein was a terrible man. But the rationale for war, it may have been a put-up job. And I think, right now, what we ought to have is a very serious investigation of the intelligence agencies, the relationships with the National Security Council, why Vice President Cheney was sitting over at the CIA. Was he manipulating some of this intelligence information?
VAUSE: OK, Kelly, if I can just interrupt. Kelly, you've raised that you don't believe the public is buying into this just yet. But I want to share with you guys an e-mail, which is very typical of the e- mails which we have been getting here over the last few days. If we can put on the screen, "The Bush pattern of deceit is vastly more serious than lying about having an affair. Where's Ken Starr now that we have something that matters? Why aren't the Republicans clamoring for impeachment?"
CONWAY: What is impeachable here? Ladies and gentlemen, if you want to accuse the president of lying, the burden of proof rests with you, not with the president. You need to show what this pattern of lying is.
Does anybody truly believe, and if they do, anybody on this panel believes, please speak up. I'll give you the rest of my time. Does anybody truly believe that the president of the United States, the vice president, the secretary of defense, the national security adviser manipulated data to send us to war where 200 Americans have died? Does anybody believe that?
FENN: I'll tell you what I believe. I served in the Senate Intelligence Committee, and I believe that this intelligence was manipulated, that this was not solid intelligence data, and if we have an investigation, I think we will find that this president, you know, took the very best case for himself on this intelligence information.
VAUSE: Peter, don't mince your words. Did the president lie about this, yes or no, in your opinion?
FENN: Well, certainly they lied about the Niger issue.
CONWAY: Lied?
VAUSE: The president, yes or no?
FENN: Yes.
VAUSE: Do you think he lied?
FENN: Yes.
CONWAY: Is he impeachable? FENN: I think we should investigate it and find out.
CONWAY: Did anyone say, yes, eureka, we should go to war based on uranium -- that one claim about uranium being sold to Saddam Hussein in Niger? Americans don't even know what you're talking about.
FENN: No. But weapons of mass destruction have not been found. Chemical or biological weapons have not been found. The 38,000 deliverables that he talked about in his state of the union speech that were going to deliver these weapons have not been found. The question is, you know, is -- was -- were there false statements made about why we should go to war. And I think we should investigate that.
CONWAY: I have a very important question. What did this president gain if he lied about going to war? What was gained? His entire domestic agenda, including the economic recovery, had to be put on ice to fight this war. This war has cost a great deal of money. Secretary Rumsfeld said this last week, it's cost twice as much per month as we anticipated. You can argue about a lack of preparedness.
VAUSE: But, Kelly, I don't think a lack of motive can allow you to know if somebody has lied or not. A lack of motive does not indicate whether a lie is being told. So what we're getting from a lot of people is that President Clinton was impeached and dragged before the Senate, and because of an affair, but...
CONWAY: No. That is not why he was.
VAUSE: ... but you can have American lives, and soldiers who are dying on a daily basis, that there's no independent investigation into this?
CONWAY: That's great spin. However, let me say this. That you cannot be impeached under the United States constitution for being an adulterer. You cannot be impeached. That is not why the president of the United States was impeached.
What were the charges? Obstruction of justice, because he lied under oath about some facts that were material. They were obstruction of justice, and something else that was impeachable. But not about having an affair. And I can't believe, five years later, that smart people are still buying into the fact that that was about having an affair.
Who cares who he cheats on his wife with? She's been proving herself as this victimized doormat. That was because the president of the United States raised his right hand and swore to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and lied.
FENN: But Kelly Ann, these are issues that...
CONWAY: Not about uranium.
FENN: ... about substance. You're right. I mean, the question now becomes whether the president of the United States felt that he was unable to make the case to go after Saddam Hussein, because that he was a bad, evil man; he had used weapons of mass destruction in the past, but the imminent threat may not have been there. That's part of the question. And did he go so far as to manipulate intelligence data?
The other question I think about this is, here's a president of the United States who had three legs of his foreign policy stool. He said, we need clear and defined objectives, we need a clear exit strategy, and no nation building. Well, all three of those he has violated with Iraq. Fine. He wants to violate them.
But now we're in there. Are we in a quagmire? People are getting killed every week. What is our exit strategy? You know, we can't find Saddam, we can't find Osama.
CONWAY: Who needs to find them?
VAUSE: If I could ask Kelly, if the administration has, as you say, has apologized for that, why has it taken so long, when the secretary of state did not use that information a week later on the February 5 presentation to the U.N.?
CONWAY: I have no idea. But why is that relevant? In other words, we're all focused on this uranium being sold to Saddam Hussein from Niger. You know, this needle in a haystack. It's been apologized for being included in the State of the Union address. However, it does not aggregate whatsoever; does not confuse why we went to war and what missions was accomplished there.
And here, I'm sorry, gentlemen, but the American people agree with both of you. They believe the war was a success, they believe that the reason that we went to war, to liberate the Iraqi people and remove Saddam Hussein, has been accomplished.
And I want to know, Peter, why all the democrats, including your client, Joe Lieberman, voted in favor of the war. It was not the issue of uranium.
(CROSSTALK)
FENN: Harry Truman had a great phrase. The buck stops here. John Kennedy took the responsibility for the Cuban invasion.
VAUSE: And Peter, the buck has to stop right there, because we are out of time. Thank you both very much for your time today. Peter Fenn, as well as Kelly Ann Conway, thank you both for joining us on CNN.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
