"the CIA was being quite diligent about this story (Nigeria/Iraq uranium connection) and was at pains to debunk it."
LOCATION: abc.net.au
Broadcast: 13/07/2003
Tough week for Bush
Barrie Cassidy speaks to The Australian's political commentator Paul Kelly, who is in New York on assignment. Paul Kelly says it has been a very embarrassing week for US President George W. Bush. Who, for the first time, has been caught in political trouble over the justification for the Iraq war.
BARRIE CASSIDY: The 'Australian' this week starting calling the 'coalition of the willing' 'the coalition of the explaining', and suddenly they have got a lot of explaining to do. So what will be the political fallout from all of this? And is it time for a major shake-up of intelligence services? Lots of material there for our panel later on, and for Paul Kelly, who just happens to be in the US right now. And in the studio this morning, an important domestic debate on how best to help young mothers. Two people with vastly different views, both of them with the ear of the PM, go head-to-head. Pru Goward is Sex Discrimination Commissioner and believes passionately in paid maternity leave, and Sophie Panopoulos, a prominent Liberal backbencher, is just as passionate about income splitting. All that very shortly. But first as always on a Sunday morning, we're joined by political commentator Paul Kelly, who is in New York on assignment with the 'Australian'. Good morning, Paul.
PAUL KELLY: Good morning, Barrie.
BARRIE CASSIDY: Paul, just how bad a week has George Bush had?
PAUL KELLY: It has been a very embarrassing week for George Bush. For the first time, he has been caught in political trouble over the justification for the Iraq war. As you know, he was travelling through Africa this week, this was a good news story, but each day it was a bad news event because of Iraq. The week began with the White House having to admit that it was a mistake for the President to include in his State of the Union address the claim that Iraq was developing a nuclear industry on the basis of uranium exports from Africa. This was a mistake they said, it should never have been in the speech. Well, if it was a mistake, who is to blame? At the end of the week we had an extraordinary statement put out by the head of the CIA, George Tenet, accepting responsibility. He said it was his mistake, the CIA got it wrong, so George Tenet became President Bush's fall guy by the end of the week.
BARRIE CASSIDY: Do you think, then, that the CIA statement will be taken at face value?
PAUL KELLY: This is very detailed statement from Mr Tenet. I think it will be taken at face value as far as it goes, but in truth, it goes a lot further. The more you read the statement, the more you see another story emerging. What really happened here was the CIA was particularly diligent trying to get to the bottom of this story. It sent a former US ambassador to Africa. He came back and said he could find no evidence the story was correct. The CIA managed to prevent the President and Secretary of State Powell referring to this story in other speeches which they gave. And it also spoke to British intelligence because there was a conflict between US and British intelligence on this issue because the CIA was urging British intelligence to scale back their own assessment of this story. So the overall impression you get is that the CIA was being quite diligent about this story and was at pains to debunk it.
BARRIE CASSIDY: Yeah, there were certainly some reports that the CIA at leased advised that this advice didn't stand up, before the speech to the Congress, and that somebody in the White House insisted that it be placed back in.
PAUL KELLY: I think this is right. The impression one has here is that when the draft of President Bush's speech was prepared and sent to the CIA, that document contained the Africa uranium reference. There was then a negotiation between the White House and the CIA about this. The final decision, which I interpret as a compromise, was that the story stayed in but it was attributed to the British. What this meant was that the claim was technically correct but in substantial terms it did not reflect the view of the CIA. Who is to blame for this? Well, I think, frankly, that the White House must share a lot more of the blame than it has been prepared to accept at this stage.
BARRIE CASSIDY: There are remarkable parallels between the way this story is unfolding in the US and here. Both John Howard and Colin Powell are honing in on this aspect of it, and saying, "Look, this is an exaggeration to concentrate on one aspect." Is there a wider significance, though, in your view?
PAUL KELLY: I think there is, Barrie. I mean, I don't think this particular story is all that important in its own right, it is the symbolism that's important, it's what it stands for. It suggests a couple of things. First of all, that political leaders and their advisers are prepared to bend the intelligence as much as possible to achieve their own political aims. But I think the second point here is that it goes to the heart of the credibility of the intelligence, because the US, Britain and Australia went into Iraq because they believed there was a serious WMD threat based on the intelligence. Well, so far we have not found evidence of WMD in Iraq and to the extent we do find that, it is likely to be insignificant can't. So the problem I think all these political leaders face is that there is a major credibility problem for the intelligence. And when you have a country like the US which runs a doctrine of pre-emption, bear in mind this depends 100 per cent on the credibility of intelligence.
BARRIE CASSIDY: How is it bearing on the credibility of Donald Rumsfeld, the Defense Secretary, given that he was probably the most strident member of the administration in the run-up to the war?
PAUL KELLY: I think there's an interesting mood building in Washington about Donald Rumsfeld. I get the impression last week, talking to people in Washington, that there is a distinct change of sentiment towards the Defense Secretary. Just consider the situation - there are still 150,000 American servicemen in Iraq, they are being killed on average at the rate of one a day. The cost is $4 billion a month. Now this is a long, long way away from the advice Donald Rumsfeld gave George Bush before the war and I think he is the person who has to accept responsibility for this. I understand that some of the President's senior advisers in the White House are now far more skeptical about Mr Rumsfeld than they have been in the past, so I think these are quite interesting omens.
BARRIE CASSIDY: Just finally, Paul, on North Korea and the nuclear standoff that is building up there, John Howard says that military involvement is a last resort. Is that again reflecting the sentiments that are being expressed in the US?
PAUL KELLY: I think what the Bush Administration is attempting to do in its public signals on North Korea at the moment is to cool down this crisis, ensure that it is not heated up. I spoke to Deputy Secretary of State Rich Armitage about this on Friday. He said that President Bush wants a diplomatic solution. While the military option is always on the table, the President doesn't want to use the military option and is confident that there can be a diplomatic solution. The Americans are working very closely with the Chinese on this issue. Of course they are also making efforts, as we saw in the meeting in Brisbane last week, Barrie, to organise an international campaign to try and prevent the proliferation of nuclear materials and nuclear technology out of North Korea.
BARRIE CASSIDY: Paul, thanks for your time this morning.
PAUL KELLY: Thanks, Barrie.
BARRIE CASSIDY: Paul Kelly is on assignment with the 'Australian' and he will join us from Washington DC next Sunday morning. |
