CNN - 8/3/03
BLITZER: When it comes to war and peace, do you have confidence in this president?
LIEBERMAN: Well, look, let's take it one by one.
I agreed with him -- this is with regard to war -- that we had to go to war in Iraq, and we had to go before that to war in Afghanistan.
When it comes to peace, this president has not had a very good record in Afghanistan, in Iraq, with regard to North Korea and a host of other places, and figuring out how not just to use America's military might but to use our moral might and our diplomatic strength.
Finally, the president accepted responsibility. He had several other occasions in which people asked him -- people in the media asked him about the 16 words, and he always deflected it. But now that he's accepted responsibility, because the buck does stop with the president, he has to do something about it.
We still -- if I were president today, and somebody put into a speech I was making to the nation and the Congress, State of the Union, 16 words that at best were an exaggeration, at worst were not true, I would want to find out who did it. And I'd dismiss that person. And so far, the president has been unwilling to do that. George Tenet steps forward and says, "It's my fault." The president says, "I have total confidence in George Tenet."
Condi Rice comes forward, says, "My staff had something to do with it." The president says, "I have total confidence in Condi Rice."
BLITZER: So, should he fire Condi Rice?
LIEBERMAN: That's up to him. He ought to hold somebody accountable.
BLITZER: Should he fire George Tenet?
LIEBERMAN: Well, if I concluded, as I said earlier, that George Tenet and the CIA were responsible for those 16 words, then I would dismiss him.
But you know, on the record, it seems to me that the responsibility goes a bit higher, because the record now begins to show that the CIA really objected to the 16 words being there.
It was somebody in the White House who pushed those words in, notwithstanding the advice of the CIA that they were not founded -- well founded in fact, and that can't go on.
BLITZER: It sounds like you're losing confidence in Condi Rice.
LIEBERMAN: I'm losing confidence in this president to figure out who put him in a position to say something to the American people and the world that was not right.
And I tell you, as a supporter of the war, it particularly upsets me, makes me angry, because it was not necessary. There was enough of a case on the facts against Saddam Hussein not to have to exaggerate. And now give those who opposed the war and those who were ambivalent about the war something to argue about.
You know, as I said last week, Wolf, I felt people in my own party too, some of those who opposed the war, who are jumping on these 16 words as if it proves that they were right in opposing the war. Wrong. Those who -- some of those who supported the war, Democrats, now seeming to be so critical that they act as if they've forgotten why they supported the war.
The war was right. The president just oversold the case in a way that he didn't have to do.
BLITZER: On this issue of the war, a lot of the Democrats who are running against you for the presidential nomination strongly disagree, including Senator Bob Graham, your Democratic colleague from Florida, the former chairman of the Intelligence Committee, who has argued he opposed the war because it would take away valuable resources from what he saw as a much greater threat to the United States: namely, al Qaeda, the whole war on terrorism.
LIEBERMAN: We're strong enough to do both. I mean -- look, because you've got one threat down the street from you doesn't mean that you're not going to use your forces to stop another.
BLITZER: But apparently, the U.S. is diverting resources from Afghanistan to fight in Iraq, so maybe the U.S. doesn't have the military wherewithal to deal with both as strongly as it should.
LIEBERMAN: Well, that's a separate question, and the commander in chief and Congress ought to consider whether the American military needs more forces to deal with the multiple challenges we are facing or more support. But look...
BLITZER: You believe they do need more resources?
LIEBERMAN: I think it's a serious question that the Congress and the president ought to consider. Right now, our forces are stretched. Our military in Iraq have been there quite -- some of them have been there quite a while. They're tired, and we need to begin to...
BLITZER: Because as you know, the Defense Department budget is now bigger than it's ever been before, including the height of the Cold War, and you're saying increase funding?
LIEBERMAN: We may need to, or we may need to cut out some stuff and take that money and invest in other areas.
The fact is that this administration's priorities are off. They've not invested enough in homeland security and in a multiplicity of ways.
So look, the world is safer with Saddam Hussein gone. The use of our military power to get rid of him has made the whole -- has changed the diplomatic security picture in the Middle East and beyond.
I mean, we now have Iran, for instance. On both sides they have Afghanistan, which is a more friendly regime to us, and now Iraq, which will be, if the Bush administration gets its act together.
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0308/03/le.00.html...is Joe defending his buddy the chimp? Or is he just playing both sides a usual?
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
