July 11, 2003

Announcer: From our nation's capital, this is WASHINGTON WEEK. Substituting for Gwen Ifill, here's moderator Michelle Martin.

MICHELLE MARTIN, host: A crisis over credibility--President Bush faces new questions about his arguments for going to war. The Bush administration admits that one of its key claims about Iraqi's weapons program, one of the reasons for going to war, was based on false information. Now the finger pointing begins. Who made the mistake and when? And as casualties mount, the tough questions increase. How long will the troops be there? And how much more can they do?

Is another peacekeeping mission in the works, this time to Liberia?

And the president takes his first trip to Africa, where he faces questions about his commitments on AIDS, trade and security, while a political brush fire rages in California. Could it spread?

Covering these stories this week Martha Raddatz of ABC News, Tom Gjelten of NPR, Charles Cobb of allafrica.com and John Harwood of The Wall Street Journal.

Announcer: Here again is guest moderator Michelle Martin.

MARTIN: Good evening.

Analysis: CIA took responsibility for State of the Union remark about Saddam seeking uranium in Africa

MICHELLE MARTIN, host: Although the president is traveling in Africa, the big story this week has reverberations all over the world. It started with the State of the Union address. As part of his case for war against Iraq, the president said this.

President GEORGE W. BUSH: (From January 28) The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.

MARTIN: But this week, it was a different story. After weeks of prodding by members of Congress, members of the intelligence and foreign service communities and the media, the president's spokesman said this. `After the speech, information was learned about the forged documents. With the advantage of hindsight, it's known now what was not known by the White House prior to the speech. This information should not have risen to the level of a presidential speech.' And today, still overseas, the president said in essence, `The CIA let me down.'

Pres. BUSH: (From today) I gave a speech to the nation which was cleared by the intelligence services.

MARTIN: Martha, the question, of course, is how is it possible that false information got into a speech as important as the State of the Union? And in a late-breaking development tonight, the CIA director took responsibility. What happened?

Ms. MARTHA RADDATZ (ABC News): If it had been a couple of hours ago, we would have to cite sources about what possibly happened, but George Tenet has basically confirmed what happened. He said he takes responsibility for this because he is the CIA director, but, `These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the president.' What that tells you is that George Tenet has--had doubts about this information. The CIA anyway had doubts about this information. There's still a question of what George Tenet actually knew. The doubts are written throughout this two-page statement that George Tenet makes, saying that in--at different times, since last fall, the agency brought up some sort of doubt, saying it was not reliable. Even the--the British information was not reliable.

This is a key portion of this, however. Let me just read this. This is directly when they are vetting the speech--the State of the Union speech. George Tenet said, `Officials who were reviewing the draft remarks on uranium raised several concerns about the fragmentary nature of the intelligence with National Security Council colleagues.' Some of the language was changed, `From what we now know, agency officials in the end concurred that the text in the speech was factually correct, i.e., that the British government report said that the--that Iraq sought uranium from Africa, but this should not have gotten into the speech. That should not have been a test.'

I think that's a key--a key quote there because indeed it's factually correct that the British included this in a report and you note that the president used the British intelligence. What I've been told actually is in that back and forth is that the CIA officials said, `Wait a minute. We're suspect about this information,' and that the National Security Council official came back and said, `Well, why don't we just say the British said it?' Isn't that right? At that point, the CIA person caved, so to speak.

Mr. TOM GJELTEN (NPR): The word was `concurred.' What's the significance of the word? That's a very important word in that statement, isn't it?

Ms. RADDATZ: That's exactly right. Concurred. In other way--in other words, the National Security Council official charged with vetting this speech said, `Now come on, can't we--can't we do this? This is--this is true, right?' The British said that. `Yes, the British said that,' so it went in the speech. Now George Tenet's point is it shouldn't have gone into the speech. There were doubts about this intelligence, and it certainly shouldn't have gone in because the CIA official concurred with what the White House said.

strong>Mr. CHARLES COBB (Allafrica.com): I don't understand the timing. This British report went to the British Parliament. First, it--almost immediately, the International Atomic Energy Agency said it was a forgery. Where is--that was in December, at least a month before. So why is this an issue now?

Ms. RADDATZ: Good--good question and this is one thing to clear up. What the CIA knew at the time and what other intelligence officials in other departments and the State Department as well--they did not know at that time the documents were forged. That, according to officials here, did not happen until after the State of the Union, until after Colin Powell's speech even. They didn't even have the documents before the State of the Union. The CIA did not have the documents. These--these are the really bogus documents that people say that if you looked at them, you know, stew it--Google search; you'll know they're faked. What the CIA had doubts about is a lot of other elements of this, but they didn't know they were forgeries. But that's a good point and the IAEA, the--the nuclear inspector said in March these are forgeries.

MARTIN: Martha, is there anything else in the State of the Union about nuclear weapons, and is there any other information that is now being questioned, that the president used as a rationale for going forward?

Ms. RADDATZ: I--I actually looked through this today because I thought, `Now what--what else did he say about it? I can't remember really what he said, what evidence he offered.' You know the clip you played at the beginning of the show? That was it. There were those two--I mean, he mentioned nuclear weapons programs, but the only so-called evidence he presented was the Afri--the uranium from Africa and the aluminum tubes. Now the aluminum tubes, the IAEA, the nuclear inspectors also had doubts about before the State of the Union. They said they weren't for nuclear weapons. They were for conventional rockets. So those two things in doubt.

MARTIN: Before we leave the topic, John, I wanted to ask you: How are the Democratic candidates for president responding to this? One has to assume that they're going to have a lot to say about this.

Mr. JOHN HARWOOD (The Wall Street Journal): Michelle, this is a very important week for the Democratic candidates because this is the week they found their voice in going after the president on this issue for three reasons. One is the acknowledgement that this piece of bogus information made it into the speech and it shouldn't have. The second is the continuing daily attacks on American troops; 78 Americans have died since May the 1st when the president was on the aircraft carrier. As long as Americans perceive the occupation going poorly, all these questions have more resonance. The third is the assertion by the administration that the cost of the occupation was going to be about $4 billion a month rather than $2 billion, as was estimated earlier, and that the troops might be there longer.

So before you had the anti-war candidates, Dean and Graham, who'd been attacking the president, but now John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, Dick Gephardt to some extent, people who had been with the president on the war are now going after him. And you can see that the White House is concerned about it. You could see from that clip earlier that you showed of the president today, he's not feeling very comfortable with this issue right now.

MARTIN: How about voters, though? I mean, you know that candidates are going to look for an opportunity wherever they can find it, but are--is this sticking with the voters? Are they showing any concern about this so far?

Mr. HARWOOD: Well, they're not bolting from the idea that the US troops need to be in Iraq and participate in the rebuilding of the country, but increasing numbers of people are saying the occupation is going badly. It hasn't had a big impact on George Bush's approval ratings, which keep trickling down from their postwar high but not dramatically. But clearly, this is a precursor for Democrats having the ability to talk about this issue that once intimidated them to a great extent.

MARTIN: Thanks, John. Martha, of course, thank you.

Analysis: Tough session in Congress with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld

MICHELLE MARTIN, host: The controversy over whether or not Iraq is trying to buy uranium has opened the door to tougher questions about the Iraq engagement in general, including a pretty tough session in Congress with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Tom, what did we learn this week about how long the engagement will last?

Mr. TOM GJELTEN (NPR): A couple of things, Michelle. We heard this week for the first time in that same hearing, alongside Secretary Rumsfeld was General Tommy Franks, the commander of the war in Iraq, and for the first time, he said that the current troop level in Iraq of about 150,000 troops is going to have to be maintained for the foreseeable future. And when members of Congress pushed him about how long this foreseeable future would be, he said, `Well, you know, maybe next year there can be some reduction,' but then in response to a question the next day in the Hou--on the House side, he said troops could be there for up to four years.

And, you know, this was an important week I think in--as John said, in sort of assessing the war and sort of its political significance. Americans are used to short, easy wars. This one looked like a short war in the beginning. Now we're seeing that the engagement is going to be a l--a long engagement, and it's going to be a very hard engagement. This is not peacekeeping. This is not Bosnia, it's not Kosovo. This is occupation, which is a very different kind of thing. And that's why we're seeing--we're seeing a lot of hostile action. We don't read about it that much anymore, but there are 10 to 25 attacks on US soldiers every day--and Marines. The United States is now trying to sort of get more of an Iraqi face on the occupation force. US troops pulled out of Fallujah, a very difficult city, today in order to let the Iraqi police take over, but it's--it's a very--it's a--it's a much more serious situation that it looked like in the beginning.

Ms. MARTHA RADDATZ (ABC News): Tom, I--you and I have sat through these numerous Pentagon briefings, and every time any official is asked, `Is the troop strength OK? Does the United States have enough troops?' the answer is, `Yes. Yes, we've got plenty of troops.' And yet I--I think it--I can't imagine it would be easy for Donald Rumsfeld to say, `No, we don't have enough troops,' given that he criticized the then chief of staff of the Army, Eric Shinseki, who said this could take a hu--a couple of hundred thousand troops, and Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz both questioned his judgment on that. So wouldn't it be hard for Donald Rumsfeld at this point to say, `Wait a minute. I was wrong. We do.'?

Mr. GJELTEN: Donald Rumsfeld is a stubborn man, if he's anything. He's 71 years old almost, and he does not like to admit that he was wrong about something. And one of the precious moments of this hearing this week was when General Franks said that, `We're going to need 140,000, 150,000 troops in Iraq for the foreseeable future.' A few minutes later, Secretary Rumsfeld said he'd like to amend what General Franks said, as though somehow General Franks had made a mistake. And he said, `Well, maybe we won't need that many if other countries contribute troops, if the Iraqi army is up to speed more quickly.' So, clearly, Secretary Rumsfeld is having a hard time accepting this. The next day, General Franks was back on there, and he was clearly not intimidated because he said the same thing all over again. It is going to be difficult, but in the end, Secretary Rumsfeld is going to have to defer to the commanders in the field. If they want more troops, he has no choice but to go along with that.

MARTIN: What a difference a couple of months make. I mean, is--is--is--is--is this Defense secretary really serious about soliciting the support of other nations in this endeavor, particularly old Europe, that he so famously derided, who happened to have the strongest armies right now?

Mr. GJELTEN: Well, he--there's a--an amazing go-around on this this week where reporters and--and members of Congress were trying to ask him if he had actually asked France to send troops and he sort of claimed he didn't know. Now the French government came out today and said, `No, we have not been asked to send troops.' He's going to the more unlikely countries, the Eastern European countries, but sort of the irony, as you say, is that in the beginning, the United States seemed reluctant to ask for a lot of help. Now that the United States wants to bring the troop level down, we're dependent on other countries to come in and pick up the ball.

Mr. JOHN HARWOOD (The Wall Street Journal): Tom, I remember before the war, talking to a member of the House Republican leadership who said, `Three months after the fighting's over, we're going to be out of there. This--this will be the UN baby's after that.' Is there any sign that people in either the--the opposition, the Democrats, or the president's party are going to start pressuring him to take people out?

Mr. GJELTEN: Well, as you suggested before, it's not--you don't see it necessarily in polls yet, but the interesting thing is where you are seeing it are among members who have been with the troops in Iraq and talked to them firsthand and are coming back and saying, `There are some serious morale problems. There's some serious fatigue problems.' Those are the members, Republicans and Democrats alike, that are the most alarmed. Secondly, those members who have military bases in their districts who are now hearing from military families that they're concerned about when the troops are going to be coming home. So you're seeing it from the consti--from the members who know the issue most intimately.

MARTIN: Tom, quickly before we leave you, because this subject deserves more time, but we're talking about now sending troops--a small complement of troops into Liberia...

Mr. GJELTEN: Right.

MARTIN: ...for a peacekeeping mission. How likely is that and how is that going to be received by these folks that we are talking about--the people who are already concerned about the troops being overextended?

Mr. GJELTEN: Well, there's--there--the difference in the Liberia case is it'll be Marines. It's really the Army that's most overextended. This is the kind of deployment that Marines are good at. That will not really seriously be an issue. It's more of an issue politically, symbolically, because this is a president that was very reluctant to commit US troops in exotic places overseas. Liberia has a special attachment for some reason. We will find out within the next few days, according to Secretary Powell. It'll be a fairly small group, about--up to 2,000 or so. Again, it will depend on how much support the United States gets from West African countries who would also be contributing troops.

MARTIN: Thanks, Tom.

Analysis: President George W. Bush's five-country trip in Africa

And while we're on the subject of Africa, the president made his rescheduled trip to five countries in Africa. He started in Senegal, where he made these remarks about slavery.

President GEORGE W. BUSH: (From Tuesday) At this place, liberty and life were stolen and sold. Human beings were delivered and sorted and weighed and branded with the marks of commercial enterprises and loaded as cargo on a voyage without return. One of the largest migrations of history was also one of the greatest crimes of history.

MARTIN: Charlie, welcome to WASHINGTON WEEK.

Mr. CHARLES COBB (Allafrica.com): Thank you.

MARTIN: It does seem that the trip has been overshadowed by the uranium issue, by the discussion about sending troops to Liberia, but listening to the president, it's clear that that wasn't how it started out. What was the purpose of this trip?

Mr. COBB: Well, he had three very specific concerns in roughly this--this order: security issues in Africa, trade issues in Africa and humanitarian concerns. Again, a small group of us talked to the president just a few days before he left for Africa about this trip, and then he said, `America cares about the future of Africa. It's our--in our national interests that Africa become a prosperous place. It's in our interest that people will continue to fight terror together. It's in our interest that when we find suffering, we will deal with it.' This is the basic, you know, thrust of his trip.

Now what he says and what he's doing is different from place to place. And you have to remember he's not just visiting five countries; he's visiting five countries in six days, which means we're only talking about discussions that go one for a few hours with a wide range of people in these countries. In Botswana, it's to talk about AIDS, the worst affected country in AIDS. He has a range of concerns: in Uganda, AIDS; the eastern Congo, security issues; the Sudan and West Africa, security issues. And a lot of these issues overlap. If you talk about security issues in West Africa, you're also talking about oil, which is really what's driving security concerns in West Africa. If you're talking about trade and investment and economic development in east Africa or southern Africa, in many ways, you're talking about HIV/AIDS, which is decimating the educated classes of populations in those countries.

And so he's sitting down. In some ways, it's ceremonial. I mean, he's met with these presidents more than once and talks to people like Mbeki regularly on the phone, the president of South Africa. He talks to Museveni, the president of Uganda, regularly on the telephone. I doubt that there's any issue he's putting on the table that he hasn't had several discussions with these presidents.

MARTIN: I know you're talking about five countries in six days; I'm tired just thinking about it. I don't--I--I--but--but how...

Mr. COBB: You're not traveling on a presidential jet.

MARTIN: Exactly. But how--how is he being received? I mean, we all remember...

Mr. COBB: Cordially.

MARTIN: ...the--the--the pictures of President Clinton being rec--received by these wonderful, enthusiastic crowds. Is he getting that ty--kind of reception?

Mr. COBB: He's getting a cordial reception, although they're real strains. I mean--I mean, sort of the metaphor for this is South Africa. In Africa, in general, I mean, there's really been a plummeting of US--opinion about the United States that can track to the war with Iraq almost universally, and it's hard to talk about Africa as one place since you're talking about 54 countries.

Ms. MARTHA RADDATZ (ABC News): Charlie, di--is there a feeling that, `OK. The president comes in. He--he seems very concerned about the problem with AIDS and other things, and he'll leave and everybody will forget about Africa again'?

Mr. COBB: Well, yes, that's always a concern in...

Ms. RADDATZ: And will he?

Mr. COBB: ...in Africa. Well, I think the AIDS issue is on the table permanently. I think how the security issue will play out in terms of Africa is not at all clear.

Ms. RADDATZ: I guess what I'm saying is: Does it make a different that he goes?

Mr. COBB: Yes. In the end, a little more attention from--certainly from the African point of view, attention, even for a moment, as opposed to being ignored permanently makes a difference.

Mr. TOM GJELTEN (NPR): Charlie, there are a lot of Muslim countries in Africa. How does the war on terrorism and this new interest in Africa or this interest in Africa, how do they--what's the dynamic there among the--in--especially in these--in these Muslim countries? Is there the same kind of suspicion and uneasiness about US anti-terror efforts in those Muslim countries in Africa that we've seen in other Muslim countries?

Mr. COBB: Well, I think it's not just confined to Muslim countries. The Monitor newspaper, for instance, of Uganda, which--which doesn't have a huge Muslim population, had an editorial today in its paper that ended, saying, `You--Welcome to Uganda, Mr. Bush, but we remain suspicious.' The Pew Research Center did a study which was released last month that showed a dramatic plummeting of opinion because of the Iraq war in Muslim countr--in Nigeria, which is substant--has a substantial Muslim population.

MARTIN: Thank you, Charlie. Also important to point out, I think, that these relationships predate this trip. I mean, the president's met with 22 African heads of state over the course of his three years in office, and I think that that's worth mentioning, too...

Mr. COBB: That's why he's--he's got these relationships.

Mr. GJELTEN: Yeah.

MARTIN: Yeah. OK. Great. Thank you so much.

Analysis: Move to recall the very unpopular Governor Gray Davis

MICHELLE MARTIN, host: And while these international stories have been developing, a major political story has been brewing at home and in our largest state, the move to recall the very unpopular governor, Gray Davis.

John, how serious is this?

Mr. JOHN HARWOOD (The Wall Street Journal): It's very serious. And, you know, you can, given the publicity and the fact that Arnold Schwarzenegger might get in the race, you could look at this as entertainment compared to the grave issues of state that we're talking about in these others places, but it's really an amazing political story. We're talking about something that has happened once in American history in the Midwest in the 1920s. Now it's happening in the biggest state of the country, threatens to turn the state government upside-down. You have a governor who was elected eight months ago to a four-year term. He has become very unpopular. He had energy crises, a budget crisis now. The state's $38 billion in the red, so that's a very big problem which they haven't solved. And Republicans, who have not won a statewide election in nine years in the state, have seized upon the situation and used a constitutional provision that allows you to throw a governor out of office. You need to get signatures. They need 900,000 approximately. They have been gathering them at $1 a signature by paying people to gather them at shopping malls and in grocery stories. And this week they announced they had more than enough to put this recall on the ballot.

Now what that means is that these signatures are recognized and certified. There'll be an election, which will either be this fall or in March that'll have two questions on it: Do you want to keep the governor in office or not, and if we have a new governor, who do you want? And it's very easy to get on that ballot. And so on the same day, they can throw one governor out, elect another one no matter how few votes they get and that person would then walk into the governor's office, inherit the deficit, and you have a big mess on your hands.

Now it--it...

MARTIN: So why would you want that job? I mean, what--you know, what...

Ms. MARTHA RADDATZ (ABC News): Yeah.

Mr. HARWOOD: Well, that's--that's the question, but it's something that everybody should be concerned about around the country because there are 18 states that have a recall provision and the proponents of throwing Davis out of office told me this week when I was out in Orange County, where--which is the epicenter of this movement, that activists in other states have started to call them and say, `How do you do this?' because there are budget problems all over the country. So we'll see whether California can be a trend-setter in this.

Ms. RADDATZ: John, how--I--I can't help thinking what--did Gray Davis' personality play a part in this? What really went wrong? I mean, b--ob--obviously a lot when wrong there, but why the reaction to him personally and did personality play a part?

Mr. HARWOOD: It--it's very curious. He's not been accused of any crime and you--you normally think of a public official being thrown out as being, you know, a situation where they've committed a crime of some sort. That's not the case here. He does have a personality where people in both parties, Dem--he's not popular among Democratic politicians either. They think he's very opportunistic and out for himself, that sort of thing, and Republicans just don't like him at all; they've been on a very bad losing streak in this state. But I was talking to one of the consultants who's working on the recall this week, he said, `You know, if you read the Constitution, you can throw somebody out for unsatisfactory per--performance,' so it doesn't have to be a lot.

Mr. CHARLES COBB (Allafrica.com): What sort of precedent does this set if--if the recall is successful? I mean, does it set in motion--is it possible to govern if--if anybody can just get ticked off at you and start a...

Mr. HARWOOD: Well, this is the question. Now Republicans say there's been some overreaction to this, that this has been tried 31 times in California history, never gotten on the ballot before. So they--they're arguing that their--this not going to be used willy-nilly the way some people are expecting. So we don't really know how that's going to go.

MARTIN: You know, there are governors who are more unpopular than Gray Davis is. I wonder why he's the--I--I think we--we've been talking about this. In fact, I think the honor of the most unpopular goes to Judy Martz, a Republican of Montana, where 7--who has a 79 percent negative job performance rating, but how could any governor be popular given these circumstances? Their--their economies are doing terrible. I mean, who--who likes a governor who's making budget cuts?

Mr. HARWOOD: Well, exactly. And--and this also pos--raises the question about how many public officials, if they think there's a threat of a recall out there, are going to take tough decisions, do the statesmanlike thing. But here, the reason it's happening in California is they do have this very well-developed tradition of direct democracy. They have initiatives on the ballot every year. That's been growing over the last 20 years. Happened with Proposition 13, you remember, which touched off a wildfire around the country.

Mr. TOM GJELTEN (NPR News): Well, what's the outcome of this depend on? What are the--what are the variables here that's going to determine which way it goes?

Mr. HARWOOD: A couple of things. One is whether Democrats stick together behind Davis, keep Democratic politicians off the ballot. If that--if there's a united front there, Davis will do an all-out assault...

Mr. GJELTEN: OK.

Mr. HARWOOD: ...say this is a right-wing coup and attack the other side, their motivations, why they're doing this. That's one of the things that's going to determine it. The other is whether this budget crisis can somehow be solved. Democrats are hoping to push the election until March, give them time to solve the budget crisis. There's also a Democratic presidential primary, gives a better Democratic electorate for Davis.

MARTIN: That's all the time we have. Thank you, John, and thanks, everybody.

And you will see Gwen Ifill back in her regular chair next week, but here's a reminder about the debut of her new program, "Flashpoints USA," with Bryant Gumbel. The program will focus on the struggle between freedom and security in the post-9/11 world, including the story of eight Indiana men arrested in the wake of the 2001 terrorist attacks.

GWEN IFILL ("Flashpoints USA): (From premier) Wearing striped prison jumpsuits, shackled hand and foot, they were taken to Chicago to the federal detention center. No one could find them, not their lawyers, not their wives. Tariq Albasi was terrified.

MARTIN: That's the premier of "Flashpoints USA," next Tuesday evening, July 15th.

Thanks for letting me keep you company in Gwen's absence. Good night.