American Morning

Vic, good morning to you.

VICTOR KAMBER, DEMOCRATIC CONSULTANT: Good morning, Bill.

HEMMER: Also, the former RNC communications director, Cliff May, with us, as well.

Cliff, good morning to you, also.

CLIFF MAY, FOUNDATION FOR DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACIES: Good morning, Bill.

HEMMER: I know you were listening quite carefully to Senator Levin a short time ago. Your response to what he is saying right now. It is a clear indictment against the White House about the claims of weapons of mass destruction and the fact that they simply have not been found at this point.

MAY: No, that’s a very partisan point of view that he’s taking and I understand why in an election year he would, but he shouldn’t, because it’s really too important. We’re talking about George Tenet. There’s criticism of him, rightly so. He was CIA director under President Clinton. He was CIA director, as well, kept on by the Bush administration.

The CIA needs reform. Congress has not done its job of overseeing the CIA terribly well. But to make this an election or make this a partisan issue is wrong.

As for Zarqawi, you are absolutely right. To say that well, it’s nebulous, the connections between Zarqawi and al Qaeda, look, al Qaeda is not the kind of organization that applies for 501(c)3 status. They don’t sign treaties and contracts. What we know is this is an ideology we’re up against. Zarqawi represents it. He was in Iraq at the invitation of Saddam Hussein before the invasion. He is there now killing Americans. We really need to stop making partisan fodder out of an issue that’s much too important, an issue of war and peace. And I’m sorry that Mr. Levin did that this morning.

HEMMER: Well, how about that, Victor? Is it just politics?

KAMBER: Well, not at all. I mean, I’m shocked, sort of, sitting here listening to Cliff. The — I mean, Senator Levin responded to your question. This is a report by a commission. The president of the United States has been in power three and a half years, frankly, three and a half years too long as far as I’m concerned.

We went to war based upon information that the president of the United States passed on to Congress. He got it from his CIA. He got it from his FBI. He was in charge. Those were his people. Yes, they had been there under Clinton, but they were his people two years into his term or one year into his term.

Decisions were made based upon that information. Those decisions, three and a half years later, have proven wrong. There are no weapons, or at least we haven’t discovered them, of mass destruction. And if you’ll remember, that was one of the major reasons we went to war. There is no evidence that al Qaeda was involved with 9/11. That was a major reason we went to war.

MAY: That’s just not true. That’s just not true.

KAMBER: What’s just not true?

MAY: That’s just not true.

KAMBER: That there are…

MAY: Nobody said that we had evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11.

KAMBER: It depends on how you read what the president said.

MAY: But after 9/11, you have to look at rogue dictators who have used weapons of mass destruction, who have conspired with the terrorists differently than you did before. If you don’t understand that, you really shouldn’t be governing in this period of history…

(CROSSTALK)

HEMMER: Let me get a final word from Vic then I want to move on to Edwards.

KAMBER: And George Bush should not be.

HEMMER: Go ahead, Vic, a final word.

KAMBER: Well, just George Bush should not be governing in this time or period, just what Cliff said.

HEMMER: Let’s move to John Edwards. We’re going to see both men in about 15 minutes in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. On the screen for our viewers here, registered voters asked their choice of Edwards as a running mate. We get 28 percent as excellent, 36 percent say pretty good.

Vic, stack it up for us.

A pretty good choice yesterday, in your estimation, or not?

KAMBER: A great choice. I mean I, you know, I really, I’m one of those, I guess, fewer than many, that are excited about John Kerry. He gives me goose pimples. I think he’s terrific. I don’t know that he needed a running mate, frankly.

But given the choice that the Democrats had, and we had plenty of choices, and any one of them, I think, would have been a wonderful choice, John Edwards even excites me more. He’s bright, he’s talented, he’s articulate, he obviously does well with the people. And the one thing I’m really excited about is it proves that John Kerry is able to look for his own shortcomings, so to speak. He doesn’t need somebody who knows every street in Washington, D.C. He needs somebody that understood how to connect with people in a way that some people claim John Kerry can’t. John Edwards can connect with people.

It’s a terrific ticket.

HEMMER: Cliff, how do you go after John Edwards?

MAY: Well, look, I think John Edwards is probably a good choice. He’s something of a predictable choice. I think that what Vic says is right, a presidential candidate picks somebody who has qualities he lacks — charm, charisma, likability, things that Kerry doesn’t have so much.

The thing is, it’s a choice for sizzle, not for stake. The harshest criticism of Edwards came from Kerry during the primary. Kerry said at that point this is not a guy ready to be president tomorrow. Kerry has picked a guy who is not ready to be president tomorrow. He has no foreign affairs experience, no national security experience. He lacks a lot of the kind of knowledge you want.

Now, he’s a smart guy and he’s a quick study, I’m sure, but would you want him to be president the first week of December?

HEMMER: Is he going to help John Kerry in the Midwest, though?

KAMBER: Bill, he brings…

MAY: You know what, that’s the thing. Broder, David Broder, who’s not a partisan, said today this was a choice about an election, not a choice about governing, and I think David Broder is correct.

HEMMER: A final word again, Vic.

KAMBER: And you can’t govern until you get elected.

HEMMER: Yes.

Hey, Cliff, did you read the “Wall Street Journal” this morning, by chance?

MAY: Part of it, yes.

HEMMER: The last line, “he chose sizzle in a year when the voters are looking for substance.”

MAY: That’s, no, I think that’s right. John Edwards is very much sizzle rather than substance, or sizzle rather than…

HEMMER: You didn’t lift that from the “Wall Street Journal,” did you?

MAY: Oh, I hope not. But I’m sorry about that.

KAMBER: Bill, one thing…

HEMMER: Not a problem at all.

Victor, we’ve got to run.

KAMBER: One thing…

HEMMER: Make it quick.

KAMBER: If I may, Bill, one thing. John Edwards brings more to the table than Bill — than President Bush ever brought to the table four years ago.

HEMMER: Victor Kamber, Cliff May, thank you to both gentlemen.

KAMBER: Thank you.