American Morning

Cliff, I guess, except for the specifics on the names, none of this probably surprises you?

CLIFF MAY, FMR. RNC COMM. DIR.: No, there’s been reason to believe for some time that Saddam Hussein used Oil-for-Food money. This a program meant to keep kids from dying, give them food, give them medicine. And it was a corrupt program, and he used it to pay off people in various countries.

So that when we went to the international community to see if we could do something about Saddam Hussein, we were talking to people who may have been getting checks from Saddam Hussein. Important to understand, this is — we’re talking about the biggest financial swindle in human history. We’re talking about a program that ended up killing people, and this was under U.N. auspices, under Kofi Annan. M. O’BRIEN: Biggest swindle in human history, really? This is it, huh?

MAY: If you look at the numbers involved, yes, I think so. It would be hard to find anything with that many billions of dollars stolen. Anything else, I can’t come up with it.

M. O’BRIEN: Well, Victor, does this prove the U.N. is rotten to the core?

VICTOR KAMBER, DEMOCRATIC CONSULTANT: No. I mean, Cliff said — everything I agree with Cliff except one thing. It was not a corrupt…

M. O’BRIEN: Hey, wait a minute, you agree with Cliff?

KAMBER: With everything but one line, which is a crucial line. It was not a corrupt program. The program was corrupted by Saddam Hussein and the Russians. The program…

M. O’BRIEN: Well, it takes two to tango. There’s more to it than that.

KAMBER: Not according to Senate reports, if you read them. Kofi Annan has no implications by him whatsoever. It’s Saddam Hussein who ended up taking these monies and bribing…

M. O’BRIEN: Victor, you don’t think there were a lot of winks and nods going on over this whole thing?

KAMBER: Anymore than I think Dick Cheney winks and nods over Halliburton, or anybody else winks and nods over programs.

MAY: Miles, if I may, there are two possibilities. We don’t know that Kofi Annan broke any laws.

KAMBER: We do know.

MAY: We don’t!

KAMBER: … has not found any evidence.

(CROSSTALK)

KAMBER: So let’s start with innocent.

MAY: No, not finding any evidence is not the same thing as innocence, as you well know. There is two possibilities…

M. O’BRIEN: Isn’t there a presumption of innocence here? No?

KAMBER: I would think so.

MAY: Let’s presume innocence. In that case, he’s the most negligent and incompetent manager in world history as well, because this program, which he shaped, expanded, presided over, which his son profited from, he evidently didn’t know what the heck was going on with this program, and Saddam Hussein was using the money from the program to buy weapons and palaces, and possibly, I think this will come out eventually, possibly to underwrite terrorism.

KAMBER: And bought votes from the U.N., we know that.

M. O’BRIEN: Let’s talk about “Newsweek.” “Newsweek” right now offering a retraction on this story, which indicated that the Koran was being flushed down the toilet by interrogators at Guantanamo. Now they’d like to flush the story down the toilet perhaps.

But part of it is, I think Newsweek hasn’t done a very forthcoming retraction here. What are your thoughts on this, because this truly — Victor, you start with this one. Lives were lost over this whole thing.

KAMBER: No question. I mean, one of the problems we have in this age where instant news and everyone’s trying to one-upsmanship the other. Every network, every magazine, every newspaper. They’re going with half-truths sometimes. They’re going with rumors. They’re not going with the kind of investigative true journalism, I think, that is required. Here, “Newsweek” made a blunder, and then compounds it, I think, by not doing the kind of apology that’s necessary.

Having said all that, and using what Jack’s question today, I do not think the government should intrude itself. I do not think we need any sort of censorship, but I do think that we need to understand that “Newsweek” went way over on this one.

All right, Cliff May, time to put some restrictions on the press?

MAY: No, I wouldn’t put restrictions on the press apart from the government. I think the press should put restrictions on itself. I think it’s high time…

M. O’BRIEN: We’re not good at that, though, are we?

MAY: No, absolutely. The media is not good at self-criticism. It’s not good at self-reflection or self-examination, but after what happened at CBS with Dan Rather, what happened with “The New York Times” with the Al Kaka (ph) ammunition dumps, what happened here, it really is time for the media to look at itself and try and do better than this. Right now, all — everybody just wants to get the story out there first, and it’s right…

M. O’BRIEN: And this is a single source, anonymous source at that, and a particular story that has tremendous implications. I wonder if the editors totally missed the potential implications there.

MAY: How about this implication? We’re in a real war. It’s a real war, not a metaphorical war. I think the media has to be extra careful. When “Newsweek” says we’re sorry to the victims, small consolation to those victims who died.

M. O’BRIEN: Let’s got back — this is the final subject. Condoleezza Rice with her little impromptu tour of Iraq. Victor, as she went, a lot of carnage, even as she was there. This is, nevertheless, very important for the administration to get her out there, to try to get ahead of the story. Events, however, seemed to overtake this, don’t they?

KAMBER: Yes. I mean, I think it was crucial that she go from the administration standpoint, because all we’ve seen for the last three weeks, four weeks, is death upon death upon death. The insurgents continue to kill, suicide bombers.

And what the purpose of her trip, I’m assuming, was to try to get back on message that democracy wins out over death. The American public hasn’t bought all this.

M. O’BRIEN: Well, all it did was make sure we pay attention to the 34 deaths that occurred that day.

Cliff, final thought on that, the trip and the administration, where they are right now?

MAY: The solution to the suicide bombers is going to be military. We need to fight this kind of war and win it. These people are barbarians. But Condi Rice was there for another reason. She wants to see that the government that’s coming together, the constitution, is done correctly, and she’s providing very important advice, because we’re trying to help Iraq become a decent society, one of the first in the matter of Middle East. That’s very important for the future of our foreign policy and for the future of the world.

KAMBER: It was a photo-op trip, you know it was.

MAY: Where would you rather have the secretary of state go, Victor, other than Iraq right now? Where is more important?

KAMBER: I think probably to here in the United States to try to solve how we get out of Iraq.

MAY: She is the secretary of state. Her job is to do foreign affairs.

M. O’BRIEN: Gents, got to go.

Victor Kamber, Cliff May, always a pleasure. Thank you — Soledad.