Senator Byrd, who will appear here tomorrow night said in the February 12
speech accusing his colleagues of sleep walking through history. I want
you to comment on this. "As this nation stands at the brink of
battle, this chamber for the most part is silent, there is no debate, no
discussion, no attempt to lay out for nation the pros and cons of this
particular war. We stand passively mute in the U.S. Senate paralyzed by
our own uncertainty."
AND
WOODWARD: OK, you obviously can't reopen the debate in either formal way.
But Senator Dodd, saying in some sort of informal way, to get information
in -- and the reality here is there is an immense amount of anxiety that
the public has. KING: You spent a lot of time with him for the book. Does
he ever question -- he answered tonight that he does not -- he sleeps
well. Does he ever question -- did you ever get the impression that he
questions his resolve?
WOODWARD: I asked him -- President Bush about this, and he just -- he
almost, again, almost jumped out his chair. He said I just have no
doubts. And literally said that -- this was on the war on terrorism. But
when it comes to Iraq and his decision-making, I think he is a person who
grinds it out in the war cabinet and then makes a decision and does not
revisit it.
KING: The question is, is that good to have no doubts?
WARNER: Oh, I defer to what you have in your book says an accurate
recitation of your own views and what he said.
But he's a human being. And he spoke of his faith. And, to me, faith
implies you've got to listen to others and be mindful of the wants and
the needs of others. And I'm certain that he does that.
But we cannot have someone out there blinking and flinching at this hour,
and I commend you.
WOODWARD: I think exactly what he feels -- what President Bush feels.
DODD: This is not about blinking or flinching. It's about making sure
that we're going to do is going to make a lot of sense for us here.
You know, again, I almost sound like I'm listening to people who support
the president. I think he's losing it.
I thinking he's doing a great job with this in the sense he's achieving
good results here. We're acting like this is somehow a major setback.
We're achieving our desired goals, at least to this juncture. The only
question remains whether or not you're going to have the kind of support
that we ought to have.
WOODWARD: But what about the public anxiety? I'm sorry, that is a big --
that is the elephant in the room.
FROM
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0303/07/lkl.00.html
It's the president's demeanor. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Bob has said and I
certainly don't know him well enough to disagree with at all. The sense
of being comfortable, at ease with where you are. Confident about your
decision-making process is.
And I think the conclusion one would reach, still the good news, he's
going to go to the U.N. and try to get that resolution. But I think
behind all of that is we're going to war, and that's what came across
tonight, I think, to most people probably watching this.
KING: Let's take a call. San Francisco, for Bob Woodward, Senator John
Warner, Senator Chris Dodd. Hello. CALLER: Hello. There appears to be
only yes people surrounding the president. Who on this panel is willing
to give him a reality check on how strongly the American people are
opposed to going to war with Iraq alone?
KING: Well, the polls don't show that they're strongly opposed. Do they,
Bob? What's the latest poll? Significant number.
(CROSSTALK)
WOODWARD: ... people want, if there is a war, for it to be U.N.
backed.
KING: I'll give you a question (UNINTELLIGIBLE), is there a George Ball
in the president's circle? George Ball was the one guy who told Kennedy
don't send one troop to Vietnam. Is there a George Ball in this
administration?
WARNER: I feel that he gets good, strong, cross-section of the diversity
within his cabinet. Certainly Powell and Rumsfeld go at it pretty well,
as they have, and their predecessors have had.
(CROSSTALK)
WARNER: ... that's a good question she asked.
KING: Hold on a second.
WARNER: And I'd like to answer it. I would simply say that your voice is
counting and your voice is being heard. And across America and across the
world, I think people of clear conscience are gravely concerned. And I'm
sure the president is taking that into consideration.
KING: New York City, hello.
CALLER: Hello?
KING: Yes. Go ahead.
CALLER: I have a question for Senator Warner. Why can we not meet France
and Germany's demands for last-ditch diplomatic efforts now?
WARNER: The president tonight did not foreclose the options that France,
Germany and Canada and great Britain are putting towards the Security
Council. He simply said in a very straight-forward way, let's wait and
see.
KING: Senator Dodd, is there a Democratic Party position on
this?
DODD: No, and the leader Tom Daschle, Nancy Pelosi have not asked even
for one at all.
KING: Should you have one? DODD: No, I don't think so. I think in the
conduct of foreign policy you don't ever try to get caucus positions.
When matters reach the water's edge here, hen you try to let people form
their own opinions rather than have sort of caucus or party views.
I think again, based on the votes back last fall, we had, I think, a
significant number, I don't know the exact number, of Democrats who
supported the resolution, I was one of them. There are many of us here
who believe that the president's been succeeding.
We also agree on -- I think most people are in this country, that it
would be far wiser and far better if we're going to engage in war here
that we do so with a kind of multinational cooperation that the
president's father was able to cobble together back a decade or so ago.
They're going it alone here. While we don't have any question about the
success militarily, the problems that that creates in terms of dealing
with terrorism, dealing with North Korea, dealing with a whole host of
other issues where international cooperation would be vitally important,
maybe damage for sometime. And we worry about that.
KING: Wichita, Kansas, hello.
CALLER: Hello. This question's for the panel. What evidence, if any, is
there that Saddam Hussein is linked to the 9/11 attacks in New York
City?
KING: Bob, have they linked it?
WOODWARD: They have not. There has been some very fuzzy intelligence on
that, but there's nothing substantial. And in fact, if you look at what
Secretary of State Powell said at the U.N. on February 5 he never alluded
to any connections between Iraq and 9/11.
AND
There are also those that there's some disagree, as we ought to have in
this country, where debate and dissent ought not to be seen as
unpatriotic. In fact it was the absence of debate and dissent in other
points in our history where I think we've regretted afterwards that we
didn't have more discussion about it.
And so backing the president where he's right is appropriate, and where
there's a disagreement, respectfully disagreeing is also appropriate.
We're about to engage in a military conflict. The question people are
raising is if we do it alone, what cost is that going to involve? How
long are we going to be there? What cost to the young men and women in
uniform? Are there other ways of resolving the issue?
And just as the president suggested this evening, that we ought be to
using all our diplomatic tools to solve the problem of Korea, there are
many of us here who would like to see him use that same kind of influence
in dealing with Iraq. And if he can't do that in the end, then our
security is, as he suggested is, in jeopardy then we ought to use
military force.
Clearly, part of our answer to 9/11 is keeping international support what
we want to do. We cannot defeat terrorism alone it. It requires
international cooperation. We need to work on that all the time.
AND
Following the use of force if that becomes necessary, we would move in
and the American military for a shorter period of time as possible, will
keep a structure such that the people can be feed, there's some measure
of law and order, and that the oil fires, which are likely to occur, can
be put out. And to hold the nation together intact, and not let it
fracture. But there will be an evolution, and the president said many
times, we, the United States, do not want to run Iraq. Let the people of
that nation decide for themselves.
KING: Any comment, Senator Dodd or Bob?
DODD: Well, just that I think there's a danger obviously and John said a
brief period of time under military control. If you're trying again to
attract international cooperation, that gets harder if that military
presence is a governing presence remains for too long a period of time.
You have to transition fairly quickly.
KING: Plattsburg, New York, hello.
CALLER: Yes, Larry. My questions for the panel.
What is a bigger threat, going to war with Iraq or having Saddam Hussein
sell biological or chemical weapons to terrorists that they could use on
our own country? What's a bigger threat to them?
KING: Bob.
WOODWARD: President Bush repeatedly said the inaction is the big worry.
In other words, if we don't take care of this problem.
KING: Do we know he sells this to others? Is that a fact?
WOODWARD: No. No, it's not. It is a hypothetical, and some people, some
analysts think that he really is a control freak, and there's a lot of
evidence of that in that he would not give up any of this stuff.
KING: Arlington, Virginia, hello. CALLER: Hello. Whatever happened to our
constitution that says only Congress can declare war against head of
state?
KING: Senator Warner.
WARNER: Boy, that's a good question. And I have to tell you the last time
Congress declared war was World War II. And our military have been
engaged in operations with loss of life and limb, many, many, many times.
KING: So, we've never had a war?
WARNER: Well, certainly the war in Vietnam.
KING: Was a war.
WARNER: A war in Korea. I was in Korea as a Marine for a brief period in
the winter of '51, '52. That was war. Fifty thousand men...
KING: Killing people is a war.
WARNER: You bet. So, You're right, but we have not done it.
WOODWARD: Well, but the reason just -- I mean, it is a good question, is
that the constitution makes the president the commander- in-chief, and
particularly in a modern era, he can command the forces. So all the
congress can do.
KING: Isn't that a contradiction, then?
WOODWARD: No, all the Congress can do is literally cut off funding, but
he can employ, the president can employ the troops as he sees necessary.
WARNER: Share the burden of responsibility and accountability with the
president, and the caller's quite correct.
Press corps doyenne gets no notice
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
A long-running Washington tradition apparently ended last night when, for
the first time in memory, the doyenne of the White House press corps was
not called on in a presidential press conference.
Syndicated columnist Helen Thomas, who has covered every president since
John F. Kennedy, was relegated to the third row in last night's East Room
event and � if the memory of press corps veterans is accurate � received
her first presidential snub.
One reporter who has covered the past six presidents said: "I don't
remember a press conference in which [Mrs. Thomas] didn't get a
question."
For many years, it was a tradition for Mrs. Thomas to ask the first
question at White House news conferences and end them by saying, on
behalf of the press corps, "Thank you, Mr. President." However,
in recent years, her influence has waned � although she was still
afforded one of the first questions and continues to enjoy a front-row
seat at regular White House briefings.
For four decades the White House correspondent for United Press
International, Mrs. Thomas, 82, has in recent months harangued Bush
spokesman Ari Fleischer, asking how President Bush can slaughter innocent
Iraqis in a quest for oil.
Now syndicated by Hearst Newspapers, Mrs. Thomas has also denounced Mr.
Bush outside the confines of the White House briefing room. "This is
the worst president ever," Mrs. Thomas told the Daily Breeze of
Torrance, Calif., in January. "He is the worst president in all of
American history."
Also snubbed by Mr. Bush at last night's news conference was Mike Allen
of The Washington Post, the second consecutive time that the president
has skipped over The Post's correspondent, who was seated last night in
the front row.
� Joseph Curl
