The Web      Powered by


Return to Transcripts main page


Bush in Britain

Aired November 19, 2003 - 08:19   ET


BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: Quickly to London here, there's Whitehall, and the president is about to give his speech, and something we will watch quite closely in about 11 minutes when it gets under way.
SOLEDAD O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: Right. They're expecting that speech to start around 8:30. The president should be coming in in just moments. And this, of course, is the Banqueting Hall, which is where the speech will be held. And many people have said that this is going to be a major speech on Iraq. In addition, he's going to talk a lot about the friendship between Great Britain and the United States.

HEMMER: And we also expect that consistent theme about the push, the continued push for democracy in the Middle East, starting with countries like Iraq. The president making no apologies over the past several days in numerous interviews he's granted, especially to British journalists, about the fact that he is headstrong in his commitment to defeat and win, ultimately, not only over terrorism, but also the war on terror that is now being conducted worldwide.

O'BRIEN: As we have heard from Christiane Amanpour, outside, big protests expected, although she said today's protest tended to be more of the comical kind. I guess people parodying the president and the United States. But she said the big one will be tomorrow.

It'll be interesting to see the actual numbers.

HEMMER: Yes, I agree with you.

O'BRIEN: Some people have predicted as high as 100,000. Others are saying no, that's sort of great spin, they may not get anywhere near those actual numbers.

HEMMER: Yes. Back in February they had an anti-war rally in the streets of London and they got a million people. No one expects the numbers to be anywhere near that this time. But an important question as we go forward as to how many people will turn out tomorrow.

Today, however, the big news is this speech, after the president arriving in London, earlier meeting with families of the victims of 9/11. There is that connection right now, that relationship that even solidifies Britain's relationship with the U.S. even more so after the events of 24 months ago here in the U.S.

And the queen is quite aware of that and one of the major reasons why the first president ever to get an official state visit is happening with this president right now. O'BRIEN: Let's get a sense of how all of this is being received in Europe overall. "The Guardian" poll -- and I want to talk to our next guest about this poll.

Christian Malar is of France 3 TV, joining us from Berlin this morning, and Thomas Nehls. He's a correspondent for Germany's ARD Radio.

Gentlemen, thanks for joining me.

Let's talk a little bit, Christian, about French sentiment. This "Guardian" poll that I was talking about, 43 percent of Brits say that they welcome the president's visits. Thirty-six percent say they prefer he did not come.

How do the French feel about this trip?

CHRISTIAN MALAR, SENIOR FOREIGN ANALYST, FRANCE 3 TV: Well, the French do understand that it's very normal that President Bush is very welcome in Great Britain, which has been the most faithful and reliable ally during the last war against Iraq.

So the French do understand that. There is no problem.

The French have no animosity. The French public opinion has no animosity concerning the U.S. public opinion. I think most of the French are behind the French government when they say they still disagree about the approach of the Bush administration in Iraq. Yesterday...

O'BRIEN: And, Christian, I'm going to interrupt you there because it looks like the president has now come to the podium. So I'm going to have you stand by while we listen in to President Bush as he takes the microphone.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Thank you all. Thank you very much.

Secretary Straw and Secretary Hoon, Admiral Colbold (ph) and Dr. Shipman (ph), distinguished guests, I want to thank you for your very kind welcome that you've given to me and to Laura. I also thank the groups hosting this event, the Royal United Services Institute and the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

We're honored to be in the United Kingdom. And we bring the good wishes of the American people.

It was pointed out to me that the last noted American to visit London stayed in a glass box dangling over the Thames.


A few might have been happy to provide similar arrangements for me.

(LAUGHTER) I thank Her Majesty, the queen, for interceding.


We're honored to be staying at her house.

Americans traveling to England always observe more similarities to our country than differences. I've been here only a short time, but I've noticed the tradition of free speech exercised with enthusiasm...


... is alive and well here in London.

We have that at home too. They now have that right in Baghdad as well.


The people of Great Britain also might see some familiar traits in Americans.

BUSH: We're sometimes faulted for a naive faith that liberty can change the world. If that's an error, it began with reading too much John Locke and Adam Smith.

Americans have on occasion been called moralists, who often speak in terms of right and wrong. That zeal has been inspired by examples on this island, by the tireless compassion of Lord Shaftesbury, the righteous courage of Wilberforce and the firm determination of the Royal Navy over the decades to fight and end the trade in slaves.

It's rightly said that Americans are a religious people. That's in part because of the good news that was translated by Tyndale, preached by Wesley, lived out in the example of William Booth.

At times Americans are even said to have a puritan streak. And where might that have come from?


Well, we can start with the Puritans.

To this fine heritage, Americans have added a few traits of our own: the good influence of our immigrants and the spirit of the frontier.

Yet there remains a bit of England in every American. So much of our national character comes from you, and we're glad for it. The fellowship of generations is the cause of common beliefs.

BUSH: We believe in open societies ordered by moral conviction. We believe in private markets humanized by compassionate government. We believe in economies that reward effort, communities that protect the weak and the duty of nations to respect the dignity and the rights of all. And whether one learns these ideals in County Durham or in West Texas, they instill mutual respect and they inspire common purpose.

More than an alliance of security and commerce, the British and American peoples have an alliance of values. And today this old and tested alliance is very strong.


The deepest beliefs of our nations set the direction of our foreign policy. We value our own civil rights, so we stand for the human rights of others. We affirm the God-given dignity of every person, so we are moved to action by poverty and oppression and famine and disease.

The United States and Great Britain share a mission in the world beyond the balance of power or the simple pursuit of interest.

BUSH: We seek the advance of freedom and the peace that freedom brings.

Together our nations are standing and sacrificing for this high goal in a distant land at this very hour. And America honors the idealism and the bravery of the sons and daughters of Britain.

The last president to stay at Buckingham Palace was an idealist without question. At a dinner hosted by King George V in 1918, Woodrow Wilson made a pledge. With typical American understatement, he vowed that right and justice would become the predominant and controlling force in the world.

President Wilson had come to Europe with his 14 points for peace. Many complimenting him on this vision yet some were dubious.

Take, for example, the prime minister of France. He complained that God himself had only 10 commandments.


Sounds familiar.


At Wilson's high point of idealism, however, Europe was one short generation from Munich and Auschwitz and the Blitz.

Looking back, we see the reasons why. The League of Nations, lacking both credibility and will, collapsed at the first challenge of the dictators.

BUSH: Free nations failed to recognize, much less confront, the aggressive evil in plain sight. And so, dictators went about their business, feeding resentments and anti-Semitism, bringing death to innocent people in this city and across the world and filling the last century with violence and genocide. Through world war and cold war we learned that idealism, if it is to do any good in this world, requires common purpose and national strength, moral courage and patience in difficult tasks. And now our generation has need of these qualities.

On September the 11th, 2001, the terrorists left their mark of murder on my country and took the lives of 67 British citizens. With the passing of months and years, it is the natural human desire to resume a quiet life and to put that day behind us as if waking from a dark dream. The hope that danger has passed is comforting, is understanding and it is false.

BUSH: The attacks that followed in Bali, Jakarta, Casablanca, Bombay, Mombasa, Najaf, Jerusalem, Riyadh, Baghdad and Istanbul were not dreams. They're part of a global campaign by terrorist networks to intimidate and demoralize all who oppose them.

These terrorists target the innocent and they kill by the thousands. And they would, if they gain the weapons they seek, kill by the millions and not be finished.

The greatest threat of our age is nuclear, chemical or biological weapons in the hands of terrorists and the dictators who aid them.

The evil is in plain sight. The danger only increases with denial. Great responsibilities fall once again to the great democracies. We will face these threats with open eyes and we will defeat them.


The peace and security of free nations now rests on three pillars.

BUSH: First, international organizations must be equal to the challenges facing our world, from lifting up failing states to opposing proliferation. Like 11 presidents before me, I believe in the international institutions and alliances that America helped to form and helps to lead.

The United States and Great Britain have labored hard to help make the United Nations what it is supposed to be: an effective instrument of our collective security.

In recent months, we've sought and gained three additional resolutions on Iraq, Resolutions 1441, 1483 and 1511, precisely because the global danger of terror demands a global response.

The United Nations has no more compelling advocate than your prime minister, who at every turn has championed its ideals and appealed to its authority. He understands as well that the credibility of the U.N. depends on a willingness to keep its word and to act when action is required.

America and Great Britain have done, and will do, all in their power to prevent the United Nations from solemnly choosing its own irrelevance and inviting the fate of the League of Nations.

BUSH: It's not enough to meet the dangers of the world with resolutions; we must meet those dangers with resolve.

In this century, as in the last, nations can accomplish more together than apart. For 54 years America has stood with our partners in NATO, the most effective multilateral institution in history. We're committed to this great democratic alliance and we believe it must have the will and the capacity to act beyond Europe where threats emerge.

My nation welcomes the growing unity of Europe and the world needs America and the European Union to work in common purpose for the advance of security and justice.

America is cooperating with four other nations to meet the dangers posed by North Korea. America believes the IAEA must be true to its purpose and hold Iran to its obligations. Our first choice and our constant practice is to work with other responsible governments.

We understand as well that the success of multilateralism is not measured by adherence to forms alone -- the tidiness of the process -- but by the results we achieve to keep our nations secure.

BUSH: The second pillar of peace and security in our world is the willingness of free nations, when the last resort arrives, to retain aggression and evil by force.

There are principled objections to the use of force in every generation, and I credit the good motives behind these views.

Those in authority, however, are not judged only by good motivations. The people have given us the duty to defend them and that duty sometimes requires the violent restraint of violent men. In some cases, the measured use of force is all that protects us from a chaotic world ruled by force.

Most in the peaceful West have no living memory of that kind of world. Yet in some countries the memories are recent.

The victims of ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, those who survived the rapists and the death squads had few qualms when NATO applied force to help end those crimes. The women of Afghanistan, imprisoned in their homes and beaten in the streets and executed in public spectacles, did not reproach us for routing the Taliban. Inhabitants of Iraq's Baathist hell, with his lavish palaces and his torture chambers, with his massive statutes and its mass graves, do not miss their fugitive dictator; they rejoiced at his fall.

BUSH: In all these cases, military action was preceded by diplomatic initiatives and negotiations and ultimatums and final chances until the final moment.

In Iraq, year after year, the dictator was given the chance to account for his weapons programs and end the nightmare for his people. Now the resolutions he defied have been enforced. And who will say that Iraq was better off when Saddam Hussein was strutting and killing, or that the world was safer when he held power?

Who doubts that Afghanistan is a more just society and less dangerous without Mullah Omar playing host to terrorists from around the world?

And Europe, too, is plainly better off with Milosevic answering for his crimes instead of committing more.

It's been said that those who live near a police station find it hard to believe in the triumph of violence. In the same way, free peoples might be tempted to take for granted the orderly societies we have come to know.

Europe's peaceful unity is one of the great achievements of the last half century. And because European countries now resolve differences through negotiation and consensus, there's sometimes an assumption that the entire world functions in the same way.

BUSH: But let us never forget how Europe's unity was achieved: by Allied armies of liberation and NATO armies of defense.

And let us never forget, beyond Europe's borders, in a world where oppression and violence are very real, liberation is still a moral goal and freedom and security still need defenders.


The third pillar of security is our commitment to the global expansion of democracy and the hope and progress it brings as the alternative to instability and hatred and terror. We cannot rely exclusively on military power to assure our long-term security. Lasting peace is gained as justice and democracy advance.

In democratic and successful societies, men and women do not swear allegiance to malcontents and murderers. They turn their hearts and labor to building better lives. And democratic governments do not shelter terrorist camps or attack their peaceful neighbors.

BUSH: They honor the aspirations and dignity of their own people.

In our conflict with terror and tyranny, we have an unmatched advantage, a power that cannot be resisted, and that is the appeal of freedom to all mankind.

As global powers, both our nations serve the cause of freedom in many ways in many places.

By promoting development and fighting famine and AIDS and other diseases, we're fulfilling our moral duties as well as encouraging stability and building a firmer basis for democratic institutions.

By working for justice in Burma, the Sudan and in Zimbabwe, we give hope to suffering people and improve the chances for stability and progress.

By extending the reach of trade, we foster prosperity and the habits of liberty.

And by advancing freedom in the greater Middle East, we help end a cycle of dictatorship and radicalism that brings millions of people to misery and brings danger to our own people.

The stakes in that region could not be higher.

BUSH: If the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation and anger and violence for export. And as we saw in the ruins of two towers, no distance on the map will protect our lives and way of life.

If the greater Middle East joins the democratic revolution that has reached much of the world, the lives of millions in that region will be bettered, and a trend of conflict and fear will be ended at its source.

The movement of history will not come about quickly. Because of our own democratic development, the fact that it was gradual and at times turbulent, we must be patient with others.

And the Middle East countries have some distance to travel. Arab scholars speak of a freedom deficit that has separated whole nations from the progress of our time. The essentials of social and material progress -- limited government, equal justice under law, religious and economic liberty, political participation, free press and respect for the rights of women -- have been scarce across the region. Yet that has begun to change.

In an arc of reform from Morocco to Jordan to Qatar, we are seeing elections and new protections for women and the stirrings of political pluralism.

BUSH: Many governments are realizing that theocracy and dictatorship do not lead to national greatness; they end in national ruin. They're finding, as others will find, that national progress and dignity are achieved when governments are just and people are free.

The democratic progress we've seen in the Middle East was not imposed from abroad, and neither will the greater progress we hope to see. Freedom, by definition, must be chosen and defended by those who choose it.

Our part as free nations is to ally ourselves with reform wherever it occurs.

Perhaps the most helpful change we can make is to change in our own thinking. In the West, there's been a certain skepticism about the capacity or even the desire of Middle Eastern peoples for self- government.

We're told that Islam is somehow inconsistent with a democratic culture, yet more than half of the world's Muslims are today contributing citizens in democratic societies.

It is suggested that the poor, in their daily struggles, care little for self-government, yet the poor especially need the power of democracy to defend themselves against corrupt elites.

People from the Middle East share a high civilization, a religion of personal responsibility and a need for freedom as deep as our own.

BUSH: It is not realism to suppose that one-fifth of humanity is unsuited to liberty. It is pessimism and condescension, and we should have none of it.


We must shake off decades of failed policy in the Middle East. Your nation and mine in the past have been willing to make a bargain to tolerate oppression for the sake of stability. Longstanding ties often led us to overlook the faults of local elites.

Yet this bargain did not bring stability or make us safe. It merely bought time while problems festered and ideologies of violence took hold.

As recent history has shown, we cannot turn a blind eye to oppression just because the oppression is not in our own back yard. No longer should we think tyranny is benign because it is temporarily convenient. Tyranny is never benign to its victims and our great democracies should oppose tyranny wherever it is found.


BUSH: Now we're pursuing a different course, a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East. We will consistently challenge the enemies of reform and confront the allies of terror. We will expect a higher standard from our friends in the region, and we will meet our responsibilities in Afghanistan and in Iraq by finishing the work of democracy we have begun.

There were good-faith disagreements in your country and mine over the course and timing of military action in Iraq. Whatever has come before, we now have only two options: to keep our word or to break our word.

The failure of democracy in Iraq would throw its people back into misery and turn that country over to terrorists who wish to destroy us. Yet democracy will succeed in Iraq, because our will is firm, our word is good and the Iraqi people will not surrender their freedom.


Since the liberation of Iraq, we have seen changes that could hardly have been imagined a year ago. A new Iraqi police force protects the people, instead of bullying them. More than 150 Iraqi newspapers are now in circulation, printing what they choose, not what they're ordered.

BUSH: Schools are open, with textbooks free of propaganda. Hospitals are functioning and are well-supplied.

Iraq has a new currency, the first battalion of a new army, representative local governments, and a governing council with an aggressive timetable for national sovereignty.

This is substantial progress. And much of it has proceeded faster than similar efforts in Germany and Japan after World War II.

But the violence we are seeing in Iraq today is serious. And it comes from Baathist holdouts and jihadists from other countries and terrorists drawn to the prospect of innocent bloodshed.

It is the nature of terrorism and the cruelty of a few to try to bring grief and the loss to many.

The armed forces of both our countries have taken losses felt deeply by our citizens. Some families now live with the burden of great sorrow.

Cannot take the pain away, but these families can know they are not alone. We pray for their strength. We pray for their comfort. And we will never forget the courage of the ones they loved.

BUSH: The terrorists have a purpose, a strategy to their cruelty. They view the rise of democracy in Iraq as a powerful threat to their ambitions. In this, they are correct.

They believe their acts of terror against our coalition, against international aid workers and against innocent Iraqis will make us recoil and retreat. In this, they are mistaken.


We did not charge hundreds of miles into the heart of Iraq and pay a bitter cost of casualties and liberate 25 million people only to retreat before a band of thugs and assassins.


We will help the Iraqi people establish a peaceful and democratic country in the heart of the Middle East. And by doing so, we will defend our people from danger.

A forward strategy of freedom must also apply to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This is a difficult period in a part of the world that has known many. Yet our commitment remains firm. We seek justice and dignity. We seek a viable, independent state for the Palestinian people, who have been betrayed by others for too long.


BUSH: We seek security and recognition for the state of Israel, which has lived in the shadow of random death for too long.

(APPLAUSE) These are worthy goals in themselves. And by reaching them, we will also remove an occasion and excuse for hatred and violence in the broader Middle East.

Achieving peace in the Holy Land is not just a matter of the shape of a border. As we work on the details of peace, we must look to the heart of the matter, which is the need for a viable Palestinian democracy.

Peace will not be achieved by Palestinian rulers who intimidate opposition, who tolerate and profit from corruption and maintain their ties to terrorist groups. These are the methods of the old elites, who time and again have put their own self-interest above the interests of the people they claim to serve.

The long-suffering Palestinian people deserve better. They deserve true leaders, capable of creating and governing a Palestinian state.

BUSH: Even after the setbacks and frustrations of recent months, goodwill and hard effort can bring about a Palestinian state and a secure Israel.

Those who would lead a new Palestine should adopt peaceful means to achieve the rights of their people and create the reformed institutions of a stable democracy.

Israel should free settlement construction, dismantle unauthorized outposts, end the daily humiliation of the Palestinian people and not prejudice final negotiations with the placements of walls and fences.

Arab states should end incitement in their own media, cut off public and private funding for terrorism, and establish normal relations with Israel.

Leaders in Europe should withdraw all favor and support from any Palestinian ruler who fails his people and betrays their cause.

And Europe's leaders, and all leaders, should strongly oppose anti-Semitism, which poisons public debates over the future of the Middle East.


Ladies and gentlemen, we have great objectives before us that make our Atlantic alliance as vital as it has ever been.

We will encourage the strength and effectiveness of international institutions. We will use force when necessary in the defense of freedom.

BUSH: And we will raise up an ideal of democracy in every part of the world.

On these three pillars we will build the peace and security of all free nations in a time of danger.

So much good has come from our alliance of conviction and might. So much now depends on the strength of this alliance as we go forward.

America has always found strong partners in London, leaders of good judgment and blunt counsel and backbone, when times are tough. And I found all those qualities in your current prime minister, who has my respect and my deepest thanks.


The ties between our nations, however, are deeper than a relationship between leaders. These ties endure because they are formed by the experience and responsibilities and adversity we have shared.

And in the memory of our peoples, there will always be one experience, one central event, when the seal was fixed on the friendship between Britain and the United States: The arrival in Great Britain of more than 1.5 million American soldiers and airmen in the 1940s was a turning point in the Second World War.

BUSH: For many Britons, it was a first close look at Americans other than in the movies. Some of you here today may still remember the friendly invasion. Our lads, they took some getting used to. There was even a saying about what many of them were up to in addition to being overpaid and over here.


At a reunion in North London some years ago, an American pilot who had settled in England after his military service said, "Well, I'm still over here and probably overpaid, so two out of three isn't bad."


In that time of war, the English people did get used to the Americans. They welcomed soldiers and flyers into their villages and homes and took to calling them "our boys."

About 70,000 of those boys did their part to affirm our special relationship. They returned home with English brides.

Americans were getting a certain image of Britain as well. We saw an island threatened on every side with a leader who did not waiver in a country of the firmest character.

And that has not changed. The British people are the sort of partners you want when serious work needs doing. The men and women of this kingdom are kind and steadfast and generous and brave, and America is fortunate to call this country our closest friend in the world. May God bless you all.

(APPLAUSE) O'BRIEN: You've been listening to President Bush in the banquet room at Whitehall Palace. He was delivering a speech that had been billed in advance as a major speech on Iraq. And indeed, it covered a lot of ground. The speech lasting not quite 45 minutes. And in it, the president pointed out numerous thing, first saying that he's got those these three pillars on which to bring peace and security. He praised, of course, the alliance between Great Britain and the United States. That was seen as an important point for him as he made this trip. In addition, he also defended U.S. actions in Iraq. He called on the international communities to do much more, and said that Great Britain and the U.S. will keep the U.N. from solemnly choosing its own irrelevance.

European leaders, he pointed out now, rule through, quote, "negotiation and consensus," but pointed out that the process today was achieved through liberation and defense. And finally, he reiterated the need to bring democracy to the Middle East, stakes in the region, he said, being very high, and that the lives of millions would be better if the region would join a democratic revolution. He recognized the failed U.S. policies in the past in the Middle East, tolerating oppression for the sake of relationships, and said that democracy not only must, but will succeed in Iraq.

The speech again, a lengthy speech for the president, lasting almost 45 minutes, one of the longest speeches he's given.

BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: This was all about the Bush doctrine, all about the current war on terror, and again, a heavy emphasis on trying to get a foothold for democracy in the Middle East, which is what he says the situation in Iraq is all about.

Jeff Greenfield's been listening as well, and taking copious notes, I see.

JEFF GREENFIELD, CNN SR. ANALYST: Copious, almost illegible notes. Let's just focus on these three pillars. His tip of the hat to multilateralism was the way to say to people in Europe, I'm not this unilateralist cowboy, but it was very kind of soft. It wasn't a exactly a ringing endorsement of the U.N. In fact, he said we sure hope the U.N. doesn't go the way of the League of Nations and kind of function in its own irrelevance by not doing anything.

The second item, that force is sometimes necessary to protect people, is a very important point to make, the Bush administration believes, because Europe having gone through World War II, having lost so many people, is a place whose leaders often don't want to use force. They were reluctant to stop Hitler. They were reluctant in the Balkans. The United States led the way there and in Kosovo. So when he said, look, sometimes the only way to stop violence is with the measured use of force, that was a way to say look, folks in Europe, this fecklessness is not going to help.

And as you pointed out, both of you, the third point, an extension of that speech he made a couple of weeks ago, saying democracy is not some kind of academic idealistic view, it's the way you bring peace. This is an extension of Ronald Reagan's famous line that free nations do not make war on each other.

The other thing I mentioned just in passing, I was really quite struck by the specificity of what he said about the Middle East, and saying to the Europeans, stop being an ally of Arafat. That's the subtext of this, when he said stop coddling Palestinian leaders who betrayed their people. What he was saying to Western Europe basically is you've got to break free of your assumption that Arafat is the George Washington of Palestine. He's not.

O'BRIEN: Was it surprising to you that he sort of laid out specifics? I mean, I sort of thought it was interesting in that particular part, the third pillar, I suppose. He was very specific about what he wanted to see from the Palestinians and what they should want to see in their leaders, as well.

GREENFIELD: And from the Israelis, because if you look back at recent years, the Europeans in general are far less supportive of Israel than the United States, and there are complicated reasons for that, guilt over colonialism, perhaps, for the Holocaust, a sense that Israel is a colonial, Western power. Obviously the United States is a strong ally of Israel.

So what Bush was saying was, yes, we want some things of the Israelis, we're not backing everything that Sharon does. That's why we don't want him to build a wall. We want him to stop harassing the Palestinians. We want him to free settlements.

But then he turns and says not only are the Palestinians, and he means Arafat, have been corrupt and betraying their leaders, but you Europeans by being so friendly to Arafat, by greeting him and treating him as somehow a legitimate leader, you're hurting the Middle East process, and you're right. This was a very specific set of American policy points that are aimed both at the Israelis, and the Palestinians and the Europeans.

O'BRIEN: OK, Jeff, thanks a lot. You know, we have asked earlier Christian Malar of France 3 TV and also from Berlin, Thomas Nays, who is a correspondent for Germany's ARD Radio, we've asked them to listen in on the speech and stick around.

So thanks, gentlemen, for sticking with us.

Christian, let's begin with you. What did you make of this speech? And what do you think the reaction in France will be to this speech?

CHRISTIAN MALAR, SR. FOREIGN ANALYST, FRANCE 3 TV: First, I want to say I totally agree with Jeff Greenfield. I think globally, that the analysis is right. The president wants to convey to the Europeans and to the French, in particular, part of his doctrine. It's true, when you listen carefully to the Bush speech today, you listen to -- or you read Bush political doctrine, with all these words -- freedom, liberation expansion of democracy, which we're all sticking to.

The question the French would put today, the French public opinion concerning Iraq, we have the same aim: speed up the transfer of power to the Iraqi people. President Chirac, French public opinion on that on the same wave length.

But the problem we still have and Colin Powell, whom I interviewed yesterday, said we still have this problem. You want us, he said, to solve the problem by the end of the year, six weeks from now, to find a legitimate people to have power in Iraq. Today he said, and I quote Colin Powell, we don't have right now the legislative people (ph) who have the acknowledgement, the reconnaissance of the Iraqi people, give us a little bit more time; we are heading the same way, but we disagree about the timing. And still there, we can see with still between France, between President Chirac and President Bush, we still have a bone of contention and the approach of tackling the Iraqi problem, the political future of Iraq.

O'BRIEN: Thomas, what do you think the president had to say to turn the tide of opinion in Germany to support him? And do you think he made any steps in that direction for this speech?

THOMAS NEHLS, ARD RADIO CORRESPONDENT: Well, he may be praised by 50 percent of his speech. Again, it was a definition of the word made and fabricated a little bit in the White House. But how about the other part? I mean, it's obviously right to say peace will not be achieved by Palestinian rulers who support corruption, but what about encouraging Sharon doing, or allowing at least, killings, devastating, destroying houses of relatives of innocent people who might get killed and so forth. It's a definition. And he missed the chance to encourage not only Sharon to do the right thing, but also the U.N. I mean, he spoke about credibility of the U.N. He missed to speak about his own credibility.

I mean, it's up to the White House, it's up to the Bush administration, to let the U.N. do what many, many resolutions contend and showed up to do.

So again, it was a one-sided speech, an interesting one, with a lot of analysis, but a one-sided, and that's a pity.

O'BRIEN: Thomas Nehls and Christian Malar, joining us this morning with analysis from the European perspective on this speech. Gentlemen, I thank you both for sticking around with us and joining us this morning. Appreciate it.


On CNN TV E-mail Services CNN Mobile CNN AvantGo CNNtext Ad info Preferences
   The Web     
Powered by
© 2005 Cable News Network LP, LLLP.
A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved.
Terms under which this service is provided to you.
Read our privacy guidelines. Contact us.
external link
All external sites will open in a new browser. does not endorse external sites.
 Premium content icon Denotes premium content.