Return to Transcripts main page

News from CNN

Baghdad Bombings

Aired October 27, 2003 - 12:42   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


HEIDI COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: Back to Baghdad now and today's wave of bombings. A U.S. general in Iraq said all were coordinated, all suicide attacks. And all aimed at groups involved with rebuilding Iraq. President Bush says the terrorists will be found and the U.S. will stay the course. Can it be done?
Here to sound off, author and columnist Phil Kent, and radio talk show host, Mike Malloy. Thank you, gentlemen, being here with us today. Let me ask you your thoughts about what happened. These bombings all happened within just a couple of hours of each other. What was your reaction when you learned about them, Mike?

MIKE MALLOY, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Heidi, this is very reminiscent of 1968, 35 years ago, the first day of the Tet holiday in Southeast Asia in Vietnam. There was a wave of bombing attacks. It became known as the Tet Offensive.

I think the situation in Iraq is approaching that level. We have a lot of people dictating this war who have no military experience. I'm talking about the civilian leadership. These are people who don't understand a combat zone or how to handle a situation like this. So I am very concerned that this attack today is too much reminiscent of the Tet Offensive in '68.

COLLINS: And you believe the American occupiers are being looked at as invaders?

MALLOY: Absolutely. Regardless of Saddam's evilness or his tyrannical rule, you have to keep in mind, Joe Stalin was the same way. He was vicious. When the Germans attacked, the people rallied Stalin and repelled the invader.

The United States is seen as the invader in Iraq, whatever our intentions are. And I am concerned that the events of today, symbolically falling on the first day of a lengthy holiday, a month- long holiday, is too much like 1968 in Vietnam.

COLLINS: Mr. Kent, do you think the American forces are seen as invaders as this point? Not everything is going wrong in Iraq.

PHIL KENT, AUTHOR, COLUMNIST: No. There's a lot going right, and I have to disagree with my friend Mike's analysis here, because even the liberal "New York Times" yesterday in a big story pointed out that you have 60,000 Iraqi policemen now. They polled people. People appreciate the fact Saddam is gone.

Do they like Americans? Not really. No one wants their country occupied. But Iraqis are taking over more and more.

The electricity has been restored to pre-Saddam levels. The schools are open. These are, a lot of them, radical Islamic terrorists. We are at war with radical Islam. A lot of liberals and Democrats don't fully understand that. So I'd rather the war be over there than here.

COLLINS: But are there enough Iraqi police officers trained at this point time?

KENT: I believe in six months there will be. I don't think so at this point. But all the experts, whatever their political affiliations, say yes.

You've got the border troops beefed up in Iraq. You've got the police beefed up. You've got aid workers. You've got the oil pipelines better secured now than ever before. There's a lot of good news going on.

COLLINS: All right. Let's talk about the polls a little bit right now. I'd like your perspective from both of you on where things sit with the American people and their approval of the administration and what it has done with Iraq.

Mike, what's your take on that?

MALLOY: Any numbers that show an approval by the American people of Bush's policies in Iraq, I think those polls are skewed, for this reason. Everything that was told to the American people that led to our invasion of Iraq was a lie. As it has turned out, there was no weapons of mass destruction, Saddam was not a threat to his neighbors, Saddam was not a threat to the United States. Even the head of the U.S. team that has been in there for months now has come to the same conclusion.

If there is a feeling in this country, if the poll numbers show that we support Bush, it is because we are still trying to recover from and we are still reeling from the lies that were told to the American public to get us involved there to begin with. So once those lies are cleared out, once people understand that the threat of Iraq was a manufactured threat, I think the support for this war and support for Bush's policies are going to evaporate.

COLLINS: Mr. Kent, I have a feeling you disagree vehemently.

KENT: Well, no lies were told. That is the left wing spin. Now, whether we got it right, I don't know. But even Bill Clinton told us that Saddam Hussein was a big threat and had weapons of mass destruction. Was he a liar?

MALLOY: In this instance, yes, absolutely. Look, the Republicans don't have...

KENT: But the polls show...

MALLOY: They don't have -- the Republicans don't have an exclusive franchise on lying.

KENT: The polls show, though, that the -- and even no less a liberal than Donna Brazile, who advises Democratic candidates, says, they've got to be very careful because the American people do not trust Democrats with regard to national security and the war on terrorism. That's what Donna Brazile says, a liberal. And that is true. And so I think Bush is going to be in good shape going into next year's presidential election just with that factor alone.

COLLINS: All right. Let's move, if we could just for a moment, with the debates last night. I want to get your reaction to them. How effective are these debates, and there is a front-runner now after this fifth debate last night, Mike?

MALLOY: Heidi, I think these debates are an exercise in futility or worse. When you have nine or 10 candidates, you've got 90 minutes or two hours, each candidate is not going to have very much time to talk.

Secondly, typical of Democrats, they attack each other -- this is like a circular firing squad -- instead of going after the person who is leading this country into chaos. And that's George Bush.

COLLINS: All right. Quickly, Mr. Kent, your response to that?

KENT: No front-runner, no vision by any of them.

COLLINS: All right, guys. We are going to take a quick break. We will be back in just a few moments. We'll continue our discussion: presidential politics, as the candidates debate the issues.

Is there a new front-runner? We'll talk more about that in just a moment. And which Democratic hopeful sides with President Bush to stay the course in Iraq? Back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COLLINS: America's foreign policy, topic number one for nine presidential hopefuls. In the latest Democratic debate just last night, we saw more Bush bashing, but little unity beyond that. So who stands a chance at this point?

Let's get back to our guests now, Phil Kent -- pardon me, Mike Malloy and Phil Kent. They told me to go left to right and I screwed that up.

Hey, I just want to ask you, you know, in particular, we saw Wesley Clark. He was hammered from all sides about whether he was for the occupation in Iraq or whether he was against it. Still fighting that issue. What is your take on that, as this particular individual is concerned?

MALLOY: I think Wesley Clark's position has changed. When he was advising CNN, he was in support once the troops had been committed. He was a tactician. He was giving tactical support rather than strategic support. I don't think there is anything different in Wesley Clark's position now. And I think he has made it very clear, he is against our involvement there. But I might remind the other nine candidates, the only candidate who has got a plan to withdraw troops and end this madness is Dennis Kucinich, it's not Wesley Clark.

The thing about Wesley Clark, the Republicans are terrified of Wesley Clark. They would hate to see a debate between a war hero and a deserter. And that's what it would come down to between Wesley Clark and George W. Bush.

COLLINS: Mr. Kent, is it actually he that they are afraid of, or is it more Dick Gephardt?

KENT: I think it's more Dick Gephardt. I think Wesley Clark is an empty suit. I think he'd be easy for a Republican nominee to run against.

You know, he was presiding over the bombing of Serbia cyber (ph) nation, and nobody cared on the Democratic side that no one went to Congress to get an authorization of force, resolution. Clinton just did it. And all this nonsense that Bush needs to go to Congress, Clark has to answer for Kosovo and the $1 billion bombing campaign.

COLLINS: Constantly looking back. But if we were to look forward, and only look at Iraq and the situation that is going on there now for the Democratic hopefuls, who is it in both of your minds that has this plan not only for withdrawal, but for rebuilding as well, the full package?

MALLOY: Well, first of all, let me just correct Phil. The enterprise against Yugoslavia -- against Serbia was a NATO enterprise. It was not a U.S. invasion. It was NATO. Now as far as any...

KENT: Remember, some U.S. air power was involved.

MALLOY: Well, of course. But only in the context of NATO.

As far as who has a plan to get the country out of this, again, I have to go with Dennis Kucinich. Obviously, the media are not focusing on Kucinich to the extent that they are focusing on the more well-known candidates. But Kucinich is the one with a plan to end what I refer to as the madness and get us out of there.

COLLINS: Would that be enough though?

MALLOY: What?

COLLINS: For Kucinich to actually become more of a hopeful here?

MALLOY: If people who believe that Dennis Kucinich he is a real Democrat and a real liberal and somebody who would get us out of this situation, if people who believe that would vote for him and support him, yes, it would be enough to get us out of the situation and to lead the country back to where it was. You know, after eight years of Clinton and Gore, eight years of peace and prosperity, for some reason, the American people said, let's have war and chaos and recession. Dennis Kucinich could take us back out of that.

COLLINS: Mr. Kent?

KENT: Well, I have to laugh. Kucinich just wants to cut and run. And I don't think the American people want to cut and run. You would throw Iraq back into chaos and violence that we supposed don't want to have anymore. Aren't we for pluralism and a democratic government there?

Actually, I think Joe Lieberman probably understands national security the best of all the Democratic candidates. So Kucinich is a sifer; he won't get anywhere.

COLLINS: And Senator Lieberman also spoke quite a bit about Israel and Palestine last night. So interesting that his hands seem to be...

KENT: I mean, he's the most knowledgeable.

COLLINS: ... around both of those issues. I appreciate you gentlemen being with us today. Mr. Phil Kent and Mr. Mike Malloy, thanks a lot for your input. I appreciate your time.

KENT: Thanks, Heidi.

MALLOY: Thanks, Heidi -- thank you.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com







Aired October 27, 2003 - 12:42   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
HEIDI COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: Back to Baghdad now and today's wave of bombings. A U.S. general in Iraq said all were coordinated, all suicide attacks. And all aimed at groups involved with rebuilding Iraq. President Bush says the terrorists will be found and the U.S. will stay the course. Can it be done?
Here to sound off, author and columnist Phil Kent, and radio talk show host, Mike Malloy. Thank you, gentlemen, being here with us today. Let me ask you your thoughts about what happened. These bombings all happened within just a couple of hours of each other. What was your reaction when you learned about them, Mike?

MIKE MALLOY, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Heidi, this is very reminiscent of 1968, 35 years ago, the first day of the Tet holiday in Southeast Asia in Vietnam. There was a wave of bombing attacks. It became known as the Tet Offensive.

I think the situation in Iraq is approaching that level. We have a lot of people dictating this war who have no military experience. I'm talking about the civilian leadership. These are people who don't understand a combat zone or how to handle a situation like this. So I am very concerned that this attack today is too much reminiscent of the Tet Offensive in '68.

COLLINS: And you believe the American occupiers are being looked at as invaders?

MALLOY: Absolutely. Regardless of Saddam's evilness or his tyrannical rule, you have to keep in mind, Joe Stalin was the same way. He was vicious. When the Germans attacked, the people rallied Stalin and repelled the invader.

The United States is seen as the invader in Iraq, whatever our intentions are. And I am concerned that the events of today, symbolically falling on the first day of a lengthy holiday, a month- long holiday, is too much like 1968 in Vietnam.

COLLINS: Mr. Kent, do you think the American forces are seen as invaders as this point? Not everything is going wrong in Iraq.

PHIL KENT, AUTHOR, COLUMNIST: No. There's a lot going right, and I have to disagree with my friend Mike's analysis here, because even the liberal "New York Times" yesterday in a big story pointed out that you have 60,000 Iraqi policemen now. They polled people. People appreciate the fact Saddam is gone.

Do they like Americans? Not really. No one wants their country occupied. But Iraqis are taking over more and more.

The electricity has been restored to pre-Saddam levels. The schools are open. These are, a lot of them, radical Islamic terrorists. We are at war with radical Islam. A lot of liberals and Democrats don't fully understand that. So I'd rather the war be over there than here.

COLLINS: But are there enough Iraqi police officers trained at this point time?

KENT: I believe in six months there will be. I don't think so at this point. But all the experts, whatever their political affiliations, say yes.

You've got the border troops beefed up in Iraq. You've got the police beefed up. You've got aid workers. You've got the oil pipelines better secured now than ever before. There's a lot of good news going on.

COLLINS: All right. Let's talk about the polls a little bit right now. I'd like your perspective from both of you on where things sit with the American people and their approval of the administration and what it has done with Iraq.

Mike, what's your take on that?

MALLOY: Any numbers that show an approval by the American people of Bush's policies in Iraq, I think those polls are skewed, for this reason. Everything that was told to the American people that led to our invasion of Iraq was a lie. As it has turned out, there was no weapons of mass destruction, Saddam was not a threat to his neighbors, Saddam was not a threat to the United States. Even the head of the U.S. team that has been in there for months now has come to the same conclusion.

If there is a feeling in this country, if the poll numbers show that we support Bush, it is because we are still trying to recover from and we are still reeling from the lies that were told to the American public to get us involved there to begin with. So once those lies are cleared out, once people understand that the threat of Iraq was a manufactured threat, I think the support for this war and support for Bush's policies are going to evaporate.

COLLINS: Mr. Kent, I have a feeling you disagree vehemently.

KENT: Well, no lies were told. That is the left wing spin. Now, whether we got it right, I don't know. But even Bill Clinton told us that Saddam Hussein was a big threat and had weapons of mass destruction. Was he a liar?

MALLOY: In this instance, yes, absolutely. Look, the Republicans don't have...

KENT: But the polls show...

MALLOY: They don't have -- the Republicans don't have an exclusive franchise on lying.

KENT: The polls show, though, that the -- and even no less a liberal than Donna Brazile, who advises Democratic candidates, says, they've got to be very careful because the American people do not trust Democrats with regard to national security and the war on terrorism. That's what Donna Brazile says, a liberal. And that is true. And so I think Bush is going to be in good shape going into next year's presidential election just with that factor alone.

COLLINS: All right. Let's move, if we could just for a moment, with the debates last night. I want to get your reaction to them. How effective are these debates, and there is a front-runner now after this fifth debate last night, Mike?

MALLOY: Heidi, I think these debates are an exercise in futility or worse. When you have nine or 10 candidates, you've got 90 minutes or two hours, each candidate is not going to have very much time to talk.

Secondly, typical of Democrats, they attack each other -- this is like a circular firing squad -- instead of going after the person who is leading this country into chaos. And that's George Bush.

COLLINS: All right. Quickly, Mr. Kent, your response to that?

KENT: No front-runner, no vision by any of them.

COLLINS: All right, guys. We are going to take a quick break. We will be back in just a few moments. We'll continue our discussion: presidential politics, as the candidates debate the issues.

Is there a new front-runner? We'll talk more about that in just a moment. And which Democratic hopeful sides with President Bush to stay the course in Iraq? Back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COLLINS: America's foreign policy, topic number one for nine presidential hopefuls. In the latest Democratic debate just last night, we saw more Bush bashing, but little unity beyond that. So who stands a chance at this point?

Let's get back to our guests now, Phil Kent -- pardon me, Mike Malloy and Phil Kent. They told me to go left to right and I screwed that up.

Hey, I just want to ask you, you know, in particular, we saw Wesley Clark. He was hammered from all sides about whether he was for the occupation in Iraq or whether he was against it. Still fighting that issue. What is your take on that, as this particular individual is concerned?

MALLOY: I think Wesley Clark's position has changed. When he was advising CNN, he was in support once the troops had been committed. He was a tactician. He was giving tactical support rather than strategic support. I don't think there is anything different in Wesley Clark's position now. And I think he has made it very clear, he is against our involvement there. But I might remind the other nine candidates, the only candidate who has got a plan to withdraw troops and end this madness is Dennis Kucinich, it's not Wesley Clark.

The thing about Wesley Clark, the Republicans are terrified of Wesley Clark. They would hate to see a debate between a war hero and a deserter. And that's what it would come down to between Wesley Clark and George W. Bush.

COLLINS: Mr. Kent, is it actually he that they are afraid of, or is it more Dick Gephardt?

KENT: I think it's more Dick Gephardt. I think Wesley Clark is an empty suit. I think he'd be easy for a Republican nominee to run against.

You know, he was presiding over the bombing of Serbia cyber (ph) nation, and nobody cared on the Democratic side that no one went to Congress to get an authorization of force, resolution. Clinton just did it. And all this nonsense that Bush needs to go to Congress, Clark has to answer for Kosovo and the $1 billion bombing campaign.

COLLINS: Constantly looking back. But if we were to look forward, and only look at Iraq and the situation that is going on there now for the Democratic hopefuls, who is it in both of your minds that has this plan not only for withdrawal, but for rebuilding as well, the full package?

MALLOY: Well, first of all, let me just correct Phil. The enterprise against Yugoslavia -- against Serbia was a NATO enterprise. It was not a U.S. invasion. It was NATO. Now as far as any...

KENT: Remember, some U.S. air power was involved.

MALLOY: Well, of course. But only in the context of NATO.

As far as who has a plan to get the country out of this, again, I have to go with Dennis Kucinich. Obviously, the media are not focusing on Kucinich to the extent that they are focusing on the more well-known candidates. But Kucinich is the one with a plan to end what I refer to as the madness and get us out of there.

COLLINS: Would that be enough though?

MALLOY: What?

COLLINS: For Kucinich to actually become more of a hopeful here?

MALLOY: If people who believe that Dennis Kucinich he is a real Democrat and a real liberal and somebody who would get us out of this situation, if people who believe that would vote for him and support him, yes, it would be enough to get us out of the situation and to lead the country back to where it was. You know, after eight years of Clinton and Gore, eight years of peace and prosperity, for some reason, the American people said, let's have war and chaos and recession. Dennis Kucinich could take us back out of that.

COLLINS: Mr. Kent?

KENT: Well, I have to laugh. Kucinich just wants to cut and run. And I don't think the American people want to cut and run. You would throw Iraq back into chaos and violence that we supposed don't want to have anymore. Aren't we for pluralism and a democratic government there?

Actually, I think Joe Lieberman probably understands national security the best of all the Democratic candidates. So Kucinich is a sifer; he won't get anywhere.

COLLINS: And Senator Lieberman also spoke quite a bit about Israel and Palestine last night. So interesting that his hands seem to be...

KENT: I mean, he's the most knowledgeable.

COLLINS: ... around both of those issues. I appreciate you gentlemen being with us today. Mr. Phil Kent and Mr. Mike Malloy, thanks a lot for your input. I appreciate your time.

KENT: Thanks, Heidi.

MALLOY: Thanks, Heidi -- thank you.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com