Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Today
Powell Makes Surprise Iraq Visit; Iraqi Public Opinion Split on U.S. Occupation; Did Bush Speech on Iraq Help Re-election Chances?; Military Stretched Thin a Year After War Began
Aired March 19, 2004 - 11:30 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.
WOLF BLITZER, ANCHOR: In a surprise, the secretary of state Colin Powell flew to Iraq today, a trip that coincides with the first anniversary of the U.S.-led war against Saddam Hussein.
Our senior international correspondent, Walter Rodgers, is joining us now live from Baghdad.
Tell us how he was received, Walt.
WALTER RODGERS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, of course the secretary of state traveled in a very tight bubble. He met with U.S. soldiers, and of course, they cheered him.
The irony of this visit is that the secretary of state, Mr. Powell, came to Iraq one year after the beginning of the war. And he's still trying to convince skeptics and the international community that this was a just war, the assault against the Iraqis.
The secretary of state acknowledged there are very serious problems here in terms of turning the corner on violence, the drive-by shootings, the suicide bombings, the car bombs.
The secretary of state said the United States will prevail, and he repeatedly insisted the president was right -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Was there a sense that on this first anniversary of the U.S.-led war that this was a different day in Baghdad than under normal circumstances?
RODGERS: Sure, because I think a year -- actually probably another month from now, when Baghdad was more or less liberated, I think at that point the Iraqis were tentative in a welcome of the Americans. They were very glad to be rid of Saddam Hussein.
That's not what you're seeing here today.
In Iraq today, one year after the American-led assault on Iraq and the toppling of Saddam, the Iraqis have forgotten Saddam. He's behind them. They want to know, what are you doing for us today?
There were demonstrators out on the streets of Baghdad today, shouting "No to Saddam Hussein and no to America."
Many Iraqis want this occupation ended as quickly as possible. They want free elections, which presently the United States is preventing, because the U.S. figures the infrastructure for an election is not yet in place. That may be the case, but the Iraqis have lost patience with the Americans.
And most of all, the Iraqis are impatient and dissatisfied with the absence of personal security, which would protect them from car bombs. That -- the United States is required to provide that protection under international law. The Iraqis aren't getting it -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Our senior international correspondent, Walter Rodgers, in Baghdad. Thank you very much.
Hassan Fattah is a journalist in Baghdad. He's been covering this year in Iraq for both "The New Republic" as well as "TIME" magazine. He writes also for a new English language newspaper that was started right after the U.S.-led war wound up, entitled "Iraq Today."
Hassan, good evening to you. Was there a lot of anticipation in regards to the president's speech? Were a lot of people as far as you could tell glued to their radios, their TV sets wanting to hear what President Bush had to say?
HASSAN FATTAH, JOURNALIST: I actually don't think so at all. I don't know if it was even carried on any of the Arabic channels around -- Arabic satellite channels, to be honest with you. Chances are it will be carried on the evening news that comes in a couple of hours.
But certainly, it's not something that's going to resonate on the Iraqi street. Let's face it. This is sort of more of the same of what we've heard.
I think one of the things that really resonated in what I heard from the president was that the Arab world is looking to Iraq, what freedom is like. I think actually more significantly, the Arab world is looking to Iraq to see whether America will be pulling this off.
One year later, we are effectively back to where we started. Iraq's infrastructure and basic life is essentially where it came from when Saddam was in power, with one major difference and thank God for this, the government is gone. There's a new government.
The problem with it is that there is still a power vacuum, and there's still so many questions about the future of this country, one year later, and three months before probably the most significant thing that will happen to this country this year.
BLITZER: Hassan, but isn't there -- I'm surprised what you're saying, because you would have thought that the Iraqi people, who are educated, intelligent people, they would be grateful to the U.S. for getting rid of Saddam Hussein, the Ba'ath Party, and that regime, which had terrorized them for so many decades.
FATTAH: Well, there's certainly a difference between being grateful for getting rid of Saddam Hussein, at the same time, effectively mismanaging the entire process from there on. Remember, the Iraqis have never really complained about the war itself. Even as the debate about the war and what happened with the war continues in the west, none of that debate is happening here.
The debate is about the occupation and how the occupation continues. And for most Iraqis, it has been a really rough ride, and I think it's going to get even rougher over the next several months.
BLITZER: When you say that, in anticipation of the June 30 scheduled transfer of power from the coalition authority to the governing council, you think there will be elements that will try derail that. Is that what you're suggesting?
FATTAH: I think the elements are currently desperate to derail that effort. I -- We just had a mortar round that blasted this morning outside of our office and across the street. We don't think we were the target at all ,but it underscored to us, really brought home this whole thing.
I think the average Iraqi feels he has no control over his life. It's something we've been saying over the past year. And three months before this dramatic handover, we really don't seem to be moving any much further.
The sad thing about it is that a lot of these things could have well been expected. In fact, they're really not surprising. What is surprising is they're still happening one year after all of this.
BLITZER: Hassan Fattah, who has been helping us better understand what's happening inside Iraq for the past year, joining us live from Baghdad, on this historic day, the first year anniversary of the start on the U.S.-led war against Saddam Hussein.
Hassan, thank you very much.
Political analysts are buzzing about the speech. Some have suggested the president's comments today were going to be significant in setting the tone for his re-election campaign. Did he achieve the desired effect?
Our very own Bill Schneider and Jeff Greenfield, they're standing by to join us right after this commercial break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Today's speech by the president demonstrates the advantages and the perils of incumbency when the roles of commander in chief and candidate appear to intersect.
Let's bring in our Jeff Greenfield, our senior analyst. He's in New York. And here in Washington, our senior political analyst, Bill Schneider.
Jeff, first to you, what did you think of the president's speech?
JEFF GREENFIELD, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: I thought the most notable and remarkable part of it was his constant return to the theme that this is not unilateral action in Iraq.
Four different times, both in talking about terror and Iraq, the president listed. alphabetically I think. the different nations that had suffered terrorism, that were part of a nonproliferation effort, that had sent troops to Iraq, whose troops have died in Iraq.
I think that is a clear attempt to say that John Kerry and what you heard from General Clark were wrong, that this did not isolate America from its allies.
And the second thing, as he did yesterday in Fort Campbell, the president trying to equate the war in Iraq with the war on terror. This was a first anniversary of Iraq, but the whole first half of the speech wasn't about Iraq at all but the worldwide fight against terror. Just as he said yesterday, the removal of Saddam Hussein had made America more secure.
Those two messages, I think, for me, were the key political messages he was trying to deliver today.
BLITZER: To a lot of people out there, Bill Schneider, there is no difference between the war on terror and the war against Saddam Hussein. If you look at the public opinion polls, they think that the war in Iraq was part of the overall war against terrorism.
BILL SCHNEIDER, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: And to a lot of people, they're very different.
When you ask the American people, "Do you think the war in Iraq has made the United States safer from terrorism?" The result is an even split, 50/50.
Americans are sharply divided over Iraq and over the president's assertion that the war in Iraq was part of the war on terror. What General Clark just told us is Democrats consider it a distraction from the war on terror.
That is an issue that sharply divides the country and the world.
BLITZER: Were you surprised, Jeff, that the president did not directly focus in on the whole issue of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
GREENFIELD: No, because I think it's -- because I think they are trying very hard to make the argument now, not that there were weapons of mass destruction, but that Iraq is better off. And because Saddam is out of power, the rest of the world and the United States is better off.
The argument that the president made yesterday, a repetition of one he made before, was to say, "I had a choice to make. And faced with the choice," he says, and will say again, "I will defend America every time."
I think their argument now is the best intelligence we had was that there were weapons of mass destruction. Maybe we were wrong but in any event, even if we were wrong, we got rid of an evil, dangerous figure and the world is better off.
What -- He's already faced with the reality that around the world, a lot of people who were with the president on the war are now having some second thoughts. And I think the president was quite right tactically not to go back to an issue that is one of his less -- one of his weaknesses, frankly.
BLITZER: You know, Bill, when the president said, in this room of diplomats representing 84 countries, "There is no neutral ground in this war on terror," I got the sense he was warning them, you're either with us or against us.
SCHNEIDER: That's exactly what he was doing, and he was also trying to revive the George Bush image after 9/11, when he was widely acclaimed. He was extraordinarily popular in this country and around the world.
The war in Afghanistan was a war that was supported by the entire world. He was trying to go back to the George Bush of late 2001 and 2002, not the George Bush that fought the war in Iraq, who was widely criticized. It was a war that was bitterly controversial, and divided the country and the world.
These -- This is a choice between two different images. He was quite consciously trying to say, "I'm still the George Bush that led the world in Afghanistan after September 11."
BLITZER: And then Jeff, when the president said, and I'm paraphrasing although I think I'm quoting fairly accurately, he said "No concession will appease their hatred of the United States," referring to terrorists.
The implication that I read into that is that some governments out there are ready to appease some of those terrorists, and not join the U.S. in this all-out war.
How did you read that line?
GREENFIELD: I think that's right. After the Spanish electorate threw out the Popular Party and brought in the socialists after the bombing.
There was a chorus on the American right saying essentially that Spain had voted to appease. Now whether that's true or not, whether the Spanish electorate at was responding to misinformation there was -- I think there is a clear message the president wanted to say today.
And not that he went back to one of the most infamous statements by one of the al Qaeda leaders, that the difference between the West and us is they love life and we love death. That's a very powerful statement, and I think what the president was saying, particularly to critics abroad, is saying there is no compromise on that issue.
And I think you're right about that.
BLITZER: That was a statement from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, public enemy in Iraq No. 1 right now.
All right. Jeff Greenfield and Bill Schneider, thanks to both of you for joining us.
Many Americans watched the president with a specific question in mind: when will U.S. troops be coming home? One year after the war started I'll be speaking with retired U.S. General David Grange about the military's exit strategy from Iraq.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Welcome back.
The United States routed Saddam Hussein's forces in about 40 days, together with its coalition partners. But today much of Iraq is neither peaceful nor safe.
Let's bring in our military analyst, retired U.S. Army Brigadier General David Grange. He's joining us from Chicago.
General Grange, is the U.S. military in Iraq a year after the start of this war stretched too thin?
BRIG. GEN. DAVID GRANGE, U.S. ARMY (RET.): Well, the U.S. military is committed to the maximum. There's no doubt about that. We're using reserve and National Guard forces from all services, but in particular, the United States Army, as active duty soldiers in many places in the world.
Since the Berlin Wall fell, the tempo, the pace of operations has increased about three-fold for the United States Army, and since 9/11, more than that.
And so yes, it is stretched a bit thin. They're making it happen, but you're seeing people run pretty hard.
BLITZER: How well do the various branches of the U.S. military work together, because as you know, historically there's often been a rivalry between the Army, the Navy, the Air Force and the Marine Corps?
GRANGE: I would say, Wolf, better than ever before. Very much so since 9/11 and maybe even better since March 19 of last year.
"Jointness" is really becoming a way of life between the services. They need each other, one, because of the size of the military overall, and some have capabilities and certain conflict areas that others don't. And so they're sharing resources, they're working together for unity of effort. It's the best I've ever seen.
BLITZER: Because -- I raise that, because most of the burden in Iraq, it seems to me, is on the U.S. Army, as opposed to even the Marine Corps or the Navy or the Air Force. It makes the Army's life, in particular, most stressful. Is that your sense?
GRANGE: That's true; it's a true fact. But there's a lot of service representatives on the staffs, planning staffs and the logistics, and the over flights and moving things in and out of theater. There's a lot of support from all services in that regard.
BLITZER: What about the exit strategy from Iraq? After Vietnam, everyone always said the U.S. would not engage military forces in combat unless there was a clear exit strategy.
Do you see an exit strategy in Iraq?
GRANGE: You know, I changed my mind on this a little bit, Wolf.
Before I left the military, I was very critical about never receiving an exit strategy, at least at my level. I kind of had a feel of what we were trying to do, but it wasn't that clear.
And now that I look back on it, and the operations over the last four years that our military has been involved in, it's a very hard thing to do.
If you are saying in Iraq, for example, you want some type of democratic governance and a free market economy, what's the measure of effectiveness at how good that has to be?
If you look at Afghanistan, you say, I don't want the Taliban to return. I don't want al Qaeda to have a base of operations there, then maybe it's very close. But if you say I want the government in Kabul to control the entire country, that's a long way off.
So it's very hard to articulate, and I'm not sure how perfect you want to be.
BLITZER: Because I raised that 50, 60 years after World War II in Germany and Japan, the U.S. still has plenty of troops in those two countries as well. Is this going to be a decades-long process?
GRANGE: I think it will be a decade-long process of some extent on numbers and commitment from not only our military but other militaries throughout the world.
These are definitely marathon operations, not 100-meter dashes, and you have you to have that type of mind-set.
I mean, look how long it took our country after the Civil War to change itself to what it is today, and there's still some problems now and then. So they're not quick fixes.
BLITZER: General Grange, as usual, thanks very much for joining us.
GRANGE: My pleasure.
BLITZER: The president's remarks today were made amid the backdrop of the upcoming election. A look at how the president is framing his campaign when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: The president speaks this morning as a preview of things to come, the war against terror, homeland security will be front and center in the Bush re-election campaign.
Here is our senior White House correspondent, John King.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JOHN KING, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): He labels himself a war president, and one year later vigorously defends his decision to target Iraq.
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Because America and our allies acted, one of the most evil, brutal regimes in history is gone forever.
KING: The United States is four months away from handing sovereignty back to Iraqis, Mr. Bush just shy of eight months from an election that is in large part a referendum on his conduct as commander in chief.
DOUGLAS BRINKLEY, PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: The Spanish-American War is Mr. McKinley's war; World War I, Mr. Wilson's war. Clearly, the war in Iraq is Mr. Bush's war.
KING: This ground breaking for a 9/11 memorial last week was a reminder Mr. Bush wants people to remember, now and when they vote in November, just how he became a war president in the first place.
MATTHEW DOWD, BUSH-CHENEY CAMPAIGN STRATEGIST: Well, I think the threshold question is who is up to that job, who has the policies to deal with that on a global scale.
KING: The Taliban is gone from Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein from Iraq. Decisive military successes, but still lingering questions for the commander in chief.
No chemical or biological weapons stockpiles in Iraq, at least not yet, contrary to Mr. Bush's prewar certainty.
SEN. JOHN KERRY (D-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We were misled about weapons of mass destruction.
KING: No definitive word on the whereabouts of Osama bin laden.
SAMUEL R. BERGER, FORMER CLINTON NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR: We're going to be fighting terrorists for as long as the eye can see. We've busted the beehive, but we have not killed the bees.
KING: And no consensus now on Mr. Bush's characterization a year ago that war in Iraq was the critical next step in the global war on terror. BRINKLEY: We did not have to go to war. It was something we chose to do for security, and I think that's going to be interesting, to see how the toll that Iraq will take on this president.
KING: Rallying public support is a challenge for any war president and a constant focus for this one. By Mr. Bush's definition, America has been at war for 30 of the 38 months he has been president.
John King, CNN, the White House.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: And that wraps up our special coverage of the president's address from the East Room of the White House on this first anniversary of the start of the U.S.-led war against Saddam Hussein's in Iraq.
But our coverage continues unfolding in this hour. The next hour here on CNN, the fierce battle along Pakistan's border with Afghanistan happening right now. Pakistani forces on the trail of a high valued target that could be al Qaeda's second in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri.
We're live with fast moving developments.
President Bush, as we've just seen, marking the anniversary of the war in Iraq with an optimistic view of how things are going one year later. This hour, I'll speak live with Ambassador Paul Bremer -- He's the chief U.S. civilian administrator in Iraq -- about the future of that war-torn country.
He'll join us live from Baghdad.
First, let's check some of the headlines this hour.
Taiwan's national election will take place tomorrow, as scheduled, despite the shooting of President Chen Shui-bian at the campaign parade. The president is out of the hospital right now, and so is the vice president of Taiwan, who was grazed in the attack.
At this hour, there are no known suspects.
President Bush has won assurances from the president of Poland, that Polish troops will remain in Iraq. Yesterday, the president, Alexander Kwasniewski, said he had been misled before the Iraq war about weapons of mass destruction.
In a phone call today, he reportedly told Mr. Bush that Polish troops will stay in Iraq, quote, "as long as needed."
Also today police -- that is, public schools in a lock-down right here in the nation's capital. Police are conducting security sweeps after enough...
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Split on U.S. Occupation; Did Bush Speech on Iraq Help Re-election Chances?; Military Stretched Thin a Year After War Began>
Aired March 19, 2004 - 11:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
WOLF BLITZER, ANCHOR: In a surprise, the secretary of state Colin Powell flew to Iraq today, a trip that coincides with the first anniversary of the U.S.-led war against Saddam Hussein.
Our senior international correspondent, Walter Rodgers, is joining us now live from Baghdad.
Tell us how he was received, Walt.
WALTER RODGERS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, of course the secretary of state traveled in a very tight bubble. He met with U.S. soldiers, and of course, they cheered him.
The irony of this visit is that the secretary of state, Mr. Powell, came to Iraq one year after the beginning of the war. And he's still trying to convince skeptics and the international community that this was a just war, the assault against the Iraqis.
The secretary of state acknowledged there are very serious problems here in terms of turning the corner on violence, the drive-by shootings, the suicide bombings, the car bombs.
The secretary of state said the United States will prevail, and he repeatedly insisted the president was right -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Was there a sense that on this first anniversary of the U.S.-led war that this was a different day in Baghdad than under normal circumstances?
RODGERS: Sure, because I think a year -- actually probably another month from now, when Baghdad was more or less liberated, I think at that point the Iraqis were tentative in a welcome of the Americans. They were very glad to be rid of Saddam Hussein.
That's not what you're seeing here today.
In Iraq today, one year after the American-led assault on Iraq and the toppling of Saddam, the Iraqis have forgotten Saddam. He's behind them. They want to know, what are you doing for us today?
There were demonstrators out on the streets of Baghdad today, shouting "No to Saddam Hussein and no to America."
Many Iraqis want this occupation ended as quickly as possible. They want free elections, which presently the United States is preventing, because the U.S. figures the infrastructure for an election is not yet in place. That may be the case, but the Iraqis have lost patience with the Americans.
And most of all, the Iraqis are impatient and dissatisfied with the absence of personal security, which would protect them from car bombs. That -- the United States is required to provide that protection under international law. The Iraqis aren't getting it -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Our senior international correspondent, Walter Rodgers, in Baghdad. Thank you very much.
Hassan Fattah is a journalist in Baghdad. He's been covering this year in Iraq for both "The New Republic" as well as "TIME" magazine. He writes also for a new English language newspaper that was started right after the U.S.-led war wound up, entitled "Iraq Today."
Hassan, good evening to you. Was there a lot of anticipation in regards to the president's speech? Were a lot of people as far as you could tell glued to their radios, their TV sets wanting to hear what President Bush had to say?
HASSAN FATTAH, JOURNALIST: I actually don't think so at all. I don't know if it was even carried on any of the Arabic channels around -- Arabic satellite channels, to be honest with you. Chances are it will be carried on the evening news that comes in a couple of hours.
But certainly, it's not something that's going to resonate on the Iraqi street. Let's face it. This is sort of more of the same of what we've heard.
I think one of the things that really resonated in what I heard from the president was that the Arab world is looking to Iraq, what freedom is like. I think actually more significantly, the Arab world is looking to Iraq to see whether America will be pulling this off.
One year later, we are effectively back to where we started. Iraq's infrastructure and basic life is essentially where it came from when Saddam was in power, with one major difference and thank God for this, the government is gone. There's a new government.
The problem with it is that there is still a power vacuum, and there's still so many questions about the future of this country, one year later, and three months before probably the most significant thing that will happen to this country this year.
BLITZER: Hassan, but isn't there -- I'm surprised what you're saying, because you would have thought that the Iraqi people, who are educated, intelligent people, they would be grateful to the U.S. for getting rid of Saddam Hussein, the Ba'ath Party, and that regime, which had terrorized them for so many decades.
FATTAH: Well, there's certainly a difference between being grateful for getting rid of Saddam Hussein, at the same time, effectively mismanaging the entire process from there on. Remember, the Iraqis have never really complained about the war itself. Even as the debate about the war and what happened with the war continues in the west, none of that debate is happening here.
The debate is about the occupation and how the occupation continues. And for most Iraqis, it has been a really rough ride, and I think it's going to get even rougher over the next several months.
BLITZER: When you say that, in anticipation of the June 30 scheduled transfer of power from the coalition authority to the governing council, you think there will be elements that will try derail that. Is that what you're suggesting?
FATTAH: I think the elements are currently desperate to derail that effort. I -- We just had a mortar round that blasted this morning outside of our office and across the street. We don't think we were the target at all ,but it underscored to us, really brought home this whole thing.
I think the average Iraqi feels he has no control over his life. It's something we've been saying over the past year. And three months before this dramatic handover, we really don't seem to be moving any much further.
The sad thing about it is that a lot of these things could have well been expected. In fact, they're really not surprising. What is surprising is they're still happening one year after all of this.
BLITZER: Hassan Fattah, who has been helping us better understand what's happening inside Iraq for the past year, joining us live from Baghdad, on this historic day, the first year anniversary of the start on the U.S.-led war against Saddam Hussein.
Hassan, thank you very much.
Political analysts are buzzing about the speech. Some have suggested the president's comments today were going to be significant in setting the tone for his re-election campaign. Did he achieve the desired effect?
Our very own Bill Schneider and Jeff Greenfield, they're standing by to join us right after this commercial break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Today's speech by the president demonstrates the advantages and the perils of incumbency when the roles of commander in chief and candidate appear to intersect.
Let's bring in our Jeff Greenfield, our senior analyst. He's in New York. And here in Washington, our senior political analyst, Bill Schneider.
Jeff, first to you, what did you think of the president's speech?
JEFF GREENFIELD, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: I thought the most notable and remarkable part of it was his constant return to the theme that this is not unilateral action in Iraq.
Four different times, both in talking about terror and Iraq, the president listed. alphabetically I think. the different nations that had suffered terrorism, that were part of a nonproliferation effort, that had sent troops to Iraq, whose troops have died in Iraq.
I think that is a clear attempt to say that John Kerry and what you heard from General Clark were wrong, that this did not isolate America from its allies.
And the second thing, as he did yesterday in Fort Campbell, the president trying to equate the war in Iraq with the war on terror. This was a first anniversary of Iraq, but the whole first half of the speech wasn't about Iraq at all but the worldwide fight against terror. Just as he said yesterday, the removal of Saddam Hussein had made America more secure.
Those two messages, I think, for me, were the key political messages he was trying to deliver today.
BLITZER: To a lot of people out there, Bill Schneider, there is no difference between the war on terror and the war against Saddam Hussein. If you look at the public opinion polls, they think that the war in Iraq was part of the overall war against terrorism.
BILL SCHNEIDER, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: And to a lot of people, they're very different.
When you ask the American people, "Do you think the war in Iraq has made the United States safer from terrorism?" The result is an even split, 50/50.
Americans are sharply divided over Iraq and over the president's assertion that the war in Iraq was part of the war on terror. What General Clark just told us is Democrats consider it a distraction from the war on terror.
That is an issue that sharply divides the country and the world.
BLITZER: Were you surprised, Jeff, that the president did not directly focus in on the whole issue of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
GREENFIELD: No, because I think it's -- because I think they are trying very hard to make the argument now, not that there were weapons of mass destruction, but that Iraq is better off. And because Saddam is out of power, the rest of the world and the United States is better off.
The argument that the president made yesterday, a repetition of one he made before, was to say, "I had a choice to make. And faced with the choice," he says, and will say again, "I will defend America every time."
I think their argument now is the best intelligence we had was that there were weapons of mass destruction. Maybe we were wrong but in any event, even if we were wrong, we got rid of an evil, dangerous figure and the world is better off.
What -- He's already faced with the reality that around the world, a lot of people who were with the president on the war are now having some second thoughts. And I think the president was quite right tactically not to go back to an issue that is one of his less -- one of his weaknesses, frankly.
BLITZER: You know, Bill, when the president said, in this room of diplomats representing 84 countries, "There is no neutral ground in this war on terror," I got the sense he was warning them, you're either with us or against us.
SCHNEIDER: That's exactly what he was doing, and he was also trying to revive the George Bush image after 9/11, when he was widely acclaimed. He was extraordinarily popular in this country and around the world.
The war in Afghanistan was a war that was supported by the entire world. He was trying to go back to the George Bush of late 2001 and 2002, not the George Bush that fought the war in Iraq, who was widely criticized. It was a war that was bitterly controversial, and divided the country and the world.
These -- This is a choice between two different images. He was quite consciously trying to say, "I'm still the George Bush that led the world in Afghanistan after September 11."
BLITZER: And then Jeff, when the president said, and I'm paraphrasing although I think I'm quoting fairly accurately, he said "No concession will appease their hatred of the United States," referring to terrorists.
The implication that I read into that is that some governments out there are ready to appease some of those terrorists, and not join the U.S. in this all-out war.
How did you read that line?
GREENFIELD: I think that's right. After the Spanish electorate threw out the Popular Party and brought in the socialists after the bombing.
There was a chorus on the American right saying essentially that Spain had voted to appease. Now whether that's true or not, whether the Spanish electorate at was responding to misinformation there was -- I think there is a clear message the president wanted to say today.
And not that he went back to one of the most infamous statements by one of the al Qaeda leaders, that the difference between the West and us is they love life and we love death. That's a very powerful statement, and I think what the president was saying, particularly to critics abroad, is saying there is no compromise on that issue.
And I think you're right about that.
BLITZER: That was a statement from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, public enemy in Iraq No. 1 right now.
All right. Jeff Greenfield and Bill Schneider, thanks to both of you for joining us.
Many Americans watched the president with a specific question in mind: when will U.S. troops be coming home? One year after the war started I'll be speaking with retired U.S. General David Grange about the military's exit strategy from Iraq.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Welcome back.
The United States routed Saddam Hussein's forces in about 40 days, together with its coalition partners. But today much of Iraq is neither peaceful nor safe.
Let's bring in our military analyst, retired U.S. Army Brigadier General David Grange. He's joining us from Chicago.
General Grange, is the U.S. military in Iraq a year after the start of this war stretched too thin?
BRIG. GEN. DAVID GRANGE, U.S. ARMY (RET.): Well, the U.S. military is committed to the maximum. There's no doubt about that. We're using reserve and National Guard forces from all services, but in particular, the United States Army, as active duty soldiers in many places in the world.
Since the Berlin Wall fell, the tempo, the pace of operations has increased about three-fold for the United States Army, and since 9/11, more than that.
And so yes, it is stretched a bit thin. They're making it happen, but you're seeing people run pretty hard.
BLITZER: How well do the various branches of the U.S. military work together, because as you know, historically there's often been a rivalry between the Army, the Navy, the Air Force and the Marine Corps?
GRANGE: I would say, Wolf, better than ever before. Very much so since 9/11 and maybe even better since March 19 of last year.
"Jointness" is really becoming a way of life between the services. They need each other, one, because of the size of the military overall, and some have capabilities and certain conflict areas that others don't. And so they're sharing resources, they're working together for unity of effort. It's the best I've ever seen.
BLITZER: Because -- I raise that, because most of the burden in Iraq, it seems to me, is on the U.S. Army, as opposed to even the Marine Corps or the Navy or the Air Force. It makes the Army's life, in particular, most stressful. Is that your sense?
GRANGE: That's true; it's a true fact. But there's a lot of service representatives on the staffs, planning staffs and the logistics, and the over flights and moving things in and out of theater. There's a lot of support from all services in that regard.
BLITZER: What about the exit strategy from Iraq? After Vietnam, everyone always said the U.S. would not engage military forces in combat unless there was a clear exit strategy.
Do you see an exit strategy in Iraq?
GRANGE: You know, I changed my mind on this a little bit, Wolf.
Before I left the military, I was very critical about never receiving an exit strategy, at least at my level. I kind of had a feel of what we were trying to do, but it wasn't that clear.
And now that I look back on it, and the operations over the last four years that our military has been involved in, it's a very hard thing to do.
If you are saying in Iraq, for example, you want some type of democratic governance and a free market economy, what's the measure of effectiveness at how good that has to be?
If you look at Afghanistan, you say, I don't want the Taliban to return. I don't want al Qaeda to have a base of operations there, then maybe it's very close. But if you say I want the government in Kabul to control the entire country, that's a long way off.
So it's very hard to articulate, and I'm not sure how perfect you want to be.
BLITZER: Because I raised that 50, 60 years after World War II in Germany and Japan, the U.S. still has plenty of troops in those two countries as well. Is this going to be a decades-long process?
GRANGE: I think it will be a decade-long process of some extent on numbers and commitment from not only our military but other militaries throughout the world.
These are definitely marathon operations, not 100-meter dashes, and you have you to have that type of mind-set.
I mean, look how long it took our country after the Civil War to change itself to what it is today, and there's still some problems now and then. So they're not quick fixes.
BLITZER: General Grange, as usual, thanks very much for joining us.
GRANGE: My pleasure.
BLITZER: The president's remarks today were made amid the backdrop of the upcoming election. A look at how the president is framing his campaign when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: The president speaks this morning as a preview of things to come, the war against terror, homeland security will be front and center in the Bush re-election campaign.
Here is our senior White House correspondent, John King.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JOHN KING, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): He labels himself a war president, and one year later vigorously defends his decision to target Iraq.
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Because America and our allies acted, one of the most evil, brutal regimes in history is gone forever.
KING: The United States is four months away from handing sovereignty back to Iraqis, Mr. Bush just shy of eight months from an election that is in large part a referendum on his conduct as commander in chief.
DOUGLAS BRINKLEY, PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: The Spanish-American War is Mr. McKinley's war; World War I, Mr. Wilson's war. Clearly, the war in Iraq is Mr. Bush's war.
KING: This ground breaking for a 9/11 memorial last week was a reminder Mr. Bush wants people to remember, now and when they vote in November, just how he became a war president in the first place.
MATTHEW DOWD, BUSH-CHENEY CAMPAIGN STRATEGIST: Well, I think the threshold question is who is up to that job, who has the policies to deal with that on a global scale.
KING: The Taliban is gone from Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein from Iraq. Decisive military successes, but still lingering questions for the commander in chief.
No chemical or biological weapons stockpiles in Iraq, at least not yet, contrary to Mr. Bush's prewar certainty.
SEN. JOHN KERRY (D-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We were misled about weapons of mass destruction.
KING: No definitive word on the whereabouts of Osama bin laden.
SAMUEL R. BERGER, FORMER CLINTON NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR: We're going to be fighting terrorists for as long as the eye can see. We've busted the beehive, but we have not killed the bees.
KING: And no consensus now on Mr. Bush's characterization a year ago that war in Iraq was the critical next step in the global war on terror. BRINKLEY: We did not have to go to war. It was something we chose to do for security, and I think that's going to be interesting, to see how the toll that Iraq will take on this president.
KING: Rallying public support is a challenge for any war president and a constant focus for this one. By Mr. Bush's definition, America has been at war for 30 of the 38 months he has been president.
John King, CNN, the White House.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: And that wraps up our special coverage of the president's address from the East Room of the White House on this first anniversary of the start of the U.S.-led war against Saddam Hussein's in Iraq.
But our coverage continues unfolding in this hour. The next hour here on CNN, the fierce battle along Pakistan's border with Afghanistan happening right now. Pakistani forces on the trail of a high valued target that could be al Qaeda's second in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri.
We're live with fast moving developments.
President Bush, as we've just seen, marking the anniversary of the war in Iraq with an optimistic view of how things are going one year later. This hour, I'll speak live with Ambassador Paul Bremer -- He's the chief U.S. civilian administrator in Iraq -- about the future of that war-torn country.
He'll join us live from Baghdad.
First, let's check some of the headlines this hour.
Taiwan's national election will take place tomorrow, as scheduled, despite the shooting of President Chen Shui-bian at the campaign parade. The president is out of the hospital right now, and so is the vice president of Taiwan, who was grazed in the attack.
At this hour, there are no known suspects.
President Bush has won assurances from the president of Poland, that Polish troops will remain in Iraq. Yesterday, the president, Alexander Kwasniewski, said he had been misled before the Iraq war about weapons of mass destruction.
In a phone call today, he reportedly told Mr. Bush that Polish troops will stay in Iraq, quote, "as long as needed."
Also today police -- that is, public schools in a lock-down right here in the nation's capital. Police are conducting security sweeps after enough...
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Split on U.S. Occupation; Did Bush Speech on Iraq Help Re-election Chances?; Military Stretched Thin a Year After War Began>
