The Web      Powered by
powered by Yahoo!


Return to Transcripts main page


Steamed Over Rice?; Interview With Senator Rick Santorum; Oscar Politics?

Aired January 25, 2005 - 15:30   ET


ANNOUNCER: The Senate debates Condoleezza Rice. But is the real fight over Iraq?

SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY (D), MASSACHUSETTS: Dr. Rice is the wrong choice for secretary of state. We need instead a secretary who's open to a clearer vision and a better strategy to stabilize Iraq.

SEN. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON (R), TEXAS: I think Condoleezza Rice is absolutely the most qualified person to succeed a wonderful secretary of state, Colin Powell.

ANNOUNCER: Lining up the troops. Does President Bush have his party's support when it comes to changing Social Security?

SEN. RICK SANTORUM (R), PENNSYLVANIA: This is not an easy political thing to do. It is the right thing to do.

ANNOUNCER: We'll speak with a Senate Republican leader.

It was a box office smash, but it didn't get a nomination for best picture. Was "The Passion of the Christ" snubbed by the Academy Awards?



JUDY WOODRUFF, CNN ANCHOR: Thank you for joining us.

They may be simply delaying the inevitable, but senators are spending nine hours today debating Condoleezza Rice's nomination to the secretary of state. For some Democrats, it is a chance to press their concerns about Iraq, even as the White House says it will seek more than $80 billion in new funding for military operations there and in Afghanistan.

We begin on Capitol Hill with our congressional correspondent Joe Johns.

Hello, Joe.

JOE JOHNS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hello, Judy. Well, the vote is tomorrow. The outcome seems clear that Condoleezza Rice will be the next secretary of state. But today, Democrats have essentially morphed the record of Condoleezza Rice into the administration's record on Iraq, and they're debating them both, in fact, today for several hours. Some of the critics have zeroed in on Rice's demand that her integrity not be impugned.


SEN. MARK DAYTON (D), MINNESOTA: I don't like to impugn anyone's integrity, but I really don't like being lied to repeatedly, flagrantly, intentionally. It's wrong, it's undemocratic, it's un- American, and it's dangerous.


JOHNS: So, with the outcome pretty much certain, this has basically become a PR war here on Capitol Hill. Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, appearing before the cameras with some supporters of Condoleezza Rice off the Senate floor, including Andrew Young and C. Delores Tucker. Meanwhile, on the floor of the United States Senate, Mitch McConnell, the majority whip, talking about the fact that in his view, the people here have to consider that much of the criticism is misplaced.


SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY), MAJORITY WHIP: It is the role of the president to set foreign policy. It's the role of the secretary of state to execute it. Of course, as America's top diplomat, Dr. Rice will be expected to bring her expertise on a wide variety of issues to the table. The president's chosen her because he values her opinion. But all foreign policy decisions ultimately rest with the president.


JOHNS: So Democrats, of course, are arguing that they do have a constitutional duty and obligation to bring this up. They also say if they don't bring it up in this forum at this time, the issues won't be discussed. On the other hand, they realize the fact that they're going to have to use the power of debate to try to get their ideas across because of their diminished numbers since the last election -- Judy.

WOODRUFF: So, Joe, what's the educated guessing on how many votes against her?

JOHNS: Very hard to say. It sounds like we know at least three or four. It's not quite certain how many more.

We do know for sure that Senator Kennedy is going to vote against it. It sounds very much like Senator Bayh will vote against. It sounds like Senator Dayton will vote against. Not clear on a lot of the others -- Judy.

WOODRUFF: All right. And we've already heard from Boxer and Kerry in the committee. JOHNS: That's for sure.

WOODRUFF: All right. Joe, thank you very much.

Well, meantime, with the price tag for Iraq rising, the federal deficit is rising too. The White House estimates that this year's budget deficit will total $427 billion. That is including the extra $80 billion the administration wants for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The White House estimate is higher than the Congressional Budget Office forecast that was released today, putting this year's deficit it said at $368 billion. Now, that does not include the costs of war or of Social Security reform.

On the subject of Social Security, President Bush meets with GOP congressional leaders later this hour to discuss his ideas for reform, which even some Republicans have expressed concerns about. We'll have a live report from the White House later on INSIDE POLITICS.

Rick Santorum, the number three Republican leader in the Senate, will be in that meeting on Social Security. I spoke with him just a short time ago. He is the GOP conference chair. I talked to him about the party's agenda, but I started by asking if he expects Mr. Bush to lay out details of his Social Security reform plan in today's meeting.


SANTORUM: I hope not. I think it's important at this point to continue to get the information out about what the -- what the magnitude of the problem is, what the options and -- for solutions are, to invite comment from other members.

I really think this is more of a listening session for the president to hear some of the thoughts and concerns that members of the committee have because this -- he's asked the Senate Finance Committee Republicans to come up and meet with him. And we're going to be the committee of jurisdiction and the body that's going to be, you know, the toughest one to get a consensus on here in the United States Senate, where you need 60 votes to pass a bill. So he -- I think he's going to be listening and hopefully responding to some of the thoughts and concerns that members of the committee have.

WOODRUFF: Well, at this point, are you concerned about the costs, the added costs this would be to the deficit, the debt? Right now you've got the CBO saying there's a $368 billion deficit this year, they're projecting $850 billion more over the next 10 years. We know these so-called personal or private savings accounts will cost $2 billion.

Is the cost a worry?

SANTORUM: Well, to me it's not because it's simply a cost that we're moving forward and realizing now instead of a much bigger cost in the future. We're pre-funding a liability with accounts that people own, that people can, you know, pass on to the next generation. It's a real tangible asset that can be used to pay benefits, as opposed to what we're doing now, which is paying taxes and having them in government bonds which are not real assets to -- that pay benefits. It's simply a promise of one pocket of the government to pay another pocket of the government. This is a way of taking this liability that we know we have a shortfall in the long term and doing something about it now with real assets that can pay real benefits that aren't a promise to pay by the government.

WOODRUFF: Senator, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Bill Thomas, a few days ago basically said what the president proposes, once it get to the Hill, is going to be, in his words, a dead horse because of the way the legislative process works. The House and Senate will work their will with it. Do you agree with that?

SANTORUM: Well, I wouldn't be as stark as the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee was, but I would say that very few proposals that a president sends up are passed, particularly the complex legislative proposals, are passed as they are sent. We are -- I think the president is listening today to thoughts and concerns of members of one committee that's going to have to deal with his proposal. I think you're going to see different approaches.

I think Chairman Thomas' idea of looking broader at retirement security, looking broader at the tax code is a fresh idea, it's something that we should explore and look at. I think we need to put our options on the table and determine how we can build the kind of bipartisan coalition that can strengthen retirement security for future generations of Americans, as well as today's American retirees.

WOODRUFF: Different subject, Senator. Yesterday, when the Republican leadership of the Senate put out its 10 priorities for this session, it was noted that the legislation to ban same-sex marriage was not on the list. Today, Karl Rove at the White House receiving a letter from a conservative Christian group saying basically, is the president prepared to spend significant political capital on privatization for Social Security, but reluctant to devote the same energy to preserving traditional marriage?

Is the president in a tough spot on this issue, already?

SANTORUM: No, I don't think so. I think the president continued during the campaign, was very up front about his support for heading off judicial tyranny and redefining one of the foundational building blocks of our society through an undemocratic process, and that is through the courts.

He's going to fight for this. I think what he did in reflecting on an interview or two that he gave in the last couple of weeks was simply the reality of how difficult it is to pass the United States Senate.

That did not deter him last year. I don't think it will deter him this year. It's not deterring those of us who support protecting traditional marriage, protecting children, making sure that they have the best chance of having a mother and a father to help raise them.

These are important foundational issues for our country. We're going to fight very hard to make sure that we have the best chance of passing it. And that may not mean that we don't bring it up in the next few weeks. It may be a few months down the road. But it's something that we're going to work on and we're going to try our best to pass.


WOODRUFF: Senator Rick Santorum. And, by the way, I misspoke. I referred to the cost of privatization, creating those private accounts for Social Security. I said they were $2 billion. In fact, they are $2 trillion, which is what I meant to say. Again, our thanks to Senator Santorum.

Well, in Hollywood, you could say today is the equivalent of the primary season with candidates for top Academy Awards narrowed down to a select few. Up next, why were a couple of films that mirrored America's election year divide given short shrift?

Also ahead, a potentially bitter face-off between two famous political families is avoided.

And later, the Bush doctrine, the Condi Rice debate and the tension between realism and idealism.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) WOODRUFF: When the Academy Award nominations were announced today, two of the most popular and controversial films of 2004 were aced out of the top categories. CNN's Jennifer Mikell looks at why "Passion of the Christ" and "Fahrenheit 9/11" may have been shunned by Oscar.


JENNIFER MIKELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): In the best picture category, the academy gave nods to films about a tycoon, an author, a boxer, a singer and a wine lover. Controversial portraits of George W. Bush and Jesus Christ were conspicuously absent. Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ" did pick up three nominations in lesser categories, cinematography, makeup and original score.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, "FAHRENHEIT 9/11": Stop these terrorist killers.

MIKELL: Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" was shut out altogether.

BUSH "FAHRENHEIT 9/11": Now watch this drive.

MIKELL: Hoping for a best picture nod, Moore did not submit his film for a best documentary nomination. He took a gamble and lost.

"Fahrenheit" and "Passion" were crowd pleasers, pulling in big bucks. And both recently won People's Choice Awards in best movie categories. But they did not generate much Oscar buzz. As Hollywood insiders know full well, big box office and critical acclaim do not necessarily go hand in hand.

(on camera): If academy voters had been inclined to keep honors on the Gibson and Moore productions, it could have produced a bit of drama given how intertwined politics and religion were in the '04 election and still are.

Jennifer Mikell, CNN.


WOODRUFF: Well, so what is the deal with the lack of top Oscar nominations for "Fahrenheit 9/11" and "The Passion of the Christ?" With me now, Jack Valenti, a former chairman of the Motion Picture Association of America. He's in Austin, Texas, today.

And in Irvine, California, Hollywood media critic James Hirsen.

To you first, Jack Valenti, why were these two pictures shunned? And do you think "shunned" is the right word?

JACK VALENTI, FMR. CHAIRMAN, MOTION PICTURE ASSOCIATION: No, I don't think so at all. You had a lot of pictures out there. And remember, the academy has 6,000 to 6,500 voting members. And I don't pretend to get into the heads of any of those people.

They're all in the industry. They're in all the different categories. And all of them look at films probably differently.

I think what they do look at is a compelling story that's woven by a master cinema artist into a piece of emotional magic. And then they choose best picture and those actors that populate those pictures.

I don't think there were a lot of surprises in what I call the Nobel Prize of film, the Academy Awards, which will be seen by maybe three-quarters of a million to a billion people on February 27. So -- but why Michael Moore's picture was cut out? I don't know.

It was a documentary, not a film. And as you pointed out earlier, he chose to roll the dice on that. And the "Passion of the Christ," which I thought, by the way, was a compelling and moving film, as I told Mel Gibson when I saw the film, I thought it was an exceptional film.

WOODRUFF: But, James Hirsen, do you see some design here behind the votes of these academy members?

JAMES HIRSEN, HOLLYWOOD MEDIA CRITIC: Judy, I don't think it's a design. I think it's a reflection of a world view that predominates the community in Hollywood that doesn't necessarily take into account a traditional view of faith. And, you know, so I would distinguish these two films.

I think that "The Passion of the Christ" the ninth biggest film of all time, the third biggest film of the year, a cinematic marvel really, that there's so many categories, and particularly in the area of best picture and best director, that it's inexplicable to me that that would not be competing in those categories, particularly when there's some other films that really don't rise to the cinematic achievement that took place.

You know, as Jack Valenti mentioned, we're talking about films that have a story, that spark an emotional reaction. I mean, Michael Moore's film is a documentary. He voluntarily withdrew it from a category where he was certain to get a nomination. And documentaries traditionally have not been included in the same category as dramatic motion pictures because look, you can't judge the casting, you can't judge the screenplay, the acting. So It's a different animal altogether.


Jack Valenti, you don't think that this was an effort to stay away from controversy?

VALENTI: No, I don't. It's possible that "The Passion" might have been the sixth most popular picture in the voting. Remember, you only vote for five films, and there were several hundred that were up for nomination. It could have come in sixth.

But again, it's the -- it's 6,000 people who are voting. And I thing maybe they look at -- on the Academy Award nominations to be more or less in the traditional version of a story.

I guess -- I'm not saying that the story of the last days of Christ is not the greatest story ever told, which was George Stevens' picture of that some years ago. But nonetheless, I don't see any design, I don't see any -- any shunning away from religion or anything like that.

This is not a religious contest. This is a movie. This is a contest about which movie the academy thinks should be heralded as the best movie of the year. And that's all it's about.

WOODRUFF: James Hirsen, you said it was to the effect that the academy, Hollywood struggles with how to deal with traditional faith. What did you mean by that?

HIRSEN: Well, I think that, you know, for example, if someone makes a film about -- a film about faith that has a very modernistic view, then it's more readily acceptable in Hollywood community. So, for example, as I mentioned, "Passion of the Christ" is the ninth biggest box office of all time.

If you look at the previous eight big box office films, they were treated with respect by the various guild awards, the critics awards, these pre-Oscar awards, whereas "The Passion" was double snubbed by the Golden Globes. But I have to praise the academy members because, unlike these other award ceremonies, they did not ignore "The Passion," but yet gave it these three nominations for music, cinematography and makeup, and that's because those votes for those nominations take place by the individual members of those categories. And look, what these awards are about is achievement ultimately. And I think the individual members take that seriously. So I do think that's why in best picture and best director there's no real logical explanation for "The Passion" being missing.

WOODRUFF: Very quick last question to both of you. Is this a signal to directors and writers down the line to stay away from controversial subjects, Jack Valenti?

VALENTI: Absolutely not. Believe me, as the gentleman said, it was the ninth largest grossing picture. But keep in mind, that "Shrek 2," which probably did more than all these pictures almost combined, didn't win a best picture award.

Box office revenue is not the herald to a nomination for best picture or winner of best picture. But I don't read too much into this. This has nothing to do with the fact that they wanted to shun religion. Not at all. It has to do with the story and how it's told.

WOODRUFF: James Hirsen, very quickly, is this a signal?

HIRSEN: Well, an inadvertent signal I think it is because of the fact that it does indicate that when certain topics that are unacceptable -- politically incorrect topics are broached, that they may suffer at the hands of some of the awards categories. There's even some grassroots organizations that have sprung up like

WOODRUFF: We're going to have to leave it there. James Hirsen, Jack Valenti, very good to see both of you. We appreciate it.

VALENTI: Thank you very much.

HIRSEN: Thanks for having us.

WOODRUFF: Thank you.

Well, she got a lot of attention for the tough questions she aimed at Condoleezza Rice. Coming up in our "Political Bytes," we'll tell you why some admirers of Senator Barbara Boxer think she should aim her political aspirations higher.


WOODRUFF: In today's "Political Bytes," we follow up on Bill Schneider's report here yesterday about Senator Barbara Boxer's new role as a heroine of the left. These are some live pictures.

She's right now on the Senate floor talking about the appointment of Condoleezza Rice to be secretary general. On the heels of her tough questioning of Dr. Rice, Boxer now is the subject of a "Boxer for president" blog. It praises her as a true liberal who does her homework and has the courage of her convictions.

And in New York, Robert F. Kennedy junior says that he will not run for Senate attorney general. That put an end to a prospect for a made-for-the-tabloids race between Kennedy and his estranged brother- in-law, Andrew Cuomo. Cuomo is separated from Kennedy's sister, Carrie (ph), and their 2003 breakup was bitter. His lawyers suggesting that Cuomo had been "betrayed" by his wife's conduct in the marriage.

Before he can push his plans to overhaul Social Security through Congress, President Bush needs to get his party onboard, the Republican Party. A meeting getting under way right now may be the first step. Next up, a live report on what's going on behind the scenes at the White House.

And later, his bid for the presidency failed, but will Howard Dean's drive to lead the Democratic Party be more successful?

More INSIDE POLITICS after this.


WOODRUFF: It is just before 4:00 in the East. And as the markets get set to close on Wall Street, I'm joined by Lou Dobbs in New York with "The Dobbs Report."

Hi there, Lou.

LOU DOBBS, HOST, "LOU DOBBS TONIGHT": Hi there, Judy. Thank you.

A winning session on Wall Street today. The Dow posting its best gain of the year, in fact. All of the major indexes higher after four straight losing sessions. Solid earnings reports from Johnson & Johnson, DuPont and Merrill Lynch leading the advance today.

As the final trades are now being counted, the Dow Jones industrials are up just over 90 points, 92 points. The Nasdaq less than a percent higher on the day.

Estimates on our nation's federal budget deficit ballooning. The Congressional Budget Office now projects the federal budget deficit will widen to more than $400 billion this year once the cost for the war of Iraq is factored in. The current projections indicate that President Bush will most likely not meet his intention of cutting the deficit in half by 2009. In fact, over the next decade, the federal budget deficit is expected to hit $850 billion.

Our nation's trade deficit with China is not improving, either. In fact, it's at a record high and China's economy keeps booming at the expense of guess who. Last year it expanded at its fastest rate in eight years, at an annualized rate of nearly 10 percent. Some Chinese government officials say that pace of growth is too fast and puts the nation at risk of high inflation. But for now at least, it appears to be a risk the Chinese are willing to risk.

Price increases on the most popular prescription drugs in this country are picking up again. Industry watchers claim drug-makers held off raising prescription costs until after the November elections for political reasons. Now consumers can pay expect to pay an average of five percent more for most top-selling brand name drugs. Drug- makers blame price hikes on increase competition from generic drugs. A new study in a medical journal is raising some questions about some drug-makers aggressive advertising of their so-called Cox II anti-inflammatory drugs like Vioxx and Celebrex. Both drugs came under investigation for their safety. The study found there is a common misconception that those drugs are more effective pain relievers than over-the-counter medicines such as aspirin and Advil.

The study suggests aggressive advertising convinced many patients to take drugs like Vioxx or Celebrex when they could have avoided their potentially severe health risk by simply sticking with those cheaper over-the-counter alternatives.

Coming up here on CNN tonight at 6:00 p.m. Eastern, broken borders. Outgoing Homeland Security Direct Tom Ridge admits even though Congress voted for the hiring of 2,000 new border guards, the president approved them, that his department doesn't have the funds to do so. So, he says, in fact, many civilians are taking on the job themselves. In Arizona they're heading to the border to protect us from illegal aliens and prospective terrorists. We'll have that special report for you tonight.

And two U.S. senators are leading the effort to hold China accountable for holding down the value of its currency. Senator Charles Schumer and Senator Lindsey Graham join me tonight to talk about their China tariff bill. Imagine that. A tariff which would impose a 27.4 percent tariff on Chinese goods.

Also joining us tonight, Congressman Duncan Hunter, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, will be talking about Iraq. We'll be talking about troop levels and the upcoming elections. All of that and a great deal more coming up right here on CNN at 6:00 p.m. Eastern. Please join us.

Now, back to Judy Woodruff -- Judy.

JUDY WOODRUFF, CNN ANCHOR: Lou, you mentioning the growth rate in China -- it seems as though, at least to many people, that that economy is outpacing the rest of the world.

DOBBS: Oh, indeed, it is. And it's outpacing the rest of the world by a considerable margin. For example, three percent growth in our economy in this country, the fastest, really, of all the developed nations. China is almost 10 percent growth. And it's just a remarkable story. China is on target right now to surpass the U.S. economy in size in the next 20 to 40 years.

WOODRUFF: Wow. That's something that the policymakers have only begun to think about.

DOBBS: If they have done so yet.

WOODRUFF: Lou, we'll see you at 6:00. Thank you.

DOBBS: Got to go, Judy, thanks.


ANNOUNCER: The costs of war. The administration says it needs $80 billion this year to pay for our military missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of Democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.

ANNOUNCER: President Bush laid out some lofty goals in his inauguration speech. Can Condoleezza Rice help her boss realize those goals?

The race to run the Democratic party. Who's in the lead as election day nears?

Now, live from Washington, Judy Woodruff's INSIDE POLITICS.


WOODRUFF: Welcome back. The White House says President Bush will ask Congress to give U.S. troops in Iraq what they need to help build democracy there. But numbers crunchers still are figuring out how the administration's new $80 billion funding request squares with the president's overall spending plan and agenda.

Let's go now to our White House correspondent Dana Bash for some answers. Hi, Dana.

DANA BASH, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Judy. And essentially what we're seeing now is what we've seen since the Iraq War started, which is a proposal to spend money, a request to spend money, that's over and above that regular budget. And what we were told today was that the White House will request from Congress $80 billion in additional new, what they call emergency, spending. That's on top of $25 billion already approved over the summer, which makes $105 billion the price tag, again, over the Pentagon's regular budget for this year alone.

The total cost, that means, right now, senior officials concede, is nearly $300 billion in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's $4.3 billion a month they are saying here today in Iraq. Now, remember, former Bush adviser -- economic adviser Larry Lindsey, ironically, he was here at the White House today. He is somebody who suggested in the run up to the war that it could cost $200 billion and was reprimanded for that. He was here in regular -- just some meetings with some White House staffers, but he was not alone and other administration officials also made some predictions that did not come true.

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said, for example, that he thought the U.S. taxpayers wouldn't foot much of the bill because they expected, of course, the war, the fighting, to be over and the reconstruction to begin much, much -- a long time ago. At this point, the White House is essentially saying they were taken by surprise by the robust insurgency in Iraq.


SCOTT MCCLELLAN, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: That we didn't expect that the Iraqi army under Saddam Hussein would flee the battlefield like they did and come back to fight another day. They did in large numbers.


BASH: Now, we don't have a lot of details yet on exactly how this money is going to be spent. It's not actually going to be sent to Congress until after the official 2006 budget is sent, that's in February. What we do know from officials here at the White House briefing today is that much of it will be going to repair some of the equipment that has really had some problems because of where they're fighting in Iraq, the sand, for example. They said they need to fix Bradley armored vehicles, up armored humvees, helicopter blades, things like that.

Now, I should tell, Judy, the other news out of the White House today is because of this new budget request, supplemental emergency request, the White House is saying that they expect the deficit, the overall deficit this year to now be $427 billion -- Judy.

WOODRUFF: Which is even higher than the congressional budget office number. It's interesting. Sometimes those numbers are reversed. Dana, I want to ask you also about the domestic priority for the president. He's meeting this afternoon with Republican congressional leaders to talk about Social Security. Senator Rick Santorum told me a little while ago he didn't expect the president to get into details today, at least. He says he hopes he won't. What are you hearing?

BASH: Pretty much the same thing, Judy. You know, what happened was over the weekend we know that, for example, some Republicans senators like Olympia Snowe told CNN -- Bill Thomas was talking also from the House side over the weekend about some questions. Raising some questions about what the president has said, what the White House has done or not done in preparing for Social Security reform.

So apparently the White House woke up yesterday morning and they called Republican leaders in the Senate, members of the finance committee, essentially to come down and have a general discussion. They're trying to essentially have some congressional maintenance on this as they try to figure out exactly what the details are of the plan. But they do say they're going to have some more details in and around the State of the Union.

WOODRUFF: Well, I know one of those comments from Senator Snowe was in an interview with you on INSIDE POLITICS on Sunday right here. Dana, thanks very much.

Meantime on Capitol Hill, the Senate is continuing to debate Condoleezza Rice's nomination as secretary of state. Some lawmakers still are wondering how her foreign policy goals mesh with the global view outlined by Mr. Bush in his inaugural address.

Here now, our senior political analyst, Bill Schneider.


WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, CNN SR. POLITICAL ANALYST (voice-over): There are two traditions in U.S. foreign policy, realism and idealism. Realism is the tradition of Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon. To realists, interests are paramount. If that means going to China or making deals with the Soviet Union, you do what's in your interests. Idealists believe values like freedom and democracy should be paramount. That's the neoconservative point of view.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Like the cold war, the global war on terrorism is a war of ideas.

SCHNEIDER: President Bush's inaugural address was deeply idealistic, aiming for...

BUSH: The ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.

SCHNEIDER: As secretary of state, Colin Powell was seen around the world as a realist and, therefore, not particularly influential. Mohammed Alami is chief Washington correspondent for the Arabic network al Jazeera.

MOHAMMED ALAMI, WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT, AL JAZEERA: The secretary of state was very popular person around the world, but also was seen as ineffective because of the in-fighting within the government.

SCHNEIDER: Now Powell's out and the neocons are in. Where does that leave Condoleezza Rice? Dr. Rice was schooled in the realist tradition, but 9/11 seems to have transformed her. John Parker is Washington bureau chief of "The Economist" magazine.

JOHN PARKER, "THE ECONOMIST": She changed very fundamentally after September 11 and she began to realize that morals, values, these sorts of (UNINTELLIGIBLE) must now play a much deeper influence -- much have a much deeper influence on foreign policy.

SCHNEIDER: Now the administration's foreign policy is likely to be more unified.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Dr. Rice is seen as closer to the president (UNINTELLIGIBLE) in fighting is over and probably would be more effective and also probably will be more troubling.

SCHNEIDER: Rice often talks about what she calls transformational diplomacy.

CONDOLEEZZA RICE, SECRETARY OF STATE NOMINEE: We must use American diplomacy to help create a balance of power in the world that favors freedom.

SCHNEIDER: Which seems to combine realism and idealism. PARKER: A balance of power that favors freedom seems to me quite to have a different feel to it from ending tyranny in our lifetime. You know, it's somewhat more instrumental. It concentrates on the how you do that rather more than the lofty aim.

SCHNEIDER: With Powell as secretary of state, realism and idealism seem to be competing. Rice's mission seems to be to reconcile the two traditions.


(on camera): Iraq is where idealism confronts reality. That's the big test. If Iraq turns out well, the idealists will triumph. If Iraq is a failure, the realists win.

WOODRUFF: What about the American people, where do they stand in all of this?

SCHNEIDER: In our poll taken just after the president's inaugural address, the public endorsed the president's idea that spreading democracy is essential for U.S. security by 2-1. That's idealism. But by exactly the same margin they said the U.S. will not be able to achieve the president's goal of ending tyranny in the world. That's realism.

WOODRUFF: Sounds like it. OK. Bill Schneider, thank you very much.

When it comes to Iraq, will Congress give the president the money he wants to keep U.S. troops on the ground? We'll ask a top House Democrat.

And later the countdown to the DNC's selection of a new party chair. Are any of the candidates picking some momentum?


WOODRUFF: President Bush's apparent plan to ask for $80 billion more to fund military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan could run into some opposition from Democrats. With me now Congresswoman Jane Harman. She is the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee. Congresswoman Harman, is the president going to get that money?

REP. JANE HARMAN (D), CALIFORNIA: I think he will get it, but I think there will also be a conversation about these hemorrhaging deficits and debt and it may mean that other things he wants, like, possibly, paying $2 trillion more to make sure that those over 55 get their Social Security checks will be in danger.

WOODRUFF: So -- but you see the votes there.

HARMAN: I see the votes there. I was stunned today, though, Judy, to read some comments of Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge to the effect that we can't afford 10,000 more border guards because where are you going to take that money out of? It seems to me $40 billion for homeland security, $300 billion and counting for Iraq and Afghanistan is a little bit of a mismatch. We need more for homeland security.

WOODRUFF: What is that all about? I think the American people have assumed that the border guards were going to be there and other elements of homeland security would be there. What's happened to that?

HARMAN: I don't think homeland security has been the priority it needs to be. Now, with a new secretary coming and hopefully with a new focus on this, we'll get serious. The intelligence reform bill just passed by Congress and signed by the president provides for 10,000 more border guards. That's what Secretary Ridge was talking about. That was a promise made by our president that we would make our borders safer and I'm certainly hoping that he and Congress keep that promise.

WOODRUFF: Hoping, are you going to raise the subject?

HARMAN: I'm raising it right now. This is the first day I've known about it.

WOODRUFF: Let's talk about the treatment of prisoners. There's a Human Rights Watch report that was released today that spells out abuse by Iraqi security forces, some of whom were trained by the United States. Separately the ACLU has released documents describing serious abuse of Iraqi civilians. Where -- what is going to be done about any of this?

HARMAN: It's a critical area. We can't fix everything, but we can certainly fix what our own troops and what our non-military personnel do in a war theater. The House intelligence committee now is considering drafting legislation on interrogations and detainees. There are no formal laws around this subject. There's a big loophole because we ratified the convention on torture, which means torture is never permissible, but there is this gray area about cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment. Congress needs to fill this void and spell out in all cases, not in a one-size-fits-all bill, but in a complex bill what we mean. Who can be detained, what is the process, what is the way to challenge the detainment, what are the appropriate interrogation procedures and what happens if they're not observed?

WOODRUFF: Two other very quick things. You've already commented on this one, so I won't dwell on it. The DoD confirming that it has created a whole separate intelligence operation, sort of under the radar. You've been outspoken in the last 24, 48 hours saying this is something you don't find acceptable.

HARMAN: Our committee has been briefed about activities specific to battlefield intelligence that DoD has been undertaking for years. That's OK. We need better human intelligence on the battlefield. No one is arguing that. But if the DoD program is morphing into covert activities, which Congress needs to learn about in advance, that's not OK. We're going to meet with the senior DoD officials, Steve Cambone, in charge of all this to learn precisely what this program is. He should have told us, DoD should have told us long ago. WOODRUFF: Very quickly, the number of soldiers in Iraq. You have the head of army operations saying he needs to keep 120,000 soldiers in Iraq through 2006 and yet separately we're hearing the National Guard only has 86,000 soldiers. The numbers don't seem to be adding up to what the United States needs to keep to carry out a commitment in Iraq.

HARMAN: Well, what worries me is not just Iraq, but if we should have problems in other parts of the world, for example, in Iran. For example, somewhere in Asia, what would we do? We have to address this whole issue of our -- the size of our security force and the mix of our forces. I like the idea that the administration has to move more of our forces to a training role. Training of Iraqi security in Iraq. That seems to me to be a much better function and maybe it means we can reduce the numbers and give some rest to -- well-deserved rest to the women and men who have their lives on the line in Iraq.

WOODRUFF: Congresswoman Jane Harman, as the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee, touching on a number of different subjects with us this afternoon. We appreciate it.

HARMAN: Always good to see you, Judy.

WOODRUFF: Thank you very much.

Well, question: is Howard Dean unstoppable in his campaign to become the new chair of the Democratic National Committee? That's a question many party activists are asking as the voting draws closer. When we return

Well, question: Is Howard Dean unstoppable in his campaign to become the new chair of the Democratic National Committee? That's a question many party activists are asking as the voting draws closer. When we return, The Hotline, Chuck Todd joins me to talk about the race and about Dean's chances.


WOODRUFF: The race to chair the Democratic National Committee nearing an end. The election takes place February 12th. Of the seven candidates, former presidential hopeful Howard Dean is still conducting a hard-charging campaign. And he is considered the frontrunner. Chuck Todd is with me now, he's editor-in-chief at The Hotline, an insider's political briefing produced daily by The National Journal.

All right, Chuck, the candidates took part in a forum this past weekend in Sacramento. Where does everything stand here?

CHUCK TODD, EDITOR, THE HOTLINE: Well, that's the third of the four forums. We've got one more this weekend, that's going to take place in New York City. But now we're getting down to the old- fashioned smoke-filled rooms, although now they're latte-filled rooms, where they're meeting with different constituent groups, trying to nail down firm commitments, you know, none of this stuff is ever firm until a lot of these candidates, for instance, are trying to release public endorsements so that they can get these DNC members publicly on the record to sort of almost make sure they don't lose them when the actual voting takes place.

So it's really coming down to -- they're trying to figure out if, is there an anti-Dean constituency? Who can take it? I don't think you're going to see any more new candidates. The last chance at that was the Bob Kerrey scenario that some folks tried to float. That's dead in the water. The DGA is not looking anymore. So it's down to the field we have and it's sort of Howard Dean and everybody else.

WOODRUFF: Well, the candidates are still going after some important Democratic constituency groups, big labor. Where does that stand?

TODD: Well, and this is sort of the last of the big cogs that could make an endorsement. None of the others have. You had Harry Reid on, the leader of the Senate Democrats, and he basically non- endorsed all of a sudden, and he had been pushing a lot of candidates like Tim Roemer. DGA, non-endorse.

Labor, a good chunk of labor may end up getting behind Martin Frost. Martin Frost, the former congressman from Texas, putting -- is twisting a lot of arms, telling labor, if you really want to stop Howard Dean, I'm your only guy, the only one who can do it, and you've got to get out and endorse me publicly. Because without a public endorsement, then he can't go to these other DNC members.

Certain parts of the blue collar trade unions who are not big fans of an Andy Stern and -- who's head of SEIU, who endorsed Howard Dean in the presidential race, Frost might be taking advantage of that split in getting some of the sort of -- the unions that never were Dean fans in the first place, to get behind Frost. And that's sort of what Frost is pushing for very hard. He may get quite a few of them from the word I'm hearing.

WOODRUFF: Dean has been able to pull out some important, impressive endorsements from red states, party chairs in Oklahoma, Florida. Are the other candidates doing anything like that?

TODD: You know, you had, for instance -- most have been able to do well in their home states. Donnie Fowler has gotten some folks in South Carolina like Jim Clyburn and Fritz Hollings to endorse him. Martin Frost, publicly, has a whole bunch of Texans that are behind him, including Ron Kirk. None of them have really been able to branch out just yet.

If frost could get labor, for instance, labor, there is a lot of members of the DNC who are also members of labor unions, all of a sudden that could open up. But one word of caution on all these red state DNC members. They're actually sometimes more liberal than their states are and the reputation of their states. And so sometimes these endorsements look impressive on paper when you realize that the fact that they are still Democrats may mean they're actually more liberal in their state than some of these Democrats from the blue states.

WOODRUFF: So they may not carry as much weight. TODD: Well, their vote is a vote, but it may not be as big of a coalition as the Dean folks would like to have you believe.

WOODRUFF: We hear you. It is Chuck Todd, we appreciate it. The Hotline, an insider's political briefing, we know, produced every day by The National Journal. You can go online to for subscription information.

Thanks very much.

TODD: Thanks, Judy.

WOODRUFF: INSIDE POLITICS will be right back.


WOODRUFF: And that's it for this INSIDE edition for -- INSIDE POLITICS, this Tuesday edition, we thank you for joining us. I'm Judy Woodruff. "CROSSFIRE" starts right now.


International Edition
CNN TV CNN International Headline News Transcripts Advertise With Us About Us
   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.
Add RSS headlines.