Return to Transcripts main page
American Morning
Reports Lists Extensive Ties Between Jack Abramoff, White House Staffers; 'Do-Nothing' Congress?; Search for a Killer
Aired September 29, 2006 - 08:59 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
SOLEDAD O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: And welcome back, everybody.
I'm Soledad O'Brien.
MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: And I'm Miles O'Brien.
Thanks for being with us.
We begin in Washington, where there's still more fallout from that huge lobbying scandal. A congressional report out today lists extensive ties between the disgraced and convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff and some high-ranking staffers at the White House. The Bush administration says it's nothing new.
CNN's Kathleen Koch joining us from the White House with more -- Kathleen.
KATHLEEN KOCH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Miles, this report is certainly causing the White House some degree of consternation because in the past it had acknowledged only a few contacts between any White House officials and Jack Abramoff, and now this draft report by the House Government Reform Committee cites more than 400 of them, nine of them, nine instances -- cite meetings between either Abramoff and some members of his firm, meetings or contacts with -- between them and White House advisor Karl Rove.
White House spokesperson Dana Perino, though, says you really have to be careful, this information is questionable, saying, "The report shows something we already know, and that's that Jack Abramoff had a penchant for exaggerating and charges his clients for minor contacts with government officials." Perino goes on to explain that Abramoff and his compatriots at his firm would bill even the most minor innocuous contacts as lobbying, saying, "One example is where one of the associates said he saw a White House official at a college football game," and apparently that was something that they billed for.
Now, the White House continues to maintain that President Bush himself never met with Jack Abramoff. This report does not challenge that assertion. And indeed, the chairman of the House committee that conducted this report says that it is very notable that Abramoff's efforts with the White House apparently were all for naught.
Congressman Tom Davis noting that almost none of the e-mails that Abramoff and his associates sent to the White House were ever answered, saying, "That silence speaks volumes about how seriously most people in the White House took Jack Abramoff's schemes" -- Miles.
M. O'BRIEN: Kathleen, also the president speaking in about 40 minutes to some retired military officers. Tell us about that one.
KOCH: That will be another of these speeches on the war on terror. We're hearing, Miles, among the items he will be discussing will be his meetings that he had this week with the feuding presidents of Pakistan and Afghanistan. He'll be talking about what he was able to accomplish, about the important role that those countries play in the region.
The president also expected to thank the Senate for its vote yesterday on his measure to begin trying and interrogating suspected terrorists. That passed the Senate, has passed the House, and could be going to the president's desk perhaps even as soon as today.
Though Democrats are still quite displeased. They believe it gives the president just far too much leeway in deciding what types of interrogation techniques are acceptable. And they say that it could possibly even endanger U.S. service members if they were ever taken prisoner -- Miles.
M. O'BRIEN: Thank you, Kathleen Koch at the White House.
You can read the entire Abramoff report on our Web site, cnn.com/ticker.
The president's speech begins at 9:40 Eastern this morning. We will carry it live for you -- Soledad.
S. O'BRIEN: Members of Congress are wrapping up their business now, heading home this weekend to campaign. But one big question the voters might want answered is exactly how much business are they really wrapping up? What did they get done?
Congressional Correspondent Dana Bash is live for us on Capitol Hill.
Hey, Dana.
DANA BASH, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Soledad.
You know, we're bracing for a very long day here on the Hill. Republican leaders are scrambling to get as much done as they can in the next 24 hours to take home some accomplishments to the voters on the campaign trail.
They want to shed the "do-nothing" label that Democrats are trying to stick them with. And last night they did at least get one key accomplishment through the Senate, and it's going to head to the president's desk. It's on the president's anti-terror agenda.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BASH (voice over): One last time before Election Day, the president came to Capitol Hill looking for an 11th hour victory on his signature issue, national security.
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The American people need to know we are working together to win this war on terror.
BASH: This time, Mr. Bush got what he wanted, bipartisan approval of a bill allowing tough interrogations of terror suspects. Yet, a slew of other priorities will be left undone by the GOP Congress, and Republicans head home to campaign battling this Democratic mantra...
SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV), MINORITY LEADER: Like the "Do-Nothing Congress" of 1948, it's very difficult to get anything out of this Republican Congress.
BASH: In 1948, the year Harry Truman made an election issue of what he called the "Do-Nothing Congress," the Senate was in session just 114 days. This year the Senate is scheduled to meet a few more, 126. But in 1948 the House was in session 110 days. This year, they're scheduled to meet only 93 before campaigning.
NORMAN ORNSTEIN, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INST.: We've seen a Congress with fewer real hearings, fewer oversight hearings, less serious work in legislating to fulfill major issues. More show and less work than any I can remember.
BASH: Republicans insist they have sent the president significant legislation, a prescription drug benefit for Medicare, a bill making it harder to declare bankruptcy, a measure to protect pensions. And Congress has approved billions to fund disasters like Katrina and wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
But major Bush priorities have stalled in the Republican-run Congress. Perhaps the most stinging loss, creating private accounts for Social Security, which the president spent months trying to sell.
Another, lobbying reforms promised in the wake of the Jack Abramoff scandal.
Then there's comprehensive immigration reform, pushed from the Oval Office in prime time...
BUSH: Therefore, I support a temporary worker program.
BASH: ... killed by fellow Republicans. GOP leaders blame Democrats for obstructing.
REP. DENNIS HASTERT (R), HOUSE SPEAKER: And they've blocked legislation that we would like to finish.
BASH: But some Republicans lake Congressman Ray LaHood admit internal party squabbles cost them crucial achievements.
REP. RAY LAHOOD (R), ILLINOIS: So there are big divisions within our own party, and in some cases within the leadership of the House and Senate, that are both governed by Republican leaders. So...
BASH: LaHood is disappointed they didn't get more done but says sometimes doing nothing isn't so bad.
LAHOOD: I think lowering gasoline prices has done more for us, and the fact is we didn't have a dang thing to do about it.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BASH: Now, for some members of Congress there is frustration they didn't get some of their basic work done like, for example, passing spending bills to fund the government. But for some, Soledad, there is a bright spot.
I talked to one senator who's been here for a long time who said there's no question that he has to come to work here less than he has in years past, but for him, he said, that's OK. He smiled and said, "I get more time to run for president" -- Soledad.
S. O'BRIEN: I'm glad he's happy about that. All right. Dana Bash for us on Capitol Hill.
Thanks, Dana -- Miles.
M. O'BRIEN: In central Florida, hundreds of police trying to snare a cop killer they say is armed, dangerous and on the run. The man is wanted for killing one deputy, wounding another during a traffic stop yesterday. Deputy Vernon Matthews Williams was killed on his wife's birthday.
Live now to Susan -- CNN's Susan Candiotti in Lakeland.
Susan, what's the latest?
SUSAN CANDIOTTI, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hello, Miles.
Well, at first, you know, police only had a phony I.D., plus a fake name and address to work with. Now they think they are closer to the truth. They are working with three names, some of them may be aliases, and they have a knew photo of the suspected cop killer.
The names they're working with now, Alex or Andrew Clockston (ph), or Angelo Freeland (ph). Police say that the suspect was driving a rented car yesterday in the Lakeland, Florida, area around noontime when he was stopped for speeding, a routine stop. Then he took off into the woods, where he shot and killed Deputy Matthew Williams and his police dog, wounded another deputy who will be OK.
Police are using helicopters and a SWAT team. They are currently searching a two to three-square-mile area, including a 150 acres of very thick woods. And according to the sheriff, they want this man badly.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SHERIFF GRADY JUDD, POLK COUNTY, FLORIDA: Be careful if you are out in the community. We know this guy is armed. We know he's very dangerous.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CANDIOTTI: Police are also going over the rental car that was being driven. They are not releasing the name of the person who rented it, but they are talking to him, as well as the suspect's friends. They suspect that drug activity was involved, so for now they think they know who they are looking for. They just don't know where he is -- Miles.
M. O'BRIEN: Susan Candiotti in Lakeland.
Thank you very much -- Soledad.
S. O'BRIEN: Some new developments to tell you about in that story we were bringing to you yesterday, that horrible hostage situation that ended in the death of a teenage girl in Bailey, Colorado.
CNN's Jonathan Freed has been covering this story for us. He's got the latest.
Hey, Jonathan.
JONATHAN FREED, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good morning again, Soledad.
I have just walked out of a news conference with the Park County sheriff here, and the news coming out of this is that this appears to involve a suicide, because the sheriff says that a suicide note was sent by the shooter, Duane Morrison, to a family member in Colorado, that investigators became aware of this note yesterday evening, and that they are now analyzing the content of the note. Those are the words of the sheriff -- Soledad.
S. O'BRIEN: The very latest, obviously. We are waiting to see an update.
What terrible news, though. I mean, that has been really the $64,000 question here, isn't it, Jonathan, that no one can figure out the motive behind why this 50-year-old man would come into this school anyway, right?
FREED: That's right. That has been the question that has really been driving everything here, is why did this happen?
We know who, and we know what happened to him. He took his own life. And now the sheriff is saying that a family member here in Colorado -- I asked, "Was it here in Bailey?" He said, "No, here in Colorado, received a suicide note."
We asked, "In what form did it take? Why did it take a couple of days? Did he put it in the mail?" The sheriff said he is not sure, just knows that the note was sent to a family member here in Colorado. And it was described as a suicide note.
S. O'BRIEN: I'm sure we'll get more information as the day progresses.
Jonathan Freed for us this morning. He's been following this story.
Thanks, Jonathan -- Miles.
M. O'BRIEN: Coming up, the stunning new revelations in Bob Woodward's new book. He says the White House is keeping some big secrets from the public. We'll have a CNN "Fact Check" for you on that.
And "AM Pop." We're going to talk to Kevin Costner. His new movie, "The Guardian," opens nationwide today. He'll tell us what it was like to play a Coast Guard rescue (INAUDIBLE).
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
S. O'BRIEN: It's 39 days until the election, and journalist Bob Woodward is dropping a political bombshell. His new book describes a White House dysfunctional over the war in Iraq and claims that Americans aren't being told about the true number of attacks against U.S. troops in Iraq.
Pentagon' Correspondent Barbara Starr is checking the facts in Bob Woodward's book. She's with us this morning.
Hey, Barbara. Good morning.
BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Good morning to you, Soledad.
Well, trying the check the facts, but there's not quite a definitive answer just yet. Let's explain to everybody. Here's what we do know.
In Bob Woodward's new book, "State of Denial," according to CBS News, which interviewed him for their Sunday night program, "60 Minutes," Mr. Woodward says that attacks against coalition and U.S. forces are now 800 to 900 attacks a week against basically U.S. troops. That would be a significant event.
Let's keep that number in mind, 800 attacks a week. That's close to -- upwards towards 4,000 a month. So 30,000 to 40,000 attacks a year against U.S. troops in Iraq that somehow somebody is keeping secret and the U.S. public does than know about it. Is that plausible?
Well, the Pentagon has a quarterly report on attacks in Iraq, and that report says, indeed, 800 attacks a week, but that those attacks are against everybody, U.S. troops, Iraqi troops, Iraqi civilians and Iraqi infrastructure, such as attacks against oil pipelines. What's the bottom line? Is it true, 800 attacks a week against U.S. troops?
We went to the Pentagon, we asked this morning, and here's the answer we got: "We're double-checking our statistics. We just don't know."
When they put out that statistic of 800 attacks a week against all elements, is the majority really against U.S. troops? That seems to be what they're checking into this morning -- Soledad.
S. O'BRIEN: All right. So it's still unclear, but obviously a good question to try to track down.
Barbara Starr for us at the Pentagon.
Thanks, Barbara.
STARR: Sure.
S. O'BRIEN: Let's turn now to CNN Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider for a look, really, at how Woodward's portrait of the White House might be taken by voters.
You know, Bill, Bob Woodward's books are always -- always a bomb shell. I mean, that's kind of the point of selling the book in the first place. But do you this one really could have an impact on the election?
WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, CNN SR. POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, it does come out right at the heart of the campaign season. Some people will discount the book coming out now, and they will say, well, it's just politics, they hear a lot of political charges right now.
And keep this in mind: Americans are already disillusioned over the war in Iraq. When we asked people in our poll taken last weekend, "Do you think things are going well or badly for the United States in Iraq?" that number had taken a significant dip.
In the beginning of this year, 53 percent said they thought things were going badly for the United States in Iraq. Now the number is 61 percent badly. Most Americans, two-thirds of Americans, think Iraq is already in civil war, so there's already a great deal of disillusionment over Iraq.
S. O'BRIEN: All right. And I see that we have the poll. I mean, if we can throw it up there, you see those numbers right away.
If those trends continue over the next several weeks, as we head to this election, what kind of an impact could it have both on Republicans and on Democrats? Is it all just based on that changing number?
SCHNEIDER: Well, a lot of it is. But there's one other factor that's raised by the Woodward book.
He makes the charge not only that the situation worse than has been reported, but that the administration, he argues, he charges in his book, is not being honest with the American people, that it's keeping a lot of this information secret. And that raises the charges to a whole new level by saying that they are literally keeping information away from the American people. That could be very serious.
Also, his book, along with that leaked national intelligence report, some of which has been publicly released by the White House, focuses the campaign on Iraq. The White House over the last month has been trying to shift the focus and frame it around the larger war on terror, arguing that Iraq is one front in that war on terror. But anything that shifts the focus on -- of the campaign to the issue of Iraq, which, as I indicated, Americans are very disillusioned and many are angry about, that can help Democrats a great deal.
Roughly half of Americans, nearly half, say the Iraq issue will be extremely important to them in their congressional vote. Among those people, they are voting by better than two to one for Democrats rather than Republicans for Congress this year.
S. O'BRIEN: So it's going to be, really, I think, at the end of the day the issue of what he's charging, Bob Woodward in his book, which is he is charging deceitfulness. Obviously there has not been a poll about that yet...
SCHNEIDER: No.
S. O'BRIEN: ... but that's really going to be the critical question, I would think.
SCHNEIDER: Yes, that's exactly right. It's not simply that things are going badly, but that the administration is holding back information.
Once that charge gets out there it will be debated, any political motives are likely to be raised. The administration has already been thrown on the defensive. They argued that the leak of the information from the national intelligence estimate was done for political reasons.
This is the political season. Anything like that will be taken as political. But these charges are serious, and they add something to the bad news that's been coming out of Iraq, and that's whether the administration has been honest in getting information to the American people.
S. O'BRIEN: When you look at the polls of people who say, all right, Iraq is my top issue, as you said, more than half, those people who are polled say who they would be interested in bringing into office, and they, for the most -- overwhelmingly want to go with Republicans -- with Democrats, excuse me.
SCHNEIDER: With Democrats, yes. That's that number you see right there. That's -- two-thirds say they would vote for the Democrat, 29 percent Republican. That's much better than two to one.
That's a huge lead. And what that suggests is, the more the campaign is framed around the debate of -- over Iraq, the more this becomes the Iraqi election, the better Democrats are likely to do. That's why the administration was trying to reframe it around the time of the 9/11 fifth anniversary commemoration around the larger war on terror.
That's the issue that the Republicans won on in 2002 and in 2004, and they want to frame this election the same way. But the latest news stories about the national intelligence estimate and now the Woodward book are shifting that focus squarely on the Iraq issue.
S. O'BRIEN: Bill Schneider for us this morning.
Thanks, Bill.
SCHNEIDER: OK.
We should mention that President Bush is speaking this morning. The speech begins at 9:40 a.m. Eastern Time.
We're going to carry that live when it happens. We'll bring it to you right here on CNN -- Miles.
M. O'BRIEN: Coming up, the defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, we're going to look back at the lead-up to the Iraq war and find out how early strategy sessions caused friction with top military brass. It's an excerpt of an insightful hour on Secretary Rumsfeld which will air this weekend on CNN.
Plus, "AM Pop" coming up. We're going to talk to Kevin Costner about his new movie "The Guardian."
That's ahead. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
M. O'BRIEN: There's an old saying in the Coast Guard, "The difficult we do immediately, the impossible takes a little time." The new movie "The Guardian" is a tribute to those unsung heroes of the sea. It stars Kevin Costner as a legendary Coast Guard rescue swimmer sent in to train some raw recruits.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "THE GUARDIAN")
UNIDENTIFIED MALE, "THE GUARDIAN": Mr. Fisher (ph) is our high school swim champ. He's had scholarships to every ivy league.
KEVIN COSTNER, ACTOR, "THE GUARDIAN": Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize that he was so qualified.
I mean, you set records in a pool? That's amazing. I'll bet it was like, what, eight feet deep in the deep end?
For the love of god, you could have been killed.
(END VIDEO CLIP, "THE GUARDIAN")
M. O'BRIEN: And Kevin Costner joins me now.
Kevin, good to have you with us.
COSTNER: Thanks.
M. O'BRIEN: Let's talk about the people you pay homage to in this movie. Did you know much about these rescue swimmers before you got the script? COSTNER: Not many movies are made about them. We make them about the Army, the Marines, the Navy, I mean, those heroics. And certainly it's worthwhile to make movies about this.
The mission statement of the Coast Guard is to save lives, and so it just is not quite as sexy. But when you -- when you realize that there's somebody out there fighting for their life in conditions, and looking up and thinking, I'm -- who's going to come for me, there's only one organization, and they're going to come no matter what. No matter what kind of weather.
And that's -- it's really comforting to know. And the people that come for you are these individuals we show in this movie.
M. O'BRIEN: It looked like a hard movie to do, the training, everything.
COSTNER: Yes.
M. O'BRIEN: I assume you meshed yourself in this whole world. What was it like working with these guys?
COSTNER: Well, it's interesting. You know, we -- we were. And, you know, unlike athletes, where they all kind of take on the same shape and size -- you seem them in the airports -- you look at these guys and they are different shapes -- and women -- they're different shapes and sizes, because it's more about their heart. You know, it's more about who isn't going to quit. And it's not about how gifted they are, it's just about how mentally tough they are.
M. O'BRIEN: You spent a lot of time just physically in the water. How demanding was it?
COSTNER: Yes. Well, I guess there's also a little adage out there that says if you are a rescue swimmer you can expect to spend 60 percent of your career in a mildly hypothermic state. So think about -- think about those conditions the next time you come in here and say, "Ooh, the studio is a little chilly."
M. O'BRIEN: Yes. That scene where you show them about hypothermia...
COSTNER: Yes.
M. O'BRIEN: ... you put them in a pool filled with ice. It's something.
COSTNER: Yes, and that's kind of the charm of the movie, is the fact that this guy, who is not a born teacher, that he's -- he teaches with some unconventional ideas. You know, it creates some of the fun in the movie.
M. O'BRIEN: Ashton Kutcher is your co-star in this.
COSTNER: Yes.
M. O'BRIEN: And he plays the young, raw recruit which you have to mold.
COSTNER: Right.
M. O'BRIEN: And I'm curious, on screen there's a mentor-student kind of role. What was that like? Did you sort of help him along in this...
COSTNER: Yes. I didn't try to do that on purpose. I helped him where I thought, because I consider Ashton my partner in the movie. And he did the same. You know, I learned some things from Ashton, too.
M. O'BRIEN: Now, there's mention made of Katrina here, which is probably more than any event I can recall recently when the Coast Guard really came to light as the heroes that they are.
COSTNER: Right.
M. O'BRIEN: Part of this movie was supposed to be filmed in New Orleans? Is that right?
COSTNER: Yes, we -- and Katrina came and blew us off the map, too. And we had a decision to make, do we just go somewhere else?
But we hung in Louisiana, and we all feel really good about that, because we duplicated the Bering Sea right there in Shreveport, and we were able to keep 200 jobs that would have actually left. And while we know it's a drop in the bucket, we felt like that was our contribution to keep the people working.
M. O'BRIEN: Kevin Costner, thanks for being here.
The movie is "The Guardian." It opens in theaters September 29th.
S. O'BRIEN: A look at the top stories straight ahead this morning, including severe weather and a tornado that pummeled some homes, left thousands of people without power.
Plus, a look at that huge wildfire north of L.A. Firefighters may have finally turned the tide.
That's all ahead.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
M. O'BRIEN: We are expecting the president to begin another speech on the war on terror in a little more than 10 minutes. He's in Washington. He's addressing retired officers, Retired Officers Association, to be specific.
It begins at 9:40 Eastern Time, and we will, of course, bring it to you live. S. O'BRIEN: And we're just a few seconds away from the opening bell on Wall Street. Let's see who's ringing the bell today. It looks like Evergreen Energy, Incorporated is ringing the bell.
(MARKET REPORT)
S. O'BRIEN: Welcome back, everybody. I'm Soledad O'Brien.
M. O'BRIEN: And I'm Miles O'Brien. Thanks for being with us.
(NEWSBREAK)
M. O'BRIEN: Secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld is at the center of controversies over the war in Iraq, and the latest CNN poll is not good news for the boss at the Pentagon -- 57 percent of respondents say Rumsfeld's military planning has hurt the U.S. mission in Iraq, and 47 percent now say Rumsfeld should step down.
CNN is taking a special look at the defense secretary with an hour-long special that airs this weekend. It's called "Donald Rumsfeld: Man of War."
CNN special correspondent Frank Sesno joins us live from CNN center in Atlanta with a preview.
Good morning, Frank.
FRANK SESNO, CNN SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT: Good morning again, Miles. How are you?
Well, he came in to transform the military. That was Donald Rumsfeld's original charging into that, bleeding this war on terrorism in Iraq and beyond.
And in this documentary, we take a look at his management style, at the decisions that were made, and on the central debate over troop strength, a debate that actually first came to the forefront in the place called Tora Bora where the prize got away, Osama bin Laden.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
FRANK SESNO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Even before Tora Bora, President Bush told Rumsfeld to have his generals start looking at Iraq. Rumsfeld had a long history with the place, as Reagan's envoy, he went there, shook Saddam's hand when Saddam was at war with Iran, America's archenemy.
But after Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, and the first Gulf War, Rumsfeld signed on to a new line of neoconservative thought that America should actively promote democracy in Iraq and oust Saddam Hussein.
At the end of 2001, Rumsfeld ordered Tommy Franks to throw out the existing Iraq war plan, which called for more than 400,000 troops.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DONALD RUMSFELD, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: It didn't reflect any of the lessons from Afghanistan, that it didn't reflect the current state of affairs in Iraq.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SESNO: Rumsfeld was adamant, leaning hard on General Tommy franks, who was putting together the war plan.
THOMAS RICKS, WASHINGTON POST MILITARY CORRESPONDENT: There was quite a lot of friction. Fairly harsh tone. Franks would fly up to Washington and show it to him and Rumsfeld would say, fewer troops, faster, cut it down, pare it down.
SESNO: Rumsfeld was thinking transformation and asking tough questions.
GEN. JACK KEANE (RET.), U.S. ARMY: The question sort of goes like this: listen, Saddam Hussein's army today is half the size it used to be. Why do we have to attack the same size force we did back then? Isn't it reasonable to do with less? Well, that's a very good question and it deserves to be asked.
SESNO: The U.S. would attack with fewer than 150,000 troops, though more were available, if needed. Rumsfeld's vision had prevailed. It was about to be tested again, but on a very different battlefield.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SESNO: Now, miles, it may be open season on Donald Rumsfeld these days. The public opinion polling you were showing, politicians on the Hill, some of the former generals have called for his head, but there are lots of generals around Rumsfeld, a lot of them who now work for him, some of them who don't, who say this guy is a powerhouse, and while he is tough, and rough, and abrasive, and you better be prepared, he makes people think and he makes them think creatively, and some of the real breakthroughs in warfare that have been seen over the last few years are because of Rumsfeld's pushing and prodding, so there's quite a debate
M. O'BRIEN: He's a tough guy, tenacious guy. I think he was a college wrestler.
SESNO: That's what people say.
M. O'BRIEN: Says a little bit about his personality. Does he ever admit a mistake?
SESNO: Not really. That goes with the wrestling, too, people say. You know, he's always looking for position. He says -- he told me when we were together, he says he's 74 years old. I'm still a competitive guy. He still works 12 hours a day. But he knows that he's in the middle of an unpopular war, he knows the heat is on. And so not only does he not admit mistakes but he lets the criticism roll off his back. He says he is doing the right thing, the country is doing the right thing, it's not easy; wars, especially long war, are never popular.
M. O'BRIEN: All right, Frank Sesno. We're looking forward to seeing it. You can catch the "CNN PRESENTS" special "Donald Rumsfeld: Man of War" tomorrow, and then Sunday night, 8:00 p.m. Eastern, right here on CNN -- Soledad.
S. O'BRIEN: We're just a few minutes away from hearing from President Bush. He's going to be speaking in Washington, D.C. about the war in Iraq, and he's expected to again touch upon a theme that we heard a little bit yesterday, where he said this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRES. OF THE UNITED STATES: Saddam Hussein's regime was a serious threat, a risk the world could not afford to take. America, Iraqis and the world are safer because Saddam Hussein is not in power.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
S. O'BRIEN: Was, in fact, Saddam Hussein a threat that the United States could not afford to ignore? A year before the war, Ken Pollack wrote the book called "The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq."
Ken Pollack is at the Saban Center for the Brookings Institution.
Ken, nice to see you as always.
KEN POLLACK, SABAN CTR. AT BROOKINGS INST.: Thank you, Soledad.
S. O'BRIEN: Thanks for talking with us.
What was the case for invading Iraq? Was the case for invading Iraq based almost 100 percent on weapons of mass destruction?
Well, obviously, Soledad, different people have different cases for war. My case, what I wrote in my book, was principally on weapons of mass destruction, and also on the suffering of the Iraqi people. The fact of the matter is Saddam was one of the worst dictators of the last 60 years, and I felt that needed to be part of the equation. But of course, that's not necessarily everyone else's. The administration seemed to have a whole variety of other rationales for war, rationales which I didn't necessarily believe were valid ones.
S. O'BRIEN: Lay out the administrations' rationale for war that they essentially laid out for the public.
POLLACK: Well, the administration put out several different additional rationales. First was, if we invade Iraq, we can create a democracy; that democracy will spread very quickly across the Middle East and will transform the Middle East. My feeling was, if we invade Iraq, we needed to try to build a democracy, but if we succeeded, it would take a long time, probably wouldn't have that kind of impact on the region. Second, the administration also believed that there was a very close link between Iraq and the problem of terrorism, and in particular the problem of al Qaeda and terrorism. I started my book by saying there is no link between Iraq and al Qaeda.
S. O'BRIEN: Nobody is arguing the point that Saddam Hussein was a horrific dictator, but how much of a threat was he before the war to the United States?
POLLACK: Well, this, of course, is the great post-war revelation. The fact of the matter is Saddam Hussein wasn't nearly as much of a threat as virtually everyone, myself included, believed. Our intelligence about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs are analysis of what was going on in Iraq were dead wrong. Saddam had not reconstituted his weapons of mass destruction program. And so you can still make the case that Saddam was a threat. This is a nasty guy, he was trying to do some very destabilizing things in the Middle East, but he wasn't nearly as threatening as we believed at the time.
S. O'BRIEN: The president in his State of the Union Address on January 28th of 2003 said this: "Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda." What exactly was the relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, or Osama bin Laden before the war?
POLLACK: Well, there basically was no relationship. The fact of the matter is that al Qaeda had at different points in times put out feelers to the Iraqis, and the Iraqis had turned them down flat. Saddam wasn't interested. So at this point in time, what we now know, based in large part because of the very good work of the Senate intelligence committee, is that in fact the Iraqis had no real relationship with al Qaeda.
The only relationship would be, as I said, the fact that you would have al Qaeda come to them and say, would you like to do something, and the Iraqis said, no thanks, go take a hike.
S. O'BRIEN: Hindsight, of course, is 20/20, but when you look back, do you ask yourself, OK, would it be better off if we had, in fact, left the brutal and horrible dictator Saddam Hussein in power in Iraq?
POLLACK: Pretty much every second of every day since 2003. You know, the problem, though, Soledad, is that at this point in time, we are committed, we are there. And I think that for me what's going to ultimately decide that is how we do with the reconstruction.
You know, if we can somehow turn things around in Iraq and produce at some point in the next ten years a country that is stable and peaceful, then I think you can look back at it and say, well, we did relieve the Iraqi people of the enormous misery that they faced under Saddam Hussein and we did remove a threat from the region, albeit not one nearly as great as we thought.
On the other hand, if the reconstruction continues to head in the direction it is, toward all-out civil war, then, honestly, I don't think there is going to be any way to justify this war because we will have left the Iraqi people even worse off than they were under Saddam Hussein, and we will have left them at least even more unstable than it was when Saddam was in power.
S. O'BRIEN: Democracy clearly did not spread and was not as transforming, in the short term, as the administration predicted. Why not?
POLLACK: Well, the most obvious reason is that we didn't try in Iraq to build democracy. We didn't try to stabilize the country the way we should have. Frank Sesno's piece got to the first -- probably the fatal flaw that we made, which was we did not bring enough troops to actually secure the country.
We've seen a lot of these post-war situations, we know what it's like when a dictator falls. And it's why you have generals and any number of other people saying we need to bring a lot of troops so that we can secure the country, fill the power vacuum that is going to ensue when Saddam falls. The moment that we failed to do that, we got off on the wrong foot and we have never been able to regain our balance.
S. O'BRIEN: Ken Pollack is with the Saban Center at the Brookings Institution. Ken, always nice to talk to you. Thanks.
POLLACK: Thank you, Soledad.
S. O'BRIEN: Miles?
(WEATHER REPORT)
M. O'BRIEN: All right, thank you very much, Chad Myers. Take a look at this picture from -- coming to us live now from the Washington area. The president will be speaking there before some reserve officers, the Reserve Officers Association, very shortly. He'll be talking about the war on terror.
We expect to hear from him very shortly. Should happen within the next minute and a half or so. We're going to take a quick break, less than that, and be back with the president shortly.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
M. O'BRIEN: President of the United States just about to approach the podium there. He's being introduced right now at the meeting of the Reserve Officers Association at the Wardman Park Marriott in Washington. The group there represents all uniformed service personnel in the Reserves.
Let's listen to the introduction.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Americans have been blessed with a magnificent military. It is my high honor to introduce one who has worked tirelessly to defend our freedom by supporting America's men and women in uniform. Ladies and gentlemen, the president of the United States.
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: My thanks to Captain Smith for your kind introduction.
Thank you all for being here. And thank you for the warm welcome.
I'm honored to stand with the men and women of the Reserved Officers Association. For more than 80 years, this organization has stood up for America and its citizen-soldiers. And I appreciate your contribution to our country.
We're safer because you stand ready to put on the uniform. I'm grateful for your service. And I'm proud to be your commander in chief.
I want to speak to you today about the struggle between moderation and extremism that is unfolding across the broader Middle East.
At this moment, terrorists and extremists are fighting to overthrow moderate governments in the region, so they can take control of countries and use them as bases from which to attack America and from which to impose their hateful ideology. This is the challenge of our time. This is the call of a generation -- to stand against the extremists and support moderate leaders across the broader Middle East to help us all secure a future of peace.
This week in Washington, I met with two courageous leaders who are working for peace -- President Karzai of Afghanistan and President Musharraf of Pakistan.
These leaders understand the stakes in the struggle, in the ideological struggle of the 21st century. They understand the stakes from a personal perspective as well, since the extremists have tried to assassinate them.
They're a courageous people. They have seen the destruction that terrorists have caused in their own country. And they know this: that the only way to stop them is to work together and to stay on the offense.
By standing with brave leaders like these, we're defending civilization itself and we're building a more peaceful word for our children and grandchildren.
I appreciate very much the ambassador from Afghanistan, Ambassador Jawad, and Ambassador Durrani from Pakistan for joining us here today.
Thank you all for coming.
(APPLAUSE)
And I appreciate members of my administration who have joined us. I appreciate people wearing the uniform who have joined us. I appreciate those from Walter Reed who have joined us, and from Bethesda.
(APPLAUSE)
I thank you for your sacrifice.
I also want to thank those from Walter Reed who are -- and Bethesda -- who are giving you the help you need to recover from your wounds.
It gives me great comfort to be able to tell the loved ones of those who wear our uniform that if you get hurt, you will receive first-class compassionate care from the United States military. And so for the healers who are here, thank you for doing your duty and providing these brave folks the help they need to recover.
Earlier this month, our nation marked the fifth anniversary of the September the 11th, 2001, terrorist attacks. We paused on that day to remember the innocent people who were killed that day. We paused to remember the rescue workers who rushed into burning towers to save lives.
After 9/11, I stood in the well of the House of Representatives and declared that every nation and every region had a decision to make: Either you were with us or you stood with the terrorists.
Two nations, Afghanistan and Pakistan, made very different decisions with very different results.
Five years ago, Afghanistan was ruled by the brutal Taliban regime. Under the Taliban and Al Qaida, Afghanistan was the land where women were imprisoned in their own homes. Where men were beaten for missing prayer meetings. Where girls couldn't even go to school. What a hopeless society that was, under the rule of these hateful men.
Afghanistan was the home to terrorist training camps. Under Al Qaida and the Taliban, Afghanistan was a terrorist safe haven. It was a launching pad for the horrific attacks that killed innocent people in New York City on September the 11th, 2001.
After 9/11, America gave leaders of the Taliban a choice. We told them that they must turn over all the leaders of Al Qaida hiding in their land. We told them they must close every terrorist training camp and hand over every terrorist to appropriate authorities.
We told them they must give the United States full access to the terrorist training camps so they could make sure they were no longer operating. We told them these demands were not up for negotiation and that if they did not comply immediately, and hand over the terrorists, they would share in the same fate as the terrorists. I felt these were reasonable demands.
The Taliban regime chose unwisely. So within weeks after the 9/11 attacks, our coalition launched Operation Enduring Freedom. By December 2001, the Taliban regime had been removed from power. Hundreds of Taliban and Al Qaida fighters had been captured or killed. And the terrorist camps where the enemy had planned the 9/11 attacks were shut down.
We did what we said we were going to do. We made our intentions clear. We gave the Taliban a chance to make the right decision. They made the wrong decision and we liberated Afghanistan.
(APPLAUSE)
The liberation of Afghanistan was a great achievement. And for those of you who served in that effort, thank you. I thank you on behalf of America and the Afghan people thank you.
But we knew it was only the beginning of our mission, Afghanistan. See, the liberation was only the start of an important mission to make this world a more peaceful place.
We learned the lesson of the 1980s, when the United States had helped the Afghan people drive the Soviet red army from Kabul and then decided our work was finished and let the Afghans to fend for themselves.
The Taliban came to power and provided a sanctuary for bin Laden and Al Qaida. And we paid the price when the terrorists struck our nation and killed nearly 3,000 people in our midst.
So after liberating Afghanistan, we began the difficult work of helping the Afghan people rebuild their country, and establish a free nation on the rubble of the Taliban's tyranny.
With the help of the United Nations and coalition countries, the Afghan leaders chose a interim government, they wrote and approved a democratic constitution, they held elections to choose a new president and they elected leaders to represent them in a new parliament.
In those parliamentary elections, more than 6 million Afghans defied terrorist threats and cast their ballots. They made it clear they wanted to live in a free society.
As I travel around the country, I tell people that I'm not surprised when people say, "I want to live in liberty." I believe liberty is universal. I believe deep within the soul of every man, woman and child on the face of the Earth is the desire to live in freedom.
And when we free people, we not only do our duty to ourselves, but we help the rise of decent human beings.
As Afghans have braved the terrorists and claimed their freedom, we've helped them. And we will continue to help them. It's in our interests that we help this young democracy survive and grow strong.
We helped them build security forces they need to defend their democratic gains. In the past five years, our coalition has trained and equipped more than 30,000 soldiers in the Afghan national army. And at this moment, several thousand more are in training at a Kabul military training center.
These Afghan soldiers are on the front lines with coalition troops. Some have suffered terrible wounds in battle. Others have given their lives in the fight against the terrorists.
Afghans in uniform are determined to protect their nation and fight our common enemies. And we're proud to fight alongside such brave allies.
Our coalition has also trained about 46,000 members of the Afghan national police. The training of the Afghan police has not gone as smoothly as that of the army. Police have faced problems with corruption and sub-standard leadership. And we've made our concerns known to our friends in the Afghan government.
When we see a problem, we adjust, we change. So this year President Karzai's government announced a new team to lead the national police.
As the police become more capable and better led and more disciplined, they will gain legitimacy and they will earn the respect of the Afghan people.
Listen, the Afghan people want to live in a peaceful world. It's important for the American citizens to understand an Afghan mother wants the same thing for her child that our mothers want for our children: a chance to grow up and realize dreams, a chance to live in peace.
And it's important for the Afghan government to provide the kind of security so the citizens have trust that their government can enable the peace to evolve in that strife-ridden part of the world.
The army and police are good fighters. At this moment, more than 21,000 American troops and more than 20,000 personnel from 40 countries are deployed in Afghanistan.
In the summer of 2003, NATO took over the International Security Assistance Force -- it's called ISAF -- in Afghanistan in NATO's first mission outside the Euro-Atlantic area.
Other nations besides the United States understand the importance of helping this young democracy survive and thrive and grow.
Since then, NATO has expanded ISAF from a small force that was operating only in Kabul into a robust force that has taken responsibility for security in nearly 60 percent of the country.
And this week NATO announced that it would take over security operations in all of Afghanistan in the coming weeks. Under the plan, the U.S. will transfer 12,000 of our troops that are now serving in the country to the NATO force, while the rest will remain under coalition command and continue anti-terrorist operations across the country. We saw the effectiveness of NATO forces this summer when NATO took responsibility from the United States for security operations in southern Afghanistan.
The Taliban saw the transfer of the region from the United States to NATO control as a window of opportunity. They saw it as an opportunity to test the will of nations other than the United States.
See, they've been testing our will. And they understand it's strong and they need to understand it will remain strong.
(APPLAUSE)
So the Taliban massed an estimated 800 or 900 fighters near Kandahar to face the NATO force head on. And that was a mistake. Earlier this month, NATO launched Operation Medusa.
Together with the Afghan national army, troops from Canada and Denmark and the Netherlands and Britain and the United States engaged the enemy, with operational support from Romanian and Portuguese and Estonian forces.
According to NATO commanders, NATO forces killed hundreds of Taliban fighters. NATO Supreme Allied Commander General Jones, a United States Marine, says this about the NATO operation in southern Afghanistan: "The Taliban decided to make a test case of the region, and they paid a very heavy price for it."
The operation sent a signal to the insurgents that NATO forces would not back down.
The operation also sent a clear message to the Afghan people that NATO is standing with you.
I appreciate the courage of the NATO forces. I appreciate the governments of our allies in NATO understanding the importance of helping the Afghan people achieve their dream, and that is a stable country.
The people from NATO must understand that they're helping a young democracy defend itself and protect its people. And in so doing, they're helping to lay the foundation of peace in the ideological struggle of the 21st century.
(APPLAUSE)
The NATO deployment has begun to bring security and reconstruction to a region that previously had little, and has allowed the United States and Afghan forces to stay on the offense.
And so we launched another major offensive in the east called Operation Mountain Fury. The operation's ongoing. It's aimed at clearing out enemy safe havens in five Afghan provinces, including three provinces bordering Pakistan.
The operation is being led by about 4,000 Afghan forces and supported by about 3,000 of our finest.
As Afghan, coalition forces clear out the enemy, then we'll follow up with reconstruction assistance so we can improve the quality of life for local Afghans and help extend the authority of the central government to distant areas of the country.
See, the enemy understands what we're doing. And they don't like it. That's why they're reacting the way they're reacting.
They understand that the arrival of Afghan and coalition forces in the region means that the government is beginning to win the hearts of the people.
In many of these regions, the Taliban, Al Qaida fighters and drug traffickers and criminal elements have enjoyed a free rein. There haven't been any countervailing force to their presence.
And you can imagine how that makes innocent people feel. You know, when you've got these killers in your midst, it creates an atmosphere of fear. As a matter of fact, people like Al Qaida, whose ideology is hateful, have got one major tool at their disposal: They kill innocent life to create fear.
And what a contrast it is to the United States of America and coalition partners and decent Afghans who believe in hope.
(APPLAUSE)
These haters of humanity know that when the government in Kabul can reach out and improve the lives of local Afghans in distant parts of the country, the population will gain confidence in Afghanistan's democracy. That's part of the struggle -- this ideological struggle we're engaged in.
And so they're going to try to do everything they can to stop the progress. And they'll fight Afghan and coalition forces. And that's what you're seeing today.
But they do more than just fight our forces. They destroy schools and they destroy clinics. They do everything in their power to intimidate local folks.
The enemies of a free Afghanistan are brutal and they're determined. And we're not going to let them succeed.
(APPLAUSE)
NATO and coalition and Afghan forces will continue to fight the enemy. We will stay on the offense. And we're going to help this government of President Karzai bring a better life to his people.
In order to bring a better life to the Afghan people, our coalition and NATO forces have deployed 23 provincial reconstruction teams across Afghanistan. These teams are important because we're talking about a country that has been torn apart because of war over the years. The teams are led by Sweden and Norway and Germany and Hungary and Italy and Spain and Lithuania and Canada and Britain and the Netherlands and the United States. And these teams are bringing security and reconstruction assistance to distant regions of the country.
And to link the distant regions to the capital, we've got a strategy. It's called building roads. This is a country that is in dire need for transportation.
And since the liberation of Afghanistan, we've provided more than $4.5 billion for reconstruction throughout the country. We're helping with electricity and irrigation and water and sanitation and other necessities.
Our coalition is working with President Karzai to strengthen the institutions of Afghanistan's young democracy. We understand that the institutions must be strengthened and reformed for democracy to survive.
And one of the areas most in need of reform is the nation's legal system. Recently, President Karzai took important steps to strengthen the rule of law when he appointed a new attorney general and judges to serve on Afghanistan's supreme court.
Our coalition is helping his government institutionalize these changes. Italy, for example, is helping to train Afghan judges and prosecutors and public defenders and court administrators so all Afghans can receive equal justice under the law.
And from the beginning, our actions in Afghanistan have had a clear purpose. In other words, our goals are clear for people to understand. And that is to rid the country of the Taliban and the terrorists and build a lasting, free society that will be an ally in the war on terror.
(APPLAUSE)
And from the beginning, American people have heard the critics say we're failing. But the reasons keep changing.
The first days of Operation Enduring Freedom, the critics warned that we were heading toward a quagmire.
And then when the Taliban fell and operations began in Iraq, the critics held up the multinational coalition in Afghanistan as a model, and it said it showed that everything we were doing in Iraq was wrong.
And now some of the critics who praised the multinational coalition we built in Afghanistan claim the country is in danger of failing because we don't have enough American troops there.
Look, in order to win a war, in order to win the ideological struggle of the 21st century, it is important for this country to have a clear strategy and change tactics to meet the conditions on the ground, not try to constantly respond to the critics who change their positions.
And so, I listen to the advice of those who matter in Afghanistan, and that is President Karzai and our commanders.
(APPLAUSE)
We will continue to help the Afghanistan government defeat our common enemies.
I've constantly told the American people we must defeat the enemy overseas so we do not have to face them here at home.
(APPLAUSE)
I will continue to remind the American people that is we deal with threats before they materialize. In this war that we're in, it is too late to respond to a threat after we've been attacked.
I'm not going to forget the lessons of September the 11th, 2001, and I know you won't either. We must take threats seriously now in order to protect the American people, so we're going to help the people of Afghanistan.
And we're going to help them build a free nation. We're going to help them be a successful part of defeating an ideology of hate with an ideology of hope.
And think what that will mean for reformers and moderate people in a region that has been full of turmoil. Imagine the effect it will have when they see a thriving democracy in their midst.
Now, this ideological struggle of the 21st century will require tough military action, good intelligence. It will require the United States to give our folks on the front line of terror the tools necessary to protect us, including listening to phone calls from Al Qaida coming into the country so we know what they're getting ready to attack or questioning people we capture on the battlefield. That's what it's going to include.
(APPLAUSE)
But it also means helping the millions who want to live in liberty to do so.
In the long term, we will help our children and grandchildren live in a peaceful world by encouraging the spread of liberty.
Five years ago, another country that faced a choice was Pakistan. At the time of 9/11, Pakistan was only one of three nations that recognized the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. Al Qaida had a large presence in Pakistan. There was a strong radical Islamic movement in that country. Some of the 9/11 hijackers were housed and trained in Pakistan. Pakistan's future was in doubt.
President Musharraf understood that he had to make a fundamental choice for his people: He could turn a blind eye and leave the people hostage to the extremists, or he could join the free world in fighting the extremists and the terrorists.
President Musharraf made the choice to fight for freedom, and the United States of America is grateful for his leadership.
(APPLAUSE)
Within two days of the September the 11th attacks, the Pakistani government committed itself to stop Al Qaida operatives at its border, to share intelligence on terrorist activities and movements, and to break off all ties with the Taliban government if it refused to hand over bin Laden and the Al Qaida.
President Musharraf's decision to fight the terrorists was made at great personal risk. They've tried to kill him as a result of his decision, because they know he's chosen to side with the forces of peace and moderation and that he stands in the way of their hateful vision for his country.
President Musharraf's courageous choice to join the struggle against extremism has saved American lives.
His government has helped capture or kill many senior terrorist leaders.
For example, Pakistani forces helped capture Abu Zubaida, a man we believe to be a trusted associate of Osama bin Laden.
Pakistani forces helped capture another individual believed to be one of the key plotters of the 9/11 attacks, Ramzi Binalshibh.
Pakistani forces helped capture the man our intelligence community believes masterminded the 9/11 attacks, Khalid Shaikh Mohammad.
Once captured, these men were taken into custody of the Central Intelligence Agency.
The questioning of these and other suspected terrorists provided information that helped us protect the American people.
They helped us break up a cell of southeast Asian terrorist operatives that had been groomed for attacks inside the United States.
They helped us disrupt an Al Qaida operation to develop anthrax for terrorist attacks.
They helped to stop a planned strike on a U.S. Marine camp in Djibouti and to prevent a planned attack on the U.S. consulate in Karachi and to foil a plot to hijack passenger planes and to fly them into Heathrow airport and London's Canary Wharf.
Were it not for the information gained from the terrorists captured with the help of Pakistan, our intelligence community believes that Al Qaida and its allies would have succeeded in launching another attack against the American homeland. Our close cooperation with the government of Pakistan has saved American lives. And America is grateful to have a strong and steadfast ally in the war against these terrorists.
(APPLAUSE)
President Musharraf understands that the terrorists hide in remote regions and travel back and forth across the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
And so we're helping his government establish stronger control over these border areas. We're helping him to equip the nation's paramilitary Frontier Corps that is policing the border regions.
The United States is funding the construction of more than 100 border outposts which will provide Pakistani forces with better access to remote areas of the country's western border.
We're providing high-tech equipment to help Pakistani forces better locate terrorists attempting to cross the border.
We're funding an air wing with helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft to give Pakistan better security and surveillance capabilities.
And as we work with President Musharraf to bring security to his own country we're also supporting him as he takes steps to build a modern and moderate nation that will hold free and fair elections next year.
In an address to his fellow citizens earlier this year, President Musharraf declared this: "We have to eliminate extremism in our society. It will eat us up from within.
"So it is my appeal to all of you to shun extremism, adopt a path of moderation. We will eliminate this extremism in our society and then Pakistan will be considered a moderate, developed country."
President Musharraf has a clear vision for his country as a nation growing in freedom and prosperity and peace. And as he stands against the terrorists and for the free future of his country, the United States of America will stand with him.
(APPLAUSE)
In both Pakistan and Afghanistan, America has strong allies who are committed to rooting out the terrorists in their midst. And with their help, we've killed or captured hundreds of Al Qaida leaders and operatives, and we've put the others on the run.
Osama bin Laden and other terrorists are still in hiding. Our message to them is clear: "No matter how long it takes, we will find you, and we're going to bring you to justice."
(APPLAUSE) On Wednesday night, I had dinner with Presidents Musharraf and Karzai at the White House. We had a long and we had a frank conversation about the challenges we face in defeating the extremists and the terrorists in their countries and providing the people of these two nations an alternative to the dark ideology of the enemy.
We discussed the best ways to improve intelligence-sharing so that we can target and eliminate the leaders of Al Qaida and the Taliban. We resolved to strengthen the institutions of civil society in both countries. We agreed on the need to support tribal leaders on both sides of the border.
By helping these local leaders build schools and roads and health clinics, we will help them build a better life for their communities and strengthen their hand against (sic) the fight against the extremists.
It was clear from our conversation that our three nations share the same goals: We will defeat the Taliban, we will defeat Al Qaida, and the only way to do it is by working together.
Our meeting took place at a time when there's a debate raging in Washington about how best to fight the war on terror.
Recently, parts of a classified document called the national intelligence estimate was leaked to the press. As I said yesterday in Alabama, it's an indication that we're getting close to an election.
(LAUGHTER)
The NIE is a document that analyzes the threat we face from terrorists and extremists. And its unauthorized disclosure has set off a heated debate here in the United States, particularly in Washington.
Some of them selectively quoted from this document to make the case that by fighting the terrorists, by fighting in Iraq, we are making our people less secure here at home.
This argument buys into the enemy's propaganda that the terrorists attack us because we're provoking them.
I would want to remind the American citizens that we were not in Iraq on September the 11th, 2001.
(APPLAUSE)
And this argument was powerfully answered this week by Prime Minister Tony Blair. Here's what he said.
He said, "I believe passionately that we will not win until we shake ourselves free of the wretched capitulation to the propaganda of the enemy that somehow we are the ones responsible."
(APPLAUSE)
He went on to say, "This terrorism is not our fault. We didn't cause it, and it is not the consequence of foreign policy."
He's right; you do not create terrorism by fighting terrorism.
(APPLAUSE)
If that ever becomes the mindset of the policy-makers in Washington, it means we'll go back to the old days of waiting to be attacked and then respond.
Our most important duty is to protect the American people from a future attack. And the way to do so is to stay on the offense against the terrorists.
(APPLAUSE)
Iraq is not the reason the terrorists are at war against us. They are at war against us because they hate everything America stands for.
And we stand for freedom. We stand for people to worship freely. One of the great things about America is you're equally American if you're a Jew, a Muslim, a Christian, an agnostic or an atheist.
What a powerful statement to the world about the compassion of the American people, that you're free to choose the religion you want in our country.
They can't stand the thought that people can go into the public square in America and express their differences with government. They can't stand the thought that the people get to decide the future of our country by voting.
Freedom bothers them, because their ideology is the opposite of liberty, it's the opposite of freedom.
And they don't like it because we know -- they know we stand in their way of their ambitions in the Middle East, their ambitions to spread their hateful ideology as a caliphate from Spain to Indonesia.
We'll defeat the terrorists in Iraq. We'll deny them a safe haven to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. We're going to make it harder for them to recruit a new generation of terrorists. And we're going to help the Iraqis build a free society, a hopeful country that sends a powerful message across the broader Middle East and serves, for those of us who believe in moderation and hope, as an ally in the war against these extremists.
We can have confidence in the outcome of the war on terror because our nation is determined. We've done this kind of hard work before and we have succeeded.
And we can be confident because we've got incredible men and women who wear our nation's uniform.
(APPLAUSE)
I am constantly amazed at the incredible courage that our fellow citizens who wear the uniform show on a regular basis. I think of two Navy SEALs named Matthew Axleson and Danny Dietz.
In June of 2005, they were part of a SEAL team operating deep in the mountains of Afghanistan on a mission to kill or capture a Taliban leader. They were discovered, and they were soon surrounded in a mountain ravine by 30 to 40 Taliban fighters.
During the firefight that ensued, Axelson urged an injured teammate to escape and he provided cover before suffering a mortal wound.
Fighting nearby, his partner Dietz was also mortally wounded, but he stood his ground and kept firing until finally -- he finally died.
Because of the courage of Petty Officers Axelson and Dietz, their wounded teammate made it out alive.
For their heroism, these two petty officers were awarded the Navy Cross.
But I want you to hear what Petty Officer Dietz' wife said about her husband and his comrades in arms. She said, "Danny and his brothers went toward evil able and ran forward and gave their last breath."
We live in freedom because of the courage of men like Matthew and Danny. And we will honor their sacrifice by completing the mission.
(APPLAUSE)
From Afghanistan to Iraq to Africa and Southeast Asia, we are engaged in a struggle against violent extremists, a struggle which will help determine the destiny of the civilized world.
We've borne these responsibilities before. And we have seen our faith in freedom vindicated by history.
In this young century, a new generation of Americans is being called to defend liberty. And once again, the cause of liberty and peace will prevail.
Thank you for coming. God bless.
(APPLAUSE)
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
