Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Novak, Hunt & Shields

Interview With Henry Hyde

Aired April 27, 2002 - 17:30   ET

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

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
AL HUNT, CO-HOST: I'm Al Hunt. Robert Novak and I will question a leading Republican congressional voice in foreign policy.

ROBERT NOVAK, CO-HOST: He is Congressman Henry Hyde of Illinois, chairman of the House International Relations Committee.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

NOVAK (voice-over): President Bush met at his Texas ranch with Crown Price Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, an important Arab ally unhappy about U.S. support for Israel in its violent confrontation with Palestinians.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We had a good discussion about the obligations of the Arab nations. The crown prince was clear in his denunciation of terror. Chairman Arafat has got obligations, and so does Israelis. And I once again enunciated what those obligations are.

NOVAK: After praising the crown prince, the president was asked whether the Saudi leader raised the prospect of using oil as a weapon and bargaining chip in the Middle East.

BUSH: Saudi Arabia made it clear and has made it clear publicly that they will not use oil as a weapon.

NOVAK: Henry Hyde is in his 28th year in Congress and his second year as International Relations chairman. He spent the previous six years as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, presiding over the impeachment of President Bill Clinton.

Prior to coming to Congress, he spent eight years in the Illinois House of Representatives, two of them as majority leader.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

NOVAK: Congressman Hyde is in Chicago.

Mr. Chairman, there has been severe criticism of Saudi Arabia by some of your colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Your Democratic counterpart on the International Relations Committee, Tom Lantos, has called Saudi Arabia a medieval dictatorship that we shouldn't have anything to do with.

Do you believe that the president is correct in regarding Saudi Arabia as an ally in the war against terrorism?

REP. HENRY HYDE (R), ILLINOIS: Well, I think it's important that we work with Saudi Arabia, because she is the most -- one of the most important, if not the most important, country from an economic point of view and even from a political point of view in the Middle East.

We have always had a pretty good working arrangement with the Saudis. And I think to dismiss them from the situation we're in now would be a very serious mistake.

NOVAK: Crown Prince Abdullah, at his meeting with the president, presented a fairly detailed eight-point plan for peace between the Palestinians and Israel.

Without knowing the details, I'm sure you know the general outline, do you think that could be the starting point for a peace settlement or at least the beginning of a peace settlement in that region?

HYDE: Well, sure. Any plan that is reasonable, no matter how unacceptable it might be on this point or on that point, can form the basis for discussion. You need a starting place.

And the plan that was put forth by Crown Prince Abdullah wasn't very new, in terms of its demands on both sides, but it does form a document or a beginning, a starting place to discuss and trade off some of the elements of that plan. Yes, I think it's useful to that extent.

NOVAK: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to play a little soundbite of President Bush, something he said after he met the crown prince. Let's listen to it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: The Palestinian Authority must do more to stop terror. Israel must finish its withdrawal, including resolution of standoff -- standoffs from Ramallah and Bethlehem, in a non-violent way.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NOVAK; Now, Mr. Chairman, the president has been calling for the Israeli withdrawal from the Palestinian territory since April 4 and it still hasn't happened. What's your reaction to that?

HYDE: Well, I think it's unfortunate because it does diminish the impact of the president's wishes over in that part of the world.

But, you know, this is a terribly difficult problem. Prime Minister Sharon is running his country, and his objective is to protect his people. He has to deal with these homicide bombings that continue on and on and on. And I find it difficult to be too critical of Sharon, because every time we hope things are quieting down, somebody goes and shoots up a lot of innocent civilians. It happened this morning in Israel. And you really can't expect Sharon to lay down or to take orders from us when his people are under such direct attack, so repeatedly.

So, while I...

HUNT: Well, Mr. Chairman, I was going to say, if that's the case then, why does the president and the United States expend American credibility in telling him to do something that you say he probably is not going to do?

HYDE: Well, I think the president is making a valiant effort to get both parties to sit down and talk peace, talk cease-fire. You know, you can argue over who's right and who's wrong and who did what to whom first, and that will be endless, and the killing will go on. We have to get beyond that.

We have to get both parties to sit down and say, "Now, here's what you need and you want. Here's what the other side wants. Let's see how much of this we can give each other," because our -- the United States interest is in peace, in a cease-fire, in avoiding World War III.

And so, I think the president's efforts to have the Israelis pull back are well-founded, because the Palestinians are not about to negotiate while they're under what they would call occupation. At the same time, the Israelis aren't going to negotiate while the terror and suicide bombing is going on.

HUNT: Mr. Chairman...

HYDE: So both parties have to back up.

HUNT: Mr. Chairman, there was a story in The Washington Post the other day that clearly came from sources very close to Secretary of State Colin Powell that said that Mr. Powell feels that he has been undercut by his own Bush administration, especially high officials in the Pentagon, both during his efforts -- during his trip to the Middle East and subsequent to that.

Your reaction?

HYDE: Well, I think that the newspaper story. I think the press likes to have conflict and contention.

HUNT: You don't think it reflects Secretary Powell's views?

HYDE: I do not know what Secretary Powell's views are. I think, however, that it is useful to have different points of view in an administration, to have robust positions which sometimes bump into each other. But I think the president is well advised by not being surrounding by a bunch of yes-men but people who might have differences in opinion.

In the final analysis, he will make he decision, and I assume and know that he'll make the right decision. But I don't think differing opinions in an administration is a sign of dissent. I think it's a sign of vigor and health. NOVAK: Mr. Chairman, you were last on this program about six months ago, in October, you thought it was not a good idea at the time for the United States to move into Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from power. As you know, there's a lot of talk from the Pentagon about plans to do just that.

Do you think that would be a good idea now or in the foreseeable future?

HYDE: I think the answer to that, Bob, depends on what our intelligence shows, in terms of how far along Saddam Hussein is in developing weapons of mass destruction.

Any way you look at it, if he gets bombs that are nuclear, or if he gets bioterrorist missiles and the ability to deliver them, I don't doubt that he'll do that. And I don't think it's a good idea to let that happen. So we have to preempt that. On the other hand, we ought to try and avoid widening the conflagrations in the Middle East beyond Israel and the Palestinians right now, if we can. So we're, again, between the rock and the hard place.

But I do not think it would be responsible for us to let Saddam Hussein develop weapons of mass destruction, because he'll use them. Our job is to try and build coalitions over there, get the support of the other countries, so that we're not going to have to go it alone, unilaterally, against Iraq. Also, try to develop within Iraq elements of resistance.

But I don't want to march on Iraq tomorrow, but I want to do what I think our intelligence tells us is best for avoiding an all-out delivery of weapons of mass destruction.

HUNT: Mr. Chairman, we have less than 30 seconds left. Top administration officials have, usually anonymously, but have suggested two things in the justification regarding going after Saddam. Number one, he may have been tied into 9/11. And number two, he has the capacity, or almost has the capacity, to deliver crude nuclear weapons right now.

Do you believe either of those to be true?

HYDE: I think possibly the second is true, because the inspectors -- the U.N. inspectors have been out of the country for over three years. He has the money that he gets from oil revenue and other places. The scientists are available. I would not rule out at all that he has, or nearly has, these weapons that we cannot let him acquire...

HUNT: But not tied into 9/11?

HYDE: I don't think there's any evidence yet. I've not seen it that he's tied into 9/11. However, he's been paying bonuses to the families of these suicide bombers, and that is facilitating what they're doing. So that gives him an unholy role in this situation.

HUNT: We're going to take a break now, Mr. Chairman. When we come back, we'll ask Henry Hyde about unrest on the right.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NOVAK: Congressman Henry Hyde, the House majority whip, Tom DeLay of Texas, has been critical of efforts to broker peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis. He authored a resolution which had a lot of support in the House, which would put the United States soundly on the side of Israel and against Yasser Arafat. He has withdrawn that.

Did you ask him to withdraw that? And whether you did or not, do you think it was a good or a bad idea?

HYDE: I did not ask Tom to withdraw it. On the other hand, I'm glad that he did, for the moment anyway, because I think we're trying to get beyond who is at fault and get to the point of what needs to be done to have a cease-fire, what needs to be done to avoid an all-out conflagration, more than we have now.

How can we make peace? Pointing fingers is an endless occupation. There is much to be said on both sides. And I think our effort right now -- our national interests are trying to work something out between the two parties.

And this resolution, while it would pass comfortably, easily, would not advance discussions between the two parties. And so I think there is merit in holding back on it.

NOVAK: Mr. Chairman, there was another page-one story in The Washington Post last week which quoted a lot of conservatives outside of Congress being very critical of a Bush administration, mostly on Israeli policy, but on other issues too, saying he is moving too far to the left. Do you hear that same kind of criticism in the House Republican cloakroom?

HYDE: Actually, Robert, I do not. I hear the opposite. I hear commendations, compliments, words of praise. Most of us are very well satisfied with George W. Bush and the job he is doing.

HUNT: Mr. Chairman, terrible situation in Colombia. Should the United States get more involved, provide more aid, especially considering the fact that none of Colombia's neighbors seem to be helping?

HYDE: Yes, I think we do. I think we have an interest in protecting the land bridge at Central America between North and South America. The narcotic problem in Colombia is getting out of control. The units down there that are profiting from this, the terrorist units, are getting stronger and bigger. It's becoming an international center for terrorist activity.

HUNT: Should we sent troops there?

HYDE: No, I don't think we need to send troops there. The Colombian police, which are very good, and the army, can be helped -- need some help, some resources. We can give them some training. But I don't think we need to send troops. I would not support that.

But I certainly support getting involved down there in terms of support, because the government is fighting for its life. And we are the ultimate target because of the narco-trafficking.

NOVAK: Mr. Chairman, the vice president of China, Hu Jintao, is going to be in Washington next week, his first visit to the United States. He is the heir apparent. He is going to be the next president of China.

I don't see any indications that you're meeting with him. Did you not want to meet with him or didn't he ask? Or would you like to meet with him?

HYDE: Oh, yes, I would look forward to that. And I've not seen my schedule for next week or the week after, but if he does not meet with us, he'll be the first diplomat in the world that hasn't.

HUNT: We're skipping around a little bit, Mr. Chairman, but let me ask you this. There is always a tradeoff between promoting American ideals and values around the world and necessity.

Next Tuesday in Pakistan, Mr. Musharraf is going to hold a plebiscite on whether he can continue in office. Most of the opposition parties oppose it. Most of the constitution scholars over there say it's not legal.

Should the United States object to that, or is the real politics such that democracy in Pakistan just has to be a victim?

HYDE: Well, I hope democracy is not a victim, but I also hope Musharraf stays on as president. I think we've been fortunate to have him leading the country because Pakistan is a very important ally in the fight against terrorism, certainly in the battles in Afghanistan. And so I think we have to hope that he stays in.

On the other hand, we need to be concerned about democracy as a process because he promised that. And by October, there would be elections, and that could still happen.

But he's a good leader for his people and in this fight against terrorism, and I would not like to see him deposed.

HUNT: Mr. Chairman, we're going to take a break now.

But when we come back, we'll have "The Big Question" for Henry Hyde.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HUNT: And now, "The Big Question": You've been a chairman for the last eight years, Mr. Hyde, because in 1994 the Republicans effectively made the case that when one party ruled, in that case the Democrats, for decades bred complacency and corruption. In your home state of Illinois, the Republicans have occupied the governor seat for over a quarter century. Isn't it time for change in Illinois, as it was in the House in '94?

HYDE: No, I don't think so. I think there will be change. We will have a new governor of whichever party. We have two good candidates running. So there will be that turnover.

If you're saying, isn't time the Democratic Party take over the governor's mansion, I have to give you a resounding no.

(LAUGHTER)

I think the Republicans have done it better and will do it better. So that simple formula of turning things around and turning them over, that reminds me of term limits as an idea...

(CROSSTALK)

NOVAK: ... get started on that.

(LAUGHTER)

HYDE: ... as an idea that has long passed its prime.

NOVAK: Congressman Hyde, you are a prominent Roman Catholic layman. Were you disappointed that the American cardinals, after meeting in Rome, did not come up with a plan of zero tolerance for sexual abuse by priests?

HYDE: Yes, I must say I'm uncomfortable with anything less than that. On the other hand, you have to remember that the Catholic Church is in the business of forgiveness and redemption, and it's pretty hard for these cardinals to come down in a Draconian fashion on anybody.

But I think child molesting is a very special evil. It's pretty hard to think of anything worse. And I think they have made a mistake in not having a very tough policy. And the first thing is to send all of those complaints to the police. That should be done forthwith.

NOVAK: Henry Hyde, thank you very much.

Al Hunt and I will be back with a comment after these messages.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HUNT: Bob, Henry Hyde is loyalist, but I think, if you listen carefully, he's worried that if George Bush lays down markers and they're ignored by Ariel Sharon, it really hurts American credibility seriously.

NOVAK: Henry Hyde is no super hawk, and I don't think he is eager to march on Iraq. But I think he has been convinced there's a problem of weapons of destruction, and if there are such weapons, the U.S. has to move militarily. HUNT: Henry Hyde's too conservative for my tastes often, but he is a terrific congressman. And he is walking proof of why term limits are a bad idea but committee term limits are a good idea. The switch to International Relations is good for him.

NOVAK: Al, you know, all Republicans don't have to be wild men, and I think that the conservative Henry Hyde caution on foreign policy, compared to some of the wild rhetoric calling Saudi Arabia a medieval despotism, I think we ought to be thankful we've got him in there as chairman of that committee.

I'm Robert Novak.

HUNT: And I'm Al Hunt.

NOVAK: Coming up at 7 p.m. Eastern on "CAPITAL GANG," a president and a prince meet trying to bring peace to the Middle East; American Catholic cardinals at the Vatican face a crisis in the Catholic Church; and a White House insider calls it quits. Our guests, New York Congressman and novelist Peter King.

HUNT: Thanks for joining us.

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