CNN.com - Transcripts

Transcript Providers

Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Crossfire

Senate Debates over Iraq Resolution; Bush to Address Nation Need for Conflict With Iraq

Aired October 07, 2002 - 19:00 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.

ANNOUNCER: CROSSFIRE: From the left: James Carville and Paul Begala. On the right: Robert Novak and Tucker Carlson.
In the CROSSFIRE: Is war the only answer? The debate is in full swing.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY (D), MASSACHUSETTS: We can deal with Iraq without resorting to this extreme.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: The questions keep coming.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER (R), PENNSYLVANIA: Who would govern after Saddam was toppled? And what would happen in the region?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: Tonight, the president gives the country a comprehensive update.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think you're going to hear the president tonight, in fact, lay out an awful lot of evidence.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: Will your questions be answered?

Tonight on CROSSFIRE.

From the George Washington University: Paul Begala and Robert Novak.

ROBERT NOVAK, CO-HOST: Welcome to CROSSFIRE.

Tonight, one of America's leading war hawks helped set the stage for President Bush's speech on Iraq. We'll also ask what is going on behind the scenes as Capitol Hill debates the use of force? But, first, as we do every day, we're starting with the most forceful political briefing in television, our CROSSFIRE "Political Alert."

The U.S. Supreme Court today refused to review the New Jersey Supreme Court's trashing of state law to benefit Democrats. That means replacing the fast-fading Senator Robert Torricelli on this year's general election ballot with 78-year-old former Senator Frank Lautenberg, even though the deadline for such a change had passed.

Republicans have one appeal left to New Jersey's voters. A (UNINTELLIGIBLE) University poll shows the rookie Republican Senate candidate, Doug Forrester, is only four points behind Lautenberg. And the voters think the last-minute change was unfair by a 14-point margin.

PAUL BEGALA, CO-HOST: Well, you know the Republicans hated it when the switch happened. But even the United States Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Rehnquist, who stole the election from Al Gore, couldn't steal this one. So now with a fair election, you're right, the voters should decide.

Well President Bush plans to address the nation. In less than an hour, he'll be pressing his call for military action against Iraq. Mr. Bush will be speaking from Cincinnati, Ohio, which is a major city in a key swing state. Not that any of this, of course, is political.

While he's in Ohio, Mr. Bush may find that unemployment there, which was 4.3 percent under President Clinton, is 5.5 percent today. Mr. Bush has not offered an economic recovery package, but he would like the 325,000 Buckeye residents who are out of work to know that Saddam Hussein is an evil, evil man.

Of course they already know that. What they don't know is why President Bush, who speaks with such passion about the suffering of the Iraqi people, is so blind to the economic suffering of Americans.

NOVAK: Paul, if the people of -- voters of Ohio were so unhappy with Republicans they would vote for a Democrat for governor. Instead, they're going to re-elect Bob Taft for another term by a big margin.

Erskine Bowles, President Clinton's former chief of staff, is careful about using the name of his ex-boss in his uphill campaign in North Carolina for the U.S. Senate. A mailer from Bowles to African- American voters prominently features a photo of Bill Clinton. An otherwise identical mailer to the state's white voters omits the former president's smiling face.

After all, Bill Clinton was snowed under by white voters twice in North Carolina, as he lost the state in 1992 and 1996. The second time losing to Bob Dole, who is the husband of Bowles' opponent, Elizabeth Dole. So far, Bill Clinton has proved the political kiss of death for his former aides.

BEGALA: Now I think Erskine Bowles has got a great shot in that race once people find out that Elizabeth Dole and her support for privatizing Social Security is the real issue.

Well our Washington area here in the capital is besieged these days by a sniper. In the past week, six people have been killed, two more wounded in apparently random shootings by someone with a high- powered weapon and a twisted mind.

This morning, a 13-year-old boy was shot in the chest as he was being dropped off at his middle school in the Washington suburb of Bowie, Maryland. Police have few leads in the case. Technology exists though to set up a ballistic fingerprint system that that could trace bullet fragments to a particular gun. But because of heavy lobbying by the National Rifle Association and other right-wing groups, it is illegal for federal law enforcement officials to set up such a database. Shame on the far right.

BEGALA: You're talking about what amounts to national gun registration and, of course, the liberals will take any tragedy to try to reduce the freedom of the American people.

Terry McAuliffe, the multimillionaire wheeler dealer buddy of the Clintonsm, who is now chairman of the Democratic National Committee, has been roaring around Washington in his chauffeur-driven Cadillac Escalade SUV. But thanks to John McCaslin of "The Washington Times Inside the Beltway" column, we learn that chairman Terry has dumped the vehicle's DNC vanity license plate.

He's reported telling a young Republican heckler that he changed the plate because his drivers were getting too many speeding tickets. Could McAuliffe have been embarrassed by identifying the Democratic Party with a Cadillac four-wheel gas guzzler? Being involved in so many shady deals never bothered Terry at all.

BEGALA: I've known Terry 14 years. He's a great guy. He's a co-parishioner at St. Luke, and a man of the highest integrity, And he's going to win the elections this fall. You watch.

One of those elections is the Florida's Governor race, and it is hotter than a spring break wet tee shirt contest down there. A new poll for the "Pensacola News Journal" shows Democrat Bill McBride has polled to within one point of Governor Jeb Bush. Mr. Bush is stuck at 49 percent; while Mr. McBride surged to 48.

Now driving McBride's rise is his support for smaller class size and higher teacher pay. Governor Jeb Bush was quoted last week saying, he has "a devious plan" to stop the class size initiative. Bush didn't elaborate, but if he follows his big brother's example, look for Florida to invade the Bahamas just before the election.

NOVAK: You know, Paul, Mr. McBride, his own lock, stock and barrel by the teacher's union. Do you think that's good government? Be for Bill McBride if you're against the teachers running the whole country -- the teacher's union running the country. Vote for Bush.

The House is expecting to vote on an Iraq resolution by the middle of the week. In the long-winded Senate debate on a use of force resolution, it is now expected to drag into next week. Aides to President Bush say tonight's speech is aimed more at the American people than at the Congress.

First in the CROSSFIRE tonight is Richard Perle. He was an assistant secretary of defense during the Reagan administration and is now a fellow with the American Enterprise Institute.

BEGALA: Thank you for coming, sir.

RICHARD PERLE, CHAIRMAN, DEFENSE POLICY BOARD: Hello Robert.

BEGALA: We appreciate your time. I know how busy you are.

Important topic: I want to begin -- one of the ways that you've made waves has been to link -- you did again yesterday on one of the Sunday shows -- link al Qaeda, the perpetrators of September 11, with Iraq. Now this is a hotly disputed point.

Let me read to you what "The New York Times" says our intelligence officials say, because they don't seem to agree with you, sir. They say -- I'll put it up on the screen for you. "Senior intelligence and law enforcement officials say they have not received any corroborating evidence to support an initial report from Czech intelligence that Mohammed Atta" -- one of the September 11 hijackers -- "met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in April of 2001.

Why are you pushing this line if our intelligence officers say it is not so?

PERLE: They're wrong.

BEGALA: Can you give us some reasons without breaching classified data? President Kennedy showed us the pictures of the missiles in Cuba. Have you got some proof?

PERLE: We don't have pictures. We have intelligence reports that I believe are reliable. I think there are other indications of other meetings with other members of al Qaeda including hijackers and intelligence officials from Iraq. The Iraqis -- a fellow by the name of al Amni (ph).

I think the evidence is compelling. If others think it isn't, there is just a difference of opinion between us.

NOVAK: But that difference of opinion, Mr. Perle, is held by your colleagues in the Pentagon and the intelligence agencies and the intelligence committees. But let's listen to what the National Security Director, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, said just a few weeks ago when she was asked whether Saddam Hussein had a role in 9/11. Let's listen to her.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CONDOLEEZA RICE, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: Do we know that he had a role in 9/11? No, we do not know that he had a role in 9/11. But I think that this is a test that sets a bar that is far too high.

(END VIDEO CLIP) NOVAK: Now, Richard, you're a chairman of the Defense Policy Board, you're a private citizen. You mean you have intelligence information that the national security director doesn't have?

PERLE: No. Listen carefully to what she said. She talked about a role in 9/11.

What I said is that there is evidence that I find compelling that there were meetings between Czech intelligence, Mohammed Atta, and other hijackers. Now whether that constitutes a role in 9/11, that's a matter of judgment.

And I can't tell you it is because I don't know. But how would we know if he did? And in any case, Bob, it really doesn't matter very much. What we do know about Saddam is that he is offered sanctuary in Baghdad to any number of terrorists for a great many years.

BEGALA: Well, let me pick up on that point because if it is -- you know I'm an old political hack from the Clinton days, and my phrase in the campaign was: It is the economy, stupid. If, in fact, it's al Qaeda, stupid, which many of us believe, we strongly support the president pursuing him to the ends of the earth. One of the people who has that view is Senator Bob Graham.

He is the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. He, in fact, thinks that Iraq is the wrong target if we're going after al Qaeda. And this is what he had to say to "The New York Times."

Senator Graham said, "The anti-terrorism effort should focus on countries that had a significant al Qaeda presence or training camps. Those are primarily in Syria and the Syrian-controlled areas of Lebanon and in Iran."

I'll tell you, Mr. Perle, if our president had proof of that and said we need to go to war with Iran, I would be first too sign up and agree. But why are we going to Iraq instead of Iran?

PERLE: I think you're confusing issues here. The question is not fundamentally Iraq's involvement in terrorism and, in particular, Iraq's involvement with al Qaeda. The reason for the concern with Iraq with Saddam Hussein has to do with his capacity to do harm to this country because he possesses chemical and biological weapons.

He is working as fast and as hard as he can to acquire nuclear weapons. And if we leave him in place, which is what the Clinton administration did, he will eventually acquire nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver chemical and biological weapons over much greater ranges. And what are we going to do then?

We inherited -- this administration inherited this problem because for eight years the previous administration did nothing. They watched as the inspectors were expelled. They watched as al Qaeda became what it became. It was nothing when Bill Clinton took office. I don't want to be partisan about this. BEGALA: I'm going to let you walk that back then. Do you really believe that President Clinton did nothing to contain -- try to fight al Qaeda when, for example, General Donald Kerrig (ph) -- who I'm sure you know, is a three star general retired -- told the "Washington Post," that he served both presidents in national security, both President Clinton and President George W. Bush. He said President Clinton's team had a much stronger focus on terrorism than President Bush's team.

PERLE: Well they may have had a stronger focus, but when he left office, Osama bin Laden was running a massive terrorist training operation in Afghanistan unperturbed. And what we did in Afghanistan after September 11 could have been done before September 11, but it wasn't.

NOVAK: Mr. Perle, on the question of attacking other countries besides Iraq -- we had on September 5 we had Duncan Hunter, Congressman, Republican Congressman from California, Vice Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, future chairman, if Republicans gain control. And he said something that was really startling. I want to play a sound bite of what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. DUNCAN HUNTER (R), CALIFORNIA : We're going have times in the future when we see a small country or a group developing a nuclear device, because that technology is out there. We may see Libya, for example, developing a nuclear device. And I think we're going to have the question over and over, Iraq is the first take...

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NOVAK: So, in other words, is this what we have to look forward to? Get Iraq out of the way, then we go to Libya. And so we are the avenging -- we are the Romans of the 21st century. We're going all over the world conducting these military operations. Duncan Hunter is very closely tied to the Pentagon, as you know.

PERLE: I think we have to make judgments in each individual case. And the balance here is what are the risks involved in disarming people who are acquiring these weapons and we know have the worst in mind for us, against the costs and the risks of taking action before they can do it?

NOVAK: But do you agree with Duncan on that, that this is going to be a...

PERLE: No, I don't agree with that at all. I can think of countries whose acquisition of nuclear weapons would not be a concern to us. The British have nuclear weapons. The French have nuclear weapons.

NOVAK: How about Libya?

PERLE: Well, Libya would be a very serious concern. Wouldn't you be concerned if Kadafi had nuclear weapons? NOVAK: Well I ask the questions and you answer them.

BEGALA: We're going to have more questions for you, though, Mr. Perle.

PERLE: But I think that's an answer, Bob.

BEGALA: If you just give us one minute, we're going to come right back. And in a minute we're going to let some of our studio audience members also ask some of the hard questions about Iraq, like why now?

And then, later, has anyone on Capitol Hill noticed that there is more to talk about than Iraq, like maybe, oh, say, our tanking economy? Well we'll ask a couple of members of Congress.

And our quote of the day is a swing at our president from a Democrat whose name gets mentioned in a lot of conversations about 2004. Stay tuned.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(VIDEO/AUDIO GAP)

PERLE: ... figure out how you get disarmament in Iraq without regime change.

NOVAK: But you'd take it if you don't get regime change?

PERLE: Well I don't think you can. So you're asking me to buy the impossible. As long as Saddam is there, as long as he is able to hide the weapons we're concerned about -- and he can hide them far better than we can find them -- we will be playing Easter egg hunt forever.

NOVAK: You won't entertain the possibility that we can't find any weapons because he doesn't have any?

PERLE: No. I think we know that he has weapons. But we don't know where they are or, in many cases, we don't know where they are. It is a very big country. It is a country the size of France. The number of inspectors that are being talked about is something like 220.

I live in Chevy Chase, Maryland. You couldn't inspect Chevy Chase with 200 inspectors, much less a country the size of Iraq.

BEGALA: Well, Mr. Perle, excuse me, part of the theory on Iraq is a bank shot theory that Saddam Hussein will develop these weapons or has them already and may give them to terrorists who then would use them against us. I'm curious, that seems to be part of the logic I get from the president. And it has some power to it.

I'm curious, though, why when terrorists murdered Americans directly -- on July 31, five Americans murdered in Hebrew University by Hamas, why we haven't retaliated against Hamas? The president hasn't even called the families to express remorse, much less carry out the vengeance that even I as a liberal would love to see.

PERLE: Well, I think that the Israelis are very actively engaged in retaliating against Hamas. I don't think it is...

BEGALA: Shouldn't we?

PERLE: Well I would be happy to see us work with the Israelis to bring Hamas under control. I think they're very dangerous; they recruit suicide bombers. Who knows where they end up practicing that skill. I guess they only do it once.

BEGALA: But they knew they were going to kill Americans when they went to Hebrew University, didn't they?

PERLE : Well, they knew they were going to kill whoever they could kill, and that's what's so vicious about this terrorism. Children, women, (UNINTELLIGIBLE). It didn't matter at the World Trade Center.

NOVAK: We have a question from the audience, please. Go ahead.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hi. Yes, I'm Dave Koter (ph) from Chicago, Illinois. And I was just wondering when the United States pulled out of the U.N., disregarded all input from the rest of the world except Great Britain on matters of Armageddon?

PERLE: Well, I don't know what you mean by pulled out of the U.N. The president has gone to the U.N. He has said, I think quite rightly to the U.N., you have a responsibility. You have passed resolutions, many resolutions, and Saddam is violating those resolutions and you're doing nothing about it.

So he's challenged the U.N. to take action to bring about compliance with those resolutions. And they call for the complete disarmament of these weapons of mass destruction.

BEGALA: Yes, ma'am.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Good evening. My name is Rachel Garrett (ph) from Rockville, Maryland. And my question is if the U.S. attacks Iraq, a counterattack against Israel is inevitable. What preliminary military actions do you think the U.S. should take to maintain Israel and its safe state?

PERLE: Well, of course the Israelis have a significant capability to defend themselves, including now a ballistic missile defense called the arrow. I hope one day we will have a ballistic missile defense. And the same people who are reluctant to meet our responsibilities with respect to Iraq are not eager to fund missile defense.

NOVAK: That's one thing we still agree on that.

You know you were asked much the same question on "Meet The Press" yesterday about defending the building of Iraq to hit Israel. And you made a, what I thought -- you very seldom surprise me. You really surprised me on this one. Let's play the answer to Tim Russert yesterday on "Meet the Press."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PERLE: Saddam has very few missiles to launch in the first place. And I would hope that the Iraqis, given an order to commit a crime, a war crime of that magnitude, would think twice before they carry it out. Especially as they saw Saddam going down.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NOVAK: Well you know the Iraqi ambassador to the United Nations told me on CNN that they have very few of those missiles. So I'm glad you two are agreement on that point. But I also wonder, if the people are so reasonable, and they're saying, gee, we don't want to do something that's going to kill us, why are we so worried about them using weapons of mass destruction against the United States, yet they're afraid even to attack Israel?

PERLE: Well I don't think they are so reasonable. And in order to send a missile with chemical or biological warhead would hardly be a reasonable decision.

NOVAK: But you say they'd be afraid to do that.

PERLE: Well I think it is up to us to say to the people of Iraq -- I don't think we can talk to Saddam Hussein -- if you carry out Saddam's orders and send a chemical or biological weapon against civilians, you are committing a crime of the highest order and we will hold you responsible. There will be no Nuremberg defense.

NOVAK: Why don't we do that right now?

PERLE: Well I think we can do that now and we should do that now.

BEGALA: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) another question about international law. And that is, our friends in Great Britain, the attorney general of Great Britain has told the prime minister that a regime change would violate international law. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) said, "I won't violate international law."

Will we have to fight alone, even without our friends, the Brits, since our president clearly wants regime change? And you told us at the beginning of the hour that that was our goal.

PERLE: Our goal is to remove from Saddam's hands the weapons with which we might one day be attacked on a scale unimaginable before. If you can find a way to do that while leaving Saddam in place, tell me how you're going to go about it. Because he gives every indication of having been prepared all these years to defy the United Nations and to pay a very heavy price -- the sanctions, for example -- in order to cling to these weapons. Well I don't know how to separate the two.

NOVAK: We'll have to let it go at that. Richard Perle, thank you very much. Appreciate it. In a little bit we'll focus on the talk in Congress. Is all this debate in Congress really changing anybody's mind?

But next, in our quote of the day, a presidential wannabee piles on the current president.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NOVAK: Former trial lawyer John Edwards certainly get an "A" for ambition. The North Carolina Democrat stopped trying accident liability lawsuits and got himself elected to the U.S. Senate just four years ago. And already he's making moon eyes at the White House.

One problem, his foreign policy credentials are pretty slim, nonexistent. So today Senator Edwards delivered a speech criticizing the Bush administration for showing, he said, disdain towards U.S. allies and treating them like an after thought. As an after thought, we'll give him our quote of the day.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN EDWARDS (D), NORTH CAROLINA: Instead of demonstrating purpose without arrogance, as the president promised in his inaugural address, the administration's policy projects exactly the opposite: arrogance without purpose.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NOVAK: I'm really glad that John Edwards is keeping politics out of this.

BEGALA: Well he's supporting the president on his resolution in front of the Senate. But even the president's supporters have to admit that he's done a poor job of organizing the world community, which is just stating the facts. Good for John Edwards.

Well just ahead, new developments on the sniper shootings in Washington D.C. Connie Chung has the latest in a CNN NEWS ALERT.

And, as we continue counting down to President Bush's Iraq speech, members of the House and Senate preview Congress' great Iraq debate live right here on CROSSFIRE.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BEGALA: Well, some of our viewers have e-mailed us to tell us what they're hoping to hear from President Bush tonight.

That's coming up in our "Fireback" segment.

But first, we're going to ask a member of the house and a member of the Senate what's going behind the scenes of those two bodies as lawmakers hold their historic debate on war and peace.

Stay tuned.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. We're at the George Washington University here in downtown, Washington, D.C. and we are counting down the last few minutes, about 26 by my watch, until our president speaks to us about Iraq.

He's in Cincinnati to talk to an invitation only crowd, which to a skeptic like me suggests maybe the speech is more about cheerleading than leadership. Our president, of course, won't be hearing any dissent or debate at his speech.

But here on CROSSFIRE, we encourage everyone to be heard. Joining us now: California Democratic Congressman Bob Filner and Republican Senator Kit Bond of Missouri.

Good to see you.

NOVAK: Congressman Filner, three of your fellow peace Democrats turned up in Baghdad and Congressman McDermott actually called the president of the United States a liar, broadcasting from Baghdad.

Tom Daschle, the Democratic leaders of the Senator, one of the leading Democrats in the country, was asked about this on "Meet the Press" yesterday and I would like you to listen to what he answered.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. TOM DASCHLE (D-SD), MAJORITY LEADER: I don't think it is, frankly. I think that crossed the line. I think we've got to be very careful about our rhetoric. I wouldn't have said that and most Democrats, I think, would disagree.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NOVAK: He was asked if it was appropriate and he said, "I don't think it is, frankly." He said most Democrats wouldn't disagree with him. Do you disagree with him?

REP. BOB FILNER (D), CALIFORNIA: Well, I don't speak for those Congressman and they don't speak for me. But, I think what they are trying to say, and I agree with them, is that we are hellbent on having a -- it seems a -- unilateral preemptive strike and that we ought to be working with the United Nations to avoid the risk of American lives and American property and try to disarm Hussein without going on a preemptive, unilateral strike.

NOVAK: So, as a senior Democratic member of the House of Representatives, I think you're the second Democrat on your committee, you defend and support a fellow Democrat calling the president of the United States a liar when he's in Baghdad.

FILNER: No, I don't think that's what he said. But look --

NOVAK: He said he was potentially misleading the American people. FILNER: He doesn't speak for the Democratic party and I think many of us in the Democratic party are saying, This has to be done in a different way. We have a threat coming from Saddam, but we need to handle it in a different way. Otherwise, we put at risk many American men and women.

BEGALA: Senator Bond, first, thank you for joining us. It's always good to see you.

SEN. KIT BOND (R), MISSOURI: My pleasure.

BEGALA: Second, the speech tonight. Let me ask you about it. In light of the front page of "The New York Times" today, which tells us in a survey, they asked the American people a bunch of questions about the president, his conduct, the economy and the war.

They asked this question: Is the Bush administration using Iraq for political advantage? This is what the American people said: 51 percent said "yes," 40 said no. The majority of Americans think that the Bush administration is trying to get political points out of this.

Given, that, isn't it a mistake for him to be speaking in Cincinnati in front of an invitation only crowd at a pep rally, rather than in a serious, sober setting like the Oval Office?

BOND: A number of fallacies in your statement. The fact that "The New York Times" sets up a push poll to get the question to say they think it's political, that doesn't tell me anything.

I don't happen to read "The New York Times." I talk to the people in Missouri. They think it's very serious. They don't think it's political. Certainly, leading Democrats like Joe Lieberman and Evan Bayh and Richard Gephardt have agreed with this.

This is a effort. The resolution that we're going to be working on this week is supported on both sides of the aisle. And as the president said, Republicans and Democrats are working together.

Now, the president has spoken very forcefully in all kinds of forums. The United Nations speech, I think, was an excellent speech. He really laid it out. He challenged the United Nations. He's worked with members of Congress. Some of my colleagues on the Democratic side said he wasn't talking enough about it. He needed to fill us in.

Well, we're getting him -- we're getting all the information from him. I'm delighted that he continues to speak on it, as do members of his administration because this is a very serious question and I think everybody's got to have an opportunity to have their say.

BEGALA: But Senator, you know what some want happening in the House though?

FILNER: The members of the leadership want to make the Iraq vote the last vote of our session and go out of town, so we can't talk about what's going on with the economy. That we can't talk about what's going on with our 401(k)s. That we can't talk about the stock market. They want us -- the president may not be politicizing it, but his party sure is and they don't want us to talk about anything else.

BOND: That's just nuts.

FILNER: Wait until members of the House find out.

BOND: Listen, that's your problem over in the House. Let me tell you -- Can I finish? Thank you. We've got a problem in the Senate because our Senate leader has not been able to bring up a budget resolution. That's why the appropriations process is loused up. The Senate majority leader won't let Chairman Max Bachus report a prescription drug bill out of the finance committee. He won't let Senator Bingaman report out an energy bill. We haven't been able to deal with any of the major problems facing this country because the Senate right now is dysfunctional. But we didn't come right now to debate the Congressional priorities, we're here to talk about Iraq.

NOVAK: Bob Filner, one thing I always thought about you is you didn't duck questions, and you really ducked the question about the Baghdad boys, the current version of Hanoi Jane.

FILNER: Come on, Bob.

NOVAK: But, you know, it was something that really probably drove Congressman Gephardt, your leader, into such a strong support for the president, to disassociate himself with these people in Baghdad. Let's listen to to what the House Democratic leader said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. DICK GEPHARDT (D-MO), MINORITY LEADER: You cannot play politics with this. This is about people's life and death. It is about peace or war. And I believe to pull politics into it -- and I've told my members this from the beginning -- is immoral.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NOVAK: Do you have any problem with that?

FILNER: No, I think what the leader is saying and I think we all agree, that this is a matter of conscience and what is best for America and what is best for what we think of our districts. Many of us in the Democratic Party and some in the Republican Party think that this -- that we ought not to be doing this unilaterally. We ought to be working with the United Nations, we ought to be working with through the United Nations and disarm Saddam in that way.

NOVAK: So you don't have any problem with Dick Gephardt taking the position he's taken?

FILNER: Well, he can take the position he's taking, but he certainly hasn't taken it with the vote or anything from the Democratic caucus.

NOVAK: Should he stay on as leader?

FILNER: Well, I think that's going to be determined after the election.

NOVAK: What's your opinion?

FILNER: That's going to be determined after the election.

BEGALA: Let me ask you about a leader in the Senate from my party, Robert Byrd of West Virginia. Has been there longer than any Democrat, and speaks with great authority and is one of the great historians of the Senate. Here is what he said on the Senate floor about our president and the way we are approaching this war. Take a look, senator.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. ROBERT BYRD (D), WEST VIRGINIA: Those two little words, why now? What has changed in the last year, in the last six months, or in the last six weeks that would compel us to act to attack now? Shouldn't the president be spending more time with his military advisers in Washington instead of making campaign speeches?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BEGALA: First, he's wearing your tie. So he's got good taste.

BOND: He's got good taste. I serve on the Appropriations Committee, but I didn't check with him for the dress code for the day.

BEGALA: If it is urgent as the president says, why now? Why isn't he meeting with his military advisers instead of raising...?

BOND: Well, he has been. He's been meeting with his military advisers. He's been meeting with us. He's been meeting with world leaders. He's been speaking to the United Nations. And frankly, I think my Democratic colleague from Connecticut, Joe Lieberman, said it best when they asked him why now? He said, we should have done it five years ago. We had strong words and strong resolutions, and the Iraq Liberation Act which my friend the congressman here voted for. He said, we need to get rid of Saddam Hussein. Well, September 11 of 2001 made it absolutely critical that we not take -- we not sit back and take (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

NOVAK: We must take a little break right now. And coming up, your chance to fire back some questions about the president's Iraq policy.

But next, we'll ask our guests here what lawmakers are saying when they aren't in front of the TV cameras.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NOVAK: In just a few minutes, President Bush is going to tell the country that Iraq poses a unique menace to the U.S. because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. In the CROSSFIRE, as we wait for the president to begin speaking, our Democratic congressman, Bob Filner, out of California, and Republican Senator Kit Bond of Missouri. BEGALA: Gentlemen, if it's OK with you, let's get some American citizens to ask you some questions directly.

What is your question, sir?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My question is for both legislators. What will be the political fallout for Democrats who vote against war with Iraq?

FILNER: Well, I think people in our districts want us to vote our conscience, to vote what we think is best for our nation. I've had mail on this subject running about 10 to one against the unilateral attack on Iraq. But I think people want leaders who will say what they think and say it straight out, and I have been saying that this is not the time, this is not the place to go unilaterally. We must work with the United Nations. We must disarm Saddam through an international coalition.

BEGALA: And senator, your party is running ads in South Dakota against Senator Tim Johnson, even though he's supporting President Bush on this war. They're attacking them anyway, aren't they?

BOND: I don't know who they're running ads against. They're certainly not attacking him on the war issue. We do have legitimate differences, and we're going to continue to have differences, but I agree with -- I'd have to agree with the congressman that this is a vote that shouldn't be about politics.

I'd have to tell you in Missouri, we have had some very vocal people who are strongly opposed to any kind of action. But to clear up the record, it's not unilateral. We are working together, we're working with the United Nations, in the United Nations. The president has said and will continue to say that he is going to work in the United Nations. We do have some who are with us. We have some in the United Nations who haven't signed on.

I think if we give a strong signal that Democrats and Republicans in the United States Congress believe that we are not starting a war, we are continuing a war which is going on right now. Sixty-seven times since September 16 Saddam Hussein has fired on the coalition aircraft patrolling a no-fly zone.

NOVAK: Let's get another question.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, hello, hi, I'm Lisa Colliani (ph). I'm from McLean, Virginia. And my question is for Senator Bond. I want to know why now? I need to explain to my 17-year-old son who is here tonight, as well and my 15 1/2 and I have a son and a 13-year-old daughter, why is this not a partisan issue? How can I explain that to them?

BOND: I think if you look at the unfortunate track record of what has happened in the Middle East and what happened in the United States on September 11, you know that the United States is no longer safe from attacks by a terrorist operation or an enemy, a sworn enemy of the United States like Saddam Hussein. We have seen since 1998 when he threw out the inspectors, there have been increasing intelligence reports about his acquisition of weapons of mass destruction. I don't think anybody will ever forget the site when we lost roughly 3,000 people, a weapon of September 11. Chemical, biological, or heaven forbid, nuclear weapons, could kill 10, 100 or 1,000 times more American citizens. We cannot sit back and wait, when all the information we have is he is preparing those weapons for use against us.

NOVAK: I want to put up on the screen, a "New York Times"/CBS News poll about the U.S. taking military action to remove Saddam Hussein. Approve, 67 percent, disapprove, 27 percent. When you look at that in the Democratic cloak room, Mr. Filner, on the Hill, don't you say, man, I'm playing with a losing hand in this game politically?

FILNER: Well, look, as I said, we're going to vote our conscience on it. I feel very strongly about this. I disagree with the senator when he says we're working with the United Nations. The resolution that he's going to vote for says it doesn't matter what the U.N. says, we're going to take action. And I agree with the senator that September 11 changed things. As they say, it lowered the bar.

But it hasn't lowered the bar to zero. We cannot use September 11 as an excuse for every action that the United States wants to take in this world. That just -- it will open up an international Pandora's box that we will not be able to control or deal with.

How can we stop China from going after Taiwan? Or any other country from going after any other one? September 11 is an important fact, senator. And it is -- I don't want any of mine constituents in San Diego the victims of a terrorist attack. But we must work on this in a whole different way, or we're making America less safe in the way the president is going.

(CROSSTALK)

BOND: Let me just say that this -- I don't know which resolution he's talking about, but the resolution that I have before us is that Congress supports the efforts of the president to strictly enforce the United Nations Security Council, the resolutions to obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council.

BEGALA: But should we go alone, if there is a report out of Britain today the Britons may not be able to join us because it violates international law and they're bound to it. Should we go it alone even if our one ally, the Brits, won't come with us?

BOND: First, we are working to build a coalition, and I believe that our clear indication of the seriousness of this effort, and building upon what Tony Blair has said indicates that we will have a significant coalition behind us.

Right now, the president, even though he may be tonight -- if you say nobody else is with us, he may be a majority of one. But leadership requires identifying dangers, laying out a plan to deal with those dangers and bringing people along who may not want to stand up until they see some strong leadership.

The president is providing strong leadership. We're going to give him strong bipartisan support in this bipartisan resolution, which speaks about the United Nations.

(CROSSTALK)

BEGALA: I want to thank Senator Kit Bond, Republican of Missouri. Congressman Bob Filner, a Democrat from California, both strong leadership in both of the two parties. And the president's speech begins in just a few minutes. So stay with us.

A couple of viewers fired back some questions they might want our president to answer. Stay tuned.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NOVAK: We're waiting for President Bush to address the nation. But in the meantime, "Fireback." Our first fireback from Stan of Houston, Texas. He writes: "I have been unemployed for several months now, and have lost hope in finding a job anytime soon. I've also lost hope for our president. With all the attention on going to war with Iraq, what about me and my family?" Stan, go out and get a job! That's my advice to you.

BEGALA: Stan, go out and get a new president, one who cares about you and your job instead of people in some other country.

Darryll Hall in Hillsboro, Oregon writes: "Maybe we should trust that the president knows more about what's happening in Iraq than we do. Otherwise, there could be more devastation and more deaths than the September 11 attacks, and we would be left to ask the questions, how much did the government know about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and why didn't it do something, anything, to prevent this?" Mr. Hall, thank you for your e-mail.

NOVAK: All right, we'll take some questions from the audience. Yes, sir. Go ahead.

BEGALA: What's your name and home town?

TYSON: Hi, I'm Tyson (ph) from Virginia. And I was curious...

NOVAK: Do you have a corner there?

TYSON: Yes, it's around there somewhere. I don't really know. But anyway, why were the Democrats ready to go to war with Iraq when Clinton was in office but are now hesitant to support Bush?

NOVAK: It is all politics, Tyson. Can't you understand that? Whatever President Clinton said was fine, particularly if it got the country's attention off of Monica.

BEGALA: There is a fundamental difference. First off, Bill Clinton during the Lewinsky thing was more popular than Bush is today. So maybe Bush needs to go get him a girlfriend. Maybe we'd like him better.

Second, things changed on the ground. When Saddam Hussein expelled those weapons inspectors in 1998, we attacked Iraq and we were right to do it. Somebody has got to tell me what in the world has changed on the ground in Iraq today that justifies an invasion tomorrow.

NOVAK: You know, I hate to ever be accurate about anything, but they walked out. They weren't expelled. Look it up. Go ahead.

DAN: My name is Dan, I'm from Kalamazoo, Michigan. And I was just wondering if you felt that the debate on Iraq has created a distraction for the American people in Congress?

BEGALA: Oh, there is no doubt. There is no doubt. Look, we spent an hour on Iraq tonight. We haven't even talked about how Bush has (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the economy.

NOVAK: That's the Democratic line. Go ahead, Paul.

BEGALA: From the left, I'm Paul Begala. Good night for CROSSFIRE.

NOVAK: From the right, I'm Robert Novak. Join us again next time for another edition of CROSSFIRE.

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

Nation Need for Conflict With Iraq>

Aired October 7, 2002 - 19:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ANNOUNCER: CROSSFIRE: From the left: James Carville and Paul Begala. On the right: Robert Novak and Tucker Carlson.
In the CROSSFIRE: Is war the only answer? The debate is in full swing.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY (D), MASSACHUSETTS: We can deal with Iraq without resorting to this extreme.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: The questions keep coming.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER (R), PENNSYLVANIA: Who would govern after Saddam was toppled? And what would happen in the region?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: Tonight, the president gives the country a comprehensive update.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think you're going to hear the president tonight, in fact, lay out an awful lot of evidence.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: Will your questions be answered?

Tonight on CROSSFIRE.

From the George Washington University: Paul Begala and Robert Novak.

ROBERT NOVAK, CO-HOST: Welcome to CROSSFIRE.

Tonight, one of America's leading war hawks helped set the stage for President Bush's speech on Iraq. We'll also ask what is going on behind the scenes as Capitol Hill debates the use of force? But, first, as we do every day, we're starting with the most forceful political briefing in television, our CROSSFIRE "Political Alert."

The U.S. Supreme Court today refused to review the New Jersey Supreme Court's trashing of state law to benefit Democrats. That means replacing the fast-fading Senator Robert Torricelli on this year's general election ballot with 78-year-old former Senator Frank Lautenberg, even though the deadline for such a change had passed.

Republicans have one appeal left to New Jersey's voters. A (UNINTELLIGIBLE) University poll shows the rookie Republican Senate candidate, Doug Forrester, is only four points behind Lautenberg. And the voters think the last-minute change was unfair by a 14-point margin.

PAUL BEGALA, CO-HOST: Well, you know the Republicans hated it when the switch happened. But even the United States Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Rehnquist, who stole the election from Al Gore, couldn't steal this one. So now with a fair election, you're right, the voters should decide.

Well President Bush plans to address the nation. In less than an hour, he'll be pressing his call for military action against Iraq. Mr. Bush will be speaking from Cincinnati, Ohio, which is a major city in a key swing state. Not that any of this, of course, is political.

While he's in Ohio, Mr. Bush may find that unemployment there, which was 4.3 percent under President Clinton, is 5.5 percent today. Mr. Bush has not offered an economic recovery package, but he would like the 325,000 Buckeye residents who are out of work to know that Saddam Hussein is an evil, evil man.

Of course they already know that. What they don't know is why President Bush, who speaks with such passion about the suffering of the Iraqi people, is so blind to the economic suffering of Americans.

NOVAK: Paul, if the people of -- voters of Ohio were so unhappy with Republicans they would vote for a Democrat for governor. Instead, they're going to re-elect Bob Taft for another term by a big margin.

Erskine Bowles, President Clinton's former chief of staff, is careful about using the name of his ex-boss in his uphill campaign in North Carolina for the U.S. Senate. A mailer from Bowles to African- American voters prominently features a photo of Bill Clinton. An otherwise identical mailer to the state's white voters omits the former president's smiling face.

After all, Bill Clinton was snowed under by white voters twice in North Carolina, as he lost the state in 1992 and 1996. The second time losing to Bob Dole, who is the husband of Bowles' opponent, Elizabeth Dole. So far, Bill Clinton has proved the political kiss of death for his former aides.

BEGALA: Now I think Erskine Bowles has got a great shot in that race once people find out that Elizabeth Dole and her support for privatizing Social Security is the real issue.

Well our Washington area here in the capital is besieged these days by a sniper. In the past week, six people have been killed, two more wounded in apparently random shootings by someone with a high- powered weapon and a twisted mind.

This morning, a 13-year-old boy was shot in the chest as he was being dropped off at his middle school in the Washington suburb of Bowie, Maryland. Police have few leads in the case. Technology exists though to set up a ballistic fingerprint system that that could trace bullet fragments to a particular gun. But because of heavy lobbying by the National Rifle Association and other right-wing groups, it is illegal for federal law enforcement officials to set up such a database. Shame on the far right.

BEGALA: You're talking about what amounts to national gun registration and, of course, the liberals will take any tragedy to try to reduce the freedom of the American people.

Terry McAuliffe, the multimillionaire wheeler dealer buddy of the Clintonsm, who is now chairman of the Democratic National Committee, has been roaring around Washington in his chauffeur-driven Cadillac Escalade SUV. But thanks to John McCaslin of "The Washington Times Inside the Beltway" column, we learn that chairman Terry has dumped the vehicle's DNC vanity license plate.

He's reported telling a young Republican heckler that he changed the plate because his drivers were getting too many speeding tickets. Could McAuliffe have been embarrassed by identifying the Democratic Party with a Cadillac four-wheel gas guzzler? Being involved in so many shady deals never bothered Terry at all.

BEGALA: I've known Terry 14 years. He's a great guy. He's a co-parishioner at St. Luke, and a man of the highest integrity, And he's going to win the elections this fall. You watch.

One of those elections is the Florida's Governor race, and it is hotter than a spring break wet tee shirt contest down there. A new poll for the "Pensacola News Journal" shows Democrat Bill McBride has polled to within one point of Governor Jeb Bush. Mr. Bush is stuck at 49 percent; while Mr. McBride surged to 48.

Now driving McBride's rise is his support for smaller class size and higher teacher pay. Governor Jeb Bush was quoted last week saying, he has "a devious plan" to stop the class size initiative. Bush didn't elaborate, but if he follows his big brother's example, look for Florida to invade the Bahamas just before the election.

NOVAK: You know, Paul, Mr. McBride, his own lock, stock and barrel by the teacher's union. Do you think that's good government? Be for Bill McBride if you're against the teachers running the whole country -- the teacher's union running the country. Vote for Bush.

The House is expecting to vote on an Iraq resolution by the middle of the week. In the long-winded Senate debate on a use of force resolution, it is now expected to drag into next week. Aides to President Bush say tonight's speech is aimed more at the American people than at the Congress.

First in the CROSSFIRE tonight is Richard Perle. He was an assistant secretary of defense during the Reagan administration and is now a fellow with the American Enterprise Institute.

BEGALA: Thank you for coming, sir.

RICHARD PERLE, CHAIRMAN, DEFENSE POLICY BOARD: Hello Robert.

BEGALA: We appreciate your time. I know how busy you are.

Important topic: I want to begin -- one of the ways that you've made waves has been to link -- you did again yesterday on one of the Sunday shows -- link al Qaeda, the perpetrators of September 11, with Iraq. Now this is a hotly disputed point.

Let me read to you what "The New York Times" says our intelligence officials say, because they don't seem to agree with you, sir. They say -- I'll put it up on the screen for you. "Senior intelligence and law enforcement officials say they have not received any corroborating evidence to support an initial report from Czech intelligence that Mohammed Atta" -- one of the September 11 hijackers -- "met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in April of 2001.

Why are you pushing this line if our intelligence officers say it is not so?

PERLE: They're wrong.

BEGALA: Can you give us some reasons without breaching classified data? President Kennedy showed us the pictures of the missiles in Cuba. Have you got some proof?

PERLE: We don't have pictures. We have intelligence reports that I believe are reliable. I think there are other indications of other meetings with other members of al Qaeda including hijackers and intelligence officials from Iraq. The Iraqis -- a fellow by the name of al Amni (ph).

I think the evidence is compelling. If others think it isn't, there is just a difference of opinion between us.

NOVAK: But that difference of opinion, Mr. Perle, is held by your colleagues in the Pentagon and the intelligence agencies and the intelligence committees. But let's listen to what the National Security Director, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, said just a few weeks ago when she was asked whether Saddam Hussein had a role in 9/11. Let's listen to her.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CONDOLEEZA RICE, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: Do we know that he had a role in 9/11? No, we do not know that he had a role in 9/11. But I think that this is a test that sets a bar that is far too high.

(END VIDEO CLIP) NOVAK: Now, Richard, you're a chairman of the Defense Policy Board, you're a private citizen. You mean you have intelligence information that the national security director doesn't have?

PERLE: No. Listen carefully to what she said. She talked about a role in 9/11.

What I said is that there is evidence that I find compelling that there were meetings between Czech intelligence, Mohammed Atta, and other hijackers. Now whether that constitutes a role in 9/11, that's a matter of judgment.

And I can't tell you it is because I don't know. But how would we know if he did? And in any case, Bob, it really doesn't matter very much. What we do know about Saddam is that he is offered sanctuary in Baghdad to any number of terrorists for a great many years.

BEGALA: Well, let me pick up on that point because if it is -- you know I'm an old political hack from the Clinton days, and my phrase in the campaign was: It is the economy, stupid. If, in fact, it's al Qaeda, stupid, which many of us believe, we strongly support the president pursuing him to the ends of the earth. One of the people who has that view is Senator Bob Graham.

He is the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. He, in fact, thinks that Iraq is the wrong target if we're going after al Qaeda. And this is what he had to say to "The New York Times."

Senator Graham said, "The anti-terrorism effort should focus on countries that had a significant al Qaeda presence or training camps. Those are primarily in Syria and the Syrian-controlled areas of Lebanon and in Iran."

I'll tell you, Mr. Perle, if our president had proof of that and said we need to go to war with Iran, I would be first too sign up and agree. But why are we going to Iraq instead of Iran?

PERLE: I think you're confusing issues here. The question is not fundamentally Iraq's involvement in terrorism and, in particular, Iraq's involvement with al Qaeda. The reason for the concern with Iraq with Saddam Hussein has to do with his capacity to do harm to this country because he possesses chemical and biological weapons.

He is working as fast and as hard as he can to acquire nuclear weapons. And if we leave him in place, which is what the Clinton administration did, he will eventually acquire nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver chemical and biological weapons over much greater ranges. And what are we going to do then?

We inherited -- this administration inherited this problem because for eight years the previous administration did nothing. They watched as the inspectors were expelled. They watched as al Qaeda became what it became. It was nothing when Bill Clinton took office. I don't want to be partisan about this. BEGALA: I'm going to let you walk that back then. Do you really believe that President Clinton did nothing to contain -- try to fight al Qaeda when, for example, General Donald Kerrig (ph) -- who I'm sure you know, is a three star general retired -- told the "Washington Post," that he served both presidents in national security, both President Clinton and President George W. Bush. He said President Clinton's team had a much stronger focus on terrorism than President Bush's team.

PERLE: Well they may have had a stronger focus, but when he left office, Osama bin Laden was running a massive terrorist training operation in Afghanistan unperturbed. And what we did in Afghanistan after September 11 could have been done before September 11, but it wasn't.

NOVAK: Mr. Perle, on the question of attacking other countries besides Iraq -- we had on September 5 we had Duncan Hunter, Congressman, Republican Congressman from California, Vice Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, future chairman, if Republicans gain control. And he said something that was really startling. I want to play a sound bite of what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. DUNCAN HUNTER (R), CALIFORNIA : We're going have times in the future when we see a small country or a group developing a nuclear device, because that technology is out there. We may see Libya, for example, developing a nuclear device. And I think we're going to have the question over and over, Iraq is the first take...

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NOVAK: So, in other words, is this what we have to look forward to? Get Iraq out of the way, then we go to Libya. And so we are the avenging -- we are the Romans of the 21st century. We're going all over the world conducting these military operations. Duncan Hunter is very closely tied to the Pentagon, as you know.

PERLE: I think we have to make judgments in each individual case. And the balance here is what are the risks involved in disarming people who are acquiring these weapons and we know have the worst in mind for us, against the costs and the risks of taking action before they can do it?

NOVAK: But do you agree with Duncan on that, that this is going to be a...

PERLE: No, I don't agree with that at all. I can think of countries whose acquisition of nuclear weapons would not be a concern to us. The British have nuclear weapons. The French have nuclear weapons.

NOVAK: How about Libya?

PERLE: Well, Libya would be a very serious concern. Wouldn't you be concerned if Kadafi had nuclear weapons? NOVAK: Well I ask the questions and you answer them.

BEGALA: We're going to have more questions for you, though, Mr. Perle.

PERLE: But I think that's an answer, Bob.

BEGALA: If you just give us one minute, we're going to come right back. And in a minute we're going to let some of our studio audience members also ask some of the hard questions about Iraq, like why now?

And then, later, has anyone on Capitol Hill noticed that there is more to talk about than Iraq, like maybe, oh, say, our tanking economy? Well we'll ask a couple of members of Congress.

And our quote of the day is a swing at our president from a Democrat whose name gets mentioned in a lot of conversations about 2004. Stay tuned.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(VIDEO/AUDIO GAP)

PERLE: ... figure out how you get disarmament in Iraq without regime change.

NOVAK: But you'd take it if you don't get regime change?

PERLE: Well I don't think you can. So you're asking me to buy the impossible. As long as Saddam is there, as long as he is able to hide the weapons we're concerned about -- and he can hide them far better than we can find them -- we will be playing Easter egg hunt forever.

NOVAK: You won't entertain the possibility that we can't find any weapons because he doesn't have any?

PERLE: No. I think we know that he has weapons. But we don't know where they are or, in many cases, we don't know where they are. It is a very big country. It is a country the size of France. The number of inspectors that are being talked about is something like 220.

I live in Chevy Chase, Maryland. You couldn't inspect Chevy Chase with 200 inspectors, much less a country the size of Iraq.

BEGALA: Well, Mr. Perle, excuse me, part of the theory on Iraq is a bank shot theory that Saddam Hussein will develop these weapons or has them already and may give them to terrorists who then would use them against us. I'm curious, that seems to be part of the logic I get from the president. And it has some power to it.

I'm curious, though, why when terrorists murdered Americans directly -- on July 31, five Americans murdered in Hebrew University by Hamas, why we haven't retaliated against Hamas? The president hasn't even called the families to express remorse, much less carry out the vengeance that even I as a liberal would love to see.

PERLE: Well, I think that the Israelis are very actively engaged in retaliating against Hamas. I don't think it is...

BEGALA: Shouldn't we?

PERLE: Well I would be happy to see us work with the Israelis to bring Hamas under control. I think they're very dangerous; they recruit suicide bombers. Who knows where they end up practicing that skill. I guess they only do it once.

BEGALA: But they knew they were going to kill Americans when they went to Hebrew University, didn't they?

PERLE : Well, they knew they were going to kill whoever they could kill, and that's what's so vicious about this terrorism. Children, women, (UNINTELLIGIBLE). It didn't matter at the World Trade Center.

NOVAK: We have a question from the audience, please. Go ahead.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hi. Yes, I'm Dave Koter (ph) from Chicago, Illinois. And I was just wondering when the United States pulled out of the U.N., disregarded all input from the rest of the world except Great Britain on matters of Armageddon?

PERLE: Well, I don't know what you mean by pulled out of the U.N. The president has gone to the U.N. He has said, I think quite rightly to the U.N., you have a responsibility. You have passed resolutions, many resolutions, and Saddam is violating those resolutions and you're doing nothing about it.

So he's challenged the U.N. to take action to bring about compliance with those resolutions. And they call for the complete disarmament of these weapons of mass destruction.

BEGALA: Yes, ma'am.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Good evening. My name is Rachel Garrett (ph) from Rockville, Maryland. And my question is if the U.S. attacks Iraq, a counterattack against Israel is inevitable. What preliminary military actions do you think the U.S. should take to maintain Israel and its safe state?

PERLE: Well, of course the Israelis have a significant capability to defend themselves, including now a ballistic missile defense called the arrow. I hope one day we will have a ballistic missile defense. And the same people who are reluctant to meet our responsibilities with respect to Iraq are not eager to fund missile defense.

NOVAK: That's one thing we still agree on that.

You know you were asked much the same question on "Meet The Press" yesterday about defending the building of Iraq to hit Israel. And you made a, what I thought -- you very seldom surprise me. You really surprised me on this one. Let's play the answer to Tim Russert yesterday on "Meet the Press."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PERLE: Saddam has very few missiles to launch in the first place. And I would hope that the Iraqis, given an order to commit a crime, a war crime of that magnitude, would think twice before they carry it out. Especially as they saw Saddam going down.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NOVAK: Well you know the Iraqi ambassador to the United Nations told me on CNN that they have very few of those missiles. So I'm glad you two are agreement on that point. But I also wonder, if the people are so reasonable, and they're saying, gee, we don't want to do something that's going to kill us, why are we so worried about them using weapons of mass destruction against the United States, yet they're afraid even to attack Israel?

PERLE: Well I don't think they are so reasonable. And in order to send a missile with chemical or biological warhead would hardly be a reasonable decision.

NOVAK: But you say they'd be afraid to do that.

PERLE: Well I think it is up to us to say to the people of Iraq -- I don't think we can talk to Saddam Hussein -- if you carry out Saddam's orders and send a chemical or biological weapon against civilians, you are committing a crime of the highest order and we will hold you responsible. There will be no Nuremberg defense.

NOVAK: Why don't we do that right now?

PERLE: Well I think we can do that now and we should do that now.

BEGALA: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) another question about international law. And that is, our friends in Great Britain, the attorney general of Great Britain has told the prime minister that a regime change would violate international law. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) said, "I won't violate international law."

Will we have to fight alone, even without our friends, the Brits, since our president clearly wants regime change? And you told us at the beginning of the hour that that was our goal.

PERLE: Our goal is to remove from Saddam's hands the weapons with which we might one day be attacked on a scale unimaginable before. If you can find a way to do that while leaving Saddam in place, tell me how you're going to go about it. Because he gives every indication of having been prepared all these years to defy the United Nations and to pay a very heavy price -- the sanctions, for example -- in order to cling to these weapons. Well I don't know how to separate the two.

NOVAK: We'll have to let it go at that. Richard Perle, thank you very much. Appreciate it. In a little bit we'll focus on the talk in Congress. Is all this debate in Congress really changing anybody's mind?

But next, in our quote of the day, a presidential wannabee piles on the current president.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NOVAK: Former trial lawyer John Edwards certainly get an "A" for ambition. The North Carolina Democrat stopped trying accident liability lawsuits and got himself elected to the U.S. Senate just four years ago. And already he's making moon eyes at the White House.

One problem, his foreign policy credentials are pretty slim, nonexistent. So today Senator Edwards delivered a speech criticizing the Bush administration for showing, he said, disdain towards U.S. allies and treating them like an after thought. As an after thought, we'll give him our quote of the day.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN EDWARDS (D), NORTH CAROLINA: Instead of demonstrating purpose without arrogance, as the president promised in his inaugural address, the administration's policy projects exactly the opposite: arrogance without purpose.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NOVAK: I'm really glad that John Edwards is keeping politics out of this.

BEGALA: Well he's supporting the president on his resolution in front of the Senate. But even the president's supporters have to admit that he's done a poor job of organizing the world community, which is just stating the facts. Good for John Edwards.

Well just ahead, new developments on the sniper shootings in Washington D.C. Connie Chung has the latest in a CNN NEWS ALERT.

And, as we continue counting down to President Bush's Iraq speech, members of the House and Senate preview Congress' great Iraq debate live right here on CROSSFIRE.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BEGALA: Well, some of our viewers have e-mailed us to tell us what they're hoping to hear from President Bush tonight.

That's coming up in our "Fireback" segment.

But first, we're going to ask a member of the house and a member of the Senate what's going behind the scenes of those two bodies as lawmakers hold their historic debate on war and peace.

Stay tuned.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. We're at the George Washington University here in downtown, Washington, D.C. and we are counting down the last few minutes, about 26 by my watch, until our president speaks to us about Iraq.

He's in Cincinnati to talk to an invitation only crowd, which to a skeptic like me suggests maybe the speech is more about cheerleading than leadership. Our president, of course, won't be hearing any dissent or debate at his speech.

But here on CROSSFIRE, we encourage everyone to be heard. Joining us now: California Democratic Congressman Bob Filner and Republican Senator Kit Bond of Missouri.

Good to see you.

NOVAK: Congressman Filner, three of your fellow peace Democrats turned up in Baghdad and Congressman McDermott actually called the president of the United States a liar, broadcasting from Baghdad.

Tom Daschle, the Democratic leaders of the Senator, one of the leading Democrats in the country, was asked about this on "Meet the Press" yesterday and I would like you to listen to what he answered.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. TOM DASCHLE (D-SD), MAJORITY LEADER: I don't think it is, frankly. I think that crossed the line. I think we've got to be very careful about our rhetoric. I wouldn't have said that and most Democrats, I think, would disagree.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NOVAK: He was asked if it was appropriate and he said, "I don't think it is, frankly." He said most Democrats wouldn't disagree with him. Do you disagree with him?

REP. BOB FILNER (D), CALIFORNIA: Well, I don't speak for those Congressman and they don't speak for me. But, I think what they are trying to say, and I agree with them, is that we are hellbent on having a -- it seems a -- unilateral preemptive strike and that we ought to be working with the United Nations to avoid the risk of American lives and American property and try to disarm Hussein without going on a preemptive, unilateral strike.

NOVAK: So, as a senior Democratic member of the House of Representatives, I think you're the second Democrat on your committee, you defend and support a fellow Democrat calling the president of the United States a liar when he's in Baghdad.

FILNER: No, I don't think that's what he said. But look --

NOVAK: He said he was potentially misleading the American people. FILNER: He doesn't speak for the Democratic party and I think many of us in the Democratic party are saying, This has to be done in a different way. We have a threat coming from Saddam, but we need to handle it in a different way. Otherwise, we put at risk many American men and women.

BEGALA: Senator Bond, first, thank you for joining us. It's always good to see you.

SEN. KIT BOND (R), MISSOURI: My pleasure.

BEGALA: Second, the speech tonight. Let me ask you about it. In light of the front page of "The New York Times" today, which tells us in a survey, they asked the American people a bunch of questions about the president, his conduct, the economy and the war.

They asked this question: Is the Bush administration using Iraq for political advantage? This is what the American people said: 51 percent said "yes," 40 said no. The majority of Americans think that the Bush administration is trying to get political points out of this.

Given, that, isn't it a mistake for him to be speaking in Cincinnati in front of an invitation only crowd at a pep rally, rather than in a serious, sober setting like the Oval Office?

BOND: A number of fallacies in your statement. The fact that "The New York Times" sets up a push poll to get the question to say they think it's political, that doesn't tell me anything.

I don't happen to read "The New York Times." I talk to the people in Missouri. They think it's very serious. They don't think it's political. Certainly, leading Democrats like Joe Lieberman and Evan Bayh and Richard Gephardt have agreed with this.

This is a effort. The resolution that we're going to be working on this week is supported on both sides of the aisle. And as the president said, Republicans and Democrats are working together.

Now, the president has spoken very forcefully in all kinds of forums. The United Nations speech, I think, was an excellent speech. He really laid it out. He challenged the United Nations. He's worked with members of Congress. Some of my colleagues on the Democratic side said he wasn't talking enough about it. He needed to fill us in.

Well, we're getting him -- we're getting all the information from him. I'm delighted that he continues to speak on it, as do members of his administration because this is a very serious question and I think everybody's got to have an opportunity to have their say.

BEGALA: But Senator, you know what some want happening in the House though?

FILNER: The members of the leadership want to make the Iraq vote the last vote of our session and go out of town, so we can't talk about what's going on with the economy. That we can't talk about what's going on with our 401(k)s. That we can't talk about the stock market. They want us -- the president may not be politicizing it, but his party sure is and they don't want us to talk about anything else.

BOND: That's just nuts.

FILNER: Wait until members of the House find out.

BOND: Listen, that's your problem over in the House. Let me tell you -- Can I finish? Thank you. We've got a problem in the Senate because our Senate leader has not been able to bring up a budget resolution. That's why the appropriations process is loused up. The Senate majority leader won't let Chairman Max Bachus report a prescription drug bill out of the finance committee. He won't let Senator Bingaman report out an energy bill. We haven't been able to deal with any of the major problems facing this country because the Senate right now is dysfunctional. But we didn't come right now to debate the Congressional priorities, we're here to talk about Iraq.

NOVAK: Bob Filner, one thing I always thought about you is you didn't duck questions, and you really ducked the question about the Baghdad boys, the current version of Hanoi Jane.

FILNER: Come on, Bob.

NOVAK: But, you know, it was something that really probably drove Congressman Gephardt, your leader, into such a strong support for the president, to disassociate himself with these people in Baghdad. Let's listen to to what the House Democratic leader said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. DICK GEPHARDT (D-MO), MINORITY LEADER: You cannot play politics with this. This is about people's life and death. It is about peace or war. And I believe to pull politics into it -- and I've told my members this from the beginning -- is immoral.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NOVAK: Do you have any problem with that?

FILNER: No, I think what the leader is saying and I think we all agree, that this is a matter of conscience and what is best for America and what is best for what we think of our districts. Many of us in the Democratic Party and some in the Republican Party think that this -- that we ought not to be doing this unilaterally. We ought to be working with the United Nations, we ought to be working with through the United Nations and disarm Saddam in that way.

NOVAK: So you don't have any problem with Dick Gephardt taking the position he's taken?

FILNER: Well, he can take the position he's taking, but he certainly hasn't taken it with the vote or anything from the Democratic caucus.

NOVAK: Should he stay on as leader?

FILNER: Well, I think that's going to be determined after the election.

NOVAK: What's your opinion?

FILNER: That's going to be determined after the election.

BEGALA: Let me ask you about a leader in the Senate from my party, Robert Byrd of West Virginia. Has been there longer than any Democrat, and speaks with great authority and is one of the great historians of the Senate. Here is what he said on the Senate floor about our president and the way we are approaching this war. Take a look, senator.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. ROBERT BYRD (D), WEST VIRGINIA: Those two little words, why now? What has changed in the last year, in the last six months, or in the last six weeks that would compel us to act to attack now? Shouldn't the president be spending more time with his military advisers in Washington instead of making campaign speeches?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BEGALA: First, he's wearing your tie. So he's got good taste.

BOND: He's got good taste. I serve on the Appropriations Committee, but I didn't check with him for the dress code for the day.

BEGALA: If it is urgent as the president says, why now? Why isn't he meeting with his military advisers instead of raising...?

BOND: Well, he has been. He's been meeting with his military advisers. He's been meeting with us. He's been meeting with world leaders. He's been speaking to the United Nations. And frankly, I think my Democratic colleague from Connecticut, Joe Lieberman, said it best when they asked him why now? He said, we should have done it five years ago. We had strong words and strong resolutions, and the Iraq Liberation Act which my friend the congressman here voted for. He said, we need to get rid of Saddam Hussein. Well, September 11 of 2001 made it absolutely critical that we not take -- we not sit back and take (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

NOVAK: We must take a little break right now. And coming up, your chance to fire back some questions about the president's Iraq policy.

But next, we'll ask our guests here what lawmakers are saying when they aren't in front of the TV cameras.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NOVAK: In just a few minutes, President Bush is going to tell the country that Iraq poses a unique menace to the U.S. because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. In the CROSSFIRE, as we wait for the president to begin speaking, our Democratic congressman, Bob Filner, out of California, and Republican Senator Kit Bond of Missouri. BEGALA: Gentlemen, if it's OK with you, let's get some American citizens to ask you some questions directly.

What is your question, sir?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My question is for both legislators. What will be the political fallout for Democrats who vote against war with Iraq?

FILNER: Well, I think people in our districts want us to vote our conscience, to vote what we think is best for our nation. I've had mail on this subject running about 10 to one against the unilateral attack on Iraq. But I think people want leaders who will say what they think and say it straight out, and I have been saying that this is not the time, this is not the place to go unilaterally. We must work with the United Nations. We must disarm Saddam through an international coalition.

BEGALA: And senator, your party is running ads in South Dakota against Senator Tim Johnson, even though he's supporting President Bush on this war. They're attacking them anyway, aren't they?

BOND: I don't know who they're running ads against. They're certainly not attacking him on the war issue. We do have legitimate differences, and we're going to continue to have differences, but I agree with -- I'd have to agree with the congressman that this is a vote that shouldn't be about politics.

I'd have to tell you in Missouri, we have had some very vocal people who are strongly opposed to any kind of action. But to clear up the record, it's not unilateral. We are working together, we're working with the United Nations, in the United Nations. The president has said and will continue to say that he is going to work in the United Nations. We do have some who are with us. We have some in the United Nations who haven't signed on.

I think if we give a strong signal that Democrats and Republicans in the United States Congress believe that we are not starting a war, we are continuing a war which is going on right now. Sixty-seven times since September 16 Saddam Hussein has fired on the coalition aircraft patrolling a no-fly zone.

NOVAK: Let's get another question.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, hello, hi, I'm Lisa Colliani (ph). I'm from McLean, Virginia. And my question is for Senator Bond. I want to know why now? I need to explain to my 17-year-old son who is here tonight, as well and my 15 1/2 and I have a son and a 13-year-old daughter, why is this not a partisan issue? How can I explain that to them?

BOND: I think if you look at the unfortunate track record of what has happened in the Middle East and what happened in the United States on September 11, you know that the United States is no longer safe from attacks by a terrorist operation or an enemy, a sworn enemy of the United States like Saddam Hussein. We have seen since 1998 when he threw out the inspectors, there have been increasing intelligence reports about his acquisition of weapons of mass destruction. I don't think anybody will ever forget the site when we lost roughly 3,000 people, a weapon of September 11. Chemical, biological, or heaven forbid, nuclear weapons, could kill 10, 100 or 1,000 times more American citizens. We cannot sit back and wait, when all the information we have is he is preparing those weapons for use against us.

NOVAK: I want to put up on the screen, a "New York Times"/CBS News poll about the U.S. taking military action to remove Saddam Hussein. Approve, 67 percent, disapprove, 27 percent. When you look at that in the Democratic cloak room, Mr. Filner, on the Hill, don't you say, man, I'm playing with a losing hand in this game politically?

FILNER: Well, look, as I said, we're going to vote our conscience on it. I feel very strongly about this. I disagree with the senator when he says we're working with the United Nations. The resolution that he's going to vote for says it doesn't matter what the U.N. says, we're going to take action. And I agree with the senator that September 11 changed things. As they say, it lowered the bar.

But it hasn't lowered the bar to zero. We cannot use September 11 as an excuse for every action that the United States wants to take in this world. That just -- it will open up an international Pandora's box that we will not be able to control or deal with.

How can we stop China from going after Taiwan? Or any other country from going after any other one? September 11 is an important fact, senator. And it is -- I don't want any of mine constituents in San Diego the victims of a terrorist attack. But we must work on this in a whole different way, or we're making America less safe in the way the president is going.

(CROSSTALK)

BOND: Let me just say that this -- I don't know which resolution he's talking about, but the resolution that I have before us is that Congress supports the efforts of the president to strictly enforce the United Nations Security Council, the resolutions to obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council.

BEGALA: But should we go alone, if there is a report out of Britain today the Britons may not be able to join us because it violates international law and they're bound to it. Should we go it alone even if our one ally, the Brits, won't come with us?

BOND: First, we are working to build a coalition, and I believe that our clear indication of the seriousness of this effort, and building upon what Tony Blair has said indicates that we will have a significant coalition behind us.

Right now, the president, even though he may be tonight -- if you say nobody else is with us, he may be a majority of one. But leadership requires identifying dangers, laying out a plan to deal with those dangers and bringing people along who may not want to stand up until they see some strong leadership.

The president is providing strong leadership. We're going to give him strong bipartisan support in this bipartisan resolution, which speaks about the United Nations.

(CROSSTALK)

BEGALA: I want to thank Senator Kit Bond, Republican of Missouri. Congressman Bob Filner, a Democrat from California, both strong leadership in both of the two parties. And the president's speech begins in just a few minutes. So stay with us.

A couple of viewers fired back some questions they might want our president to answer. Stay tuned.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NOVAK: We're waiting for President Bush to address the nation. But in the meantime, "Fireback." Our first fireback from Stan of Houston, Texas. He writes: "I have been unemployed for several months now, and have lost hope in finding a job anytime soon. I've also lost hope for our president. With all the attention on going to war with Iraq, what about me and my family?" Stan, go out and get a job! That's my advice to you.

BEGALA: Stan, go out and get a new president, one who cares about you and your job instead of people in some other country.

Darryll Hall in Hillsboro, Oregon writes: "Maybe we should trust that the president knows more about what's happening in Iraq than we do. Otherwise, there could be more devastation and more deaths than the September 11 attacks, and we would be left to ask the questions, how much did the government know about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and why didn't it do something, anything, to prevent this?" Mr. Hall, thank you for your e-mail.

NOVAK: All right, we'll take some questions from the audience. Yes, sir. Go ahead.

BEGALA: What's your name and home town?

TYSON: Hi, I'm Tyson (ph) from Virginia. And I was curious...

NOVAK: Do you have a corner there?

TYSON: Yes, it's around there somewhere. I don't really know. But anyway, why were the Democrats ready to go to war with Iraq when Clinton was in office but are now hesitant to support Bush?

NOVAK: It is all politics, Tyson. Can't you understand that? Whatever President Clinton said was fine, particularly if it got the country's attention off of Monica.

BEGALA: There is a fundamental difference. First off, Bill Clinton during the Lewinsky thing was more popular than Bush is today. So maybe Bush needs to go get him a girlfriend. Maybe we'd like him better.

Second, things changed on the ground. When Saddam Hussein expelled those weapons inspectors in 1998, we attacked Iraq and we were right to do it. Somebody has got to tell me what in the world has changed on the ground in Iraq today that justifies an invasion tomorrow.

NOVAK: You know, I hate to ever be accurate about anything, but they walked out. They weren't expelled. Look it up. Go ahead.

DAN: My name is Dan, I'm from Kalamazoo, Michigan. And I was just wondering if you felt that the debate on Iraq has created a distraction for the American people in Congress?

BEGALA: Oh, there is no doubt. There is no doubt. Look, we spent an hour on Iraq tonight. We haven't even talked about how Bush has (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the economy.

NOVAK: That's the Democratic line. Go ahead, Paul.

BEGALA: From the left, I'm Paul Begala. Good night for CROSSFIRE.

NOVAK: From the right, I'm Robert Novak. Join us again next time for another edition of CROSSFIRE.

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

Nation Need for Conflict With Iraq>