Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Novak, Hunt & Shields

Senator Helms Discusses Foreign Policy

Aired September 22, 2001 - 17:37   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.
MARK SHIELDS CO-HOST: I'm Mark Shields. Robert Novak and I will question the highest ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

ROBERT NOVAK, CO-HOST: He is Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina. He recently announced his retirement after serving nearly 30 years in the Senate. We spoke with the senator earlier today.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

NOVAK: Senator Helms, there is a reported disagreement between the State Department and the Defense Department over strategy in the war against terrorism. State Department would like to limit the attack on the Taliban in Afghanistan while the people in the Defense Department would like to hit out at terrorism in many other Arab countries, including Iraq. What is your opinion?

SEN. JESSE HELMS (R), NORTH CAROLINA: Well, with this one I'm with the Defense Department. I say that with apologies, perhaps to the Secretary of State, but the State Department is wrong in my judgment.

NOVAK: Do you feel, sir, that the attack should be made now on the Iraqi government to try to get rid of Saddam Hussein once in for all?

HELMS: Well, if they are ready to do the attacking. Now, I don't think we are quite ready yet, as of Friday afternoon we were not, but we're right close to it.

NOVAK: Do you think Iraq will be a target of this attack?

HELMS: Well, that depends on two or three things they are trying to work out and I don't think they'll work them out. I think they will be a target.

NOVAK: And do you feel that one of the goals of the government should be the replacement of Saddam Hussein in Iraq?

HELMS: The first President Bush ought to have gotten rid of him. I say that with all due respect to the former president, but that was one of the major mistakes that was made at that time.

SHIELDS: Senator Helms, one of the arguments that is used against that wider military action is that coalition is necessary to provide the on-the-ground intelligence that we don't have, that's not available to us. That some countries that may not be military partners could provide us with enormous assistance, if in fact we're really going to carry out this worldwide effort against terrorism.

Is that a risk? By going in strong militarily, that the coalition is shaken, because obviously that was the case with the first President Bush in 1991, the fear that they would lose the coalition if he did invade Baghdad.

HELMS: Well, some of us have been guaranteed that it would not happen until we are ready for it to happen because if we go in there with the wrong kind of preparation that would be another disaster. But we're pretty near there.

SHIELDS: Well, Secretary Rumsfeld has said this war could last up to five years, this war against terrorism. And one thing missing from President Bush's speech, which was overwhelmingly favorably received by the American voters, was any call for sacrifice in the country on our part, on the civilians' part. During World War II, half the vegetables came out of victory gardens, half the steel was recycled by Americans saving tin and other metals. Should there be some call for sacrifice on our part?

HELMS: Well, I think that the idea of sacrifice is implicit in everything that's been done and said. Certainly the people in this country have made clear that they're ready to do it.

SHIELDS: But do you see sacrifices that are going to be necessary for the civilian population?

HELMS: Well, there could be but we have such an abundance, our garbage in this country is 10 times the rest of the world, I suspect.

SHIELDS: And the only other question I have on this subject is this is a war where we won't be able to celebrate victories. Because when there is a victory against terrorists, the people who provide us with the information, the intelligence to announce that victory would make them vulnerable to assassination or elimination the very next day. How will we know when we've won?

HELMS: Well, I think you'll know when we have won when we have won, but I don't think that's a problem. You can sit around and speculate, well we can't do this, we can't do that, but I assume that this country will do what it's always done and buckle down and do the job right and we've got the people and the right departments to do it.

NOVAK: Senator Helms, during this past week, Secretary of State Powell met with high officials of the Russian and Chinese governments. Do you believe that Russia and China will be reliable allies in the coalition against terrorism?

HELMS: I do not, I do not, and I think it's a waste of time. China has demonstrated time and time again that they're not interested in working with the United States on anything. They are determined to do the best they can for China regardless of the United States and I haven't seen much better from Russia. Maybe you have but I haven't.

NOVAK: So you think that Secretary Powell is wasting his time with this?

HELMS: Well, he may not be wasting his time, at least he's made the effort and you can chalk that up. But I think the result is going to be the same.

NOVAK: Sir, in that connection, in the speech Thursday night by President Bush, he says this about the terrorists. And let's listen to it please: "They follow in the path of fascism, Nazism and totalitarianism. And they will follow that path all the way to where it ends, in history's unmarked graves of discarded lies."

I was immediately struck, and perhaps you were, by the fact that he didn't mention communism. Now, communism has perpetrated as much terror in the world in as much killing as any ideology but I think that this was an effort not to antagonize the Chinese government. Do you think it was wise to eliminate the world communism from that list?

HELMS: I think it was implicit. But you know me, I think we should come clean with the American people and explain to the American people what Russia and what China are in terms of our benefit and the benefit of the American people. I don't know that he personally didn't mention that but if he did I would say it didn't even make a...

SHIELDS: Following up on Bob's question, Senator Helms, and that is whom we can count on. Now, Saudi Arabia is viewed by the United States as key not only to place our own troops, for launch attacks, airstrips, that are showing a certain lukewarm or cold feet now. There is also the problem that if in fact we push Saudi Arabia too far that they have been our most reliable supporter in OPEC and that we are talking about perhaps you know a run-up of oil prices.

Give us your assessment of Saudi Arabia, how reliable they are and what we can expect from them when the rubber hits the road?

HELMS: Well, my relationship with Saudi Arabia is good, and I have been assured by some of the officials of that country, leaders of that country, that they will be helpful to us, and I think other Senators have been and I'm sure the administration has been.

SHIELDS: Do you think they will provide access to the airstrip there?

HELMS: I will be surprised if they do not.

SHIELDS: Speaking of the Middle East as well, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, as soon as the World Trade Center happened, compared Yasser Arafat to Osama bin Laden. And then yesterday said that he is a terrorist who harbors terrorists. Now do you agree with this assessment and do you think it's helpful in securing some sort of a settlement, some sort of a negotiated peace between the Palestinian authority and the state of Israel?

HELMS: Well, it may not have been the wisest thing for Sharon to have said. But on the other hand he has reason to believe that. I know him personally and have visited in his home. And if you want to know what the man thinks, ask him. And he's always been very candid with me and I with him.

NOVAK: Do you think, sir, that, in connection with Israel, that the fact that we have this relationship with Israel is the reason why we are the target of the terrorists around the world?

HELMS: No, I don't think so. I think there's other reasons, envy perhaps, and of course this leader of it, you know he's a curious individual...

NOVAK: Osama bin Laden?

HELMS: Yes, yes. Do you know he had 19 brothers? He's the youngest of 20 sons of his father. I had the Library of Congress send me some information on him, and if we had time we would go into it, but it's very interesting about his career and what possibly motivates him and attitude and conduct that he has displayed.

NOVAK: Senator Helms, there was a great intelligence failure unquestionably. Who is to blame? The CIA? The FBI? Both of them? The whole U.S. government? What's your opinion?

HELMS: Well, the whole United States government, including the Congress. I don't think we've followed up every lead that we should have and I'm not on the appropriate committee, but I think as a result of this you will see a great improvement in following up on what's good about this and what's lacking about that.

NOVAK: Do you believe, sir, that George Tenet should be replaced as director of the CIA as several members of the intelligence committee say or do you agree with Vice President Cheney that he's done a good job?

HELMS: I agree with the vice president.

NOVAK: He should be retained?

HELMS: Yes.

SHIELDS: Senator Helms, if necessary to topple the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, an incredibly poor country, it's decided that the United States troops have to be sent in to Afghanistan. Would you support the sending of U.S. troops?

HELMS: Well, I would have to know a few more things about it. Now we have dispatched 2,200 Marines this past Thursday from North Carolina Marine bases but I'm not sure that I feel confident about the general process there but these Marines will not be sent directly into there.

SHIELDS: But if in fact it does become a military decision to send in U.S. troops, the Soviets we know between 1979 and 1989 occupied Afghanistan and paid a fearsome price. And the United States has very little history of being an occupying power. After World War II we did help establish democracies in Germany and Japan, which has worked very well for the human kind. But the prospects of establishing a democratic government, capitalist free enterprise state in Afghanistan, boy, that's a tough task, isn't it?

HELMS: You bet. I've spent about half my time this past week on the fourth floor of the Capitol where we have what I call the aluminum room, which is one of the most secure rooms and a lot of things are being debated and discussed and opinions given by both sides. We've had a number of officials in. That is one of the problems that was talked about and I don't believe I want to talk about it further at this time.

SHIELDS: Robert Novak and I will be back with Senator Jesse Helms and "The Big Question."

(END VIDEOTAPE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SHIELDS: "The Big Question" for Senator Jesse Helms.

Senator, there's a maxim in this country that politics stops at the water's edge. But when you felt it was warranted and you were chairman you didn't hesitate to criticize the foreign policy of President Bill Clinton. Don't Democrats now have the same obligation in the scrutiny of George W. Bush's policy of conducting this war?

HELMS: If they have the facts to support it. I always did. The last thing we need is for any political sharpshooter to start firing around, pretending that he knows something he does not know. Now if they have a legitimate criticism of the president and the administration, I would under the circumstances because we are at war. I would go through the channels and meet with the president about it and he is available and he is very good about meeting with people with whom he does not agree.

NOVAK: Senator Helms you are finishing three decades in the United States Senate. It will be 16 years as the top Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee. What do you think is your greatest achievement in that period of time?

HELMS: Staying alive, I suppose.

(LAUGHTER)

Really, Bob, I haven't thought about it, but we've done a lot of things that I think have been helpful.

Now, I have not been the greatest advocate of the United Nations for example, and I think we have needed for a long time to examine the percentage of the dues that are paid by the taxpayers of the United States. Now, I went up there and I got a cold shoulder at first, but then they invited me to speak to the Security Council and then we had lunch together, then I had them back down in Washington for lunch and so they agreed with that. But they don't want to go any further, and we've got to do something to balance the amount of money paid by the United States against what is not being paid by so many other countries.

NOVAK: But you think you've made a first step toward that?

HELMS: Yes, sir, I think it was a good step and I think the trip to Mexico when we met with the foreign relations committee of the government of Mexico. Now I'm bringing them back and my invitation is now Joe Biden's and my invitation, they will have lunch with us, and I believe that will help the relationship too.

NOVAK: Senator Jesse Helms, thank you very much.

Mark Shields and I will be back with a comment after these messages.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SHIELDS: Bob, I heard the unmistakable drums of war today from Senator Helms. On Thursday President Bush told us war was inevitable. Today Senator Helms told us it was imminent, and said that we're just really wrapping up the details and almost ready to go to war. Did you agree with that?

NOVAK: I think -- I thought he said that we're almost ready, but not quite ready.

I was fascinated, Mark, that he said right out what a lot of people at the Pentagon are whispering, that Colin Powell, the secretary of state, is wasting his time with the Chinese and the Russians, that this coalition building with those people is a waste of time, that you go beyond NATO and you're not going to get much help. You've got to have some of the Arab nations on your side.

But he said -- Jesse Helms, who doesn't ever mince words, said no, we don't need the Russians and they're not going to help us, and the Chinese aren't going to help us. But what he said was, you can count on Saudi Arabia.

SHIELDS: He did say you can count on Saudi Arabia; I'm not quite as confident as Senator Helms. But I will say this, Bob: There's a real division, as you know and reported, in this administration between the hawks at the Defense Department Rich Perle and Paul Wolfowitz, and the State Department and Secretary Powell.

And it just struck me today, there's no question where Jesse Helms landed. He said as far as Iraq was concerned, you go in, you take Saddam Hussein out and criticize the first President Bush for failing to do so in 1991.

NOVAK: There's no question about that.

You know, when Senator Helms before this -- before September 11, when he announced he was going to not seek a sixth term, there was a lot of drivel written about him that really wasn't correct. The thing he was really interested in -- and he's never been interest in race, he is interested in foreign policy. And he is a hard-liner the likes of which you don't see very often, he showed in our interview today. And for those people who like a hard-line policy, he will be missed very much.

I'm Robert Novak.

SHIELDS: I'm Mark Shields. Wolf Blitzer is next as CNN's coverage of "America's New War" continues.

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