Return to Transcripts main page
Inside Politics
Suicide Bombings in Mideast Prompt Israelis to Occupy More Territory; Will Bush Call for a Provisional Palestinian State?
Aired June 19, 2002 - 16:00 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.
JUDY WOODRUFF, CNN ANCHOR: I'm Judy Woodruff in Washington. Israel suffers its second suicide bombing in two days. More civilians are killed, dozens are injured.
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: I'm Christiane Amanpour in Jerusalem. The Israeli officials say that this latest suicide bombing reinforces their plan to re-occupy and hold onto more Palestinian territory.
JOHN KING, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: I'm John King at the White House. The president's planned Middle East speech is on hold, and the debate over whether Mr. Bush should call for a provisional Palestinian state is intensifying.
WOODRUFF: Also, as Republicans prepare to raise tens of millions in soft money tonight, I'll get reaction to that, and the latest on campaign finance reform from Senator John McCain.
Thank you for joining us. For the second straight day, a suicide bomber has struck a civilian target inside Israel. Once again, there are multiple deaths and dozens of injuries. And within the last hour or so, Israeli forces began to retaliate.
The target this time was a bus stop in Jerusalem. At this hour, at least seven people are dead, 37 others wounded. Israeli television, quoting sources in Gaza, reports that the al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, a militant group affiliated with Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement, was responsible for the attack.
CNN's Christiane Amanpour is in Jerusalem.
Christiane, we understand that an Israeli military operation is now under way?
AMANPOUR: Well, yes. Let me first say that Israeli officials have counted, have revised their number of people dead. They said they miscounted, and that it is six people who are confirmed dead, and not seven.
Now, in the hours after that suicide bombing here in northeastern Jerusalem, Israel did conduct a retaliation. It's over now. It was short and sharp, at least this initial phase of it has been short and sharp. Apache helicopters went into the Gaza area and fired several missiles on targets at the Gaza City and at the Jebalia refugee camp, and at Honunis (ph), another Palestinian area there.
We are told by sources there that the targets included a couple of metal working shops. Now, Israel has long considered these metal work shops -- some of them, at least -- to be bomb-making factories. And perhaps that is why they targeted these shops.
They're not commenting because they don't comment on ongoing operations. Our sources in Gaza say that at least 14 Palestinians have been slightly wounded in the Israeli air retaliation. Israeli officials told us earlier, when we spoke to an Israeli government official here after the suicide bombing, that since Israel this morning declared a new and major shift in its policy of retaliation, we could expect more Israeli military land grabs, if you like, in the Palestinian area.
The Israelis say that they will go in, recapture, hold onto, essentially reoccupy, land in response to any suicide bombing attacks. And they will keep that land until the suicide bombing attacks end. That was after the first bombing that happened yesterday, in which 19 people were killed.
Today, officials tell us that there is likely to be more of that kind of action by Israeli military, to seize more and more Palestinian territory -- Judy.
WOODRUFF: Christiane -- Christiane Amanpour, reporting for us from Jerusalem, thanks very much.
CNN's John King is at the White House. John, tell us, what is the effect of today's attack on this Middle East speech that the president was planning? And this trip that, we're told, Secretary of State Powell was planning to the region?
KING: Well, Judy, the two are very much connected. We should make clear the president put off his speech -- made clear he would not make it today, anyway -- after yesterday's bombing. And then last night, word of this new Israeli military response and policy, that it might indefinitely reoccupy lands in the West Bank.
Then you had the bombing today, which of course reinforced the White House view, that this was not the moment for the president to try to interject himself to try to get the Israelis and the Palestinians to focus on peace. As to when the speech will come, we are told the president still hopes to do that within the next several days. Friday or Monday are the leading targets right now.
The administration wants to get a sense of the situation on the ground. And politely saying to Israel today that yes, you have a right to defend yourself, but please make your military operation a temporary one, not the indefinite operation Israel has talked about. The White House understands that would significantly complicate an already very difficult diplomatic task for the president.
That trip by Secretary Powell was a possibility to go and try to sell the president's vision, this new Middle East framework the president is to outline. Could it now become a more emergency trip to try to deal with the fallout of these bombings?
That is possible, but, White House officials say, unlikely. So once we get a sense of when the president will speak, then we'll we have a much clearer sense of if and when Secretary Powell will go.
WOODRUFF: John, what about the debate inside the administration, not just over the timing of all this, but over what the president should do?
KING: Publicly, the administration insists that the president has decided on all but the most minute details, and is still tinkering around the edges. But many of those who have been in close consultation with the administration believe there is still a continued debate over just how specific to be on the central issue of a provisional Palestinian state, or the issue of Palestinian statehood.
White House officials say -- they are stressing to us -- that the president will not come out in his speech and say there should be a Palestinian state tomorrow. That he will first make clear that there must be political reforms, must be security reforms, in the Palestinian Authority.
But we know that some in this administration, and of course, the government of Israel and others consulted by this administration, are very skeptical about even putting a proposed Palestinian state, a provisional Palestinian state, on the table right now. And that they are emboldened, if you will, by the bombings of the last few days, to go to this president and say, Mr. President, Mr. Arafat has not earned it. If you put out the prospect of statehood, you would be rewarding terrorism.
So, a difficult challenge for the president. And the administration saying today, Yasser Arafat has not done enough to stop the violence yet again. So a tough one for the president.
And we should note, Judy, Mr. Bush will try to settle some of this about an hour from now. He's having what's called a principles committee meeting here at the White House. The secretary of state on hand, the vice president on hand, and others, not just to decide when to deliver the speech, but to put the finishing touches on the proposal itself.
WOODRUFF: All right, John King at the White House, thanks.
Political analyst Ron Brownstein of the "Los Angeles Times" is with me now. Ron, we heard John talking about the debate inside the administration. What about the debate on the outside?
RON BROWNSTEIN, "LOS ANGELES TIMES": Well, even as this is being discussed, this idea of a provisional Palestinian statute, he's likely to get a very mixed reaction, domestically. The debate will be about whether it moves the situation forward very much.
On the one hand, you're going to have a number of people arguing that it's a triumph of process over substance, if the president comes forward with it. The administration has already made clear that it supports a permanent Palestinian state at some point, if, in fact, they would control all the violence. So they would argue that it's not clear that a provisional state along the way, if they control the violence, really changes the incentives very much.
On the other hand, there will be those that say that setting out that goal would provide a new impetus for negotiations. And there is a value in getting the two sides talking, even if you're not really confident they can get to a final result. The sheer process of negotiation will have some restraining effect on the violence. And incidentally, could also make it easier for the administration to move forward on Iraq.
WOODRUFF: Meanwhile, Ron, we're starting to hear some Democratic voices, opinions on all this.
BROWNSTEIN: Interestingly, one from former President Clinton earlier this week really has not been out there, criticizing President Bush directly. He gave a speech earlier in the week to the council on foreign relations in New York, in which I think he probably went as far as he has gone, since the election, in directly criticizing a Bush decision.
He argued the administration was getting the sequence wrong, that he needed to focus more on the Israeli-Palestinian situation before worrying about Saddam Hussein, or what he does there.
He said -- let me read you what he said: "I don't have any use for Saddam Hussein. But I think what you have to ask yourself is, in what order do we have to deal with this?"
He went on to say: "Let's make the most intense possible effort to build a legitimate peace process and have diminishing of the violence in the Middle East between the Arabs, the Palestinians and the Israelis."
And then, B, "look what our options are and try to find a way to do whatever we have to do in Iraq."
Now, what's striking about that is, really, it underscores by contrast how little is coming from the congressional Democrats. Apart from a small spasm after the April 4 speech, when some people wanted from the right, on the Democratic Party, saying he shouldn't have tried to restrain Sharon.
There really has been a silence. And the fact that Clinton comes out and says something like this, I think, underscores how little we've been hearing from congressional Democrats, how reluctant they are, still, to challenge Bush on areas related to national security.
WOODRUFF: Well, I won't be talking to Democrats today. But we are going to be hearing a little later in the program from John McCain and from Jack Kemp. So we'll see what they have to say.
Ron Brownstein.
BROWNSTEIN: Thank you.
WOODRUFF: Thanks very much.
Well, turning now to the U.S. war on terror, against al Qaeda and the investigation into what America's intelligence agencies knew before September the 11th. CNN has obtained specific language contained in two messages, intercepted just one day before the attacks. Our national security correspondent David Ensor joins us now with details -- David.
DAVID ENSOR, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, Judy, as everyone -- in Washington, at least -- knows, for the last couple of days there have been closed hearings of the joint House Senate Intelligence Committees, which are looking into what may have gone wrong, what clues may have been missed, prior to September 11.
And congressional sources now tell CNN producer Dana Bash -- and this has been confirmed by other sources -- that the exact language in two intercepts -- two eavesdropping intercepts -- conducted by the National Security Agency can now be made public.
One of them is -- and they're both tantalizing clues, but without specifics. In one conversation, the National Security Agency heard a suspected al Qaeda person saying, "The match begins tomorrow."
And in another conversation, also on September 10, another person was heard saying, "Tomorrow is zero day." So these two interceptions by the National Security Agency on September 10 were not actually translated until September 12, the day after the tragedy, and therefore could not be used in any way.
Officials do point out, though, that there's no -- you have the language, and it's tantalizing, it's worrying. But there's no who, what, when, where, how, in this information. And they didn't have that information, officials say.
So there is nothing of what most officials would call "actionable" intelligence. There was nothing that they could do in reaction to this. Officials have said to me that, since September 11, there have been a number of indications over time -- intercepts and whatnot -- in which they have someone saying that something is going to happen on a specific date, and then nothing happens.
So without specifics, they felt they had nothing they could act on. At the same time, this is specific language. It does points to September 11. And clearly, it's an embarrassment for the intelligence community -- Judy.
WOODRUFF: David, how typical is it for the NSA, or any other intelligence-gathering organization, to get this kind of information but not to even translate it for days afterwards?
ENSOR: You have to understand the sheer volume of information that U.S. intelligence -- particularly the NSA, with its interception capabilities -- is bringing in. The communications revolution around the world has meant that they're literally bringing in thousands of conversations and e-mails and other types of communication every day.
They simply can't go through it all same day. There isn't someone listening all the time. They have to go back and they have to prioritize what they're going to translate. That is why this was missed.
WOODRUFF: All right, David Ensor, much more to come. Thank you David.
A planned Republican fund-raiser could be the last of its kind. Up next: details on the big event and my interview with the GOP leader on campaign finance reform, Senator John McCain.
With a different money deadline just days away, candidates in both parties are making the hard sell: a look at the nationwide search for campaign cash.
And, blurring the line between politics and journalism. The latest example in a very popular trend.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
WOODRUFF: "On the Record" today, Senator John McCain. The campaign finance reform advocate launched his latest attack in that fight today aimed at the broadcast TV industry.
That comes as George W. Bush headlines his party's annual presidents dinner tonight at the Washington Convention Center. That's the only place in the capital large enough to hold the 6,000 people who have given roughly $30 million to the Republicans' House and Senate campaign committees -- much of it in soon-to-be-illegal soft money.
While Many Republicans have been tightlipped about the event, Democrats plus McCain have spoken up. They are highlighting the GOP's close ties to the pharmaceutical and financial services industries, which underwrote a large part of tonight's dinner, and have legislation pending on Capitol Hill.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. DEBBIE STABENOW (D), MICHIGAN: There are six drug company lobbyists for every member of the United States Senate. And tonight an awful lot of them are going to be joining in a fund-raiser. And unfortunately, we are fearful of the impact of those dollars and those fund-raisers.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WOODRUFF: I'm here at the Capitol, at the office of Senator John McCain.
Senator, thank you for being with us.
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: Thank you, Judy.
WOODRUFF: I want to ask you first about campaign finance reform. You obviously have worked long and hard for this legislation. It was passed this year. The president signed it. Tonight, though, there is a huge Republican fund raising event here in Washington, expected to raise up to $30 million.
Hundreds of thousands of that money is coming from the pharmaceutical industry and from the financial services industry, at a time when there's legislation pending this week before the Congress. Should the American voters be outraged, or just yawn at this?
MCCAIN: Well, I think they should be very unhappy. I don't believe anyone pays $250,000 for a ticket to a fund-raiser that's only interested in good government. They're buying access and influence. I mean, it's a fact.
But I'm also deeply disturbed by the fact that, after we pass this legislation described, the Federal Election Commission is attempting -- an unelected group of bureaucrats, in the most unethical thing I've seen -- are trying to weaken the law to open up these loopholes again.
WOODRUFF: What can be done about that, Senator?
MCCAIN: We'll have to fight again, if they issue rules emasculate the intention of the law. And we will have to eventually reform the FEC. Everyone knows that the intention of the legislation was to eliminate soft money. The Federal Election Commission now is considering, as we speak, amendments that will open those loopholes again. It's unbelievable.
WOODRUFF: This fund-raiser tonight -- clearly the Democrats have had their fund-raisers -- this is now the second big Republican fund- raiser. Is there hypocrisy involved here, Senator?
MCCAIN: They're playing by the rules. And the rules were clearly in need of changing. Our legislation doesn't take effect until November 6, but it's still very unsavory. I mean, to have people pay these kinds of dollars, which is really in violation of the 1974 act.
Again, it was the Federal Elections Commission that opened these loopholes -- another compelling argument, and an affirmation that we were right in getting this legislation passed.
WOODRUFF: Senator, I want to ask you about your proposal today, to require radio and television broadcasters to give a certain amount of free air time to political candidates, in return for which these stations would be levied a certain -- a fee.
Is this something that -- you know in the past, this has been defeated. The broadcasting lobby, very powerful in this town.
MCCAIN: Very powerful.
WOODRUFF: What makes you think you have a chance of getting it passed this year?
MCCAIN: I don't know if we can get it done this year. It may be a long struggle. The broadcasters get billions of dollars in spectrum, that's owned by the American people, in return for which they sign a piece of paper that says they will act in the public interest.
We believe it's in the public interest to give candidates some free television time and radio time, so that they can be heard in the political process. I think it will be very difficult, but it's, I think, a cause worth pursuing.
WOODRUFF: Why?
MCCAIN: Because I think we have fewer and fewer -- less and less coverage of political campaigns in America. I think we have this obligation to try and give candidates an opportunity to be elected, and encourage young men and women to seek public office.
WOODRUFF: Finally, quickly, Senator, the Middle East. More tragedy there. A second suicide bombing in as many days. The Bush administration, the president, we're told, was leaning toward the idea of proposing a provisional Palestinian state.
Now we read there's division inside the administration over this. Is this something that makes sense, a provisional state?
MCCAIN: Nothing makes sense in the way of recognition of the Palestinians, as long as this unconscionable bloodletting is going on, and slaughter of innocent children. It proves that Mr. Arafat either is incapable or unwilling to control his own people, so how in the world could you enhance his status and that of the Palestinians to statehood, unless this stops?
WOODRUFF: And yet the Palestinian people are going to feel frustrated, hopeless, unless there is something that they have to look forward to.
MCCAIN: I would welcome every opportunity for a Palestinian state if the violence and acts of terror cease. Apparently, at least the events of yesterday and today, they are on the increase. It's -- if your or my children were just killed on a bus because of someone who came on board and killed himself in order to kill our children, I doubt if we would be ready to give added legitimacy to the people that were responsible for it.
WOODRUFF: Senator John McCain, we thank you...
MCCAIN: And I hate to put it in those kind of personal terms, but that's what the families of these people in Israel are feeling today.
WOODRUFF: Senator McCain, we thank you very much. Good to see you.
MCCAIN: Thank you. (END VIDEOTAPE)
WOODRUFF: And just ahead on INSIDE POLITICS, new details emerge in the disappearance of Utah teenager Elizabeth Smart. The latest on the story when we return.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
WOODRUFF: Checking our INSIDE POLITICS "Newscycle," police in Salt Lake City say clues in the disappearance of teenager Elizabeth Smart have grown in the last week. And, they are releasing more information on what Smart's sister saw the night of the kidnapping.
Police now say that the 9-year-old saw her sister abducted, but when she went to tell her parents, she saw the suspect still in the house, and returned to her room.
Federal authorities in Colorado say the biggest wildfire in state history was not started by accident. They the U.S. forest service worker charged with starting the fire, Terry Barton, staged what appeared to be an abandoned campfire, and then deliberately started the blaze. They say the million-dollar question is: Why?
In the Middle East, more deadly violence has rocked Jerusalem. Six Israelis were killed today when a suicide bomber set off a blast at a bus stop. The bomber himself also was killed. In response to the latest violence, President Bush has put on hold his planned speech laying out his vision for Middle East peace.
With us now, Margaret Carlson of "TIME" magazine and Terry Jeffrey, editor of "Human Events" magazine.
Terry, to what extent should these latest terrible incidents in the Middle East affect what the president does?
TERRY JEFFREY, EDITOR, "HUMAN EVENTS": Well, I hope they affect it, Judy. I think the president may be painting himself into a corner. You know, a couple weeks ago Ari Fleischer said the president thought that Arafat could never been trusted.
Last week Condoleezza Rice, national security adviser, told the "San Jose Mercury" that the Palestinian Authority was corrupt and they (UNINTELLIGIBLE) with terrorism. I don't see how, in one hand, you could hold out the prospect of a Palestinian state, and the other hand say that the leaders of the Palestinian Authority are corrupt and terrorists.
So I think the president may be making a mistake of raising Palestinian expectations of a Palestinian state, that he can't fulfill.
WOODRUFF: Margaret?
MARGARET CARLSON, "TIME" MAGAZINE: Because the Palestinians who aren't suicide bombers have to be given hope that someday they'll have a state. And the forces of Colin Powell have been battling within the administration against the other forces, and seem to have the upper hand. This is some setback, but it cannot be a complete setback, because Powell will prevail in this matter.
WOODRUFF: What about the new Israeli policy of reoccupying parts of the West Bank in retaliation for what's happened? Is this something that the administration can let stand?
JEFFREY: Well, the Palestinians -- the Israelis have to protect themselves. The Israeli government has to do something to stop the suicide bombers. Nothing they've tried so far has worked.
And I will admit that Ariel Sharon is about the toughest guy in Israel, has agreed in principle that there should be a Palestinian state someday. So there is hope for the Palestinians. But they have to give something, too, which means giving up terrorism.
CARLSON: But Sharon says he can see a Palestinian state in 20, 30 years. He's not saying with any degree of the kind of certainty that Powell wants to put forward in the plan. And when Bush gives his speech, it is going to say that there will be some kind of interim Palestinian state, while leaving some of the details vague.
WOODRUFF: You're saying it's still coming, it's just a question of when.
CARLSON: Yes.
WOODRUFF: Another very, very different story here in the United States, Southwest Airlines. And I'm going read some of this, and I'm quoting now from a statement.
"Since 1980, Southwest Airlines has encourages customers of size to purchase a second seat, if required. Our suggestion," quoting the airline, "for the greatest advantage to the customer of size is to plan ahead and purchase two seats at an advance-purchase fare."
Margaret is this fair to people?
CARLSON: Well, we have another euphemism in the world: "customers of size."
Well, it strikes me that body profiling is an even more hazardous thing for the airlines to be doing than racial profiling. Are the stewardesses suppose to eyeball people in the line and pick out those who weigh too much?
I'm told that people do it voluntarily. And, it seems to me, that's the way you have to do it. Somebody who knows that the armrest can't go down is buying two tickets already. It would be just -- these skies would not be friendly if you know that when you're going to the airport, somebody is going say, "You, over here." Are you going put them on the scale and weigh them like a piece of garbage?
JEFFREY: I may have a conflict of interests here. One of these airlines may even try classifying me as a large-size person. But I already think the airlines are trying to cram too many people like sardines onto these airlines. However, this is a question for the free market. If Southwest wants to say, "We are going to charge some people double because of their size," and another airline says they don't want to do it, people can choose which airline they want to fly.
And I think, right now, the problem the airlines have is, too many Americans think they are arrogant. And they're right. These are arrogant businesses. They deserve to lose customers if they don't treat them right. And so I think it's a question for the free market and not for government or anybody else.
CARLSON: But too many airlines now have monopolies on certain places for that to work out, for the marketplace to settle all these fights.
But if they make you buy two tickets, I hope you get two bad meals at the same time.
JEFFREY: That's right, and two free Cokes.
WOODRUFF: Well, I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon. But I'm just trying to envision...
CARLSON: He's a thin man.
WOODRUFF: Terry is a thin man.
But I'm trying to envision how you politely tell someone that they need to buy two tickets -- so, something to think about.
Margaret Carlson...
CARLSON: Yes, it is. We don't want to gain a pound.
(LAUGHTER)
WOODRUFF: I know.
Terry Jeffrey, thank you both. Appreciate it.
JEFFREY: Thank you.
CARLSON: Thanks, Judy.
WOODRUFF: The dash for political cash straight ahead: from black-tie galas to small gatherings in private homes, why candidates are pushing to bring in as much money as possible before the end of the month.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
WOODRUFF: In our "Inside Buzz" today: a look at political fund- raising and why there seems to be a lot more of it in recent days.
Our Bruce Morton is here with more on the fast and furious efforts to raise cash -- Bruce.
BRUCE MORTON, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Judy, sure, the campaign finance law banned so-called soft-money contributions from unions, lobbies, corporations to the parties. But that's next time. Soft money is still king this year. And the parties are chasing it as hard as they can, kind of a parody of St. Augustine's prayer: "Lord, grant me chastity," but not yet.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
(voice-over): Tonight's $30 million Republican fund-raiser at Washington's Convention Center, only place big enough to hold 5,500 fat cats, comes just before an important deadline. Money collected this month will show up in the June 30 reports the campaigns have to file. Donors look at those to see who's doing well, who they'll give money to in the fall.
So, let her rip. Bill Clinton, a big draw with Dems, raised money here last night for Senators Mary Landrieu and Tom Harkin. President Clinton and Hillary Clinton hosted a fund-raiser at their Washington home for Rahm Emanuel, who is running for a House seat in Chicago. Senator Clinton and Majority Leader Tom Daschle host a D.C. fund-raiser next week for Ron Kirk of Texas, who's running for Phil Gramm's old seat. North Carolina's John Edwards has a money event for Kirk next week. Last night, Kirk was in Los Angeles raising money with hoops star Magic Johnson, among others.
Republicans leaders are taking sides this month in a primary fight for Bob Smith's New Hampshire Senate seat. Last night, Republican House leaders raised money for the challenger, Representative John Sununu. Senate leaders will do the same for incumbent Smith next week.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MORTON: An era is slowly ending, Judy. It is soft money's last sweet song.
WOODRUFF: I can almost hear them singing it. You going to hum a few bars?
MORTON: Well, I say, it was in "Cabaret," you know, "money makes the word go 'round"? You remember that one.
(LAUGHTER)
WOODRUFF: I do.
Bruce Morton, thanks very much.
And now checking the headlines in our "Campaign News Daily": Governor Jesse Ventura's political exit may open the door for another candidate with strong name recognition: Former Minnesota Congressman Tim Penny. The one-time Democratic House member says he might run in Ventura's place as the Independence Party candidate. Penny has criticized how the Republican and Democratic gubernatorial nominees handled the state's recent budget crisis. He says he hopes to make a decision by the end of next week.
Republican Texas Governor Rick Perry has appointed Democrat Dan Morales to his anti-crime commission, raising speculation that Morales might support Perry's reelection campaign. Morales lost a bitter primary battle to Tony Sanchez three months ago in the race to challenge Governor Perry. "The Dallas Morning News" reports that some state Democrats now fear that Morales will endorse the governor instead of his fellow Democrat.
A new poll finds the Republican challenger to Senator Robert Torricelli is within striking distance of the New Jersey Democrat: Torricelli leading Douglas Forrester 44 to 36 percent among registered voters. The poll also found Senator Torricelli's negative ratings to have risen to their highest point in almost a year.
Just ahead, we will hear what former Republican vice presidential nominee Jack Kemp has to say about U.S. policy in the Middle East. He's with us when INSIDE POLITICS returns.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
WOODRUFF: In a "Washington Times" op-ed today, Jack Kemp, the former Republican vice presidential nominee, Cabinet secretary, and chairman of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, writes -- quote -- "Until a Palestinian leadership emerges that has the legitimacy of its people and is both able and willing to subdue the jihadists who seek to destroy Israel, a Palestinian state will not be viable, and certainly its creation will not lead to peace" -- end quote.
Jack Kemp is with me now.
Are you saying that even under a provisional configuration? As we know, the president was strongly considering doing
(CROSSTALK)
JACK KEMP, CHAIRMAN, FOUNDATION FOR THE DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACIES: Well, I have great respect for George Bush and what he's trying to do, and particularly so with Colin Powell.
So, I know their goal. And I don't think it is separate from mine, because I believe that all people have the right to self- determination. But we have to do it in such a way as not to reward the intifada. There has to be a movement to democratize the Palestinian entity. And, clearly, the Arab states have to recognize Israel's right to exist and its sovereignty. So, those things are not yet in place. And I think there have to be strong conditions on the president's proposal.
WOODRUFF: So, you're saying, even if the Israelis were able to go days, weeks without any more suicide bombings, you're saying that...
KEMP: Well, that's such a hypothetical, Judy, because they haven't been able to go a day without a bombing, today, yesterday, the day before.
And if they can't control Hamas, Hezbollah, the jihadists, as I called them in my article, how can we expect to have a true Palestinian ruling entity, A? And, B, how can Israel have a safe and secure border, as well as the Palestinians?
WOODRUFF: But when you have these groups, whether it is Al-Aqsa Brigades or one of these other groups, that is clearly not supporting Arafat, probably wants to do everything it can to undermine him, are you ever going to be able to put a formula together that is going to work?
KEMP: In my opinion -- I've studied the Middle East. I've been there many times. I have great sympathy for the Palestinian people who want peace and who want to develop the economy and who want to farm and do business. And there's many good entrepreneurs who are Palestinian and Arab, but they're not allowed to, because the Oslo accords were never truly implemented.
The P.A., the Palestinian Authority, at the very time they were talking about peace and dealing with Israel, they were bringing in 70 -- or 50 tons at least -- on the Karine A a few months ago of Iranian assault weapons. And there's a threat on Israel's borders on the northern border from the Bekaa Valley and from Lebanon.
So, clearly, the Arab world, in my opinion, has to get together, through its league, the Arab League, and put pressure on Arafat, put pressure on Hamas and Hezbollah and the jihadists to stop it in order to give the Palestinian people what they deserve: a right to self- determination.
WOODRUFF: But isn't that what these other countries have already been doing?
KEMP: No, they haven't done it. They haven't done it.
Only two countries in the Middle East recognize Israel. That's Jordan and Egypt. So, I think there has to be some pressure on the Arab world to put the type of pressure that we're asked to put on Sharon and Israel, and have through the Bush administration and the Clinton administration. So, I think, until the Arab League recognizes Israel, recognizes their right to self-determination themselves, they're not going to get the type of self-determination for the legitimate Palestinian people who want peace.
WOODRUFF: Let me ask you about something different. And that is the Bush administration's proposal to create a new Department of Homeland Security.
KEMP: I favor it.
WOODRUFF: You favor this, but you're also saying that more or all of the FBI should be folded into this?
KEMP: Well, I think the FBI should definitely be under the Homeland, the agency, the department. WOODRUFF: All of the FBI?
KEMP: Well, I don't know. They may have to split off some of its role. But, clearly, in the war against terrorism, it appears to me as an a priori, self-evident truth that the FBI has to be reorganized and has to come under Homeland Security. And my hope would be, Tom Ridge would be the secretary.
WOODRUFF: But why not the way the administration has proposed it? Which is: It's too complicated. You get into the FBI and you start fiddling around with what's going on, then you're talking about taking a long amount of time when the U.S. is fighting this war on terrorism.
KEMP: Well, look, I have got great respect for the FBI, but it needs reorganization. And I think it should be under the Homeland Security, because it has such an anti-terrorist element to its work, and particularly with what President Bush is trying to do.
I think it is Truman-esque for him to try to reorganize homeland security. So I give him high marks. But I think the FBI should be under the aegis of Secretary Ridge or whomever. And, in my opinion, there may have to be certain elements of the FBI split off. But I don't think that would be bad to the mission of the FBI.
WOODRUFF: Just quickly, this report from our David Ensor just a short time ago that these intercepts through the NSA, now we know that they were translated. They came through the day before September 11 saying "Something's going to happen," in essence, "tomorrow..."
KEMP: That's unbelievable.
WOODRUFF: ... but not translated until after that. How does that make you...
KEMP: The CIA and the FBI and the NSA and our domestic intelligence-gathering services have had tremendous amounts of intelligence. And you're exactly right, Judy. It is the interpretation. It's not the collection. It is the interpretation and the communication. The FBI wouldn't talk to the CIA. This has been happening for decades.
And I'm glad President Bush has taken this role of the various intelligence-gathering agencies, other than NSA and CIA, and put it under Homeland Security.
WOODRUFF: Part of it. Part of it.
KEMP: Yes.
WOODRUFF: Jack Kemp, good to see you.
KEMP: Thank you, Judy.
WOODRUFF: And we thank you very much for joining us.
KEMP: Thank you very much.
WOODRUFF: We appreciate it. Thank you.
The road from politics to journalism: Jeff Greenfield looks at some of those who have made that trip in today's "Bite of the Apple."
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
WOODRUFF: Our Jeff Greenfield joins us now with his "Bite of the Apple" -- today's topic one that hits close to home with Jeff.
JEFF GREENFIELD, CNN SENIOR ANALYST: Well, Judy, even before George Stephanopoulos was officially designated the new anchor of ABC's "This Week," the questions began: Could a one-time key political operative transform himself into a neutral journalist? That assumes, of course, that journalists are neutral, but that's a controversy for another day.
It's a question I happen to have a personal stake in, having worked in politics myself more than 25 years ago. But there is no debate about one thing: This road from politics to journalism is very well-traveled.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
(voice-over): Just consider who Stephanopoulos is up against: Tim Russert of "Meet the Press." The reigning Sunday morning king was an aide to New York Senator Pat Moynihan, then Governor Mario Cuomo.
Or how about Diane Sawyer? She worked in the Nixon White House as a press assistant, then helped Nixon write his memoirs.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BILL MOYERS: The death penalty, you oppose it personally.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GREENFIELD: Or Bill Moyers, now of PBS, he was press secretary to President Johnson. NBC correspondent Pete Williams was a press spokesman for Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, now Vice President Cheney, back in the first Bush administration.
There's "Hardball"'s Chris Matthews, who worked as a speechwriter for Jimmy Carter and as an aide to one-time House speaker Tip O'Neill. Tony Snow of Fox News was a speechwriter in the Reagan White House.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GREENFIELD: ... all of these figures, and I myself, that matter, is that we all say we can put our views aside, whatever they are. Working in politics helps us understand the process. And, as for bias, well, judge us by what we do, we say.
It is very different for one-time operatives who become clear advocates. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
(voice-over): Advocates like Pat Buchanan, one-time Nixon and Reagan aide, a presidential contender himself, who was on "CROSSFIRE" to offer a political point of view.
PATRICK BUCHANAN, FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Are Americans willing to pay in less freedom for more security?
GREENFIELD: Same with these former Clinton aides Paul Begala and James Carville, now of "CROSSFIRE," or one-time Senate candidate, now radio talk show host Ollie North.
It's more or less the same with former Nixon speechwriter, now "New York Times" columnist William Safire. He clearly writes from a conservative perspective, although Safire has aimed plenty of his barbs at Republicans as well as Democrats.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GREENFIELD: Now, is there any hard-and-fast rule here? Is there a statute of limitations, a decontamination period for those making this transition? Not really. Stephanopoulos has been out of politics for more than five years now. And there are still those who will listen to every one of his questions with a very skeptical ear.
There's only one standard I think is clear. If you leave politics for journalism, you can't go back again. After all, you only get one chance to reclaim your virginity -- Judy.
WOODRUFF: All right, one chance. We heard it here.
Jeff Greenfield, thanks very much.
More INSIDE POLITICS straight ahead, including the winners of the Webbys.
But first, let's find out what's coming up on "WOLF BLITZER REPORTS" -- hello, Wolf.
WOLF BLITZER, "WOLF BLITZER REPORTS": Hi, Judy.
CNN has obtained the text of two key warnings intercepted by the National Security Agency the day before the September 11 attacks, warnings that were not translated until the day after the attacks. How safe will Americans be from terrorist attacks on the Fourth of July? We'll tell you about new concerns at the FBI leading up to the holiday. And, just as President Bush was set to announce a new proposal for Middle East peace, the region once again is swept up in turmoil, with another devastating suicide bombing and Israeli retaliation.
All that, much more right after INSIDE POLITICS.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) WOODRUFF: Not that we didn't know it before, but now we know the Internet is truly coming into its own, when those who provide its content begin staging their own award shows. Last night in San Francisco, the Webby Awards were held to honor the best Web sites on the net.
Earlier, we asked our technology correspondent, Daniel Sieberg, to tell us about the nominees for best political Web site.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DANIEL SIEBERG, CNN TECHNOLOGY CORRESPONDENT: Thanks, Judy.
Well, the Oscars, Tonys and Emmys may be more familiar terms in the American lexicon, but that's only because screen, stage and TV have been around much longer than the Internet. Tonight is the sixth annual Webby Awards, presenting the very beset Web sites the Internet has to offer.
There are 30 categories in all, such as fashion, finance, personal Web sites, music, humor and, of course, politics.
Now, here are the five nominees for best political Web site of 2002: the California Voter Foundation at CalVoter.org; the Center for Responsive Politics at OpenSecrets.org -- they were last year's winner, by the way -- The Hill at TheHill.com; Political Moneyline at FEC.com; and, finally, "The Washington Post"'s Online Politics Web site.
Now let's go through each one in a little bit more detail. The first one, as we mentioned off the top, is the California Voter Foundation Web site. This is aimed at giving voters in California much more information, a comprehensive overview of all of the candidates there. In fact, they have got contact information for all 525 presidential, legislative and congressional candidates in the state of California.
The next one is OpenSecrets.org. As I mentioned, this was last year's winner. This is the Center for Responsive Politics Web site. They aim to get information about political contributions at the federal level to anybody out there. You can search on this Web site in a number of different ways: by zip code or where you live. In fact, it used to be a 1,300-page book back in 1988. But they have compressed it on to this Internet Web site.
The next one we will go is The Hill at TheHill.com: all sorts of detail here on what is happening in Washington, with news and events that are happening all over the Hill.
The next one we'll go to quickly is the Political Moneyline Web site at the FEC.com, the Federal Election Commission dot-com. Again, they are trying to get information about where political contributions are going, all sorts of information here in all sorts of detail, and different ways to look it up as well.
Lastly, we'll touch on WashingtonPost.com, the Web site there for the political section. There's all sort of news here. It is updated on a fairly consistent and daily basis, in fact throughout the day. Howard Kurtz has also got a column there. He hosts "RELIABLE SOURCES" on CNN on the weekend. So, there's all sorts of news you can get there as well.
And those are the five political nominees. I wanted to point out how these are decided in terms of who makes these decisions. The members of the International Academy of Digital Arts and Sciences makes this decision based on the information and the nominees that they have for the Webby Awards.
And an interesting sidebar I wanted to point out was that acceptance speeches can only be limited to five words or fewer. Last year's winner from OpenSecrets.org said, "Spy on Washington. It's fun."
(END VIDEOTAPE)
WOODRUFF: And the winner of the Webby this year was the Center for Responsive Politics at OpenSecrets.org. As we just heard, they were the winner last year, too. Congratulations to them. We like all these sites.
That's it for INSIDE POLITICS. I'm Judy Woodruff. "WOLF BLITZER REPORTS" is next.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
