Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live At Daybreak

America Strikes Back: Bush Warns War Against Terrorism Will Extend Far Beyond Afghanistan

Aired October 10, 2001 - 08:58   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.
BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: President Bush has already warned the war against terrorism will extend far beyond Afghanistan, and spread to other countries that harbor terrorists. Arizona Senator John McCain has outlined some other likely targets.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: Iraq is the first country, but there are others -- Syria, Iran, the Sudan -- who have continued to harbor terrorist organizations, and actually, assist them. I think that we have invoked the U.N. charter as far as every nation's right of self-defense if attacked, and I believe that this is the first step in preparing, if necessary, and I emphasize if necessary, attacks on other country, that may continue to feel that they can with impunity harbor terrorist organization who continue to inflict acts of terror on Americans and our property.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAHN: Two guests now join me for today's "Sound Off." At issue, expanding the war against terrorism to other nations.

Political analyst Bob Beckel joins me from Washington this morning.

BOB BECKEL, POLITICAL ANALYST: Good morning.

ZAHN: And in New York, Robert George, an editorial writer for "The New York Post." Good to have you with us as well, Robert.

Good morning.

ROBERT GEORGE, "THE NEW YORK POST": Good morning.

ZAHN: Good to have you with us as well, Robert, good morning.

All right, Robert, you get to start things off, even though you were running a little bit late this morning.

Should we expand our attacks against other nations?

GEORGE: Most definitely. And I think should we -- any New Yorkers who've had to deal with how the commutes have changed since September 11th might agree.

ZAHN: I know, it's a nightmare out there.

GEORGE: It is a nightmare, as you know. But the fact is, I mean, if we've got some strong credible evidence that, you know, that Iraq is working with Al Qaeda, absolutely. Yesterday, the British intelligence arrested four people in Ireland, some Algerians, Libyans and so forth. If it has been traced back that Libya, for example, was involved, I think you know, most definitely.

George W. Bush clearly said...

ZAHN: Before we go any further, Robert, let's let Bob weigh in on that. Is what he's` saying wrong, Bob?

BECKEL: Partially.

ZAHN: What part?

BECKEL: Well, I'm not sure you go to war because you can't get from Brooklyn to Manhattan in time.

ZAHN: Oh, you're being...

BECKEL: I didn't mind waiting. It was great waiting. I had a long breakfast.

Here is the point about going to war. John McCain outlined it right away when he said Iraq on the top of that list. How were you going to go into Iraq and start another war in Iraq without having some support in the region, which you will not have? You cannot win a war against terrorists by dropping bombs from the air. We know that already. If you could, it would have been over by now. Saudi Arabia won't even let us use planes to attack Afghanistan, let alone going into Iraq again. And the only way of doing that without a base -- I mean, the only thing I can tell you, is without a base to, put land troops in. Without land troops, you can't do it. Without base to put land troops in, you've got to have a hell of a lot of parachutes.

ZAHN: Robert, weigh in on that, on the question of Iraq specifically, what kind of campaign can you conduct?

GEORGE: Well, what Bob has outlined there, one problem is political and one problem is tactical. I mean, obviously, I don't think we are going to commit our military, and if we, you know, if we can't do it tactically, we are only going to do it if it is feasible, feasible militarily. Now politically, obviously, Powell and everybody else is going to have to work on those alliances to convince them that it that it is important, but I don't see the United States, just the United States and Britain doing this unilaterally.

ZAHN: All right, let's move on to issue of Syria. That is a country that Senator McCain mentioned yesterday, Bob, a country which has just won a seat, a nonpermanent seat, I might add, on the U.N. Security Council. Do you see that as a possible scenario? BECKEL: I think it's probably the most single dangerous scenario I can imagine, and the reason for that is not that Syria does not harbor terrorists. We know they do, both in Syria and in Lebanon, but if the United States were to attack Syria, you are back into a new Middle East war, including Israel, and that's the problem here. I mean, look, we have known for a long time that Syria has been harboring terrorists. Have we gone in dope anything about it? No. We have known that they have been doing in Iraq. We didn't go into Iraq to take care of terrorists. We went into Iraq to get them out of Kuwait.

And I must say this about, you know, you can look back now. It's easy to be a revisionists. Wait a minute, it now takes two generations of Bushes to get rid of Saddam Hussein? I mean, maybe we wait for his grandkids, I don't know.

GEORGE: Well, I know that there are a lot of people who were hoping that Bill Clinton could have finished the job, but unfortunately we are where we are. I mean, you know, it is -- you're absolutely right, Syria has been doing this. The difference now, obviously, has been, there's American bloodshed on American soil, and it's reached a level that it has to be finished. It has to be ended.

BECKEL: You know what I find amazing about conservatives, is that they will find anything to blame Clinton on now. I mean, now you are saying that it's Clinton's fault...

(CROSSTALK)

GEORGE: I'm sorry, Bob, you were the one who said it took two generation of Bushes. I didn't want to bring up Mr. Clinton.

ZAHN: Bob, all right, Bob, now that you brought up the issue of Mr. Clinton, OK, bob let me ask you this, what more could Clinton have done? I mean, you can't be completely satisfied with his record on wiping out terrorism.

BECKEL: No, I think -- well, no, I'm not at all satisfied with anybody's record. I don't think it is easy either. I commend Bush for what he has done so far. He has done a magnificent job. Now that is difficult for me to say as you know, Paula, but I admire what he has done in Clinton's case.

ZAHN: Going very far I know.

BECKEL: In Clinton's case, there was clear and compelling evidence that bin Laden was responsible for our embassy attacks in Afghan. And what did we do? We sent cruise missiles in from a long distance away, and that was it. There should have been a more concentrated plan to do something about Afghanistan.

Now the reality is, I mean I hate it, but you know me, I'm fairly blunt about these things, does anybody for a minute believe that this would be going on today if it wasn't for the magnitude of what happened on September 11th? We didn't decide to go into the rest of the world looking for terrorists after the USS Cole when we lost 17 sailors. We didn't do it after Somalia. The fact is that these people will go down in history as not only martyrs, but finally giving the world an opportunity to come together to (UNINTELLIGIBLE) terrorism, but that doesn't mean invading a country like Syria. I mean, you're talking about the difference between Afghanistan is like attack the Boy Scouts versus attacking the Green Berets. I mean, people...

GEORGE: Well, that's exactly right, but Bush said when he gave his speech to the nation, we are going after the terrorists and the states that harbor them. For him to back down now would send a signal that, you know, the United States has no resolve at all.

ZAHN: Gentlemen, I want to move on to another subject here, briefly, and that is the subject of all the furor over the release of classified information, allegedly by a congressperson to member of the press.

Bob, what should American public have access to? Should they know they face a great risk of terrorist attack, if that is the information that is on that he table?

BECKEL: Oh, sure, of course they should, but you know, when I was in the Carter White House, I had a very high-level security clearance, believe it or not, and the reason for that was that I had to carry intelligence information to the hill, the intelligence committees, the House and the Senate. A lot of the stuff we are talking about here has to do with operations and tactics and informants, and there is no reason in the world why the American people, or for that matter the press need to know anything about any of those things. I think Bush was exactly right.

The frustration we felt, and you've got to remember, it was in our administration, in '79, we put the first stinger missiles in Afghanistan. We infiltrated Afghanistan and sent CIA operatives in. I think I'm getting pretty close to my security clearance here. But the point was that was going on and Congress needed to know about it, we told them about it, and then it leaked. And we put some of our people in some in harm's way as a result of it. Members of Congress...

ZAHN: Robert...

BECKEL: You know, it is like, you know, Mice, they just can't seem to not keep running around chattering all the time, you know.

ZAHN: Robert, you get the final word this morning, and you've got to do it briefly for me please.

GEORGE: I was just going to say I agree completely with Bob. I think think a lot of our members of Congress have to realize that political leaks are part of the of the game in peacetime, but when you're in wartime, you can't get away with that.

ZAHN: All Right, Bob Beckel, Robert George, good to have the two of you with us. Appreciate it.

GEORGE: Thanks, Paula.

BECKEL: Glad you made it Robert.

ZAHN: You actually agreed on something. He is glad he made it, too. It is tough out there, Bob. You don't know, because you don't live here.

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