Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Today
More Challenges for Rebuilding Iraq
Aired December 12, 2003 - 10:32 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.
HEIDI COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: The challenges of rebuilding Iraq come in many forms, political, economic, and now military. About 300 of the 700 members of the newly formed Iraqi army have already resigned in the latest obstacle to the administration's goal of returning the country to Iraqi control.
We have two policy experts to debate Iraqi reconstruction. Frank Gaffney is the founder and president of the Center Security Policy. Mr. Gaffney, thanks for being here.
FRANK GAFFNEY, CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY: Pleasure, thank you.
COLLINS: And Gayle Smith is a senior fellow at the Center for American progress. Good afternoon to you as well. Actually, good morning still. Thanks for being with us, both of you, joining us from Washington today.
I want to begin, if we could, with a little bit of sound from President Bush that kind of boils down his logic for this latest decision. Let's listen in.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It's very simple, our people risked their lives. Coalition -- friendly coalition folks risked their lives. And therefore the contracting is going to reflect that. And that's what the U.S. taxpayers expect.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Mr. Gaffney, I'll begin with you. Is this logic going to hold water?
GAFFNEY: Well I think it's impeccable logic. The president has, I think, faced a difficult choice. Is he going to make the French, Russian and the Germans happy when they have done so much to make our efforts to liberate the people of Iraq difficult. In fact, tried to do everything they could to prevent us from doing it.
Or is he going to make sure the American people, who are the providers of this money, are assured that the money is being spent on and with and by people who are supportive of this effort to liberate Iraq?
It's also important to note that these folks who are squealing like stuck pigs have an opportunity to participate at every level other than the prime contractor level in these difficult reconstruction tasks. We're welcoming them to do so. We're welcoming them to provide their own money to do.
(CROSSTALK)
COLLINS: ... let me ask you about the 13 million of international donations. What about the other countries bidding for those contracts as well?
GAYLE SMITH, CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS: Well, they can bid for those contracts. But I think this $18 billion in U.S. money is significant and this move by the Bush administration sets us back significantly.
COLLINS: How so?
SMITH: I would argue that it's not in taxpayers interest to do anything but to bid those contracts based on merit. The companies that can do the most effect job, the most efficient job on the ground should win the contracts.
I think we have already seen today in the case of Halliburton that there we've got a U.S. company that hasn't been as efficient as it probably should have been. And in this case I think to exclude those that didn't agree with the United States in the past is to look backwards rather than of forwards.
COLLINS: Mr. Gaffney?
GAFFNEY: Well on the Halliburton case I think we ought to reserve judgment until we see what the explanations are for the costs that have been (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
But you also have to remember that what they did, Halliburton, was respond on an emergency basis to critical infrastructure needs and providing fuel for both our forces and the civilian population of Iraq when there really wasn't anybody else to do it. The French weren't lining up to do it, the Russians weren't lining up to do it, the Germans weren't lining up to do it.
These contracts can still be awarded on the basis of merit. The question is, will they under present circumstances go to people who are not with the program? I think that's the thing.
This isn't looking back. Even today the French, the Russian and Germans are not supporting what we're trying to do in consolidating a free and stable Iraq. They are still trying to sabotage it in a variety of ways. And that's what the problem here, not our refusal to give them American tax dollars despite it.
COLLINS: Miss Smith, on the note, let me ask you about Canada. As we all know, Canada was also included in this. But Canada has pledged about $300 million to Iraq and also has the largest contingent of foreign troops there. What's your feeling about that?
SMITH: Well I think it's extraordinary that Canada should be excluded. Canada's been a leader around the world for years and an ally of the United State for decades. Canada and Germany have troops on the ground in Afghanistan. Canada, as you point out, has contributed to the reconstruction. Excluding them is just an affront and an embarrassment, quite frankly. And it serves no interest in terms of our longer term goals of securing more troops and more assistance for the reconstruction so that, indeed, the burden to U.S. taxpayers is reduced.
COLLINS: Miss Smith, who should get these contracts?
SMITH: I think these contracts should be awarded on the basis of merit with obvious exclusions. Obviously, a country like North Korea or something like that would be ridiculous.
But countries should be able to compete. And those who can provide the most effective plans and projects and do it most efficiently, would, I think, serve our interest and those of the Iraqi people, as well.
COLLINS: All right, let's for talk a moment, if we could, about Jim Bakker. As you know he was appointed last week as President Bush's personal envoy and is going to leave on Monday to visit all of the countries that oppose the war as well as Italy and Britain. How is that trip going to go now? Will be more challenging, Mr. Gaffney?
GAFFNEY: Well, Jim Bakker is obviously a skilled dealmaker. And my guess is that he will be able to use this as leverage. And I don't know that that's what is afoot here. You're intro piece sort of suggested that there's a compromise that might arise if these governments in fact do what they should do anyway, which is reschedule if not forgive this debt that Saddam Hussein created and is now being afflicted upon the Iraqi people.
If they do that, conceivably, Jim Bakker may be able to say, Well, all right, we'll let you in on a piece of the prime contractor action.
But I just want to come back to this main point. These countries, Russia, France and Germany still are not with the program. And I don't think we ought to do this as some sort of matter or noblesse oblige to give people in a wartime environment -- you know every other story you're running is about the mortar shells and the people being killed.
This is a dangerous environment. We need people who want to be there, who want to help us consolidate freedom and who are with the program. Those countries so far have not been.
COLLINS: But what about the $25 billion that is still needed, according to foreign contributions to meet that requirement by the World Bank. Where is that money going to come from if we don't look to all of these different countries for help?
GAFFNEY: Well if they are with the program, as I say, if they are committed to helping the Iraqi people survive this horror of Saddam Hussein, and secure a free and peaceable and stable future, they should be offering their own money to help with this reconstruction.
They certainly should be approving the World Bank loans and I would hope that they would relieve Iraqi people of this Saddam overhang of debt. Those are things that I think are in their interest as well as duty.
COLLINS: Miss Smith, I'm going to give you the last word here.
SMITH: I think it's extraordinary to suggest that countries that have committed their sons and daughters to Afghanistan are somehow not with the program.
GAFFNEY: In Iraq.
SMITH: Frank, there have been disagreements with the United States in Iraq.
GAFFNEY: True.
SMITH: Iraq is not the only place on Earth, quite frankly. And I think that if you look at what these countries are doing around the world and with us we need them as allies.
Insult is not the best way to get people to agree with us and to cooperate with us. It's much more important that we be constructive in our diplomacy and seek to serve our interests and their interests by ensuring that we don't have to foot an enormous bill over the next couple of years by ourselves.
(CROSSTALK)
GAFFNEY: ... bad behavior is not the best answer either.
COLLINS: Unfortunately, that is going to have to be the last word. We appreciate the both of you being with us today. Frank Gaffney...
(CROSSTALK)
COLLINS: ... Center for Security Policy and Gale Smith, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, once again, thank you both.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Aired December 12, 2003 - 10:32 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
HEIDI COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: The challenges of rebuilding Iraq come in many forms, political, economic, and now military. About 300 of the 700 members of the newly formed Iraqi army have already resigned in the latest obstacle to the administration's goal of returning the country to Iraqi control.
We have two policy experts to debate Iraqi reconstruction. Frank Gaffney is the founder and president of the Center Security Policy. Mr. Gaffney, thanks for being here.
FRANK GAFFNEY, CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY: Pleasure, thank you.
COLLINS: And Gayle Smith is a senior fellow at the Center for American progress. Good afternoon to you as well. Actually, good morning still. Thanks for being with us, both of you, joining us from Washington today.
I want to begin, if we could, with a little bit of sound from President Bush that kind of boils down his logic for this latest decision. Let's listen in.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It's very simple, our people risked their lives. Coalition -- friendly coalition folks risked their lives. And therefore the contracting is going to reflect that. And that's what the U.S. taxpayers expect.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Mr. Gaffney, I'll begin with you. Is this logic going to hold water?
GAFFNEY: Well I think it's impeccable logic. The president has, I think, faced a difficult choice. Is he going to make the French, Russian and the Germans happy when they have done so much to make our efforts to liberate the people of Iraq difficult. In fact, tried to do everything they could to prevent us from doing it.
Or is he going to make sure the American people, who are the providers of this money, are assured that the money is being spent on and with and by people who are supportive of this effort to liberate Iraq?
It's also important to note that these folks who are squealing like stuck pigs have an opportunity to participate at every level other than the prime contractor level in these difficult reconstruction tasks. We're welcoming them to do so. We're welcoming them to provide their own money to do.
(CROSSTALK)
COLLINS: ... let me ask you about the 13 million of international donations. What about the other countries bidding for those contracts as well?
GAYLE SMITH, CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS: Well, they can bid for those contracts. But I think this $18 billion in U.S. money is significant and this move by the Bush administration sets us back significantly.
COLLINS: How so?
SMITH: I would argue that it's not in taxpayers interest to do anything but to bid those contracts based on merit. The companies that can do the most effect job, the most efficient job on the ground should win the contracts.
I think we have already seen today in the case of Halliburton that there we've got a U.S. company that hasn't been as efficient as it probably should have been. And in this case I think to exclude those that didn't agree with the United States in the past is to look backwards rather than of forwards.
COLLINS: Mr. Gaffney?
GAFFNEY: Well on the Halliburton case I think we ought to reserve judgment until we see what the explanations are for the costs that have been (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
But you also have to remember that what they did, Halliburton, was respond on an emergency basis to critical infrastructure needs and providing fuel for both our forces and the civilian population of Iraq when there really wasn't anybody else to do it. The French weren't lining up to do it, the Russians weren't lining up to do it, the Germans weren't lining up to do it.
These contracts can still be awarded on the basis of merit. The question is, will they under present circumstances go to people who are not with the program? I think that's the thing.
This isn't looking back. Even today the French, the Russian and Germans are not supporting what we're trying to do in consolidating a free and stable Iraq. They are still trying to sabotage it in a variety of ways. And that's what the problem here, not our refusal to give them American tax dollars despite it.
COLLINS: Miss Smith, on the note, let me ask you about Canada. As we all know, Canada was also included in this. But Canada has pledged about $300 million to Iraq and also has the largest contingent of foreign troops there. What's your feeling about that?
SMITH: Well I think it's extraordinary that Canada should be excluded. Canada's been a leader around the world for years and an ally of the United State for decades. Canada and Germany have troops on the ground in Afghanistan. Canada, as you point out, has contributed to the reconstruction. Excluding them is just an affront and an embarrassment, quite frankly. And it serves no interest in terms of our longer term goals of securing more troops and more assistance for the reconstruction so that, indeed, the burden to U.S. taxpayers is reduced.
COLLINS: Miss Smith, who should get these contracts?
SMITH: I think these contracts should be awarded on the basis of merit with obvious exclusions. Obviously, a country like North Korea or something like that would be ridiculous.
But countries should be able to compete. And those who can provide the most effective plans and projects and do it most efficiently, would, I think, serve our interest and those of the Iraqi people, as well.
COLLINS: All right, let's for talk a moment, if we could, about Jim Bakker. As you know he was appointed last week as President Bush's personal envoy and is going to leave on Monday to visit all of the countries that oppose the war as well as Italy and Britain. How is that trip going to go now? Will be more challenging, Mr. Gaffney?
GAFFNEY: Well, Jim Bakker is obviously a skilled dealmaker. And my guess is that he will be able to use this as leverage. And I don't know that that's what is afoot here. You're intro piece sort of suggested that there's a compromise that might arise if these governments in fact do what they should do anyway, which is reschedule if not forgive this debt that Saddam Hussein created and is now being afflicted upon the Iraqi people.
If they do that, conceivably, Jim Bakker may be able to say, Well, all right, we'll let you in on a piece of the prime contractor action.
But I just want to come back to this main point. These countries, Russia, France and Germany still are not with the program. And I don't think we ought to do this as some sort of matter or noblesse oblige to give people in a wartime environment -- you know every other story you're running is about the mortar shells and the people being killed.
This is a dangerous environment. We need people who want to be there, who want to help us consolidate freedom and who are with the program. Those countries so far have not been.
COLLINS: But what about the $25 billion that is still needed, according to foreign contributions to meet that requirement by the World Bank. Where is that money going to come from if we don't look to all of these different countries for help?
GAFFNEY: Well if they are with the program, as I say, if they are committed to helping the Iraqi people survive this horror of Saddam Hussein, and secure a free and peaceable and stable future, they should be offering their own money to help with this reconstruction.
They certainly should be approving the World Bank loans and I would hope that they would relieve Iraqi people of this Saddam overhang of debt. Those are things that I think are in their interest as well as duty.
COLLINS: Miss Smith, I'm going to give you the last word here.
SMITH: I think it's extraordinary to suggest that countries that have committed their sons and daughters to Afghanistan are somehow not with the program.
GAFFNEY: In Iraq.
SMITH: Frank, there have been disagreements with the United States in Iraq.
GAFFNEY: True.
SMITH: Iraq is not the only place on Earth, quite frankly. And I think that if you look at what these countries are doing around the world and with us we need them as allies.
Insult is not the best way to get people to agree with us and to cooperate with us. It's much more important that we be constructive in our diplomacy and seek to serve our interests and their interests by ensuring that we don't have to foot an enormous bill over the next couple of years by ourselves.
(CROSSTALK)
GAFFNEY: ... bad behavior is not the best answer either.
COLLINS: Unfortunately, that is going to have to be the last word. We appreciate the both of you being with us today. Frank Gaffney...
(CROSSTALK)
COLLINS: ... Center for Security Policy and Gale Smith, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, once again, thank you both.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
