Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

Sen. Lott Says Sen. Daschle Diverting Attention from Economic Package; Sound Off: Is Afghanistan Just the Beginning?

Aired November 28, 2001 - 08:46   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.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: President Bush delivered a message to Saddam Hussein: Let weapons inspectors back into Iraq or else. Was that a threat to expand the war against terrorism? With mounting military success in Afghanistan, we're already hearing about other possibly targets in the Middle East, even in Africa. So is Afghanistan just the beginning?

Joining us now from Iraq, Bob Beckel.

(LAUGHTER)

I think you're in Washington this morning.

BOB BECKEL, DEMOCRATIC POLITICAL STRATEGIST: I forget my cage back here. Maybe I'll just change clothes here, it's a little bit cold.

ZAHN: No, you certainly aren't of the "Flinstone (ph)" era. The man is from Washington this morning, democratic political strategist.

Cliff May, former communications director for the Republican National Committee.

Hey, Cliff, where are you? Are you in Washington, too?

CLIFF MAY, FMR. RNC COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: I'm in Kabul, and it's much nicer since the liberation, let me tell you.

(LAUGHTER)

ZAHN: Welcome, gentlemen.

MAY: Thank you.

ZAHN: Now we can see all three of us, ta-da, the miracle of TV.

So what did you make of the president's reference, Cliff, to Saddam Hussein understanding what the president meant. He'll see.

MAY: This is a president who says what he means and means what he says.

ZAHN: What do you think he means? MAY: He means that if Saddam Hussein does not allow inspectors to come back in the country -- he agreed to that at the end of the Gulf War, and he kicked them out three years ago, and in that time, he's been producing weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons, possibly chemical, biological, disease bombs. If the weapons inspectors can't come back in, then yes, phase two of the war on terrorism probably has to target Iraq.

ZAHN: You would support that?

MAY: I think it's absolutely necessary that we -- there has to be phase two in this war. We are cutting off one important tentacle of the terrorist octopus right now, but that doesn't save us from the embrace. Terrorism exists in a lot of countries.

The State Department's leading country of concern as a sponsor of terrorism and as a country that's producing weapons of mass destruction is Iraq. Saddam Hussein is making these weapons. Who do you think he's going to use them against? We have do more than punish terrorism after the fact. We have to prevent terrorism, and that means we have got to go in there, find out where the weapons of mass destruction are being produced, we've got to find out what terrorist training is going on -- that's happening there, too -- and we've got to wipe it out, unless Saddam Hussein will be enlightened and say I'm going to stop doing that, because now I know for the first time that the Americans are serious, and they will do to me what they did to Taliban in Afghanistan. Other countries need to understand that, too.

ZAHN: If the Iraqi response, Bob Beckel, is indicative of where Saddam Hussein continues to react, we're back where we've always been, Bob Beckel, aren't we? He basically said yesterday, you know, leave me alone, forget it.

BECKEL: Yes, you're right. Well, let me just say that Cliff being such a great patriot, I want him to volunteer, and I will be back here every week writing him a letter while he's in Iraq.

The idea of going into Iraq right after Afghanistan is about as crazy an idea as the Russians have when they invaded Afghanistan. The fact of the matter is, the fastest way to break this coalition apart. You know, the first one to go? It will be the Russians, because they do business with Iraq. The French, who will do business with anybody, and you are going to get dissension all through the Muslim world, which we've been working hard, and I think quite successfully at sort of tamping down.

The other question is, where are you going to invade from? I mean, the Saudis aren't going to do it this time, because last time they had a threat on their border. The Kuwaitis, you know, the rich amirs just got all their mansions back together. They don't want to start that again. You can't come in from -- I mean, wait a second, Cliff, let me just say something to you, pal, I always enjoyed your intellectual discussions about foreign policy and this issue.

Let me give you what I think the average person on the street believes, and that is, you go into Iraq -- we should have done this 10 years ago, and what's behind this more than anything else by the right wing, in this case partial right wing, is that they didn't do it, and they've haunted them, when George Bush didn't go to Baghdad to get to Saddam Hussein.

ZAHN: Come on, Bob, you know, Bob, Bob, you've heard President Bush tell me in a number of interviews, and you were with me at CBS, that that was never part of the mission and the coalition would have fallen apart.

BECKEL: I don't deny -- I mean, they're probably are a lot of reasons that I don't know about. But my point is, that among the conservative movement, that have always viewed that unfinished business. It's been a fight -- this fight is going on, which I'm glad to see.

MAY: Let me get a word in edgewise here. The unfinished business is war against terrorism, and the war against terrorism will not be...

ZAHN: Will you please answer directly the question Bob posed about how you go in and how you'd even accomplish this, and how you'd keep the coalition together and where Russia and where Saudi Arabia would be on this.

MAY: Two important points -- one the chorus we are hearing from Bob about how impossible this is to do about a month ago we were hearing in Afghanistan about how you can't do this in Afghanistan. The Russians got defeated, the British got defeated, it's going to be so terrible, the Taliban is so mighty. We heard this one. Bush, the first President Bush, wanted to have the Gulf Warm, and everybody said, you can't do that, there's going to be so many body bags, we can't beat them. We hear this every time, and it's not true.

There are 75,000 Kurdish warriors in the north who are ready to fight Saddam Hussein. There are the Shiites in the South who are ready to fight Saddam Hussein. They will feel liberated, the people of Iraq. They are oppressed just as people of Kabul, the people of Konduz. The people Afghanistan now feel liberated. If we have to help the opposition throw off Saddam Hussein -- do we need to do that? We probably do, because as you said, Paula, he does not appear to be willing to allow his country to be -- to allow himself to be declawed.

We have to stop terrorism. And the key place right now, as far we know, is Iraq. There are other places as well. If we are not going to them, what's going to happen is this -- we are going to have thousands of Americans killed and another September 11th, and after that, my friend Bob Beckel and others will say, I guess we do have to do that maybe, or maybe they'll say as they did in Afghanistan, well, let's put them all on trial.

ZAHN: All right, Bob, you get the final word, and you get about six seconds worth.

BECKEL: All right, it's only six seconds.

Cliff, if they had biological weapons in January and George Bush took office and all these things were being done in Iraq, why didn't we invade them then?

MAY: Let's get rid of the biological weapons as soon as we could.

(CROSSTALK)

BECKEL: We've been trying for a decade. It didn't work.

MAY: Let's do it now,.

BECKEL: I don't want you to be the first parachutist in there, because I'm going to support you 100 percent.

MAY: If you agree we should do it, then the only question is how we do it.

BECKEL: I don't agree we should do it. I think it's a nutty idea.

MAY: We're going to let these guys develop weapons to kill us?

ZAHN: So how about if I bring the two of you back. We bring the two of you back later this week, and we'll talk about the prospect of hitting Somalia and perhaps Yemen.

BECKEL: There you go. Something like Grenada, someplace really serious, where we can have a battle.

MAY: Like Afghanistan, like the Persian Gulf.

ZAHN: He's telling us how he really thinks.

Bob Beckel, Cliff May, thanks for your time, appreciate you both sounding off.

MAY: Thanks, Paula.

ZAHN: Maybe we'll see you later on in the week.

Time now, though, to make another stop in Washington. House and Senate leader have just finished their weekly breakfast meeting with President Bush.

We are joined now by Senate Minority leader Republican Trent Lott.

Welcome back. How are you doing, this morning, sir?

SEN. TRENT LOTT (R-MS), SENATE MINORITY LEADER: I'm doing fine, Paula. I thought I was going to have to help you referee there for a minute.

ZAHN: Yes, I might have needed your help there at one point. That Bob. Bob and Cliff can behave pretty badly there.

LOTT: They were great. They were great. ZAHN: I don't know how much opportunity you had to read the papers this morning, but within the context of your meeting with President Bush, I wanted to throw out something that "The Wall Street Journal" said about the Democratic side. It basically accused Tom Daschle of conducting -- quote -- "his own guerrilla warfare against Mr. Bush, blocking the president's agenda at every turn, and so far, he's getting away with it." And it goes on to say, "This all adds to the suspicion that Mr. Daschle only too happy to see no stimulus bill at all." Is that analysis fair?

LOTT: Well, our discussion...

ZAHN: Is that the way you see it?

LOTT: This morning, we had good discussion with the president. Of course, a lot of time was spent talking about the events in Afghanistan and security abroad and at home, but we did talk about the domestic issues. And our approach, at least my approach, is that we are at war, and we need to move the Department of Defense appropriation bill as soon as possible to provide the funds and necessary for our men and women in uniform on the front right now and that are using very sophisticated equipment to get the job finished there in Afghanistan.

But we also have a problem with the economy. We need to do something to help stimulate economic growth and job's creation. We need to be helpful to those that have lost their jobs by improvements and unemployment compensation. We need to find a way to get the stimulus package done. So far in the Senate, you know the Democrats have not been able or willing to move in a way that we can get a bipartisan bill, and that's what we should be trying to do.

ZAHN: What is the biggest hang up from?

LOTT: Well the biggest hold up...

ZAHN: The 15 million in homeland security that the Republicans don't want?

LOTT: It's more than that. When you add the $15 billion Senator Byrd wanted for so-called homeland security which has not been requested and which was not considered any committees, to what was already in the finance committee that was supported on a party-line vote, of the some $70-plus billion. Fifty one of it was on the spending side. And a lot of that, while it might be meritorious, is not going to have an economic growth effect on the economy. That's what we need to do. So what I think we should focus on -- we're at war. We're on the edge of a cusp. What do you need to know? We need to address those problems, and we do it this week or next week, and we need to find a way to get it done.

I think what came out of that meeting with the president this morning is, again, we're looking for ways to make it happen. We have procedural problems, we have substantive problems, but the best thing we could do for the people in the Christmas season is to send them the gift of an economic growth package that helps the unemployed and those who need health insurance, but also stimulate the economy and creates jobs. We ought to do that and the defense bill and say merry Christmas.

ZAHN: In the meantime you, of course, have to deal with the ugliness of the politics. And I know maybe you didn't want to touch this the first time around. But is Senator Daschle conducting guerrilla warfare as "The Wall Street Journal" charges, in obstructing the president's agenda.

LOTT: Well, what bothers me, for instance, while we have these two emergency things, the defense of our country and economic condition of the country, Senator Daschle is trying to turn the Senate away from the stimulus package to take up a railroad retirement bill, which, you know, may need to be considered in regular order, but the finance committee has had it before it all year, and has not even had a hearing. Then he wants to go to an agriculture bill that is highly controversial, and obviously while obviously the farm economy is important to this country, both of those are issues that have not expired and we can do next year. We should be focusing on the stimulus for the economy and the defense that -- funds that are needed for men and women. So the fact is...

ZAHN: I just need a quick answer to this. They're saying Tom Daschle doesn't want a stimulus bill because he wants you guys to get blamed for the bad economy. Is that what his strategy is?

LOTT: Well, you know, the proof will be in the pudding. If we don't get a stimulus bill, you know, it will be at the feet of the Democrats and Senator Daschle in the Senate. If we do, then the American people will be the winners. That's the solution, do the job. And we've have two weeks to do it.

ZAHN: Got to leave it there this morning. Senator Lott, thanks for letting us catch you there as you came from the meeting.

LOTT: OK, thank you.

ZAHN: Look forward to talking to you in the next couple of weeks.

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