Return to Transcripts main page
American Morning
Look at Democratic Attacks On 9/11 Policy
Aired July 01, 2002 - 08:08 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: Up until now, the war on terror has been pretty much a taboo subject for political debate. But no longer. Two likely presidential candidates are weighing in. You might remember last week Sen. John Kerry criticized the president. And now former Vice President Al Gore has also taken a shot at the way the president is pursuing the war against terrorism.
And to put this all into political perspective, senior political analyst Bill Schneider is up early in Los Angeles.
Nice of you to wake before the crack of dawn for us, Bill -- welcome.
WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: My pleasure.
ZAHN: All right, we want to start off this morning by sharing with our audience a little of what Al Gore had to say when he took full aim at the Bush administration over the weekend. Here is exactly what he told some of his supporters: "They haven't gotten Osama bin Laden. They've refused to allow enough international troops to enter Afghanistan to make sure this country doesn't slide back under the control of these warlords. President Bush has allowed his political team to use this war as a political wedge issue to score political points and divide this nation."
Does this mean Al Gore is running, Bill?
SCHNEIDER: Well, it means he's seriously considering running. I mean he looks, he's doing everything necessary to put himself in a position to run. His wife has said she wants him to run. His daughter said she'd like him to run. I think he's doing everything, so that if he decides to run, he'll be ready.
ZAHN: But how vulnerable is he attacking the administration, particularly at a time when there are some pretty tough editorials out there suggesting that the Clinton administration didn't do all it could to get Osama bin Laden? And in fact, in "the Washington Post" yesterday, there was a piece where it basically said the Clinton administration had a chance to capture Osama bin Laden before he was expelled from Sudan.
Let me put that up on the screen to share with our audience right now. Colin Powell reacted to this and he said: "Well, perhaps, that's what Vice President Gore should have been talking about, what happened on their watch, as opposed to the progress we've made on our watch, not only in Afghanistan, but I would also submit, Sudan."
Is it dangerous for Al Gore to go down this road?
SCHNEIDER: Dangerous and perhaps a little bit foolish. The issue of the war on terrorism is the issue on which President Bush is the least vulnerable, and particularly since, as you just saw with Colin Powell, they can come back and say, well, what did President Clinton do on his watch?
There was a period in 1996 when the government of Sudan was, apparently, willing to turn over Osama bin Laden to the United States. The United States did not accept Osama because we didn't feel as if we could make a legal case against him.
Remember, this was before the sinking of the -- the attack on the USS Cole and long before September 11, 2001. So the question was, well, what would we do with him if we got him? He hadn't committed a crime, although we knew he was conspiring against the United States. So we didn't accept him.
But that's likely to be a tremendous controversy. Again, the question is why is Gore and Kerry, why are they picking this fight? There are a lot of other issues on which President Bush might be vulnerable, domestic issues: prescription drugs, corporate responsibility. Those are the things that Democrats really should be attacking, criticizing him on.
ZAHN: So Bill, why are they using this strategy if you feel in the end it could be dangerous to both of them?
SCHNEIDER: It's a little bit puzzling. The last statement by Vice President Gore was revealing. He accused President Bush's political team of trying to use the war on terrorism as a partisan issue. The point he was making was way back in January, Karl Rove, the president's political strategist, spoke to a Republican National Committee meeting in Texas and said that the Republicans are rated better on the war, the Republicans are seen as the party Americans trust, and they should run on that issue.
Well, that horrified a lot of people, including some Republicans, and I would not say that President Bush has taken up that advice. And so far at least, in this year's midterm campaign, I don't think he's tried to make an issue of the war on terrorism -- that is, a partisan issue -- saying they won't be good in pursuing the war -- we will.
He's tried to use it as an issue that unites the country. For Democrats to try to divide the country on this issue, as Karl Rove suggested to the president, I think it's foolish on either side.
ZAHN: Foolish is one thing. I mean are you out and outright saying that this is a really stupid way for both of them to be going?
SCHNEIDER: I think that's fair. I think this is not an issue that you want to, that you want to run on. Particularly Gore's comment, "We haven't got Osama bin Laden," when his administration could have gotten Osama bin Laden. I mean most Americans don't blame President Bush for not having Osama bin Laden in hand. A lot of people think the war will never be over until we capture him, if only because we think he should be brought to justice.
But the fact is to say, for the Democrats to say we would have gotten Osama, they didn't; somehow that rings false, because they could have during -- way back in 1996.
ZAHN: Well, you were a very smart man to get up with us this morning. No foolish choices here on your side.
Appreciate your joining us on AMERICAN MORNING. We'll let you go back to bed now. He had to get up at about 3:30 to make this appearance.
Take care, Bill. Appreciate your insights, as always.
SCHNEIDER: OK.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
