Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

Bush May Get Congressional Mandate Soon

Aired September 19, 2002 - 08:16   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: The Bush administration wants a mandate from Congress. They want it soon. They'll possibly get it within two weeks, too, apparently. That's the word from D.C. For more military action against Baghdad, even though Iraq says it would cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors.
Our senior political analyst, Jeff Greenfield, now says the political debate in Washington about whether or not the U.S. goes to war now is well shaped in a conflict 30 years ago.

Good morning.

JEFF GREENFIELD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good morning.

It really is remarkable how the lingering effects of the Vietnam War are still with us. And it shows up in the Iraq debate on the whole question of whether or not, as some skeptics are saying, that the most enthusiastic advocates of move into Iraq themselves never saw any military action, particularly in Vietnam, while those who are skeptical did.

Now, Chuck Hagel, who is a conservative Republican from Nebraska, has raised this question most pointedly in talking about Richard Pearl, who's a major hawk. He chairs the Defense Department's defense policy board. He said, and this is a quote, "Maybe Mr. Pearl would like to be in the first wave of those who go into Baghdad." Richard Pearl had an academic deferment. Chuck Hagel has two Purple Hearts. He almost died in Vietnam.

And then you have General Anthony Zinni, in command of the, he commanded the Central Command. He was President Bush's envoy to the Middle East most recently. And he said recently, it's a quote, "It's pretty interesting," General Zinni said, "that all the generals see it the same way and all the others who have never fired a shot and are hot to go to war see it another."

Now, what they're talking about is that many of the most -- and I'm using this term simply hawkish folks in the administration -- didn't see military service. Vice President Cheney said once that he had other priorities in the 1960s. I believe he had an academic deferment. Paul Wolfowitz, who is a Defense Department, secretary of defense, a deputy secretary, he didn't serve. Colin Powell, secretary of state, who was seen to be more cautious, clearly a lifetime in the military, saw combat in Vietnam.

And, in fact, there's even a newspaper, the "New Hampshire Gazette," that keeps a tally of what it calls chicken hawks. These are, that's a term meaning people who want to see the United States involved in Iraq but themselves didn't serve. So it's a very hot emotional issue.

HEMMER: How fair is it, though, to from that criticism if you haven't served? Simply because when it comes to conflict, you need all sides of influence and all sorts of perspective. Criticism, is it fair, then, at that point?

GREENFIELD: Well, that's exactly the question that the "New Republic" magazine has asked. That's a magazine that is liberal on domestic policy, tends to be more assertive or hawkish, depending on what term you like, on military affairs, particularly with Iraq. And they have said look, in the 1990s, the civilians were right about using American forces in the Balkans and the generals were wrong.

And this raises a much broader point, Bill. The fact that you were a combat soldier or sailor or airman doesn't really mean that you have strategic insights better than people who never served. What it does do, I think, though, what it does show is that it's very helpful, particularly if you're a skeptic on military action, to have been in combat, because it protects you from the charge that you're somehow weak or you don't want to use American forces.

I mean John Kerry, the senator from Massachusetts, who has raised some questions about Iraq, this man has a Silver Star for combat service in Vietnam. So nobody's going to argue about John Kerry or Chuck Hagel, ah, you guys are wimps.

HEMMER: Keep it in D.C. and go specifically to Capitol Hill. How much of the political debate right now is entering into the whole Iraqi debate and where do you see it?

GREENFIELD: I think we are starting to see this in the midterm elections in a very interesting way. Everybody, I mentioned this last week on this show, everybody wants to be sure that they're not seen to be playing politics with this issue.

HEMMER: It has hurt some in the past.

GREENFIELD: Yes.

HEMMER: In fact, 12 years ago.

GREENFIELD: Right. Exactly. But, you've got two factors. One, back in 1991, 47 Democrats in the Senate and the majority of Democrats in the House voted against the use of force resolution for the first President Bush, including people like Senator Kerry, Congressman Gephardt, most of the wannabes, presidential wannabes. Joe Lieberman is one of the few who did vote for the use of force.

And what you're seeing in political campaigns now are ads that some Republicans are using not attacking the Democrats on Iraq, but attacking them on votes, for instance, to cut the defense budget and arguing that they were insufficiently committed to a strong defense.

On the other hand, in a state like Georgia, where Senator Max Cleland is running for reelection, this man lost an arm and a leg in Vietnam. It's going to be very hard to attack him no matter what his votes were.

HEMMER: Quite possible we'll see a vote within two weeks.

We will stand by and see.

Thank you, Jeff.

GREENFIELD: 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






Aired September 19, 2002 - 08:16   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: The Bush administration wants a mandate from Congress. They want it soon. They'll possibly get it within two weeks, too, apparently. That's the word from D.C. For more military action against Baghdad, even though Iraq says it would cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors.
Our senior political analyst, Jeff Greenfield, now says the political debate in Washington about whether or not the U.S. goes to war now is well shaped in a conflict 30 years ago.

Good morning.

JEFF GREENFIELD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good morning.

It really is remarkable how the lingering effects of the Vietnam War are still with us. And it shows up in the Iraq debate on the whole question of whether or not, as some skeptics are saying, that the most enthusiastic advocates of move into Iraq themselves never saw any military action, particularly in Vietnam, while those who are skeptical did.

Now, Chuck Hagel, who is a conservative Republican from Nebraska, has raised this question most pointedly in talking about Richard Pearl, who's a major hawk. He chairs the Defense Department's defense policy board. He said, and this is a quote, "Maybe Mr. Pearl would like to be in the first wave of those who go into Baghdad." Richard Pearl had an academic deferment. Chuck Hagel has two Purple Hearts. He almost died in Vietnam.

And then you have General Anthony Zinni, in command of the, he commanded the Central Command. He was President Bush's envoy to the Middle East most recently. And he said recently, it's a quote, "It's pretty interesting," General Zinni said, "that all the generals see it the same way and all the others who have never fired a shot and are hot to go to war see it another."

Now, what they're talking about is that many of the most -- and I'm using this term simply hawkish folks in the administration -- didn't see military service. Vice President Cheney said once that he had other priorities in the 1960s. I believe he had an academic deferment. Paul Wolfowitz, who is a Defense Department, secretary of defense, a deputy secretary, he didn't serve. Colin Powell, secretary of state, who was seen to be more cautious, clearly a lifetime in the military, saw combat in Vietnam.

And, in fact, there's even a newspaper, the "New Hampshire Gazette," that keeps a tally of what it calls chicken hawks. These are, that's a term meaning people who want to see the United States involved in Iraq but themselves didn't serve. So it's a very hot emotional issue.

HEMMER: How fair is it, though, to from that criticism if you haven't served? Simply because when it comes to conflict, you need all sides of influence and all sorts of perspective. Criticism, is it fair, then, at that point?

GREENFIELD: Well, that's exactly the question that the "New Republic" magazine has asked. That's a magazine that is liberal on domestic policy, tends to be more assertive or hawkish, depending on what term you like, on military affairs, particularly with Iraq. And they have said look, in the 1990s, the civilians were right about using American forces in the Balkans and the generals were wrong.

And this raises a much broader point, Bill. The fact that you were a combat soldier or sailor or airman doesn't really mean that you have strategic insights better than people who never served. What it does do, I think, though, what it does show is that it's very helpful, particularly if you're a skeptic on military action, to have been in combat, because it protects you from the charge that you're somehow weak or you don't want to use American forces.

I mean John Kerry, the senator from Massachusetts, who has raised some questions about Iraq, this man has a Silver Star for combat service in Vietnam. So nobody's going to argue about John Kerry or Chuck Hagel, ah, you guys are wimps.

HEMMER: Keep it in D.C. and go specifically to Capitol Hill. How much of the political debate right now is entering into the whole Iraqi debate and where do you see it?

GREENFIELD: I think we are starting to see this in the midterm elections in a very interesting way. Everybody, I mentioned this last week on this show, everybody wants to be sure that they're not seen to be playing politics with this issue.

HEMMER: It has hurt some in the past.

GREENFIELD: Yes.

HEMMER: In fact, 12 years ago.

GREENFIELD: Right. Exactly. But, you've got two factors. One, back in 1991, 47 Democrats in the Senate and the majority of Democrats in the House voted against the use of force resolution for the first President Bush, including people like Senator Kerry, Congressman Gephardt, most of the wannabes, presidential wannabes. Joe Lieberman is one of the few who did vote for the use of force.

And what you're seeing in political campaigns now are ads that some Republicans are using not attacking the Democrats on Iraq, but attacking them on votes, for instance, to cut the defense budget and arguing that they were insufficiently committed to a strong defense.

On the other hand, in a state like Georgia, where Senator Max Cleland is running for reelection, this man lost an arm and a leg in Vietnam. It's going to be very hard to attack him no matter what his votes were.

HEMMER: Quite possible we'll see a vote within two weeks.

We will stand by and see.

Thank you, Jeff.

GREENFIELD: 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