Return to Transcripts main page

On the Story

Did the Powell Mission to the Middle East Fail?

Aired April 20, 2002 - 10:00   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.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We are laying the foundations for peace.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JONATHAN KARL, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: The president defends his Mideast policy under attack. Did the Powell mission fail? Did it galvanize Arab opposition to Israel, and did it undermine the U.S. war on terrorism? We'll talk to U.S. senators about what happened and what's next. Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, updates his earlier criticism of the Republican White House.

And Senators Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, and Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, explain their plan to punish Yasser Arafat from Mideast terrorism.

All just ahead on CNN's SATURDAY EDITION.

Good Morning, California, the rest of the West and our viewers across North America. I'm Jonathan Karl in Washington.

New pressure this week on the U.S. to define its place, not just in the Mideast crisis, but in the world.

As we dive into questions with the senators and other experts, we want to hear from you. Our e-mail address is saturday.edition@cnn.com.

We're waiting for the president's radio address. Senator Arlen Specter, political ally but also occasional sharp critic of the president, is here with us as well. Lots ahead, but first, a news alert.

(NEWSBREAK)

KARL: We're a couple of minutes away from the president's radio address, but first, joining us from Philadelphia is Republican Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.

Senator Specter, welcome to the show.

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER (R), PENNSYLVANIA: Good morning. Nice to be with you, Jonathan.

KARL: I wanted to start out with a question. Two of your colleagues, Dianne Feinstein and Mitch McConnell, proposed a resolution this week that would impose sanctions on Yasser Arafat and his PLO, his Palestinian Authority. What do you think, are you going to sign on to this?

SPECTER: Well, of course I will. I think it's a good idea, but it's really more symbolic. The PLO representative was ousted from his office in Washington for nonpayment of rent, but I think that what Senator McConnell and Senator Feinstein have done here is a good way of expressing the sentiment of the United States Senate that we don't like what the Palestinian Authority is doing with the suicide bombings.

KARL: But let's be clear. I mean, he was ousted from the office, as you said, this week, but what this bill would do is this would seize whatever assets there are of the PLO in the U.S., would say no visas for PLO's senior representatives, and basically call the PLO a terrorist organization. It just goes to the line of doing that, and certainly treats them as if they were a terrorist organization.

Why should Congress be doing that, when Colin Powell and the administration are trying to deal with Yasser Arafat?

SPECTER: Because all of that is true. They are a terrorist organization. I don't think that the seizure of their assets amounts to much, because they don't have assets.

But I think that it is important that the United States of America be emphatic that we are opposed to what they are doing with their suicide bombings.

I was in the Mideast three weeks ago, had a chance to meet with Chairman Arafat on the day before the massacre at the seder at Netanya. And I repeated the U.S. demand that he make a clear, unequivocal statement in Arabic condemning the suicide bombings. He said he would do so, but he never has.

So when you have the McConnell-Feinstein resolution branding the PLO as terrorists, I think that emphasizes the point that needs to be made.

KARL: But, now, wait a minute. Arafat did put out a statement that did condemn the bombings, did he not? What about that statement that he put out earlier this week?

SPECTER: Well, the statement was so circuitous and so hedgy. And he condemned all of the violence, he didn't focus on the suicide bombings. And he did it only after a lot of pressure, and he does it in a way which really turns out to be meaningless.

He has never appeared on television. Had his own television all the time, but never appeared on television with a forceful statement against suicide bombings, unequivocal, without tying it to a lot of conditions and a lot of other talk. KARL: Now, Senator, we're less than 30 seconds away from the president's radio address. It is going to be on this subject.

Just quickly, what's your take on how soon Powell should get back to the region, or if indeed he should, until there is sign of progress? We only have 10 seconds.

SPECTER: Well, he has his Assistant Secretary Burns there. We have General Zinni there. CIA Director George Tenet may be headed there. I think Colin Powell's visit there...

KARL: Senator, I'm sorry to interrupt, but the president's radio address is live. We've got to take it. Here it is.

SPECTER: OK.

KARL: All right, it looks like we can have you finish. Because of technical problems, we do not have the president's radio address. We will bring it to you when we can.

I'm sorry, senator, I interrupted you.

SPECTER: Well, what I was about to say that, I think that Secretary Powell's visit to the region was very positive. He was really facing a mission nearly impossible. But it was important for the United States to send our lead representative, and that's the secretary of state.

And I think the president was right when he said that Colin Powell opened the path for peace, and now there has to be follow-up.

Look here, we are facing an enormously difficult situation there. But the United States is the world leader, and if anybody can do it, we can, and we have to keep trying.

KARL: But I'm curious, you say it was a success, this mission. But he went over there with the U.S. demand that Israel pull out of the recently occupied territories without delay. Israel is still in -- pretty considerably in some of those territories. And of course, he went over there to try to get something out of Yasser Arafat, a statement which you said was one that was almost meaningless.

So how do we call this a success?

SPECTER: I call it a success because it shows effort by the United States at the highest level to do our very best, to do something about it. And he has set the stage for further activity. He has made it known that the United States is going to do more than just the Tenet plan on security, that we are going to move forward to the Mitchell plan on the political issues.

We really have to make our best efforts. The president was criticized for pulling back and saying this past Thursday that he understood why Sharon and the Israelis were maintaining their presence in the West Bank. But when the president...

KARL: Senator, I'm sorry to do it to you again. This time we really do have the president's radio address...

SPECTER: I'm glad to defer to the president. OK, Jonathan.

KARL: Here he is.

BUSH: Good morning. This week, Secretary of State Colin Powell returned from the Middle East and reported on his intensive and productive meetings.

In this region, we are confronting hatred that is centuries old and disputes that have lingered for decades. Yet America has a vision for peace, and by calling all of the leaders the Middle East to their responsibilities, Secretary Powell made progress toward peace.

To defuse the current crisis, the Palestinian Authority must act on its words of condemnation against terror. Israel must continue its withdrawals. All Arab nations must confront terror in their own region. All parties must stop fighting or inciting terror, and must state clearly that a murderer is not a martyr, he or she is just a murderer.

All parties must realize that the only long-term solution is for two states, Israel and Palestine, to live side by side in security and peace. This will require hard choices and real leadership by Israelis and Palestinians and their Arab neighbors.

The time is now for all of us to make the choice for peace. America will continue to work toward this vision of peace in the Middle East, and America continues to press forward in our war against global terror. We will use every available tool to tighten the noose around the terrorists and their supporters. And when it comes to the threat of terror, the only path to safety is the path of action.

In the days just after September the 11th, I told the American people our war against terrorism would be a different war, fought on many fronts. And we are making progress on many fronts.

Yesterday, the United States and the world's other leading industrialized nations blocked the financial assets of another 10 terrorists and terrorist organizations. This joint action among close allies is an important step in choking off the financial pipeline that pays for terrorist training and attacks. A total of 161 nations around the world have joined together to block more than $100 million of suspected terrorist assets.

The United States also works with our friends and allies around the world to round up individual terrorists, such as Abu Zubaydah, a top Al Qaeda leader captured in Pakistan. From Spain to Singapore, our partners are breaking up terrorist cells and disrupting their plans. Altogether, more than 1,600 terrorists and their supporters have been arrested or detained in 95 foreign nations.

In Afghanistan, the United States and its partners are pressing forward with a military campaign against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. More than a dozen of our NATO allies are contributing forces to this fight. Right now, hundreds of Royal Marines from Great Britain are leading an operation to clear and seal off regions where our enemies are trying to regroup to commit murder and mayhem and to undermine Afghanistan's efforts to build a lasting peace.

And we're working with nations such as Yemen, the Philippines and Georgia, that seek our help in training and equipping their military forces to fight terror in some of the world's distant corners.

We're making progress. Yet nothing about this war will be quick or easy. We face dangers and sacrifices ahead. America is ready. The morale of our military is high. The will of our people is strong. We are determined, we are steadfast, and we will continue for as long as it takes until the mission is done.

Thank you for listening.

KARL: And there's President Bush talking about the war on terrorism and presenting his vision for peace in the Mideast.

Senator Specter, we have to take a quick break. When we come back, I want to ask you about another president. Bill Clinton has offered this week to come forward and take a role, some kind of a role in the Mideast peace process.

Should President Bush invite his predecessor to get involved? We'll ask Arlen Specter when we return.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KARL: We're talking about the Mideast crisis and the war on terrorism with Republican Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.

So, Senator Specter, I don't know if you saw but Bill Clinton, in an interview with the Associated Press, suggested that he would have a role, could have a role, a positive role to play in finding a resolution to this crisis. Let me read you a quote from Bill Clinton in this interview with the Associated Press.

"I do what I can as a private citizen. I stay in touch with a lot of people over there, and I'm actually working on a lot of projects right now that, if they went through, would bring some economic benefit to the region in a way that I think would be conducive to peace. But I don't and I can't and I shouldn't have a direct role unless, at some future time, the government asks me specifically -- asks me to do something specifically."

Now, that's from Bill Clinton. Seemed to be saying that he would welcome the invitation if he were to be invited.

What do you think? This has been done before. Former presidents have been tapped to get involved. Do you think that George Bush should invite Bill Clinton to get involved?

SPECTER: I think we should call upon -- President Bush ought to call upon former President Clinton for consultation and advice. Former President Clinton has a lot of experience in the area. He knows the players. When I got back from the Middle East, I had a chance to talk to the president about a discussion I had with Syrian President Bashar al-Asad. And President Clinton had come very, very close to brokering a peace deal over the Golan between then-Prime Minister Rabin and then-President Hafiz al-Asad.

And I suggested to President Bush that there might come a time, not right now with the Palestinian inferno, but there might come a time when he could play a similar role. And I think that, for example, if President Bush discussed with President Clinton the details and the specifics, that President Clinton could be very, very valuable there.

And I think President Clinton knows the players. He knows Sharon. He knows Arafat. And I think his advice would be invaluable. But I do not think he should be in the position of a negotiator or out front, because President Bush is the president, and he has his team, and he has Secretary of State Powell, widely, widely respected. And the inputs from President Clinton could be helpful, but it's still the Bush administration out front.

KARL: But knowing George W. Bush as you do, and knowing his relationship with Bill Clinton, do you really foresee any time when he would actually pick up the phone and say, "You know, Mr. Clinton, President Clinton, do you have any advice for me?"

SPECTER: I sure do, knowing President Bush as I do, and I've gotten to know him to some extent here in the past year and a half. I think he would. I think that President Bush wants to solve these problems. And when President Bush feels that former President Clinton could be of assistance to him, I think he would be -- there would be no hesitancy at all.

And if President Clinton got some of the credit for some of the advice, I think President Bush would be glad to do that if it worked out in a positive way for America.

KARL: Now, I'd like you to listen to something that Democratic Leader Tom Daschle had to say this week about the war on terrorism. Let's take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. TOM DASCHLE (D-SD), SENATE MAJORITY LEADER: We captured the Taliban leadership by and large, but they weren't the ones who killed 3,100 Americans. Al Qaeda killed 3,100 Americans. And we've got to find those Al Qaeda leadership -- that Al Qaeda leadership, and we haven't done it yet.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KARL: Now, what I'm sensing up on the Hill, and I imagine you're seeing this as well, is that Democrats are feeling freer and freer to question this president's handling of foreign affairs, question even his handling of the war on terrorism. Do you sense a shift up there? I mean, obviously we're getting closer to an election and obviously the foreign policy situation has gotten a little bit more muddled.

SPECTER: I sure do see a shift, Jonathan. Day in and day out, I'm on the Senate floor every day. And presidential politics is all over the United States Senate. There are practically enough senators on the Democratic side running for president to make a quorum there, and they've got their knives sharpened every time they have a chance.

Now, that quotation you just made from Senator Daschle is reminiscent of a statement he made a few weeks ago to the effect that our war on terrorism wouldn't be a success -- wasn't a success because we hadn't captured bin Laden.

And I think that's exactly wrong in several ways. One is that we defeated Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. We did, in the few weeks, what the Soviets couldn't do in more than a decade and what the Brits couldn't do before, defeated Al Qaeda, as well as Taliban. And we're going to get bin Laden yet.

But to make a statement that it's not a success unless you get bin Laden, I think, is the highest degree of politicization. And politics has not place in our war against terrorism. We really ought to be totally united there. And I hope the American people will reject those kinds of statements by Senator Daschle.

KARL: All right, well, Senator Arlen Specter, thanks so much for joining us on SATURDAY EDITION.

SPECTER: Always a pleasure, Jonathan. Thank you.

KARL: All right, take care, senator.

SPECTER: Thank you.

KARL: And straight ahead, is it time for the United States to serve notice to Yasser Arafat? We'll talk with two senators who are calling for punitive measures against the Palestinian leader, when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R), KENTUCKY: ... send a powerful signal to Chairman Arafat and the Palestinian Authority that the United States Senate will not stand idly by while they talk peace in English and practice terror in Arabic.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KARL: And there's Republican Senator Mitch McConnell, one of the sponsors of the legislation that would impose sanctions against Palestinian Chairman Yasser Arafat. Joining us from Louisville, Kentucky, is Senator McConnell, and here in Washington is Democratic co-sponsor of that bill, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California.

Senators, both of you, thank you for joining us. It's a pleasure to have the two sponsors of this very important piece of legislation.

Senator McConnell, I'd like to start with you. This is a Republican president in the White House. He says adamantly that he does not want this legislation, that it would not be helpful for the peace process.

Why are you meddling with the White House at a time when they're involved in very sensitive negotiations, or attempts to start negotiations, over in the Mideast?

MCCONNELL: Well, we're not meddling. I have a lot of confidence in the president, the secretary of state, and the national security adviser, but members of the Senate want to go on record. There's a very, very strong feeling throughout the Senate on both sides of the aisle that it's time for us to, at the very least, produce a piece of legislation which can acquire hopefully a very large number of co- sponsors.

Neither Dianne nor I are advocating trying to pass this legislation right now, but senators want to go on record and want to state for their constituents their beliefs about what's happening in the Middle East.

And we don't see the moral equivalency between a policy, practiced by Yasser Arafat and his people, of strapping bombs on teenagers and sending them into pizza parlors to blow up innocent people, on the one hand, and the Israeli response, which has been just like our own response after September the 11th, to send out our military and try to capture or eliminate the leaders who ordered these bombings.

So this is a piece of legislation that gives people an opportunity to go on record, and we expect to have a large number of our colleagues join up as co-sponsors.

KARL: Senator McConnell, Senator Feinstein, I understand that you are not going to push this legislation yet, not bring it up -- try to get a vote on it yet, but I'd like you to take a look at an editorial, Senator Feinstein, that I'm sure you've already seen. It was in the Los Angeles Times. Very critical of this proposal.

It said, "Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Liberation Organization cannot be legislated out of existence, as some members of Congress seem to be hoping. The congressional efforts, aside from being futile, could significantly harm U.S. efforts to end the bloodshed in the Mideast. Secretary of State Powell, who is trying, against the odds, to broker a truce, would be undermined by even proposed legislation that further deepens Arab mistrust of U.S. intentions."

So, there you have, Senator Feinstein, even proposed legislation, the LA Times says, could undermine the efforts in the Mideast.

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D), CALIFORNIA: Well, the "L.A. Times," of course, doesn't necessarily run for office or represent people or have a constituency or really spend time on these issues. Necessarily, I very strongly believe that the time has come to stand up. I think the time has come to stand up and take a position against this kind of, really, suicide bombing.

It has been used as a major tool. I think that Yasser Arafat has spoken out of both sides of his mouth. I think the time has come for us to condemn that kind of leadership.

And let me give you an example. In February, Chairman Arafat wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times. He condemned suicide bombing. A few days later, he appeared in Ramallah, and I'll tell you what he said. He said, "We will make the lives of the infidels hell," and then he led a chant of a million martyrs marching into Jerusalem. That's not helpful.

You can't walk both sides of this street. You're either for terrorism or you're against terrorism. And that's what this is all about. And the United States can't be a hypocrite. We can't say OK, we have been struck, we have lost 3,100 lives, but it's OK for the Israelis, month after month and after month.

I mean, I looked at a picture of a little baby with a pacifier in his mouth that was blown apart in a suicide bombing. Now, this goes on month after month after month.

KARL: Let me be clear. You're saying...

FEINSTEIN: It's got to be put to an end. And let me make the point, the heart of much of this is coming right from within the PLO, right from within the Fatah section, right from within the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, and signed off on by Yasser Arafat and paid for by the PLO.

KARL: OK, well, a lot more to talk about. We do need to take a quick break. Senator McConnell, Senator Feinstein, we'll be right back.

And when we come back, should the U.S. sever ties to Yasser Arafat? And what would that mean for the war against terrorism? Senators Feinstein and McConnell will take your questions when Saturday Edition returns.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KARL: An important source of information about the news of the day, events in the Mideast and closer to home can be found online at cnn.com, AOL keyword CNN.

It's time for a check of the hour's top stories.

(NEWSBREAK) KARL: We're continuing our discussion with Republican Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein of California.

Senator McConnell, if you're so critical of Yasser Arafat, and clearly your legislation would seize his assets in the United States, deny him a visa to come here, should he could, who is exactly should the United States be dealing with if not Yasser Arafat?

MCCONNELL: Well, regretfully, the Palestinians are poorly led. I don't think we have any choice but to deal with this guy. But I don't think it's helpful to delude ourselves into thinking he's anything other than what he is.

He's been caught red-handed, Jonathan. You remember the Israelis captured the boat coming from Iran full of weapons some few months past. And now they have captured documents that have Yasser Arafat's signature authorizing the expenditure of money for the bombs and the ordering of sending these children out to commit homicide bombings.

We know what we're dealing with. Regretfully, we do have to deal with him because he is the only leader the Palestinians have. It's a shame that they are led by such a scoundrel.

KARL: Do you agree with that? After all, you signed a letter not too long ago urging Vice President Cheney to meet with Arafat. He did not end up meeting with him, but I mean, do you agree that we should continue to deal with him?

FEINSTEIN: Well, I think we have to, to a great extent. You know, I would hope that, as Senator Specter said, that the president would consult with President Clinton. I think he's got a background and an institutional knowledge of what has been put on the table that could be very useful in this.

I think the most important thing is that if the suicide bombing can stop, the Israelis pull out, that the United States put forward a plan -- I sincerely believe this because I think we're on our way to catastrophe if we don't -- put forward a plan, work with the moderate Arab states, work with our allies, sit down at the table and, frankly, knock heads.

I think there has to be a solution to this, and frankly, I think the solution should be an Israel with defensible borders, an independent Palestinian state. And I think there are -- that this -- I think they were very close to it at Taba, and they have to move the next step and get it done.

And I would be hopeful that if Yasser Arafat can pull away from this terrorist kind of demeanor, of allowing his people, of signing off on his people, of paying families, making encouraging this kind of so-called martyrdom, to come back and say to his people, "Look, we've got to work out an agreement, and let's do it now." That's what I'm hoping will emerge from some of this.

KARL: So how about it, Mitch McConnell? Now we have two senators -- do you want to become the third -- think that George W. Bush should go ahead and consult with Bill Clinton about the situation? Obviously, say what you want about President Clinton, he did spend a lot of time on this issue.

MCCONNELL: Oh, I don't have any problem with him talking to President Clinton. But the real issue is, how do you get a deal?

The Israeli administration, 18 months ago, offered the best deal that Arafat is ever going to get. We all know what the final arrangement is going to look like. The problem here is that Arafat can't seem to say yes.

There was an Israeli foreign minister named Aba Ebin (ph) years ago who said, "The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity."

Well, Arafat needs to not miss another opportunity. We all know what the deal is going to be. It is going to include a Palestinian state. He has got to recognize Israel. He's got to accept the offer that was made to him 18 months ago, and the U.S. is going to continue to push in that direction.

KARL: Now, what about Jenin? As you know, Senator Feinstein, the Palestinians portray it as a massacre. Are you uneasy with what -- and we'll find out with our fact-finding mission exactly what happened, the U.N. fact-finding mission -- but are you uncomfortable with what you know so far and what you have seen in press reports about what happened in Jenin?

FEINSTEIN: Well, I think the United Nations fact-finding team should go in and should take a look. I think that's the only thing to do to clear this up.

One of the problems is the whole ethic of suicide bombing, of putting bombs in homes, of booby-trapping dead people that makes it extraordinarily difficult to do removal of those who are injured and those who are dying and those who are dead.

I am told that of 47 people recovered so far, 45 of them had on uniforms. I'm also told that a couple of them had bombs strapped to their bodies. Now, I think the U.N. needs to validify (sic) this one way or another -- validate it one way or another.

But I think Mitch McConnell is absolutely right. I think -- you know, the time is on us. And if the Palestinian leadership can't recognize that they can't continue to go down this street, that is has just terrible ramifications for innocent people to continue going down this street, and all it does is build the kind of hatred that I have never seen before in 30 years of watching the Israeli-Palestinian situation -- I have never seen hatred on both sides as high as it is now. That's good for no one. That's certainly not good for a Palestinian state. It's certainly not good for defensible borders for Israel.

KARL: That's an incredible statement to say that you have never seen hatred as high as it is now, the situation as bad it is now. Senator McConnell, given that this is, in some ways, a conflict that has been going on literally for centuries, perhaps even a couple of millennia, is it realistic to think that the U.S. can do anything, can get involved here in any kind of a positive way?

MCCONNELL: Yes, I think so. There actually has been progress made. Jordan recognized Israel. Egypt recognized Israel. And lost in all of this wave of homicide bombings was the Arab League meeting in Beirut at few weeks ago, in which 22 Arab countries indicated that they would recognize Israel basically under circumstances very similar to what the Israelis offered Arafat 18 months ago.

So I do think we've made progress. Arafat seems to be the last one who doesn't understand that there needs to be a final settlement. He needs to have the courage for once in his life to say, "yes."

FEINSTEIN: I agree with what Senator McConnell is saying. And the window of opportunity was Prince Abdullah's plan. It needed to be fleshed out, but clearly it had the support of the moderate Arab states. It was an opportunity to do something. And what happened, right during this suicide bombings, and then that explodes the situation.

And that's why we're trying to say in this resolution, "You can't continue down this path." We are trying to send the strongest possible signal we can against this kind of activity if one really wants peace.

KARL: Do you think President Bush has been consistent on this? I mean, it seems like he came out and he was very critical of Sharon, telling him to immediately withdraw, and now he calls Sharon "a man of peace" and says he understands why he is still -- why Israeli troops still are where they are.

I mean, how do you grade the president's performance on this?

FEINSTEIN: Jonathan, I'm not going to be critical of the president. I am one that wants us to work, both as Republicans and Democrats, and get this situation solved. And if it becomes a partisan situation, it isn't going to happen.

KARL: So you're...

FEINSTEIN: What Senator McConnell and I are saying, "Let's start from basics." And the basic is that we're dealing in now, today with the Palestinian Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority, with a terrorist mentality, and you can't achieve peace while this is going on.

KARL: OK, we only have a few seconds. So you are uncomfortable with your colleagues like John Kerry or Joe Lieberman who have become increasingly critical of the president on this?

FEINSTEIN: I just think this is the wrong time for partisanship, that's all.

KARL: OK. Well, Senator Dianne Feinstein...

FEINSTEIN: Thank you.

KARL: ... of California, Senator Mitch McConnell, Kentucky, thank you very much for joining us. Take care.

Is the Middle East forcing a change in U.S. plans for the war on terrorism? We'll hear from two international policy experts when CNN's Saturday Edition continues.

Meanwhile, on the Mall in Washington, D.C., protesters gathering for the annual meeting of the International Monetary Fund.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KARL: The Mideast crisis was on the minds and the drawing boards of editorial cartoonists this week.

Mike Thompson (ph) of the Detroit Free Press shows Colin Powell in the midst of his travels. Powell says, "I've been in quite a few states during my Middle East mission," and he has the luggage stickers to prove it: despair, frustration, despondency and hopelessness.

Darrell Kagle (ph), host of politicalcartoons.com, shows how Powell and Arafat agree on a joint statement. But it's not the kind of thing you can reprint in a family newspaper.

And Jeff Koturba (ph) of the Omaha World Herald shows a wrinkled Uncle Sam with worry lines demanding cosmetic treatment. "Doc, I'm gonna need an extra dose of botox," says Uncle Sam. And the wrinkles are labeled "missed chance at bin Laden," "continued threat of terrorism," "Mideast crisis" and "Saddam Hussein."

Some of the people who spend their time worrying about the Mideast crisis and Saddam Hussein are with us now. Michael O'Hanlon is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, and Ariel Cohen, a research fellow with the Heritage Foundation.

Michael O'Hanlon, I'll start right with you. It was interesting, Arafat came out this week and condemned the terrorism at the urging, perhaps arm twisting, of Colin Powell. But virtually the same day, at least it was the same day in U.S. papers, Arafat's wife, who lives in Paris, came out with a statement praising suicide bombers, suggesting if she had a son, she would be honored if he became such a suicide bomber.

Who is Mrs. Arafat? I mean, she's been living in Paris. Do you think this was coordinated? That interview was in Arabic; it reached an Arab audience.

MICHAEL O'HANLON, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION: I'd add one more point. A Saudi ambassador to Britain seemed to support suicide bombing in a recent public statement.

So what you have here is a bit of a paradox. You have a bit of schizophrenia, in a sense, in the Arab world and the Palestinian movement. They feel they need to use violence in some way against Israel because they have no other weapon in their arsenal, or so they think. On the other hand, they recognize that this is causing incredible negative reactions around the world, and any kind of a peace deal has to involved clamping down on it.

So it's really -- they're never going to fully renounce, in a sincere way, the use of violence until they feel they have some kind of a solution. That's the bottom line.

KARL: So do we think or is there any evidence that Mrs. Arafat's statement was coordinated, you know?

ARIEL COHEN, HERITAGE FOUNDATION: Of course. She's a political figure. She's a daughter of a very political mother, Raymunda Tawil (ph), a famous Arab communist journalist who lives in Ramallah. And what Mrs. Arafat says is pretty much what her husband thinks, which is a million martyrs marching to Jerusalem blowing themselves up.

We have -- I agree with Michael, we have a serious problem in the moderate Arab states, as well as in radical Arab states. Look, Saddam Hussein just jumped up the compensation to the family of suicide bombers from $12,000 a pop to $25,000.

KARL: How is he getting the money out? I mean, what does he do? Does he just write a check and...

COHEN: Oh, very simple, very simple. Iraqi oil goes to Iran. They're former enemies are selling the oil in the spot market, giving money to Saddam Hussein. The Syrians and, unfortunately, our allies the Turks...

KARL: But how does Saddam Hussein get the money to the families?

COHEN: Oh, again, very simple. You have the howallah (ph) system. He puts in a -- with a money changer in Iraq and it comes out in Nablus or in Jenin or in Jerusalem. Or a guy goes with a briefcase from Iraq through Jordan into the West Bank and pays off.

There were people walking around Hebron -- I read this story -- and the Arab families would come to them and jokingly say, "Well, when Saddam is going to bump it up to $50,000, we're going to volunteer." So it's a macabre...

KARL: That's a pretty sick joke.

COHEN: ... it's a macabre situation that, unfortunately, Yasser Arafat -- we now have documents with his signature on bills. He was paying for factories that were producing suicide-bomber belts.

KARL: Is there any doubt about that? I mean, is there any doubt that Arafat's directly involved?

O'HANLON: I don't think there's a lot of doubt, frankly. I think there's some chance that some of the more extreme attacks that kill 30 and 50, perhaps he didn't want exactly that outcome. At least we can hope that. But there's no doubt that he has encouraged and, in many ways, financed some of the terrorism.

COHEN: Jonathan, these are the Tanzim militias. They're part and parcel of Yasser Arafat's operation. Marwan Barghouti, who was just arrested by Israelis, is on tape saying, "I don't do anything without Abu Omar's (ph) permission."

KARL: Well, Michael O'Hanlon, let me ask you. We saw from the Jordanians this week and also from the Saudis, a statement that they worry that the situation in Israel is going to spill over and instability, war, throughout the region. Do you see any evidence that that is beginning to happen?

O'HANLON: I would say no, although the risk is real, there's no doubt. The rockets that Hezbollah fires up north in Israel could involve some kind of an Israeli retaliation against bases in Lebanon or Syria. That could then lead to an Israeli-Syrian war.

Or Arab states could simply say, "This looks too much to us like genocide of the Israeli army against the Palestinian people. We have to do whatever we can to try to stop it even if we know we're going to lose on the battlefield."

So you could get to a point where that happens. I don't think it's near-term, but it's a real risk.

KARL: All right, we've got to take a quick break. When we come back, I also want to talk about Colin Powell's mission to the Mideast and whether or not it was a failure, as many here say it was.

COHEN: I was exactly going to address...

KARL: All right, great. We'll take a quick break. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KARL: All right, there you have it, one of the many protests on the Mall in Washington. This one a pro-Palestinian, anti-U.S.-policy- toward-the-Mideast protest. We also have protests throughout the city on the IMF and World Bank meetings.

But we're here talking with Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution and Ariel Cohen of the Heritage Foundation about the situation in the Mideast.

Michael O'Hanlon, the Powell mission, a failure?

O'HANLON: I think it was, generally speaking, a failure, but I wouldn't hold him to high standards on this trip. I mean, he had a terrible hand to play. And you know, you could argue that at least he kept people talking.

But I think, generally, when he couldn't even get in to see the Egyptian president and when there was such a revulsion against much of what he was doing in the Arab world, you had a failure. Generally speaking, people are more respectful of their American friends, especially when it's a person of the stature of Colin Powell. He walked away with almost nothing. I think it was one of the worst trips by a secretary of state, in terms of its results, that I've seen in a long time. But I don't really blame Powell for it.

KARL: One of the worst trips by a U.S. secretary of state?

COHEN: No, not at all. I think the media is missing the big story of this trip, and that is that Powell singlehandedly prevented a war between Israel and Syria. The Syria- and Iran-supported terrorist organization named Hezbollah was pounding Israeli territory, civilian targets, villages, and military targets with rockets, with Katyusha rockets, et cetera. And Powell went to Beirut, went to Damascus and demonstrated that when Arab regimes want it, they can call off their attack dogs. This applies to Yasser Arafat as well.

So we know now...

KARL: OK, but wait a minute. I mean, Powell started off the mission by having the Moroccan king keep him waiting in the hallway for two hours and then lecturing him about, "Why aren't you in Jerusalem first?" And then he was stood up by Hosni Mubarak. I mean...

COHEN: Hosni Mubarak is over 70. He may be sick. And Powell saw Mubarak before he went to see Sharon. So I wouldn't read too much into that.

But what we -- what we'll learn from this mission, and I think this is also in a way an achievement, that we understand that the policy of appeasement, of supplication toward these Arab regimes who have a duty to call off terrorist activities and to be set with us in the war against terrorism and support us in the future operation to remove Saddam Hussein, we learned our lessons...

KARL: Let's get on to that, I mean, the future operation to remove Saddam Hussein. I mean, that seems to me if that were on the front burner any time, it must be way on the back burner. I mean, is there, realistically, any chance of action against Iraq until the situation is settled, calmed down in the Mideast?

O'HANLON: No, there is no realistic chance. Now, you could say there wouldn't be immediate action anyway because it would take us several months to begin a deployment, to get forces in position, and before that, to establish the political predicate, to establish the general sense in the world that this guy is a danger. We would have spent time underlining what Saddam has done by way of violations of U.N. Security Council Resolutions, in case anybody had forgotten.

KARL: Yes.

O'HANLON: It would have taken us some time anyway.

I wonder though if we're going to lose several months now, to the point where we can't even get this thing done next fall and winter. That is perhaps the bigger question. If this Middle East crisis goes on for a few more weeks or a couple more months, we can't even do this next winter.

COHEN: But look, we're being outflanked by those Arab regimes who are trying to save Saddam. They're trying to keep this Arab- Israeli conflict on the front burner. This is a distraction, an intentional diversion tactic so we're looking this way, and we're not going that way. We will not go against Saddam because the Arab- Israeli issue is not settled.

So Iran is throwing in the money, Saddam is throwing in the money...

KARL: What do you think? Should we, I mean should we just move? I mean, some people say, "Hey, send a message to the Arab world. The best thing you could do for the Mideast peace process is take out Saddam Hussein.

COHEN: Well, we were asked by the Arab regimes and by the Europeans to do something about Arab-Israeli. We sent Colin Powell. Yasser Arafat stiffed him, so now we learned our lesson, I hope.

And we need two countries to conduct an operation against Saddam. We need Kuwait and we need Turkey. We can do it .

KARL: Kuwait, I mean, we've even seen anti-U.S. demonstrations in Kuwait.

O'HANLON: That is the issue. I agree that we only need Kuwait and Turkey as absolute requirements. We certainly would like to have the Saudis and the Bahrainis and others because they have a lot of air bases.

COHEN: And the Europeans.

O'HANLON: Of course. But it's true, as a bare-minimum requirement, the Kuwaitis and the Turks would suffice. But as you point out, Jonathan, I'm not sure even the Kuwaitis are going to be on board in the near term. So I think we have a problem.

And I think Powell has simply given the old college try.

And I admit, temporarily at least, reducing the Katyusha rocket attacks against northern Israel, that's not going to be enough. You've got to talk a real solution to the Mideast problem. That's not just some kind of tactical modification. That is...

COHEN: Michael, this has (UNINTELLIGIBLE) us for 50 years...

O'HANLON: ... restarting the broad debate about a final settlement that's fair to both sides. Without that you're not going to have the predicate for war against Iraq.

COHEN: We had the blueprint, and Arafat walked away from the blueprint. That was the Oslo process and Camp David II. And he just tore it apart and started the terror campaign. O'HANLON: Wasn't a very good deal. It was not a very good deal. Everyone in the United States says that was a great deal, but it wasn't.

COHEN: It was an excellent deal.

KARL: We only have about 30 seconds. Very quickly, is it a bad idea for Congress to go on record, sanctions against the PLO?

COHEN: No. I think we need to send a strong message to the PLO and to the Arab regimes who support Arafat today.

O'HANLON: It's OK, but Congress should do more. We've got to talk about what a fair settlement would be and get that debate back on the front burner.

KARL: OK, well, thank you, both, very much for joining us. A lot more to talk about obviously on this subject, but we appreciate you getting us started.

O'HANLON: Thank you.

COHEN: Thank you.

KARL: When we come back, my turn.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KARL: Last spring, Congress decided to try to do something about high gas prices in fears of a looming energy crisis. A year later, the Senate has succeeded in decimating the plan. Liberals torpedoed the idea of drilling for more oil in Alaska, and conservatives killed a requirement to make cars that get better gas mileage.

So what's left? The bill would ban oil imports from Iraq. A good idea perhaps, but one that also cuts off a supply of nearly a million barrels of oil a day. And the bill mandates a tripling of the use of the corn-based gasoline additive ethanol. That's sure to make farmers happy, but according to a recent study, it will also increase the cost of gasoline by about a dime a gallon in places like California.

So the net result? Less oil, higher gas prices, not much conservation. Maybe it's time for Congress to go back to the drawing board on energy.

Well, thank you for watching Saturday Edition. I'm Jonathan Karl in Washington.

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