Return to Transcripts main page
On the Story
What's at Stake When Bush Meets Saudi Leaders?; Can U.S. Military Handle Expanding Responsibilities?; Are We Over a Saudi Oil Barrel?
Aired April 27, 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: The crown prince and I established a strong personal bond.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KATE SNOW, CNN CORRESPONDENT: What's at stake when President Bush goes head to head with Saudi Arabia's leaders? We'll dig into that complex relationship, measured in barrels of oil, Mideast hatred and the war on terrorism.
The number-two Democrat in the U.S. Senate, Harry Reid of Nevada, will talk about the Middle East, U.S. energy supplies and his opposition to burying the nation's nuclear waste in his home state.
And new debate over military strength. Are there enough Americans in uniform to tackle expanding responsibilities -- fighting in Afghanistan, other terrorism fronts, new requests for peacekeepers and new security concerns at U.S. bases worldwide? We'll talk to Missouri Congressman Ike Skelton, top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, and to former Navy Secretary, Viet vet and author James Webb.
All just ahead on CNN's SATURDAY EDITION.
Good morning to California, the rest of the West and all of you across North America. I'm Kate Snow in Washington.
We want to hear from you on this program. Give us your questions about the U.S. military, whether President Bush needs more men and women in uniform. And we want your questions about the U.S. and Saudi Arabia. What's the shared future between those two countries? Our e- mail address this morning is saturday.edition@cnn.com.
Senator Harry Reid joins me in just a minute. We'll have our usual sampling of some editorial cartoons and My Turn, a look at the week, but first a news alert.
(NEWSBREAK)
SNOW: We're just a couple of minutes away from the president's weekly radio address, and joining us now, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, Democratic majority whip and the second most powerful Democrat in the Senate.
Senator Reid, let me just begin by one question about what's happened down in Nevada -- we just learned about it this morning -- this shooting at a casino. Tell us a little bit about that area and security. I assume security at the casinos has been ramped up ever since September 11.
SEN. HARRY REID (D), NEVADA: Well, it's been ramped up since September 11. We have one of the dams on the Colorado River right there, the Davis Dam.
But this time of year we have a lot of security because we have thousands and thousands of motorcyclists who have coming there for many years. In fact, I took Nighthorse Campbell down there not too many years ago. And they've all been peaceful until this year.
But there are thousands of motorcyclists there. It's a beautiful spot on the river, and it's too back it was interrupted by this -- what appears to be a gang warfare on a minor scale. It appears maybe even four dead now.
SNOW: OK. And we'll keep an eye on that story of course. I want to take a left turn to the Mideast. President Bush, this week, yesterday in fact, repeated his call on Israel to withdraw from the territories on the West Bank.
Let's take a listen to what the president said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BUSH: The Israelis understand my position. I've been very clear on that. And there has been some progress, but it's now time to quit it altogether, it's time to end this.
QUESTION: Why don't they?
BUSH: Well, we'll see what happens. It's -- I know they've heard us.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SNOW: Is withdrawal for Israel from the West Bank the only way to achieve peace?
REID: It's going to be difficult to achieve peace. One of the problems we had, Kate, is that this administration has simply not been involved in the year and a half they've been in office, and that's too bad. It is one of the reasons this just got out of hand.
I was in Israel right before the last intifada started -- I don't know if I said it right, but you get the point. I spoke to Barak. I spent a lot of time with Sharon during visit. And, in effect, the Israelis gave Arafat everything he wanted and he still couldn't take yes for answer. That really is too bad. And I think if there is a problem in the Middle East, it's that man, Arafat.
SNOW: Quickly, do you think the president is -- obviously, you think he didn't come out soon enough, do you also think he's waffling a bit? I know there's been that accusation that first he says withdrawal and then he says, well, on your own timetable.
REID: Well, it's been hard for this administration to get engaged. We had a briefing this week, a closed briefing by the secretary of state, and I think he did as well as a person could do under the circumstances. You know, he's about the only one that will speak to Arafat in this administration. So he went there. He didn't accomplish a great deal, but I'm happy to see that we're engaged. He's met with the Russians. He's met with the Europeans, who I think have been dismal through this whole Middle East situation. So we're at least involved, and I think that's a tremendous step forward.
SNOW: The Democrats, clearly, not afraid, it seems, anymore to be a little bit critical of the Bush administration, if they think it's necessary.
REID: Well, I spoke up three or four months ago about this. I said that we should have been engaged. And this isn't a way of criticizing the president, more than just saying you should be doing something...
SNOW: Right.
REID: ... that hadn't be done.
SNOW: Let's quickly let's take a break and listen to the president's weekly radio address. We'll come right back.
BUSH: Good morning.
This week, Americans had some good news about strong growth in our economy, yet we cannot be content or complacent. Job creation and business investment are still not what they should be. We want short- term recovery to become long-term expansion.
And one of the best ways to encourage high-paying jobs and long- term growth is expanded trade. I'm pleased that the United States Senate is set to begin an important debate on trade legislation that will help American workers and farmers and consumers.
I have traveled around the country and seen the value of trade, and foreign leaders have told me how trade will strengthen security and economic growth in our hemisphere.
The benefits of greater trade are beyond dispute. During the 1990s, U.S. exports generated about one-quarter of our economic growth, through the sale of American goods abroad. Trade boosts our productivity and creates higher-paying jobs. The latest global trade agreement and NAFTA have improved the average standard of living for an American family of four by up to $2,000 a year.
Now is the time to build on this record of success. The Senate should pass the pending trade legislation without delay. Trade promotion authority would give me the flexibility to negotiate with other countries to open their markets and get the best deals for American producers and workers. Congress would still have the final up or down vote on any trade agreement.
The previous five presidents have had this authority. It expired eight years ago, and since then, America has sacrificed its traditional leadership role in trade.
For two decades, trade promotion authority was a bipartisan commitment. It was a commitment because it represented our national interest in expanding foreign markets. More than 150 trade agreements exist throughout the world. The European Union is party to 31 of them and Mexico to 10. The United States is party to just three.
Passage of the TPA will give America's entrepreneurs and workers and farmers and ranchers a fair shot at the markets of the world.
The Andean Trade Preference Act is a good example of how trade can also help increase the security of America. Over the past 10 years, this law has given the four Andean nations more access to our markets, which they report has created 140,000 jobs. The law has also helped provide an economic alternative to the production of drugs.
We need to renew and expand the Andean Trade Preference Act as soon as possible. If we fail to act before May 16, 90 days' worth of import duties will come due, raising prices for American consumers and hampering the region's economic development.
I recognize that some American workers may face adjustment challenges as a result of trade. I support helping these workers by reauthorizing and improving trade adjustment assistance programs that will workers impacted by trade new skills, help them find new jobs quickly and provide them with financial assistance.
Nearly five months have passed since the House of Representatives approved trade promotion authority and the Andean trade legislation. Every day we go without expanding trade is another day of missed opportunities to strengthen our economy.
The Senate must act and affirm America's trade leadership in a bipartisan manner. We cannot let this initiative fall victim to partisan politics. Our trading partners are waiting for us. American workers are depending on us, and America cannot afford further delay.
Thank you for listening.
SNOW: President Bush talking about the need for the Senate to pass what's called trade promotion authority. That gives him the ability to negotiate trade agreements rather quickly.
The president saying the Senate ought to pass that right away. Senator Reid, should they?
REID: We're going to start working on that Monday. The question I have with the president's speech is he talked about 140,000 jobs being created within South America. We should be concerned about the jobs we're losing in America.
That's -- and one of the things that he talked about is this trade bill is going to create the necessity of Americans losing their jobs. That's what trade adjustment is all about, is trying to do something about our people losing their jobs. And I would hope that this administration would focus on jobs here in America.
You know, last year at this time we had a $4.7 trillion surplus. That's gone. About 25 percent of it, of course, is related to the war, 50 percent of it related to the tax cuts, and maybe a little bit of it related to the downturn in the economy, which is caused...
SNOW: Although he says the economy is doing better. Right off the top, the president says it's doing better.
REID: Well, even he is concerned about the long-term economy of this country. Maybe in the short term we're doing OK, but in the long term, we're in deep trouble. We have a budget deficit of this year estimated yesterday of over $100 billion. We had a $100 billion-plus surplus last year, the last year of the Clinton administration.
So I think we should be more concerned about American workers than workers other places in the world.
SNOW: A lot more questions for Senator Harry Reid.
I'll ask you to stand by for just a moment. We're going to take a quick break.
The war in Afghanistan and the political war over where Nevada's Yucca Flat will be the national nuclear graveyard, all just ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SNOW: I'm Kate Snow. This is CNN's SATURDAY EDITION. Senator Harry Reid is joining me today, the number-two Democrat in the Senate.
Senator Reid, I want to go back to the Middle East but in the context of Congress. Senator Joseph Lieberman, your colleague, has a resolution that really seems to take sides. It says, "The Senate stands in solidarity with Israel."
He spoke on the Senate floor a little bit earlier this week. Let's listen to what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN (D), CONNECTICUT: Those suicide bombers striking innocent Israelis in supermarkets, pizza restaurants, buses, schools, are cut from the same cloth of fanatical, inhumane hatred as those terrorists who turned airplanes into weapons of mass destruction and killed more than 3,000 Americans on September 11.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SNOW: If you support his resolution, you are in a sense taking a stronger view than what the administration has done, in terms of supporting Israel. Will you support his resolution?
REID: For me, that's easy to do. I think what has gone on in the Middle East is terrible. I don't think Israel had any choice but to do what they have done. I mean, think about if we had these suicide bombers coming from Canada or Mexico, would we react and want to clear an area so we could stop them? The answer of course is yes.
So Lieberman's resolution will pass overwhelmingly.
SNOW: The White House yesterday asked the House -- the House also had a similar resolution sponsored by Tom DeLay, the majority whip over there -- and the White House called him and said, "Can you hold off?" He was going to have a vote on it next week. He's now said, "Yes, I will hold off. We'll postpone."
The White House doesn't want Congress to interfere in foreign policy. So shouldn't Congress just stay out of this?
REID: Well, you know, the legislative branch of government has equal power to the executive branch of government. And I think the secretary of state and the president should be able to direct our foreign policy, but the legislative branch has an obligation and a right to speak out on foreign policy.
SNOW: Let me turn to a different issue, something that affects your home state very much, Yucca Mountain. And it's up for debate now in both the House and the Senate.
Your governor has said, "Let's not put" -- this is about nuclear waste going to your state, being buried at Yucca Mountain -- the governor said, "Don't do it." And now the House -- a House committee has already voted to overturn that.
Do you think that Yucca Mountain is ever going to open in your lifetime?
REID: Kate, but first of all understand that it's not a Nevada problem. It's your problem. It's a problem because this poisonous substance, the most poisonous substance known to man, will travel through 45 states.
And it's something that is going to come by people's schools, churches, businesses, playgrounds. And there will be an accident. They're talking abut hauling a 100,000 truck loads, 20,000 train loads. There will be accidents. It's a question of where they will be and when they will occur.
And so, this is not a Nevada problem. This is a problem our nation has.
SNOW: Some on the other side have said you're saying that because you need support from other senators, you need to scare people into supporting you on this one, and so you start talking about all of the other states that the waste is going to travel through.
REID: Well, we're talking facts. There is no hype in this. It's simply facts. This isn't Nevada talking. Every environmental group in America is on our side. They know the dangers of trying to transport this poison across our streets.
Leave it where it is. Rather than having thousands and thousands of mobile Chernobyls, we could leave it where it is. We could protect it there in dry-cast storage containment. It would be safe for at least 100 years, and by then we can figure out something to do with it.
SNOW: Where it is right now, though, there are, as I gather, thousands, tens of thousands of tons...
REID: Seventy-seven thousand tons.
SNOW: ... and they're sitting in pools mainly at the places where the radioactive waste was created.
REID: Kate, some of the places realize that...
SNOW: But is that safe?
REID: But remember, they're always going to be there. They are going to continue to generate nuclear waste. They take these spent fuel rods out. It takes -- they have to have them cool off for five years in the ponds anyway.
And what some places are doing all over America are putting them in dry-cast storage containers where they're safe. The thing at Yucca Mountain, if it goes forward, is going to cost, some say, $100 billion of taxpayers' money. So let's leave it where it is. It would be cheap. It would be safe for not my state, but for your state.
SNOW: Let me ask you about one last subject this week. It's kind of funny. Democrats came out with a new slogan this week. They say they're going to fight for security -- securing America's future for all our families. The Republicans came back and said, "Wait a minute, we're the guys that say "securing America's future."
Take a listen to the way J.C. Watts put it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. J.C. WATTS (R), OKLAHOMA: We think this is pretty hilarious that for two and half years, three years now, we've been taking about securing America's future, and the Democrats all of a sudden think that this is a pretty good idea, that they want to join us. So they've stolen our slogan.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SNOW: A war of slogans on Capital Hill going on. But I know this is serious to you too. It seems like everybody wants that word "security" in their headline, in their title. REID: What I responded to J.C. Watts and the other Republican leaders in the House was that I think what they should do, no matter what the top slogan is, is put a few platform planks that they've done -- for example, let's keep arsenic in the water, let's give tax breaks to the wealthy. They've got some planks that they could fill in pretty well there.
SNOW: You came with a top 11 list, as a matter of fact...
REID: I did.
SNOW: ... which I thought was actually very funny too because you said, "This one goes to 11"...
REID: Yes.
SNOW: ... which some people will get that joke.
REID: Yes.
SNOW: Senator Harry Reid, thank you very much for joining us today.
REID: You bet.
SNOW: Appreciate it.
Up next, the muscle behind the U.S. message in the war against terrorism. Are there enough men and women in uniform to get the job done?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Resources are finite. There's never enough. Somebody always wants more of something. And the Pentagon does a pretty good job of balancing risks, war risks, one against another -- capability for Korea versus the capability in the Middle East, for example.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SNOW: Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld talking yesterday in Kyrgyzstan, as he reviews U.S. troops mobilized for the Afghanistan war. Rumsfeld has been knocking down calls from some to put tens of thousands more Americans in uniform.
And joining us now to talk about military might and hard national choices is Congressman Ike Skelton from Missouri, the top Democrat, the ranking member, if you will, on the House Armed Services Committee; and also former Navy Secretary, Marine in Vietnam and author, James Webb, who lately has been co-producing and writing the film version of his book, "Fields of Fire."
Thank you, gentlemen, for being with us. Let's just start basic. Does the U.S. have enough men and women in uniform, Congressman?
REP. IKE SKELTON (D), MISSOURI: We don't.
This is not a new thing. The army has been asking for an additional 40,000 troops, beginning back in 1995. We've had testimony this year from General Bill Kernan that the troops are stretched and that they're tired. Admiral Dennis Blair, the CINCPAC, commander in chief of the Pacific; General Joel Ralston, the commander in chief in NATO and in Europe...
SNOW: Right.
SKELTON: ... testified they don't have enough personnel, equipment or ships to do their missions.
SNOW: But then the secretary, Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, came out and said, "I think we can do with what we have. We can move some people around. We can get them out of sort of non-military capacities, the people who are doing the peacekeeping and other things, and move them back into being soldiers."
SKELTON: Number one, it's our job in Congress to raise and maintain the military. We can't pass that buck to anyone else but to us under the Constitution.
And I personally have been to bases, posts, ships -- USS Harry S. Truman, for instance -- recently, talked with the troops, talked with the sailors. They are stretched, they are tired. On the other hand, the morale is good. But their families are paying a price for this.
When they're short in the engine room a sailor, when we don't have enough mechanics to fix the airplanes, we have to do something about that.
Now, I'm pleased that the Armed Services Committee Subcommittee on Personnel has followed my recommendation. I introduced legislation on this recently to increase the troop strength. And they followed that 1 percent, 4,800 more for the Army, 3,700 more for the Navy, and 1/2 (ph) percent of the Air Force, 1,700.
SNOW: James Webb, are they stretched too thin, do you think, the military?
JAMES WEBB, FORMER NAVY SECRETARY: Well, I think if you're talking about specific operational areas, clearly they are. The special forces are stretched thin, the naval units that are at sea are stretched thin. If you're looking at aggregate numbers -- and perhaps Secretary Rumsfeld is correct in saying that there are people who aren't doing the job. But I think that the congressman is correct. And I was arguing this years ago, even before he went into the ramp- down. I resigned as....
SNOW: That's one of the reasons -- yes, that's why you left.
WEBB: ... secretary of the Navy in 1988 because of the reduction of the force structure of the Navy even then.
SNOW: Yes.
WEBB: What you're probably seeing here clearly is the secretary has to position the Department of Defense. We're going into a budget cycle. He doesn't want -- up front, doesn't want to have to trade of technology for personnel. Personnel are extremely expensive. Manpower is extremely expensive in our military. And so there is some posturing going on here.
SNOW: A phone call on the line, a caller from California. Are you there?
CALLER: Yes, I'm here.
SNOW: Go ahead with your question.
CALLER: With the activities the U.S. military is involved worldwide, my question is, would the military run a major ad campaign to recruit new personnel?
SNOW: Are they running a new ad -- in other words, how do you, if you need more people, how do you recruit them?
SKELTON: Right now...
SNOW: Because that's been a problem lately...
SKELTON: But, Kate, right now, there is no problem in recruiting.
SNOW: Because of 9/11.
SKELTON: Well, not just that. They've done a good job in advertising. Is it an attractive life in the military. And the people are lining up to do it.
I don't think it's a matter of additional ad campaigns. I think it's a matter of enlisting them, taking care of them, taking care of their families.
But the big problem is trying to get them to stay, trying to get them to make a career of it, at least to stay longer than just one hitch.
SNOW: James Webb, let me ask you about this viewer e-mail that we've gotten. The e-mail reads "How imminent on a time scale is a draft in the U.S.?" What do you think?
WEBB: I would say not imminent at all. Although, I've always believed in the notion of citizen service. I think that the draft has been probably slammed unnecessarily in this country because of all of the reverberations during Vietnam.
But it would take an extraordinary circumstance and a long debate before we would have a draft in the country. SNOW: Secretary Rumsfeld said yesterday that one of the problems he thinks is that, in places where the U.S. military is now, and have been for years now in some place, where they're doing sort of nation- building, peacekeeping, and local forces, he says, ought to have been able by now to take over, they should have been able to create police forces, et cetera, so that the U.S. doesn't have to be in there.
Do you agree with that?
SKELTON: Well, we've reduced our troops dramatically, in Bosnia, even in Kosovo. We have troops, of course, in the Sinai. But there's been an increase in missions -- the Philippines, Colombia, Yemen, which is new, and Georgia. Those are new missions for our troops.
Remember the document, the Quadrennial Defense Review, did not take into consideration the fight in Afghanistan, and it asked for enough troops, enough people to support one major regional contingency, plus being able to hold a second one. And then on top of that, we have the fight in Afghanistan and the fight against terrorism, which the president, by the way, says is going to be a long one. We just need more troops to do it.
SNOW: A lot more questions for you both. Congressman Skelton, James Webb, will you stay with us here.
We're going to look for your questions, as well, on military strength, when we come back, after a quick break and a news alert.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SNOW: An important source of information about the news of the day, the terrorism war and the demands placed on the U.S. military can be found on line at cnn.com, the AOL keyword CNN.
Back with our guests in just one minute after this news alert with Miles O'Brien in Atlanta.
(NEWSBREAK)
SNOW: We're back with Congressman Ike Skelton, Democrat of Missouri, and former Navy Secretary James Webb.
We were talking before the break, James Webb, about the idea of peacekeeping and whether the U.S. perhaps should be asking some other countries to pick up part of that.
WEBB: Well, I think that Secretary Rumsfeld is really focusing on a key issue in terms of use of manpower and use of the military. We have 1.4 million people on active duty. They are engaged around the world. We have to make clear distinctions between static positions, these peace keeping missions that really are not operational, and actually the operational missions.
And when you look at the future in Afghanistan, I think this is a distinction we have to look very hard at. If we are in Afghanistan to be running down international terrorist movement, which is the reason that we came there, then that is appropriate. Once this situation kind of morphs into nation-building and all of the rest of that, it's highly appropriate to get other countries involved and let our people move on.
SNOW: And you've written, I know, that it's not appropriate for the U.S. military to try and stay in a large territory, try to sort of occupy a large area of land.
WEBB: I think it's -- considering the size of the military and the uses to which they could be put, it's not a good use. And the situation in Afghanistan, you know -- we are not going to change the warrior culture, the warrior tribal culture of Afghanistan. We're not going to do it.
And so the overview that we put into the country in terms of attempting to help a new government in place is something that many other countries are adept at, particularly the British. So we should do the operational stuff and move on, in my view.
SNOW: We have a phone call on the line from Montreal. Caller, go ahead.
CALLER: Yes, I've got a question, please. I'd like to know, why does the U.S. always get involved in the peacekeeping phase of the war? Why not only do the hard job and let the Europeans, the Africans, the Asian countries take the bulk responsibility, so that monetarily help the...
WEBB: I just answered that.
SNOW: That's pretty much what you were just talking about.
WEBB: Yes.
SNOW: That is -- and both of you seem to agree on that point, that if -- or do you?
SKELTON: Yes, I do agree with what Jim says. However, there is always the problem that other countries are hesitant to help out in the peacekeeping effort unless we are there, unless we show some leadership.
SNOW: Well, maybe they don't have the kind of resources that the U.S. has.
SKELTON: Well, many of them do. Some of them do. And you have hand it to Great Britain for bellying up to do it, as well as Turkey is going to follow through in Afghanistan. But we have to be there sometimes to show leadership.
Let me also point out in this whole issue of do we have enough. We now have some 70,000 National Guardsmen and Reservists doing active-duty work. And of course, most of them are glad to do it or they wouldn't belong to the Guard or Reserve.
But you can't ask too much of them, because eventually they'll end up voting with their feet. That's why we need more active-duty types to do the job that we need to have done.
SNOW: What happens if and when -- some people would say it's when, it's coming -- when the U.S. goes into Iraq? Does the U.S. have enough capability, ground forces for Iraq?
WEBB: My view on that is that there shouldn't be a when. We should keep it as an if.
We have three different policy issues that we tend to be intermingling right now. The first is the war against international terrorism. That is a must for the United States. The second is the resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli situation. That is arguably a must for the world. But it's different. There are interconnections, but it's different. The third is the question of Iraq and Saddam Hussein. And I think that we should be very careful before we decide to do that.
SNOW: Let me put it this way though, Congressman. If we do, if the decision is made diplomatically on other levels, by the president, to go in, do you think the U.S. has the right structure, capability, militarily to do it?
SKELTON: Well, obviously it will not take the number of troops that we have. We have some 400,000-plus troops...
SNOW: The last time...
SKELTON: ... back in 1990, '91. I think the estimate is that it would take some 200,000 troops now. If you're talking about Army, that's almost half of the Army that we have today. What if something should pop up somewhere else in the world? These are our insurance policies, the young men and young women in uniform. That's why I think when the Army asks, back in 1995 and since, for 40,000 more troops to fulfill their mission, and the other services indicate that they need more as well, we in Congress need to listen to this, because it's our duty and our responsibility to raise and maintain them.
SNOW: Last question to you. We're getting short on time, but I want to ask about technology. Do you think that technology in some ways makes it easier to have fewer people because you've got smart bombs, for example?
WEBB: In some cases, because you can be more efficient. But I think that what we really need to remember here, since this is the topic of the day, is how dramatically the American military has been reduced already.
There was a -- it's kind of interesting. If you look at the AEI magazine, the cover of the AEI magazine in September...
SNOW: American Enterprise Institute.
WEBB: ... was, are aircraft carriers obsolete? And within one month, we had four of them off the shores of Afghanistan.
So there's a delicate balance in terms of tradeoffs. But I think that we cannot reduce the military, the size of military, to pay for technology. That's the key.
SKELTON: Along that line, Joe Ralston testified just a few weeks ago that at one point he didn't even have an aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean, which of course of part of his area of responsibility.
WEBB: And that's a situation that preceded this -- the Afghani situation.
SKELTON: That's correct.
WEBB: With the draw down of the naval forces.
SNOW: We have got to go and I'm sorry, but we'll have you back again. We've had you before, and we'll do it again.
Thanks to James Webb, the former Navy secretary, and Congressman Ike Skelton from Missouri, Democrat on the Armed Services Committee. Thank you both.
Coming up, T-shirts for sale near the Bush ranch this week said, "The president and the prince. Crawford peace summit."
Did peace break out, or are the Saudis going to shut off the oil? Our experts and your questions when we return.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SNOW: Editorial cartoonists sharpened their pens on terror alerts, friendly fire casualties and Mideast oil.
Jim Day (ph) of the Las Vegas Review Journal portrays homeland defense as a single sentry, tied up and immobilized by the leashes of his guard dogs.
Next, a reminder of how many Canadians were upset by the slow, muted United States response to the friendly fire killing of four Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan. They were bombed by a U.S. warplane.
Cam Cardo (ph) of The Ottawa Citizen shows a coffin coming home, draped with a Canadian flag, but above is a quote from President Bush last year, saying, "The United States has no more important relationship in the world than the one we have with Mexico."
Chris Brit (ph) of the State Journal Register in Springfield, Illinois, shows Uncle Sam over a barrel labeled "Oil Dependency." He calls out to the two grinning Arab oil producers, "Hey, I can see my SUV from here."
Are we over a Saudi Arabia barrel? Will the Bush administration cave in to Saudi pressure? Will the Saudis be a stronger partner in the terror war? Helping us sort through this, Jean Francois Seznec. He has lived in Saudi Arabia and teaches politics of the Persian Gulf at Georgetown University and Columbia University. And from our New York bureau, John MacArthur, publisher of Harper's magazine and author of "Second Front: Censorship and Propaganda in the Gulf War." Thank you both for being with us.
Dr. Seznec, President Bush and the Saudi crown prince had this big meeting on Thursday. They both came out saying they built a personal relationship. How much does that matter?
JEAN FRANCOIS SEZNEC, PROFESSOR OF "POLITICS IN THE GULF," COLUMBIA AND GEORGETOWN: I don't think it matters that much, personally. I think in the issue with the -- was that Crown Prince Abdullah was trying very hard to pass a message to the president that the situation is extremely grave. And I don't think the personal relationship matters very much.
SNOW: Mr. MacArthur, the message from Prince Abdullah was pretty clear. If the U.S. continues to support Israel, he told the president, watch out because our Arab-world friends are going to go away, they're not very happy. Does the U.S. risk losing Saudi support, do you think?
JOHN MACARTHUR, PUBLISHER, HARPER'S: No. And the notion -- the idea that the Saudis have much leverage on us is just wrong. It's a client relationship. The Saudi Arabians are still a client state of the United States. They are largely dependent on the U.S. market to sell their oil. They invest something like half a trillion dollars in the United States.
Ever since the British drew up the borders in the Persian Gulf in 1922, the Saudis have been supplicants more than active players. And this was scripted in order to help Abdullah save face in front of his radical, angry religious leaders, the sheikhs, who, to some extent, sympathize with bin Laden, sympathize with Hamas.
The Saudis are playing a double game. As I think most people know, or should know, they subsidize and support Hamas and the terrorist bombings in Israel -- inside Israel, but in order to placate the radicals within their own society, who would like to overthrow them.
So the idea that the Saudis are in position to dictate terms to the United States at this point I think is preposterous.
SEZNEC: I don't thing the Saudis are really dictating terms, in my view. And I don't think the client relationship is as strong as was just mentioned.
I believe that the Saudis feel that they do sell oil to the United States, but they also buy a tremendous amount of arms from us. They buy a lot of goods. They are very close to Exxon-Mobile.
And I believe that they are afraid that the situation on the field is so dangerous that it could be going out of control. And by "going out of control," I mean that basically today in the Gulf states, an alliance, a de-facto alliance that's being recreated of all the Arab states against the United States and Israel.
And that's very, very dangerous, because I think the United States, in all honesty, do not want a war against Israel. They do not want to throw out Israel into the sea. They have problems at home they want to solve. They want to grow their economy, they want to employ their people, they don't want a war.
But the situation in Palestine and Israel is the red line, and the populations are so worked up against it that there is an alliance de facto with Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and even Iran. I mean, we have achieved here in the past three months what -- nothing that has never been achieved since Mohammed in 1731, all of the Muslims are united. And it's dangerous, I believe.
MACARTHUR: I have to disagree. I have to say that the alliance -- it's an alliance possibly of convenience for the moment, but it's a public-relations alliance. The divisions between the Arab countries, which are encouraged by the United States, which I think prefers a degree of instability in the Middle East in order to keep the oil pumping, to keep one sheikh, one oligarchy fighting with another to keep everybody off balance -- remember, it wasn't so long ago that our favorite Arab leader was Saddam Hussein. We supported him, we backed him, we encouraged him to attack Iran.
We're in the midst of a complicated, what the British called or what Rudyard Kipling called "the great game of diplomacy." And if the Israelis and the Palestinians kill each other in the hundreds, the United States is prepared to accept that, and so are the Saudis who have never supported the Palestinian cause with any real enthusiasm. They, in fact, have subverted the Palestinian nationalist cause time and again by spreading the word among the Islamic faithful that Arafat, who is largely secular, does not have the right or the responsibility to negotiate the future of Jerusalem and the so-called holy sites.
SEZNEC: I agree, but I think we are underestimating here the feeling of the Saudis themselves. I think they've passed on their message through the New York Times just before the meeting, saying that they're really afraid that it's getting totally out of hand, as I said.
And I think the situation -- they view the situation as being grave for the United States because we could lose a lot of markets. They see it as graver for them. And they see it probably as gravest for Israel, because if this alliance, which I believe is not so much of convenience but almost inevitable at this point, really takes hold, we could have a major war very, very soon in the region. And I think they're afraid of that, and I think that's the message they were passing.
MACARTHUR: It is true that the Saudis are afraid of disorder, but they're mostly afraid of disorder and revolution within their own borders by the followers, the supporters of bin Laden and the radical Wahhabi ministers.
Remember, the Saudis invented the Wahhabi sect. It's the most puritanical, most expansionist, most intolerant, least moderate sect of Islam. They're very, very aggressive. They're not a moderate Arab state, as we're always saying over and over again. They're a very aggressive, reactionary state.
SEZNEC: I have to...
SNOW: OK. Now, hold on. I know you want to disagree here, but I've got to take a quick commercial break, pay the bills.
(LAUGHTER)
SEZNEC: OK.
SNOW: We're going to come back to this in just a moment, gentlemen.
Stay with us. We'll also take your questions about the U.S. the Saudis and relations with the Arab world, when we come right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ADEL AL-JUBEIR, SAUDI ARABIAN FOREIGN POLICY ADVISER: Oil is not a weapon. Oil is to be used for political purposes. We have a responsibility to the global economic system and to ensuring adequate and stable supplies of crude oil. So that's not an issue.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SNOW: Saudi Arabian foreign policy adviser Adel Al-Jubeir.
Weapon or not, Saudi oil ripples across the world economy, that's for sure.
We're talking to two students of the Arab world, Professor Jean Francois Seznec of Columbia and Georgetown Universities, and Rick MacArthur, publisher of Harper's magazine.
Professor Seznec, oil, it's just -- everybody knows Saudi Arabia equals oil. So how much does oil play into our relationship with them?
SEZNEC: It's very important, but I don't feel there's any fear of any oil weapon being used. The Saudis do produce enough oil to help us if we have needs, but I think the key here is that if the relationship declines, the cozy relationship we've had with Saudi Arabia who was able always to make up for lack of production from other states like Iran, Iraq, so on, always happened without any questions.
I think, with the problems in the Middle East today and with the new alliance that could be taking place in the region, I think we cannot count on that...
SNOW: Between the Arab countries?
SEZNEC: Yes, that's right. We cannot count on this anymore. And I think there are many other ways which the Saudis can play the game without using the oil weapon. I mean, today they sell -- the barrels of Saudi oil sold in this country are basically sold at a discount of $2.20 per barrel, instead of being sold to Japan, they could change the currency oil is priced in, they could delay this or that shipment. They could really make our life miserable.
SNOW: Rick MacArthur, the president, after his meeting with the prince, said that Prince Abdullah had assured him they wouldn't use oil as a weapon.
MACARTHUR: Well, they won't because the Bush family, to some extent, is so intertwined with the oil business, through their connections with the Saudi royal family, through the Carlisle Group (ph) which Bush Sr. advises, and so on, that the relationship is beyond cozy. They're in business together. And the purpose -- the Bush family is in business with the Saudi royal family.
So as professor points out, the purpose of Saudi oil is to keep the price low. We could actually live without Saudi oil. But by keeping Saudi oil pumping at the rate it's pumping, it keeps the world price lower than it would be, which is good from the point of view of the United States and Europe.
(CROSSTALK)
SEZNEC: I'm sorry, we also -- go ahead.
SNOW: Well, let me just -- an interesting e-mail. We can play off of this. It comes to us from Darren (ph) in Kentucky. And Darren (ph) writes, "If the Saudis want to have an oil embargo, I say let them do it. We'll get our oil from elsewhere," which is sort of the point that he was just making.
Can we get our oil...
MACARTHUR: We could, but we have a tremendous investment there. We have tens of thousands of people working in the Persian Gulf in the oil business. We sell to those countries. These are all friends and contributors of the Bush family and the Republican Party. So that's where the...
SEZNEC: I agree with you. I think, in fact, that's exactly the message that's being passed to the United States, is that we have these huge interests in the region and we're about to lose them if we are not making some efforts on the Palestinian issue -- I mean, more than efforts -- if we don't demand withdrawal of the settlements and of the Israeli army.
MACARTHUR: You don't seriously...
SEZNEC: We can get our oil elsewhere. That's not a problem. But then they'll sell more oil to the Far East and increase their relationship with Asia, China and Russia.
SNOW: Rick MacArthur, last word to you. MACARTHUR: You don't seriously believe, professor, that if the Saudis had to choose between the Palestinian cause and their relationship with the American business establishment, they would choose the Palestinians, do you? They certainly would not.
SEZNEC: At this time, Rick, I don't think they have any choice. And I think that's exactly the message they're passing. We don't realize how serious the situation is on the ground with Egypt, with themselves and the other counties in the region.
SNOW: We're going to have to leave it at that, gentlemen. I know you have a lot more to say. We're going to have to leave it at that this morning, though.
SEZNEC: Thank you.
SNOW: Our thanks to Jean Francois Seznec and Rick MacArthur for discussing Saudi politics with us. Appreciate it.
Just ahead on CNN's SATURDAY EDITION, My Turn.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SNOW: I'm headed out to New Mexico tomorrow to visit with Senator Pete Domenici.
For years, the Republican senator has been pulling for a new law that would force insurance companies to treat mental illness just like any other illness. You need to see a psychiatrist, you may the same co-payment you would if you need to see a heart specialist.
This is personal for Domenici. His daughter has schizophrenia. But the insurance lobby, business groups and Republicans in the House have always blocked the bill. They say people would take advantage of the new coverage, raising insurance rates for everyone. Small companies might even drop their coverage altogether.
But President Bush is expected on Monday to break with House Republicans and endorse Senator Domenici's bill in his home state of New Mexico. A nod from the president means it might actually become law after years and years of trying.
And that's CNN's SATURDAY EDITION for this week. I'm Kate Snow in Washington. Thanks so much for watching.
Up next, a news alert and CNN's People in the News, including a profile of Pope John Paul II.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
