Return to Transcripts main page
On the Story
Hagel Discusses Turmoil in Middle East; LaHood, Engel Debate US Policy Toward the Region
Aired May 04, 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.
JONATHAN KARL, HOST: Good morning to California, the rest of the West and all our viewers across North America. I'm Jonathan Karl in Washington. We want to hear from you over the next hour, your questions about Congress and the Mideast, the challenge for an Arab- American minority to get its voices heard, and later this hour, Washington humor. Our e-mail address is saturday.edition@cnn.com.
Senator Hagel, Republican from Nebraska, a man who speaks his own mind, is with us. But first, this news alert.
(NEWSBREAK)
KARL: We're just a few minutes away from the president's radio address. Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, once said he didn't fear political defeat because he's already been to hell, his service in Vietnam. Still fearless and bucking the status quo, and even occasionally taking on his party's leaders, joining us now, Senator Hagel.
SEN. CHUCK HAGEL (R), NEBRASKA: Good morning.
KARL: Senator Hagel, you voted, along with just about everybody else in the Senate, to unequivocally come down on the Israeli side of this conflict, a very strong statement supporting Israel, just as the president is trying to put together this conference to try to come to resolution.
Was it really a good idea for Congress to come done on the Israeli side at a time when the U.S. is trying to play this honest broker?
HAGEL: Jonathan, two points. One, no, I think the timing was bad. I think it was unwise. The fact is, number one, we support Israel, have always supported Israel and will continue to support Israel. But that should not be at the exception of the Palestinian people nor our Arab friends and allies. So the timing was bad.
But the resolution itself said that we support Israel and their efforts to defend themselves, and that's accurate. I don't think, as Bob Byrd said on the floor of the Senate, we need to continue to state that publicly. I don't think it was helpful for the president. I voted for it because I could agree with the content of the resolution, although I had reservations. The House resolution, however, I think was far more restrictive and was worse. I would have voted against that. But...
KARL: You would have voted against Tom DeLay's resolution in the House?
HAGEL: I would have very much voted against it because it did, in fact, single out the Palestinians and Arafat as the real problem here. And I think we have to be very careful here, as we are working toward a resolution and an ultimate political settlement. And it doesn't help when we take public sides on this and castigate and assign all of the responsibility and all the blame to one side. I don't see how we make progress.
KARL: Especially when we're trying to bring the two sides together.
HAGEL: Yes.
KARL: Now, this conference that's being talked about is going to be not just the United States bringing together the Israelis and the Palestinians but also the Russians, the European Union and the United Nations. I mean, you can't even get that group to agree on something. Does this really make sense? I mean, the past successful conferences, or summits, in the Mideast have been the U.S. and the two sides.
HAGEL: I think that you must include all the different parties represented by the so-called quartet. If you don't, then you leave out pieces of this overall group.
The Middle East settlement is in the interest of all of us -- the United Nations, certainly the Arab, Israeli constituencies, and the people in the Middle East, and the Europeans and the United States. I think it is wise to bring these people together.
The fact is, though, the United States must lead. And if there is to be a political settlement -- and I believe there eventually will be -- the United States is going to have to lead that coalition.
Now, the difference here is the time that we have here is very short. I don't think we can sequentially keep rolling these things out and, well, we'll do this this year, and this year we'll accomplish this, next year we'll go after this. It must be rolled together.
Now, what does that mean? Peace plan, a peace settlement, a cease-fire, and a political settlement to incentivize everybody. And I don't think you've got a window here probably more than six months before this thing unravels again.
KARL: It's going to be an interesting challenge. I mean, you know, as I said, just getting the U.S. and the EU on the same page, regarding the Middle East, is a challenge.
We have to take a quick break right now, listen to the president's radio address. When that's over, we'll be back.
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Good morning.
Sunday is Cinco de Mayo, a day that commemorates the Mexican people's great victory at the Battle of Puebla, a battle for freedom fought against overwhelming odds.
That victory continues to inspire liberty-loving people across the globe. It reminds us that the cost of freedom is always high, but it is never too high. Brave and determined people committed to a great cause can do great good. That was true 140 years ago, and it remains true today.
Just before September the 11th, I welcomed my good friend, President Vicente Fox, to the White House as the guest of honor at my first state dinner. When he arrived, I said this: "The United States has no more important relationship in the world than the one we have with Mexico."
In the past eight months, our relationship has grown even stronger. The people of Mexico stand with the American people in the war on terror. This is a decisive decade in the history of liberty, and the United States is grateful we can count on Mexico's strong support.
America's relationship with Mexico is built on common values and shared culture. We both value families and communities, the places where characters form and traditions are passed from one generation to the next. Americans appreciate the strong faith of the Mexican people, a faith that provides hope and inspiration and unity even in the darkest times.
People on both sides of the Rio Grande value an independence and freedom and opportunity, the ability to work hard to achieve your dreams and become successful as a result. By their strong values and their determination to create a better life for themselves and their children, immigrants from Mexico enrich American life.
My close relationship with President Fox reflects the close relationship between our nations. It is built on the solid ground of respect and trust and friendship. President Fox is a great Mexican patriot, a man of honest talk and convictions who is passionately concerned for his people's welfare. We are both deeply committed to helping the entire American familia achieve prosperity and live in peace.
Mexico and America share a continent, and we are dedicated to common goals. We are working together to create a smart border, one that will speed the safe flow of people and commerce but protect our two nations from terrorism and crime.
We're working together on a partnership for prosperity, to better focus the creativity and resources of the private sector on the critical task of development.
We are working together to address the important and challenging immigration issues between our countries. And I have asked our Congress to pass an extension of Section 245(i) of our immigration law to let families stay together while they become permanent residents.
We are working together to improve conditions for people living along the border, and we're working together to create an entire hemisphere that lives in liberty and trades in freedom.
Our two nations will succeed together because our futures are bound to each other. Geography made us neighbor, but our shared values and rich cultures have made us the closest of friends.
May God bless the people of Mexico, and may God bless the United States of America.
Thank you for listening.
KARL: Well, Senator, it's actually the quattro de Mayo. Tomorrow is Cinco de Mayo. But the president talking about U.S.- Mexican relations. And it was interesting to see there, you saw September 5 is when he met with Vicente Fox at the White House and talked about radically changing immigration policy, U.S. and Mexico. What's happened to that?
HAGEL: The first thing that's happened is the September 11 terrorist attack in this country. That issue, obviously, put a new focus on our immigration laws: How did these guys get into this country? Nobody tracked them. They were here, some illegally, some legally, and actually were assisted by our government in getting into these flight schools. So that has now reversed the process as to a more open immigration system.
KARL: So you're headed toward this more liberal immigration policy. September 11 comes. There's this question of, how did these guys get into the country? And, you know, Congress moves in the other direction.
HAGEL: Yes, so we're now reversing it. And we're going to have to get back to it because immigration is a huge issue. It's a political issue that I think will dominate the political landscape here, to some extent this November, but I think in 2004 it will be a big political issue. But it's a relevant issue. It's a big issue for all of us, societally, culturally, economically, historically, politically. We have to deal with this.
KARL: I've got to take a break, but in one sentence, what happens to the Republicans if they aren't seen as pro-immigration?
HAGEL: I think we run the risk of being the minority party in this country for a long time if we don't get this immigration issue straightened.
KARL: OK. We have to take a quick break.
Coming up, your questions to saturday.edition@cnn.com.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KARL: Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska and an outspoken member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is here.
And, Senator Hagel, back to this question of this Mideast peace conference. We still don't know when it would be -- we assume it would be this summer sometime -- or exactly the parameters or even where it will be. Have you heard anything new on this? What are the people at the State Department telling you?
HAGEL: I think it's important that we continue to make some progress framing this up. But as I said earlier, we can't allow this just to go on and on and then maybe we'll do something this summer and maybe we'll do something this fall. It's going to have to be, in my opinion, a very focused, consolidated, disciplined effort to actually accomplish everything.
We know that summits and meetings and conferences always should have an objective or some objectives and goals. And we're not...
KARL: The success is determined before they start.
HAGEL: Well, to some extent, that's true, but this is a different ball game.
I think where the administration has now moved this is significant, because they do have this quartet that we talked about earlier together with them. That gives them the high ground diplomatically and also some muscle here to move forward. And I think they'll get it done. And I think it is important that we get this in place as quickly as we can.
KARL: Well, the other thing that's interesting is, this is not going to be at the head-of-state level, so Sharon will not be there, Arafat will not be there.
And I'm just wondering, with Sharon, here's a guy who says -- who vowed, promised when he ran that he would never dismantle the Israeli settlements in the disputed territories of Gaza and the West Bank, that he would never agree to return Israel back to its pre-'67 borders, and that he would never negotiate with Arafat.
I mean, how do you -- I mean, do we ultimately get to a deal between Arafat and Sharon, when the two seem completely irreconcilable? HAGEL: Well, occasionally in history, when times look the most bleak and are at the darkest, somehow the clouds part, sunshine comes in and something happens. I think this is now at such a crisis point, and I think Sharon understands that, Sharon and the Arab leaders and Arafat are going to have to rise above themselves here. And I think there is more and more a sense of that. Now, can that happen? I don't know.
But I would go back to one point you made. We don't yet know the format of the conference or summit or meeting or whatever it's going to be.
KARL: The president calls this a meeting, not even a conference.
HAGEL: Well, that may be, but I wouldn't dismiss the fact yet that the leaders would not be in that. I'm not so sure that you don't want that to happen right up front.
KARL: Really.
HAGEL: Because if you let this thing meander with "let's get our foreign ministers first, and then we'll get maybe ambassadors in, and then eventually maybe we'll get the leaders," I think you run a risk of opening and deepening, widening this vacuum. So I'm not so sure that you couldn't get the leaders on this.
KARL: So you would be inclined, if it could be worked out, to get Arafat and Sharon at the same table?
HAGEL: I would be inclined -- I don't have all of the pieces, and I'm not the expert here. And I have a great amount of respect and confidence in Colin Powell, so let him maneuver here, and I think that's important, the Congress does here. That's why these resolutions are very, dangerous. Let Powell maneuver here, let the president maneuver. But I would be inclined to support strongly the meetings with the leaders first, because I think we need to jump over this great underbrush and swamp that we're now in.
KARL: All right, let's switch gears. Fireworks on the Hill this week with Robert Byrd, West Virginia, regarding Tom Ridge, our homeland defense director. Listen to what Robert Byrd had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. ROBERT BYRD (D), WEST VIRGINIA: Instead of allowing Director Ridge to testify before this Senate Appropriations Committee, the administration would rather trivialize homeland security with these made-for-television stunts.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KARL: Now, of course he's referring to Ridge's continued refusal to testify before the Congress, but to come up and talk to you folks informally.
But the larger issue here is, what has happened with homeland defense? Bob Graham, Intelligence chair, came out and he said that Ridge gets an "A" for effort but he gets an "I" for accomplishments.
I mean, what has actually been accomplished now that Ridge has been in that job for over six months?
HAGEL: Jonathan, I think it's important we put into a framework here a sense of understanding right from the beginning.
First, we're making this up as we go along. We have never been confronted with this kind of challenge before. So the president has before him an immediacy that he can't defer. He's got something here that he's got to move on right now. There are going to be mistakes. There are going to be handoffs that don't work. There are going to be decisions made that aren't quite right. And...
KARL: Well, has this been a success story so far? HAGEL: Well, I think you have to give it some time, working it through. I don't think you can make a judgment eight months after this attack on the United States and say it's been a success or not a success.
Now, with the fact that we are working it through, in my opinion -- and I have said this publicly -- it seems to me it would be in the interest of the president to let Ridge come up here and testify to tell the president's story, to lay it out, to frame it up. There are people getting nervous.
KARL: How many Republicans agree with you on that? Are you a lonely voice on that one?
HAGEL: No, I don't think I am. I think we want...
KARL: I know Ted Stevens agrees.
HAGEL: A lot of Republicans -- some are more quiet about it.
But again, it's the point, this would help the president. He could have his spokesman, his individual that he has charged with this heavy responsibility, define this. Because here's where it's coming, rolling back down to. And everybody is going to get a little nervous about this. What is it? What is the objective here? How are we to then proceed? Under what basis? What's the infrastructure? And that's what we need to know.
KARL: Well, now that we're on domestic politics, take a look at this poll, the latest CNN-USA Today Gallup poll. Bush's approval rating still at 77 percent; 70 percent saying he deserves re-election.
Although it's interesting, you get down to "he deserves re- election," but only 56 percent are saying they're likely to vote for him in 2004.
Now, even for us political junkies, it's a little bit early to talk about polls on this. But, I mean, how long does this last?
HAGEL: Well, you know all about polls. We all know about polls. I've never believed too much in polls. Polls are yesterday.
KARL: Yes.
HAGEL: The interesting number on 56 percent who say they would vote for Bush, that's considerably higher than what he got...
(LAUGHTER)
HAGEL: ... in 2000, so...
KARL: Yes, that's right.
HAGEL: ... there's some good news in that.
KARL: We've also seen polls of people saying they'd vote, you know, the Bush-Gore match-up and he of course wins that one now.
HAGEL: Well, I think the other point about -- you'd rather have those numbers with you today than the other side. But he knows that you've got a long way to go before 2004.
KARL: We're basically out of time. I wanted to get one quick question to you.
We've got a farm bill coming your direction. You're from Nebraska. You know, I used to live in South Dakota. There's a lot of -- you know, it's a big farm state. But this is, this a huge, huge bill, big new subsidies for farmers. And you've been one that's been in favor of kind of a free-market approach to ag policy.
Are you going to vote for this thing?
HAGEL: Well, I voted against it when it came out of the Senate. I think it was really overloaded with many, many bad elements. I think, as I said, it took us back to the antique farming strategy of the past. Most of the world and agriculture is moving this way toward a free market, and we now are moving backward. KARL: But everybody from Nebraska has voted for this.
HAGEL: Oh, I know it. I'll be lonely if I vote against it, but I'll have that vote coming up here shortly. And I'm going to make a speech next week and explain why and how I'm going to vote.
KARL: Well, great. Well, Senator Hagel, it's always a pleasure to have you on the show.
HAGEL: Thank you.
KARL: Thanks for coming in.
Coming up, Congress overwhelming sided with Israel this week. Is Capital Hill rejecting Arab-American concerns? We'll hear from two members of Congress when CNN's SATURDAY EDITION returns.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KARL: And now back to SATURDAY EDITION.
Joining us from Peoria, Illinois, is Congressman Ray LaHood. He is a member of the Select Intelligence Committee, as well as the Congressional Arab Caucus. And in New York, Democratic Congressman Eliot Engel, a member of the House International Relations Committee.
Gentlemen, welcome to both of you.
REP. RAY LAHOOD (R), ILLINOIS: Good morning.
REP. ELIOT ENGEL (D), NEW YORK: Thank you.
KARL: Congressman LaHood, I'd like to start with you. You are one of six members, just six members, in that Arab-American Caucus in the Congress. Do you get the sense that the voice of Arab-Americans gets represented fully in the U.S. Congress?
LAHOOD: Well, we try and do the best we can, Jonathan. And it's an uphill struggle because we're outnumbered dramatically by the numbers in the House. But we try and make our case from time to time, and I think we do the best that we can.
KARL: But specifically, on Mideast policy? I mean, is the Congress balanced on Mideast policy?
LAHOOD: Well, of course it's not balanced. It's probably balanced against Arab interests. And so what we have to do is talk with as loud of bull horn as we possibly can, but when there's only six of us, it makes it difficult.
KARL: Well, if balance is a question, why was it that you voted in favor of this resolution that not only expressed solidarity with Israel, but put the blame for what's going on in the Mideast squarely on the shoulders of the Palestinians? We heard Chuck Hagel say he would actually have voted against that. Why did you vote for it?
LAHOOD: Well, he actually voted for the resolution that was in the Senate, so you can't have it both ways.
KARL: But the House resolution was a lot harsher than the Senate one, right?
LAHOOD: I don't know that that's quite right, Jonathan. I think both resolutions were pretty similar.
But in any event, I think -- I agree with Senator Hagel. I thought it was a bad idea to bring it up, but our leadership decided to do it against the wishes of the Bush administration. And some of us worked behind the scenes to try and persuade our leadership not to bring it up, because you can't have 435 secretaries of state or 100 secretaries of state, as the case might be. And, you know, I didn't agree with the idea of bringing it up.
But I have said, and I've been on the record as saying, that, you know, I do think that there is plenty of blame to go around, but we -- I agreed with the wording of the resolution and felt that if it was going to be called to a vote, I had a responsibility to vote for it.
KARL: So, Congressman Engel, if the U.S. is going to try to be this broker, you know, trying to broker a deal between the two sides, some kind of a peace agreement, how can that be done when the Congress is coming squarely on one side, squarely on the side of the Israelis?
ENGEL: First of all, the United States and Israel are very strong allies for many, many, many years. They have shared values, they have shared strategic goals. Israel has voted with the United States in the United Nations for the past 50 years more consistently than any other country; shared values of democracy. So there is strong support for Israel in the Congress in both parties, and I think that's natural.
It doesn't mean that we don't also support our moderate Arab friends in the area, who also work with the United States. And I've been a strong supporter of increased U.S. foreign aid for countries like Jordan, and I think it's important.
Just because we want to be a broker doesn't mean that we have to have a 50-50 policy. We are a democracy. Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East in a sea of dictatorships and tyrants. And so I think there's a strong bond between the United States and Israel for good reason.
KARL: Now, that resolution the House had extremely strong words about Yasser Arafat. In fact, an earlier version of it said that he was directly involved and responsible for the terrorism that's happened in Israel.
Let's take a listen to what President Bush had to say about Arafat this week.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BUSH: Mr. Arafat must perform. Mr. Arafat must do his job. I've called upon Mr. Arafat in the past, I will continue to call upon Mr. Arafat, to lead. Somebody asked me one time a while ago, they said, "Has he disappointed you? Has he lost your respect?" I said, "Well, he hasn't earned my respect yet."
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KARL: OK, Congressman LaHood, you went to the Middle East recently, earlier this year, and your delegation, which was lead by Dick Gephardt, refused to meet with Arafat. In hindsight, was that a mistake or was that the right thing to do?
LAHOOD: Well, Jonathan, I don't know that we refused to meet with him. We actually met with some Palestinians while we were there. I met with the president of El Kood (ph) University. Leader Gephardt met with some other Palestinians. So we didn't really snub him. I think it was impractical at the time that we there earlier this year to really meet with him, and so we tried to meet with some other folks who are very close to Arafat and very close to his leadership.
KARL: And, Congressman Engel, I mean, is Arafat still a viable negotiating partner?
ENGEL: I don't think he's a viable negotiating partner. I don't think he's a partner for peace. He's a terrorist. He never changed his ways. If you look at the suicide bombers in Israel, three- quarters of the attacks against innocent Israeli civilians have been perpetrated by Arafat's Fatah grouping -- Force 17, Tanzim, the al- Aqsa Brigade. These are all organizations that Arafat controls.
So it's no longer a case whether Arafat wants to control the terrorism or can he control the terrorism. He is the terrorist.
And I think we have to go beyond that. I would favor speaking with other Palestinian leaders. Hopefully, there can be a more moderate leadership that emerges. ENGEL: But Arafat is -- let's face it. Twenty months ago, the Israelis accepted a peace proposal that would have given the Palestinians their own state, billions of dollars given in international aid. And Arafat said no, walked away from it, didn't counter-offer, and unleashed the intifada and uses terrorism as a negotiating tool.
I think Arafat's days, frankly, have come and gone. We don't ask President Bush to negotiate with Osama bin Laden, and I don't really think the Israelis should negotiate with Arafat.
KARL: OK. Congressman Engel, you just said Arafat is the terrorist.
Congressman LaHood, I'd like to hear what you think of that, but first we need to take a quick break. We need to go down to Atlanta and get an update from our Miles O'Brien with a news alert.
(NEWSBREAK)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KARL: We're continuing our discussion with Republican Congressman Ray LaHood of Illinois and Democrat Congressman Eliot Engel of New York.
So, Congressman LaHood, you heard it right there, as blunt as it could be: Arafat is a terrorist, says Congressman Engel. Do you agree?
LAHOOD: Well, you know, Jonathan, I don't know that anything is well served by the blame game or name calling and all that sort of thing, the activity that goes on. I mean, it's easy to, you know, try and label somebody.
But the truth is that you have leaders over there, they are the leaders of these different factions, and they have to be dealt with. And I think Arafat is the leader of the Palestinian organization, and we have to deal with him.
But I don't think it benefits us or benefits anyone by, you know, this idea of, you know, labeling somebody or calling them a name or whatever. We have to deal with where people are and try and get these folks to some kind of a reasonableness and hopefully some kind of a peace agreement.
KARL: OK, let's take a look at, again, that USA Today-CNN Gallup poll. The question was asked, has Bush taken a side? Look at these numbers. 45 percent think that he's taken the Israeli side. Only 4 percent, the Palestinians. And neither side, 43 percent.
If we go right now to viewer e-mail, take a look at this e-mail we got from Patricia in Florida. Clearly the view here, she says, "The Palestinians have been abandoned by the U.S. Congress, the U.S. Senate and the Christian hard right."
So, Congressman Engel, can you say, I mean, has this Congress taken a side on this?
ENGEL: Well, there has always been support for Israel in the Congress through the years. And again, that's the reason I said before: They're a shared democracy, shared values, we share intelligence with Israel.
And in terms of Arafat, name calling, documents show that he not only is a terrorist, that he's aiding and abetting and giving money to the families of the terrorists, that he's behind the bombs, that money is being transferred. This is non-controversial, this is a fact. Arafat has never changed his ways, and the Palestinians, I think, are ill served, frankly, by having him as their leader.
And again, let's remember, Israel agreed to have a Palestinian state 20 months ago with billions of dollars of foreign aid for this Palestinian state, with 97 percent of the West Bank land given back and 100 percent of Gaza given back. Arafat rejected it and unleashed terror bombings and suicide bombings and homicide bombings. He thought he could use terrorism as a negotiating tool.
So the facts are facts. The U.S. Congress recognizes that, understands that, and that's why the resolution that we passed in the House, overwhelmingly, by both parties, was critical of Arafat.
And let's also remember, Jonathan, when the World Trade Center went down, Palestinians were dancing in the street. This is the kind of leadership that Arafat provides.
KARL: OK, well, if you look at what Tom DeLay, the Republican whip in the House, said -- and, Congressman LaHood, I'm sure you saw this -- at the AIPAC speech, he came out and he said that he looked at the Golan Heights when he visited and he didn't see an occupied territory. What he saw was Israel.
I mean, do you agree with a statement like that, that the Golan Heights are not an occupied territory but are Israel proper?
LAHOOD: Well, I'm not going to go back and rehash what another member has said. I think the important thing...
KARL: Well, that's a pretty important point, though, right? I mean...
LAHOOD: Well, it's a point that he made, and I don't think it makes any difference what Ray LaHood thinks about that. I think the important point is that we need to try and support the president's efforts and Colin Powell's efforts to get these two factions together, these two -- both leaders together and try and bring about a peace.
And I think that's why the president invited the crown prince to Crawford, Texas, to talk about his proposal. I think that's why the president sent Secretary Powell there and he met with Arafat. I think that's why they're keeping the pressure on.
Our goal ought to be to bring about peace and to end the violence and these terrorist attacks and these killings in that area of the world. And so, that ought to be our goal.
KARL: Let's talk about another leader. Dick Armey, the majority leader in the House, of course, went on Hardball last week and talked about -- said that what should happen is that the Palestinians should be shipped out of the disputed territories in the West Bank and Gaza.
Now, he retracted a bit and said that he was talking about those responsible for terrorism. But doesn't that reveal something of where the leadership in the House, the Republican leadership, is on this issue?
LAHOOD: Well, Jonathan, you know, I go back to what I said before. I didn't like the idea of bringing the resolution up. I didn't think it was a good thing. The Bush administration, President Bush and Secretary Powell, didn't want it brought up, but for whatever reasons, it was brought up.
And I go back to what I said before. We ought to be relying on the president and his people, Secretary Powell and others, to get these two leaders together. You can't have 535 secretaries of state. President Bush was elected president. He appointed Secretary Powell. They ought to be the ones with the responsibility to try and get these leaders together, and I think they're working very hard doing it.
KARL: One last question here, Congressman Engel. You heard Chuck Hagel here earlier in this show suggest that it would be a good idea to actually bring Arafat and bring Sharon into this meeting, if at all possible, into this conference, this Mideast conference.
Do you think that would be a good idea, to get Arafat to the table with Sharon?
ENGEL: I don't think that will happen. I am in favor. I agree with Ray. Ultimately the parties have to sit down. There is no alternative to peace, and we have to have that.
But frankly, we have -- we can get closer to peace with Israel and the United States working closely together. That's when the Palestinians will understand that they can't use suicide bombings to drive a wedge between the United States and Israel. I think we have to move beyond Arafat, frankly.
KARL: OK.
ENGEL: I think some people rise from being a terrorist to being a statesman. I think Arafat, by his actions, has shown that he's incapable of being anything but a terrorist.
And that's why Dick Armey and Tom DeLay and Dick Gephardt and members on both sides of the aisle strongly support Israel and call Arafat for what he is, a terrorist.
KARL: OK, Congressman Engel and Congressman Ray LaHood, I thank you both for joining us on this Saturday.
LAHOOD: Thank you very much. KARL: We will talk to you more about this in the future.
ENGEL: Thank you, Jonathan.
KARL: Take care.
Straight ahead, is there a lighter side to politics? We'll talk to reporters going to tonight's White House correspondents dinner and to comedian, Al Franken.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AL FRANKEN, COMEDIAN/AUTHOR: I think these dinners have gotten a little out of hand. We are the only country in the world that demands that our chief executive do stand-up comedy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KARL: Once again, the Mideast is the raw material of editorial cartoons this week.
John Deering (ph) of the Arkansas Democratic Gazette shows the Palestinian cab company picking up a very important passenger. The driver says, "The meter is running. Where to, Mr. Arafat?" The reply, "I was hoping you could tell me."
Clay Bennett (ph) of the Christian Science Monitor shows a U.S. warplane. A newspaper headlines says, "Saddam Hussein celebrates his 65th birthday." And President Bush is checking the birthday ribbon on his surprise present.
And Mike Peters of the Dayton Daily News shows President Bush hugging an unsmiling visitor who is holding a barrel of oil. Says the president, "Love means never having to say you're Saudi."
Cartoonists and comedians always turn to politicians for inspiration, and while September 11 forced a change in the routine for many comics, Washington is once again the butt of jokes.
Tonight the president and other politicians and the press sit down together at the White House Correspondents Dinner. Joining us from Boston to talk about the funny side of politics is a veteran of those dinners, comedian Al Franken. He is also the author -- here's the plug -- "Oh, the Things I Know: A Guide to Success or, Failing That, Happiness."
And here in Washington, people who make their business to report on the Bush White House: Alexis Simendinger of the "National Journal," Mike Allen of the "Washington Post" and our very own Kelly Wallace there at the White House.
Thank you all for joining us.
Start right with you, Al Franken. One thing a lot of people may not know about you is that you actually have helped people prepare. You've helped Al Gore, for instance, prepare for this little stand-up routine that they have do.
You now have this book on advice coming out. What advice would you have for George Bush on his speech tonight?
FRANKEN: I actually don't think he needs advice from me. I think he's pretty good at these things. He's got a good sense of humor. He's got a pretty good delivery. And I think he's got a good staff.
(LAUGHTER)
FRANKEN: So I think the doesn't need my advice. And I'd -- if I had to give him advice, I'd give him bad advice because I'm a Democrat.
(LAUGHTER)
FRANKEN: I'd tell him to do stuff about, you know, the Catholic Church. That's what I'd tell him.
KARL: Now what -- yes, that will go over great.
FRANKEN: Yes.
KARL: So what it is about us, that we demand our presidents to come out and perform? Sometimes it can be four times a year.
FRANKEN: Yes, he has to be funny at the Alfalfa Dinner. He has to be funny at the Gridiron. He has to be funny at the Radio and TV Correspondents -- except this year he missed it -- and this one. In the spring he does more gigs -- you know, the president does more gigs than Mark Russell.
KARL: Mark Russell, of course, the legendary political humorist.
FRANKEN: I don't know. I think that we just -- it's something we like putting our presidents through. We want to make sure that the president has a sense of humor.
And actually they've been pretty good at it. Clinton was very good at it. The first guy I saw do it was Reagan in '88. And he was great, because he had made a career of doing after-dinner speaking. I remember one of the jokes...
KARL: That's not fair. He's actually a professional.
FRANKEN: Well, I remember one of the jokes he did in '88, which was "I thought the fourth estate was one of Walter Annenburg's (ph) homes."
(LAUGHTER)
FRANKEN: And I -- you know, it was in '88, and I don't know where he was in everything else, but he was in top form. KARL: Well, let's take a look at Bush from one of the earlier correspondents dinners last year. Take a look at this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BUSH: Now, most people would say, in speaking of the economy, "We ought to make the pie bigger. I, however, am on record saying, we ought to make the pie higher."
(LAUGHTER)
BUSH: It is a very complicated economic point I was making there.
(LAUGHTER)
BUSH: But believe me, what this country needs is taller pie.
(LAUGHTER)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KARL: Now, with apologies to Al Franken, frequently the president gets much bigger laughs than the comedian that performs at the dinner.
Mike Allen, what has this president been doing to prepare for this dinner?
MIKE ALLEN, "WASHINGTON POST": Well, I discovered that this president and others take these funny speeches very seriously. This...
KARL: Humor is a serious thing.
ALLEN: It is, it is. By the time the president goes out tonight, he will have done four rehearsals for it.
KARL: Wait, so we're in a time of war right now, and the president has on four occasions rehearsed this speech?
ALLEN: Yes, somebody said to me last night, "Who's running the country?" But 10 days ago in the Oval Office, they worked on it a little bit. He did a rehearsal Wednesday in the family theater. Rehearsal yesterday right before he went to Camp David. And he's going to do a little quick run-through tonight.
A scoop for you Jonathan, the president is going to do a slide show tonight, a funny narration to slides reprising what he did last year. A lot of your viewers will remember, the bathtub photos of the Bush family, including Governor Jeb Bush at age four, stark naked.
(LAUGHTER)
KARL: Kelly, do you want to jump in? KELLY WALLACE, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: I'm just listening. It is going to be really, really interesting to see. You know, we were asking Ari, well, Ari Fleischer, the president's spokesman, "How is the president preparing to be funny tomorrow -- tonight?" And Ari said, "Well, Kelly, the president is always funny." But, you know, the pressure is on.
WALLACE: One thing I want to throw in, though, is sort of the sidebar here to this dinner is a little bit of the control that this White House has put on exactly who is attending, with which organization.
It has really become really unprecedented, I'm sure Mike and Alexis will agree, for the White House senior staffers to sort of have a press assistant here at the White House, Rachel Sumbarger, who is wonderful, really kind of overseeing exactly which invitation each senior staff received and who they're going with. It's really never happened before.
KARL: All right. Well, Alexis, you're going. Who are you taking?
ALEX SIMENDINGER, "NATIONAL JOURNAL": Well, we've got a lot of good guests.
But the one thing I wanted to add to this conversation is the importance of humor, why do presidents spend all this time practicing and get humorists to write comedy, material for them, and that is because it helps them both be a shield and a weapon.
And in this case, the president uses this to make a little fun of himself, but also to make friends. There are a lot of people in that room, including members of Congress, that he's going to make a little light remark about and hopefully maybe build a few bridges or do a little business.
KARL: Humor as a weapon.
Let's take a listen to what Bill Clinton had to say -- now, he was a master of these dinners -- at one of the dinners while he was president.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WILLIAM CLINTON, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Everybody now knows the vice president prefers earth tones. All you see me in is primary colors.
(LAUGHTER)
CLINTON: We both share an abiding interest in Buddhism.
(LAUGHTER)
But when I visited the Buddhists in India, it costs the taxpayers millions. When Al meets with Buddhists, he turns a tidy profit. (LAUGHTER)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KARL: And I am sure that Al Gore greatly appreciated that joke at the time, especially because he was getting geared up for his own run for the presidency.
We have to take a quick break. We'll come back with more for our White House correspondents and for Al Franken.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BUSH: I have expanded the use of the words themselves, using "vulcanize" when I meant "polarize."
(LAUGHTER)
"Grecians" when I meant "Greeks."
(LAUGHTER)
"Inebriating" when I meant "exhilarating."
(LAUGHTER)
And instead of "barriers and tariffs," I said "tarriers and barriffs."
(LAUGHTER)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KARL: Well, Al Franken, it didn't take much to write that. I mean, it was all stuff he had already said.
FRANKEN: Yes, you know, you will always want to be self- deprecating, and it's easy for him.
KARL: Yes.
(LAUGHTER)
Well, now you've actually had to sit up there and be the entertainment for these dinners twice, right, two White House correspondents dinners?
FRANKEN: Right.
KARL: What that's like? I've seem some...
FRANKEN: It's really nerve-wracking, because the first time I was there, it was '94 and I sat next to Tipper on the dais, and I told her, I said, "I have a joke" -- I said, "I have a joke about your husband. And my instinct tells me it may be over the line, because there is all of these Beltway people there."
She said, "What's the joke?" I said, "OK, here is the joke. Vice President Gore reaffirmed his commitment to the environment today when he made an announcement about the stick up his butt. He said that instead of replacing the stick every day as he does now, he will keep the same stick up there throughout the rest of the administration. Evidently, this will save an entire rain forest."
(LAUGHTER)
And Tipper looked at me and said, "I'd go with my instinct."
(LAUGHTER)
And I did. I didn't do it.
A couple things, a couple of things. What Mike said about the president, you know that at the White House, they're going like this -- "There has been another suicide bombing, there's a credible terrorist threat, Mr. President, and Karl thinks that your pretzel material needs a little punch-up."
(LAUGHTER)
You know, you know that those kinds of things are coming out.
KARL: Yes.
FRANKEN: Also, that joke you saw with the president telling about Gore, there is an interesting thing there which is that Gore was, I'm sure, on the dais at that time, and Gore has to, of course, at that joke doing this "Ha, ha, ha, ha"...
(LAUGHTER)
FRANKEN: ... when he's going, "You bastard."
And so it's -- and there are C-SPAN cameras there. Everyone knows it, so everyone has to be a good sport. It's an exciting spectacle.
(LAUGHTER)
WALLACE: Jon, you know, I was going to jump in. In the audience, just as Al was saying, what's always funny is the reaction, because, as Al is talking about, if a joke kind of goes over the line, you could have the crowd go, "Oh," or make some kind of response. And so this crowd definitely will let its feelings be known very quickly if that joke didn't quite cut it in that audience.
KARL: For any of you, you could be sitting there -- you guys are all bringing high-powered guests to this dinner, you know, senior administration officials. Do you have to kind of gauge your own reaction and how you're laughing to these jokes? I mean, if a comedian says a really cutting joke, do you have to kind of...
SIMENDINGER: Well, I think...
KARL: ... hold back because of your guest?
SIMENDINGER: ... I think what's funny is actually sitting at a table with people you don't normally think of as sort of ribald, funny people who are enjoying the wit at somebody else's expense, even somebody in their own party for instance, or you know, the lampooning. So it's fun to actually let people let their hair down.
FRANKEN: I did a joke at the White House correspondents dinner about Dole. I was asked by a Dutch correspondent in New Hampshire -- I was telling the story about a Dutch correspondent who said to me, "Who are the Republicans you like the best?" And I said, "Well, I like Dole the best." And he said, "Ah, but he is so old." And I said, "Yes, but you know, he wasn't too old to save your sorry Dutch ass."
(LAUGHTER)
And the whole place erupted except there was one table where the Dutch ambassador...
KARL: Oh no.
FRANKEN: ... was the guest of, you know, the "Washington Post." And he was like, "What's funny about," you know, however the Dutch speak.
ALLEN: Alexis was talking about humor as a weapon. And another one of these six funny dinners the president has to do every year is the Gridiron, where the motto is, "singe, not burn," which is what they try for.
President Clinton's staff was telling me they didn't quite get this the first few years. He thought this was a night to settle scores with the press and with other people, and went maybe a little too far. They said later he realized that there was always some scandal going on. This was a chance to look like your head wasn't too big or to...
KARL: Yes, all right.
Well, unfortunately, we're out of time, but we will all be at the dinner tonight. Well, actually, I guess you'll be at your book signing, Al Franken, but we'll be thinking of you.
FRANKEN: Thank you very much for mentioning that.
(LAUGHTER)
KARL: All right, Alexis Simendinger, Mike Allen, our very own Kelly Wallace, Al Franken, thank you all for joining us.
SIMENDINGER: Great to be with you.
FRANKEN: Thank you. ALLEN: See you in a tux. KARL: All right, when we come back, my turn.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KARL: When Democrats and Republicans in Congress eagerly agree on something that involves spending tax dollars, watch your wallet.
The latest bipartisan boondoggle is a farm bill. With almost no real debate, Congress is on the verge of agreeing to what may be, in dollar terms, the biggest non-military expansion of the federal government since the Great Society programs of the 1960s.
After briefly attempting to inject some free-market principles into U.S. agriculture policy, Congress is about to open the floodgate on subsidies, items like $4 billion in new spending on peanuts.
This bill even marks a return of the infamous wool and mohair subsidies. That was a program started back in the 1940s to provide mohair for military uniforms. This was the program that put $29,000 into the pocket of a part-time farmer and a full-time news figure named Sam Donaldson.
The military no longer uses mohair, but the money will once again start to flow after the president signs the bill into law, and -- watch your wallet -- he will.
Thanks for watching CNN's 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
