Will Bush Get a Resolution to Attack Iraq From Congress?
ANNOUNCER: CROSSFIRE. On the left: James Carville and Paul Begala. On the right: Robert Novak and Tucker Carlson. In the</s>CROSSFIRE: He's getting his way with Congress...</s>SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN (D), CONNECTICUT: There's broad bipartisan support for what the White House wants to do here with regard to Iraq.</s>ANNOUNCER: He may get his way with the U.N.</s>ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The president just cannot imagine the United Nations making the same mistake twice.</s>ANNOUNCER: But will he get his way with Iraq? It's the rite of autumn in all its gaudy glory. But should we really be thinking: "There she is, Miss Outdated? And tallyho -- perhaps it's time to chase a bit of snobbery out of the 21st century. Tonight on CROSSFIRE. From the George Washington University, Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson.</s>PAUL BEGALA, CO-HOST: Welcome to CROSSFIRE. Tonight, if you want to get rid of a skunk, is the best way to corner it and then kick it? Especially if it's a skunk named Saddam Hussein. And as long as we're talking about</s>TUCKER CARLSON, CO-HOST: You just save that script. I think you read it in April and May and June and July. It never goes away. From the "if you can't beat them, join them" department, the Bush administration has done a 180 and now supports the establishment of an independent commission to investigate what precipitated September 11. A probe by the House and Senate Intelligence Committees is wrapping up with public testimony. It focused largely on intelligence failures, and members say they did not have time or resources to look into issues like border security, visas, commercial aviation, or what state and local government should do to prevent terrorism. The administration would like an independent commission to go into all of that, and more. And good for them.</s>BEGALA: I agree. It's a rare moment I agree with you. It's a rare moment I praise President Bush when he comes around to the Democratic side, I am all for it.</s>BEGALA: Speaking of our president, today George W. Bush appeal to the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, to support military action against Iraq. Despite Mr. Bush's attempts to charm the Russian president with the nickname "pooty poot," Mr. Putin reportedly held firm in his position that threats are not in order until the United Nations weapons inspectors take up Saddam's offer of unfettered inspections. Bush also met today in person with Russian Foreign Minister Ivan (sic) Ivanov and Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov. Now, my highly placed sources in the Bush White House say our president was so impressed at the efficiency Putin has achieved by having two ministers with the same last name, that he's decided both Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell by the same name, Zippy (ph).</s>CARLSON: You know, Paul, I have been wondering for the last couple of months, where does Paul Begala take his foreign policy cues? And now I know it's Vladimir Putin.</s>BEGALA: Pooty-poot.</s>CARLSON: If he says no, we can't</s>BEGALA: Talk about your pains in the butt. Just when you thought that reality TV couldn't go any further, a group of filmmakers, including R.J. Cutler, who made "The War Room," has begun a two-year effort to find something even better than the next American idol. That would be the next American president. The new reality show will comb the country looking for the next Abe Lincoln to run in the 2004 presidential election. President Bush is rumored to be interested in applying, but only if his daddy gets to pick the judges. After all, that's how he became president in the first place.</s>CARLSON: You know, it's interesting. It turns out that television producers did pick the likely Democratic nominee in 2004, John Edwards.</s>BEGALA: Is that right?</s>CARLSON: Yes, that's absolutely right. And you wondered how he got there. In international news tonight, a high profile dust-up over remarks made by a German official. Earlier this week, the German minister of justice, Herta Daeubler-Gmelin gave a speech in which she attacked the American president, George W. Bush. Bush's plans to oppose Saddam Hussein, she said, is very much like something Adolf Hitler would have done. The slur was quickly condemned by White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, who called it "outrageous." Off the record, State Department officials say this remarks violates an agreement struck between the U.S. and German governments almost 60 years ago. Under the terms of that agreement, German politicians keep their sillier opinions to themselves. And in turn, the U.S. pretends that Germany is a pleasant, friendly place that did not cause two world wars, give birth to fascism or commit genocide. But that's all changing. Tonight, the White House is said to be considering telling the truth. And I hope it does.</s>BEGALA: It's an outrageous statement to make about our president, you're right.</s>CARLSON: From Germany, it's doubly outrageous. How dare they.</s>BEGALA: But it shows how discredited he's become in the eyes of most of the free democratic world.</s>CARLSON: Isn't it great -- the German government compares him to Hitler and it's his fault? That's your position?</s>BEGALA: You know, the German chancellor is going to win reelection because he's the most anti-Bush person in Europe. What does that tell us?</s>CARLSON: Well, that's the problem of the German people, not ours. We shouldn't put up with that for a second. The Bush administration today outlined an aggressive new national security strategy. The administration says the U.S. needs to adapt its military forces to prepare for preemptive action against terrorists and hostile states. In other words, hit them before they hit us with weapons of mass destruction. But even if the Bush doctrine someday takes its place alongside the Monroe doctrine, what would it do to bring peace in the Middle East tonight? In the CROSSFIRE, "New York Observer" columnist Joe Conason, who's in our New York bureau. With us here in Washington is former RNC communications director Cliff May. Cliff, Joe, we will get to our debate in a moment, Cliff, and I think we'll be going to Joe Conason. But before I do, I just want to ask you quickly, if Israel's attack on Yasser Arafat's compound isn't a mistake for the following reason: Napoleon and Lee Atwater (ph) political consultants are fond of saying, never interfere with your enemy when he's in the process of destroying him. You've heard that a lot. Isn't that something like what's happening here? Yasser Arafat, increasingly discredited in the eyes of his own people, attacked by Israel, doesn't it make him more powerful?</s>CLIFFORD MAY, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: It's a good question. But consider this: Imagine there's an attack, a terrorist attack on a bus in Buffalo, New York, and we know that 50 miles to the north, there is a terrorist cell with some of the top terrorist leaders. Do we sit back and let them chuckle over this, or do you do something about it? Right now in there with Arafat are terrorist leaders, people who have been responsible for acts of terrorism. Israel has asked that they come out and that they be brought to justice. And let me also point out that in yesterday, on Al Jazeera, Hani Al Hassan, who is the top aide to Arafat, said the following: "Palestinian condemnation of terror attacks is nothing but a political tactic. The armed struggle in Israel is legitimate." At a certain point, those in the Palestinian leadership and society who are against terrorism have to separate themselves from those who are for terrorism. At a certain point, those who want independence must separate themselves from those who want to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.</s>BEGALA: I want to go to Joe Conason, though. Joe, our president, through his spokesman, Ari Fleischer, issued what was a remarkably mealy-mouthed statement today. It seems to me that as a country that bombed an entire country of Afghanistan up to the stone age, because they were hiding and harboring terrorists. I think we were right to do so. Don't the Israelis have the right to shell one building because it's housing terrorists?</s>JOE CONASON, NEW YORK OBSERVER: Well, I don't know about their right to do so. I'm not an international lawyer. I think that, unfortunately, Israel's strategy for combating terrorism hasn't been working very well, because Sharon's attitude toward peace negotiations is that Arafat is not legitimate, the PLO is not legitimate, the Palestinian Authority is not legitimate. And so they have taken a bomb them and, you know, run tanks over them attitude as a way to try to stop terrorism. And unfortunately, Paul, you can see that it doesn't work, because of the cycle. It's exactly what Tucker said at the top of the program. You can run this story over and over again. And it keeps running over and over again, because unfortunately, neither side has decided that they really want to sit down and take the tough steps with their own constituencies to reach a real peace agreement. That goes for Arafat, who is a miserable leader, and I'm afraid it goes to a degree for Sharon as well, because he's not willing to deal with the settlement issue, he's not really willing to deal with the issue of Jerusalem, and the other issues that have to be dealt with if you are going to ever have a settlement. At that point, most of the Palestinians, I believe, would stop supporting this kind of outrage and want to settle down and build their state. And you could mop up the few who really are, you know, rejectionists. But I don't think that this cycle of violence and counter-violence is a way to either reach peace or deal with terrorism in the long run.</s>BEGALA: Joe, let me turn to Cliff May now and bring it closer to home. Today, the president released a national security strategy. Every president is obliged to explain his national security strategy. And this one from President Bush was remarkable in its sweep. I think we would agree with that. Apparently now, from reading it and reading the speech that the president gave at West Point and some other speeches, it is now America's mission to search the globe like Superman, looking for evil doers wherever they may lurk, and then go and kill them. If that's not being the world's policeman, what is?</s>MAY: I think you're misinterpreting it, though. I think it's much closer to what Al Gore would have called, and did call, forward engagement. In an age of terrorism, in an age of rogue dictators, in an age of proliferation of nuclear weapons and biological and chemical, you cannot simply wait and say, they'll hit us, and then we'll get them afterwards. You can't do it. And what's more, you can't rely on the Cold War doctrines of deterrence and containment. How do you deter a suicide bomber? How do you deter Saddam Hussein from giving weapons of mass destruction to a terrorist to use against us, and then he says, I had to do with that. How do you contain Saddam Hussein, when we know he is getting more and more chemical and biological weapons, and he's probably less than six months from nuclear weapons? We need a new doctrine. And I think Democrats can find a way to agree with most of this.</s>CARLSON: OK now, Joe Conason...</s>CONASON: Now look, first of all, some of that really has to be corrected.</s>CONASON: There is no responsible analyst in the world who thinks that Saddam Hussein is six months, probably, from getting a nuclear weapon.</s>MAY: International Institute for Strategic...</s>CONASON: Oh, I've read that study. That study did not say that, Cliff. That study doesn't say anything like that.</s>CARLSON: Before you do the studies, Joe, I want to hit you...</s>CONASON: It doesn't say that.</s>CARLSON: ... with a much broader question here. I was reading the Democratic platform from 2000 today, the foreign policy section. I believe it's called the "peace section." Quite fitting. Here's what it said; I'll read you a quote from it. Forward engagement, the animating principle of the Democratic foreign policy, means: "addressing problems early in their development before they become crises, addressing them as close to the source of the problem as possible, and having the forces and resources to deal with these threats as soon after their emergence as possible." It reminded me of something I heard today from the Bush national security strategy -- this quote: "We must deter and defend against the threat before it is unleashed. The U.S. can no longer solely rely on a reactive posture." The point here -- you clearly get it -- is this is not a new principle. It's a principle your people have embraced for a long time, but done nothing about. Aren't you glad...</s>CONASON: Well Tucker, I didn't write the Democratic platform. But I didn't notice anywhere that it said: We have to do this before the midterm election in order to help the president get reelected. I didn't see that in that document.</s>CARLSON: Saddam Hussein is not a GOP plant. Come on, this is no "Wag the Dog"...</s>CONASON: No -- well, it's not ridiculous. In fact, you know very well that's what's going on. Because otherwise President Bush would have been talking about this in the 2000 campaign, which he barely did at all.</s>CONASON: Almost not at all. He mentions this in his inaugural address around the same time -- or not his inaugural, his last State of the Union Address around the same time that Karl Rove is telling the troops, hey, we're going to go out on the national security issue and win the midterm election. Now, I would like it know...</s>CARLSON: Do you think the president of the United States would risk thousands of American lives to win the midterm election...</s>CONASON: You know, Tucker, I don't think that they're actually going to go in, obviously, before the midterm because they don't have the troops' position. And I think they actually, sincerely believe that at some point we're going to have to have armed conflict with Saddam Hussein. But they're whipping this up now and trying to drive through a decision about this in a way that's really hurting our alliances around the world and our ability to combat terrorism in order to help them win the election. Yes, there's no doubt about it. The way they're handling this issue is irresponsible, and it's not good for this country to do it this way.</s>BEGALA: You said a moment ago that then-Governor Bush referred to this in the 2000 campaign. He did. He was in a debate in 1999; he was asked point-blank, if you were president and Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, what would you do? He said, Take him out. The interrogator, the questioner, the reporter said, wait, clarify: Take Saddam Hussein out, or take out the weapons of mass destruction? Bush: Take out the weapons of mass destruction. As president he called for, not war with Iraq, but smart sanctions. Nothing has changed since he took those positions on the ground in Iraq, and yet he has flipped 60 days before an election. How else can you explain it?</s>MAY: A couple things. One is he ran for president before 9/11. I think things changed.</s>BEGALA: Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.</s>MAY: No it didn't, but 9/11 taught us, is what terrorists can do, even with a couple of American planes. Imagine what they could have done if they had a small nuclear weapon on one of those planes. It wouldn't simply be Ground Zero in Lower Manhattan, there would be no Manhattan now. All of us, Republicans, Democrats alike, we've got to look at the world a little differently. Secondly, if we could take all the weapons of mass destruction out of Iran -- out of Iraq right now, absolutely, let's do it, although I'd like to liberate the poor people of Iraq against a terrible regime at the same time.</s>CONASON: But why Iraq first?</s>MAY: Let me finish, Joe, and then I'll let you get in with whatever you want to say. However, the problem is he's had four years now to bury his weapons, to hide then, to make them mobile. He can have centrifuges the size of refrigerators. I'm not sure there is a way to do this other than to secure regime change and liberate the people of Iraq at the same time.</s>BEGALA: Joe, we're about to go to break. Let me give you a quick moment for the last word, and then we're going to go to break -- Joe.</s>CONASON: Well, look, this is an election-time position. It is not a responsible, serious position, because we're hurting our alliances. If we want to go after al Qaeda, what we need to do is strengthen our alliances around the world. You know, a lot of them were in Germany, and we're hurting our relationship with the German government, which we need in order to suppress al Qaeda.</s>MAY: We're being so mean to the poor Germans here.</s>CONASON: It's not that we're being mean to them Cliff, that's ridiculous. We are injuring multilateral relationships that we need.</s>BEGALA: Joe Conason, stay with us; Clifford May here in our studio. And when we come back, I'm going to ask our guests about a major Bush flip-flop on foreign policy. Believe it or not, one I think that he did the right thing on now. Later: Perhaps it's time to end the charade that a bunch of smiling and backstabbing social climbers are actually the girl next door. And in the CROSSFIRE "Police Blotter," Martha Stewart changes her tune. Stay with us.