America's New War: The President Message
JEFF GREENFIELD, HOST, GREENFIELD AT LARGE: This was a moment that comes to America once in a generation, if we're lucky. It's a moment when a President has to tell his country that we're in danger, that some of us might not survive that danger, but that we know the path to take that will lead us out of that danger. Tonight President Bush had perhaps a harder task even than his predecessors. At least FDR and John F. Kennedy could tell us who the enemy was. And President Bush had to speak not only to a stunned nation that had suffered what is now clearly the worst one day loss of life ever on American soil, he had to speak to leaders around the world, some of whom may risk their lives if they do what he asked of them. So what did they and we hear? And what does it suggest for what's ahead? Joining me here in New York, Joshua Ramo. He is the World Editor at Time Magazine. In Washington, David Broder, Washington Post reporter and columnist. And also in Washington, Stephen Fidler. He is Diplomatic Editor of the Financial Times of London. David Broder, it seemed at times that the President was delivering two messages at once. First, be patient, my fellow countrymen. This won't be a TV war. But second, your desire to strike back will soon be met. Is that a line that he had to have walked?</s>DAVID BRODER, REPORTER, WASHINGTON POST: I think that's correct, Jeff, but I think it also was a defining moment for the President himself. When he said "we have found our mission and our moment," he was speaking about the country. But he could very well have been speaking about himself, because this is the kind of thing to which the Bush family has rallied. They are very good in crises, and the crises that test their manhood. And this President, what ever wavering he may have felt up to this point, has now found the backbone and the steel in the backbone to lead the country and to attempt to lead the world.</s>GREENFIELD: At the risk of stating, perhaps, the obvious, is this moment, and this challenge, so great as to pretty much wipe off the table everything else that was on the table in our politics nine days ago? Is this the only issue now for the foreseeable future?</s>BRODER: Well, it's the only issue as far as the President is concerned. He has said that this is his self defined mission in the Presidency at this point. There will be other issues. The Congress itself may even deal with things like education and healthcare and so on at some point. But, for now, this is George Bush's single test.</s>GREENFIELD: Let me turn to Stephen Fidler, because your job is to look at the international community. The President, by name, singled out not only al Qaeda, but Islamic jihad and the Islamic movement of Uzbekistan, which is a new player for many of us. Why so specific? Who was he talking to by singling out by name those groups?</s>STEPHEN FIDLER, FINANCIAL TIMES: I think he was clearly addressing, to some extent, the Middle East and putting the point that many countries there are also under attack and under threat from terrorism. The reference to Uzbekistan, I think, this is a country to the North of Afghanistan, where the U.S. does want help. Possibly in basing troops, possibly in basing aircraft. The reference to that, I think, was very deliberate and seeking to gain the help of these nations in Central Asia on the U.S. side.</s>GREENFIELD: Now, more broadly, let me play what everybody is, I think, seeing as one of the most dramatic moments of the speech, get your reaction, and then Joshua Ramo's in terms of who he was talking to with this clear statement to the rest of the world. Let's see that now.</s>BUSH: From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.</s>GREENFIELD: Stephen, and therefore what? Economic sanctions? Military threat? Wait and see?</s>FIDLER: I think just about everything in that list. And financial moves, too. One interesting thing that he did point out, though was that this wasn't going to be an unlimited war against terrorism in all parts of the world. He did make the very specific point that he would deal with terrorists that have global reach, and not those involved in local disputes around the world. So I think he was quite clear in answering one question that people had had: How far is this going to go? How far can this war against terrorism reach?</s>GREENFIELD: Joshua Ramo, let's just look at one nation, because it just, I referred to this earlier as three-dimensional chess. That may be underestimating it. Describe to us what this means, that kind of statement to a country like Iran.</s>JOSHUA COOPER RAMO, TIME MAGAZINE: Well, Iran is a great example. Iran is a country that, by any definition, supports terrorism. As recently as six months ago they hosted a joint meeting between Hamas and Hezbollah, two leading anti Israeli guerrilla groups who were having a disagreement, and they invited them to Teheran in order to talk out their problems. They have provided money and financing to Hezbollah, going through Syria. The problem in Iran is, you have a very delicate political balance. You have, on the one hand, a moderate party led by President Khatimi, which the U.S. has tried to quietly encourage. But there's been great fear in the U.S. that if you embrace Khatimi too openly you'll discredit him internally, and then you have a hard line policy that's really run by the people who control the government, the mullahs, led by Khamenei. So the challenge for the administration is, how do you go in and change a government like that? The minute Khatimi starts to show any sign at all of not backing the anti Israel cause, he's done. And instead of having a government with a chance of moderation, you're stuck with a government that's only going to be extremists. But you can't get rid of Khamenei, because he's got all the support of the clerics. So it's a very, very difficult problem. And you can go through country after country after country on the list that supports terrorism, and the U.S. is going to have to come up with a diplomatic and military or an economic solution for every single one of those. A very big order.</s>GREENFIELD: Now, David Broder, as you listen to this, and you think of how the Administration has to explain that kind of complexity to a Congress and a country that wants the President to do something, how much more difficult does that make the President's job?</s>BRODER: This is a difficult job, and the President himself said in the speech, a line that kind of jumped out at me, that there are thousands of terrorists operating in more than sixty countries. Obviously we cannot go to war with sixty countries simultaneously. So this is going to be a very, very delicate and complex operation. The advantage that he has is that, for now at least, the country is united behind him, and the Congress is united behind him. And I think we were hearing a short-term ultimatum to the Taliban. The three requirements that he laid down for them, or the four that he laid down for them are almost impossible to imagine them meeting. So I think this speech was, perhaps, the final warning to the Taliban that military force will quickly be directed against them. And the quick start of that campaign, I think, will tend to solidify support for the more difficult steps that probably come afterwards.</s>GREENFIELD: Mr. Fidler, speaking of difficulties, I wonder if part of that statement was meant to be heard in places like Cairo and Riyadh, where our ostensible allies, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, have at least turned a blind eye to those in their countries who may be funneling money to terrorist groups. Do you believe that was part of that message?</s>FIDLER: I think it was. I think there's been a very clear message delivered in private to these countries, that now is the time, really, to stop the sympathy and the covert support that one has seen among some of the elite in these countries for these groups. So I think that was a pretty clear message, yeah.</s>GREENFIELD: Before we break, I want to play one more tape, and ask Joshua Ramo whether he heard what I heard in this. It was when the President was describing enemies defeated. If we can see that now, please.</s>BUSH: They follow in the path of fascism, Nazism, and totalitarianism. And they will follow that path all the way to where it ends, in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies.</s>GREENFIELD: Joshua: Nazism, fascism and totalitarianism. Not Communism, which we spent half a century defeating. Do I hear a China card being thrown on the table?</s>RAMO: I think that's a piece of it. And also maybe you're hearing something which is very important, which is a recognition in the Bush Administration that other forms of government in other parts of the world may be OK, as long as they're not seeding terrorism. And that's a very substantial change for them. It doesn't mean that democracy is a solution for everything all of a sudden.</s>GREENFIELD: All right. This has more turns than Rubik's Cube, and it's a heckuva lot more serious. We're going to continue this discussion in a moment.</s>GREENFIELD: We're back. We're examining the messages the President sent in his speech tonight, and to whom he sent them. Joining me are Joshua Ramo, World Editor of Time Magazine. And in Washington, David Broder of the Washington Post. Also in Washington, Stephen Fidler of the Financial Times. David, I do want to play one other tape from the President's speech, how to go on, because it strikes me as perhaps a challenge that none of us can predict. If we can see how he described what's ahead, please.</s>BUSH: ...terror we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success.</s>GREENFIELD: And of course, it also may include further attacks on American soil. This is a country that, when wars drag on, when conflicts drag on and are not resolved, we sometimes drift from unity. I'm thinking of Vietnam, obviously, but even the Korean War. If this is a long twilight struggle, is this country prepared, by our recent history, to deal with that?</s>BRODER: Not by our recent history. But if you reach back to the great wars of our past, World War II and even the Civil War. What struck me about some of the passages in that speech we heard tonight, was that they seemed to be inspired almost by Lincoln's words in the early stages of the Civil War. The sadness, the resignation, the sense of loss that was inevitable, that the country was going to feel itself, but yet the determination to see it through for the cause, which Bush described in the same terms that Lincoln did, the cause of liberty.</s>GREENFIELD: And I suppose also, David, he had one advantage, which was even if there are further strikes on American soil, even if it doesn't go well, it's not as though there's any choice in the matter.</s>BRODER: We have no choice in the matter. But he did take one action tonight, or announced one action, which in fact may have some effect in reducing the vulnerability of the country. Any number of groups have pointed out that we are poorly coordinated in our government to deal with the threat to our own homeland. And by appointing a Presidential Coordinator of Homeland Defense, giving that job to Tom Ridge, who is a strong leader, he may have taken the first step in at least assuaging that problem.</s>GREENFIELD: Stephen Fidler, you and others have written about a conflict within the Bush team. Those who want a limited action, to make the coalition as broad as possible. And those who want a broader strike, even if it risks the coalition. Based on what you heard tonight, who's prevailing?</s>FIDLER: I think, actually, there's a deferred decision here. I think there is a decision that really, at this point, the target has to be Afghanistan. It has to be Osama bin Laden and his network. That on that point, on this there is widespread international agreement, huge international support. On this objective, the American military can go forward and strike at these targets. I think later, down the road, there will come the question of what happens to other supporters of terrorism. Issues such as whether Iraq, which has been associated with terrorist actions in the past, will also be targeted. I think that debate within the Administration has been won for now by those who want a more focused military effort. I think that debate may not have ended, and may in the future come again.</s>GREENFIELD: In fact, Mr. Ramo, in saying as bluntly as he did, "any nation that supports or harbors terrorism we will regard as hostile," it seems to me that he's certainly promising something more than a strike against the Taliban.</s>RAMO: Absolutely, and I think that this is the key. Sort of as we look in the next week, what's the key problem for the Administration. This is it. They have got to start matching the rhetoric with action. If the rhetoric was only "we're going to take out the Taliban," you'd have fairly easy action for next week, which is, there'll be some strikes against Afghanistan. The rhetoric tonight was unbelievably wide in scope. And so one of the issues in keeping political support solid for President Bush is going to be very quickly having action which matches up against each one of those stated objectives.</s>GREENFIELD: I know you didn't mean the word the way it could be interpreted, but when you say "unbelievably broad," that's precisely the problem, isn't it? That is, if people do not believe that the Administration means what it says, that's real trouble.</s>RAMO: Absolutely. And I think the credibility and, again, this gets back to why you need action that matches up against the rhetoric. And that's why this is an open question in the Administration right now. How do you pick the best way to take on this challenge? And that means everything from the tactical issues of which bombers you send over Afghanistan to the much bigger strategic problems of how you deal with these other countries that we've been talking about.</s>GREENFIELD: Dave Broder, the President, on a couple of occasions in this speech, was clearly reaching out to the Muslim community. In his description of the Muslim faith, his description of the terrorists as people who have twisted the faith, in plea to Americans to respect Moslem-Americans. On the assumption that, say, Osama bin Laden's and his followers are not going to say "Oh, I guess the President's OK on this issue." Was that message aimed more at us, or at the world at large, do you think?</s>BRODER: Well, I'm sure it had foreign policy implications, because some of the countries that we're trying to enlist to use as bases or as allies in this struggle are, of course, Muslim countries. But I've been told by people in the White House that the President personally has been deeply troubled by the attacks that have been reported to him on Muslims, and on people who simply look as if they might be Muslims.</s>GREENFIELD: Like Indians.</s>BRODER: And does not want to see this going ahead unrebuked in this country.</s>GREENFIELD: Mr. Fidler, do you think that that will have any impact in the Muslim world? I'm not talking about among extremists, but will people in Cairo and Riyadh hear that lot and say "Hm, he really does seem to understand there's a problem here"?</s>FIDLER: I think it will help. It certainly can't harm. I think the U.S., though, has an enormous hill to climb in the Middle East, particularly among the public, to convince them that it really isn't anti Arab and anti Muslim, and this is a first step. I think there'll need to be other actions, and I think simply the developments we've seen in the Middle East, and the pullback from Palestinian territories that we've seen the Israelis promise, I think these kind of things will also help. But, as I say, there is a big hill to climb in popular Arab opinion.</s>GREENFIELD: We're down to our last few seconds. Joshua Ramo, one line the President spoke. I'll recite it, because I don't want the control room do triple loops. He said "freedom and fear, justice and cruelty have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them." He clearly wasn't making a secular religious point. But given the problem that he had when he called what we were doing a crusade, an inoffensive word here but, to Moslems, a loaded word. Is there any problem with that rhetoric, do you think?</s>RAMO: No, it's very close to saying God is on our side. And this battle, if it is about anything, is trying to separate religion from politics. It's about the danger of intermixing the two. And I think the President tried to be as careful as he could, while trying to reassure a nation, a very faithful nation, that God is on our side.</s>GREENFIELD: All right. Thanks very much to my guests, Joshua Ramo of Time Magazine, David Broder, an old friend, of the Washington Post. We've never seen a story like this one, I think. And Stephen Fidler of the Financial Times of London. I'll be back with a closing comment in a minute.</s>GREENFIELD: ... run the risk of worldwide nuclear war. Hardly comforting words, but if you want comfort in this uneasy hour think about the outcome of those crisis. I'm Jeff Greenfield. We go back now to Wolf Blitzer in Washington. Wolf.</s>WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Before I let you go how will this speech stack up in connection with some of those other speeches you just referred to?</s>GREENFIELD: This was a -- this was a speech that met the moment. This was a serious tough steel -- steely and yet compassionate speech but I think it will be judged less by the rhetoric than where we are a year from now. TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com