|
  |
|
 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Senators take on Bush's stance on Iraq
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush spoke to the nation Tuesday night about issues ranging from the economy to disarming Iraq. Did he make the case for using force against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein? Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Illinois, and Sen. George Allen, R-Virginia, joined hosts Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson on Wednesday to discuss the president's State of the Union speech. BEGALA: Senator Allen, let me begin with what I thought was the most powerful moment in the speech, when our president invoked September 11. One of the attacks occurred in your state of Virginia at the Pentagon. I happened to be in the Pentagon parking lot when that plane hit. President Bush said if (the plane) had been a weapon of mass destruction, there could [have been] millions of casualties. Of course, he's right. I certainly wouldn't be here today. But that's a very emotional argument, because Iraq is hardly the most likely or the only country to export to terrorists. In fact, we don't have any proof that Iraqis even have given weapons to terrorists. Let me give you the list, from our State Department, of what our president says are the other state sponsors of terrorism: Cuba, Iran, Iraq, yes, but Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria as well? Are we going to go to war against all of these countries, too? Because many of those are more likely, even, than Iraq to give those kinds of weapons to terrorists. ALLEN: We do know Iraq supports terrorism. ... We know that Iraq does have these chemical and biological weapons. BEGALA: They've had them for 20 years and there's not a shred of evidence that they have ever given them to terrorists. Why? Because those Islamic terrorists would use them against Saddam Hussein -- because he's secular. ALLEN: Well, they've used it on their own people in Iraq. And I don't think there'd be any question that they'd hand it off to one of their terrorists. BEGALA: Why haven't they given them to terrorists over the last 20 years?
ALLEN: Well, they have. ... Their own government has used it on their own people. They've also used it against Iran. So the point is, do you want to sit back and just let them keep these stockpiles of these nerve agents and all these different biological and chemical agents? I don't trust Saddam Hussein. And I think that the president is on the right track, that if he's not going to disarm, we have to disarm him. ... That is a big concern with [other countries such as] Cuba. And they're on the list of state sponsors of terrorism. Libya is still on that list, although making very modest steps in the right direction. Look at the problem with North Korea. They are a worry. We don't want to see Iraq get to the stage as far as nuclear capabilities of North Korea. CARLSON: Now, Senator Durbin, I think we both agree that the president, maybe has more credibility on the subject of Iraq than the Democratic leadership. And I want to suggest why. This is Senator Tom Daschle speaking the day before the State of the Union address about Iraq. Here's what he said. (Video begins) DASCHLE: If we have proof of nuclear and biological weapons, why doesn't he show that proof to the world as President Kennedy did 40 years ago when he sent Adlai Stevenson to show the world U.S. photographs of offensive missiles in Cuba? (Video ends) CARLSON: Now there's Senator Daschle suggesting that maybe, after all, Saddam doesn't have weapons of mass destruction. He said that on the very day, literally the same day, that Hans Blix's report to the United Nations became public, which outlined in detail instances of Iraq possessing chemical weapons. Why should we take the Democratic leadership seriously when they say things like that? DURBIN: Because when it gets down to winning the support of a coalition of nations, whether it's the United Nations or other countries that share our values, they want to establish that we're doing this for just cause. The president made his argument [Tuesday] night. It was a good argument. As a lawyer I know that's the opening statement in any trial. But a judge will admonish the jury, that that's just the opening statement. Let's wait for the evidence. And when it comes to the evidence, the president [Tuesday] night in the State of the Union address once again raised the specter of aluminum tubes. We've heard about these for months and now it's been totally discredited. Initially they said this was a preparation for nuclear weapons. Then the inspectors came in and took a look at them and said, "No, you can't use these for nuclear weapons. These are rocketry or shell casing. It doesn't have anything to do with it." Yet again [Tuesday] night the president used it. What it comes down to is this: the president made the opening statement last night with his State of the Union. The proof, the evidence that's going to be presented by Secretary of State Colin Powell, will decide whether the world community of nations will stand behind us. I hope they do. CARLSON: But you mentioned the world community of nations, the United Nations. Just for my own interest, can you name a single example in the 50 odd years it's been around, that the United Nations has disarmed any tyrant ever without American prodding? Just one. DURBIN: In more than 25 instances peacekeeping forces sent by the United Nations have established a peaceful situation. In terms of an invasionary force, I guess you could use... CARLSON: Just disarmed a tyrant. DURBIN: Well, let's use, for example, what happened in the Korean War. That was a U.N. police action, as an example. But the point I'm trying to get to is this: Is it better for the United States to go into this undertaking with a coalition of nations behind us or a coalition of nations against us?
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
AIRS: Weekdays 4:30 p.m. ET / 1:30 p.m. PT
