News-Info-Alerts

Re: Speicher - Fox News Sunday Transcript

From: POW-MIA InterNetwork

Date: April 20, 2003

SCROLL DOWN for SPEICHER DISCUSSION

"Transcript: Senators Evan Bayh, Pat Roberts on Fox News Sunday

Sunday, April 20, 2003

Following is a transcribed excerpt from Fox News Sunday, April 20, 2003.

TONY SNOW, FNC: Well, now that Saddam Hussein's regime is history, will Congress continue to finance wars against terror and on behalf of democracy? And can the president use war-time success to win support for his domestic agenda?

Here with their views, two men who serve on both the Intelligence and Armed Services Committees, Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts of Kansas and Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana.

Gentlemen, welcome.

Let us begin, Senator Roberts, with a question a lot of people are asking. Do you see a permanent troop presence, United States troop presence, in the Middle East and specifically in Iraq?

PAT ROBERTS, U.S. SENATOR (R-KS): Well, maybe in the Mideast region, but not in Iraq. We've come to stay, but we've come to leave. But I think a headline today, in today's paper, indicated that we're going to persevere.

Now, what that means over the long term, I can't tell you. I remember when President Clinton indicated we would be in the Balkans for about a year. Now it's a decade later. We're still there, and we still need to be there.

So I think maybe "permanent" isn't exactly the word I would use, but yes, I think we'll have to maintain a presence.

SNOW: Senator Bayh, are we talking about the same kind of troop presence, a large troop presence like we maintained in Europe during the Cold War?

EVAN BAYH, U.S. SENATOR (D-IN): Tony, I would expect that this would be an evolutionary process, where we'll have to maintain a significant presence here early on until things truly get settled down. There's some momentum toward a civil society in Iraq. And then hopefully we can begin to ratchet that back.

But we're going to have to be there for a while -- not permanently, but for a while, because we don't want to win the war and then lose the peace.

SNOW: Which raises a question: Do you think a show of force is vital to demonstrate to people, number one, that we are committed to staying in the region; number two, that we mean business; and number three, that we really do want democracy in the region?

BAYH: I do. I think it's important for some of the other actors in the region we're probably going to talk about today -- Syria, Iran and others -- to know that we do mean business and that they can't just run us off with some acts of terror.

I think we need to, you know, set the ground rules straight early, that we're there to help the Iraqi people get back on their feet, we're there to defend America and ensure that some of the other countries in the region can't sponsor terrorism against our country.

SNOW: Senator Roberts, do you believe so far that success in Iraq has in fact discouraged terrorist groups?

ROBERTS: Oh, I don't think there's any question about it. I think we've had a series of situations where various countries had become sanctuaries for terrorists, and the big difference now, Tony, is that they have access to weapons of mass destruction. They have killed us -- 5,700 Americans have already paid the ultimate sacrifice in regards to terrorism.

So I think we have to maintain a presence, and I think there's been a very strong signal sent. I think you see that in North Korea. I hope we see it in Syria. And I would agree with Evan, I think we're going to have to stay the course.

SNOW: Before we get to Syria, there are a couple of other pieces of business I want to deal with in Iraq.

One is a wire report, at least in British papers today, the Germans were sharing intelligence, until a fairly recent date, with the government of Saddam Hussein and, in many ways, may have tipped off American military plans and strategies. Is that true?

ROBERTS: Well, I can't comment -- I really can't comment specifically on anything we have discussed on the committee. But let's just say the committee has a very strong interest in that.

Turn the situation around, and the Germans have been sharing intelligence with us and have maintained a strong presence in regards to Afghanistan. So there's two sides to this.

And I hope that, in the future, that both France and Germany can take part in some kind of reconstruction effort down the road, just as they are doing today in Afghanistan.

SNOW: Did you think they ought to stay in the penalty box for a little while?

ROBERTS: Oh, yes, I think probably for a little while, for sure.

SNOW: OK, Senator Bayh, what about Russians? Again, some concern the Russians have been selling -- sharing intelligence and also materiel with the Iraqis.

BAYH: I was going to say, perhaps more than intelligence -- although the chairman's privy to information that I'm not. Neither one of us can comment about classified information today. But clearly, there was a relationship there, a commercial relationship. Reports that Russian military equipment was transitting through Syria into Iraq for the purpose of killing Americans. Very troubling.

And I would say, whether it's Germany, Russia or France, they obviously were opposed to the steps necessary to liberate Iraq. They can get on the right side of this, Tony, by forgiving those debts from the Saddam era, literally the blood money that they made that by giving weapons and other things to the regime. Why not forgive the debt? That would be a very magnanimous gesture on their part.

SNOW: And that would be, in your view, a precondition for a larger role in the economic reconstruction?

BAYH: I would think so.

SNOW: Senator Roberts, Michael Scott Speicher, shot down on the first day of Operation Desert Storm, he was originally listed as killed in action, now missing in action. Do you think he's alive?

ROBERTS: Well, first of all, he is now listed as "captured, whereabouts unknown," which is the same standing as a POW. And we've been able to do that in the Intelligence Committee, showing that there's no evidence of his fate otherwise.

We don't want to leave him behind again. We have a special intelligence unit. We have a search and rescue team. They've been in Iraq since March. They are going through archives. They are talking to people who may help us actually find Scott.

I really think, in terms of his whereabouts, it depends on Saddam. He was very closely held during the five years that he was held prisoner. Nobody in the United States even raised a fuss. It has been during the last six years that we've tried to persevere.

So, I think if Saddam is alive, he may have him with him. If Saddam is dead or his senior leader, who knew about Scott, if they are dead, he's probably in a bunker cell in Baghdad. And that's why we are really putting on a full-court press to find him.

SNOW: So, Senator Bayh, you don't know, the Intelligence Committee does not know whether Saddam is alive or dead?

BAYH: I don't know, Tony. And as long as we don't know, we have a moral obligation to do everything we can to find him.

And for those who say, "Well, gee, it's been a long time, we don't know," remember, the Iraqi regime held Iranians from their war even over a longer period of time. So...

ROBERTS: Yes, 17 years.

BAYH: ... we need to keep up the search.

SNOW: Senator Roberts, the other day, Abu Dhabi Television showed a tape reporting to depict Saddam Hussein, on the very day that people were hauling down a statue in central Baghdad, as being surrounded by group of cheering -- well, here you see the cheering throng.

Do you think the tape is legit?

ROBERTS: I don't know. And I'm not sure the Intelligence Committee knows for sure. We have a split. And basically, this, if it were true, was April 9. That would be after the April 7 bombing and the March 20 bombing.

So you don't know if it was a double. You don't know if it was prerecorded. But in any case, it doesn't make too much difference, because this fellow doesn't have a following and he is out of power.

SNOW: Geoffrey Hoon, the British defense minister, is saying, Senator Bayh -- and you can add anything to that that...

BAYH: Well, I was just going to say, we don't know whether that was Saddam or not, but clearly the cheering crowd was a fake.

(LAUGHTER)

SNOW: OK.

Geoffrey Hoon, the British defense minister, is saying that he believes Saddam is alive, cannot get across the border and is somewhere in Iraq. That, at least, is plausible to you?

BAYH: It's quite plausible. He could be dead; he could be alive in Iraq. It's possible he fled somewhere else.

SNOW: OK. Very quickly, do you think it is possible that Iraq destroyed weapons of mass destruction before the war began, having been tipped off by others that was one of the key things the United States wanted?

BAYH: Well, we made that clear from the beginning. And so a logical response by the Iraqi government would have been to bury them very deep, making them very hard to find, and hide them from the inspectors as well as us.

And there are some reports, as you know, that perhaps some of this was sent to Syria. In the last Persian Gulf War, they flew their air force to Iran for safekeeping, so it's not out of the realm of possibility that they tried to do something similar with weapons of mass destruction.

SNOW: Gentlemen, I'm going commit what, in TV parlance, is called a segue. Speaking of Syria, Republican Representative Darrell Issa of California spoke earlier today with Bashar al-Asad, the president of Syria, and he joins us now by phone from Damascus.

SNOW: Representative Issa, number one, let me ask you, you've just heard the argument that maybe weapons of mass destruction made their way from Iraq into Syria. What does President Asad say about that?

ISSA: Well, President Asad denies it, although, in sort of fairness, they don't formally deny that they have a program of their own. And, instead, they call for a United Nations ban within the whole region, which is their way of saying, "We'll get rid of ours if Israel gets rid of theirs," which is complex and something that needs to be clearly demonstrated to them that we need them to stop their chemical or biological weapons development now.

They're probably not doing nuclear, but they certainly are believed to be doing chemical development.

SNOW: You also were, at least according to press reports, to ask President Asad, on behalf of the administration, to cease supporting Hezbollah and a number of other terrorist groups, depending on the counting, 12 or 13 of which have headquarters in Damascus. What did he say?

ISSA: Well, we did ask that, although in fairness, members of Congress only asked on behalf of themselves. But we asked with the Ambassador Chet Kattouf there, and he received loud and clear from us the need to close these offices.

Of course, his defense is that they're only informational. And he said "Well, then, that's the best reason to close them. You don't allow members of the Republican Party or the Democrat Party from the United States to maintain offices in your country. It's the same thing. These things need to be closed." And he didn't say no.

It was certainly made clear that this is one of the two or three most important things we were there to ask for. We asked for one other thing, which was first on our list, which was the cooperation from him for these war criminals that are fleeing into all the surrounding countries.

He gave us a solid commitment, which is being transmitted back to the State Department, which is that he would not allow these war criminals into the country, he would expel them if he finds them, and he would not grant asylum for any of them, not just the 55 on our list.

So it's a step in the right direction. Time will tell if we can enforce this.

SNOW: Did he concede that any members of Saddam Hussein's regime had already found haven in Syria?

ISSA: He stated that he believed that some may have passed through. But he has closed the borders, and they're certainly looking for some of these people. As you know, some of the people that fled are, in fact, wanted for crimes in Syria. So he has a vested, self- serving interest to go after them. This is an ongoing problem, but one in which I think we're going to get cooperation.

SNOW: Is he afraid that the United States might use military force against him?

ISSA: Well, I'm certain it's a concern. We didn't come to threaten him. We had over two hours of candid dialogue in which some accomplishments were made and a lot of messages were delivered.

Secretary Armitage released a statement today saying that we do not intend to use military force, but, in fact, a political solution. And Secretary Powell will be coming to the region to meet with President Asad.

And a lot of what we did today was try to lay the groundwork, questions and answers that they can build on when they meet. Certainly, Secretary Powell should not arrive and start the dialogue. It needs to have been developed before he arrives.

SNOW: All right, Representative Darrell Issa of California, thank you so much for joining us today from Damascus.

ISSA: Thank you, Tony.

SNOW: Well, gentlemen, a couple of issues were raised there. I want to pick them up.

Senator Bayh, do you think the United States at this point ought to be withdrawing the threat of force against Syria?

BAYH: I don't think we've made a threat of force against Syria. Our relationship with Syria, Tony, is going to be based entirely upon how the Syrians conduct themselves. And I think, in the background, implicit the fact that we have demonstrated our strength in Iraq when a nation presents a real threat to us, that can only help the dialogue.

SNOW: Senator Roberts, let me be a little more deft in my phrasing. Should the United States forswear the use of force, or simply have that as one of the options in the arsenal?

ROBERTS: Well, I think under the new policy of preemption, I think you never really forswear the use of force, but I don't know of anybody in the administration who's said we're going to use military force.

I don't think it's necessary now. I think we can proceed. You have the secretary of state actually going to the country and talking to the officials there, talking to the president, who's only been in power for three years. I think -- so he's got some old guard peering over his shoulder.

But he has certainly closed up the border. We have Special Forces in the area, up in northwest part of Iraq. I think that noose is tightening.

But no, I don't think we should forswear the use of force, but I don't think it's necessary at all.

SNOW: Do you think the U.S. can do business were Bashar Asad?

ROBERTS: Yes, I do.

SNOW: And do you think, Senator Bayh, that in fact he might the guy who would be willing to clean out all the terrorist organizations in Baghdad, get rid of terrorist camps in the Bekaa Valley, and, as we have heard also, dismantle his weapons of mass destruction?

BAYH: That would require a complete sea-change on the part of the Syrian government.

It's too soon to say, Tony. He's a young man, he's somewhat insecure in his leadership. As Pat was mentioning, the old guard is still there. He has his own sister and his brother-in-law he has to worry about.

I do think that he understands that, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, he's lost his patron. Their economy is very bad, and they've now lost their oil sales through Iraq.

So he's got his work cut out for him. Whether he's willing to forswear all the activities that you mentioned, I don't know.

SNOW: Do you think that, as a matter of U.S. policy, he ought to be made to do so?

BAYH: Absolutely.

SNOW: All right, Senator Roberts, let's switch to North Korea. Help us out here. We get all these statements out of Pyongyang, and nobody knows whether they're true.

Are the North Koreans trying, at this point, to refresh the plutonium rods and creating new nuclear weapons?

ROBERTS: Well, they're very trying to begin with.

ROBERTS: (CLEARS THROAT) Pardon me, I have the pollenitus...

(LAUGHTER)

... that's here in Washington. I'll try to struggle through here as best I can.

As Evan knows, they pose a real problem. Selling their weapons of mass destruction down the road, it could get, in the next decade, up to 40.

Kim Jung-Il, very difficult to predict. I was in Pyongyang several years ago with Ted Stevens of Alaska. We tried to arrange some kind of third-party grain sale to help the people who were literally starving, and we just got nowhere. So he's very hard to predict.

I think we will meet. I think we will meet with China. China's the key here, and China has made some significant changes here just recently in their attitude to North Korea.

They're going to be a very difficult problem, but that's one of negotiation. There isn't any military option that we can threaten at this particular point.

SNOW: OK. Are they reprocessing spent nuclear fuel rods?

BAYH: Tony, we don't know, and it wouldn't be prudent to say here. But I would say that there are three provocative steps we can look at them possibly taking.

This is blackmail that's going on here. Let's call it what it is.

The commencement of reprocessing would be a significant threshold for them to cross. If they did create another one or two nuclear devices, maybe six months down the road or so, you could look for them possibly testing one to demonstrate their nuclear capability.

And then the final step would be launching a test flight of one of these three-stage rockets capable of hitting the United States. They might fire one of those in the Pacific.

All those things ratchet up the pressure on us for the purposes of extracting some kind of compromise (ph).

ROBERTS: You know, I think they're going to do all three. Now, that's just my, you know, take on this. I think it's probable -- it's possible. I don't know if I should say "probable."

I think that Kim Jung-Il wants to be the Musharraf of that area. I think he thinks that we divide the world into a -- here's a country that has this kind of weaponry, and it's acceptable, and the United States doesn't raise a fuss about it. And that's what he wants to do with North Korea. It's not acceptable for North Korea.

SNOW: So is North Korea the major security threat facing the United States right now?

ROBERTS: Without question. I would probably name it number one right now.

SNOW: All right. Senator Pat Roberts, Senator Evan Bayh, thank you both.

And, Senator Roberts, I know it's a lousy pollen day, but at least it's your birthday. Happy birthday.

ROBERTS: Thank you very much.

BAYH: Happy birthday.

ROBERTS: Thank you. We're trying to forget those right now, but that's OK.

Copyright 2003 FOX News Network, LLC. "