News from CNN - Transcript

CNN

SHOW: NEWS FROM CNN 12:00 PM EST

HEADLINE: American Agenda: Foreign Policy Town Hall Meeting

BYLINE: Wolf Blitzer, Zain Verjee

GUESTS: Evan Bayh, John Cornyn, Jon Corzine, Norm Coleman, Susan Rice, Victoria Clarke, James Zogby

HIGHLIGHT:

A panel of Republicans and Democrats convene in a town hall format to take questions on American foreign policy.

BODY:
QUESTION: Hi. My name is Vic Woo (ph). I'm from Stanford, California.

With Iraq and Afghanistan, the attention of the United States has been diverted away from other concerns such as North Korea, Iran, and potentially the Taiwan Strait. How will the next U.S. president juggle all these issues on the foreign policy agenda?

BLITZER: Let's ask Senator Cornyn of Texas, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee.

A simple question for you, Senator.

SEN. JOHN CORNYN ®, TEXAS: Well, you simply can't as the preeminent power in the world, economically and militarily, we have to learn to do more than talk and chew gum at the same time. In other words, we have to deal with all of these challenges. And indeed we are, just as we are dealing on six-way talks with North Korea.

We're also working with our European Union partners on dealing with the threat in Iran. As we deal with Afghanistan, with NATO there on the ground, and as we continue to deal with our coalition in Iraq. We have to be able to do all of those things.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

VERJEE: Senator Cornyn, why is it that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, something that really resonates, strikes at the heart of the Arab Muslim world, doesn't play a major role in this campaign? We're not hearing it as a major issue. Why?

CORNYN: Well, I think we all recognize, whether we're Republicans or Democrats, that Israel does have a right to exist, and indeed unfortunately that's what's at stake. And while we want to encourage the Palestinians and Israel to sit down and negotiate their differences, we've found that with Yasser Arafat being the primary spokesman and leader of the Palestinians that he's an unreliable leader.

VERJEE: But that doesn't make it a non-issue, then, does it? I mean, it's a serious issue in the campaign.

(CROSSTALK)

CORNYN: Well, I think if anyone had a perfect answer they would have come up with it by now. But what we need is a commitment, as I think we do have on a bipartisan basis. I don't think...

VERJEE: Susan Rice, does the Kerry campaign have an answer?

RICE: Well, first of all, we agree with Senator Cornyn that the United States has to remain absolutely firmly committed to the security of Israel, our strongest friend and ally in the Middle East. I think the difference is that John Kerry would not take two or three years on the sidelines and not play the traditional leadership role that the United States has in involving itself in trying to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

We'd also take a tougher line on Saudi Arabia, which has been a major financier of terrorists operating against Israel. So there are some differences. But as the senator said, there's some similarities, too.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

QUESTION: Hello. My name is David Butler (ph), and I'm a graduate student at George Washington University.

Western-style democracy took hundreds of years to develop in Europe and America, arguably starting with the signature of the Magna Carta in the 13th century. Why does the administration believe that American-style democracy can successfully take root in just a few short years in a region of the world that is so culturally and religiously different than the west?

BLITZER: All right. Let's have Senator Cornyn and then Senator Bayh weigh in.

CORNYN: Well, I don't think anyone has advocated American-style democracy in the Middle East. Prime Minister Allawi, for one, said that freedom and aspirations toward democracy are not strictly something that are an American preserve. And I don't think we should think anyone beneath the dignity of self-government and considered to govern as we have in this country.

That's what the president believes. That's what we have fought in part to preserve, as well as to defend ourselves from subsequent attacks.

You know, we talk about whether we're safer today than we were before Iraq. Well, the 9/11 Commission concluded that we are safer but we're not yet completely safe. And so the work needs to go forward.

BLITZER: All right-Senator Bayh. BAYH: These countries need to establish governments for themselves that are authentic and legitimate within the context of their own societies. In the case-if they're going to endure. In the case of Iraq, it needs to be under a constitution that provides for some religious diversity because you have separation between the Sunni and the Shia there, some autonomy for the Kurds if it's going to be a lasting government.

And I think what we're finding here is a couple of things. So it shouldn't be American style. It needs to be legitimate and authentic within their own culture.

The two things that we're finding are first-and the first is rather ironic. Nation building is hard. Overthrowing a regime is difficult, but pales in comparison to trying to reconstitute a society. This is ironic because the current administration criticized President Clinton for his reasonably modest efforts toward nation building, and now has embarked upon nation building on a scale that we've not seen before.

BLITZER: All right.

BAYH: The final thing I'd say, Wolf, is you've got to have your plans be consistent with your aspirations. And I find myself-Tori mentioned Joe Lieberman. I happen to agree with Joe Lieberman. It's a good thing that Saddam Hussein is gone.

But the separate question that I think you were getting to a little bit later is, have we handled the aftermath effectively? Effectively? And I find myself in agreement with Dick Lugar, Chuck Hagel and others that, no, we have not handled the aftermath of the war effectively.

CORNYN: We can't handle it with mixed messages by saying it's the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time while saying that this administration has failed to get additional nations supporting this effort.

BAYH: It's also possible to say that it's a good thing that Saddam is gone and that the Taliban is gone but also to say that it has not been handled as well as it should have been, putting the entire enterprise at risk needlessly.

BLITZER: Unfortunately we're going to take another quick break, but we have plenty more time for all of us to thrash out what's going on. The first half of our town hall is over. We've still got a long way to go.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

QUESTION: The dreadful conflict in the Sudan as it plays out desperately requires intervention from the outside. With reference to the United States' role in intervention and in particular reference to its relationship to the U.N., I'd like to ask the question, how can we intervene given how desperately stretched our resources already are? In reality what role can the United States play in general and in particular with reference to the military?

BLITZER: Senator...

VERJEE: Senator Corzine?

BLITZER: No, let's let Senator Cornyn respond on this one, then we'll let the other side.

CORNYN: Well, I think you've put your finger on a challenge. I'm struck, while we all agree that we do have an important role to play in terms of humanitarian efforts around the world, hopefully in conjunction with the United Nations, and we know the United Nations can play that role, whereas perhaps they've been found wanting when it comes to enforcing its own resolutions.

But how can we stand by and say Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time when Saddam killed between 300,000 and 400,000 people who lie in mass graves in that country and say we're so concerned about Sudan, as we should be, but we're not concerned about those 300,000 or 400,000 people.

BLITZER: Well, what about, Senator-and I want to let Senator Corzine weigh in. Should the U.S. deploy troops when there isn't a, quote, "national security interest," but it's a humanitarian or moral concern? Yes or no?

CORNYN: I think we should not unless we can-unless there is a national security interest shown. What we should do is support the United Nations and go for that multilateral humanitarian effort that the United Nations is actually pretty good at.

BLITZER: Quickly, Senator Corzine.

CORZINE: I totally disagree. When you have at risk a million or more people, the kind of genocide that was going on in Rwanda, to have America abstain from expressing its moral responsibility in the world is just...

BLITZER: So you would deploy troops?

CORZINE: I think there are other solutions in Sudan. There's a very clear solution. The African Union is prepared to send troops. It doesn't have the logistical supply, doesn't have the financial resources. And this administration is not willing to ask the Congress to make sure that we have peacekeepers on the ground.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

COLEMAN: It's fascinating. On one hand the president is criticized for being bold and being aggressive in our foreign policy, and then in another instance being criticized because we're not doing enough in Sudan, we're not doing enough in Russia.

Two things, by the way. First of all, it would be inappropriate right now for the president to be talking about those things in light of what has happened in Beslan. It would almost be like after 9/11 folks coming after the United States and criticizing us for whatever we're doing.

Right now, right this period of time what Russia needs to know, even though we have concerns about many of the things you've talked about, what they have to know is we will work with them, that we have the same resolve to defeat international terrorism.

As Steve Covey, the author once said, you've got the main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing. And that is the war on terror right now. Other stuff has to be dealt with. The main thing is the war on terror. Talk to the moms and dads of those 400 kids who were slaughtered in Beslan about some of the issues you've just raised. They'll say deal with the security issue first.

BLITZER: All right, Zain, I just want to let Senator Corzine respond to that because he's got I think a different perspective.

CORZINE: That is exactly the point that I think we've been trying to make, that John Kerry has been making over and over. The main thing is the war on terrorism. And we should have pursued those who struck America, those that killed 3,000 Americans, 700 in my state, 10 in my home town, I know them personally.

And the idea that we diverted away is a major catastrophic mistake, and it has allowed for the world not to be safer because we've had Beslan, we've had Madrid, we've had all kinds of terrorist attacks, and 1,100 of our men and women have died in Iraq.

And we're creating a situation that has taken our mind off the ball. And we say it's for democracy, and then we don't...

COLEMAN: Jon, did we create Beslan? Did we create Spain?

CORZINE: ... before Beslan-we didn't create it. What I am saying is we took our eye off the war on terrorism...

COLEMAN: And there is a...

CORZINE: And it is not a creation-we took our eye off of it.

COLEMAN: ... fundamental difference of opinion here.

CORNYN: Senator Corzine I think makes the point exactly. This is a global war on terrorism. This is no diversion to go to Iraq to take Saddam down after we were attacked by the Taliban and al Qaeda-or al Qaeda operating in Afghanistan. We'd already been attacked, in 1993 at the World Trade Center. We'd been attacked, our embassies in Africa, the USS Cole, the Khobar barracks towers in Saudi Arabia. How anyone can say that going to Iraq is a diversion from the war on terrorism, which should take place only in Afghanistan, has ignored the reality you just...