MSNBC show
Alan Keyes is Making Sense
Alan KeyesFebruary 6, 2002
ALAN KEYES, MSNBC HOST: Welcome to MAKING SENSE. I am Alan Keyes.
Last night, we spent a good part of the program talking about the Olympics and what had happened when American athletes wanted to carry the flag into the stadium. But I have some good news to share with you this evening, and the first thing I want to tell you, though, is you are a part of this good news. Very often a situation like this it seems like we are sitting back watching events unfold. No, my friends, you were part of this event and part of the outcome that resulted, because as a result of the kind of attention that was given to the story of the athletes wanting to carry the flag into the stadium at the Winter Olympics, the IOC said, no, and barred the door.
And then the American people, thank God, got into the act and made clear how important this was to their heart and mind, and how important they thought it should be to the rest of the world, as folks were clearly doing on this program last night.
Well, apparently the IOC got the message, and overnight they decided that the U.S. athletes will, indeed, be carrying the famous flag that was found at the World Trade Center into the Olympic Stadium. And there will be an honor guard that will include firefighters and policemen and other rescue workers, so that there will be a sense that the entire world both shares in and respects and understands the significance of what happened on September 11. I think that's a piece of wonderful news.
There was also one other aspect of this in the course of the day. There had been a story that the security officer, the public affairs officer with the Port thority, who actually broke the story to Sean Hannity, one of my good friends and olleagues in this business, had actually been deprived of his opportunity to go to Salt Lake City — I mean to — and the result of, again, public opinion and pressure in the course of the day led the bureaucrats to reverse that decision as well. And the man who told us all about this problem will, in fact, be in the stadium to share in that expression of the world's understanding of the significance of 9/11.
So I think you all ought to give yourselves a pat on the back. I certainly give you a big hand for understanding and sharing in the heart that these athletes expressed. Even in the midst of their ambition for success and gold medals and achievement at the Olympics, they did not forget America. They did not forget the situation that this world faces right now. And I think that's a cause right there for understanding that they have already won a great spiritual victory.
Well, tonight we're again talking about another aspect of the aftermath of September 11, one that is serious and critically important to the future of the country. When all is said and done, looking back at the damage that was done to us, is not the kind of vigilance that we're going to need right now. We have to look forward and think of what can be done to try to avert and avoid that kind of harm in the future. And the danger is still very real.
Here is what CIA Director George Tenet had to say today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE TENET, CIA DIRECTOR: I must repeat that al Qaeda has not yet been destroyed. It and other like-minded groups remain willing and able to strike at us. Al Qaeda's leaders, still at large, are working to reconstitute the organization and resume its terrorist operations. We must eradicate these organizations by denying them their sources of financing, eliminating their ability to hijack charitable organizations for their terrorist purposes. We must be prepared for a long war, and we must not falter.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: Well, one of the things that has drawn some comment, however, is that that very clear understanding of the role of al Qaeda, of the fact that you have got a continuing threat in the world from this organization that struck us so hard, that recognition was absent from the president's state of the union address. And that absence actually has drawn a lot of comment, obviously not all of it, with an nderstanding of what the president is doing these days, because he focused in that peech on what he called the “axis of evil.”
He pointed the finger at Iran, Iraq and North Korea, countries that at least, in terms of what we have seen in the media and so forth, have not been provably identified with the assault against us on September 11, but which the president identified as countries we have to keep an eye on in order to avert future threats.
And that disjunction between Mr. Tenet's belief that al Qaeda is still an ongoing threat, and President Bush's statement that the axis of evil has got to be the focus of future policy. And I think that has confused some folks, has drawn commentators and pundits into a critique of the administration policy, the suggestion that perhaps there is not the kind of coherence that we might wish.
Well, as usual, we want to try to understand this in a way that will help us to deal more capably with the situation in front of us. And to help us do that, we have put together a special edition of the program today.
Joining me right now is Constantine Menges, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, a nonpartisan think tank here in Washington. I'm going to be chatting with Constantine a little bit about the background of terrorism, and some of the concepts that might help us to bring all of these things together. Then, we're going to have a special edition of people just like you, in which we have gone out of our way today to find some folks who are knowledgeable in this area and will be able to, in applying our common sense, help us to understand the ins and outs of this particular policy debate so critical to our security and our survival.
But first, let me welcome to the program Constantine Menges — Constantine, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
CONSTANTINE MENGES, HUDSON INSTITUTE: Good to be with you.
KEYES: Thank you for joining us today. Now, you and I have worked together over the course of the years in this area of national security, and you are somebody who has a background that stretches back several decades in terms of dealing with these problems. You know, for instance, that this is not something that just came upon us on September 11. What is the background of terrorism in the world, and how does it help us to understand what we are faced with today?
MENGES: You are absolutely right. The whole eruption of terrorism in the late 1960s really began with the Soviet Union's decision to use this as a method of indirect warfare against the United States and its allies. And the way I identified, and you know through my work both at the White House National Security Council and the CIA over some years, the way I saw it was that there were three levels of the problem. The Soviet Union, which provided money, weapons, training and overall strategic guidance. Secondly, terrorist partner regimes, like Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Cuba, others, which were the places from which the third group, stateless terrorist organizations, operated and began attacking people in the NATO countries.
KEYES: Now, of course, as a result of September 11, we have had a large focus on the sort of stateless terrorist groups, like al Qaeda, with cells transcending national boundaries in different parts of the world. And we also have a changed global situation in terms of the situation of Russia and China. How do you think that affects the reality of the terrorism we are presently faced with?
MENGES: Well, there has been a tremendous positive change in that the people of Eastern Europe freed themselves from communism, and there is an effort in Russia to make a transition from the Soviet era. However, at the same time, there's some continuities, because we are seeing communist China — and let's remember that China is a communist country with more than a billion people and advanced nuclear weapons, and communist China has been one of the main supporters as the January 30 CIA report reminds us again, it's an unclassified report required by Congress — supplying weapons of mass destruction, chemical, biological, nuclear weapons and missiles to Iran, Iraq, North Korea and other terrorist partner states.
Russia also, since the mid 1990s, the time when it began getting closer to China again, Russia also has been providing a lot of this help, according to U.S. government reports. And so we see actually a three-level situation again, where China, and Russia in the background, are providing the terrorist partner regimes that President Bush correctly called an axis of evil — Iran, Iraq and North Korea — with weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile expertise and components. And then we see the partner regimes, and then we see the stateless terrorist organizations that the regimes are helping.
KEYES: Well, now, tell me something though, because the way in which this has come forward in presentation in the last little while. We had the focus on al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. Then we had the president's State of the Union address and the axis of evil in it. And it seemed to some as if that was some kind of an abrupt shift of policy. But based on the analysis you have given us, there is actually a framework within which you can understand the relationship between these kinds of nodal countries and the stateless terrorist network. Why hasn't that been clearly presented to us in terms of the Bush administration's presentation?
MENGES: Well, I think the tendency — I think now we are moving into the next phase of the war against terrorism, and I would just say that you and I both know that certain parts of the government always have difficulty presenting the facts in a clear way, because then they would say present them, they are worried they would have to do something about them. Now, President Bush has presented the facts about Iran, Iraq and North Korea. And now the question is what to do about those regimes, because they are indeed not only terrorist partner regimes, as President Bush said, but they also are developing weapons of mass destruction, which can do enormous damage to the people of the United States and to the people in allied countries.
KEYES: Well, that would suggest that in a forward-looking kind of way, assuming that the next acts of terrorism could take any form, including weapons of mass destruction, focusing on these kinds of nodal regimes and their relationship with the potential threats to America, it actually does make sense in terms of destruction that you have outlined.
MENGES: Indeed. I think it does. And let's take a look at Iraq, for example. Iraq is we know that that Saddam Hussein dictatorship since 1979 has been brutal and repressive toward its own people. We know Saddam Hussein began — attacked Iran in 1980, began an eight-year-long terrible war, attacked Kuwait in 1990, which the United States then had to lead a coalition to remove him from.
So that regime has a record of 23 years of terror at home and aggression abroad. It also is a regime that has enormous amounts of money, because of its oil revenues, and I believe there is a lot of evidence indicating Saddam Hussein's involvement with a number of terrorist organizations, not only the ones based in Iraq, but also with al Qaeda and so forth.
KEYES: And so forth. And with that kind of background, if you are actually preparing for the next attack instead of looking back at the last one, it makes sense then to be focusing on some of these things, which are in fact, if what you say is true, not all that new. I mean, the structure we are looking at is not a new structure. And in fact, we are responding to the nature of a terrorist threat that has been with us in the same fashion for some time.
Constantine, thank you so much. I appreciate your willingness to join us this evening, share your experience and insights with us.
Next up, we are going to have a special edition of “People Just Like You,” three folks who have some knowledge and background in this area are going to be joining me in an effort to make sense of what we are confronted with in the policy discussion and critique that is going on.
Later on, there will also be a personal note from me, because today is a very special day as I am sure some of you know. Ronald Reagan celebrating his 91st birthday, and I will be sharing some thoughts with you about that.
But first, does this make sense do you think? In California right now, they have actually allowed what they call “undocumented illegals” to have access to their state universities. Syndicated columnist, Joseph Perkins, wrote this in today's “Washington Times.” “So an undocumented immigrant, who manages to enroll at one of the university of California's eight campuses would pay less than $4,000 a year in tuition, yet the son or daughter of one of the U.S. citizens who died at the World Trade Center or the Pentagon, who enrolls at a university of California's school would pay out-of-state tuition of roughly $15,000. Hmm. Does that make sense?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: States like these and their terrorist allies constitute an axis of evil arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: That was President Bush introducing the language that has led to the topic of tonight's program, the axis of evil. And he pointed the finger at three countries — North Korea, Iran and Iraq — and basically invited the American people to see the next stage of our battle against terrorism in terms of our effort to anticipate the possible destructiveness of these regimes and forestall that destructiveness.
Now, this constituted a bit of a shift that some people see as both abrupt and unjustified from the emphasis that had existed on networks like al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden and the consequences of the September 11 attack directly linked with their activities. Is this a change? Is it an abrupt shift? Is it justified? Does it make sense? That's the question that's on the table In front of us today.
And I have joining me here some folks just like you. Now, yes, these are people who have a little more knowledge perhaps in this area than some of us might have, because they have looked at it and studied it for a while. I think that's required when we are dealing with sensitive national security topics. But the one thing I want you to remember is that knowledge is not the same thing as common sense, and the fact that folks have more knowledge than you doesn't necessarily mean that they are thinking straighter than you or me or anybody else. And so that remains the criterion that we want to apply in this discussion and that you can apply right along with us.
Joining me is Charles Kupchan with the Council on Foreign Relations, Jack Spencer, a defense analyst for the Heritage Foundation, and Charles Pena of the Cato Institute — welcome, gentlemen. Thank you for being with me today on the show.
First, I want to put this question on the table. Was this some kind of an abrupt alteration of the Bush administration's policy step number one? Was it or was it not? And if so, was it justified? Is that a justifiable change? Jack, what do you think?
JACK SPENCER, HERITAGE FOUNDATION: I don't think that it was an abrupt change, and here is why. If you look at the statements from early on, right after September 11, both the statements of the president and that of the secretary of defense made very clear that the war against terrorism was going to be a long, drawn out affair, perhaps years if not longer than that. And I think from that point forward, no one really suspected and their statements would lead us to believe this that the war did not begin or end with either Osama bin Laden or al Qaeda.
That the root of this problem of international terrorism is much wider and much greater than that, and they began making the point that terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, that's the problem that needs to be resolved. And whenever you go down that road, it leads you to three places: Iran, Iraq and North Korea.
KEYES: Charles, what do you think?
CHARLES PENA, CATO INSTITUTE: I would have to disagree with Jack. I think it is a shift in policy. I think we have gone from a war on terrorism, a war against a terrorist group that has attacked the United States. And we have broadened it now and said any country that is developing or possesses weapons of mass destruction is a potential threat. And if that's the case, the President didn't go the whole nine yards. There are more than just three countries. There are 12 countries that have nuclear weapons programs, 13 that have biological weapons, 16 with chemical weapons, 28 that have ballistic missiles, and there are 168 organizations, entities or individuals now named on the State Department terrorist list.
So I would argue it is an abrupt change in policy, and we are looking now at a much broader war than terrorism in general, and certainly much broader than the one terrorist group that reached out with global reach and attacked the United States, and that's how I see it.
KEYES: Charles Kupchan?
CHARLES KUPCHAN, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: I think it is more a settling of scores within the administration than an abrupt shift in the sense that you saw two camps, the Defense Department and Paul Wolfowitz in particular pushing for a widening of the war and going after Iraq. The State Department and Colin Powell in particular saying let's be more restrained, and I think that Bush said in the State of the Union, I am going with the more hard-lined approach.
My own view is he overreached, because I think it's a mistake to lump all those states together. Iraq is a particular tough nut to crack. Saddam Hussein seems to be someone who needs to face the prospect of force. Iran, you have got moderates and conservatives fighting it out. North Korea has more or less played along with us in terms of scaling back their weapons of mass production — weapons of mass destruction and production. So I think you have got to separate these, deal with them separately and not see this as us against them and drawing new lines.
KEYES: As a theoretical matter, I think all of you all are making a certain amount of sense, but there is a problem I have. Very often we will make the mistake of looking back at the harm that has been done to us or at the last battle that we have had to fight and acting as if that's what we have to prepare for in the future. Just as a matter of common sense, isn't it the case that we can't afford to do that with terrorism? How likely is it — I mean understanding that we have to safeguard ourselves against getting burned twice in the same way. But is it also possible that there are a broader range of threats, and that the next attack might very well have something to do with weapons of mass destruction?
PENA: Well, let me throw a little common sense back here, Alan.
KEYES: Yes.
PENA: And that why is it that these countries would be a threat to us? What is it that makes them threatening? Do they just hate the United States? Do they have expansionist tendencies and want to dominate the world? No. I would argue that the reason that Iran, Iraq and North Korea get singled out as threats is because they interfere with our ability to act with impunity in those regions of the world. And in Iran and Iraq's case, that region happens to be the Persian Gulf. Why are we there? To defend Persian Gulf oil. Why do we need to defend oil? Because there is this fallacy that we need to defend oil.
KEYES: Go ahead.
SPENCER: I think I can square this circle. Why these three countries? If you look at these countries, they have a number of things in common that make them different than any other countries. Chuck pointed out a lot of the different countries, you have 16 doing this, 17 doing that. But these three countries are all terrorist states. They are all weapons of mass destruction states. We know that. They are all avidly against the United States and hostile to our interests. They have all spilled American blood or have been responsible for spilling American blood in the past.
These are things that these countries all have in common. And if you look at these other countries, they don't necessarily have all of these characteristics in common, and that's what makes these three countries different than all of the rest. It's these characteristics coming together that make them particularly evil in the president's own words.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Are we then assuming that there is no relationship though between these kinds of countries and the actual terrorists that moved against us? Because I mean, the pattern of terrorist behavior in the past has been that there was a relationship, that training and arms and other things were flowing in various ways, and that these countries acted as nodes, transfer points if you like, for certain kinds of knowledge and capacity and technology and personnel. Are we to assume they have no such role anymore?
KUPCHAN: From what we know, they were not involved, any of those three countries in supporting al Qaeda and carrying out the attacks against the United States. We know that Iraq and Iran in the past have been supporters of terrorism. We don't know, and the CIA has recently released information saying we don't have evidence that in the last period they have been actively supporting terrorism.
So in that sense, it's a much more ambiguous case than with Afghanistan and the Taliban. They came after us. We are going after them.
KEYES: But they came after us, didn't they, making unconventional use of what was essentially a conventional weapon. I mean, they took an airline, conceived of it as a weapon and used it as a guided missile to take down our towers. But the question I am raising, I guess, is if a group like that themselves are looking around and thinking what do we do for an encore, and the encore involves the use of weapons of mass destruction, doesn't that mean that whatever was going on in the past, they are going to have to start reaching out to certain states? And as a preemptive measure, don't we have to put states that might potentially provide them, the ones that seem to have the disposition, to potentially provide them with that kind of work? Don't we have to put them on notice that we are watching them and we will hold them responsible?
PENA: I think those states already know that, and if they were going to support a group like al Qaeda with weapons of mass destruction, they would have done that already. There was a confluence of interest between al Qaeda and the Taliban regime. There is no confluence of interest between al Qaeda and Iraq, Iran or North Korea.
I think we also have to look at some of the hard facts. North Korea is not a current sponsor of terrorist activity. Their weapons of mass destruction program is pretty much on hold. Their ballistic missile program is pretty much on hold. Therefore, how are they a part of this so-called axis of evil? What is the threat that they represent to us? Or what's the threat in terms of exporting terrorism?
SPENCER: I think that — I totally disagree with Chuck. I think that their weapons of mass destruction program is not on hold. Their ballistic missile program is not on hold. What they promised is that they would not launch a ballistic missile until 2003. It doesn't mean they can't be working on ballistic missiles until 2003. And we don't know what's going on in the depths of their mountains in North Korea.
So while you may trust the North Korean leadership, I don't, and they have proven in the past that they don't like Americans, and I think that's why they deserve to be in that axis of evil.
KUPCHAN: I basically agree with Jack that these are dangerous countries. We have to watch them. We have to put them on notice. But that doesn't mean that we go out there and say, you guys belong in the axis of evil. And there's another point that's key here, and that is what Constantine Menges made in the previous segment. Where do they get their know-how and their weapons? China, Russia, countries that we need on our side.
And if we come out there with our guns blazing and say, we are going to do what we want to do, and to hell with the rest of the world. We are going to lose Russia. We are going to lose China. And we are going to alienate the Europeans. They have been saying since the State of the Union there is Bush. He is going back to his unilateralist ways. We need to make sure that we bring these countries along. Otherwise, we're not going to have a serious regime for protecting the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
KEYES: But the great problem that I see, though, as I listen to you all go back and forth, is that here we are trying to anticipate a problem. We are not remembering that one of the great difficulties we faced on September 11 was that we hadn't anticipated that kind of unconventional way of looking at what didn't appear to be a weapon.
That ability to try to anticipate and see new relationships that maybe weren't dangerous in the past, but become dangerous now precisely because al Qaeda, for instance, demonstrated a capacity that maybe the North Koreans didn't believe in until now. And believing in it, wouldn't it at least be possible that they would then try to establish that connection? And if they don't have the missile to strike us now, would use al Qaeda as the means to reach us even while putting on a smiling face?
The question, I think, that remains on the table for us, if we are looking at the Bush administration and responsible officials, it is: How are they to deter the next attack? Deterrence isn't as easy as it was in a bipolar world. So how do you put countries on notice, who might be the source of this kind of a problem, that if you are struck they are going to be the first people you come for? Is that what President Bush was trying to do in his State of the Union address? Successful or not, it remains to be seen.
I at least think it's a hypothesis that we have to entertain, especially when we remember that at one level, since we don't see everything they see, I think we should be prone to give them the benefit of the doubt. It has been one of my inclinations in the course of this whole period since September 11.
Thank you, gentlemen — really appreciate your being with us today. Charles Kupchan, Jack Spencer, Charles Pena, thank you for sharing both your sense and your expertise with us on a subject that is very difficult, very complex, but also very vital to the survival of this country. It's one of the reasons we had this special edition tonight, because there are certain problems that you have to handle with the utmost care. And the life and death of our country may very well be at stake in this one.
Later on, we will be dealing with “What's on Your Mind.” But first, does this make sense? There is an inmate in Massachusetts subject to the Department of Corrections there, who is suing for a sex change operation. So we have a man, who has been imprisoned for life for killing his wife, see, who is suing the state to change himself into a woman, so as to free the woman who was his accomplice from her lifelong imprisonment in a man's body. And we'll pay for it. The taxpayers will have to foot the bill. Does that make sense?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE. We've come to that portion of the program we call the “Bottom Line.”
We've been talking about the statement in the State of the Union address by President Bush, that we are faced with an axis of evil. He identified three countries, Iran, Iraq and North Korea, as keys along this axis who are put on notice that their role in the possible threat from weapons of mass destruction was not going to be tolerated.
Now, that's become a subject, as we said during the program, of some controversy and criticism. There was a very pointed article about that that appeared in the papers by Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution.
And I've asked Michael to join us here this evening to share some thoughts with us and to, of course, answer some of the questions that I think are on my mind as to why you have taken such a clear stand, questioning the Bush administration's presentation of their policy, in terms of this axis of evil.
Why do you think that it deserves that criticism?
MICHAEL O'HANLON, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION: Thanks, Alan.
The reason is, because of North Korea in particular — I'm not necessarily disagreeing with President Bush on the issue of Iraq or Iran. But on the issue of North Korea, we have seen a lot of progress recess in the last six or seven years on basically every major issue.
Now, I would agree with your previous panel, a very good discussion, that there are still dangers remaining in case of North Korea. But they have essentially capped their nuclear weapons program. They put their long range missile program into a moratorium. They have limited their arms exports and they have really cutoff their support for terrorism.
And this process has continued and amplified over the last decade or so. So to now all of a sudden start talking as if North Korea is the problem, first of all, it's factually wrong. Second of all, it really disrupts the process of improved relations we've seen in the last few years between North and South Korea. It's actually dangerous. It's a bad idea.
KEYES: Let me go step by step, though, through questions that occurred to me, and occurred to me as I was reading your article today.
Step number one, why do you assume that it's incompatible for a country to be talking with us, working with us in various ways, and yet at another level be working in ways that might be pointing instruments of destruction in our direction? Didn't we see that with Japan in the context of the second World War? Haven't we seen it at other times? Isn't it possible to play that double game? And why isn't it impossible that North Korea would be doing it right now?
O'HANLON: No. I can't prove that something's impossible, of course. But I have to look at the weight of evidence. The overall weight of evidence is, everything North Korea has been doing in recent years has been in recognition of the fact they know we will come to the defense of South Korea in any war and obliterate them if a war begins. And we will reunify that peninsula and end their regime. So they can't play too many games with us.
Secondly, they realize their economic system is broken and they need help from the outside world.
Third, I agree with you, they're not nice people. They still have tendencies toward trying to extort money and this sort of thing, and they're trying to use whatever few cards they still have in their hand to get whatever they can from us.
so I'm not saying you should be nice to the North Koreans or trusting.
But the overall weight of evidence of people who have looked at this issue, shows that North Korea has been try to go engage with us, in its own very prickly and difficult way.
And this kind of rhetoric from President Bush just makes no sense. It gets in the way.
KEYES: Let me try the hypothesis, though, I was laying out before the panel. Because one of the problems here, I think, is that we can't just sit back and wait for the next blow to strike us and then figure out who did it, and so forth and so on, given that the next blow could involve weapons of mass destruction.
How do we establish in today's world a regime of deterrents against that kind of terrorist act, when we're dealing with a more decentralized system, where you are going to have several potential sources of this kind of threat, interacting with etworks like al Qaeda to create what might be a very devastating threat for the United States?
Isn't it necessary to put these countries on notice?
O'HANLON: Yeah, putting people on notice is fine especially, with Iran and Iraq I think.
But the case with North Korea, they're already on notice as, Charles Capsian (ph) said on your previous panel.
President Clinton said if they start a war with us, it will be the end of their country as they know it. They're on notice. There's been no doubt for 50 years in the United States that if North Korea begins another war on the peninsula, we will not just win that war and go back to the DMZ. We will end their regime. And they now that.
KEYES: Let me get this straight then. Because I think that for the purposes of clarification, the axis of evil names three countries. The rational for that axis, which I admit I think was not altogether clear, in the president's speech, but which I think with a little thought one can figure out, in terms of putting these countries on notice, establishing some kind of deterrents so that they will not be interacting with the potential elements of this terrorist network to be a threat against us.
That overall rationale is not what you're questioning here, is that right?
O'HANLON: I am willing to put people on notice. I agree with that point.
KEYES: But you're just saying, in this particular case, we've got — they got two right and one wrong, from your point of view?
O'HANLON: That's basically what I'm saying. Yeah.
KEYES: Now, here is the key question, though. And it's part of what, I think, has led to my own hesitation. I had questions after the State of the Union address. I remember raising the issue here on the program by quoting from Robert Novak's column about what appeared to be this abrupt shift away from the focus on Osama bin Laden, without explanation.
But one of the things that gives me pause, as I look at this, is the understanding that in a situation like this, there might be information and indications in the hands of people in responsible positions in the government that they can't share with us, and that they would be irresponsible to ignore.
Isn't it at least possible that would be the rationale for including North Korea? Is everything known to you and me, in terms of what might be their potential links with the threats that we face in the future?
O'HANLON: I suppose it's possible, Alan. But I'll give you two reasons why I don't think it's the case.
First of all, I have talked to a number of former Clinton administration people who dealt with North Korea year in and year out, and they knew a lot of what was going on, and I've gotten a fairly clear picture from them about whatever kind of inside information there may have been. Now I can't of course know all classified information, but the overall sense of the public debate is fairly consistent with what I think these people were led to understand from all their detailed access to classified information.
Secondly, the Bush administration has people in it, like Paul Wolfowitz, who have been against the process of engaging North Korea ever since it began back in 1994. They just don't like it. They don't like the idea of dealing with this kind of a hard-line regime. They would rather just be tough.
I understand that sentiment, but I think that Mr. Wolfowitz and others are ignoring the fact that engagement has worked. And they just haven't realized that they have to adapt to a new kind of policy, because this policy is working.
KEYES: One of the problems, though, that I'd have to say, Michael, I see with that response, is that, first of all, if you're going to cite the Clinton people as an authority to me, in terms of how they understood and analyzed the threats to the United States, I would have to suggest to you that we suffered on September 11th from years of their apparent incompetence that set us up for the incredible blow that we suffered on that day.
That's not to point the finger of blame exclusive in any direction, but I do not have confidence in their assessment on the threats of the United States. Because if they had done a better job, maybe several thousand people would be alive today.
And, that said, it seems to me that, if we're faced with a situation where the threat has struck home against us, doesn't that justify people like Paul Wolfowitz in taking a second look at the hard-liners who have taken such a strong stance of animosity toward the United States, even in the midst of things that their self-interest required they work with us on?
Aren't those the very people likely to play a double game in this particular situation?
Now, that I think is what has restrained me in terms of my own willingness to stand forward in criticism of the administration, because I think they have a responsibility right now that — it behooves all of us to be careful about second guessing them.
O'HANLON: Well, I think we have to second guess them, Alan, because you can go back to the Vietnam era, the McCarthy era, sometimes when you listen to people in power and just given them a carte blanche, you get into more trouble.
I think's it's incumbent on all of us to salute our leaders and be good Americans and support the overall war effort, but also question it. And if we're not doing that, I don't think we're doing our job as citizens.
Secondly, I would say, the South Korean government — if you don't want to trust the Clinton administration, and I disagree with you on that point, but we'll come back to that, if you like — the South Korean government, which knows North Korea better than any of us, has consistently been behind the idea of trying to deal with the North Korean regime, and President Bush got in the way.
He publicly embarrassed the South Korean president a year ago when he came to Washington and he has not given him any support. This is a Nobel prizewinning leader of South Korea.
And then if you want to talk about the specifics of the Clinton administration's record — the Clinton administration did not do enough. I agree with that. However, it was the Clinton administration that was trying to add money for things like bioterrorism, airport security. It was a lot of hard-line Republicans who just wanted to focus on missile defense.
So if you want to talk about whose instincts are better, I'm not sure they're better in the Republican camp, frankly.
KEYES: The sad thing is, though, that I think that the major failures that we saw that resulted in September 11th in terms of intelligence, a lack of preparedness, an unwillingness, in fact, to develop the kind of consistent approach to human intelligence that was required, this is a problem with the Democrats. It goes all the way back to the Carter years and was certainly exemplified during President Clinton's term.
The final point though, that I would make, is that in dealing with a country like North Korea, of course they could play a double game, holding out an olive branch to South Korea while preparing to deal harsh blows against us, and playing the two off against one another.
If we play into their hands, it might possibly be the case that we would free a threat of mass destruction against us. And that, I think, would be something that would add to the terrible toll that was already taken on September 11th.
Michael, thank you so much — appreciate your taking the time to be with me this evening and share that perspective.
I think we're all of us are struggling right now with the need to be both responsible in our approach to these national security issues and to understand that that responsibility requires that we act like Americans.
Now, we're not going to accept knee-jerk any explanation, but we need to apply our common sense with great seriousness, because of the tremendous consequences that are involved in the decisions that will be taken on these matters in the future.
We need to be fair to the government, to the president. But we also have to be fair to our own intelligence and to our own common sense.
And that's what we have tried to do this evening.
Later, I will share with you a personal note, as today is former president Ronald Reagan's birthday, and that's been much on my mind. But first of all, we're going to hear from you and what's on your mind.
You're watching MSNBC, the best news on cable.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE.
We're going to take some calls from folks like you out there and hear what's on your mind this evening.
Let's go to Solomon in Michigan.
Welcome to MAKING SENSE.
SOLOMON: How are you?
KEYES: Pretty good.
SOLOMON: I enjoy your program immensely.
KEYES: Thank you.
SOLOMON: Even though I don't agree with all your statements, I think it's a solid, solid program that asks the real questions.
In regard to the axis of evil, I was, you know, really disturbed by the speech, because I thought that it was inaccurate, it was misleading and it was needlessly inflammatory.
I think the most important thing about fighting terrorism is preparedness. As you yourself have said, no one has taken the blame in the Bush administration for this incredible failure of intelligence.
And we can talk about Clinton, we can go back to Reagan, we can go back to Carter or any of those other people, but we're talking about right now. I think the real emphasis of President Bush's speech — and I respect the office of the presidency, although I don't agree with him on a lot of things, I still respect him as a president. I'm a good American.
And as a good American, I believe you have to dissent. You have to ask the hard questions, or things like slavery and other things would not have been resolved.
I don't think the Bush administration is really looking at our role as the strongest country in the world, leading the world to a greater era of prosperity, a greater era of peace.
KEYES: Well, you know, I think one of the problems, though, is that they may, in fact, have been caught out by this act of terrorism on September 11th, and there has to be a determination not to let it happen again.
Preparedness in this particular case has to involve an element of deterrence, and I think that's what they may be reaching for here, perhaps in a little bit inchoate fashion, but a necessary one.
Let's go to Nick in Tennessee.
Nick, welcome.
NICK: Hey, Alan. How are you doing?
KEYES: Pretty good.
NICK: Well, I'll tell you what, there's not a whole lot that you say that I don't agree with.
KEYES: Well, I sure appreciate that.
NICK: It's great to finally see somebody really making sense on MSNBC.
KEYES: What's on your mind tonight, Nick?
NICK: You know, I keep hearing all this in the media about why they attacked us, why they have done this to us, why they hate us. Alan, is there really any question in the minds of our administration that this terrorism is completely due to our relationship with and our support of Israel?
KEYES: I think there is. There's a lot of doubt in the administration. There's a lot of doubt in my mind.
I think in point of fact that we are subject to this kind of attack from folks who would be finding a pretext to stir up hatred against us in any case, as an exercise of their own animus against what the United States stands for, which they believe is threatening in their world.
And I think whether Israel was there or not, they would still see that perceived threat, stir up this hatred, come against us out of this heart of evil. And it's something that I think we can kind of take for granted as one of the sad but real elements of our situation in the world.
Nick, thank you.
Really appreciate your calls and comments. I want to thank all of you for your participation in the show. We saw with the result on the Olympic flag that it does some good. You keep watching.
Next, a personal note on former president Ronald Reagan as he reaches
the milestone of his 91st birthday.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RONALD REAGAN, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: There were moments of great pride that we associate with Ronald Reagan, because he was willing to take a forthright stand against evil.
Today in a way, that stand against evil is easier to take because it struck us so hard. But in those days, it was controversial and there were some folks who didn't understand it.
But he was a man who knew himself, and who understood that sometimes, even when you are out in advance of others, you have to stand firm for what you believe this country needs.
I served in the Reagan administration, as many of you know. And you've probably noticed that I refer to President Bush and President Clinton and president this and president that. I find it very hard, though, to refer to anybody but Ronald Reagan as the president.
I hear those two words and it's Ronald Reagan that I think of. And I think it will be Ronald Reagan until I meet my maker.
He was the president for my lifetime and I thank God that he's still with us so that we remember.
That's my sense of it.
Lester Holt is up next, live from Salt Lake City. See you tomorrow.
Last night, we spent a good part of the program talking about the Olympics and what had happened when American athletes wanted to carry the flag into the stadium. But I have some good news to share with you this evening, and the first thing I want to tell you, though, is you are a part of this good news. Very often a situation like this it seems like we are sitting back watching events unfold. No, my friends, you were part of this event and part of the outcome that resulted, because as a result of the kind of attention that was given to the story of the athletes wanting to carry the flag into the stadium at the Winter Olympics, the IOC said, no, and barred the door.
And then the American people, thank God, got into the act and made clear how important this was to their heart and mind, and how important they thought it should be to the rest of the world, as folks were clearly doing on this program last night.
Well, apparently the IOC got the message, and overnight they decided that the U.S. athletes will, indeed, be carrying the famous flag that was found at the World Trade Center into the Olympic Stadium. And there will be an honor guard that will include firefighters and policemen and other rescue workers, so that there will be a sense that the entire world both shares in and respects and understands the significance of what happened on September 11. I think that's a piece of wonderful news.
There was also one other aspect of this in the course of the day. There had been a story that the security officer, the public affairs officer with the Port thority, who actually broke the story to Sean Hannity, one of my good friends and olleagues in this business, had actually been deprived of his opportunity to go to Salt Lake City — I mean to — and the result of, again, public opinion and pressure in the course of the day led the bureaucrats to reverse that decision as well. And the man who told us all about this problem will, in fact, be in the stadium to share in that expression of the world's understanding of the significance of 9/11.
So I think you all ought to give yourselves a pat on the back. I certainly give you a big hand for understanding and sharing in the heart that these athletes expressed. Even in the midst of their ambition for success and gold medals and achievement at the Olympics, they did not forget America. They did not forget the situation that this world faces right now. And I think that's a cause right there for understanding that they have already won a great spiritual victory.
Well, tonight we're again talking about another aspect of the aftermath of September 11, one that is serious and critically important to the future of the country. When all is said and done, looking back at the damage that was done to us, is not the kind of vigilance that we're going to need right now. We have to look forward and think of what can be done to try to avert and avoid that kind of harm in the future. And the danger is still very real.
Here is what CIA Director George Tenet had to say today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE TENET, CIA DIRECTOR: I must repeat that al Qaeda has not yet been destroyed. It and other like-minded groups remain willing and able to strike at us. Al Qaeda's leaders, still at large, are working to reconstitute the organization and resume its terrorist operations. We must eradicate these organizations by denying them their sources of financing, eliminating their ability to hijack charitable organizations for their terrorist purposes. We must be prepared for a long war, and we must not falter.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: Well, one of the things that has drawn some comment, however, is that that very clear understanding of the role of al Qaeda, of the fact that you have got a continuing threat in the world from this organization that struck us so hard, that recognition was absent from the president's state of the union address. And that absence actually has drawn a lot of comment, obviously not all of it, with an nderstanding of what the president is doing these days, because he focused in that peech on what he called the “axis of evil.”
He pointed the finger at Iran, Iraq and North Korea, countries that at least, in terms of what we have seen in the media and so forth, have not been provably identified with the assault against us on September 11, but which the president identified as countries we have to keep an eye on in order to avert future threats.
And that disjunction between Mr. Tenet's belief that al Qaeda is still an ongoing threat, and President Bush's statement that the axis of evil has got to be the focus of future policy. And I think that has confused some folks, has drawn commentators and pundits into a critique of the administration policy, the suggestion that perhaps there is not the kind of coherence that we might wish.
Well, as usual, we want to try to understand this in a way that will help us to deal more capably with the situation in front of us. And to help us do that, we have put together a special edition of the program today.
Joining me right now is Constantine Menges, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, a nonpartisan think tank here in Washington. I'm going to be chatting with Constantine a little bit about the background of terrorism, and some of the concepts that might help us to bring all of these things together. Then, we're going to have a special edition of people just like you, in which we have gone out of our way today to find some folks who are knowledgeable in this area and will be able to, in applying our common sense, help us to understand the ins and outs of this particular policy debate so critical to our security and our survival.
But first, let me welcome to the program Constantine Menges — Constantine, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
CONSTANTINE MENGES, HUDSON INSTITUTE: Good to be with you.
KEYES: Thank you for joining us today. Now, you and I have worked together over the course of the years in this area of national security, and you are somebody who has a background that stretches back several decades in terms of dealing with these problems. You know, for instance, that this is not something that just came upon us on September 11. What is the background of terrorism in the world, and how does it help us to understand what we are faced with today?
MENGES: You are absolutely right. The whole eruption of terrorism in the late 1960s really began with the Soviet Union's decision to use this as a method of indirect warfare against the United States and its allies. And the way I identified, and you know through my work both at the White House National Security Council and the CIA over some years, the way I saw it was that there were three levels of the problem. The Soviet Union, which provided money, weapons, training and overall strategic guidance. Secondly, terrorist partner regimes, like Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Cuba, others, which were the places from which the third group, stateless terrorist organizations, operated and began attacking people in the NATO countries.
KEYES: Now, of course, as a result of September 11, we have had a large focus on the sort of stateless terrorist groups, like al Qaeda, with cells transcending national boundaries in different parts of the world. And we also have a changed global situation in terms of the situation of Russia and China. How do you think that affects the reality of the terrorism we are presently faced with?
MENGES: Well, there has been a tremendous positive change in that the people of Eastern Europe freed themselves from communism, and there is an effort in Russia to make a transition from the Soviet era. However, at the same time, there's some continuities, because we are seeing communist China — and let's remember that China is a communist country with more than a billion people and advanced nuclear weapons, and communist China has been one of the main supporters as the January 30 CIA report reminds us again, it's an unclassified report required by Congress — supplying weapons of mass destruction, chemical, biological, nuclear weapons and missiles to Iran, Iraq, North Korea and other terrorist partner states.
Russia also, since the mid 1990s, the time when it began getting closer to China again, Russia also has been providing a lot of this help, according to U.S. government reports. And so we see actually a three-level situation again, where China, and Russia in the background, are providing the terrorist partner regimes that President Bush correctly called an axis of evil — Iran, Iraq and North Korea — with weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile expertise and components. And then we see the partner regimes, and then we see the stateless terrorist organizations that the regimes are helping.
KEYES: Well, now, tell me something though, because the way in which this has come forward in presentation in the last little while. We had the focus on al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. Then we had the president's State of the Union address and the axis of evil in it. And it seemed to some as if that was some kind of an abrupt shift of policy. But based on the analysis you have given us, there is actually a framework within which you can understand the relationship between these kinds of nodal countries and the stateless terrorist network. Why hasn't that been clearly presented to us in terms of the Bush administration's presentation?
MENGES: Well, I think the tendency — I think now we are moving into the next phase of the war against terrorism, and I would just say that you and I both know that certain parts of the government always have difficulty presenting the facts in a clear way, because then they would say present them, they are worried they would have to do something about them. Now, President Bush has presented the facts about Iran, Iraq and North Korea. And now the question is what to do about those regimes, because they are indeed not only terrorist partner regimes, as President Bush said, but they also are developing weapons of mass destruction, which can do enormous damage to the people of the United States and to the people in allied countries.
KEYES: Well, that would suggest that in a forward-looking kind of way, assuming that the next acts of terrorism could take any form, including weapons of mass destruction, focusing on these kinds of nodal regimes and their relationship with the potential threats to America, it actually does make sense in terms of destruction that you have outlined.
MENGES: Indeed. I think it does. And let's take a look at Iraq, for example. Iraq is we know that that Saddam Hussein dictatorship since 1979 has been brutal and repressive toward its own people. We know Saddam Hussein began — attacked Iran in 1980, began an eight-year-long terrible war, attacked Kuwait in 1990, which the United States then had to lead a coalition to remove him from.
So that regime has a record of 23 years of terror at home and aggression abroad. It also is a regime that has enormous amounts of money, because of its oil revenues, and I believe there is a lot of evidence indicating Saddam Hussein's involvement with a number of terrorist organizations, not only the ones based in Iraq, but also with al Qaeda and so forth.
KEYES: And so forth. And with that kind of background, if you are actually preparing for the next attack instead of looking back at the last one, it makes sense then to be focusing on some of these things, which are in fact, if what you say is true, not all that new. I mean, the structure we are looking at is not a new structure. And in fact, we are responding to the nature of a terrorist threat that has been with us in the same fashion for some time.
Constantine, thank you so much. I appreciate your willingness to join us this evening, share your experience and insights with us.
Next up, we are going to have a special edition of “People Just Like You,” three folks who have some knowledge and background in this area are going to be joining me in an effort to make sense of what we are confronted with in the policy discussion and critique that is going on.
Later on, there will also be a personal note from me, because today is a very special day as I am sure some of you know. Ronald Reagan celebrating his 91st birthday, and I will be sharing some thoughts with you about that.
But first, does this make sense do you think? In California right now, they have actually allowed what they call “undocumented illegals” to have access to their state universities. Syndicated columnist, Joseph Perkins, wrote this in today's “Washington Times.” “So an undocumented immigrant, who manages to enroll at one of the university of California's eight campuses would pay less than $4,000 a year in tuition, yet the son or daughter of one of the U.S. citizens who died at the World Trade Center or the Pentagon, who enrolls at a university of California's school would pay out-of-state tuition of roughly $15,000. Hmm. Does that make sense?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: States like these and their terrorist allies constitute an axis of evil arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: That was President Bush introducing the language that has led to the topic of tonight's program, the axis of evil. And he pointed the finger at three countries — North Korea, Iran and Iraq — and basically invited the American people to see the next stage of our battle against terrorism in terms of our effort to anticipate the possible destructiveness of these regimes and forestall that destructiveness.
Now, this constituted a bit of a shift that some people see as both abrupt and unjustified from the emphasis that had existed on networks like al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden and the consequences of the September 11 attack directly linked with their activities. Is this a change? Is it an abrupt shift? Is it justified? Does it make sense? That's the question that's on the table In front of us today.
And I have joining me here some folks just like you. Now, yes, these are people who have a little more knowledge perhaps in this area than some of us might have, because they have looked at it and studied it for a while. I think that's required when we are dealing with sensitive national security topics. But the one thing I want you to remember is that knowledge is not the same thing as common sense, and the fact that folks have more knowledge than you doesn't necessarily mean that they are thinking straighter than you or me or anybody else. And so that remains the criterion that we want to apply in this discussion and that you can apply right along with us.
Joining me is Charles Kupchan with the Council on Foreign Relations, Jack Spencer, a defense analyst for the Heritage Foundation, and Charles Pena of the Cato Institute — welcome, gentlemen. Thank you for being with me today on the show.
First, I want to put this question on the table. Was this some kind of an abrupt alteration of the Bush administration's policy step number one? Was it or was it not? And if so, was it justified? Is that a justifiable change? Jack, what do you think?
JACK SPENCER, HERITAGE FOUNDATION: I don't think that it was an abrupt change, and here is why. If you look at the statements from early on, right after September 11, both the statements of the president and that of the secretary of defense made very clear that the war against terrorism was going to be a long, drawn out affair, perhaps years if not longer than that. And I think from that point forward, no one really suspected and their statements would lead us to believe this that the war did not begin or end with either Osama bin Laden or al Qaeda.
That the root of this problem of international terrorism is much wider and much greater than that, and they began making the point that terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, that's the problem that needs to be resolved. And whenever you go down that road, it leads you to three places: Iran, Iraq and North Korea.
KEYES: Charles, what do you think?
CHARLES PENA, CATO INSTITUTE: I would have to disagree with Jack. I think it is a shift in policy. I think we have gone from a war on terrorism, a war against a terrorist group that has attacked the United States. And we have broadened it now and said any country that is developing or possesses weapons of mass destruction is a potential threat. And if that's the case, the President didn't go the whole nine yards. There are more than just three countries. There are 12 countries that have nuclear weapons programs, 13 that have biological weapons, 16 with chemical weapons, 28 that have ballistic missiles, and there are 168 organizations, entities or individuals now named on the State Department terrorist list.
So I would argue it is an abrupt change in policy, and we are looking now at a much broader war than terrorism in general, and certainly much broader than the one terrorist group that reached out with global reach and attacked the United States, and that's how I see it.
KEYES: Charles Kupchan?
CHARLES KUPCHAN, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: I think it is more a settling of scores within the administration than an abrupt shift in the sense that you saw two camps, the Defense Department and Paul Wolfowitz in particular pushing for a widening of the war and going after Iraq. The State Department and Colin Powell in particular saying let's be more restrained, and I think that Bush said in the State of the Union, I am going with the more hard-lined approach.
My own view is he overreached, because I think it's a mistake to lump all those states together. Iraq is a particular tough nut to crack. Saddam Hussein seems to be someone who needs to face the prospect of force. Iran, you have got moderates and conservatives fighting it out. North Korea has more or less played along with us in terms of scaling back their weapons of mass production — weapons of mass destruction and production. So I think you have got to separate these, deal with them separately and not see this as us against them and drawing new lines.
KEYES: As a theoretical matter, I think all of you all are making a certain amount of sense, but there is a problem I have. Very often we will make the mistake of looking back at the harm that has been done to us or at the last battle that we have had to fight and acting as if that's what we have to prepare for in the future. Just as a matter of common sense, isn't it the case that we can't afford to do that with terrorism? How likely is it — I mean understanding that we have to safeguard ourselves against getting burned twice in the same way. But is it also possible that there are a broader range of threats, and that the next attack might very well have something to do with weapons of mass destruction?
PENA: Well, let me throw a little common sense back here, Alan.
KEYES: Yes.
PENA: And that why is it that these countries would be a threat to us? What is it that makes them threatening? Do they just hate the United States? Do they have expansionist tendencies and want to dominate the world? No. I would argue that the reason that Iran, Iraq and North Korea get singled out as threats is because they interfere with our ability to act with impunity in those regions of the world. And in Iran and Iraq's case, that region happens to be the Persian Gulf. Why are we there? To defend Persian Gulf oil. Why do we need to defend oil? Because there is this fallacy that we need to defend oil.
KEYES: Go ahead.
SPENCER: I think I can square this circle. Why these three countries? If you look at these countries, they have a number of things in common that make them different than any other countries. Chuck pointed out a lot of the different countries, you have 16 doing this, 17 doing that. But these three countries are all terrorist states. They are all weapons of mass destruction states. We know that. They are all avidly against the United States and hostile to our interests. They have all spilled American blood or have been responsible for spilling American blood in the past.
These are things that these countries all have in common. And if you look at these other countries, they don't necessarily have all of these characteristics in common, and that's what makes these three countries different than all of the rest. It's these characteristics coming together that make them particularly evil in the president's own words.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Are we then assuming that there is no relationship though between these kinds of countries and the actual terrorists that moved against us? Because I mean, the pattern of terrorist behavior in the past has been that there was a relationship, that training and arms and other things were flowing in various ways, and that these countries acted as nodes, transfer points if you like, for certain kinds of knowledge and capacity and technology and personnel. Are we to assume they have no such role anymore?
KUPCHAN: From what we know, they were not involved, any of those three countries in supporting al Qaeda and carrying out the attacks against the United States. We know that Iraq and Iran in the past have been supporters of terrorism. We don't know, and the CIA has recently released information saying we don't have evidence that in the last period they have been actively supporting terrorism.
So in that sense, it's a much more ambiguous case than with Afghanistan and the Taliban. They came after us. We are going after them.
KEYES: But they came after us, didn't they, making unconventional use of what was essentially a conventional weapon. I mean, they took an airline, conceived of it as a weapon and used it as a guided missile to take down our towers. But the question I am raising, I guess, is if a group like that themselves are looking around and thinking what do we do for an encore, and the encore involves the use of weapons of mass destruction, doesn't that mean that whatever was going on in the past, they are going to have to start reaching out to certain states? And as a preemptive measure, don't we have to put states that might potentially provide them, the ones that seem to have the disposition, to potentially provide them with that kind of work? Don't we have to put them on notice that we are watching them and we will hold them responsible?
PENA: I think those states already know that, and if they were going to support a group like al Qaeda with weapons of mass destruction, they would have done that already. There was a confluence of interest between al Qaeda and the Taliban regime. There is no confluence of interest between al Qaeda and Iraq, Iran or North Korea.
I think we also have to look at some of the hard facts. North Korea is not a current sponsor of terrorist activity. Their weapons of mass destruction program is pretty much on hold. Their ballistic missile program is pretty much on hold. Therefore, how are they a part of this so-called axis of evil? What is the threat that they represent to us? Or what's the threat in terms of exporting terrorism?
SPENCER: I think that — I totally disagree with Chuck. I think that their weapons of mass destruction program is not on hold. Their ballistic missile program is not on hold. What they promised is that they would not launch a ballistic missile until 2003. It doesn't mean they can't be working on ballistic missiles until 2003. And we don't know what's going on in the depths of their mountains in North Korea.
So while you may trust the North Korean leadership, I don't, and they have proven in the past that they don't like Americans, and I think that's why they deserve to be in that axis of evil.
KUPCHAN: I basically agree with Jack that these are dangerous countries. We have to watch them. We have to put them on notice. But that doesn't mean that we go out there and say, you guys belong in the axis of evil. And there's another point that's key here, and that is what Constantine Menges made in the previous segment. Where do they get their know-how and their weapons? China, Russia, countries that we need on our side.
And if we come out there with our guns blazing and say, we are going to do what we want to do, and to hell with the rest of the world. We are going to lose Russia. We are going to lose China. And we are going to alienate the Europeans. They have been saying since the State of the Union there is Bush. He is going back to his unilateralist ways. We need to make sure that we bring these countries along. Otherwise, we're not going to have a serious regime for protecting the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
KEYES: But the great problem that I see, though, as I listen to you all go back and forth, is that here we are trying to anticipate a problem. We are not remembering that one of the great difficulties we faced on September 11 was that we hadn't anticipated that kind of unconventional way of looking at what didn't appear to be a weapon.
That ability to try to anticipate and see new relationships that maybe weren't dangerous in the past, but become dangerous now precisely because al Qaeda, for instance, demonstrated a capacity that maybe the North Koreans didn't believe in until now. And believing in it, wouldn't it at least be possible that they would then try to establish that connection? And if they don't have the missile to strike us now, would use al Qaeda as the means to reach us even while putting on a smiling face?
The question, I think, that remains on the table for us, if we are looking at the Bush administration and responsible officials, it is: How are they to deter the next attack? Deterrence isn't as easy as it was in a bipolar world. So how do you put countries on notice, who might be the source of this kind of a problem, that if you are struck they are going to be the first people you come for? Is that what President Bush was trying to do in his State of the Union address? Successful or not, it remains to be seen.
I at least think it's a hypothesis that we have to entertain, especially when we remember that at one level, since we don't see everything they see, I think we should be prone to give them the benefit of the doubt. It has been one of my inclinations in the course of this whole period since September 11.
Thank you, gentlemen — really appreciate your being with us today. Charles Kupchan, Jack Spencer, Charles Pena, thank you for sharing both your sense and your expertise with us on a subject that is very difficult, very complex, but also very vital to the survival of this country. It's one of the reasons we had this special edition tonight, because there are certain problems that you have to handle with the utmost care. And the life and death of our country may very well be at stake in this one.
Later on, we will be dealing with “What's on Your Mind.” But first, does this make sense? There is an inmate in Massachusetts subject to the Department of Corrections there, who is suing for a sex change operation. So we have a man, who has been imprisoned for life for killing his wife, see, who is suing the state to change himself into a woman, so as to free the woman who was his accomplice from her lifelong imprisonment in a man's body. And we'll pay for it. The taxpayers will have to foot the bill. Does that make sense?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE. We've come to that portion of the program we call the “Bottom Line.”
We've been talking about the statement in the State of the Union address by President Bush, that we are faced with an axis of evil. He identified three countries, Iran, Iraq and North Korea, as keys along this axis who are put on notice that their role in the possible threat from weapons of mass destruction was not going to be tolerated.
Now, that's become a subject, as we said during the program, of some controversy and criticism. There was a very pointed article about that that appeared in the papers by Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution.
And I've asked Michael to join us here this evening to share some thoughts with us and to, of course, answer some of the questions that I think are on my mind as to why you have taken such a clear stand, questioning the Bush administration's presentation of their policy, in terms of this axis of evil.
Why do you think that it deserves that criticism?
MICHAEL O'HANLON, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION: Thanks, Alan.
The reason is, because of North Korea in particular — I'm not necessarily disagreeing with President Bush on the issue of Iraq or Iran. But on the issue of North Korea, we have seen a lot of progress recess in the last six or seven years on basically every major issue.
Now, I would agree with your previous panel, a very good discussion, that there are still dangers remaining in case of North Korea. But they have essentially capped their nuclear weapons program. They put their long range missile program into a moratorium. They have limited their arms exports and they have really cutoff their support for terrorism.
And this process has continued and amplified over the last decade or so. So to now all of a sudden start talking as if North Korea is the problem, first of all, it's factually wrong. Second of all, it really disrupts the process of improved relations we've seen in the last few years between North and South Korea. It's actually dangerous. It's a bad idea.
KEYES: Let me go step by step, though, through questions that occurred to me, and occurred to me as I was reading your article today.
Step number one, why do you assume that it's incompatible for a country to be talking with us, working with us in various ways, and yet at another level be working in ways that might be pointing instruments of destruction in our direction? Didn't we see that with Japan in the context of the second World War? Haven't we seen it at other times? Isn't it possible to play that double game? And why isn't it impossible that North Korea would be doing it right now?
O'HANLON: No. I can't prove that something's impossible, of course. But I have to look at the weight of evidence. The overall weight of evidence is, everything North Korea has been doing in recent years has been in recognition of the fact they know we will come to the defense of South Korea in any war and obliterate them if a war begins. And we will reunify that peninsula and end their regime. So they can't play too many games with us.
Secondly, they realize their economic system is broken and they need help from the outside world.
Third, I agree with you, they're not nice people. They still have tendencies toward trying to extort money and this sort of thing, and they're trying to use whatever few cards they still have in their hand to get whatever they can from us.
so I'm not saying you should be nice to the North Koreans or trusting.
But the overall weight of evidence of people who have looked at this issue, shows that North Korea has been try to go engage with us, in its own very prickly and difficult way.
And this kind of rhetoric from President Bush just makes no sense. It gets in the way.
KEYES: Let me try the hypothesis, though, I was laying out before the panel. Because one of the problems here, I think, is that we can't just sit back and wait for the next blow to strike us and then figure out who did it, and so forth and so on, given that the next blow could involve weapons of mass destruction.
How do we establish in today's world a regime of deterrents against that kind of terrorist act, when we're dealing with a more decentralized system, where you are going to have several potential sources of this kind of threat, interacting with etworks like al Qaeda to create what might be a very devastating threat for the United States?
Isn't it necessary to put these countries on notice?
O'HANLON: Yeah, putting people on notice is fine especially, with Iran and Iraq I think.
But the case with North Korea, they're already on notice as, Charles Capsian (ph) said on your previous panel.
President Clinton said if they start a war with us, it will be the end of their country as they know it. They're on notice. There's been no doubt for 50 years in the United States that if North Korea begins another war on the peninsula, we will not just win that war and go back to the DMZ. We will end their regime. And they now that.
KEYES: Let me get this straight then. Because I think that for the purposes of clarification, the axis of evil names three countries. The rational for that axis, which I admit I think was not altogether clear, in the president's speech, but which I think with a little thought one can figure out, in terms of putting these countries on notice, establishing some kind of deterrents so that they will not be interacting with the potential elements of this terrorist network to be a threat against us.
That overall rationale is not what you're questioning here, is that right?
O'HANLON: I am willing to put people on notice. I agree with that point.
KEYES: But you're just saying, in this particular case, we've got — they got two right and one wrong, from your point of view?
O'HANLON: That's basically what I'm saying. Yeah.
KEYES: Now, here is the key question, though. And it's part of what, I think, has led to my own hesitation. I had questions after the State of the Union address. I remember raising the issue here on the program by quoting from Robert Novak's column about what appeared to be this abrupt shift away from the focus on Osama bin Laden, without explanation.
But one of the things that gives me pause, as I look at this, is the understanding that in a situation like this, there might be information and indications in the hands of people in responsible positions in the government that they can't share with us, and that they would be irresponsible to ignore.
Isn't it at least possible that would be the rationale for including North Korea? Is everything known to you and me, in terms of what might be their potential links with the threats that we face in the future?
O'HANLON: I suppose it's possible, Alan. But I'll give you two reasons why I don't think it's the case.
First of all, I have talked to a number of former Clinton administration people who dealt with North Korea year in and year out, and they knew a lot of what was going on, and I've gotten a fairly clear picture from them about whatever kind of inside information there may have been. Now I can't of course know all classified information, but the overall sense of the public debate is fairly consistent with what I think these people were led to understand from all their detailed access to classified information.
Secondly, the Bush administration has people in it, like Paul Wolfowitz, who have been against the process of engaging North Korea ever since it began back in 1994. They just don't like it. They don't like the idea of dealing with this kind of a hard-line regime. They would rather just be tough.
I understand that sentiment, but I think that Mr. Wolfowitz and others are ignoring the fact that engagement has worked. And they just haven't realized that they have to adapt to a new kind of policy, because this policy is working.
KEYES: One of the problems, though, that I'd have to say, Michael, I see with that response, is that, first of all, if you're going to cite the Clinton people as an authority to me, in terms of how they understood and analyzed the threats to the United States, I would have to suggest to you that we suffered on September 11th from years of their apparent incompetence that set us up for the incredible blow that we suffered on that day.
That's not to point the finger of blame exclusive in any direction, but I do not have confidence in their assessment on the threats of the United States. Because if they had done a better job, maybe several thousand people would be alive today.
And, that said, it seems to me that, if we're faced with a situation where the threat has struck home against us, doesn't that justify people like Paul Wolfowitz in taking a second look at the hard-liners who have taken such a strong stance of animosity toward the United States, even in the midst of things that their self-interest required they work with us on?
Aren't those the very people likely to play a double game in this particular situation?
Now, that I think is what has restrained me in terms of my own willingness to stand forward in criticism of the administration, because I think they have a responsibility right now that — it behooves all of us to be careful about second guessing them.
O'HANLON: Well, I think we have to second guess them, Alan, because you can go back to the Vietnam era, the McCarthy era, sometimes when you listen to people in power and just given them a carte blanche, you get into more trouble.
I think's it's incumbent on all of us to salute our leaders and be good Americans and support the overall war effort, but also question it. And if we're not doing that, I don't think we're doing our job as citizens.
Secondly, I would say, the South Korean government — if you don't want to trust the Clinton administration, and I disagree with you on that point, but we'll come back to that, if you like — the South Korean government, which knows North Korea better than any of us, has consistently been behind the idea of trying to deal with the North Korean regime, and President Bush got in the way.
He publicly embarrassed the South Korean president a year ago when he came to Washington and he has not given him any support. This is a Nobel prizewinning leader of South Korea.
And then if you want to talk about the specifics of the Clinton administration's record — the Clinton administration did not do enough. I agree with that. However, it was the Clinton administration that was trying to add money for things like bioterrorism, airport security. It was a lot of hard-line Republicans who just wanted to focus on missile defense.
So if you want to talk about whose instincts are better, I'm not sure they're better in the Republican camp, frankly.
KEYES: The sad thing is, though, that I think that the major failures that we saw that resulted in September 11th in terms of intelligence, a lack of preparedness, an unwillingness, in fact, to develop the kind of consistent approach to human intelligence that was required, this is a problem with the Democrats. It goes all the way back to the Carter years and was certainly exemplified during President Clinton's term.
The final point though, that I would make, is that in dealing with a country like North Korea, of course they could play a double game, holding out an olive branch to South Korea while preparing to deal harsh blows against us, and playing the two off against one another.
If we play into their hands, it might possibly be the case that we would free a threat of mass destruction against us. And that, I think, would be something that would add to the terrible toll that was already taken on September 11th.
Michael, thank you so much — appreciate your taking the time to be with me this evening and share that perspective.
I think we're all of us are struggling right now with the need to be both responsible in our approach to these national security issues and to understand that that responsibility requires that we act like Americans.
Now, we're not going to accept knee-jerk any explanation, but we need to apply our common sense with great seriousness, because of the tremendous consequences that are involved in the decisions that will be taken on these matters in the future.
We need to be fair to the government, to the president. But we also have to be fair to our own intelligence and to our own common sense.
And that's what we have tried to do this evening.
Later, I will share with you a personal note, as today is former president Ronald Reagan's birthday, and that's been much on my mind. But first of all, we're going to hear from you and what's on your mind.
You're watching MSNBC, the best news on cable.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE.
We're going to take some calls from folks like you out there and hear what's on your mind this evening.
Let's go to Solomon in Michigan.
Welcome to MAKING SENSE.
SOLOMON: How are you?
KEYES: Pretty good.
SOLOMON: I enjoy your program immensely.
KEYES: Thank you.
SOLOMON: Even though I don't agree with all your statements, I think it's a solid, solid program that asks the real questions.
In regard to the axis of evil, I was, you know, really disturbed by the speech, because I thought that it was inaccurate, it was misleading and it was needlessly inflammatory.
I think the most important thing about fighting terrorism is preparedness. As you yourself have said, no one has taken the blame in the Bush administration for this incredible failure of intelligence.
And we can talk about Clinton, we can go back to Reagan, we can go back to Carter or any of those other people, but we're talking about right now. I think the real emphasis of President Bush's speech — and I respect the office of the presidency, although I don't agree with him on a lot of things, I still respect him as a president. I'm a good American.
And as a good American, I believe you have to dissent. You have to ask the hard questions, or things like slavery and other things would not have been resolved.
I don't think the Bush administration is really looking at our role as the strongest country in the world, leading the world to a greater era of prosperity, a greater era of peace.
KEYES: Well, you know, I think one of the problems, though, is that they may, in fact, have been caught out by this act of terrorism on September 11th, and there has to be a determination not to let it happen again.
Preparedness in this particular case has to involve an element of deterrence, and I think that's what they may be reaching for here, perhaps in a little bit inchoate fashion, but a necessary one.
Let's go to Nick in Tennessee.
Nick, welcome.
NICK: Hey, Alan. How are you doing?
KEYES: Pretty good.
NICK: Well, I'll tell you what, there's not a whole lot that you say that I don't agree with.
KEYES: Well, I sure appreciate that.
NICK: It's great to finally see somebody really making sense on MSNBC.
KEYES: What's on your mind tonight, Nick?
NICK: You know, I keep hearing all this in the media about why they attacked us, why they have done this to us, why they hate us. Alan, is there really any question in the minds of our administration that this terrorism is completely due to our relationship with and our support of Israel?
KEYES: I think there is. There's a lot of doubt in the administration. There's a lot of doubt in my mind.
I think in point of fact that we are subject to this kind of attack from folks who would be finding a pretext to stir up hatred against us in any case, as an exercise of their own animus against what the United States stands for, which they believe is threatening in their world.
And I think whether Israel was there or not, they would still see that perceived threat, stir up this hatred, come against us out of this heart of evil. And it's something that I think we can kind of take for granted as one of the sad but real elements of our situation in the world.
Nick, thank you.
Really appreciate your calls and comments. I want to thank all of you for your participation in the show. We saw with the result on the Olympic flag that it does some good. You keep watching.
Next, a personal note on former president Ronald Reagan as he reaches
the milestone of his 91st birthday.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RONALD REAGAN, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: There were moments of great pride that we associate with Ronald Reagan, because he was willing to take a forthright stand against evil.
Today in a way, that stand against evil is easier to take because it struck us so hard. But in those days, it was controversial and there were some folks who didn't understand it.
But he was a man who knew himself, and who understood that sometimes, even when you are out in advance of others, you have to stand firm for what you believe this country needs.
I served in the Reagan administration, as many of you know. And you've probably noticed that I refer to President Bush and President Clinton and president this and president that. I find it very hard, though, to refer to anybody but Ronald Reagan as the president.
I hear those two words and it's Ronald Reagan that I think of. And I think it will be Ronald Reagan until I meet my maker.
He was the president for my lifetime and I thank God that he's still with us so that we remember.
That's my sense of it.
Lester Holt is up next, live from Salt Lake City. See you tomorrow.