MSNBC show
Alan Keyes is Making Sense
Alan KeyesApril 29, 2002
ALAN KEYES, MSNBC HOST: Welcome to MAKING SENSE. I'm Alan Keyes.
Up front tonight, deal making among Israelis, the Palestinians, and the United States. We're going to take a look at that today. A little later, we'll hear from the Palestinian representative to the United States and the spokesman for the Israeli embassy in Washington.
First, though, let's go over what has happened during the past several days. On Friday, Israeli forces reentered the town of Qalqilya. And President Bush repeated a call for Israel to halt its incursions into Palestinian territory. Then on Saturday, Palestinian terrorists disguised as Israeli soldiers entered the West Bank settlement of Adora, going door to door, killing four people, including a 5-year-old girl.
That same day on the diplomatic front, President Bush spoke to Israeli Prime Minister Sharon several times to broker an end to the month-long Israeli blockade around Yasser Arafat's compound in Ramallah. Bush offered to have American and British troops guard six Palestinian prisoners wanted by Israel in connection with the assassination of an Israeli cabinet minister.
Then on Sunday, the Israeli cabinet and Arafat agreed to the U.S. plan. And while President Bush applauded the decision to allow Arafat to move freely, he said that Arafat hasn't done enough.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: One of the things that Chairman Arafat must do is condemn and thwart terrorist activities. And it's important he do so.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: While they agreed to compromise in Ramallah, on Sunday the Israeli cabinet voted to continue blocking a U.N. fact-finding team from going into the Jenin refugee camp, saying the composition of the U.N. team is biased against Israel. And early today, Israeli tanks entered the city of Hebron in search of militants. They killed nine Palestinians, that incursion, they said, in response to the bloody attack that took place over the weekend.
Now, of course, that bloody attack punctuates, I believe, the difficulties that one faces in looking at the face of diplomacy and the results that were achieved over the weekend. Yasser Arafat, freed from his confinement, and yet that kind of bloody terrorism continues unabated, not only exacerbating the conflict as Israel responds to try to get at those who are responsible for such actions, but also raising once again the specter that this is diplomacy that flies into the teeth of terrorism and that therefore makes terrorism a winning strategy.
This continues to be, I think, the problem that bedevils American diplomacy as we deal with a part of the world in which one of the parties is making systematic use of terrorism and yet at the same time still sitting down at an acceptable interlocker and some kind of so-called negotiating process. Does this, in fact, undermine the general tenor of the approach that we have taken against terrorism?
We're going to be talking about that in the course of this half-hour, looking at these events over the weekend to ask whether they, in fact, make a contribution to ending the conflict or if they exacerbate it by encouraging the terroristic approach.
Joining us now is J. Michael Waller, vice president for the Center for Security Policy, and Nancy Soderberg, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Security Council and also a member of President Clinton's National Security Council. Welcome, both of you, to MAKING SENSE.
J. MICHAEL WALLER, VICE PRESIDENT, CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY: Hi, Alan.
NANCY SODERBERG, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL: Evening.
KEYES: Now, I would like to start by asking Nancy Soderberg to think about what has happened over the weekend. Tell us what you think. But I want you to reflect on what Defense Secretary Douglas Feith, a member of the same Bush administration that helped to broker this deal, had to say about the threats that are faced from terrorism. Here's what Defense Undersecretary Douglas Feith is quoted as saying in a column today by Abe Rosenthal (ph): “We must ensure,” he says, “that terrorism is not seen as a winning strategy.”
I look at the results that were achieved over the weekend, Nancy, and I say to myself, well, one part of the Bush administration is saying that terrorism shouldn't be allowed to be seen as a winning strategy, and another part seems to be offering to one of those who is quite evidently manipulating terrorism, seems to be offering fruits of that terrorism. Isn't this a problem?
SODERBERG: There's no question that there are mixed messages coming from Washington. The right hand and the far right hand don't seem to know what each other are doing.
On the one hand, you have President Bush calling for Israel to withdrawal from Ramallah. And the next day, President Bush gives Sharon a blank check. One day he's going to negotiate with Arafat. The next he's not. It's really time that the Bush administration, and particularly President Bush, put down a vision and stick to it and direct his administration to follow it. They have no vision. They have no plan. And it's time they got one.
KEYES: But one of the visions that has been pretty clearly articulated is the vision of our war against terrorism, the consequence of the fateful attack that came against us on September 11th. I think everybody agrees that President Bush was clear and forceful and responsible in his response to that, and in the way he outlined what our response would be. And I think that clarity is reflected in something else Douglas Feith said. He said: “Terrorism is not politics or even war. It is deranged ideology in action. At stake is not just the fate of particular countries, but of all open societies.”
If that kind of a statement is true, isn't it a grave error to treat terrorism against Israel and terrorism used by the Palestinians as if it were somehow part of some negotiating process that must be taken account of in the Middle East? Isn't that the loss of vision that we're seeing here?
SODERBERG: Well, I don't think there's any question that President Bush has fought the war on terrorism brilliantly. He's done the war in Afghanistan with courage and vision.
But the world is not black and white as much as one would wish it were. And the fact is that the war on terrorism has to be fought worldwide. But in the Middle East, it's a question of, how do you end the terrorism?
And to end the terrorism, you need to put a vision for a Middle East peace process on the table, push for it, and end these mixed messages. Only then will you stop the terrorism.
KEYES: Michael Waller, that sounds, when it is said I think, as if there is some logic to it. But there's one problem I always see with that. One can't end terrorism until terrorists stop practicing it. And if terrorists believe they're getting something out of it, aren't they just going continue to practice it? If we have a Mid-East diplomacy that seems to reward this terroristic approach, aren't we undermining any hope that we'll see an end to terrorism as a tactic, Michael Waller?
WALLER: That's exactly what we're doing. As long as we reward terrorists, as long as we have them in our grasp and then let them go, they're going continue to wage attacks against us and our people.
KEYES: Now, I think we're supposed to react to the president's statement that Arafat must come forward and condemn and act to thwart terrorism as if it were a serious, tough statement. I have a problem, though.
And listen to this. This is again what Douglas Feith — he's over at the Defense Department as part of the administration — and he said the following about a serious approach to terrorism. He said: “We must take seriously the incitement to hatred that creates the intellectual atmosphere in which terrorism can flourish. If we seek the root cause of terrorism, this is where we will find it.”
Isn't it true, Michael Waller, that Yasser Arafat represents an approach that has been in the schools and in the culture and the education and the formation of so many of the Palestinian young people and so forth? I mean to say that one episode of condemnation will undo all those years of careful preparation of the culture of terror, isn't that an absurdity?
WALLER: It is, especially if you take it beyond the Palestinian context. Yasser Arafat and his Fatah faction are really the embodiment of modern terrorism as we know it. The whole international terror network that sprang up since the 1960s and 1970s came from Arafat's forces, from Fatah, from the Palestine Liberation Organization.
And he has lived on that. He has capitalized on it. And the western countries have allowed him to wage this campaign.
I'll give you an example. There's no stat statute of limitations on murder, but we have it from the National Security Agencies intercepts from 1973 when Arafat personally gave the order to assassinate the American ambassador to Sudan, Cleo Noel (ph), and his charge d'affairs, George Curtis Moore (ph). And both men were assassinated in cold blood.
We have those intercepts. In fact, the National Security Agency officer who intercepted the PLO communications from Beirut has come forward. And he's been trying to get these documents declassified so that we can talk about them. But Arafat murdered a United States ambassador and a senior American diplomat. And we've done nothing about it. We've just let him gain and gain and gain by continuing his campaign of murder.
And he's murdered a lot of Americans in the past several — nearly a decade since this most recent peace process began. He's murdered dozens of American citizens in the Middle East.
KEYES: But, Nancy Soderberg, aside from direct involvement in terrorism, isn't there also an extent to which the terrorist network is kind of fundable? I was reading a story today in the “Washington Times” about an IRA terrorist who is over there training Colombian terrorists to do their work better. And, of course, there's been cross-fertilization between the elements of the PLO and other terroristic elements in the world.
It sounds to me when I listen to some of the folks who are talking in terms of this diplomacy, as you just said, as if they want us to believe that the Palestinian terrorism can be set aside, seen only in the context in the Middle East, and we're to forget about its role as part of the larger network of terror. Can we seriously do this?
SODERBERG: Absolutely not. And it's important to remember that Yasser Arafat has used terrorism in the past. He's endorsed it. He's renounced it. He's used it back and forth. And what we're trying to do is get him as the leader of the Palestinians — like it or not, he's the one we have to deal with — to move the process forward, make the 100 percent effort that Senator Mitchell called for, and move the process forward.
But the whole conversation is not going to ever end. You're going to have terrorism continuing. You're going to have Israeli incursions continuing until the Bush administration has a consistent policy to lead and put a peace plan on the table. And until they realize that and decide to lead — and they're still debating it in Washington — this unending cycle of violence is unfortunately going to continue.
KEYES: I'm sorry. I listen to you say that, and it seems to me that it's basically begging a question here. The people who are out there killing and going into houses and murdering 5-year-olds, this is part of the problem I have right now. I feel a gulf developing myself and many of the folks on the Palestinian side who seem to be able to regard with indifference this kind of chilling, cold-blooded slaughter of the innocent.
I can understand if in the midst of the battle you're shooting at a soldier and a 5-year-old runs into the line of fire. You can't stop in time. You're shooting at a building and the bullet goes through a window and kills a 5-year-old you don't see. But you go into a house you see a 5-year-old child, and in cold blood you have the ability to pull the trigger on that child, and you and I don't live in the same universe. We don't share the same moral sensibility. There is an abyss between us.
And it seems to me that you're talking as if Arafat has used terrorism yesterday. He's using it right now.
SODERBERG: No question about it.
KEYES: He seems to be getting what he wants for it. Can we let this go on?
SODERBERG: No, we cannot let it go on. The question is, how do you stop it? There's no question that Arafat is supporting suicide bombers, which is primarily children going out and blowing up innocent civilians. The Arab world is supporting these suicide bombers. They have a whole campaign to try to have suicide bombers inflict this horrible crime and terrorism against the Israeli people.
It's been strongly condemned. It's been strongly, horrifically condemned by everyone as a horrific crime. The question is, what do you do about it? We all agree it's a horrible thing and it ought to be stopped. The question is, how do you move it forward? How do you stop it? And there's no question that Arafat could do much, much more to stop it.
With the release of him this weekend, he's going to be put to the test. Can he stop it? Can he bring about an end to this terrorism and move forward? What I'm saying is that none of that can happen in a vacuum.
KEYES: But, if I can, Nancy, Michael Waller, I listen to what Nancy is saying, “Oh, if he's released he's going get this chance.” Didn't he have a chance even before this whole mess started? Wasn't he pretty much in control of Palestinian Authority? Weren't the Israelis, in fact, working in cooperation with his so-called security forces and so forth and so on? It seems that a lot of them were caching arms and building factories to commit acts of terrorism. They weren't fighting against it. Why should we believe that under present circumstances it's going to be different?
WALLER: We shouldn't believe it. Arafat has a track record going back to the early 1960s where he just murders his way into the power even among the Palestinian community. One reason we don't have good civilized Palestinians to work with on this is because Arafat assassinated them all and intimidated the rest of them out of taking part in the process.
So, I think we have got to look beyond Arafat. He certainly is not — the Palestinian people don't sink or swim with him. In fact, when he did have power over the Palestinian Authority, he squandered it. He wasted huge amounts of money in aid. Corruption and incompetence characterized it. And his people were just as bad off then as they were when they were under foreign control so.
So, he really hasn't stood up for the Palestinian people. He stood up for himself and the cult of terror that he's addicted to.
KEYES: Now, we're right at the end of it, but I have one more question, Nancy, because I think it was raised just now in a way by Michael Waller. We keep saying Yasser Arafat, he's the leader, he's all we've got. Isn't he all we've got in part because we keep rebuilding him so he can be in a position to murder more moderate leaders and kill more people inside his own community with his practice of terrorism? Aren't we setting up the next generation of people who might want to end this sick dedication to terrorism for more murder, not the murder of Israelis, but the murder of Palestinian who is might offer a different voice? Why do we keep legitimizing the leadership that has killed off the moral heart of the Palestinian people every chance it gets?
SODERBERG: Well, unfortunately we can't choose the leaders that we'd like to negotiate with. As Prime Minister Rabin said at the White House lawn in 1993, “You don't make peace with your friends, you make peace with your enemies.”
And I think we have to keep putting forward a vision and hope that leaders will stand forward. There's no question that we have to end this horrible cycle of violence and strongly condemn it.
The question is...
KEYES: That raises a question, though. I want to thank you both. I really appreciate you coming on, as always, to offer some lucid and clear points of view, which we appreciate very much.
But I think one of the points of the matter is begged, Douglas Feith was pretty clear and I think correct when he said that terrorism is not war. A terrorist isn't just your enemy. And you don't sit down and negotiate with him, either, because they have crossed the line in such a way that if you reward them with negotiation you may very well be encouraging their deadly craft.
Next, the “Heart of the Matter,” where we'll address these questions on MAKING SENSE. Given the weekend's bloody terrorist attacks, was the release of Arafat a dangerous concession to terrorism? Will this deepen the conflict or help to end it?
You're watching America's news channel, MSNBC.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: More than 200 people are protesting tonight outside the Century Plaza Hotel in Los Angeles, the protesters mostly carrying anti-Sharon pro-Palestinian signs. Inside, the president is speaking at a Republican fundraiser for Bill Simon, the party's nominee for governor of California. The party is expected to raise $2.5 million.
Coming up in our next half-hour, political adviser and commentator Dick Morris on how President Bush is faring with the war on terror and the Mid-East crisis, among other things.
A reminder that the chat room is open for business tonight. Trey says: “With war, you can manipulate the economy and scare citizens into following blindly.” You can add your opinion right now at chat.msnbc.com.
But first, let us get back to our analysis of the events of the events of the weekend and the deal that led to the ending of the siege against Yasser Arafat and the question of whether or not this is going to contribute to conflict or to an end to the conflict in the Middle East.
Joining us to get to the “Heart of the Matter,” Mark Regev, spokesman for the Israeli embassy to the United States, and Hasan Abdel Rahman, chief PLO representative to the United States.
I want to start this evening with Mr. Rahman because, obviously, this is in one sense a victory, I think, for Yasser Arafat, an achievement in terms of ending this siege. But at the same time, it came as a result of diplomacy by the president of the United States who has stated quite clearly that he thinks that it's Yasser Arafat's responsibility now to act against terror, not only to condemn it, but to move to thwart terrorist activities. Do you think we're going to see a vigorous effort in that regard now?
HASAN ABDEL RAHMAN, CHIEF REPRESENTATIVE TO THE U.S., PALESTINIAN LIBERATION ORGANIZATION: Let me first make one remark about what I have heard so far by you and one of your guests at least, which amounts to Palestinian bashing and selective account of history. Remember, Mr. Keyes, that Israel was created through terrorism. Two of the first prime ministers of Israel were on the wanted list for committing acts of terror — Begin for blowing up the King David Hotel and massacring 257 Palestinians in (UNINTELLIGIBLE), and Shamil (ph) for killing the envoy of the United Nations, Conbernadote (ph).
Remember also that Israel, in order to create the state of Israel, there was ethnic cleansing of one million Palestinians who are refugees today. So when you speak about terrorism, I hope you take into consideration the terrorism that the Palestinian people were subjected to and continues to be subjected to.
I don't believe there's any difference between one man killing people, shooting at some civilians, or the Israeli army killing Palestinian civilians, unless there's a difference in value of life that the Palestinian life is not equal to Jewish life. Having said that...
KEYES: But wait, wait, wait, I want to discuss this for a minute because, I really have a problem, Mr. Rahman. And I don't think you're showing enough understanding of the natural reaction of folks like myself all over America.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Let me finish. Let me finish. I haven't finished. Did I interrupt you? I sat and listened patiently to you, OK?
RAHMAN: Go ahead, yes.
KEYES: But my problem is, Mr. Rahman, that I hear a report of a gunman going into somebody's house, finding a 5-year-old girl, and shooting her dead. And I'm trying to understand how anybody can pull the trigger on a 5-year-old. You're comparing this and that act in the past with this and that. I want you to address how right now I'm supposed to have sympathy for folks who are going into homes killing 5-year-old children.
RAHMAN: No, no...
KEYES: ... not as accidents, not as — can I finish, please? — not as a corollary of some attack, not as a bomb that went off accidentally killing some civilians, but as a cold-blooded conscious act of murder. You tell me how you understand that because I don't understand it at all.
RAHMAN: Well, I'm going to tell you. I, first of all, condemn the killing of the 5 years old girl as well as any Israeli civilians. But what I'm trying to tell you, which you have not answered me, is are you aware of what I spoke of, the Israeli terrorism against the Palestinians, which was directed against Palestinian civilians? Why you never on your show, Mr. Keyes, criticize Israel? Is Israel above criticism? Does Israel exist above the law? Why I have never heard you saying one thing about Israel?
KEYES: Because, frankly, Mr. Rahman, at the moment, I don't feel any particular burden to be criticizing folks who are defending themselves against bloodthirsty murderers of the innocent who do not have an excuse for that murder at the moment because there's a better way to handle this situation.
RAHMAN: Well, Mr. Keyes...
KEYES: And, frankly, you keep coming...
RAHMAN: ... believe me, believe me...
KEYES: ... as if somebody is supposed to make apologies to you for the revulsion that we feel against terror after we suffered thousands of deaths...
RAHMAN: ... (UNINTELLIGIBLE)...
KEYES: ... by just that mentality. It's not going to happen here.
RAHMAN: ... supposed to be informing the American public. You are misleading the American public by this kind of presentation because you are not telling the American public the truth. You're telling them your one-sided view of the conflict in the Middle East.
KEYES: Quite the contrary.
RAHMAN: Yes, it is.
KEYES: Let me finish.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Quite the contrary, Mr. Rahman. I seem to be one of the few people right now willing to tell the American people the truth. And I'll tell you...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: ... let me go for a moment to Mr. Regev. And, Mr. Regev, I look at the situation over the weekend, I guess I can understand why the Israeli government kind of gave in to the pressure that came from the United States. But, quite honestly, do you think that releasing Yasser Arafat and his ongoing negotiations will make a positive contribution to ending the conflict, to ending the terrorism that has led to this cycle of violence?
MARK REGEV, SPOKESMAN, ISRAELI EMBASSY: Honestly, Alan, I just don't know. We agreed to this deal that President Bush has asked us to do. It's in many ways a personal request by the president to Prime Minister Sharon.
I hope, I pray that now we'll be able to pull out of Ramallah and a deal in Bethlehem will allow us to pull out of there, that with the Israeli pullout, the Palestinian leadership will take serious steps against terrorism. But I have to tell you I'm very cautious. We are very, very cynical about Mr. Arafat. We've seen his name on document where he's directly funded terrorist organizations, where he's directly been allocating money for suicide bombers.
We have a very, very tragic situation where the national movement of the Palestinian people has been hijacked by terrorists. And it's a problem. We don't see the Palestinians as enemies. But they have a leadership which is supporting groups like Hamas and Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad. They're conducting terrorist operations and continue to do so.
And we will pull out. And we're concerned that instead of picking up the political bull that the president has passed to the Palestinians that they will, in fact, continue their terrorist operations. And we will, frankly, Alan, if they do continue terrorism, we'll have to respond.
KEYES: But what do you say to Mr. Rahman when he says that, well, Israel was founded by terrorists, and how is the terrorism that is going on now any different than what was practiced then? What is your response?
REGEV: Well, it's just factually incorrect, Alan. And I think everyone knows that. The Israeli underground when we were fighting for independence, we never targeted deliberately innocent civilians. There were no Jewish suicide bombers. There were no Jewish homicide bombers. We didn't deliberately target women and children. It's just not true. It's just not true.
Israelis, we have very strict moral rules in the current conflict. The chief of staff of the Israeli army give a personal order to every soldier to avoid as much as possible innocent civilian casualties. We were trying surgically to deal with the terrorists. The terrorists are our enemies, not the Palestinian people.
KEYES: One of the questions I've often had, there's an accusation that Israel has been disregarding the lives of innocent civilians. But wouldn't it have been much more effective and efficient in some respects when you met with the kind of resistance you met with in Jenin to simply call in air strikes and get it over with?
REGEV: If we weren't so concerned about civilian casualties, that's exactly what we would have done. It's much easier to bomb from the air, indiscriminately shell from afar, Alan. But we went house to house in terrible fighting, terrible fighting, in which we lost some two dozen of our soldiers in house to house fighting with armed terrorist fanatics, people who were willing to die for their cause — Islamic Jihad, Hamas, other extremists — and it was difficult, difficult fighting.
KEYES: Well, I would like to give Mr. Rahman a chance to address that question, though, because it does seem to me that the Israelis have other means available. If they were interested in just whole sail slaughter and destruction, they could have done it much more efficiently than they did. What makes you think they would take the hard way if their aim was simply to kill innocent people?
RAHMAN: But this is inaccurate because they used Apache helicopters. And they fired over 200 missiles.
REGEV: Not against civilians, sir.
RAHMAN: Let me finish. You did attack the refugee camp with 200 missiles. You did find it more efficient to bulldoze the homes of the Palestinians over their heads. We pulled 16 people from under the rubble. You found it much more convenient to let people bleed to death without allowing ambulances to arrive there.
REGEV: Can I bring up the issue of ambulances, please? This isn't fair.
RAHMAN: There were crimes of war committed by Israel. And if Israel does not have anything to hide, why don't they let the international community to send the commission to investigate? Why you are delaying that commission?
KEYES: Now, Mr. Rahman, hold on. Mr. Rahman, let him answer your question. You asked it quite extensively. Let him answer it. Go ahead.
REGEV: First of all, about the ambulances, first of all, we unfortunately have to search and hold up ambulances because we've had continual cases where the Palestinian Red Crescent Society...
RAHMAN: For two weeks, you do not allow one (UNINTELLIGIBLE)...
REGEV: ... the Palestinian Red Crescent Society has used the ambulances to traffic in arms and even suicide bombers.
RAHMAN: Absolutely not...
KEYES: Mr. Rahman, let him finish his answer, please.
REGEV: The International Committee of the Red Cross has documented this, has made an official complaint to the Palestinian Red Crescent Society. So don't believe the Israeli government. Believe the International Committee of the Red Cross, who has condemned the Palestinian Authority for using Palestinian ambulances for weapons, for carrying suicide bombers, for smuggling terrorists, and so forth.
RAHMAN: That is inaccurate because...
REGEV: I can show you the press release from the International Committee...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Gentlemen, thank you very much. We're going to have to go. We've come up against our hard break.
I want to thank you both. As always, I think events will certainly justify us in continuing this discussion and trying to contribute to a better understanding of the views on both sides. Thanks for coming.
Next, we're going to have longtime political adviser Dick Morris talking to us about President Bush and how and whether his statesmanship measures up to the standards of modern history.
You're watching America's news channel, MSNBC.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE. I'm Alan Keyes.
Joining us now, Dick Morris, political adviser and author of the new book, “Power Plays — Win or Lose, How History's Great Political Leaders Play the Game.”
Welcome to MAKING SENSE.
DICK MORRIS, POLITICAL ADVISER: Hey, Alan. It's good to be here. I have great respect for you and for the way you ran for president and stood on principle when you did.
KEYES: Well, one of the things...
MORRIS: I just wish you'd succeeded with...
KEYES: One of the things I might have learned from your book is how to do that successfully and when and so forth.
And that's a question I have. We've come out of a discussion right now of the Middle East, and it seems to me that this is an area very much in line with the theme of parts of your book, about how the great political leaders deal with the problem of trying to adhere to principle.
Now President Bush was very clear on the principle when the whole war on terror started in the wake of September 11th. He had, in fact, great clarity in the statements that he did make.
MORRIS: He sure did.
KEYES: And then we've found in the recent statements coming out of the Middle East a lot less clarity, as this Middle East policy develops. What do you make of Bush's statesmanship in the context of the Middle East and of the need to maintain some kind of a coherent sense of integrity in the war on terror?
MORRIS: Well, I see it just the way you do, Alan, as a bifurcated process.
In the beginning, Bush was terrific. I mean, my book — I have a chapter on mobilizing the nation in a time of crisis and show that Bush is acting just like Churchill and Roosevelt did and not like Lyndon Johnson did in Vietnam in that he's telling the American people the truth, keeping them posted, keeping them informed, and never being prematurely optimistic.
But I think that, in the last three or four weeks, he's lost his focus. He's a compass needle that is not always pointing north, and he's missing the message that men and women who stand on principle have.
I evaluated Reagan, DeGaulle, Lincoln, and Churchill, and what I found is that they're the compass needle that always points north, and, eventually, people want to go north, and when they want to go north, they vote for them. When they don't want to go north, they don't.
And Bush has a country that wants to go north, that wants to follow him against Iraq, that wants to follow him against Iran and North Korea and go down that whole axis of evil list, and, all of a sudden, he's talking about Headstart training for teachers and volunteerism and charitable donations and cloning, and he's mired in the tar pits of the Middle East. There are bones of secretaries of state in those tar pits, and I just worry that Bush is getting mired in those.
KEYES: Well, let me ask you a question and illustrate it a little bit because — first, I want to play for you one of President Bush's statements about America's own war on terror. Here's what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Anybody who harbors terrorists needs to fear the United States and the rest of the free world. Anybody who houses a terrorist, encourages terrorism will be held accountable.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: Now here's what he said when Israeli troops invaded Palestinian territory following terror attacks in Israel.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BUSH: It's not helpful, what the Israelis have recently done, in order to create conditions for peace. I understand someone trying to defend themselves and to fight terror, but the recent actions aren't helpful.
I meant what I said to the prime minister of Israel. I expect there to be withdrawal without delay.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: Now common sense would suggest that the Israelis were doing exactly what the president said.
MORRIS: Yeah.
KEYES: They were going after where the terrorists were housed, going after their material, going after their infrastructure, as well as the terrorists themselves.
If that is, in fact, a way in which one approaches the war on terror, shouldn't one treat the Middle East right now in the context of the war, not the war in the context of the Middle East?
MORRIS: Absolutely. And I think that Bush is being misled by three factors.
The first is the western Europeans and the moderate Arab leaders who've sold him a bill of goods, which is “You've got to be tough on Israel to win global support.”
We don't need global support to go after Iraq. We have aircraft carriers. We could have bases in Northern Iraq. We have Turkey, and we probably can count on Kuwait.
Secondly, his economic advisers have deceived him into believing he needs to worry about an oil boycott. Those Arab countries are desperate for the oil revenue. There's no way they're going to have a boycott.
And finally, he's gotten deceived into the notion that he needs to be evenhanded in order to perpetuate a global unity, which is the same trap his father fell into. And the message of people that stand on principle is they follow Ralph Waldo Emerson's quote, which is, “If a man take a stand upon his instincts and there abide, this great huge world comes around to him.” And it was working for Bush until he got off his instincts.
KEYES: Well, what do you think explains that, though? When you look at G.W. Bush, compare him to a Reagan or a Lincoln or one of the earlier presidents, what explains the susceptibility to that deviation from more consistent action on principle? Or is there one?
MORRIS: Well, Reagan had the happy facility of being partially deaf. So he would stop listening to people when they were selling him a bill of goods.
(LAUGHTER)
MORRIS: Bush, unfortunately, has good hearing, and he sits there with advisers.
Alan, you can't believe it. You've never worked right with a president. Everybody around him tries to control him. They try to structure him. They say, “Watch out. He's loose. Watch out. You're not controlling him,” and the diplomats are saying, “You need western Europe.”
The State Department, which has always been anti-Israel, says, “You need the Arabs.” The economic advisers say, “Be wary of the oil weapon.” The military advisers say, “Oh, there are going to be heavy casualties,” and it is very hard to persevere and not to listen to them.
And the glory of a Winston Churchill or a Charles DeGaulle or a Ronald Reagan or an Abraham Lincoln is they were either too persuaded or too arrogant and self-involved to listen to other advisers.
But everybody in the White House — the word that is used in the White House more than any other word is the word “can't.” “You can want do this. You can't do that. You mustn't do this. You don't dare to that.” For the most powerful man in the world.
And George Bush just needs to sweep those guys aside and say, “I'm going to fight terror wherever it is, and I'm going to start in Iraq.”
KEYES: But one of the things that seems to have characterized the figures that you discuss in your book is that they grew in terms of their own sense of their identity in periods of their life when they were seeing clearly what they thought was right and sticking to it, even when the world said no, and, in a certain sense, they're used to having people say, “No, that's not right”...
MORRIS: That's right.
KEYES: ... and thinking it through to the point where they realize, “Yes, it is right, and I'm going to stick to it.”
MORRIS: Exactly.
KEYES: Isn't that one of the characteristics they have?
MORRIS: They almost live off the fuel of rejection.
But one of the things that I found that was fascinating, Alan — and you'll love this because it's your politics, stand on principle — that those four folks — Reagan, Lincoln, Churchill, and DeGaulle — all had the same experience.
They all ran for office. They all lost — Reagan to Ford, Lincoln to Douglas, DeGaulle was kicked out, Churchill lost his seat. They came back, ran again and won, and, when they won, it was because their principles stayed in tact, but they presented them in a way where they were accessible to everybody.
Lincoln was no longer just an abolitionist, he was a supporter of union. Reagan was no longer just a conservative, he was an optimist for morning again in America. Churchill was no longer an advocate of British imperialism, he was defending civilization against Hitler.
And that pivot from a narrow ideology to a broad ecumenical patriotic nationalistic appeal is what George Bush did in the events after 9/11, and I cannot for the life of me understand why this guy seems to have lost his instincts.
It's almost as if his compass got jammed. It's almost as if it no longer points north, and I hope and pray that he's listening tonight and he's been watching some of the news that's been going on and that he will rediscover his center of gravity.
KEYES: We're going to talk more with you right after this break. And I want you to be thinking about the question of whether or not G.W. Bush didn't start in a different place, though.
He started from the “Let's-please-everybody-approach-to-politics” and is groping his way towards a principled approach, which seems to be the opposite of the folks you talked about.
Give it some thought, and we will get into it.
MORRIS: That's a brilliant insight, Alan.
KEYES: And later, my outrage of the day. Cardinal Law, through his lawyer, blaming the victims of child molestation. Can you believe this?
But, first, does this make sense?
Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah allegedly requested that no women be allowed to engage in air traffic control duties affecting his flights to and from Texas last week. It's been reported that representatives of Prince Abdullah made a request of the airport manager that no women be allowed on the ramp and that they also not talk to pilots.
Now the Saudis have denied this very strenuously. But these are the same folks who imposed degrading requirements on America's female military people when they were over in Saudi Arabia, the same people who don't let women have driver's licenses, the same people who in every way seem to be willing to push aside the dignity of women in their own approach.
So, when the Saudis deny it, we are, of course, supposed to believe that it's just as farfetched as it can be that they would ever make such a demand. Does that make sense?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: We're back with political adviser Dick Morris, author of the new book “Power Plays.”
And we left sort of on a note, Dick, of talking about how one journeys to the point where you have this —
MORRIS: Brilliant insight on your part, Alan.
KEYES: Well...
MORRIS: There's a difference between talk-show hosts and people who know what they're talking about, and you just showed that.
The — when I worked for Clinton in '96, our strategy was triangulation, which I talk about in the book, which was basically solve the problems that animate the other side — welfare, crime, budget deficit. “Solve those problems,” I said to Clinton, “and the Republicans will go home and stop bothering you.”
When Bush ran for president, he applied the mirror image of that strategy — solve the problems that get the Democrats hot and bothered — education, compassionate conservative, no child behind, the party of Lincoln needs to espouse the ideals of Lincoln — and the Democrats will leave you alone and will stop uniting behind Gore. It worked well.
But then on 9/11, Bush had to make the transition from a man who was triangulating to win a majority to someone who was actually standing on his principles, and the amazing thing about it is that this guy, for whom good and evil were the major touchstones of his political ideology, terms which are not helpful in figuring out how to stimulate the economy or how to solve health care but are tailor made for the issue of terrorism — all of a sudden, this guy had his bearings back in a way that Clinton never would have had, and he kept his bearings for six and seven and eight months.
What I think is happening to him now is phony pragmatic arguments that we need other nations to help us do this against Iraq when we don't, that we need to fear an Arab oil boycott when we don't, that we need to worry that the American people will never accept casualties, which they will, and those arguments are dawning in on him, are pushing him into a Mideast involvement with even — so-called evenhandedness between the guilty and the innocent.
And I think what's happening is he's eroding the moral basis of his leadership, and his poll numbers are dropping, and a president whose poll numbers are in the 50s can't mobilize the nation for war. A guy who's in the 80s can, and Bush, in squandering his popularity, is undermining this country's biggest asset in the war.
KEYES: Well, one of the differences I see there, though, just to quickly outline it, is that there are two approaches to principle. One can see it as kind of a master that you serve at the expense of effectiveness, or you can see it ultimately as a source of effectiveness if you know how to apply it properly.
MORRIS: As an empowerment.
KEYES: Exactly, and I think that the — President Bush needs to get to that point where he stops listening...
MORRIS: He does.
KEYES: ... to people who see principle as an obstacle...
MORRIS: He does. One of the...
KEYES: ... and start seeing it as an opportunity on the basis of which he mobilizes strength.
MORRIS: One of the chapters in my book that you'll love, Alan, is on Truman and how, when the communists left him and supported Henry Wallace and the racists left him and supported Strom Thurmond and he was shed of the impurities in the Democratic Party, he was able to be a pure advocate for civil rights, a pure opponent of Stalin, Berlin airlift, NATO, Marshall Plan, and he was empowered by the defections.
And what George Bush needs to do is get rid of those some apostles of the conventional wisdom, have some self-confidence, and strike out boldly, and deal with America's problems in Iraq and let Israel have a free hand to deal with its problems on the West Bank.
KEYES: Dick, I want to thank you very much for coming. And...
MORRIS: Alan, this was — that question you asked about Bush's migration, I mean, just shows the difference between talk-show host and someone who plays the game.
KEYES: Well, I appreciate it, and I appreciate you for coming on. And I want to encourage folks to read your book, “Power Plays,” and go out and get a copy and take a look. It's worth the reading.
Next, we're going to be back with my outrage of the day. I have heard a report about Cardinal Law's lawyer is treating things. Now I know they're going to say, “It's just his lawyer. It's not him.” But, you know, a decent man ought to keep his lawyer in line.
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: And now for my outrage of the day in the context of developments up in Boston in the case involving Cardinal Bernard Law.
Well, his legal response to a lawsuit filed by an alleged priest sex abuse victim says in part that the family's negligence contributed to the abuse. In response to the lawsuit by Gregory Ford and his parents, Cardinal Law said, quote, “The defendant says that the plaintiffs were not in the exercise of due care but rather the negligence of the plaintiffs contributed to cause the injury or damage of plaintiff.”
Now I want to tell you I think that, when you stand accused, you still have a moral responsibility for the kind of defense you conduct, and trying to conduct a defense based on blaming a 6-year-old child for being complicit in the seduction and destruction of his moral self — I think Cardinal Law should nix that, or his judgment will again be in question.
That's my sense of it. Thanks. “THE NEWS WITH BRIAN WILLIAMS” is up next. See you tomorrow.
Up front tonight, deal making among Israelis, the Palestinians, and the United States. We're going to take a look at that today. A little later, we'll hear from the Palestinian representative to the United States and the spokesman for the Israeli embassy in Washington.
First, though, let's go over what has happened during the past several days. On Friday, Israeli forces reentered the town of Qalqilya. And President Bush repeated a call for Israel to halt its incursions into Palestinian territory. Then on Saturday, Palestinian terrorists disguised as Israeli soldiers entered the West Bank settlement of Adora, going door to door, killing four people, including a 5-year-old girl.
That same day on the diplomatic front, President Bush spoke to Israeli Prime Minister Sharon several times to broker an end to the month-long Israeli blockade around Yasser Arafat's compound in Ramallah. Bush offered to have American and British troops guard six Palestinian prisoners wanted by Israel in connection with the assassination of an Israeli cabinet minister.
Then on Sunday, the Israeli cabinet and Arafat agreed to the U.S. plan. And while President Bush applauded the decision to allow Arafat to move freely, he said that Arafat hasn't done enough.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: One of the things that Chairman Arafat must do is condemn and thwart terrorist activities. And it's important he do so.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: While they agreed to compromise in Ramallah, on Sunday the Israeli cabinet voted to continue blocking a U.N. fact-finding team from going into the Jenin refugee camp, saying the composition of the U.N. team is biased against Israel. And early today, Israeli tanks entered the city of Hebron in search of militants. They killed nine Palestinians, that incursion, they said, in response to the bloody attack that took place over the weekend.
Now, of course, that bloody attack punctuates, I believe, the difficulties that one faces in looking at the face of diplomacy and the results that were achieved over the weekend. Yasser Arafat, freed from his confinement, and yet that kind of bloody terrorism continues unabated, not only exacerbating the conflict as Israel responds to try to get at those who are responsible for such actions, but also raising once again the specter that this is diplomacy that flies into the teeth of terrorism and that therefore makes terrorism a winning strategy.
This continues to be, I think, the problem that bedevils American diplomacy as we deal with a part of the world in which one of the parties is making systematic use of terrorism and yet at the same time still sitting down at an acceptable interlocker and some kind of so-called negotiating process. Does this, in fact, undermine the general tenor of the approach that we have taken against terrorism?
We're going to be talking about that in the course of this half-hour, looking at these events over the weekend to ask whether they, in fact, make a contribution to ending the conflict or if they exacerbate it by encouraging the terroristic approach.
Joining us now is J. Michael Waller, vice president for the Center for Security Policy, and Nancy Soderberg, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Security Council and also a member of President Clinton's National Security Council. Welcome, both of you, to MAKING SENSE.
J. MICHAEL WALLER, VICE PRESIDENT, CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY: Hi, Alan.
NANCY SODERBERG, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL: Evening.
KEYES: Now, I would like to start by asking Nancy Soderberg to think about what has happened over the weekend. Tell us what you think. But I want you to reflect on what Defense Secretary Douglas Feith, a member of the same Bush administration that helped to broker this deal, had to say about the threats that are faced from terrorism. Here's what Defense Undersecretary Douglas Feith is quoted as saying in a column today by Abe Rosenthal (ph): “We must ensure,” he says, “that terrorism is not seen as a winning strategy.”
I look at the results that were achieved over the weekend, Nancy, and I say to myself, well, one part of the Bush administration is saying that terrorism shouldn't be allowed to be seen as a winning strategy, and another part seems to be offering to one of those who is quite evidently manipulating terrorism, seems to be offering fruits of that terrorism. Isn't this a problem?
SODERBERG: There's no question that there are mixed messages coming from Washington. The right hand and the far right hand don't seem to know what each other are doing.
On the one hand, you have President Bush calling for Israel to withdrawal from Ramallah. And the next day, President Bush gives Sharon a blank check. One day he's going to negotiate with Arafat. The next he's not. It's really time that the Bush administration, and particularly President Bush, put down a vision and stick to it and direct his administration to follow it. They have no vision. They have no plan. And it's time they got one.
KEYES: But one of the visions that has been pretty clearly articulated is the vision of our war against terrorism, the consequence of the fateful attack that came against us on September 11th. I think everybody agrees that President Bush was clear and forceful and responsible in his response to that, and in the way he outlined what our response would be. And I think that clarity is reflected in something else Douglas Feith said. He said: “Terrorism is not politics or even war. It is deranged ideology in action. At stake is not just the fate of particular countries, but of all open societies.”
If that kind of a statement is true, isn't it a grave error to treat terrorism against Israel and terrorism used by the Palestinians as if it were somehow part of some negotiating process that must be taken account of in the Middle East? Isn't that the loss of vision that we're seeing here?
SODERBERG: Well, I don't think there's any question that President Bush has fought the war on terrorism brilliantly. He's done the war in Afghanistan with courage and vision.
But the world is not black and white as much as one would wish it were. And the fact is that the war on terrorism has to be fought worldwide. But in the Middle East, it's a question of, how do you end the terrorism?
And to end the terrorism, you need to put a vision for a Middle East peace process on the table, push for it, and end these mixed messages. Only then will you stop the terrorism.
KEYES: Michael Waller, that sounds, when it is said I think, as if there is some logic to it. But there's one problem I always see with that. One can't end terrorism until terrorists stop practicing it. And if terrorists believe they're getting something out of it, aren't they just going continue to practice it? If we have a Mid-East diplomacy that seems to reward this terroristic approach, aren't we undermining any hope that we'll see an end to terrorism as a tactic, Michael Waller?
WALLER: That's exactly what we're doing. As long as we reward terrorists, as long as we have them in our grasp and then let them go, they're going continue to wage attacks against us and our people.
KEYES: Now, I think we're supposed to react to the president's statement that Arafat must come forward and condemn and act to thwart terrorism as if it were a serious, tough statement. I have a problem, though.
And listen to this. This is again what Douglas Feith — he's over at the Defense Department as part of the administration — and he said the following about a serious approach to terrorism. He said: “We must take seriously the incitement to hatred that creates the intellectual atmosphere in which terrorism can flourish. If we seek the root cause of terrorism, this is where we will find it.”
Isn't it true, Michael Waller, that Yasser Arafat represents an approach that has been in the schools and in the culture and the education and the formation of so many of the Palestinian young people and so forth? I mean to say that one episode of condemnation will undo all those years of careful preparation of the culture of terror, isn't that an absurdity?
WALLER: It is, especially if you take it beyond the Palestinian context. Yasser Arafat and his Fatah faction are really the embodiment of modern terrorism as we know it. The whole international terror network that sprang up since the 1960s and 1970s came from Arafat's forces, from Fatah, from the Palestine Liberation Organization.
And he has lived on that. He has capitalized on it. And the western countries have allowed him to wage this campaign.
I'll give you an example. There's no stat statute of limitations on murder, but we have it from the National Security Agencies intercepts from 1973 when Arafat personally gave the order to assassinate the American ambassador to Sudan, Cleo Noel (ph), and his charge d'affairs, George Curtis Moore (ph). And both men were assassinated in cold blood.
We have those intercepts. In fact, the National Security Agency officer who intercepted the PLO communications from Beirut has come forward. And he's been trying to get these documents declassified so that we can talk about them. But Arafat murdered a United States ambassador and a senior American diplomat. And we've done nothing about it. We've just let him gain and gain and gain by continuing his campaign of murder.
And he's murdered a lot of Americans in the past several — nearly a decade since this most recent peace process began. He's murdered dozens of American citizens in the Middle East.
KEYES: But, Nancy Soderberg, aside from direct involvement in terrorism, isn't there also an extent to which the terrorist network is kind of fundable? I was reading a story today in the “Washington Times” about an IRA terrorist who is over there training Colombian terrorists to do their work better. And, of course, there's been cross-fertilization between the elements of the PLO and other terroristic elements in the world.
It sounds to me when I listen to some of the folks who are talking in terms of this diplomacy, as you just said, as if they want us to believe that the Palestinian terrorism can be set aside, seen only in the context in the Middle East, and we're to forget about its role as part of the larger network of terror. Can we seriously do this?
SODERBERG: Absolutely not. And it's important to remember that Yasser Arafat has used terrorism in the past. He's endorsed it. He's renounced it. He's used it back and forth. And what we're trying to do is get him as the leader of the Palestinians — like it or not, he's the one we have to deal with — to move the process forward, make the 100 percent effort that Senator Mitchell called for, and move the process forward.
But the whole conversation is not going to ever end. You're going to have terrorism continuing. You're going to have Israeli incursions continuing until the Bush administration has a consistent policy to lead and put a peace plan on the table. And until they realize that and decide to lead — and they're still debating it in Washington — this unending cycle of violence is unfortunately going to continue.
KEYES: I'm sorry. I listen to you say that, and it seems to me that it's basically begging a question here. The people who are out there killing and going into houses and murdering 5-year-olds, this is part of the problem I have right now. I feel a gulf developing myself and many of the folks on the Palestinian side who seem to be able to regard with indifference this kind of chilling, cold-blooded slaughter of the innocent.
I can understand if in the midst of the battle you're shooting at a soldier and a 5-year-old runs into the line of fire. You can't stop in time. You're shooting at a building and the bullet goes through a window and kills a 5-year-old you don't see. But you go into a house you see a 5-year-old child, and in cold blood you have the ability to pull the trigger on that child, and you and I don't live in the same universe. We don't share the same moral sensibility. There is an abyss between us.
And it seems to me that you're talking as if Arafat has used terrorism yesterday. He's using it right now.
SODERBERG: No question about it.
KEYES: He seems to be getting what he wants for it. Can we let this go on?
SODERBERG: No, we cannot let it go on. The question is, how do you stop it? There's no question that Arafat is supporting suicide bombers, which is primarily children going out and blowing up innocent civilians. The Arab world is supporting these suicide bombers. They have a whole campaign to try to have suicide bombers inflict this horrible crime and terrorism against the Israeli people.
It's been strongly condemned. It's been strongly, horrifically condemned by everyone as a horrific crime. The question is, what do you do about it? We all agree it's a horrible thing and it ought to be stopped. The question is, how do you move it forward? How do you stop it? And there's no question that Arafat could do much, much more to stop it.
With the release of him this weekend, he's going to be put to the test. Can he stop it? Can he bring about an end to this terrorism and move forward? What I'm saying is that none of that can happen in a vacuum.
KEYES: But, if I can, Nancy, Michael Waller, I listen to what Nancy is saying, “Oh, if he's released he's going get this chance.” Didn't he have a chance even before this whole mess started? Wasn't he pretty much in control of Palestinian Authority? Weren't the Israelis, in fact, working in cooperation with his so-called security forces and so forth and so on? It seems that a lot of them were caching arms and building factories to commit acts of terrorism. They weren't fighting against it. Why should we believe that under present circumstances it's going to be different?
WALLER: We shouldn't believe it. Arafat has a track record going back to the early 1960s where he just murders his way into the power even among the Palestinian community. One reason we don't have good civilized Palestinians to work with on this is because Arafat assassinated them all and intimidated the rest of them out of taking part in the process.
So, I think we have got to look beyond Arafat. He certainly is not — the Palestinian people don't sink or swim with him. In fact, when he did have power over the Palestinian Authority, he squandered it. He wasted huge amounts of money in aid. Corruption and incompetence characterized it. And his people were just as bad off then as they were when they were under foreign control so.
So, he really hasn't stood up for the Palestinian people. He stood up for himself and the cult of terror that he's addicted to.
KEYES: Now, we're right at the end of it, but I have one more question, Nancy, because I think it was raised just now in a way by Michael Waller. We keep saying Yasser Arafat, he's the leader, he's all we've got. Isn't he all we've got in part because we keep rebuilding him so he can be in a position to murder more moderate leaders and kill more people inside his own community with his practice of terrorism? Aren't we setting up the next generation of people who might want to end this sick dedication to terrorism for more murder, not the murder of Israelis, but the murder of Palestinian who is might offer a different voice? Why do we keep legitimizing the leadership that has killed off the moral heart of the Palestinian people every chance it gets?
SODERBERG: Well, unfortunately we can't choose the leaders that we'd like to negotiate with. As Prime Minister Rabin said at the White House lawn in 1993, “You don't make peace with your friends, you make peace with your enemies.”
And I think we have to keep putting forward a vision and hope that leaders will stand forward. There's no question that we have to end this horrible cycle of violence and strongly condemn it.
The question is...
KEYES: That raises a question, though. I want to thank you both. I really appreciate you coming on, as always, to offer some lucid and clear points of view, which we appreciate very much.
But I think one of the points of the matter is begged, Douglas Feith was pretty clear and I think correct when he said that terrorism is not war. A terrorist isn't just your enemy. And you don't sit down and negotiate with him, either, because they have crossed the line in such a way that if you reward them with negotiation you may very well be encouraging their deadly craft.
Next, the “Heart of the Matter,” where we'll address these questions on MAKING SENSE. Given the weekend's bloody terrorist attacks, was the release of Arafat a dangerous concession to terrorism? Will this deepen the conflict or help to end it?
You're watching America's news channel, MSNBC.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: More than 200 people are protesting tonight outside the Century Plaza Hotel in Los Angeles, the protesters mostly carrying anti-Sharon pro-Palestinian signs. Inside, the president is speaking at a Republican fundraiser for Bill Simon, the party's nominee for governor of California. The party is expected to raise $2.5 million.
Coming up in our next half-hour, political adviser and commentator Dick Morris on how President Bush is faring with the war on terror and the Mid-East crisis, among other things.
A reminder that the chat room is open for business tonight. Trey says: “With war, you can manipulate the economy and scare citizens into following blindly.” You can add your opinion right now at chat.msnbc.com.
But first, let us get back to our analysis of the events of the events of the weekend and the deal that led to the ending of the siege against Yasser Arafat and the question of whether or not this is going to contribute to conflict or to an end to the conflict in the Middle East.
Joining us to get to the “Heart of the Matter,” Mark Regev, spokesman for the Israeli embassy to the United States, and Hasan Abdel Rahman, chief PLO representative to the United States.
I want to start this evening with Mr. Rahman because, obviously, this is in one sense a victory, I think, for Yasser Arafat, an achievement in terms of ending this siege. But at the same time, it came as a result of diplomacy by the president of the United States who has stated quite clearly that he thinks that it's Yasser Arafat's responsibility now to act against terror, not only to condemn it, but to move to thwart terrorist activities. Do you think we're going to see a vigorous effort in that regard now?
HASAN ABDEL RAHMAN, CHIEF REPRESENTATIVE TO THE U.S., PALESTINIAN LIBERATION ORGANIZATION: Let me first make one remark about what I have heard so far by you and one of your guests at least, which amounts to Palestinian bashing and selective account of history. Remember, Mr. Keyes, that Israel was created through terrorism. Two of the first prime ministers of Israel were on the wanted list for committing acts of terror — Begin for blowing up the King David Hotel and massacring 257 Palestinians in (UNINTELLIGIBLE), and Shamil (ph) for killing the envoy of the United Nations, Conbernadote (ph).
Remember also that Israel, in order to create the state of Israel, there was ethnic cleansing of one million Palestinians who are refugees today. So when you speak about terrorism, I hope you take into consideration the terrorism that the Palestinian people were subjected to and continues to be subjected to.
I don't believe there's any difference between one man killing people, shooting at some civilians, or the Israeli army killing Palestinian civilians, unless there's a difference in value of life that the Palestinian life is not equal to Jewish life. Having said that...
KEYES: But wait, wait, wait, I want to discuss this for a minute because, I really have a problem, Mr. Rahman. And I don't think you're showing enough understanding of the natural reaction of folks like myself all over America.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Let me finish. Let me finish. I haven't finished. Did I interrupt you? I sat and listened patiently to you, OK?
RAHMAN: Go ahead, yes.
KEYES: But my problem is, Mr. Rahman, that I hear a report of a gunman going into somebody's house, finding a 5-year-old girl, and shooting her dead. And I'm trying to understand how anybody can pull the trigger on a 5-year-old. You're comparing this and that act in the past with this and that. I want you to address how right now I'm supposed to have sympathy for folks who are going into homes killing 5-year-old children.
RAHMAN: No, no...
KEYES: ... not as accidents, not as — can I finish, please? — not as a corollary of some attack, not as a bomb that went off accidentally killing some civilians, but as a cold-blooded conscious act of murder. You tell me how you understand that because I don't understand it at all.
RAHMAN: Well, I'm going to tell you. I, first of all, condemn the killing of the 5 years old girl as well as any Israeli civilians. But what I'm trying to tell you, which you have not answered me, is are you aware of what I spoke of, the Israeli terrorism against the Palestinians, which was directed against Palestinian civilians? Why you never on your show, Mr. Keyes, criticize Israel? Is Israel above criticism? Does Israel exist above the law? Why I have never heard you saying one thing about Israel?
KEYES: Because, frankly, Mr. Rahman, at the moment, I don't feel any particular burden to be criticizing folks who are defending themselves against bloodthirsty murderers of the innocent who do not have an excuse for that murder at the moment because there's a better way to handle this situation.
RAHMAN: Well, Mr. Keyes...
KEYES: And, frankly, you keep coming...
RAHMAN: ... believe me, believe me...
KEYES: ... as if somebody is supposed to make apologies to you for the revulsion that we feel against terror after we suffered thousands of deaths...
RAHMAN: ... (UNINTELLIGIBLE)...
KEYES: ... by just that mentality. It's not going to happen here.
RAHMAN: ... supposed to be informing the American public. You are misleading the American public by this kind of presentation because you are not telling the American public the truth. You're telling them your one-sided view of the conflict in the Middle East.
KEYES: Quite the contrary.
RAHMAN: Yes, it is.
KEYES: Let me finish.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Quite the contrary, Mr. Rahman. I seem to be one of the few people right now willing to tell the American people the truth. And I'll tell you...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: ... let me go for a moment to Mr. Regev. And, Mr. Regev, I look at the situation over the weekend, I guess I can understand why the Israeli government kind of gave in to the pressure that came from the United States. But, quite honestly, do you think that releasing Yasser Arafat and his ongoing negotiations will make a positive contribution to ending the conflict, to ending the terrorism that has led to this cycle of violence?
MARK REGEV, SPOKESMAN, ISRAELI EMBASSY: Honestly, Alan, I just don't know. We agreed to this deal that President Bush has asked us to do. It's in many ways a personal request by the president to Prime Minister Sharon.
I hope, I pray that now we'll be able to pull out of Ramallah and a deal in Bethlehem will allow us to pull out of there, that with the Israeli pullout, the Palestinian leadership will take serious steps against terrorism. But I have to tell you I'm very cautious. We are very, very cynical about Mr. Arafat. We've seen his name on document where he's directly funded terrorist organizations, where he's directly been allocating money for suicide bombers.
We have a very, very tragic situation where the national movement of the Palestinian people has been hijacked by terrorists. And it's a problem. We don't see the Palestinians as enemies. But they have a leadership which is supporting groups like Hamas and Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad. They're conducting terrorist operations and continue to do so.
And we will pull out. And we're concerned that instead of picking up the political bull that the president has passed to the Palestinians that they will, in fact, continue their terrorist operations. And we will, frankly, Alan, if they do continue terrorism, we'll have to respond.
KEYES: But what do you say to Mr. Rahman when he says that, well, Israel was founded by terrorists, and how is the terrorism that is going on now any different than what was practiced then? What is your response?
REGEV: Well, it's just factually incorrect, Alan. And I think everyone knows that. The Israeli underground when we were fighting for independence, we never targeted deliberately innocent civilians. There were no Jewish suicide bombers. There were no Jewish homicide bombers. We didn't deliberately target women and children. It's just not true. It's just not true.
Israelis, we have very strict moral rules in the current conflict. The chief of staff of the Israeli army give a personal order to every soldier to avoid as much as possible innocent civilian casualties. We were trying surgically to deal with the terrorists. The terrorists are our enemies, not the Palestinian people.
KEYES: One of the questions I've often had, there's an accusation that Israel has been disregarding the lives of innocent civilians. But wouldn't it have been much more effective and efficient in some respects when you met with the kind of resistance you met with in Jenin to simply call in air strikes and get it over with?
REGEV: If we weren't so concerned about civilian casualties, that's exactly what we would have done. It's much easier to bomb from the air, indiscriminately shell from afar, Alan. But we went house to house in terrible fighting, terrible fighting, in which we lost some two dozen of our soldiers in house to house fighting with armed terrorist fanatics, people who were willing to die for their cause — Islamic Jihad, Hamas, other extremists — and it was difficult, difficult fighting.
KEYES: Well, I would like to give Mr. Rahman a chance to address that question, though, because it does seem to me that the Israelis have other means available. If they were interested in just whole sail slaughter and destruction, they could have done it much more efficiently than they did. What makes you think they would take the hard way if their aim was simply to kill innocent people?
RAHMAN: But this is inaccurate because they used Apache helicopters. And they fired over 200 missiles.
REGEV: Not against civilians, sir.
RAHMAN: Let me finish. You did attack the refugee camp with 200 missiles. You did find it more efficient to bulldoze the homes of the Palestinians over their heads. We pulled 16 people from under the rubble. You found it much more convenient to let people bleed to death without allowing ambulances to arrive there.
REGEV: Can I bring up the issue of ambulances, please? This isn't fair.
RAHMAN: There were crimes of war committed by Israel. And if Israel does not have anything to hide, why don't they let the international community to send the commission to investigate? Why you are delaying that commission?
KEYES: Now, Mr. Rahman, hold on. Mr. Rahman, let him answer your question. You asked it quite extensively. Let him answer it. Go ahead.
REGEV: First of all, about the ambulances, first of all, we unfortunately have to search and hold up ambulances because we've had continual cases where the Palestinian Red Crescent Society...
RAHMAN: For two weeks, you do not allow one (UNINTELLIGIBLE)...
REGEV: ... the Palestinian Red Crescent Society has used the ambulances to traffic in arms and even suicide bombers.
RAHMAN: Absolutely not...
KEYES: Mr. Rahman, let him finish his answer, please.
REGEV: The International Committee of the Red Cross has documented this, has made an official complaint to the Palestinian Red Crescent Society. So don't believe the Israeli government. Believe the International Committee of the Red Cross, who has condemned the Palestinian Authority for using Palestinian ambulances for weapons, for carrying suicide bombers, for smuggling terrorists, and so forth.
RAHMAN: That is inaccurate because...
REGEV: I can show you the press release from the International Committee...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Gentlemen, thank you very much. We're going to have to go. We've come up against our hard break.
I want to thank you both. As always, I think events will certainly justify us in continuing this discussion and trying to contribute to a better understanding of the views on both sides. Thanks for coming.
Next, we're going to have longtime political adviser Dick Morris talking to us about President Bush and how and whether his statesmanship measures up to the standards of modern history.
You're watching America's news channel, MSNBC.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE. I'm Alan Keyes.
Joining us now, Dick Morris, political adviser and author of the new book, “Power Plays — Win or Lose, How History's Great Political Leaders Play the Game.”
Welcome to MAKING SENSE.
DICK MORRIS, POLITICAL ADVISER: Hey, Alan. It's good to be here. I have great respect for you and for the way you ran for president and stood on principle when you did.
KEYES: Well, one of the things...
MORRIS: I just wish you'd succeeded with...
KEYES: One of the things I might have learned from your book is how to do that successfully and when and so forth.
And that's a question I have. We've come out of a discussion right now of the Middle East, and it seems to me that this is an area very much in line with the theme of parts of your book, about how the great political leaders deal with the problem of trying to adhere to principle.
Now President Bush was very clear on the principle when the whole war on terror started in the wake of September 11th. He had, in fact, great clarity in the statements that he did make.
MORRIS: He sure did.
KEYES: And then we've found in the recent statements coming out of the Middle East a lot less clarity, as this Middle East policy develops. What do you make of Bush's statesmanship in the context of the Middle East and of the need to maintain some kind of a coherent sense of integrity in the war on terror?
MORRIS: Well, I see it just the way you do, Alan, as a bifurcated process.
In the beginning, Bush was terrific. I mean, my book — I have a chapter on mobilizing the nation in a time of crisis and show that Bush is acting just like Churchill and Roosevelt did and not like Lyndon Johnson did in Vietnam in that he's telling the American people the truth, keeping them posted, keeping them informed, and never being prematurely optimistic.
But I think that, in the last three or four weeks, he's lost his focus. He's a compass needle that is not always pointing north, and he's missing the message that men and women who stand on principle have.
I evaluated Reagan, DeGaulle, Lincoln, and Churchill, and what I found is that they're the compass needle that always points north, and, eventually, people want to go north, and when they want to go north, they vote for them. When they don't want to go north, they don't.
And Bush has a country that wants to go north, that wants to follow him against Iraq, that wants to follow him against Iran and North Korea and go down that whole axis of evil list, and, all of a sudden, he's talking about Headstart training for teachers and volunteerism and charitable donations and cloning, and he's mired in the tar pits of the Middle East. There are bones of secretaries of state in those tar pits, and I just worry that Bush is getting mired in those.
KEYES: Well, let me ask you a question and illustrate it a little bit because — first, I want to play for you one of President Bush's statements about America's own war on terror. Here's what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Anybody who harbors terrorists needs to fear the United States and the rest of the free world. Anybody who houses a terrorist, encourages terrorism will be held accountable.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: Now here's what he said when Israeli troops invaded Palestinian territory following terror attacks in Israel.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BUSH: It's not helpful, what the Israelis have recently done, in order to create conditions for peace. I understand someone trying to defend themselves and to fight terror, but the recent actions aren't helpful.
I meant what I said to the prime minister of Israel. I expect there to be withdrawal without delay.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: Now common sense would suggest that the Israelis were doing exactly what the president said.
MORRIS: Yeah.
KEYES: They were going after where the terrorists were housed, going after their material, going after their infrastructure, as well as the terrorists themselves.
If that is, in fact, a way in which one approaches the war on terror, shouldn't one treat the Middle East right now in the context of the war, not the war in the context of the Middle East?
MORRIS: Absolutely. And I think that Bush is being misled by three factors.
The first is the western Europeans and the moderate Arab leaders who've sold him a bill of goods, which is “You've got to be tough on Israel to win global support.”
We don't need global support to go after Iraq. We have aircraft carriers. We could have bases in Northern Iraq. We have Turkey, and we probably can count on Kuwait.
Secondly, his economic advisers have deceived him into believing he needs to worry about an oil boycott. Those Arab countries are desperate for the oil revenue. There's no way they're going to have a boycott.
And finally, he's gotten deceived into the notion that he needs to be evenhanded in order to perpetuate a global unity, which is the same trap his father fell into. And the message of people that stand on principle is they follow Ralph Waldo Emerson's quote, which is, “If a man take a stand upon his instincts and there abide, this great huge world comes around to him.” And it was working for Bush until he got off his instincts.
KEYES: Well, what do you think explains that, though? When you look at G.W. Bush, compare him to a Reagan or a Lincoln or one of the earlier presidents, what explains the susceptibility to that deviation from more consistent action on principle? Or is there one?
MORRIS: Well, Reagan had the happy facility of being partially deaf. So he would stop listening to people when they were selling him a bill of goods.
(LAUGHTER)
MORRIS: Bush, unfortunately, has good hearing, and he sits there with advisers.
Alan, you can't believe it. You've never worked right with a president. Everybody around him tries to control him. They try to structure him. They say, “Watch out. He's loose. Watch out. You're not controlling him,” and the diplomats are saying, “You need western Europe.”
The State Department, which has always been anti-Israel, says, “You need the Arabs.” The economic advisers say, “Be wary of the oil weapon.” The military advisers say, “Oh, there are going to be heavy casualties,” and it is very hard to persevere and not to listen to them.
And the glory of a Winston Churchill or a Charles DeGaulle or a Ronald Reagan or an Abraham Lincoln is they were either too persuaded or too arrogant and self-involved to listen to other advisers.
But everybody in the White House — the word that is used in the White House more than any other word is the word “can't.” “You can want do this. You can't do that. You mustn't do this. You don't dare to that.” For the most powerful man in the world.
And George Bush just needs to sweep those guys aside and say, “I'm going to fight terror wherever it is, and I'm going to start in Iraq.”
KEYES: But one of the things that seems to have characterized the figures that you discuss in your book is that they grew in terms of their own sense of their identity in periods of their life when they were seeing clearly what they thought was right and sticking to it, even when the world said no, and, in a certain sense, they're used to having people say, “No, that's not right”...
MORRIS: That's right.
KEYES: ... and thinking it through to the point where they realize, “Yes, it is right, and I'm going to stick to it.”
MORRIS: Exactly.
KEYES: Isn't that one of the characteristics they have?
MORRIS: They almost live off the fuel of rejection.
But one of the things that I found that was fascinating, Alan — and you'll love this because it's your politics, stand on principle — that those four folks — Reagan, Lincoln, Churchill, and DeGaulle — all had the same experience.
They all ran for office. They all lost — Reagan to Ford, Lincoln to Douglas, DeGaulle was kicked out, Churchill lost his seat. They came back, ran again and won, and, when they won, it was because their principles stayed in tact, but they presented them in a way where they were accessible to everybody.
Lincoln was no longer just an abolitionist, he was a supporter of union. Reagan was no longer just a conservative, he was an optimist for morning again in America. Churchill was no longer an advocate of British imperialism, he was defending civilization against Hitler.
And that pivot from a narrow ideology to a broad ecumenical patriotic nationalistic appeal is what George Bush did in the events after 9/11, and I cannot for the life of me understand why this guy seems to have lost his instincts.
It's almost as if his compass got jammed. It's almost as if it no longer points north, and I hope and pray that he's listening tonight and he's been watching some of the news that's been going on and that he will rediscover his center of gravity.
KEYES: We're going to talk more with you right after this break. And I want you to be thinking about the question of whether or not G.W. Bush didn't start in a different place, though.
He started from the “Let's-please-everybody-approach-to-politics” and is groping his way towards a principled approach, which seems to be the opposite of the folks you talked about.
Give it some thought, and we will get into it.
MORRIS: That's a brilliant insight, Alan.
KEYES: And later, my outrage of the day. Cardinal Law, through his lawyer, blaming the victims of child molestation. Can you believe this?
But, first, does this make sense?
Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah allegedly requested that no women be allowed to engage in air traffic control duties affecting his flights to and from Texas last week. It's been reported that representatives of Prince Abdullah made a request of the airport manager that no women be allowed on the ramp and that they also not talk to pilots.
Now the Saudis have denied this very strenuously. But these are the same folks who imposed degrading requirements on America's female military people when they were over in Saudi Arabia, the same people who don't let women have driver's licenses, the same people who in every way seem to be willing to push aside the dignity of women in their own approach.
So, when the Saudis deny it, we are, of course, supposed to believe that it's just as farfetched as it can be that they would ever make such a demand. Does that make sense?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: We're back with political adviser Dick Morris, author of the new book “Power Plays.”
And we left sort of on a note, Dick, of talking about how one journeys to the point where you have this —
MORRIS: Brilliant insight on your part, Alan.
KEYES: Well...
MORRIS: There's a difference between talk-show hosts and people who know what they're talking about, and you just showed that.
The — when I worked for Clinton in '96, our strategy was triangulation, which I talk about in the book, which was basically solve the problems that animate the other side — welfare, crime, budget deficit. “Solve those problems,” I said to Clinton, “and the Republicans will go home and stop bothering you.”
When Bush ran for president, he applied the mirror image of that strategy — solve the problems that get the Democrats hot and bothered — education, compassionate conservative, no child behind, the party of Lincoln needs to espouse the ideals of Lincoln — and the Democrats will leave you alone and will stop uniting behind Gore. It worked well.
But then on 9/11, Bush had to make the transition from a man who was triangulating to win a majority to someone who was actually standing on his principles, and the amazing thing about it is that this guy, for whom good and evil were the major touchstones of his political ideology, terms which are not helpful in figuring out how to stimulate the economy or how to solve health care but are tailor made for the issue of terrorism — all of a sudden, this guy had his bearings back in a way that Clinton never would have had, and he kept his bearings for six and seven and eight months.
What I think is happening to him now is phony pragmatic arguments that we need other nations to help us do this against Iraq when we don't, that we need to fear an Arab oil boycott when we don't, that we need to worry that the American people will never accept casualties, which they will, and those arguments are dawning in on him, are pushing him into a Mideast involvement with even — so-called evenhandedness between the guilty and the innocent.
And I think what's happening is he's eroding the moral basis of his leadership, and his poll numbers are dropping, and a president whose poll numbers are in the 50s can't mobilize the nation for war. A guy who's in the 80s can, and Bush, in squandering his popularity, is undermining this country's biggest asset in the war.
KEYES: Well, one of the differences I see there, though, just to quickly outline it, is that there are two approaches to principle. One can see it as kind of a master that you serve at the expense of effectiveness, or you can see it ultimately as a source of effectiveness if you know how to apply it properly.
MORRIS: As an empowerment.
KEYES: Exactly, and I think that the — President Bush needs to get to that point where he stops listening...
MORRIS: He does.
KEYES: ... to people who see principle as an obstacle...
MORRIS: He does. One of the...
KEYES: ... and start seeing it as an opportunity on the basis of which he mobilizes strength.
MORRIS: One of the chapters in my book that you'll love, Alan, is on Truman and how, when the communists left him and supported Henry Wallace and the racists left him and supported Strom Thurmond and he was shed of the impurities in the Democratic Party, he was able to be a pure advocate for civil rights, a pure opponent of Stalin, Berlin airlift, NATO, Marshall Plan, and he was empowered by the defections.
And what George Bush needs to do is get rid of those some apostles of the conventional wisdom, have some self-confidence, and strike out boldly, and deal with America's problems in Iraq and let Israel have a free hand to deal with its problems on the West Bank.
KEYES: Dick, I want to thank you very much for coming. And...
MORRIS: Alan, this was — that question you asked about Bush's migration, I mean, just shows the difference between talk-show host and someone who plays the game.
KEYES: Well, I appreciate it, and I appreciate you for coming on. And I want to encourage folks to read your book, “Power Plays,” and go out and get a copy and take a look. It's worth the reading.
Next, we're going to be back with my outrage of the day. I have heard a report about Cardinal Law's lawyer is treating things. Now I know they're going to say, “It's just his lawyer. It's not him.” But, you know, a decent man ought to keep his lawyer in line.
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: And now for my outrage of the day in the context of developments up in Boston in the case involving Cardinal Bernard Law.
Well, his legal response to a lawsuit filed by an alleged priest sex abuse victim says in part that the family's negligence contributed to the abuse. In response to the lawsuit by Gregory Ford and his parents, Cardinal Law said, quote, “The defendant says that the plaintiffs were not in the exercise of due care but rather the negligence of the plaintiffs contributed to cause the injury or damage of plaintiff.”
Now I want to tell you I think that, when you stand accused, you still have a moral responsibility for the kind of defense you conduct, and trying to conduct a defense based on blaming a 6-year-old child for being complicit in the seduction and destruction of his moral self — I think Cardinal Law should nix that, or his judgment will again be in question.
That's my sense of it. Thanks. “THE NEWS WITH BRIAN WILLIAMS” is up next. See you tomorrow.