Speaker 1: I'm really happy to introduce to you Secretary of State
Speaker 1: KNDA Liza Rice, who joins us from from Washington. The
Speaker 1: last time I spoke to you, Madam Secretary, was during
Speaker 1: the two thousand presidential campaign. So it's long overdue, but
Speaker 1: welcome to the program here. Well, it's great to be
Speaker 1: with you Russia. I can't believe it's been that long.
Speaker 1: Time flies when you're good, good, good time. Look, I
Speaker 1: want to get straight to this because I know your
Speaker 1: time is limited. The press conference today the President had
Speaker 1: about the congressional legislation he wants Democrats opposed. I'm not
Speaker 1: trying to draw you into political questions here. The rest
Speaker 1: assured you've got the three Republicans McCain and Warner and
Speaker 1: UH and Lindsay Graham joining the Democrats opposing this. Secretary
Speaker 1: Powell wrote Senator McCain a letter that McCain is publicized.
Speaker 1: You have responded in a letter to Secretary Warner. What
Speaker 1: did you say? Well, in fact, I sent the letter
Speaker 1: before I had seen a Secretary Pell's letter. I My
Speaker 1: letter simply stated the Department of States position, which is
Speaker 1: at UH the interpretation of a US treaty obligation through
Speaker 1: US law is something that we do frequently and all
Speaker 1: the time. We're not trying to change what's called Common
Speaker 1: Article free. We're not trying to UH to weaken it.
Speaker 1: We just want our professionals to have clarity so that
Speaker 1: they know what is legal and what is not. And
Speaker 1: I have absolutely no problem defending what the President has
Speaker 1: asked the Congress to do. When I go internationally, I
Speaker 1: think it only makes sense that you would not leave
Speaker 1: UH a very unclear standard like that of Common Article three,
Speaker 1: which talks about outrages on human on human dignity, for
Speaker 1: instance Rush. You don't want to leave that to unaccountable
Speaker 1: prosecutors for instance, internationally. You want US law to defend,
Speaker 1: to define that, Madam Secretary, People like me don't understand
Speaker 1: the substance of this. UH. We see pictures of people
Speaker 1: jumping out the World Trade Center on nine eleven this week,
Speaker 1: we we remember the videotapes of the kind of treatment
Speaker 1: American and foreign hostages receive at the hands of our
Speaker 1: enemy when when in their captivity. I don't understand the
Speaker 1: effort on the part of those who opposed this in
Speaker 1: Congress to try to establish a moral equivalency between the
Speaker 1: way we treat prisoners and the way our enemy does,
Speaker 1: and to suggest that, uh, we can't do something here
Speaker 1: because it might incite them to be even meaner to us.
Speaker 1: Could you help me and others like me understand the
Speaker 1: common sense of opposing this. I can't, I can't get
Speaker 1: my arms around it. Well, Rush, I have to say,
Speaker 1: I think I don't quite understand either, why we would
Speaker 1: not give the the professionals, our professionals a clear standard
Speaker 1: so that they know that they are obeying the law.
Speaker 1: These are people who take tremendous risks to try and
Speaker 1: defend us. Uh. They have made tremendous trades in getting
Speaker 1: information from people like collegue Chech Mohammed who planned nine eleven,
Speaker 1: from people like Ramsey Ben al Sheep, who you saw
Speaker 1: on that videotape with al Qaeda just a few days
Speaker 1: ago crowing about September eleven. They have made great strides
Speaker 1: in getting information from these people that have prevented other attacks,
Speaker 1: and by the way, not just prevented attacks here in
Speaker 1: the United States, but prevented attacks in other parts of
Speaker 1: the world too. To have a piece of legislation that
Speaker 1: does not protect them and does not give them a
Speaker 1: clear legal standard I think is simply wrong. Um, do
Speaker 1: you find yourself in a in a in an uncomfortable circumstance,
Speaker 1: what with the secretary Eparty leaving aside the apparent lack
Speaker 1: of loyalty that exists in his letter. Do you find
Speaker 1: it like I have the New York Senatorial here showdown
Speaker 1: or headline rather show down set between Rice and Powell.
Speaker 1: Do you think this is descending into something personal? No? No,
Speaker 1: I don't see it that way. Colin Powell is a
Speaker 1: private citizen. He can have his views, and I think
Speaker 1: that's the nature of our great democracy. He's a well
Speaker 1: respected private citizen. It's my responsibility now to help defend
Speaker 1: the United States. It's my responsibility now to defend American
Speaker 1: policies abroad and to try through diplomacy to make us safer.
Speaker 1: And I am quite confident that UH, the United States
Speaker 1: UH can both get the information that it needs and
Speaker 1: live up to our treaty obligations, and that the legislation
Speaker 1: that the President has proposed does exactly that. At his
Speaker 1: press conference today he introduced something new. UH. Basically, if
Speaker 1: I if I understand it right, the President said, if
Speaker 1: he doesn't get what he wants, if there's not clarity
Speaker 1: defining and specifying the the vagaries and ambiguities of common
Speaker 1: Article three. He said the program will not go forward,
Speaker 1: and I interpreted that to mean he'll scrap it. And
Speaker 1: he's he's not going to put our professionals as you
Speaker 1: refer to them, in any kind of precarious circumstances if
Speaker 1: they don't go along with what he wants, he'll scrap
Speaker 1: the whole program. And I assume that means the focus
Speaker 1: of attention on the lack of the program existing from
Speaker 1: that point forward will be on Congress. Well, I feel
Speaker 1: very strongly is does the President that these men and
Speaker 1: women who go out and do this, this difficult and
Speaker 1: dangerous work, deserve clarity about the legal ground on which
Speaker 1: they're standing. And uh, I don't think that you will
Speaker 1: get people who will actually participate in this program if
Speaker 1: you don't get that kind of clarity, So you won't
Speaker 1: have a program. And it would be unfortunate because we
Speaker 1: have learned a lot from this program. We have prevented
Speaker 1: attacks Russia. Information is the long pole in the tent
Speaker 1: in the fight against terrorists. If you wait until a
Speaker 1: terrorists has committed his act, then three thousand people die.
Speaker 1: What you want to do is to prevent them. And
Speaker 1: the only way that you can prevent them is to
Speaker 1: know what they're thinking, to know what they're planning, to
Speaker 1: know what they're plotting. And this program has been essential
Speaker 1: in helping us to find that out. Madam, the Secretary
Speaker 1: of the average American understands this. This is uh, this
Speaker 1: is UH. It's not it's not complicated, and it's that's
Speaker 1: why so many people understand the actions of those in
Speaker 1: the President's party who are attempting to to halt this.
Speaker 1: They're thinking, there's got to be something behind the scenes
Speaker 1: that matters more than just the specific of this. I'm
Speaker 1: not I'm not asking you to address that. I know
Speaker 1: your time is limited, and I have one more question
Speaker 1: for you, and I assure you I'm asking this solely
Speaker 1: from the from the position of wanting to learn and
Speaker 1: wanting to understand. And I want to go back to
Speaker 1: the recent um war between the Hesbalah and Israeli forces. Um.
Speaker 1: It seems that that when it comes to Israel and
Speaker 1: their fight against terrorists, cease fires and resolutions are the
Speaker 1: rule of the day, even though they really haven't worked
Speaker 1: in ceasing these hostilities and bringing about peace. They just
Speaker 1: bring interruptions to it. Yet when we are fighting terrorists, no,
Speaker 1: we don't tell ourselves to cease fire and negotiate with them.
Speaker 1: What what is it about the paradigm of the Middle
Speaker 1: East that requires the fight against terrorism they're befought differently
Speaker 1: than the way we're fighting it against us. Well, I
Speaker 1: would think of it a little a little differently. Rush
Speaker 1: what we What you have there is you have a
Speaker 1: Lebanese government that wants to fight terror, and that is
Speaker 1: the beginnings of a democratic government that could be could
Speaker 1: be actually a partner for Israel in fighting terror. And
Speaker 1: so the ceasefire was really with the Lebanese government, and
Speaker 1: now we're trying to help the Lebanese government deal with
Speaker 1: the effects of a hispola that launched that attack without
Speaker 1: leban and even knowing I think of it the following way.
Speaker 1: We are fighting terror in Iraq, but we're doing it
Speaker 1: with an Iraqi government. We are fighting terror in Afghanistan
Speaker 1: and we're doing it with an Afghan government. So the
Speaker 1: way to think about what happened in Lebanon is that
Speaker 1: we're going to fight terror, but we need to do
Speaker 1: it with a Lebanese government that is devoted to fighting
Speaker 1: terror So um, I think with the from our point
Speaker 1: of view, there isn't any difference. No terrorists can be
Speaker 1: uh supported or understood or negotiated with. What you can
Speaker 1: do is to find moderate governments, moderate leaders in those
Speaker 1: countries that are suffering from terrorism themselves and enlist them
Speaker 1: in the fight to help defeat terrorists. Is Lebanon really
Speaker 1: serious about this? I mean if if if the if
Speaker 1: the Hasbata group was able to attack without even the
Speaker 1: government of Lebanon knowing it, then what good does the
Speaker 1: ceasefire with the government of Lebanon do. Well, you have
Speaker 1: to strengthen that government. It's a weak government and it
Speaker 1: but it is getting stronger. It's finally deployed its military
Speaker 1: forces throughout its whole country for the first time in
Speaker 1: more than three decades. And uh, this is a government
Speaker 1: that came to power when the extremist assassinated the reformist
Speaker 1: Prime Minister of Lebanon, Rafik Hariri. And so this is
Speaker 1: a government that comes from the right set of values
Speaker 1: and the right set of principles. It's just not not
Speaker 1: very strong. We're trying to help build it up, build
Speaker 1: up its security forces. But when We've done that in
Speaker 1: Lebanon and in Iraq and in Afghanistan. And indeed, if
Speaker 1: we can find that kind of government government in the
Speaker 1: Palestinian territories, having those strong moderate forces to help you
Speaker 1: fight terror, indigenous forces to help you find fight terror
Speaker 1: is extremely important. Okay. So the theory is that terrorists
Speaker 1: will gravitate to UH areas where there are no states,
Speaker 1: where there are no governments, but they like they did
Speaker 1: Afghanistan and UH and the and Somalia exactly, and so
Speaker 1: you have you have to build up governments that can
Speaker 1: prevent that from happening. And it's hard. They're allied with us.
Speaker 1: These these are governments, they are allied with us. It's
Speaker 1: it's hard work. They're they're sacrificing to UH. There was
Speaker 1: an attempt on the life of the Deputy Interior Minister
Speaker 1: of of Lebanon just a few days ago, so they're
Speaker 1: sacrificing too. But these are these are really good partners.
Speaker 1: We just have to build them up and help them
Speaker 1: to fight the terrorists in their midst before you go
Speaker 1: are there days you wish that you could have become
Speaker 1: the commissioner the National Football League. I love it that
Speaker 1: you're a football fan. Oh yes, of course they're as
Speaker 1: I wish I could. Oh. Look, I love what I'm doing. Um,
Speaker 1: and it's uh, I'm really lucky to be here at
Speaker 1: this particular point in time. But at some point I'm
Speaker 1: going to want to go to put to one of
Speaker 1: my first loves, which is well, let me there are
Speaker 1: a lot of Americans who are thrilled that you're there too,
Speaker 1: because they understand the battle you have with with a
Speaker 1: lot of career people in the State Department who are
Speaker 1: there before the administration got there. And and uh, you
Speaker 1: bring a comforting staff to a lot of people. But
Speaker 1: the way you conduct yourself in the in the office.
Speaker 1: Do you have a favorite NFL team or you Well,
Speaker 1: I do. Let me just say Russia. I want you to.
Speaker 1: I just want to say one thing. I really do
Speaker 1: like being secretary. I've got a great team here, a
Speaker 1: great group of people and uh, career and professional. They're
Speaker 1: working hard, and people are serving in places like Baghdad
Speaker 1: and Cobble, sometimes without their family, always without their families.
Speaker 1: They're good folks. But in a in a couple of years,
Speaker 1: I'll be glad to go. And yes, I have a
Speaker 1: favorite NFL team, The Cleveland Browns Cleveland. We'll manage to
Speaker 1: let Reggie Bush have a great rookie the first game.
Speaker 1: What a disappointing season you are headed for. Well, now
Speaker 1: let's just let's just watch it. I'm a I'm a
Speaker 1: Steelers fan. Oh I see anyway, I I appreciate your time.
Speaker 1: We need to have conversations more often. It's very enlightening.
Speaker 1: I like that rush. Let's let's let's let it be
Speaker 1: too long. The next time we'll do that. Thank you
Speaker 1: very much for your time today. Secretary of State Condole
Speaker 1: is A. Rice