Pakistani Army Engaged With al Qaeda Forces
ANNOUNCER: From Washington,</s>THE CAPITAL GANG. MARK SHIELDS, HOST: Welcome to THE CAPITAL GANG. I'm Mark Shields, with Al Hunt, Robert Novak in Denver and Kate O'Beirne. Our guest is Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the top Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee. It's great to have you back, Barney.</s>REP. BARNEY FRANK (D), MASSACHUSETTS: Thank you.</s>SHIELDS: President Bush greeted the first anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq with a defense of his administration's war policies.</s>GEORGE WALKER BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: No nation or region is exempt from the terrorists' campaign of violence. Each of these attacks on the innocent is a shock and a tragedy and a test of our will.</s>SEN. JOHN KERRY (D-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Our men and women in uniform fight on almost alone, in reality, with a target squarely on their backs.</s>SHIELDS: That followed a coordinated terrorist attack on Madrid commuter trains that left 202 dead and resulted in the election in Spain of a socialist prime minister, who had promised to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq.</s>JOSE LUIS ZAPATERO, SPANISH PRIME MINISTER-ELECT (through translator): The occupation is a fiasco. Terrorism has to be confronted through the rule of law.</s>SHIELDS: Meanwhile, Pakistani military forces were engaged in battle with al Qaeda forces who may be protecting Osama bin Laden's second in command. Bob Novak, one year later, is the Iraq operation more of a success or more of a failure?</s>BOB NOVAK, CAPITAL GANG: I think it's more of a success. As you know, I was against the military operation, but once it was launched, I believe that it has been -- is being (ph) the long-range benefits of the Iraqi people. I think the -- it's therapeutic to have -- be rid of Saddam Hussein. But Mark, I think the most important development this week was the ability of al Qaeda or its offshoots to change the government of Spain, to change the result of an election. That is an enormous triumph, and they're going to try it elsewhere. And I think they're going to -- that the real target is George W. Bush. That's the -- that, according to all the al Qaeda propaganda, all the material they put out, that's the government they really wanted changed is the government in Washington.</s>SHIELDS: Al Hunt, today, one year later, is the United States more trusted or less trusted, more isolated or less isolated than it was a year ago?</s>AL HUNT, CAPITAL GANG: Well, Mark, never mind the critics, let's judge the administration by its own criteria. They told us that we'd find massive amounts of weapons of mass destruction. We've found none. They told us we would be greeted as liberators. We obviously were not. They told us it would be wrapped up in a year or two with not nearly as many American troops as -- as were required to go in. We now have as many, and we're going to be there for probably the next decade, at least. Paul Wolfowitz said that it could be financed by Iraqi oil. It's now cost us $150 billion, and it's still climbing. And they said it would stem terrorism, it would stabilize the region, it would spread democracy. None of it's happened. Pretty dismal record.</s>SHIELDS: Kate O'Beirne...</s>KATE O'BEIRNE, CAPITAL GANG: Let me just take...</s>SHIELDS: ... pretty dismal record?</s>O'BEIRNE: ... those quickly one by one before I -- first I want to point out to Senator Kerry that our men and women in uniform had targets on their back at the Khobar Towers. They had targets on their back at the USS Cole. We have been in the sights of al Qaeda. And then, of course, came 9/11. Who wants to go back to the '90s and pretend, as -- as the Clinton administration did in the '90s, they don't pose a lethal threat to us? Saddam's own generals thought he had weapons of mass destruction. They did not rely on CIA estimates. Of course, we're going to be there to provide stability -- our troops. We're still in Bosnia, for gosh sakes. The Iraqi people have welcomed us. Polls this week show that not only are they grateful to see the end of Saddam Hussein, but they do think things are better now, and an overwhelming majority believe things are going to be better in the near future.</s>SHIELDS: Barney Frank, before the war, that Bob Novak talked about that debate, the argument was that Saddam Hussein was the functional equivalent of Adolf Hitler. If you opposed that war, you were Neville Chamberlain. If you supported it, you were really Winston Churchill. Whatever measurement, Saddam did not turn out -- he turned out to be a toothless tiger, didn't he?</s>FRANK: Well, in fact, yes. This argument -- the analogy between him and Hitler was always wrong, as I argued at the time, because while Hitler had been appeased, Saddam Hussein had been -- had been effectively contained. And in fact, the most interesting testimony, I thought, from David Kay was not simply that there were no weapons of mass destruction, which the administration had said that there were and that was a major reason for the attack, but Kay said the reason was, in part, the sanctions, the over-flights. There was, in fact, a great difference between the way the world treated Hitler and Saddam Hussein. Hitler was left alone to go into the Rhineland, to go into Czechoslovakia. Saddam Hussein was very effectively contained. And in fact, I( think the way this now works out is Saddam Hussein was a terrible thing for the Iraqi people, and the American invasion now appears to be one of the great kind of examples of beneficence because I think the American people have not benefited from that. It has cost us money. It has cost us life. The Iraqi people are better off. But the broader set of gains they thought -- peace between Arabs and the Palestinians, more democracy in the Middle East -- none of that's come true. So the Iraqi people are somewhat better off, but none of the broader gains that they talked about have been realized.</s>O'BEIRNE: Our troops are out of Saudi Arabia, which was a huge irritant that Osama bin Laden kept pointing to. Is there any doubt that Libya would -- they would never have come clean on their weapons...</s>FRANK: Oh, I disagree with that.</s>O'BEIRNE: Well, by his own words...</s>O'BEIRNE: By his own words, he said it's owing to what we did in Iraq.</s>O'BEIRNE: The world is demonstrably safer because this guy's gone!</s>FRANK: Kate, I'm glad you interrupted me because I did get a chance -- I did want to say...</s>O'BEIRNE: I thought you were finished.</s>FRANK: ... that your suggestion -- your suggestion that Bill Clinton ignored this threat is, of course, partisan nonsense. Bill Clinton -- in fact, between Bill Clinton's administration and September 11, there was complete continuity. So the notion that the Bush administration came in, things were totally different -- no, not until the mass murders of September 11. They were carrying out, essentially, the policy. But as far as Libya's concerned, Flynt Leverett, who was the Middle East National Security Council person under Bush, said that this, in fact, had started before that and that he found that the hard-liners in the State Department almost derailed it and that they would have gotten this done anyway. This is the Bush administration's...</s>O'BEIRNE: No, but...</s>HUNT: We can settle this, Kate...</s>NOVAK: Could I say something, please?</s>HUNT: Just very quickly, Bob -- this Barney-Kate dispute can be settled. Richard Clarke, who was in charge of terrorism under both Clinton and under George Bush on 9/11, going in television, "60 Minutes" tomorrow night, has a book coming out. Let's see what he says about how the Bush administration...</s>NOVAK: How do you know what he's going to say?</s>HUNT: ... was on terrorism.</s>SHIELDS: What's he going to say, Bob?</s>HUNT: He was head of terrorism under both, Bob!</s>NOVAK: He -- you know what he's going to say. But the interesting thing is...</s>HUNT: I don't!</s>FRANK: Well, first you said, How did he know what he was going to say...</s>NOVAK: Wait a minute!</s>FRANK: ... then you said you did!</s>SHIELDS: Go ahead. Go ahead, Bob Novak.</s>NOVAK: Can I -- can I...</s>SHIELDS: Yes. Go ahead.</s>NOVAK: We are in an election year, and what we've been hearing here now is all this stuff on whether we should have gone in, whether it was the right thing. We're going to hear that from Kerry. We're going to hear it from Bush. The American people think, by and large, it was the right thing to do. I think it's a dumb political move by the Democrats to do, now that their primary is over. But I think the thing that worries me is the idea of al Qaeda is alive and well, and I was -- nobody else mentioned the Spanish victory by al Qaeda, and the fact that Spain has taken the route of appeasement. That is, if you do not do the things to go after al Qaeda, they will leave you alone and they won't destroy your people and kill 202 people in a -- in a -- in a sabotage of the railroads. That is what the war of terrorism is</s>SHIELDS: Bob, that's one...</s>HUNT: He was right.</s>SHIELDS: ... interpretation of the Spanish elections. Another interpretation, and one that's been made by people reporting from Spain, is that the Spanish people, enough Spanish voters felt that they had been misled and lied to by the ruling party on the question of whether, in fact, al Qaeda had been involved and tried to spin it -- pin it and spin the story that it was Basque terrorists, thus strengthening the party in power's hand. And enough voters revolted. It wasn't a matter of appeasement, it was a matter of rejection of the leadership. So that is...</s>NOVAK: You know, if you -- if that was not -- if that was not -- that was -- that government was very popular. The socialists were in bad shape. If that was not an example of appeasement, I have never seen one in my life!</s>SHIELDS: Well, Bob, that's -- I'm sorry that that's the case, but you had the last word, so what more could you ask for? Barney Frank and THE GANG we'll be back with John Kerry under attack.