CNN Captal Gang - Transcript

CNN

SHOW: CNN CAPITAL GANG

January 10, 2004 Saturday

HEADLINE: President Bush Immigration Plan To Give "Illegals" Guest Worker Status; Howard Dean Endorsed By Iowa Senator Tom Harkin; Has the Bush administration turned the corner in Iraq?

GUESTS: Chuck Hagel, David Kranz

BYLINE: Mark Shields, Al Hunt, Robert Novak, Margaret Carlson

HIGHLIGHT:
President Bush proposed legal status for millions of immigrant workers who are in the United States illegally. Ten days before the Iowa Democratic caucuses, former Vermont governor Howard Dean was endorsed by that state's most popular Democrat, Senator Tom Harkin.

BODY:
ANNOUNCER: Live from Washington, THE CAPITAL GANG.

MARK SHIELDS, HOST: Welcome to THE CAPITAL GANG. I'm Mark Shields, with Al Hunt, Robert Novak and Margaret Carlson. Our guest is Republican senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.

It's good to have you back, Chuck.

SEN. CHUCK HAGEL (R), NEBRASKA: Thank you.

SHIELDS: Chuck Hagel, the -- I think the arguments are good ones. President Bush probably wasn't thrilled with the cartwheels and the -- being done by those in the restaurant business and the hotel business, that, This is great for us because we need this pool of workers, right?

HAGEL: Well, first, this is a base of principles, not legislation, not a bill. And I think the president deserves great credit for initiating this debate. This is a serious national issue. It deserves serious national debate. It's going to deserve serious national legislation. So this is not the first time, either, that he's come at this. Let's not forget, when he was elected, in the first few months of his administration, prior to September 11...

SHIELDS: That's right.

HAGEL: ... first national leader he met with -- international leader he met with was Vicente Fox. He initiated an effort at that time. September 11 came. Everything was paralyzed. This is also a president who understands the issue fairly well. Obviously, governing a border state, Texas, he knows the depth and the width of the issue.

Politically, I don't know. What I think's going to be critical here is the president stay focused on -- on the momentum, carrying through something. I don't know how likely it is that we can accomplish a bill this year because of politics. Senator Daschle and I will introduce legislation in the end of this month that will be a little more comprehensive than what the principles were that the president set down.

But nonetheless, I think it's important. I give the president credit for the leadership and the courage to go forward with it.

SHIELDS: Chuck Hagel, in 1988, Al Gore skipped the Iowa caucuses and said it's dominated by liberal activists. That didn't stop him from coming back in 2000 and winning 2-to-1 there. So I wonder if those remarks are going to come back and plague Dean.

HAGEL: I don't know. This is a very professional business, and you have a very small group of activists that control that process in Iowa, the caucus process. Dean's done an exceptionally good job at organization. Whether he can sustain that and hold that, I don't know.

But the bigger problem, I think, for Dean is he has been tagged as the candidate of rage. And I don't think Americans respond well to rage. I don't think they trust rage. I noted that Dean has been moving, as any candidate would, closer to the middle here lately, talking about God and Jesus Christ and values and standards and principles. He's going to have to, seems to me, to get the nomination, to sustain it within his own party, move in a more hopeful direction, talk in a more hopeful way about this country, what kind of leader he would be. The caucuses are a little different, and I think we all understand that, than what's ahead in the primaries, where more people can play.

SHIELDS: Chuck Hagel, you have been one of those voices warning about the consequences of a rush to action and all the rest. Is Al right?

HAGEL: Well, I think we have to, once again, understand and put this in perspective. This is complicated. It is long-term. It is dangerous. It's uncontrollable. And what's happening now in -- in one sense, all at the same time, trying to provide the security and the stability so that we can start to make the kind of progress necessary in order to move the Iraqi people into position to govern themselves and defend themselves. Al's right. This is going to take a long time. No guarantee.

I think it's going to take far more allied involvement than we have seen. I was in New York and spent some time with the secretary general this week alone, talking about the United Nations' involvement. I have been one who's been saying for a long time they must be in this. Their role must be defined. They must have a partnership kind of status here. We can't get them in, or any other major institution, unless we're willing to share not just some of the burden, the decision-making power and the authority. And it's critical that we get them in. I think the administration has come to that realization. I think Secretary Powell has believed that for a long time, but others have not. A long way to go.

And what's critical is, I think, when we get down to that July 1 deadline, turning over to the Iraqis some kind of a transitional government, what then do we have?

are there and let's talk about the best job we can do, as Chuck Hagel did. And I agree with him we've got to have internationalization.

CARLSON: There are some Democrats and there are some Republicans. It's not a line. It could be right. Just because the Democrats say it doesn't make it wrong, Bob, that the intelligence was markedly wrong or it was hyped so that, you know, Colin Powell could say, Well, it was prudent to follow it.

What I think now is, boy, we are there, and boy, we do have to stay. But just as Colin Powell moved to follow the administration in his testimony before the Security Council -- and we all kind of -- so many people followed Colin Powell's pivot on the subject -- now the administration has to go with Secretary Powell and do everything they can to get the U.N. involved because that way, when this moment comes, which the -- you know, we're getting out, so the administration says, we'll have a U.N. force to take over.

SHIELDS: Chuck Hagel, how long are we going to be there?

HAGEL: Oh, we'll be there years. I don't know how many years, but we'll have over 100,000 troops in there all this year, probably next year. I don't know. This is unpredictable, uncontrollable. But some...

CARLSON: But the administration has said, Well, we're pulling out. We're turning it over this summer.

HAGEL: Well -- well, that's not exactly what they've said. We're still going to be there. We'll have to be there. What they've said, and they should say, is that more authority given to the Iraqi people to govern Iraq is in the best interests of all of us. That's what we're talking about, is the authority of governing.

SHIELDS: Chuck Hagel...

HUNT: I'm all for that, Chuck. I just think they're not ready for it.

SHIELDS: Chuck Hagel, thank you very much for being with us.

HAGEL: Thank you.