CNN "State of the Union with Candy Crowley" - Transcript

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

CROWLEY: Joining me now, two top members of the House Intelligence Committee, Republican Chairman Mike Rogers of Michigan; and the ranking Democrat, Congressman Dutch Ruppersberger of Maryland.

Thank you both for being here. Big question of the week of course is, did the president go too far when he said the words "1967 borders" -- with "land swaps," he also included that. But did he unnecessarily stir up Israeli anxiety?

ROGERS: Well, I think so. Those are really delicate subjects that should be on the table for negotiation behind closed doors. But now he has drawn a line in the sand. And if you're Abbas, do you come down from those '67 borders? And if you're Netanyahu, how do you come down from the '67 borders knowing that you have to do that for defense? I think it is a bad strategy to try to negotiate in public.

CROWLEY: He's going to get a bit of a do-over here if he wants it at AIPAC. But did you think it was like a bold move to sort of state it as clearly as he did even if it wasn't all that different from past presidents? Or was it a diplomatic mistake?

RUPPERSBERGER: I think only time will tell. I think there's -- clearly the president has to state, number one, that Israel is our ally and we will always support them, that Israel has to have security. They have to have the ability to defend themselves.

Now I assume that he made this move to get the peace talks moving again, but only time will tell. So we all need to see what the president says in the AIPAC speech today so that he'll clarify those issues.

But there's no question it has caused great concern on my constituents in the Jewish community.

CROWLEY: And, you know, the problem is, I think, that the other half of the people I talked to said, this is like pie in the sky. They're nowhere near talking to one another much less, OK, where do we start? And part of the problem is that now Fatah and Hamas have joined forces, if you will, or they have come to an agreement, and Hamas doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist, and the U.S. considers Hamas a terrorist group. So aren't we just kind of talking about something that we are nowhere near? Can the U.S. ever say, fine, Hamas is now part of the equation? ROGERS: Well, they would have to have fundamental changes and I don't see it anywhere on the horizon. And, again, that was the problem about establishing those borders and much of those borders are in place because of the security concerns for Israel.

And so now you have somebody who doesn't want you to exist, who now believes the standard is the '67 borders. I don't even have to negotiate down from there, I just get to negotiate up from there. That's why I thought this was such a colossal mistake for negotiations.

And I just wish the president hadn't done it in public. All of those discussions can happen behind closed doors. That's what negotiations are about. But when you lay it on the table like that, you dig people in to saying that's my -- I will get no worse than that position.

Well, it's unacceptable for Israel, and of course if you're Hamas, the fact that Israel exists is unacceptable as well. Dangerous.

CROWLEY: So really, we're just -- it seems to me that we are extraordinarily -- it seems to me Middle East peace talks are stalled always -- is a headline somewhere in any decade I've ever covered politics, which has been a while. And it seems to me now they're just more than stalled. They're nonexistent and further apart.

And we also seem to have what seems to me a not-great relationship between the prime minister of Israel and the president of the United States. What's your take?

RUPPERSBERGER: Well, first thing, the issue of Hamas is clear. How can you have a negotiated agreement with Hamas or any country who would not acknowledge the existence of Israel? That has to be done.

On the other hand, there is a situation where the talks have stalled and I -- again, I assume only time will tell that this is what the president was doing to make this an issue.

But in the end, Israel is not going to agree with any agreement -- peace agreement, if they cannot defend their borders, they have the right to defend themselves, and to make sure that those countries that they have an agreement with.

And you cannot deal with terrorists and that is Hamas. So that has to be dealt with or there will not be an agreement.

CROWLEY: I want to talk more generally about the Arab spring, because that was actually the focus of the president's talk. And here was some of the commentary that came out talking about the president and the new U.S. policy -- or the same U.S. policy, however you want to look at it. It came from the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies.

Writing: "Most people have realized that what the U.S. does or does not do is no longer important because people took matters into their own hands and decided their own future. So why should people care what President Obama says? America is no longer an issue."

Is that the net result of an Arab spring where you see the people themselves, which we have applauded, taking over, saying, we want our over government -- and in fact, not many of them have taken over yet, but nonetheless, saying we want our own government, isn't our influence, in one of the most vital areas of the world, on the wane?

ROGERS: Well, if you don't make decisive commitments up front, if you don't have a clear policy throughout, this is exactly what's going to happen. And that is one of our concerns with administrations dealing with the Middle East crisis as they came up.

The one standard they applied to Libya, they're not applying to other countries. And that inconsistency does cost us friends and allies in the future. I'm hoping that the president takes the next few weeks to straighten out and make a solid commitment, and take out the rises and lows in his Middle East policy so that we all understand what it is.

If you ask, I think, the average American today, what is our policy in the Middle East? I think we'd be -- all of us, including me, would be hard-pressed to say I understand what it is. I think the president can get through this, but it is going to take a serious step and clear leadership.

He doesn't have to say, I'm going to fix this country this way, but we have to have clear plans and operations and commitments as we go forward so we don't have this conclusion so our influence won't wane.

CROWLEY: And just quickly before we take a break, since he brought up Libya, have you seen any sign that what we want out of this, which is a cracking of Gadhafi's inner circle, is actually anywhere closer to happening?

RUPPERSBERGER: At this point, no. I think the opposition is not as strong as we thought. NATO has been aggressive in dealing with the no-fly zone, but I think we have a long way to go. And I applauded the president in saying we were going to put boots on the ground.

We cannot be the sheriff for the rest of the world. We need to support these other countries for democracy and the issues important to our best interest, but we cannot have -- be in Afghanistan and leave Iraq and yet be in other areas. We can't do that.

CROWLEY: Stick with me a bit. We will continue our conversation shortly. But when we come back, a check of the top stories, and then, what to do about the billions of dollars in aid the U.S. gives to Pakistan.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CROWLEY: Time for a check of today's top stories. Deadly violence today in Baghdad as several bombs killed at least 13 people and injured 67 others. Iraqi authorities say a mixture of car and roadside bombs targeted civilians as well as U.S. and Iraqi security forces.

At least three Afghan police officers were killed and four others wounded when suicide bombers attacked a traffic police office in eastern Afghanistan today. The police chief of the country's coast province said the attackers parked the vehicle near the building that was full of explosives.

One person is dead after a tornado ripped through the town of Reading, Kansas. The storm also destroyed 20 homes and damaged 200 others.

Meanwhile, residents in the Mississippi River community of St. Martin's Parish, Louisiana have been told that a mandatory evacuation is on hold. The Associated Press is reporting that the delay is because officials said the river is expected to crest at a lower level than previously thought.

A no-go for Mitch Daniels in 2012. The Indiana governor says he will not seek the Republican presidential nomination. In a late-night e-mail to supporters, Daniels said, "if you feel that this was a non- courageous or unpatriotic decision, I understand and will not attempt to persuade you otherwise. I only hope that you will accept my sincerity in the judgment I reached."

We'll talk presidential politics later this hour with former house majority leader Dick Armey and former Joe Biden chief of staff, Ron Klain.

And astronauts on the Space Shuttle Endeavor took their second spacewalk today. The crew performed some key maintenance work. Later today, the astronauts will speak to students at an Arizona school.

And those are today's top headlines.

Shortly after 9/11 the U.S. enlisted the Islamabad government to track down and uncover terrorists and their plots inside Pakistan. To aid in the effort and as an incentive, the U.S. has given Pakistan some $20 billion in U.S. taxpayer money since 2001. So when U.S. forces found and killed Osama bin Laden in a House outside Islamabad where he had reportedly been living for five years there were big questions. There still are.

In a letter to Secretaries Clinton and Gates Tuesday, five Democratic senators wrote, "it is incongruous to be providing enormous sums to the Pakistani military unless we are certain that it is meeting its commitment to locate, disrupt and dismantle terrorist threats inside its border."

It is a bipartisan feeling to the U.S. is giving money to elements in the Pakistani government that are either hostile or incompetent. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. BOB CORKER, (R) TENNESSEE: Most of us are wanting to call time-out on aid until we can ascertain what is in our best interest.

SEN. JAMES RISCH, (R) IDAHO: I have a real difficulty explaining to people back home in Idaho what we're doing spending billions of dollars in Pakistan, particularly on civilian matters when they don't like us.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CROWLEY: Pakistan can go elsewhere for what it wants, strengthening alliances the U.S. would rather not see flourish. China said recently it will provide 50 or so fighter jets to Pakistan.

Up next, more of our conversation with the two top congressmen on the intelligence committee.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CROWLEY: We are back with the two top members of the House intelligence committee, Congressman Mike Rogers and Dutch Ruppersberger. Thank you so much.

Let us talk a bout Pakistan.

So it seems to me there are two choices here for the money we give Pakistan in our relationship -- there will either be repercussions for incompetence or down right hostile views toward American policy, or it will be business as usual. Which one is it going to be?

ROGERS: Well, I'm -- there might and third option there. I mean, they are a fairweather friend at best. But remember, they put troops into the tribal areas at our request and they took thousands of casualties. They have arrested some hundreds of people in the settled areas of Pakistan, al Qaeda related members and Taliban. They provide a logistics hub for our soldiers in Afghanistan.

I would be very careful about just pulling the plug. It makes great domestic politics but I will tell you there are some very real consequences. I argue continue to build on the relationships that we have and continue to work on the Pakistanis that -- this should be the one embarrassing moment that maybe you become more transparent and more helpful than you had been.

CROWLEY: But isn't that business as usual? Like, OK, we don't want to slow down aid. I'm reading you. Am i right? Don't slow down aid, certainly don't cut off aid and say that's the last warning right there.

ROGERS: Well, I'm saying we wouldn't shouldn't slow down aid. I think there's probably -- we should start holding back a little money and improve our negotiation position in Pakistan, but I don't think we should cut it off. We have a lot of questions we need answered. But I wouldn't just go in with the suggestion that you're an enemy of the United States, we're going to cut you off completely. I think that would be pretty harmful to our long-term national security interests.

CROWLEY: Well, and for starters, they take supplies -- and that's where the supply route is into Afghanistan so we don't want to do that.

CROWLEY: But do you agree there needs to be a slow-down or pull- back of some of that aid in a more of a, you know, tit for tat approach to this rather than here's some money could you do this.

RUPPERSBERGER: First thing we need to see what is in the best interests of our country especially while we're in Afghanistan, with our men and women in the military.

The second issue that we have to deal with, did they hide bin Laden? It's one of two areas, either they were incompetent as you mentioned or secondly they were complicit. And we have to continue to investigate that issue. But we do need them as long as we're in Afghanistan.

Another issue, which is extremely important is that they have nuclear weapons. And if we -- if Pakistan goes very radical, jihad type of government, that can put the whole region at risk and the United States, because they have travel areas where they can train. So I think that we have to be wise in our decision here.

But I think it is a time to reset our relationship with Pakistan. They haven't been cooperating in the last couple of months as we would like them to do as it deals with the issue of terrorism. And I think by the fact that they are in a bad way, either they were complicity or they were incompetent and either one isn't good for them. And this is the time to reset the relationship.

CROWLEY: Just to button this up, do you all agree with what we've heard from various administration officials that so far, there's nothing they've been able to discover that suggests that Pakistan was complicit in hiding bin Laden's whereabouts. Do you agree with on the basis of what you have seen?

ROGERS: From the institutional and leadership perspective, the institution of the intelligence, ISI, and army and government. But I believe, and I think Dutch believes, and I think many believe that there were elements within those organizations that may have provided them safety and at least logistical support to some degree.

RUPPERSBERGER: And I would agree with Mike on that. But there's one issue that's important to show where the relationship might be going. Right after we brought bin Laden to justice, the Pakistanis had a raid and they were able to arrest one of the top al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan. That was about two or three days after we brought bin laden to justice.

CROWLEY: So there's been some intelligence from inside that house that clearly has helped.

I wanted to turn to the general terrorist threat. And first of all, just ask you this, names that we hear over and over again. One is al Zawahiri, the supposed number two -- although he's not the interim leader of al Qaeda. And then al Awlaki who we assume is hiding out in Yemen.

Of the two of those, I'm assume the U.S. is targeting most, who do you most want?

RUPPERSBERGER: One of those. And you know what we can do more than one thing at a time. Our intelligence services ten years after 9/11 are doing some incredible work. What a committed bunch of folks.

CROWLEY: How about who's the most dangerous?

ROGERS: Well, I would think the al Awlaki from Yemen. And by the way, Mike and I just came back about three weeks ago from Yemen. Al Awlaki was an American-born. He knows our country. He's very smart. He's been recruiting a lot of what we call lone wolves or individuals in the United States to try to do terrorist attacks. He's been using the internet and he has a magazine that literally trying to get Americans to do attacks.

His focus, though, is the United States. And that's why I think he's so dangerous. Bin Laden and the other leaders of al Qaeda have been tied up in a lot of other areas -- Pakistan, Afghanistan. But when it comes to the United States I think he's the most dangerous and we have to focus on him with everything that we have.

The other thing I want to say, too, is that bin Laden, that puts us in a great position in the world. You mentioned earlier what is our reputation? I think people were wondering how strong, how powerful, do we have good intelligence. Well that was the best I've seen since I've been on the intelligence committee, the team work approach between the CIA, the NSA, the special ops, all coming together. And the message must be sent out now that's clear -- if you're going to attack Americans and kill us, we're going to find you and bring you to justice.

CROWLEY: And let me ask you two quick questions in our final minute. The first is, from what you know, both publicly and privately, about the strength of the Taliban, the strength of al Qaeda and the readiness of the Karzai government, is the U.S. -- will the U.S. be ready in July for a beginning of a withdrawal that is substantial?

ROGERS: Well, I think the details on the ground -- the ground combat conditions should dictate that. No artificial time lines should be put out there. It can be used as a rally call for the enemy. We see that they're trying to take advantage of this. They've had an increase in attacks. I would argue, this is an important -- that we have to break the back of this spring offensive of the Taliban if Afghanistan is going to be able to defend themselves and we get to come home. Don't put an artificial time line on it. It might be June, It might be May. It could be July. We shouldn't -- again, I think it is very dangerous to tell the enemy this is the day you have to hold on to and then we're going to leave.

CROWLEY: Let me turn to one of you for the final word, because I want to ask you about Iraq. Are you convinced enough about the stability of Iraq and its ability to withstand anything Iran might do to pull out the remaining U.S. forces, now some 50,000 by the end of the year.

RUPPERSBERGER: Well, clearly Iran is a serious issue. But we're not going to get into that. As far as your question with respect to Iraq, I think that we're in a position now to make a move. I think what we've done in Iraq and what we hope to do in Afghanistan is build up the security, build up their military, build up their intelligence units. And I think we're just about there.

Now we're going to have our intelligence people and we're going to have people on the ground there to work with them and win the hearts and minds of the people in Iraq, help them get jobs, work with them on this oil that they have so they'll have money and cash flow to help them build infrastructure in that country.

So I think we've come a long way there and I think we'll be able to do what we need to do. And our intelligence will let us know. We have great intelligence, let us know if there are hotspots and problems. We'll be there to consult and assist but not with boots on the ground.

CROWLEY: Congressman Ruppersberger from Maryland, my home state now. Congressman Rogers from Michigan, my former home state. Thank you so much for joining us.

Up next we turn to presidential politics. Mitch Daniels is out, Herman Cain is in, and Tim Pawlenty is all set to announce tomorrow. The latest on race -- on the race with former House majority leader Dick Armey and former White House insider Ron Klain.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source