ABC "This Week with Christiane Amanpour" - Transcript

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

BACHMANN: Good morning.

AMANPOUR: So let me ask you, the new Des Moines Register poll has you now at fourth, languishing, when we've just been saying that just two months ago, you were tied at the top. Is it going to take some kind of a miracle now to resurrect your campaign?

BACHMANN: Well, we're doing exactly what we need to do. And again, I just want to remind you, that I won the Iowa straw poll in less time than any other candidate, and the first woman to ever win the Iowa straw poll. I'm doing exactly what I need to do in Iowa. I'm here, all across the state, meeting with people multiple times every day. And so it's amazing what a difference several weeks can make in the course of a presidential campaign. These are snapshots in time, and we're looking forward to January 3rd.

AMANPOUR: So do you think, I mean do you concede that you have lost some momentum, though? Because it's not actually just Iowa, and of course you've been spending a huge amount of time there, but also, according to CNN Opinion Research poll, even in New Hampshire, you're seventh. In South Carolina, you're 6th. Are you concerned about the deflation, the deflating balloon of your campaign?

BACHMANN: We're not worried about the day-to-day snapshots. What we're focused on are the primary dates. And of course, everything changes by then. And as we all recall, in the last cycle of the presidential race, it was Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani who were at the top of the charts, not John McCain, and yet he became the nominee. And so we're doing the fundamentals. It's very hard work to campaign. And we're focusing on greeting people, meeting with them, and getting our positive message, which is pro-growth and job creation. I am a former federal tax lawyer and I am a job creator. I've been working for five years at the tip of the spear in Washington for the issues that people care about. That's what we're talking about on the campaign trail and what we're focused on are the actual primary dates.

AMANPOUR: There's the caucus date, which is in about two months from now. Is, as your campaign manager has said, is Iowa for you a must-win state?

BACHMANN: Of course, we're focused on Iowa. We're focused on the schedule and the primary process. Iowa is the first caucus. Then on to New Hampshire. And after that, the first in the South, which will be South Carolina. So we're focused on the schedule that the states are now agreeing on, and that's our order.

AMANPOUR: But is it a must-win for you?

BACHMANN: Well, we're focused on it as we are all on the states. And so we're --

AMANPOUR: What would happen --

BACHMANN: -- moving forward as we are in all of them.

AMANPOUR: -- if you didn't - if you didn't win there? What would happen? How could you sort of rationalize going forward? Would that doom your effort, do you think?

BACHMANN: You know, really, the most important thing right now is the positive message that we're putting out in every state. People see me as a reformer and a fighter. That's what sets me apart in this race from all of the candidates. I spent five years in Washington, D.C. at the tip of the spear. I was the lead person fighting President Obama against Obamacare. I wrote the bill to repeal Obamacare and I wrote the bill to repeal Dodd-Frank, the jobs and housing destruction act. That's what people see.

I have exercised leadership in Washington, D.C., and people know that I say what I mean and I mean what I say. And they know they can trust me. I don't flip flop. I stand strong on issues and I fight, and that's what we need in the White House to take on President Obama for 2012.

AMANPOUR: Congresswoman, let's talk about some of the issues. You have called it a declaration of war, that the plot by Iran, the alleged plot to assassinate a Saudi diplomat here in the United States. You have called that an act of war. As a president, as President Bachmann, what would you do, how would you retaliate to an act of war on American soil?

BACHMANN: I think the one thing that I would do that is very different from President Obama, I wouldn't take my eye off of the fundamental problem in the Middle East today, which is an Iran seeking to gain a nuclear weapon. This will change the course of history once that occurs. And what I would do is take everything at our disposal to make sure that Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon. They have already stated that they would use a nuclear weapon to wipe Israel off the face of the map. That must never occur. Iran has also stated they would be willing to use a nuclear weapon against the United States of America. I think if there's anything that we have learned over the course of history, it is that when a madman speaks, we should listen. And I think in the case of Iran, that is certainly true.

AMANPOUR: Congresswoman, of course the United States is concerned about the nuclear program. Iran denies that it has one, so it hasn't threatened to use them. But the real question is, what would happen? How would you retaliate as president if there was an act of war as you've called it, on American soil? Would you at least consider the use of force?

BACHMANN: I would consider the use of everything that we need to do to maintain the security and safety of the American people. Of course, there must be first an identifiable vital American national interest. And I think here, where you look at these tremendous acts of aggression and we have to consider, again, what happened. This was Iran attempting an international assassination plot against the Saudi Arabian ambassador, potentially set in a restaurant in the Washington, D.C. area, where hundreds of innocent Americans could have been killed and wounded. And all -- but with the use of Mexican drug cartels. These are very serious actions and indicate the aggressive posture that Iran is now taking against the United States of America.

They see the United States as less of a threat to them than ever. And clearly they fail to respect the United States and our presence, and they see the weakening of U.S. presence, particularly with the non-agreement to a status of forces agreement in Iraq, and the pullout of the United States by the end of December.

AMANPOUR: So, Congresswoman, you have just said that you would have all options on the table. Let me move on to Libya. You have said that you disagreed with President Obama, that Libya and the action there was not in America's national interest. So, as President Bachmann, if you had not taken that decision to lead and to support the NATO option, there would be presumably, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people dead in Benghazi, and Moammar Gadhafi would still be in power. Would that -- is that what President Bachmann would have wanted?

BACHMANN: Well, clearly, again, it was Defense Secretary Gates who stated that there was no American vital interest in Libya. That is the precursor for the United States' involvement in another nation's affairs. I believe that it was the wrong decision for President Obama to take, and he said that his reason for a United States involvement -- and he unilaterally made that decision, on his own, without going to Congress -- he made that decision, he said, for humanitarian purposes. But clearly this was about regime change. That was the focus of the president.

And so, now, we have a mess in Libya. We don't know who the ruling party will be going into Libya. There are some indications Gibril is an early leader, but we don't know if that's what ultimately will be. There's essentially a war right now between factions in Misurata and in Benghazi. So, this clearly is not settled, what the leadership or what the future course of Libya will be. There's tremendous uncertainty and chaos. And of course, when there's uncertainty and chaos in a nation, that's when you see trouble and potentially extremist elements that could come into power. That would not be good for the United States' interest in that area.

AMANPOUR: Again, just briefly, Moammar Gadhafi, who launched terrorist plots and acts against the United States, is no longer. So now that we see the end game, you have seen what happened, would you basically still say that given the relatively minor U.S. involvement, about $1 billion and only supporting aircraft, no boots on the ground, that it wasn't worth it? Is that still your position?

BACHMANN: My position is that the United States should not have gone into Libya, because, again, the last chapter isn't written. This is a snapshot in time. There's tremendous instability in the Libyan region, and we have seen continued deaths and fighting. And this will not end any time soon. So there remains a struggle for power. And again, this is the issue now in the Middle East region. Who will ultimately hold seats of power? Egypt yet is unknown, who will ultimately control that seat of power. Will it be the Muslim Brotherhood? Will it be extremist elements? And of course, that's true in Libya as well. Will it be extremist elements that rule? And in Libya, this is very important because of the oil revenues. And oil revenues, as we know, could potentially be used to further finance a global caliphate and extremist elements. So this is far from settled in Libya.

AMANPOUR: Let's take security issues closer to home. About illegal immigration, you have made some statements that really have people wondering about your attention to detail on this. I want to play something that you said about this, this week. Just let's listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BACHMANN: 59,000 alone this year came across the border, as was said in the introduction, from Yemen, from Syria. These are nations that are state sponsors of terror. They are coming into our country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: Congresswoman Bachmann, I just want to read from the report of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, that the 59,000 represents the total illegal immigrants apprehended from all countries other than Mexico, but only 11 of them were from Yemen, and just five were illegal immigrants from Syria, not 59,000. I mean, how do you get those figures so wrong?

BACHMANN: I did not state in my -- in the full context of my remarks I didn't say that 59,000 came solely from states that were state sponsors of terror. I said it included among them are -- but you're missing the main point that I made. The fact that the United States government has failed to secure our borders has put the American people at risk. If there was even one individual that came illegally across our border from a state sponsor of terror, that alone would show the failure of the United States government. The fact that we have 59,000, other than Mexicans coming across in one year, certainly poses a threat. But no, I didn't say that they were all from the state sponsors of terror. So that would be inaccurate for you to report that

AMANPOUR: Well, it is in fact in your statement there. I'm hearing what you're saying now to sort of talk about what you actually meant. But of course, Yemen is not classified as a state sponsor of terrorism. But can I actually move on--

BACHMANN: That's right. That is right. Yemen is not a state sponsor of terror. Nor did I say that they were. There are on the secretary of state's Web site, listed the nations that are state sponsors of terror. And that's what is wrong, and that's what's worrisome, the fact that we do have individuals that are from state sponsors of terror coming across unimpeded on the United States' southern border, and that's why I have stated that within one year of being in office, I would build the fence that is so necessary on our border.

AMANPOUR: Well, on that issue, thank you for clearing up what you said last week. But let me just ask you one final question about your opponents. You have basically said that Governor Perry is taking and as you said, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, taking your ideas when it comes to his tax proposals. But he's talking about a flat tax and you're not, really. How do you consider that taking your ideas?

BACHMANN: My tax plan is unique in that, unlike any of the other plans, my plan calls for every American to pay something when it comes to federal income taxes, because today 51 percent of Americans pay no federal income tax. This needs to change. We're at a tipping point now. Everyone needs to pay something. And so I take a page from Ronald Reagan and the economic miracle that was wrought in the 1980s. Reagan flattened the tax rates and he simplified them.

Now, because he was working with a Democrat Congress, he couldn't abolish the U.S. tax code. I would abolish the United States federal tax code, and in its place, I would flatten the rates and simplify them. I would not have just one rate, but I'd have several rates, which is a flattened, simple, much fairer system, and one that would be equitable and raise revenues for the federal government as well.

AMANPOUR: On that note, Congresswoman Bachmann, thank you so much for joining us.

BACHMANN: Thank you and good morning.

AMANPOUR: Good morning to you. And up next -- the Cain gain, can the pizza mogul keep the momentum going? Or will he flame out before voters head to the polls? Questions for our roundtable coming up.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source