News Home Page
 National Security
 Search the States
 Special Reports
    America Attacked
 Photo Galleries
 Live Online
 Nation Index
 Home & Garden
 Weekly Sections
 News Digest
 Print Edition
 Site Index

Text: CBS's 'Face the Nation' With Bob Schieffer

Sunday, Sept. 23, 2001

Following is the transcript of CBS's "Face the Nation," hosted by Bob Schieffer with correspondent Gloria Borger and guests Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld; Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and John Kerry (D-Mass.); Maleeha Lodhi, Pakistani ambassador to the U.S.; former secretary of defense William Cohen; and Abby Joseph Cohen, an investment strategist with Goldman Sachs.

SCHIEFFER: Today on Face the Nation, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on the coming war against terrorism.


PRESIDENT BUSH: I will not yield, I will not rest, I will not relent in waging this struggle for freedom and security for the American people.


SCHIEFFER: What will this war look like? Is America prepared? We'll look at this issue from all angles in a special expanded edition of Face the Nation.

We'll talk with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

We'll talk about how Pakistan is helping the United States with its ambassador Maleeha Lodhi.

Three influential senators will give their views on the war and the terrorist threat: John McCain, John Kerry and Bob Graham.

And we'll get expert analysis of the entire issue with former Defense Secretary Bill Cohen, Tom Friedman of the New York Times, and Abby Joseph Cohen of Goldman Sachs.

Gloria Borger will be here, and I'll have a final word on survivors.

But first, the secretary of defense on "Face the Nation."

And the Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is in the studio.

Thank you for coming, Mr. Secretary.

RUMSFELD: Good morning.

SCHIEFFER: The Taliban now says that Osama bin Laden, they're seeking to see if they can issue the request to tell him to leave. But they also say they don't know where he is. Should we take them at their word?

RUMSFELD: Of course not. They know where he is.

SCHIEFFER: And what should we do, or what are we saying to them?

RUMSFELD: Well, I think we have to think about Afghanistan in a different context. First of all, there are many Afghan people who are repressed, who are starving, who are fleeing from the Taliban. There are any number of factions within the Taliban that don't agree with Omar, the man who contends that now they can't find the person they've been harboring for years. There are many in the Taliban who prefer that the Taliban not harbor Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda network.

So it is not as though there is a front and that there are good guys and bad guys. There are many tribes. There's the Northern alliance, there are tribes in the South. And it is a very different kind of a conflict and a problem. What we have to do is to see that those who have been harboring terrorists stop harboring terrorists.

SCHIEFFER: When you said that they know where he is, you sound very certain of that. And how can you be so certain?

RUMSFELD: They know their country. They have been fighting against the Russians there, the Soviets there for years. They've been fighting among themselves and the tribes. They're hearty, tough people. They have networks throughout the country, and it is just not believable that the Taliban do not know where the network can be located and found and either turned over or expelled.

SCHIEFFER: You have been understandably reluctant to discuss any kind of troop movements. Certainly that's understandable. Let me just ask you the general question: Is the United States now in a position to strike?

RUMSFELD: What we've been doing since the day of the attack is getting our forces positioned in various places around the world. This is not an Afghan problem, this is a worldwide problem of terrorist networks. And let there be no doubt about it, that al Qaeda network is in at least 60 countries, and they are just one of many networks.

And what we've been doing is getting our capabilities located, positioned, arranged around the world so that at that point where the president decides that he has a set of things he would like done, that we will be in a position to carry those things out.

And second, the United States government, even more importantly, has been getting itself arranged across the government. The Department of Treasury and the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency, as well as the defense establishment, to help the world understand that it is a broad-based effort, not a military effort alone. But it's going to have to go after political and diplomatic and economic interests, financial interests.

BORGER: Mr. Secretary, are you still convinced that Osama bin Laden's network acted alone?

RUMSFELD: "Still" suggests I was once convinced of that, which was not the case. I've never been convinced that that is the case.

BORGER: Well, are you convinced?

RUMSFELD: There's no way in the world that a network can function as effectively over such a long period of time, with such excellent finances and false passports and all of the intelligence information they had to have, without the being fostered and facilitated and assisted and financed by states and by businesses and by nongovernmental organizations and by corporations. It is a large network.

BORGER: Well, last week on this show, Colin Powell said that, as of that moment, you had not found any Iraqi fingerprints, for example, on this particular terrorist act. Is that still the case?

RUMSFELD: I am not going to reveal intelligence information about what we know.

What we do know is that the states that are on the terrorist list, and Iraq is one of them and so is Syria and so is North Korea and Cuba and so is Libya, that those states have, over a period of time, harbored and assisted terrorist organizations to engage in terrorist acts in other countries. That we know of certain knowledge.

As the president said, what we're looking at today is how are those states going to behave going forward.

SCHIEFFER: There is considerable pressure building in various quarters, both in the Congress, some members of Congress and others around the country, that we ought to go after Iraq. Are you feeling that pressure?

RUMSFELD: Well, I think the president has a set of decisions and calculations he has to make. And he is making them. He's making them very well, in my judgment.

This is not a quick effort, a battle, an event, television event with cruise missiles ending it, with a signing ceremony on the Missouri at the end of World War II. That isn't what this is about.

What the president is doing is he's looking at the totality of this problem and the full capabilities of our country and of all the other countries that have joined us. I mean, it's been a wonderful outpouring of support across the world and in this country, because it's going to take that. It's going to take people providing scraps of information that are going to enable us to do the job we need to do to stop countries from helping these people.

SCHIEFFER: Let me just ask you about that. There are some reports that perhaps we're not getting what we have asked Saudi Arabia for. Can you comment on those reports?

RUMSFELD: We have, insofar as I'm aware, we have gotten everything from Saudi Arabia that we have asked them to do. Now, if we had not asked them to do some things. But I've been in touch with Saudi leadership and there is no question but that they are our friends and that they are determined to deal with this problem of terrorism just as we are.

The important thing, however, is that we have to remember that every country has a different circumstance. And every country is not going to be engaged or agree with or be involved in everything we do.

The message I would leave is this, that the mission determines the coalition. And we don't allow coalitions to determine the mission.

SCHIEFFER: Secretary Powell said last week that Iran has made a rather positive statement in all of this. He wouldn't give us any details of that, but he said it is worth exploring. Have we explored, and where does that stand?

RUMSFELD: Well, United States government is exploring, with as many countries as is humanly possible, ways that they can help us in this effort. And we are getting help from countries in some instances that are surprising. We are also getting help from people in countries that one would be surprised. And we need that help because that information will be what will help determine it, the outcome.

SCHIEFFER: Have we ruled out the use of nuclear weapons?

RUMSFELD: The United States, to my knowledge, has never ruled out the use of nuclear weapons. We have always said, if you'll think back to the Cold War, that we would not rule out the first use of nuclear weapons because there was overwhelming conventional capability that we felt that would add to the deterrent. And so we have never done that.

What we need to do it, seems to me, as a country, is to recognize how different this situation is than the traditional. I mean, think of it. The deterrents that worked in the Cold War didn't work. We were just hit by an asymmetrical attack that President Bush, in his Citadel speech, before he was ever sworn into office, cautioned the world about and said, we must transform our military. He was right.

BORGER: Mr. Secretary, this morning, Time magazine is reporting that U.S. law enforcement officials have found a manual on the operation of crop dusting equipment. Does that mean that we now need to be concerned that these terrorists were intent on dispersing chemical and biological weapons?

RUMSFELD: We can't know that for certain. We can suspect it.

And one of the other pieces of evidence that is clear in open publications, we know that the countries that I just listed that have sponsored terrorism for decades are countries that have very active chemical and biological warfare programs. And we know that they are in close contact with terrorist networks around the world.

So reasonable people have to say to themselves that, when you find that kind of information, it ought to cause us to recognize that those are dangers that we need to worry about.

And the way we worry about them, it seems to me, one way is to re-energize our effort against the proliferation of these weapons of mass destruction throughout the globe. It's a terribly important effort, and we've got to get other countries to start working with us to a much greater extent than they are.

SCHIEFFER: Two final questions: Number one, should the United States lift the executive order that was issued by President Ford on assassinations?

And number two, can you tell us, does this operation have a new name, and can you tell us what it is?

RUMSFELD: The executive order on assassinations that was signed by President Ford is something that President Bush may or may not address, and it's not for me to be making announcements on that subject. And I honestly do not know if it's even under review at the present time. We have plenty of things we can be doing without that.

SCHIEFFER: And what about the name of the operation?

RUMSFELD: The name of the operation is being changed. It'll probably be changed later today, and we want to find a name that is representative of the effort, and it certainly in no way at all would raise any question on the part of any religion or any group of people.

SCHIEFFER: Mr. Secretary, thank you very much.

RUMSFELD: Thank you.

SCHIEFFER: Thank you.

When we come back, we're going to talk to the Pakistani ambassador, Maleeha Lodhi, in a minute.


SCHIEFFER: With us now, the Pakistani ambassador to the United States, Dr. Maleeha Lodhi, a former journalist before she became a diplomat.

Dr. Lodhi, the United States is apparently going to lift the sanctions that were imposed on Pakistan. I take it that is good news for your government?

LODHI: Well, we understand that--three layers of nuclear sanctions. My country has been under multiple layers of sanctions for the last 10-11 years. We understand that President Bush has waived the three layers of nuclear sanctions that were imposed on Pakistan. We, of course, welcome this development. We think it was long overdue. And we hope that this will open a new chapter in relations between our two countries.

SCHIEFFER: There are reports from Islamabad this morning that your government has said that it will try to moderate U.S. actions. What does that mean?

LODHI: I think, as many other countries are also part of the international coalition with the United States, we're all together in the fight against terrorism. We, not unlike the U.N. Secretary-General and many other people, would obviously want an effective fight against terrorism, but also ensure that innocent people don't suffer in this fight, and we do not do something which is not measured, which is not reflective, which is not carefully targeted, so that we can deal with the aftermath of the situation and not end up exacerbating the crisis that we have at hand.

And we're quite confident, from what President Bush said in his own speech, we were very reassured that the kind of response that he is contemplating, he's indicating to us is indeed going to be multi-dimensional. It will not just rely on military force alone. And that many other components off that response will be kept in view and would be part of the international community's response to this crisis.

BORGER: Madam Ambassador, would Pakistan allow the mobilization of any western ground troops?

LODHI: I think, until the United States has evolved its operational plan and gets into specific discussions with us, it would be very premature for me to respond to that. And I'm not at liberty to get into operational details.

What my president, President Musharraf, has already told the people of Pakistan is that the United States has asked for our airspace, logistical support and sharing of intelligence information, to which our president has said yes.

BORGER: But at this point, is anything off the table?

LODHI: The only thing that we have indicated is that it would not be possible for Pakistani ground troops, Pakistani forces, to be enrolled in an operation outside our border. But other than that, I think we have to wait and see once the response has evolved. Only then will we be able to say, you know, how we go down that road.

SCHIEFFER: Madam Ambassador, this is a very difficult thing for your country. I think sometimes we don't appreciate that in this country, because you have these fundamentalists opposition to your government. How safe is your government right now?

LODHI: Well, I think the important issue to recognize is that the majority of Pakistanis support President Musharraf in this decision that he has taken. We did not ditter over this decision, as we did not ditter in the past when we were called upon by the international community.

After all, the United Nations passed a resolution, the Security Council resolution, asking the entire global community to unite in the fight against terrorism. We are a responsible member of that international community.

And we did what we thought was in the best interest of Pakistan. And the vast majority of Pakistanis are with us on this decision.

SCHIEFFER: How safe are the nuclear weapons that Pakistan has?

LODHI: Well, I think the kind of concerns that I've been hearing in the last couple of days are really, frankly, overblown. We have strict custodial controls over our nuclear assets. We have a very clear command structure. We have a national command authority that deals with and has strict control. And there is no question of any unauthorized element acquiring access to all the materials that go into a nuclear capability.

BORGER: Can the Pakistani intelligence network find Osama bin Laden?

LODHI: Well, I think the fact that Osama bin Laden is in Afghanistan, which is a sovereign country, I think it's a question that has to be addressed to the Taliban leadership.

We, on our part, are ready to provide any kind of information that would be useful for the international community, so that we all act together and we act under international law. And you will see Pakistan delivering on its international commitments.

SCHIEFFER: Madam Ambassador, thank you so much.

LODHI: Thank you.

SCHIEFFER: When we come back, we'll talk with Senator John McCain.


SCHIEFFER: We're back now with Senator John McCain, the chairman--or I should say now the ranking Republican on the Senate Commerce Committee, but a very influential person in Congress on economics, the airline industry.

The first thing I must say to you, Senator McCain, is, when I hear a government official say, "Every option is on the table," and he says, "We've never ruled out the use of nuclear weapons," that's a sobering thought. Your comment?

MCCAIN: Well, my comment is, I understand why the secretary would say that. I also think that it's not necessary. In other words, I think we should note that we have weapons now, precision weapons, and of the kind that would probably address this kind of a threat, which is specific small groups of people in remote places, without having to use nuclear weapons.

And, very frankly, nuclear weapons have a connotation associated with them that, it seems to me, that, if you can't rule it out, you should certainly say that it is highly unlikely that this requirement would ever arise.

BORGER: Senator, he also seemed not to rule out eventually going after Iraq as part of this anti-terrorism plan. Do you believe we ought to do that?

MCCAIN: As we all know from published media reports, there was some debate within the administration as to who the targets would be and the priorities. I think it's pretty well-known that now we've established priorities, and Afghanistan, I think very appropriately, is the first priority.

Then I think it would be dictated by the behavior of these other countries, to a large degree. If they're willing to, as the president strongly admonished, willing to harbor terrorists, then obviously, they're going to be open to some kinds of retaliation--economic, diplomatic and perhaps military.

But I think, first, you take care of the Afghanistan situation, and then you move on to other areas depending on what happens in those countries.

SCHIEFFER: Can we, as a practical matter, do this, Senator McCain? You are a former military man. You've been to Vietnam. Boy, have you been to Vietnam. But this is going to be a very difficult assignment. Is it beyond the capabilities of this country?

MCCAIN: I don't think so. In fact, I'm absolutely convinced it's within the capabilities of this country.

I think the president inspired the nation with his address to Congress, and I think that his fundamental point here, patience and time, time and patience, and that's going to be our challenge as a nation. Six months from now, a year from now, maybe two years from now, we have to have the same resolve and the same kind of tenacity and commitment that we have today. And that's where I think the president's message is so important.

BORGER: But from a military standpoint, does it worry you that we could get bogged down in Afghanistan in the same way, say, that we did in Vietnam?

MCCAIN: I don't think we will. I think we have the strongest national security team that has ever been assembled. I think that we've learned the lessons from previous conflicts. I think that we have a steady hand at the tiller.

I don't know anyone who contemplates occupying Afghanistan, but we do have tremendously increased capabilities, such as the Delta Force, the Rangers, the SEALs and others, to carry out operations.

And one reason why I am so pleased to see the Pakistani ambassador make the comments that she has made, Pakistan is a key element, a very key element. Uzbekistan and Tajikistan are important countries, but the stability in those countries is--they're far more difficult in many ways to handle and move through than Pakistan is.

So I'm convinced we can do it. I'm convinced we have the capabilities. We will now be spending more money on defense, and so I'm optimistic.

But I don't think it's going to happen tomorrow. I think the worst thing we could do is launch some cruise missiles and have it look real good on the evening news, and then move on. And this president isn't going too do that.

SCHIEFFER: Let me shift to the economy, because you were one of the leaders on Capitol Hill in bailing out the airlines. And I think everyone agrees with the necessity of that.

Let me ask you about something else, and that is National Airport. Do you envision that National Airport here in the nation's capital, Reagan National Airport, will ever be reopened?

MCCAIN: I would love to have it be reopened, but I would leave that up to the national security experts. Those are the people who know. We members of Congress don't have the knowledge. I'd love to see it open tomorrow, but I will support and respect whatever decision is made regarding National Airport.

As regards the economy, I think we've got to spend some money, and I say that as a proud fiscal conservative. We need to spend money, and I think we need to spend it quickly and pump some money into this economy.

SCHIEFFER: So how do you do that?

MCCAIN: I think we can do it by accelerating some of the pending expenditures. I think we can spend additional monies in a broad variety of ways, including infrastructure, some of which has lagged already. And not worry too much at this particular moment in time about the deficit. And I say that again, as a proud fiscal conservative. But I believe we need to get some money, and I think that money will breed some confidence in the future of the economy.

BORGER: Tom Ridge, governor of Pennsylvania, is going to take over this new office of homeland security, as we're calling it. Do you believe he has enough authority to do what he needs to do?

MCCAIN: I do not. I think that Tom Ridge has got to be given the authority to give and call up the director of the FBI or any other agency that's on his purview and say, "Do this"; not ask, request. The thing in this town that people understand is authority, and that, I believe, must be given to Tom Ridge. And if it's going to be a Cabinet-level job, let's approve it through the United States Senate and make it a Cabinet-level job. But give him the authority over these various agencies.

I admire the drug czar, I admire everybody who's been a drug czar. But the drug czar has not been as effective as the czar should have been because he didn't have the ability to give orders, only requests.

SCHIEFFER: All right, John McCain, thank you so much.

MCCAIN: Thank you.

SCHIEFFER: We'll be back in just a moment.


SCHIEFFER: And we're back now with our expanded edition of Face the Nation. We're going to be talking to Senators John Kerry and Bob Graham in just a minute.

But before we do that, we want to go first to CBS News correspondent Allen Pizzey, who is in Islamabad, Pakistan.

Well, Allen, what's the situation there today?

ALLEN PIZZEY, CBS NEWS: Well, good evening, Bob.

Well, the only bit of news out of here is what you mentioned earlier, that the Taliban says they can't find Osama bin Laden anymore, surprise, surprise.

The other thing we know is that an advanced security team from the United States is on its way in here this week. They may have arrived already, to set up security for a U.S. delegation that's coming to talk to Pakistan about what Pakistan can do, how they can help.

The Pakistani ambassador said that Pakistan did not know where bin Laden was. That may be a little diplomatic. There's a widespread feeling here that the Pakistanis know an awful lot, which is why the Americans want to talk to them. Pakistani intelligence has been deeply involved with the Taliban. They may not know which cave he's hiding in, but they've probably got a pretty good idea, more or less, where he is.

But the important thing is that Pakistan is going to get a lot of money from the United States, because there is some opposition to Pakistan going along with the U.S. here. There have been demonstrations across many of the cities here. They're small, they're contained, but they do represent an important element in this story. And that's the fundamentalist element. Deep-seated belief among Muslims that America is not necessarily on their side.

Pakistan I think you might want to look as a microcosm of the kind of problems and the kind of issues that America is going to have to face and address as they build this coalition and then go into action.

They're going to have to have all the Muslim countries on their side, and Muslims do not see America as their best friend. There have been a few faux pas, for example, calling it a "crusade." The name they chose was--for the operation was offensive. That's all been changed.

But America has to do an awful lot, because Muslims look at America's Middle East policy, they say, "You're anti-Muslim, you are pro-Israel." And I think what happens in Israel, the way the U.S. addresses issues that concern Muslims worldwide will have a lot to do with how well they can build this coalition, Bob.

SCHIEFFER: All right, thank you very much, Allen. Thank you very much.

Well, with us now to talk about all of this, Senator John Kerry. Senator Kerry something of an expert on terrorism himself. He has actually written a book about it. And Senator Bob Graham, who is of course the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Senator Graham, let me just begin with you. There has now been report after report that the FBI, the CIA knew that there were followers of Osama bin Laden trying to get into flight schools, trying to take flight training, where they said, ``We don't need to know how to take off and land an airplane, we just need to know how to steer one.'' These reports keep going around.

What happened here? Why was not some action taken on this?

GRAHAM: Bob, I think what we're seeing here is one of several weaknesses in our intelligence system, starting with the fact that we've had inadequate coordination, too much fragmentation, too much turf protection among the agencies that Americans have a right to expect are going to be working together.

I believe that the proposal that the president announced on Thursday night of establishing a new office of homeland defense and asking Governor Ridge to be in charge of it is a very good first step.

As Senator McCain said, we need to back that up by making it a statutory office, and give it some of the capabilities that that office, even under as strong a person as Governor Ridge, is going to need to knock heads, and be sure that we don't have repetitions of what happened in this tragic incident.

SCHIEFFER: Well, Senator Kerry, are you as concerned about these reports as others seem to be? I mean, should--I always hesitate to criticize people in this position, because so many times our investigators, our intelligence agencies, we don't know about their successes. We only know about their failures. But this does not seem to--this just doesn't seem quite right here.

KERRY: Well, Bob, it's not quite right. Look, in this war, first of all, everybody has to understand, I'm almost wary of the rhetoric of war with respect to what we have to do here because it raises expectations that can't necessarily be met.

This is not like any war we have ever fought. It is hopefully different even--it's somewhat similar to the war on drugs, but we hope it's different because the outcome, many people know, has not been what we want. But it's that kind of very prolonged, all-points, all-fronts effort.

And the tragedy is at the moment that the single most important weapon for the United States of America is intelligence. It's the single most important weapon in this particular war, unlike other wars where it was overwhelming force or air force or something. And we are weakest, frankly, in that particular area. So, it's going to take us time to be able to build up here to do this properly.

I think the most important thing for Americans right now, and I'm sorry this is a switch on you a little bit, but the first front of this war is here at home, our economy. It really is. To sustain people's good will, to sustain the energy towards this, to have the resources to fight it, we've got to get the economy moving.

And that means an unprecedented effort in the next days to face up to what was happening not just since September 11, but before September 11. We now have a huge number of new unemployed, people who were working in average jobs across this country who are going to be without health insurance, without an income. We've got to get money back into the economy, and we've got to do it rapidly.

BORGER: Well, but Alan Greenspan cautioned this week to go slow on any kind of additional stimulus package.

KERRY: I love Alan Greenspan. We all respect him and even revere him. But I disagree with Alan Greenspan on this particular timing issue, as do many of our colleagues.

BORGER: So what would you do? What would you do right away?

KERRY: I think we have to pump money that's in the system out as rapidly as possible. I think we have to put additional effort in place for unemployment insurance for extended health benefits. I think we have to have a stimulus package immediately that accelerates certain kinds of investment projects, whether it's railroad, road, airports, even something as prosaic as a sewer overflow, for mayors all across the country. There are many things that we can do to put people to work and to restore confidence in the economy.

SCHIEFFER: Speaking of money--and I think the point you make is very strong. We heard John McCain, who said look, I'm a proud conservative just a minute ago and a proud fiscal conservative. But he said, this is not a time to talk about the deficit.

I want to ask you on another subject of money, Senator Graham, why is the money of Osama bin Laden so difficult for us to trace? Can we trace it? And how can we cut him off from his money?

GRAHAM: That is going to be one of the keys to winning this war against terrorism. We've been trying for the last three or four years to develop a system to trace his money and, frankly, haven't had very much success because he uses nonconventional sources.

We also have been somewhat ambivalent about this. You may recall it wasn't very long ago that our secretary of the Treasury was saying, we shouldn't join our European allies in an aggressive effort to clamp down on these shadowy, offshore banks where a lot of hot money is distributed. Clearly, that's not going to be the position of the administration anymore in light of what happened on September 11.

We're going to have to join with our allies, our economic allies, to do everything we can to find out and to cut off the flow of the very large avalanche of money that is being directed by terrorists.

BORGER: Well, beyond freezing assets, though, Senator, what can you do? Can you tell foreign banks, "Know your customer"?

KERRY: Well, that's the international banking standard. We've been trying to apply that for years. There are several things.

Look, Osama bin Laden's money moves in three ways. Number one, a system called halawa (ph), which is a very informal exchange system which doesn't cross international lines. There's very little accountability. Secondly, through something called Islamic charities, and that is something we can clamp down on. Third, in the Middle East banking system, they have ignored the standards of transparency and accountability.

We have to shut down the ease with which money moves in what is known to be suspect ways by leading banks of the world. They've got to be willing to join in this fight, and I hope the president will join in that effort very, very soon.

SCHIEFFER: Senator Graham, let me ask you, you've been briefed by the intelligence communities. What is the next step? What should we look for next?

GRAHAM: Well, we've got a difficult and somewhat conflicting set of goals that we have to proceed on now.

One, as Senator Kerry just said, we've got to get back to some sense of normalcy here in our personal lives, as well as in our economic lives.

On the other hand, we have to stay alert. There is good evidence that what happened on September 11, that tragedy, was not the only act that was planned, that there were other acts of terrorism, part of the same set of scheduled events. And there have been...

SCHIEFFER: The same kinds of attacks?

GRAHAM: That's unlikely that it would be the same type, that is, hijacking of airplanes. That's what makes it so frightening. The different forms that such an attack might take.

BORGER: Are you talking about chemical and biological?

GRAHAM: I know you criticized earlier about the phrase "taking nothing off the table," but I don't think we could take the possibility of those off the table.

We know what happened in Tokyo not too long ago when a terrorist group gassed a subway station. Those are all the types of threats that we face.

What we've got to have is a defense system that is capable of identifying and interdicting whatever form the terrorism might take. And that's why intelligence is such an absolutely critical component of our war against terrorism.

BORGER: Do we have any information that chemical and biological attacks were part of this? We got news this morning about the crop dusting manuals.

GRAHAM: No, no, at least I don't, and not to my knowledge do any of my colleagues.

But it is something that we know. For instance, Saddam Hussein has used weapons of mass destruction against his own people. And there is some evidence of their efforts to try to secure these kinds of weapons and even test them.

That's why it's so vital that we get the global community to be part of this effort to begin to make their lives miserable.

But at the same time, and I can't emphasize this strongly enough, we Americans are proud and strong, and we have to prove to the world, and particularly to terrorists, that they have not shut off our way of life, they have not slowed us down in this country.

People, if you want to do an act of patriotism, if you were going to buy a car, go out and buy that car. If you were going to do some trip, go do that trip. It is safer to fly today in the United States than it has been in a long time, and it will get safer by the day because of the things that we are doing.

People need to have confidence in this country. And I believe there is less threat of an imminent act of terrorism tomorrow than the many other ways that you could face harm just through the course of life.

SCHIEFFER: All right.

GRAHAM: Americans must get on with the business of being America.

SCHIEFFER: All right. We're going to leave it at that. Thank you so much, both of you.

We're going to continue our expanded coverage on Face the Nation after this short break.


SCHIEFFER: Back now with this expanded edition of Face the Nation.

Joining us, former Defense Secretary William Cohen; Tom Friedman of the New York Times, just back from the Middle East; and in New York City, investment strategist Abby Joseph Cohen.

Gentlemen, lady, thank you all for coming.

Tom, you're just back from there. You spent a lot of time in the Middle East, a good part of your life out there. Do we understand what's going on in the Middle East right now, in the Muslim world?

FRIEDMAN: You know, this phenomenon that that we're up against, Bob, is one very unusual. If you put Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden together, I believe it's Pol Pot meets Charles Manson.

That is, you have--I think Osama bin Laden leads a cult-like organization. If you look at the biography and behavior of some of his people, there's almost a cult dimension to it. I think Afghanistan is really the sort of crazy, lunatic regime a la Pol Pot, if you look at how it's dealt with its people.

What that means for us, it's a very delicate balance. You have to be really focused. You have to be really serious, and you have to be just a little bit crazy to deal with these people. Because they are not deterred in normal ways.

You know, there's a concept in strategic theory, Bob, that, if you're playing chicken with another guy in his car, the way you win is, before the race starts, you take out your screwdriver, and you very visibly unscrew your steering wheel and throw it out the window, and just say, "Look, I'd love to get out of the way, OK?" But you're depending on me being not as crazy as you, and I'm afraid you've attacked my country now, and I'm going to be focused, I'm going to be serious, but I'm going to be just a little bit crazy.

SCHIEFFER: Let me ask you this: Do people in the Middle East understand how Americans view what happened?

FRIEDMAN: I don't believe they do. You know, I was interviewed by Egyptian television early in this, and they asked me, "Why are Americans so upset?" And I said, "Look, basically two suicide bombers have just blown up our pyramids. The World Trade Center towers were our pyramids, made of glass and steel and not stone, pyramids to modernity and not a pharaoh, but they are the symbol of our civilization."

And people are kind of treating this as if this is just the Gulf War Round Two, Kosovo Round Two. This is not the Gulf War. This is about our country. Our civilization and our society has been attacked. And we are going to look at people out there, how they cooperate and whether they cooperate, whether they get this. Because I think you're going to see, before this is over, a level of seriousness in the American response that these people have never experienced.

BORGER: Secretary Cohen, as a former secretary of defense, you have been watching this administration assemble a remarkable coalition here.

W. COHEN: Right.

BORGER: But it seems that it's very delicate, it's almost like a 3-D game of chess. Are you worried about, for example, destabilizing Pakistan? They've got a nuclear arsenal. Are you worried that this could all destabilize the entire Middle East?

W. COHEN: Well, I think that's the reason why this administration is proceeding with caution, as well as resolve. We have to be very careful that we do not ask certain things of certain countries that they cannot measure up to. And, frankly, I think the less said about what our plans are and what the contributions are going to be, the better.

I would have a variation on a theme or an expression announced back during the Watergate years of one of our former attorney generals about saying, ``Watch what we do, not what we say.'' In this particular case, watch what we do, and not what goes unasked by us. If we don't make public in detail what we're requiring or asking of other countries, we're going to be a lot better off.

So it does require delicacy, it does require a lot of nuance and diplomacy. And that's what I think is the challenge of the administration, and they, in my judgment, are measuring up right now.

SCHIEFFER: Abby Joseph Cohen, everybody we have talked to this morning, you heard John Kerry, you heard John McCain both say what's important here is to get the economy back on line. The stock market has gone down. Do you expect this downturn to continue? What can we expect from Wall Street next week?

A. COHEN: I think we can expect, in the coming weeks and months, a performance that is consistent with an economy that will be questionable but looking better.

Keep in mind that the people on Wall Street went to work last week. We walked past the ash, we walked past the smoldering ruins, but our banking system worked extraordinarily well. The financial markets operated smoothly. And that really is the story.

It's clear that the economy has had some very significant short-term disruptions, but at the end of the day, what matters is that we have the world's most productive workers, we have indeed the most capable managements of companies. And we think in 2002 this is an economy that will be looking much better.

This will be a consequence of the monetary policy ease that we've already seen, and we may see more of it. It's a consequence of the fiscal policy ease, the extra spending from the government. And then of course there is the rebuilding effort. And that has already begun, even here in the city of New York.

SCHIEFFER: Well, is a recession in the short term inevitable, do you think?

A. COHEN: Economists by and large do believe that economic growth will disappear over the next several weeks and perhaps months. GDP, for example, may be slightly negative.

However, we believe that the measures that will get the economy moving again are already in place. And so, the consensus of economists believe that the third and fourth quarters of this year are already, if you will, history, and what matters is 2002. Most at this point do expect the economy to grow.

BORGER: Tom, we have talked an awful lot this morning about the role of Pakistan in all of this. I want to ask you about the role of Saudi Arabia.

There was some news over the weekend that there are some airbases that we might have wanted to have used, that the Saudis are balking at that. Are they our friends in this?

FRIEDMAN: The Saudis are part of the solution, Gloria, and they're part of the problem.

They're part of the problem in that Osama bin Laden was basically evicted from Saudi Arabia. The reason these fundamentalists are all in Afghanistan is because the Arab states have all pushed them out into the wilds of the region.

But having pushed them out, these regimes all feel just a little bit guilty cracking down on Muslims. And, as a result, what they've allowed, as Secretary Rumsfeld said, they've allowed these Muslim welfare organizations to raise a lot of money for these people, funnel it out to the Osama bin Ladens and others, and basically make a devil's bargain, "You can have the money, just don't spend it here, and don't attack us."

Having said that, as Secretary Cohen and others have said, the Saudis have bases, they have intelligence, and they have the money, they're the main funders of the Taliban. To say to the Taliban, "Look, buddy, what we need from you now is to arrange a traffic accident for Osama bin Laden. How much will it cost?"

SCHIEFFER: How difficult is it for the United States, for Pakistan, for all of these forces to find Osama bin Laden?

W. COHEN: I don't think it's difficult at all. Osama bin Laden can't...


W. COHEN: No. It's really interesting. Last week they were saying, "Give us the proof, and we'll turn him over to you." Now that the forces are moving into the region in large numbers, and basically President Bush has indicated by his declaration, either you turn him over, either you let us into your country to examine all bases and exterminate all bases as such, or else you are the enemy. And they've said, we're not turning him over.

And so they've moved from saying, show us the money, so to speak, or show us the evidence, and now they're saying, we don't know where he is, he must have left. I don't accept that for a moment. I think that they have a connection with him in terms of helping him to continue to thrive and succeed in Afghanistan, which they know where his location is.

SCHIEFFER: Well, Secretary Rumsfeld seemed quite certain that they know where he is. How can he be so certain?

W. COHEN: Well, for the reasons that bin Laden can't simply move around Afghanistan. He's not a solitary, ghost-like figure that moves from cave to cave without large elements that support him and protect him. There are also his enemies in the region who are looking for him, as well, from the northern alliance.

And so it's pretty clear that he has the support of some of the elements from within Pakistan. And that intelligence service has some elements in it that also provides him with intelligence. So, they basically know where he is and support him.

And so I think it's very clear that, if called upon, they could produce him. They probably won't.

BORGER: Abby Joseph Cohen, you've heard this morning Senator Kerry call for an immediate stimulus package to the economy. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has said sort of hold off, at least temporarily. Where do you come out on this?

A. COHEN: We've already seen a great deal happening. For example, the Federal Reserve itself was among the first to step in. The day of the crisis, the Fed made sure that the banking system had ample liquidity and has continued to do so. The financial markets have worked very, very smoothly. And I think we do need to take some steps to bolster consumer confidence. That is really what it's all about.

A number of the statements that have already been made, a number of the decisions already made--financial packages for the airlines, for example, financial packages to help the rebuilding process, will be very significant. There are a number of other items which are on the table. I think we should think about them slowly and deliberately.

But one thing that I personally think might be helpful might be to ensure the consumer confidence of our working families, making sure that they do have the income that they need.

SCHIEFFER: Tom Friedman, you're kind of an expert on globalization, as it were. Could this have an effect on the world economy?

FRIEDMAN: I think definitely. Basically, you know, what's happened in the last decade or so, Bob, is the world has shrunk from a size medium to a size small. And you know, when things are going well, we have been the beneficiaries of that. But when things are going badly, we and others get hit by that.

And you know, what we've seen here, we live in this world of networks now, Bob, and I like to compare it really to Rome. And in Rome, all roads led to Rome, and they were great roads. But when the Visigoths and the Vandals wanted to sack Rome, they came right up the roads.

And that's what these terrorists did. They used Travelocity to make their reservations. They used the Internet to communicate. They used the global financial system that Abby is talking about in order to transfer money.

They used the network against the network. And now we've got to re-energize and re-empower the network to use it against them.

SCHIEFFER: I thought the Pakistani ambassador made a good point when she said we have to be very careful here that we don't, in responding to this, create something that'll be worse than what we started with. And I think the point she was driving at is that these countries in much of the Muslim world are so fragile, their governments, that they could be toppled and taken over by fundamentalists there.

W. COHEN: I agree completely with her in that, and that's why the administration has been very careful in selecting its targets and moving against those targets and not creating a situation in which the rest of the Muslim world sees this as an onslaught against innocent civilians, and thereby reducing us to the same level that we have seen Osama bin Laden carry out his execution of mass numbers of Americans.

So, I think that the Muslim world under the leadership of Musharraf, President Musharraf in Pakistan, and others, if they see that we are determined, we are resolved, we're angry, we're full of rage but it's a controlled rage, that we are going after the people who are trying to kill us and to take that ability down.

SCHIEFFER: Abby Joseph Cohen, you were out of the country, as I understand it, when the twin towers were hit?

A. COHEN: No, Bob, I was in the financial center.

SCHIEFFER: Were you?

A. COHEN: I was a few blocks away from the World Trade Center, and my daughter was within yards of it. So this was a very personal thing for me, as it was for many of my colleagues.

Let us recognize that this is a community that has been very hard hit. The financial community has felt it most significantly, most severely. And the fact that we were all able to go back to work and get the markets functioning, I think is an extraordinary testament to our financial system.

And let's keep in mind, too, that those amber waves of grain are still growing, and consumers and businesses outside New York are resuming more normal operations. I think that's fabulous.

SCHIEFFER: Absolutely. Thank you very much, Abby.

We'll be back with a final word after this short break.


SCHIEFFER: Finally, today, only now are we coming to understand all of the ways this has affected us. Only now have the survivors realized the deep, psychological impact it is having on them. Young people returned to their offices and cry. Work no longer seems important. Parents worry their children will not know the kind of world they have known.

We give thanks that we were not at ground zero when it happened, and we feel guilty and tell ourselves we didn't mean that we were glad someone else was there instead of us, and then we don't know what we mean.

I spend most of my working days on Capitol Hill. If the plane that went down in Pennsylvania was headed to the capitol, as many now believe, perhaps I owe my life to the brave passengers who forced it to crash.

The questions we ask at times like these are those that have been asked from the beginning of time: Where does evil come from? Why do some live and others die? But we can never know.

What we do recognize is that grief is a part of healing. Yet, we must not succumb to despair, nor is there reason to.

When we saw Congress cheering the president, it reflected an America united, something we have not seen in a long time, something younger generations have never seen. And American resolve is still the most powerful force on earth.

In no way does it diminish the horror we have just experienced to say that those of us of a certain age saw an America united rid the world of a far greater and more dastardly evil. This is different, but it is doable. Together, we can find a way to do it.

That's it for us here at Face the Nation. We'll see you next week, and, of course, we'll break in to any programming in the next week whenever developments warrant. Thanks for joining us.

© 2001 The Washington Post Company