Help
 News Home Page
 Nation
 National Security
 Science
 Courts
 Columns
 Search the States
 Special Reports
    America Attacked
 Photo Galleries
 Live Online
 Nation Index
 World
 Metro
 Business
 Washtech
 Sports
 Style
 Education
 Travel
 Health
 Home & Garden
 Opinion
 Weather
 Weekly Sections
 News Digest
 Classifieds
 Print Edition
 Archives
 Site Index


Text: Andrew Card on 'Fox News Sunday'

eMediaMillWorks


eMediaMillWorks
Sunday, September 30, 2001

Following is the transcript of 'Fox News Sunday,' hosted by Tony Snow. Guests: White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card, Senate Armed Forces Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.), former NATO Supreme Commander Gen. George Joulwan, The Washington Post's Ceci Connolly, and Fox News correspondents Juan Williams and Paul Gigot.

SNOW: President Bush says he'll make airlines safer, the economy more productive, our public places more secure. He also wants terrorists to know one thing:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Make no mistake about it, we're in hot pursuit.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SNOW: Where does the president go from here? We'll ask White House chief of staff Andrew Card.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld calls for a new kind of military to fight new kinds of enemies. Is he on the right track? We'll quiz Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin.

We'll get a war-planner's view of coming hostilities from retired NATO Supreme Commander General George Joulwan.

Plus, Juan Williams, Ceci Connolly and Paul Gigot offer their collective wisdom.

This is the September 20 edition of Fox News Sunday.

Good morning. We'll talk with our guests after an update on the war on terror from Fox News correspondents Jim Angle at the White House and Greg Palkot in Islamabad, Pakistan.

Greg, there are reports this morning that the Taliban in Afghanistan has custody of Osama bin Laden and has placed him in hiding, they say, for his own safety. What do you know?

GREG PALKOT, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: That's very interesting, Tony. These words coming from the Taliban ambassador to Pakistan. He is saying that, number one, there's been no response from Osama bin Laden to a request by Afghan clerics for him to leave the country; number two, that he is under their control; and number three, and I'm quoting a translation here, ``He is in a safe place for his own security.''

Now, we don't have any independent confirmation of this, but the ambassador here has been a very, very important conduit of information about Osama bin Laden, about the Taliban for the outside world.

Let's parse the comments a little further. What's very important is that he says now that the Taliban has Osama bin Laden under their control. Also, that they are hiding him for his own safety. That is very crucial. That shows that instead of distancing themselves from Osama bin Laden, the Taliban appears to be taking him within their fold, within their grasp.

This shows real defiance--defiance, number one, in the face of reports that a U.S. military strike against the Taliban, against Afghanistan is imminent, and also it shows defiance in the face of demands from the international community, from the United States, from Pakistan, to hand over Osama bin Laden.

Back to you, Tony.

SNOW: All right, Greg, thanks.

Jim Angle is now joining us from the White House.

Jim, any reaction from the White House on this development?

JIM ANGLE, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Well, a senior White House official says, Tony, that if the Taliban--if it is true that the Taliban knows where bin Laden is, turn him over to the U.S. As the president said this week, no negotiations.

Meanwhile, Tony, officials are telling Fox News that the investigation of the terrorists here in the U.S. is making rapid progress and that the FBI is moving into phase two, shifting more resources overseas where, they say, the attacks were conceived, planned and supervised.

President Bush held fire this week but continued to line up international support, meeting with five foreign leaders and calling many more.

At Camp David this weekend, President Bush met with his national security team by video conference and studied a map of Afghanistan. But in his radio address, he once again warned that some actions may be outside public view.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: As all these actions make clear, our war on terror will be much broader than the battlefields and beachheads of the past. This war will be fought wherever terrorists hide or run or plan.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANGLE: Or get trained. Officials now believe four of the hijackers were trained in Afghanistan at camps run by Osama bin Laden. And investigators have tracked nearly $500,000 in support sent from Europe and the Middle East.

One of the discoveries this week, a document carried by three of the hijackers telling them how to pack, pray and kill. ``When you enter the plane,'' it said, ``pray, `Oh God, open all doors for me,''' a chilling example of the religious fervor that inspired the terrorists.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(UNKNOWN): It is a disturbing and shocking view into the mindset of these terrorists.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANGLE: To put Americans at ease, the president proposed new security measures at airports including 4,000 National Guard and federal supervision of security personnel, but not making them federal employees as many members of Congress insist.

But even if people start flying, more than 100,000 airline workers are unemployed, and Democrats in Congress want more than $20 billion for them. Other crippled industries are pleading for relief as well.

Instead of going down that road, President Bush started planning a broad economic stimulus, looking at help for laid-off workers such as extending unemployment assistance as well as new tax breaks. But the White House wants agreement with Democrats before it unveils any package, so they'll have to wait and see what it will actually contain. But one official says the cost could be $50 to $100 billion. That will be a main topic of discussion this Tuesday when the president sits down with the top four leaders of Congress.

Tony?

SNOW: Thanks, Jim.

Now for the latest on the war on terror, we're joined by White House chief of staff Andrew Card in his first interview since the attacks. He's in Thurmont, Maryland, today.

That's near the presidential retreat at Camp David.

Mr. Card, let's first talk about the latest news out of Afghanistan. If, in fact, the Taliban has Osama bin Laden and says they'd be willing to turn him over if we'd simply give a little proof and do negotiations, will we be willing to take those steps?

CARD: Well, first of all, the president has said we're not negotiating. We've told the Taliban government what they should be doing. They've got to turn not only Osama bin Laden over but all of the operatives of the al Qaeda organization. They've got to stop being a haven where terrorists can train and roam and do their dastardly deeds.

And it's not negotiable, but we know that they know what to do. I'm not sure that they will do the right thing, but we're ready to respond.

SNOW: When you say, ``We're ready to respond,'' there's been some ambiguity. Do we want the Taliban to remain in power or not?

CARD: Well, we do not want any government to harbor terrorists. And the Taliban government has been harboring terrorists. They've aided, abetted and comforted these terrorists, and allowed them to roam not only in their country but to spread out across the world. And we don't think that they are worthy of the leadership that America and the rest of the world demand.

And, no, we're not too pleased with the Taliban government. We think that, if you're going to harbor terrorists, the same fate will fall on you that will fall on terrorists.

SNOW: Is it conceivable to you that the Taliban would mend its ways?

CARD: Well, this is not about the Afghan people. We know that the Afghan people are being duped and used by the Taliban government right now. And we'd like to see a more stable government for them.

But we're not about nation-building here. We're about ridding the world of terrorists and making sure that no nation is a place where terrorists feel that they can get comfort and aid.

SNOW: I understand you're not nation-building, but, on the other hand, you seem to be saying that we have an opponent in the Taliban, and, if they don't give up Osama bin Laden, if they don't stop giving aid and comfort to al Qaeda, we want them toppled.

CARD: The Taliban organization has worked in close concert with Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda network. Clearly, that is not right. And they've got to recognize it. They cannot be a party to these terrorist acts, and, if they're going to continue to be a party to the terrorist acts, they should not be in power.

SNOW: President Bush, the first President Bush, set a deadline in 1991 for Saddam Hussein to get out of Kuwait. Is this president going to set a deadline for Osama bin Laden to be turned over to the West?

CARD: I don't think there's anyone that doesn't understand that Osama bin Laden, his operatives and the al Qaeda network must be purged from Afghanistan, and the Taliban knows that.

This isn't about a deadline, this is about doing the right thing. They've got to do the right thing, but it's not about a deadline. They've just got to do it.

I tell you, the United States is very patient, but we want to see justice done, and we want to see it done quickly.

SNOW: Saudi Arabia--there are press reports--and this is another one of these ambiguities that I hope you can help us clear up. There are now reports out of Saudi Arabia that the Saudis will not allow us to use Prince Sultan Air Base for flights that may be used to attack Muslim or Arab targets. Is that correct?

CARD: We're working with allies all around the world and around that region, and we're confident that we will have the support to do what is necessary to fight terrorism.

This is a long battle. It will not be won with one particular skirmish. It's a long war, and we're in it for the long haul. And we have allies all over the world, including the Saudi Arabians.

SNOW: Sir, I understand that, but is the Saudi report accurate, that they will not allow us to conduct offensive strikes using Prince Sultan Air Base as the base?

CARD: I'm not going to get into the operational aspects of this effort. The State Department and the Defense Department have been working very closely with our allies, and we're confident that we will have the support we need to do what is right.

SNOW: Mr. Card, the General Accounting Office the other day released a report indicating that the United States is not really prepared to deal with a biological or chemical attack. A lot of Americans are worried about that right now. Is that something that folks watching this program today ought to be afraid of?

CARD: Well, we should be very diligent. Secretary Tommy Thompson at the Health and Human Services Department has done a good job of working with the Center for Disease Control and the FDA to see that we have ongoing stockpiles of appropriate medication and immunization products. And we're going to work hard to make sure that those inventories grow.

But Americans should be diligent. We have a real threat from terrorists in this country, and it's something that we never thought we'd have to face. But you know, the threat of terrorism has been around the world for a long time. The United States is going to lead the charge to rid that threat, and--but Americans should be diligent.

SNOW: In other words, they should be worried right now. That's something that they cannot erase from their minds. They can't say, no, not a possibility.

CARD: Well, I'm not trying to be an alarmist. But we know that these terrorist organizations, like Al Qaeda, run by Osama bin Laden and others, have probably found the means to use biological or chemical warfare, and that is very, very bad for the world, but we have to be diligent.

America is doing all it can to try to defend itself. The president did announce the appointment of Tom Ridge as the homeland security adviser to run a homeland security council. And among the things that he will be working on will be working to coordinate the activities of the Health and Human Services administration, the FDA, the Center for Disease Control, the Defense Department and FEMA. We think we will be ready, but we hope we never have to face that threat. But Americans still should be diligent.

SNOW: Senator Jon Kyl over the weekend said that if terrorists struck the United States with chemical or biological weapons, it would be reasonable for us to respond with nuclear force. Is he right?

CARD: Well, again, I'm not going to talk about the operations that might be considered by the Defense Department and the president, but we're going to do everything we can to defend the United States.

SNOW: There's also been a proposal that the king of Afghanistan, who's quite old now--he's in his 80s--might be willing to go back to try to set up a government in the wake of the Taliban. Would the United States be opposed to having him go back and try to create some sort of constitutional monarchy?

CARD: What we're really interested in is ridding any base from which terrorist organizations can function. And that's the initiative. It's not about replacing the Taliban with any one particular government. We just want to make sure that the Taliban is not a government that will aid and abet terrorists. We do not want Afghanistan to be a base for terrorist organizations. And we'll be working to rid Afghanistan of terrorists that terrorize the world.

SNOW: Is Iraq a base?

CARD: We're going to go after terrorism wherever it is, and we're asking for allies to join with us. I happen to believe that most responsible countries around the world will be working with us to rid the world of terrorism. I hope Iraq will rid itself of any terrorism. But right now we're focusing on the threat to America and the threat to America's interests around the world.

SNOW: In hindsight, was it a mistake not to get rid of Saddam Hussein in 1991?

CARD: You know, I happen to think that former President Bush and his national security team did exactly the right thing in coordination with the United Nations.

This is a different battle today. We've had a horrendous attack on the United States by terrorists. We did not want that attack to happen. We wished it hadn't happened, but we will respond. And this is very different from the situation that former President Bush faced when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.

SNOW: Mr. Card, there's a lot of talk now about getting about getting the economy up and running. The president's going to be meeting, as Jim Angle reported, with the four leaders, the Democratic and Republican leaders of the House and the Senate. Is the president going to insist on a tax cut?

CARD: Well, first of all, we know that we've had, first of all, a war declared on our country. Even before that happened, our economy was anemic, and we've had a shock to that economy and a national disaster. The confluence of those demand that the government take action.

President Bush wants to take action to help us overcome the shock to our economy as a result of that attack in Washington, D.C., and in New York City. So we'll be working on an economic package that will help to get us back to a more stable economy and growth.

But, you know, economic prosperity around the world is threatened by terrorism. And we want to work to make sure that economic stability will become the rule in the world and the opportunity for the world, and we'll take the lead there.

SNOW: All right. Again, does that mean tax cuts?

CARD: We'll be looking at a full range of options. We'd like to work in concert with the congressional leadership, House and Senate, Republican and Democrat.

We're all in this together. We want to get our economy up and running again. We want to get through the shock to the economy that came as a result of the terrorist attack. But we also want to make sure that there is long-term stability in our economy, so we don't want to do anything that would jeopardize future challenges to our economy.

SNOW: So the president's not going to propose anything in advance, he's going to negotiate?

CARD: Well, we know that a combination of supply-side responses and Keynesian responses is probably what is needed. But we want to make sure that we are smart in what we do so that we don't undermine the future growth of our economy.

SNOW: You think Democrats are onboard?

CARD: I hope they are. They've been working very well with the president so far, thanks to the president's leadership and the outstanding leadership of Senator Lott and Senator Daschle and Speaker Hastert and Minority Leader Gephardt. I've actually been very pleased with how I found these leaders pulling together for the benefit of the country.

SNOW: Mr. Card, there's another issue of bipartisan consensus, at least in the Washington area, and that's Reagan National Airport. D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams says this town is going to undergo a dramatic economic contraction unless Reagan National Airport reopens. Is it?

CARD: Well, we've done an awful lot of work at the White House and working with the Defense Department, the Secret Service, the FBI and other agencies--the Department of Transportation. Secretary Mineta has pulled together a lot of recommendations that are being considered at the White House. In fact, we'll be meeting on that tomorrow and Tuesday.

The president would like us to get National Airport--Ronald Reagan Airport opened as quickly as we can. But we have to be sensitive to the security concerns, not only for the passengers who go through Ronald Reagan Airport, but also for the residents of Washington D.C.

But I think we can work through that. I'm optimistic that we can find the right balance between security and economic opportunity that is necessary through the opening of Ronald Reagan Airport. And we'll be striving hard to meet those challenges.

SNOW: An announcement maybe in the next week?

CARD: Well, I don't like to put a deadline on announcements. We want to do what is right rather than do it fast. And so we'll be working to address the challenge. I'm confident that we can address the challenge and that Ronald Reagan Airport will be open. The question is how quickly and under what circumstances.

SNOW: Final question. There have been some critics saying that Tom Ridge, who's going to be in charge of the homeland security office of the White House, isn't getting enough staff or authority. Is he going to have the authority it takes to get whatever information and cooperation he needs?

CARD: Absolutely. Absolutely.

First of all, Governor Ridge is a proven leader. He has the confidence of the president of the United States. The president has said he's going to make him a member of the Cabinet. He'll be an adviser in the White House staff, coordinating the activities of over 46 different offices around the federal government that have a role in homeland security.

And he will have the ability to certify budgets and make sure that the agencies that are--have a role in national security or homeland security will give the right priority to their budgets in the areas that count most. So he'll have a lot of clout. We do not--this leader will be a real leader for homeland security.

SNOW: OK, final question now. I'm going to ask you a final final question. If Congress appropriates money for Mr. Ridge's office, in addition to what you have out of White House funds, the president wouldn't oppose that, would he?

CARD: Oh, no. He'll support the funding. We think the funding can be there. In fact, we'll be asking Congress for assistance in funding that important job.

But, you know, the homeland security council will be made up of Cabinet members. The staff will primarily come from detailees, those people from the various agencies who have expertise to work for Governor Ridge. And he'll have a small staff of White House staffers.

But it'll be a large operation, over a 100 people. He'll have the ability to coordinate the activities of our government in homeland security.

And it's going to make a great difference. And it's desperately needed. But we're going to coordinate the activities in a smart way. We're not going to build a bureaucracy just for bureaucracy's sake.

SNOW: Andrew Card, White House chief of staff, thanks for joining us.

CARD: Thank you, Tony.

SNOW: When we return, it's a new kind of war--do we need a new kind of military?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (?): There's not going to be a D-Day, as such, and I'm sure there will not be a signing ceremony on the Missouri.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SNOW: Now here to discuss our troops' readiness to execute the war on terrorism is Senator Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Also here with questions, the Fox News Sunday panel: Paul Gigot of the Wall Street Journal, Ceci Connolly of The Washington Post, and Juan Williams. Brit Hume and Mara Liasson have the morning off.

Senator Levin, I want to start with the news of the morning. It appears that the Taliban has in its custody Osama bin Laden, but is not willing to turn him over unless the United States, A, negotiates and, B, provides proof of his culpability. What do you think?

LEVIN: Well, that just shows without any doubt that the Taliban are now a target of ours, because we've made it very clear that it's not just Osama bin Laden and his network which is a target, but any country which harbors him or any group which harbors him. And I don't call the Taliban a government, because I consider them more of a cult than a government. But nonetheless, they are now, it seems to me, fairly one of our targets.

SNOW: Well, the president says he's not into nation-building. It sounds as if you're at least comfortable with the idea of overturning the Taliban.

LEVIN: I don't think our military's into nation-building, but we surely as a world have got to find a way to restore a state to Afghanistan. And this is something which is going to require the participation of a lot of other countries.

It's not the military function to build a nation, but it is surely important to the world that we restore a state where there's a failed state in Afghanistan, and now a state which very openly harbors terrorism, espouses it, promotes it, condones it. And so now, it seems to me, that the U.N. and countries that they're willing to join, hopefully Muslim countries, it's critically important that Muslim countries be involved in any military action, as well as in the restoration of a nation to Afghanistan.

WILLIAMS: Senator Levin, every four years the military puts out a long-range planning report. That report is due, as I understand it, out sometime today. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has already said that he intends to include in that report a recommendation to have a five-star general in charge of homeland security. Would you agree with that? Do you think that's a good idea?

LEVIN: Yes, I think, going in, it sounds like a reasonable idea to do that. We've got to shift a lot of priorities, homeland security being one. We've got to refocus from some of the resource utilization that went into the Cold War into the new threats. We're doing that on the Armed Services Committee with an emerging threats subcommittee and effort, and I think that our military in general has got to be aligned that way.

The biological, the chemical threats which were mentioned earlier on this program are real. We ought to put resources there. And that is what our military has been telling us for years, and some of us have been saying for years, are the real threats to this country, the terrorist threats, particularly if they have weapons of mass destruction such as biological and chemical, rather than this continual focus and huge resource allocation to the least likely threats, which are the delivery of a missile, and therefore a missile defense.

That is the least likely of the threats against us, and yet that has been a huge focus, in terms of both debate but also of resources. We've got to put resources where the threats really are, which are the terrorist threats, delivering them by means such as trucks and suitcases and now airplanes.

CONNOLLY: Well, Senator, it's interesting you bring up missile defense. For quite a long time, you'd been opposing the Bush administration on a very large and expensive missile defense program. Then you recently said, if I understand correctly, that you, for the sake of unity in this country, were not going to wage a fight against that. And now I'm a little bit confused as to where you are today on missile defense.

And are you willing in your committee, for instance, to spend that kind of money, or would you rather take that sum and redirect it?

LEVIN: We tried to redirect some of the money, and we succeeded, into the anti-terrorist campaign in our budget. Then when we took a--one of the issues is whether or not we would have a final say before any money was spent on a missile defense system which would conflict with an arms control treaty that we had.

In our bill we said that we wanted Congress to have approval if and when the president decided that he wanted to spend money on a test program for missile defense which would conflict with that treaty. That language was very much opposed by the administration, so we set aside that language into a separate bill which we can raise later.

In terms of the money, I think it's very significant that the administration supporters wanted to put over a billion-and-a-half dollars more in for missile defense. What we were able to do is to say we also want to add anti-terrorism as the option, because, for heaven's sake, it seems to me that the war on terrorism has got to have a much higher priority than putting money into a defense against the least likely threat.

So, to answer your question directly, we deferred this debate. We have not given up our position by any means, but we deferred the debate on it to a point where we could hold it in an atmosphere where we think, number one, we can win the debate--we could not have won that debate in this atmosphere--and, number two, where we can avoid the projection of disunity so that timing of this debate is delayed.

But the debate itself over whether or not we should unilaterally withdraw from a treaty in order to deploy a system against the least likely threat, that debate will and should take place if and when the president decides that he wants a test which violates that treaty.

We need the help of the world, and that is what these events show. And it seems to me we've got to work at least with the countries of the world that are willing to work with us against terrorism, and not divide this world the way, it seems to me, too often we have done with some of our proposals for unilateral action.

GIGOT: Senator, as you know, the size of the U.S. military has shrunk substantially since the end of the Cold War. Does this new threat suggest to you that we need a substantially larger military once again? And I wonder how large you're talking about. Particularly, are you thinking that we really do need one that can deal with a two-war contingency, which many people have talked about we no longer needed?

LEVIN: I think the size of the military may prove to be about right, but it's got to be reshaped so that it can address the newer threats, which are the types of threats that we see coming from Afghanistan, rather than the two major regional contingencies at one time or nearly at one time.

What we've been talking about for some time, and what I think the president will propose, will be reshaping the military to address these new threats such as seen in the Balkans, such as we see now in Afghanistan.

But it is absolutely essential that our military join with others. This is not a war against Islam; this is a war of the world including Islam against terrorism. And we've got to be able to put together those coalitions in order that we succeed in our military targets that not create other problems in the process.

GIGOT: So, Senator, you're not talking, if I'm inferring properly, you're not talking about substantially new resources going to the military?

LEVIN: No, I think we are talking new resources, but not in terms of adding to the size of the military, but rather in terms of the type of equipment, the type of modernization which we need so that they can be a lighter, more lethal force so that we can move more swiftly, more quickly and be a lot lighter than we currently are. But in terms of size, I think we're going to prove to be about the right size.

SNOW: All right, Senator Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, thanks for joining us.

LEVIN: Good to be with you, Tony.

SNOW: When we return, what lies ahead for America's forces?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: It is very hard to fight a conventional war--guerilla war with conventional forces.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SNOW: Welcome back. I'm in our Fox News map room with Fox News military analyst General George Joulwan. As NATO supreme commander, he helped plan numerous deployments in Bosnia. He also participated in successful actions in Grenada and Panama. He's going to help us understand what military planners are thinking right now.

And, General, the United States is trying to, quote, ``set forces'', get forces to the region. Exactly what are we talking about?

JOULWAN: Well, the primary purpose there is to give the president, the national command authority, a variety of options that when they choose that option, the military will be able to execute. And if the mission primarily is here against the bin Laden in Afghanistan and the Taliban, the force is being set to do that.

And if you go in the wider area here, which includes not only Afghanistan, but the larger region that surrounds it, forces are being set in this area, again, to give those options to our national command authority.

Two carrier battle groups are, I would believe, going to be positioned here south of Pakistan to be able to provide support, if need be, into Afghanistan.

There is another carrier battle group here in the eastern Mediterranean that can come through the Suez and reinforce, and another carrier battle group in the Japan area that can also come, if needed, to reinforce.

The air capability--we have prepositioned air in the Saudi Arabian peninsula that can also assist and help.

In addition to that, the British are on a training mission with a very large force in the vicinity of Oman. They can be used in a multinational way if we go in that direction.

And, finally, the most important piece of this are our special operating forces. My experience tells me that they will be in the region, if they're not there already, particularly in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, really trying to come up with actionable intelligence to use this force if it comes to that.

SNOW: OK, so General, what you're talking about actionable intelligence--we've read press reports lately that there are reconnaissance missions going on. It is your sense that, out of Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, that we may be able to move forces in and out of Afghanistan to do some reconnaissance to figure out what the terror network does and does not have.

JOULWAN: I do not know, and I want to make clear, what the operational plans are. However, one option that I think must be considered is the success being enjoyed by the Northern Alliance in northeast Afghanistan.

SNOW: OK, let me break in. Let's just explain. The Northern Alliance is a group that has been doing battle with the Taliban for a number of years. And although Commander Masood, its leader, was assassinated two days before the bombings in the United States, they've enjoyed a fair number of battlefield successes. And it's widely expected that they could be of use to the United States, but that we're not necessarily trying to put them in as a new government.

JOULWAN: Well, that's the debate, the political decision that has to be made. What does that mean? What does that mean with Pakistan? What does that mean in the region, for support of the Northern Alliance?

SNOW: Now, let me ask you, you've talked about getting carrier battle groups, that we have some air forces available. What does that all mean? Because a lot of people simply think, OK, we're going to send small groups in and maybe do battle with Osama bin Laden. But there's a larger war going on. What contingencies do we have to prepare for?

JOULWAN: The president said it best. He told the military to be ready, and he said no options are off the table. I can assure you the military is trying to prepare the broadest set of options that they could execute if need be.

We used to call it a playbook. And you have a lot of plays in the play book that you can execute. But there the analogy stops. It's not an athletic field. It's a battlefield. And in this case, losing is not an option, failure is not an option.

SNOW: So you have to have multiple plans for any engagement.

JOULWAN: Right.

SNOW: You have to have an A, a B, a C?

JOULWAN: A, B, C, D, E, and you have to be able to execute.

Now, as those ships steam into there rendezvous point and launch point, I can assure you, there's a lot of rehearsals, a lot of intelligence work going on.

And what they really need now is clarity, as you get closer to commitment of the force, clarity on what those missions are, what the rules of engagement will be, and what the task organization will look like.

SNOW: Let's talk briefly about the geography of the region. We are looking here at a region of Afghanistan that doesn't look terribly impressive on this map, but you're talking about mountain ranges that average about 20,000 feet high,...

JOULWAN: Right.

SNOW: ... far higher than our own Rockies. So you not only have problems of mountains. You have to get people accustomed to the altitude.

JOULWAN: Right.

SNOW: And you also have to get them accustomed to weather. Winter is already setting in in some portions.

JOULWAN: And weather will become a factor. We had that same problem, by the way, in Bosnia when we had a winter campaign there in December of 1995.

So weather will be a factor. I can assure you, our military planners are taking that into consideration.

So you have different planning and different troop--task organizations going on. That's why, in my view, the Northern Alliance here is so important. They already have a toe hold. They're used to the terrain. And I think that needs to be considered very clearly, that they have a ground option already, and they could be good eyes on target, as we call it, to support any other air or land option that we would have.

SNOW: We have learned that Osama bin Laden is somebody who knows how to do strategic planning.

JOULWAN: Right.

SNOW: Now, one of the things we have to think about is, what is his next step, what are some of the more damaging steps he could take?

JOULWAN: Well, Tony, what I would really tell you is, this is not just a guy hiding in a cave. He is very clever. He has already thought of his next step when he executed the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. My feeling is that he has gone to ground, as we call it, is going to be very difficult to find.

SNOW: As a matter of fact, we've received press reports this morning that the Taliban says that they have him and that they've put him into hiding, quote, ``for his own safety.''

As a military matter, how do you react to something like that?

JOULWAN: Well, that's where the political clarity has to come in. If this Taliban is sheltering Osama bin Laden, and Osama bin Laden is the finger that we're pointing now at him, then, according to what our president and others have said, the Taliban then becomes a legitimate target for our military action, as well as political action.

SNOW: All right. General George Joulwan, thanks for joining us.

JOULWAN: Thank you.

SNOW: We're going to take a break.

Up next, some stories you won't find on any other Sunday show, and our panel.

Stay tuned.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: Get on the airlines. Get about the business of America.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SNOW: Now let's check out some stories we found this week below the fold.

College campuses remain immune to the patriotism bug. At a University of North Carolina, Wilmington, forum this week, history professor Lisa Pollard (ph) opined, quote, ``At least 4,500 children die in Iraq each week due to American influence. What does it we can do, after bringing Mr. bin Laden to trial, to be less of a terrorist?''

Philosophy and religion professor Herbert Berg (ph) added, ``Some of the extremist positions are rooted in some legitimate grievances. They only see the bad sides of America, like materialism and racism.''

By the way, the university, it's just miles from Fort Bragg, home of the nation's elite Airborne Corps.

Meanwhile, Harvard's Republican club organized a rally for patriotism and American unity. The event attracted 50 participants, one-tenth as many as a peace protest the week before.

Yale University sponsored a debate about root causes of terrorism. Six professors spoke. Not one cited as the root cause of 6,500 American deaths the fact that bad people flew airlines into occupied buildings.

The press also is wrestling with how to treat the story. ABC, which has attached a flag to its circular network logo, has forbidden news reporters from wearing flag pins.

And CNN is denying reports that it has banned the use of the word ``terrorist'' in its news broadcasts. It just won't apply it to people not proven guilty of crimes. The network permits reporters to call Osama bin Laden an ``alleged terrorist.'' But what about the murderers who commandeered jet, slashed throats and took deadly aim at the World Trade towers and Pentagon? They're ``alleged hijackers.''

Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz, who has a show on CNN, says he'll call the killers ``terrorists.'' He told the radio host Don Imus of the CNN rule, ``This kind of value-neutral reporting is hogwash.''

And now it's panel time, for Paul Gigot of the Wall Street Journal, Ceci Connolly of The Washington Post, and Juan Williams of National Public Radio. Again, Brit Hume and Mara Liasson have the morning off.

Let's talk, Paul, first about the military planning. We've got word now that Osama bin Laden reportedly is in the hands of the Taliban. The question is--you've heard our interviews today with Andy Card and Carl Levin--what's the U.S. policy?

GIGOT: Well, there's been some confusion this week about whether the administration really has its goal as ousting the Taliban. But I think this kind of settles the issue, makes it much easier.

And you saw the bipartisan support, with Senator Levin basically saying, ``Yes, by all means depose the Taliban, and mix it up with Afghanistan afterwards, once that regime falls, if it does.''

We have a role to play after that, so there seems to be bipartisan support for President Bush to go ahead with that war aim. And it certainly makes sense, because, if you don't get rid of the Taliban, you capture bin Laden, there are going to be other terrorists that they support over time.

SNOW: By the way, Ceci, the White House also this week is releasing about $75 million in aid either to Pakistan or Afghanistan for food aid. A lot of it's going to be routed through international organizations.

Senator Levin pointed out that part of our strategy has to be not merely getting rid of people we don't like, but finding some way to support citizens in Afghanistan after the fact.

CONNOLLY: Sure, I think that that is an important point. There's a particular reason why you hear it from Senator Levin, besides his role in Congress, and that is that his home state of Michigan has perhaps the largest Arab-American population in the country. I think he's keenly aware of how many of them have been feeling throughout this.

I also think that may shed a little bit of light, in terms of what seemed to be a shift from week one to week two within this administration. Initially, we were hearing about swift, decisive military response, and then things kind of slowed down a little bit, and we heard much more about diplomatic efforts, building this very interesting diverse coalition. So I think that also is part of what's being reflected here today.

WILLIAMS: Well, I think you have to deal with the fact that, you know, if you look at previous incursions into that area, what comes next has not always been good news.

And, if you think about the Northern Alliance, the Northern Alliance has been connected with drug-dealing, with activities that have basically amounted to terrorism in their homeland. You could say it's part of a civil war and effort to unseat the Taliban, but there is no evidence they are any better, in terms of governing, than the Taliban.

So it's hard to say that we want to do away with the Taliban, knowing that what comes next may simply be the latest incarnation of another organization that we would later have to go in and unseat.

SNOW: Is it your fear that the Northern Alliance would harbor Osama bin Laden?

WILLIAMS: I don't know that they would harbor Osama bin Laden, but, you know, it's possible that they would have their own grievance. And we don't know what their grievances would be. And it would be another point of festering terrorism for the world to consider.

GIGOT: Juan, it's hard to believe they could be any worse, particularly from our national interest point of view.

WILLIAMS: At the moment.

GIGOT: And then, I mean, sure, that there are problems down the road, but that can become a recipe for paralysis. I mean, you have to act. You have to find some way to depose these people who are doing instant, immediate harm to us. And you worry about first things first. Afterwards, sure, the Northern Alliance, they may not be saints. They aren't saints. They're very close to the Russians, for example. But this is the first order of business.

SNOW: I was also interested in something else Senator Levin had to say, which is, we've got to get Muslim states involved. We have news that Saudi Arabia is not going to allow the United States to use Prince Sultan Air Base as the staging point for attacks on Arab or Muslim countries.

That being the case, if we can't get the Saudis to go along and accept a military role, is there any prospect that we'd get another Muslim state to do it?

CONNOLLY: That's tricky. Although, you know, Tony, I think the reports on that air force base have been conflicting. And I would not be at all surprised--I remember just a couple days ago someone from the administration saying, ``Well, they may not want to stand up publicly and say you have permission, but they may quietly let us continue to use it.''

So, again, I think that's another one of these elements where you have to keep an eye on what's actually happening, in addition to hearing what people are saying here. It's going to start getting very complicated.

WILLIAMS: This has to do with, I think, you know, the larger target. We're talking about getting rid of the Taliban which, of course, is a legitimate goal, given what's happened.

But we also then have to talk about Saddam Hussein and whether or not you include him as part of the target. That's been the real conversation in Washington over the last week, whether or not you enlarge the sense of what your goal is, as you go after a terrorist network, to include Saddam Hussein, the argument being we should've taken care of him last time.

That was always the thing that got me in President Bush's speech to Congress that night when he essentially set out as his goal of ridding the world of all terrorists. That's a tough goal.

GIGOT: Well, it is. And if you don't get rid of Saddam Hussein, in my view and the view of many people, you're not going to rid the world of any threats.

He has the most incentive to go after us because of what we did in ousting him from Kuwait. I think you have to pursue him. You have to eventually do that.

And Andy Card was not very forthcoming on that point when Tony asked him. So I think, this is an issue that President Bush, like his father, is going to have to face.

WILLIAMS: This whole issue of exactly what the strategy is going in is one that I think has lots of people in the White House perplexed. You know, there's been admirable restrain shown, in my opinion. Emotionally (ph), I would have gone in sort of immediately. But I think they've rightly tried to organize not only coalitions but get the intelligence that will make the military moves effective.

But once you get beyond that point, then you have to start to think about--and this is the larger argument, I think, in this society. We heard some of it reflected in the ``Below the Fold'' segment Tony did, of root causes. And we saw demonstrators here in Washington yesterday talking about, ``Well, there's poverty in the region; there's hopelessness; what about aid?'' You know, but at some point, I think you have to understand that military action, in my opinion, is an appropriate part of the response to the United States being attacked.

SNOW: Let's move to the domestic front. The economy--Andy Card saying that they're going to work on the economy. Once again, it sounds as if the White House isn't going to lead on this one. It's going to try to cut some sort of deal with members of Congress.

Anything that we can expect, Ceci, in the coming week?

CONNOLLY: Well, hard to say. I mean, the other thing that struck me was Andy Card saying that even prior to September 11 our economy was anemic. You didn't hear that necessarily out of that administration before September 11. They're pointing that out now.

What I've heard from some of the members of Congress, Democrats, that is, they still want an increase in the minimum wage. They are not at all enthusiastic about reducing the corporate tax. There's some discussion about tax relief perhaps off of the income tax, a lowering there. And there's a lot of talk about how much good increased government spending may do.

I also wonder, they've already gone ahead and bailed out the airline industry. Are there other industries that are going to come asking for their bail-out now?

SNOW: Paul, what kind of test is this for the president?

GIGOT: Are there any other industries that are not going to...

SNOW: Yes.

(LAUGHTER)

WILLIAMS: Great question.

GIGOT: Sorry, Tony.

SNOW: What kind of test is this for the president?

GIGOT: I think it's a test. I mean, war--he's been doing very well, obviously, if you listen to the polls, I think, on the merits as commander in chief on the security front. He seems to be setting a direction. People are confident in his leadership.

You haven't seen that same self-assuredness and sense of direction when it comes to economic leadership of either himself or his main economic advisers. For example, Andy Card had nothing to say about the stimulus. What kind? What kind of tax cuts? Tax cuts at all? I think the danger is that that debate runs away from him and other people begin to set the agenda.

WILLIAMS: I think they are on high alert with regard to economic problems, possibly overshadowing--that's why they're talking about this kind of relief effort.

Last night I was at the Congressional Black Caucus dinner. Bill Clinton spoke. Of course, Al Gore was speaking in Iowa. They're all saying the right things, but they're also saying, you know what, it's not unpatriotic to have legitimate debate about other domestic social issues that need attention.

SNOW: Another person who's gotten high marks for leadership recently, New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani yesterday led off ``Saturday Night Live'' with the show's executive producer, Lorne Michaels. I'm going to show you a clip, and then we'll talk about Rudy Giuliani's political future. Let's take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RUDOLPH GIULIANI, MAYOR OF NEW YORK CITY: Having our city's institutions up and running sends a message that New York City is open for business. ``Saturday Night Live'' is one of our great New York City institutions, and that's why it's important for you to do your show tonight.

MICHAELS: Can we be funny?

(LAUGHTER)

GIULIANI: Why start now?

(LAUGHTER)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SNOW: So there you have it.

(LAUGHTER)

Now, Mayor Giuliani says he wants an extra three months in office just to sort of help people do this. It's setting off a very peculiar debate, Paul, about whether this guy to be mayor for life. Is it a good idea for him to extend his term?

GIGOT: I don't think it is. I mean, he can't seem to stand political prosperity. I mean, he's been riding this huge wave of support, warranted, I think, because of his performance.

But, look, the constitutional processes should follow here. He should bow out. There is a term limits law. Why challenge that? If he was really politically shrewd, I think he would bow out when his term expires, wait and let some liberal who succeeds him make a mess of the city in four years, and come back and run for re-election.

WILLIAMS: The real question is about--in my mind, the question is about the police force, the fire department, emergency people. If he goes, do they all go? That could be unsettling.

CONNOLLY: You know what, though, we see this with too many politicians. They don't know when it's time to go.

SNOW: Well, we've seen a lot of Bill Clinton in the last week, too.

CONNOLLY: Exactly.

SNOW: All right. Paul Gigot, Ceci Connolly, Juan Williams, thanks.

Now we're going to take a look at the mail bag.

A lot of you thought I was rude last week to National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice.

Gary DeBorg (ph) calls my treatment ``inexcusable. There will be plenty of time to ask the hardball questions after justice has been rendered.''

John Martone (ph) asks simply, ``What was the point of being so aggressive and interruptive?''

And Lyle Bruce (ph) adds, ``Tony Snow acted and sounded like Barbara Walters with inane questions that were answered multiple times. My formerly very high respect for Tony has fallen.''

Thanks for the letters, folks.

Before the interview, I told Dr. Rice I knew she would dodge some questions and filibuster others, in which case I would break in and ask other questions. And that's just what I did.

Now be sure to let us know your thoughts about Fox News Sunday. E-mail us at fnsfoxnews.com.

And when we return, my parting thoughts on a discovery.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SNOW: A growing band of commentators are declaring that the September 11 massacre has led Americans to rediscover God. That's probably true, and if so, it's a good thing. It means that after years of blurring the lines, we're looking for moral clarity and acknowledging that the ultimate authority in our lives resides not here in Washington but in heaven.

The 20th century was the ``God is dead'' century. In exchange it gave us totalitarian regimes, global wars and a national sense of cynicism that left us literally demoralized.

When we threw out our founding values, we lost faith in ourselves and trust in each other. But September 11 awakened us again. Suddenly it became acceptable to acknowledge that good and bad matter, right and wrong matter, standards matter, faith matters.

You know, we knew these things all along, and now that we can confess them aloud, we feel better for having rediscovered God. Maybe now we're ready to reassert what's best in ourselves.

That's it for today. Stay tuned to this Fox station and Fox News Channel for the latest on the war on terror. Have a great week, and remember to start your Sundays right here on Fox News Sunday.

© 2001 The Washington Post Company