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: Andrew Card and Tom DeLay on 'Fox News Sunday'


Sunday, October 28, 2001

Following is the transcript of 'Fox News Sunday,' hosted by Tony Snow.

Guests: House Majority Whip Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas); Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.); White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card; and Fox News correspondents Juan Williams, Mara Liasson and Brit Hume.


GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: When they struck America, they did not understand our nation--our resolve, our patience, our will to win.


SNOW: The war: Are we serious about winning, or are we letting our allies call the shots? And what about anthrax? We'll ask White House chief of staff Andrew Card.

Does the president have the tools required to defeat terrorism? Why hasn't the Senate voted on an economic stimulus package? Those questions for Democratic Senator John Kerry.

When will we get more secure airports? How should we grade the House's reaction to the anthrax scare? We'll quiz House Majority Whip Tom DeLay.

Plus, our panel: Brit Hume, Mara Liasson and Juan Williams.

This is the October 28 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 Steve Harrigan in Bagram, Afghanistan.


STEVE HARRIGAN, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Saturday was one of the heaviest days of bombing raids on Taliban positions north of Kabul. The planes started to fly at about 7:30 in the morning and continued their strikes until well after midnight.

Now, not all of those missiles hit their target. Over the past few days, we've heard reports about civilian casualties, reports we've been unable to verify.

But this one we saw with our own eyes. At about 4:30 p.m., still in broad daylight on Saturday, in a village about two miles behind the front line, one of those missiles struck a two-story mud house. It killed a woman aged 25, a mother of two.

We went there for her funeral today. There was a large emotional crowd; many making speeches. Most of those speeches directed against the Taliban, not a whole lot of anti-U.S. sentiment, but definitely some wondering, some puzzlement about how such a great military superpower could make such a tragic mistake.

On other news, in Pakistan earlier today, five gunmen entered a Roman Catholic church where worshipping was going on. They opened fire using automatic weapons, killing at least 18, wounding several more. There were 100 parishioners worshipping. They were of a Protestant faith. Many of those worshipers managed to escape outside a small door behind the altar. So far, no one has taken responsibility for those killings.

Also in Pakistan, Pakistani intelligence handed over on Friday to U.S. officials a student from Yemen, a microbiology student who may have had links to the attacks on the USS Cole. Also today, two more students from the University of Karachi taken into custody by Pakistani officials with possible links to Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda terrorist network.

Now over to my colleague at the White House, Jim Angle.


The federal government struggled this week with how to respond to an unprecedented threat of bioterrorism. The Centers for Disease Control are now recommending for the first time that workers at 100 medical labs around the country be vaccinated for anthrax.

But most of the attention is still focused on the postal system, which remains in turmoil. Maryland postal workers lined up for antibiotics this weekend, part of the 10,000 mailworkers now taking preventive treatment for anthrax. And Washington officials are now recommending the same for thousands of workers in office mailrooms.

Meanwhile, traces of bacteria were found in remote mail facilities for the Supreme Court, the Central Intelligence Agency, Walter Reed Army Hospital, and three more congressional offices. But all were small amounts that officials said posed little risk.


(UNKNOWN): So we feel quite confident in the medications that we have that we will see no cases of anthrax out of the congressmen's office.


ANGLE: But investigators aren't sure if the letter to Senator Daschle, clearly the most dangerous so far, contaminated other mail as it was being sorted.


LIEUTENANT DAN NICHOLS, CAPITOL POLICE SPOKESMAN: Well, if there's another piece of mail out there that we need to be concerned about...


ANGLE: The fear of an undiscovered letter was raised by a new case of inhalation anthrax in a worker for the State Department whose mail does not come through the same post office as the Daschle letter.

As far as the source of the anthrax, investigators have found no evidence that would link it to Osama bin Laden or even to Iraq. One former U.N. weapons inspector tells Fox the Iraqis were working on a different strain of anthrax from the one found in the Daschle letter.

And the White House disclosed this week that the anthrax could have come from many places.


ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: It could only be produced by a Ph.D. microbiologist. And it would have to have been done in a small, well-equipped microbiology lab.


ANGLE: That's one reason the FBI is now exploring the possibility of domestic terrorists, what one official calls a ``working theory with a lot of potential.'' But an intelligence official tells Fox no conclusions have been reached one way or the other.


SNOW: Now joining us with President Bush's view on the war on terror is White House chief of staff Andrew Card.

Also here, Brit Hume, Washington managing editor of Fox News.

Mr. Card, I want to read you a quote. The Mullah Mohammed Omar gave an interview to The Times of India, and he had a couple of things to say about the United States. He said, ``We will give the Americans a more bitter lesson than the one we gave the Russians. We have not yet begun the real war against the U.S. because of their technological superiority.''

Has the real war not yet begun?

CARD: Well, this is going to be a long process through which we rout terrorism out of the evil places in the world. And the Taliban government has been harboring these terrorists, and we're going to rout the Taliban out because they've been harboring the terrorists.

This is going to be a long process, so this is not one battle. This will be a series of efforts to make sure that Afghanistan is not a place where terrorists can be harbored.

SNOW: The president wants to route out the Taliban?

CARD: Well, they've been harboring the terrorists, and he said that if you harbor the terrorists, you're just as guilty as the terrorists.

SNOW: A lot of people are complaining at this point because we haven't taken more assertive measures, especially the Northern Alliance, the United Front, whichever you want to call it, saying that we haven't taken out the front lines of the Taliban that are facing off against the Northern Alliance.

CARD: Well, this war is being fought on several different fronts in Afghanistan, in addition to the different fronts around the world.

But in the northern part of Afghanistan, we're working up towards the Uzbekistan border; we're working down towards Kabul. And we'll be taking action in the south.

But this will be a concerted effort working with our alliance partners, some of them the Northern Alliance, sometimes our partners from other countries around the world.

But this is not going to be a quick and easy solution. This is going to be one where we require patience and persistence, and this president will be persistent.

HUME: Mr. Card, can you assure us that the military efforts in the air in particular are in no sense being hindered, delayed, held back at all by diplomatic considerations related to, say, keeping Pakistan happy, related to our coalition partners?

CARD: Right now our military operations are proceeding as we planned them. We are very sensitive to the movement of food for refugees, for example, and we're coordinating our military operations with those who are moving food into Afghanistan. But we're not holding back at all.

We're working in concert with the Northern Alliance and the folks on the ground. But this has been a very concerted effort by our military, and they've done an outstanding job.

HUME: A number of military experts have said that our military are indeed doing a good job, but that the level of these strikes and the power of these strikes is nothing like what it could be, particularly in the fronts around Mazar-i-Sharif, and especially around Kabul, north of Kabul, around Bagram.

Can you assure us here today that the president believes that we are hitting as hard as we could hit in those areas?

CARD: We're hitting appropriately for the mission.

Remember, we're working with ground forces that are not our forces. They're Northern Alliance forces, and we're working in concert with them to make sure that they achieve their objectives.

But our objective is to rout Al Qaeda out of its hiding places and eliminate terrorism in Afghanistan and around the world, and to make sure the Taliban government is no longer there to be able to harbor terrorists.

HUME: Well, understood, but what about the Northern Alliance's repeated insistence that the bombing in the areas where it's trying to advance hasn't been heavy enough to allow them to do that? Is the president satisfied that we're hitting as hard as we can?

CARD: I think we're hitting appropriately, and we are working in concert with these troops that are on the ground.

Remember, this is a mix between new technologies and the old cavalry. Some of the Northern Alliance fighters, for example, are literally riding on horses and carrying swords and sabers and occasionally a gun. So this is a mix of the old and the new, and we think we're meshing those war-fighting abilities pretty well together.

HUME: Are we any closer today, sir, than we were when we started defining (ph) Osama bin Laden?

CARD: We are closer today, but...

HUME: In what sense?

CARD: We're making progress. We've been advancing on Mazar-i-Sharif up in the northern part of Afghanistan, and we'll be looking at the area around Kabul. We've certainly taken out most of the significant targets in Afghanistan with our superior military force, and we'll be working with the ground forces to make sure that we can route the Taliban out so that we can get to Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.

HUME: But in what sense are we closer to finding bin Laden?

CARD: Well, we're working every single day. We're working with our intelligence networks, and we're working with our allies, but this is not going to be a quick and easy solution. We're going to have to be in this for a long time. That's why this requires patience.

SNOW: You mentioned several times routing out the Taliban. Who's going to do that?

CARD: Well, we'll be working with our allies, allies from the...

SNOW: With Pakistanis...

CARD: The Northern Alliance is clearly helping us. The British forces are helping us; and other countries around the world.

But our objective is to rid the world of terrorism and make sure that terrorists have no place to hide. The Taliban government has been providing a hiding place for the Al Qaeda network, and we're going to route the Taliban out.

SNOW: One of the things that we're going to need if we're going to rout them out is people who are going to trust us.

Now, over the--at the end of last week, Abdul Haq, who was a Pushtun leader, was busy trying to do our bidding, was over there. He was captured and executed after he had called for help from American forces and it did not arrive. Did we mess up?

CARD: I don't think we did. Clearly, Abdul Haq had entered Afghanistan to meet with some of his allies. He'd been working with the United States. But I don't think that he had all of the communications equipment that he had expected to be able to have with him, and this is an unfortunate consequence of war. But we are in a war.

SNOW: Why would anybody that we want to come to over to our side and help us out, having seen what happened to Abdul Haq, join us?

CARD: Because we're on the side of good. And we'll be working together...

SNOW: They want to be on the side of survive.

CARD: And we're going to make sure they have a chance to survive.

But this--the objective of this effort is to get Osama bin Laden and the Al Qaeda network and anyone who harbors them. And this will be a long, slow process. Again, no quick, easy solution. This is not the Gulf War.

SNOW: Are we going to fight through the winter?

CARD: We'll fight as long as it takes to get the terrorist networks out of Afghanistan.

SNOW: Any change in our military operations when Ramadan--at the onset of Ramadan in less than three weeks?

CARD: Well, we're very sensitive to the calls around the world. But we note that Ramadan has not prevented terrorists to take action in the past. We'll have to do what we have to do to make sure this war is won.

HUME: On the anthrax threat, does the president believe that all that could be done was done in the case of those postal workers, two of whom died?

CARD: Well, it's very unfortunate that we've had any deaths as a result of terrorist activities. September 11 created tremendous anxiety in this country. And our hearts and prayers are with the families of the victims.

We're also very concerned about the victims of the mail threat that has brought anthrax to the United States. But I think our government is working very well.

The good news about anthrax, if you catch it early, there are medicines that you can take so that you will not get deathly ill. Unfortunately, some people got anthrax before we knew that they had it, and it got on to them pretty bad, and they did die.

But this government is doing everything it can to make sure that we understand where anthrax is, who put it there and try to make sure people are protected.

HUME: President has said he doesn't have it. Was he tested or medicated?

CARD: I wouldn't comment about the security aspects taken at the White House. But...


HUME: That's not a security aspect, sir. It's a health question.

CARD: And the president is healthy.

HUME: Well, can you tell us--why can't you tell us whether he was tested or medicated? I mean, everybody else who was tested or medicated is saying so.

CARD: The president--I wouldn't go into all of the aspects of what the president has done and not done in terms of his security. But he is--he is a healthy man, and he does not have anthrax.

SNOW: Do you have a concern that there are still some anthrax-laced letters at large?

CARD: I don't think we know. And our postal service, the FBI are working very hard to understand all they can. And we're asking people to be very careful.

We note that there are some 680 million letters a day that move through the postal service. I think that we know generally where these anthrax threats have been. I have no reason to believe that our postal service is in jeopardy of delivering the mail.

But we are being very sensitive about those places where anthrax has been found. And there may be other letters that are stuck in the system with the--I mean, at the Capitol right over my shoulder or maybe down at the White House. But we are making hard to make sure that any contamination is confined and that we can deal with it.

SNOW: So there may be some such letters. Do we know whether at this point--because we keep getting different press accounts of whether it is foreign or domestic in its provenance?

CARD: The one thing I can say, it's not naturally occurring. This anthrax has been milled. It may have additives to it. It is not something that you would find in a normal veterinarian's office where they deal with anthrax more regularly.

And we don't know the source of this. All of our scientists are working to try to find out what it is. But we've only had two, very, very small samples that we have for analysis. And I just don't think we have all the answers yet.

HUME: Do you have a suspicion, though, about domestic or foreign source?

CARD: I do not. I think that it's best to...

HUME: The president have one?

CARD: No, he does not. He wants to have the scientists tell us what they think it is. And then we'll go through an analysis to find out what the source is.

But we're doing all we can on the investigative front, as well as on the scientific front to better understand the nature of this anthrax attack.

HUME: As a former transportation secretary, you're probably particularly well equipped to answer a question about air travel safety.

HUME: There's considerable concern now about checked baggage, that it is being fully inspected or not. Is it?

CARD: Well, I have great confidence in our aviation security. But we're also anxious to have Congress pass a responsible aviation security bill so that we can have higher standards in all of our aviation facilities, and that's something that's important.

But I have confidence in flying. I'll be flying commercial this week, in fact, myself.

HUME: So do you believe, then, that checked baggage is being properly and fully screened at airports around the country?

CARD: I think it's being appropriately screened, and...

HUME: What does that mean?

CARD: I think it's being appropriately screened. We're monitoring risks and managing risk and making sure that our airline systems work well, and people should have confidence that they can fly in this country.

SNOW: That translates to random checks, not checking every bag.

CARD: Well, I'm--it's appropriately screened.


SNOW: OK. Well, we gave it a good try, didn't we?


HUME: We did everything we could.

SNOW: OK, let's...

HUME: Andy, you win.


SNOW: Now, the president said in his radio address yesterday that--you know, he promoted the bill that's in the House of Representatives for doing airline screening.

Does he feel strongly enough about that that he will veto a bill if Congress comes up with a Senate version that would have all the people doing that as federal employees?

CARD: He's not looking to veto an airline security bill. He does have confidence that Congress can get a bill together that meets the responsibilities that he thinks are most important: Give the federal government the flexibility to do the best job that it can do for airline security.

SNOW: But if he does not get that--he's the commander in chief, he's responsible for the safety and security of the American people. If he thinks this is essential and he doesn't get it, what's he going to do?

CARD: Well, he's going to sign an airline security bill that meets the principles that he wants. He's not looking to delay. We've got to act. We want Congress to act. We want Congress to act responsibly.

We happen to feel that the bill that's in the House of Representatives is a more responsible bill than the bill that's in the Senate. After all, it builds on the expertise that we learned out of Europe and Israel, and they've been dealing with this problem a lot longer than we have.

HUME: A newspaper report this morning that the CIA is contemplating targeted efforts against individuals and believes that it can do so legally. Does the president approve of that approach?

CARD: I'm not going to comment about our CIA activities. I can tell you that we're leaving no stone unturned in seeking out the terrorists and preventing terrorism from striking this country.

SNOW: How's the president doing? It looks like he's lost weight.

CARD: He is in great shape. He's a very disciplined man. He gets up very early in the morning. He does his homework. And he works hard during the day. He exercises, and he sleeps well at night.

So I think what you might be seeing is a redistribution of weight, as he's exercised with a little more vigor these days, because he's anxious to rout out the terrorists.

SNOW: Has he got a punching bag with anybody's face on it?

CARD: No, he's a good runner, and he runs hard. And when he comes back from his run, he is charged and ready to go.

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

CARD: Thank you, Tony.

Thank you, Brit.

HUME: You bet.

SNOW: When we return, is America fighting to win in Afghanistan?


DONALD RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Does he move? Sure he moves. Have we located him? No. Are we continuing the effort? You bet. Do we expect to get him? Yes.



SNOW: The Senate has become a key political battle ground in the war on terror. With us from Boston to discuss the key issues is Senator John Kerry.

Also here our panel, Brit Hume and Mara Liasson and Juan Williams of National Public Radio.

Senator Kerry, I want to begin by reading a quote that appeared in Friday's Wall Street Journal, a piece by Senator John McCain urging the United States not to take what he called have measures. He said, ``Fighting this war in half measures will only give our enemies time and opportunity to strike us again.''

Do you think the administration's course at this point has been sufficiently vigorous or too vigorous?

KERRY: I think it's been a mixture, Tony.

I think that some of the targeting, in my judgment, might perhaps have been different. I mean, you know when you begin this that you have an enormous public relations component of this war--almost an equal component of the war is the humanitarian part and the public diplomacy piece, because you have to avoid igniting the Muslim world. You have to avoid the very thing we're now seeing, which are thousands of people on the Pakistan border prepared to go in and join the Taliban. That is a critical component of the war.

And I think the minute your targeting runs the risk of hitting a Red Cross building not once but twice, you begin to create your own counter images--I mean, the images that work against your efforts. And that is a critical component of the war.

But, and let me say the ``but,'' the targeting, I think, of the military piece of it could be even more intensive. To some degree, that's been conditioned, I think, by the political demands.

And I'm very much in John McCain's camp, or he and I are in the same camp, however you want to phrase it. If chaos were to ensue for a period of time, so be it. You have to defeat the Taliban as rapidly as possible and gain a foothold in the country.

HUME: Senator, let me see if I have this straight. You're saying that we're being too aggressive in our targeting of civilians or...

KERRY: No, no.

HUME: Well, let me just finish the question. And yet, not aggressive enough in our targeting of military targets; that we need to have such exquisite precision in our targeting that we don't hit any civilian targets and yet we have to somehow, at the same time, be more aggressive in what we're doing.

Senator, do you think that is possible?

KERRY: Absolutely. Of course it's possible, Brit, because you have several fronts here.

Look at the Northern Front. I mean, you had a period of time where I think--look, by its own admission yesterday, the intensity was ratcheted up...

HUME: Right. And there are further reports of civilian casualties, some in the Northern Alliance side. That Red Cross building you just complained about got hit again.

Senator, war is hell isn't it? Isn't it inevitable there's going to be civilian casualties, and the more aggressive we get, the more likely it is that they will occur?

KERRY: Brit, absolutely, and I know that from experience.

What I am saying is that in the earlier stages, some of the targeting--I mean, as we picked off targets--if you look at a target map, you'll see them scattered all around the country, not exclusively in the area of the Northern Alliance or not exclusively in Kandahar or Kabul.

And I think that it's in the variation of that that you've seen some of these pictures and images come out that allow this to be inflamed.

But my attitude is, of course there are going to be some civilian casualties. But that's why it's so important, I think, to have the targeting geared towards the pure military component at the earliest stage which allows the Northern Alliance to move and take over Mazar-i-Sharif and begin the process of gaining a larger foothold in the country.

I also think that you've got a humanitarian problem that is building. I mean, most people believe that. Now, in defense, I think fairly put to the administration, they are now trying to balance much more effectively the capacity to move the humanitarian assistance, and that's a very tough operation to do simultaneously.

LIASSON: Senator Kerry, this week the Czech Republic confirmed that Mohammed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said today he considers that significant.

Do you agree with those like the ex-director of the CIA, Jim Woolsey, who says the administration has to begin planning for an eventual attack on Iraq?

KERRY: I think that it would be a huge mistake to begin any kind of front on Iraq in the course of the Afghanistan operation. If you want to worsen the conditions that I was just referring to about managing the political and humanitarian side of this, that's the way to complicate it.

In the long run, however, yes, we have to be focused on Iraq and on Saddam Hussein. I was long a critic of the notion that at one moment we were very focused, we were bombing, we were pressing for the enforcement of the U.N. sanctions, and then suddenly it disappeared. And it sort of left the consciousness and left Saddam Hussein the capacity to continue to do what he's been doing.

But you're not going to be able to launch some kind of activity absent a smoking-gun linkage to September 11. You're not going to be able to launch it until you have sort of accomplished tier one of this effort.

LIASSON: Do you think--do you agree with some of the U.S. allies who say even all this talk about Iraq is making the coalition very nervous and could undermine some of the support that we get from the Arab world?

KERRY: It is making people apprehensive, because there isn't that smoking-gun linkage today. So some people in the world see it as America simply wanting to flex its muscle and go back to doing what it wasn't doing, in some people's perceptions, very well previously.

I think--look, obviously, number one, in the end, the United States has to protect the national security interests of the United States. But that is done over a long period of time in many different ways.

I think we have to work far more aggressively with the Permanent Five of the United Nations. You have to get a global effort involved in whatever resolves the chaos that comes out of Afghanistan. There's no way the United States can manage that alone. That simply can't be done.

And so, I think on the public diplomacy front, there is a much more aggressive effort that has to take place. And I still maintain that you can prosecute components of this war far more--with far more energy and vigor without running the risk, if you will, of inviting those kinds of confrontations that simply make it more complicated.

WILLIAMS: Senator Kerry, let's talk about airline security for a moment. I know you're a proponent of federalizing the security personnel. But obviously the Republicans, especially those in the House, and now in the White House, are opposed. So what kind of negotiated settlement do you foresee on this front?

KERRY: We'll have to see where we wind up when we get to the conference committee and actually start negotiating.

I regret the decision of the White House. I've been flying recently, and a lot of us are torn between, you know, wanting to encourage people to fly and say that the airlines are safer than they've been. But that has to be measured against our knowledge that they're not as safe as they can be.

And I think the most important thing you have to do in America today, the most important component of a stimulus package, is addressing America's national security needs. In my judgment, you have to have the screening of baggage and you have to have a more effective screening to guarantee people's sense of security.

Part of this is perception. And perception becomes reality in life, and particularly in politics. I think that there is an enormous perception out there among the American public that we can do better. And if you look at other security needs of the country, we don't contract out to the lowest bidder the security of the president. We don't do that for INS, the Immigration Service. We don't do it for Customs.

You know, there are a host of tasks that are law enforcement, national security tasks. This is one of them. And if you guarantee the hiring, the training, the accountability, the ongoing supervision, then you have a force that begins to send America confidence about the kind of security they'll find.

SNOW: Senator, the president wants a tax cut. Are you going to give it to him?

KERRY: Well, it depends what kind and for whom. The tax breaks that came out of the House of Representatives, Tony, simply don't make sense under any economists' views.

I mean, you know, there are conservative economists in the country who think what the House did is just silly. Paul O'Neill himself, Secretary O'Neill thought it was show-and-tell time for politics.

The fact is that it is not stimulus to the economy today to reward large corporate decisions made 10 years ago or more. And to give $1.4 billion to IBM, when what you really need to do is create spending in the general economy among the average citizen, simply is not a stimulus.

And I think--you know, to resist some of the things we need--I mean, look, one of the reasons they don't want to do airport security is cost. They're trying to go on the cheap.

And I think a lot of us are deeply insulted that Mr. Armey and others have said we don't want a union. I mean, our law says you can't strike, so there's no fear of a strike here. To suggest that the union per se is wrong is to insult the union firemen and union policemen who rushed into the World Trade Center to save lives. And I think it's an insult to see that enter this debate.

SNOW: OK. Senator Kerry, thanks for joining us this morning.

KERRY: Thank you.

SNOW: When we return, who do you want to check your airport baggage?


(UNKNOWN): The federal government has to set higher standards and maintain strict accountability over airport security operations.



SNOW: The Senate has voted unanimously to make federal employees of all airport baggage screeners. President Bush doesn't like that idea, and neither does our next guest, House Majority Whip Tom DeLay. He joins us from Houston.

Mr. DeLay, you've just heard Senator John Kerry say that what you and the president are proposing is security on the cheap, that unionized workers cannot strike. And furthermore, you know, the president is using government employees for his protection, why shouldn't airline travelers have the same benefit?

DELAY: Well, there's a lot of issues there.

First of all, I think it's very frightening that the senator wants to design our security in the air by perception. I'd rather do it by experience and history. Europe tried nationalizing their airport security back in the '70s and '80s, and it didn't take them very long to get rid of it.

By the way, it took over 10 years to fire all the government employees they had hired and institute a system that brings the flexibility of the private sector under the accountability of the government. And that's what the president wants; that's what the president has designed.

The Senate says, no, you're going to hire federal employees. The House is saying, no, Mr. President, we trust you to design the system that will bring us security in the air and now on the ground.

SNOW: What about a compromise? We'll let the attorney general handle the setting of standards and still place these people, the people who do the baggage screening, under Uncle Sam's large arm?

DELAY: Well, first and foremost, the president doesn't want the attorney general to do it.

And, you know, the Senate--I'd show you how flawed their legislation was. They brought an amendment to transfer all this to the Department of Justice, didn't debate it, and passed it by voice vote against the wishes of the president.

The president doesn't want it under the Department of Justice. This is a transportation issue. We have shown, and Europe and Israel has shown, that you can bring it under the transportation departments and develop a security system that works.

That the Senate is--it's amazing to me that the Senate passes a bill contrary to the president's wishes, and the House is being criticized by the national media for doing something different.

SNOW: Well, a lot of people think you don't have the votes to get this passed.

DELAY: Well, Tony, I don't know if we have the votes or not. We're trying to do what is right for the security of the flying public in America. And I think eventually their representatives will do the right thing.

SNOW: Now, why did the Democratic senators, all 49 of them, vote against the president--I mean, the Republican senators, I'm sorry. Why did the Republican senators vote against their own president on this bill?

DELAY: You've got me. Frankly, I think, if you went to a senator and asked him to describe the European system, they couldn't describe it to you. The Senate did this in such haste that the members didn't know what they were voting for, and no member of the Senate wanted to vote against airport security.

SNOW: Your fellow Texan, Joe Barton, now wants to make it legal for airline pilots to carry arms, handguns aboard aircraft. Do you like the idea?

DELAY: I like the idea, but I think it's more important to seal that cockpit and put well-armed sky marshals in the cabin. I think that works better than having armed pilots, but I think pilots ought to be able to defend themselves when and wherever they can.

SNOW: We had an interesting conversation about baggage-screening. Are you happy with the system we have, or do we need a new system?

DELAY: Well, I think it's really irresponsible for people like Senator Kerry and others to tell the American people that it's not safe to fly right now. It is safer to fly now than before September 11. I've been flying every week on commercial airlines. It is safe to fly.

All we want to do is to institutionalize it. We want to federalize it, not nationalize it, and we to do the best job we can to bring security to the flying public.

SNOW: What is your sense of the tax cut debate? You've got a tax cut bill that got out of the House of Representatives. Clearly the Senate's going to have a different view of things. What's the president going to do?

DELAY: Well, this is--we're back into that age-old debate, Tony, of class warfare. You heard Senator Kerry talk about class warfare.

He made some misstatements, by the way. He says no conservative economist thinks the House bill is a stimulus. Every conservative economist that I know of thinks it's a stimulus.

It is stimulus to let people keep their money and create jobs. It is stimulus to cut taxes. It is not stimulus to keep spending.

You know, if it were a stimulus to keep spending, Japan would have spent its way out of a recession 10 years ago. They've been trying to come out of recession for 10 years by government spending, and it doesn't work.

SNOW: Senator Kerry did point out that the Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neill, keeps talking about something that's short-term that involves spending. Do you think the treasury secretary doesn't understand what a stimulus is?

DELAY: Well, you know, I have disagreements with the treasury secretary. I support the president.

And the president, the day that we were debating the stimulus package on the floor, made a major speech in Maryland, calling for the kind of stimulus package that the House had developed. And he supported what the House did.

DELAY: He understands that if you leave money in the pockets of people that create jobs, jobs won't go away and more jobs will be created.

SNOW: South Carolina Republican Lindsay Graham is proposing something he calls the sales tax holiday act. It would go from the day after Thanksgiving to December 2. Gives states the options to suspend their sales taxes with some federal rebates. Good idea, bad idea?

DELAY: I don't have any problem with that. That's a good idea. There's a lot of good ideas out there.

But we have a bill that actually cuts the cost of capital and allows capital to move in an efficient way and seek its--the best place where it should be spent, and that's creating jobs.

SNOW: Now, the president has decided, at least so far, not to do any political campaigning. There are gubernatorial elections coming up in New Jersey and Virginia. Would you like to see him out on the stump for those candidates?

DELAY: Well, wherever the president goes right now, it'd be very helpful. I would like to see him out on the stump, but I also understand that he's got a war to run, that the demands on his time right now are overwhelming. And I want--you know, I want him to run this war, and I want him to win this war, and I hope--and I trust him to make the best decision.

SNOW: After the House of Representatives decided to shut down last week a day early, the New York Post ran a big headline that called you wimps. Was it right?

DELAY: I think it was unfortunate. All it did was fuel an overreaction, in my opinion, by the national media. We adjourned a day early, which we do all the time for other reasons, and we closed the office buildings that now has proven to have been infected by anthrax in certain spots of our office buildings.

We have a responsibility to our employees, to those high school pages, to the interns, untold interns that we have, to keep them as safe as possible. And I think the decision made by the leadership of the House was a prudent one, and I think it was really unfortunate that the national media overreacted.

SNOW: Your colleague, Dick Armey, has said that in the House of Representatives, there's going to be a vote on the two versions of the airline safety bill that we discussed earlier, your version and the Senate version. Is that how it's going to work?

DELAY: As far as I know, that's how it's going to work. One way or another, we're going to bring the president's package to the floor and let the Democrats try to amend it. But we're going to be supporting the president's package, and that's the package that allows the president to make the decision as to how to best use employees to provide security, not tell the president, like the Senate did, you've got to have federal workers or nothing.

SNOW: All right. Final question: Is the ideal of limited government dead?

DELAY: Well, no. I'm still there, and I'm trying to limit government. So, no, it's not dead as long as I'm in Congress.


SNOW: All right. Tom DeLay, thanks for joining us.

DELAY: Thank you, Tony.

SNOW: Up next, stories you won't find on any other Sunday show, and our panel on the war on terror at home and abroad.


BUSH: Anytime anybody puts anthrax in a letter, it's an act of terror.



SNOW: Now it's time to check out some unheralded political stories we found this week below the fold.

America Online President Raymond Oglethorpe sees a silver lining in the post-September 11 cloud. He says the recent anthrax attacks have been, quote, ``incredibly positive for the Internet.'' He does, of course, consider the deaths of two Washington-area postal workers unfortunate.

Rob Manning (ph), a reporter at WTVF-TV in Nashville, recently showed on camera how easy it would be for terrorists to sneak in and poison the city's water supply. Quote, ``A security guard pulled up in his truck but didn't question us,'' he told viewers. The guard had his reasons. The TV sleuth, he'd raided a natural (ph) sewage treatment plant by mistake.

Washington's Metro system is offering this reassurance to passengers on the capital city subways: ``Ninety-nine percent of the substances that may seem foreign or suspicious at first glance are in reality harmless.''

And David Dewhurst, the Republican nominee for lieutenant governor of Texas, is a former Air Force officer, CIA operative, and he also heads Texas' office of homeland defense. He tried to show off these qualities in an ad featuring a uniformed soldier standing before a giant American flag. One problem, the soldier was German. When asked about the gaffe, Dewhurst's campaign manager reported somewhat chillingly, ``The graphics consultant has been dealt with appropriately.''


Now, panel time for Brit Hume, Mara Liasson and Juan Williams.

He's been talking to Andy Card.

HUME: I thought you were going to say that that guy was Jimmy Stewart, the actor. Isn't that who it looked like?


LIASSON: In a German uniform.

HUME: In a German uniform.


SNOW: In any event, what's interesting, Brit, about the whole war, there is a shift in rhetoric, and you can sense around Washington, with John McCain's op-ed and other things, a bit of impatience.

HUME: We are in a place in this war where we have been in previous wars. I think we'll be there again before this one--because it's going to be long--is over. And that is, we are being told that a conflict, now four weeks old, is dragging on; that victory has not been secured and may not be. We have civilian casualties, inevitable in time of war, have given the Western media something to prattle about, and it is prattling at its loudest about this. So we have a sense that the war is not going well.

We also have a sort of a concern about whether the soldiers are being able to fight the war as aggressively as they would like. And you have the kinds of things expressed by Senator Kerry, where they should fight harder but be more careful.

LIASSON: Yes, I think that this was a week of frustration.

You have two things happening. I think, if people had a sense that this war was being fought as vigorously as possible, but yet we hadn't won yet, I think that would be one thing.

But the notion that perhaps we have been holding back, waiting for the political situation to solve itself, for a new government in Afghanistan to come together, which we have seen zero progress on, it seems, that is disturbing.

And then you've also got, I think, some of the frustration from the war at home feeds into this, the fact that there's been so much confusion, a lot of spin and backtracking about the anthrax threat.

SNOW: Now, Juan, Brit tried to get Andy Card to say we're using as much force as possible. He didn't do it.

Now, is it your sense that we're using appropriate force? What was your sense on the whole question of the use of force at this point?

WILLIAMS: Well, it seems to me that we have had a war effort that has been gauged in a sense by the State Department. The State Department is clearing saying we have to hold this coalition together, we don't want to be overly aggressive.

And also we want to be able to put in, once we have removed the Taliban, put in a government there that is, well, that's acceptable to Pakistan as well as to the Arab neighbors. And Pakistan has a real curious attitude about exactly who should be in any coalition government that replaces the Taliban, including some members of the Taliban.

The problem, I think, on the homefront, the warfront, has been the people who've speaking for the Pentagon this week, beginning with the defense secretary, Mr. Rumsfeld, who I think's been doing a fine job.

But when he comes out and says--he later tried to correct it or clear it up--but he said basically we're not sure we're going to be able to get Osama bin Laden. It took away a little bit of the direction and the purpose of the effort, as we have understood it, a war against terror and against the lead terrorists.

And then it was followed up by Rear Admiral Stufflebeem, I believe is how you pronounce it, who said he thinks that the Taliban has proven to be a far more tenacious opponent, and they're holding on to power.

Well, a few weeks ago the same Pentagon was telling us that we had eviscerated the Taliban, and that, sure, we were going to be able to back the Northern Alliance, and they would sweep through Mazar-i-Sharif. It didn't happen.

SNOW: Has the Pentagon been responsible at all, Brit, for creating a sense of overoptimism, at least in the early stages?

HUME: Well, maybe the Pentagon, maybe also the White House. The president has said, you know, he wanted Osama bin Laden dead or alive.

The success we had in the Gulf, which took a while to build up, but when it happened was shockingly fast, may have created in the public a sense that we could just go over there, and in about three or four weeks we could take care of the Taliban, blow up Al Qaeda, kill bin Laden, and it would all be over with, and then we could set our sights on the next place. Obviously, this is going to take longer and be harder than people imagined.

I don't think that the Pentagon ever thought this was going to be quick, but some of the early statements that came may have suggested to a public spoiled by such quick conflicts that it could be.

SNOW: Then there are also the stories, Mara, about Abdul Haq, the Pashtun leader who made it over. He was evidently on a satellite phone asking for help, and either was denied it or it didn't arrive. In any case, he was executed by the Taliban.

What is that going to do to our efforts to recruit people?

LIASSON: Well, first of all, it definitely was a setback, whether or not you think that Haq was the leader that was going to be able to get the Pashtuns to revolt or not. I mean, there's a lot of debate about that, whether he was the next leader of the post-Taliban Afghanistan.

But it is a problem. I mean, so far the Taliban has had a number of successes. I mean, they managed to assassinate, or at least it seems like Osama bin Laden managed to assassinate the military commander of the Northern Alliance, who was quite a charismatic figure.

SNOW: Commander Masood.

LIASSON: Right. And now Haq is dead. And it once again underscores how little progress we're making in forming a post-Taliban government.

HUME: Tony, I can practically guarantee that it won't be long before we'll be seeing stories saying that actually the bombing isn't working at all and it is making them stronger.

Now, we saw this in Kosovo where we had stories that basically said these people like to be bombed because it rallies the civilians to their side, and it's--and they appreciate it.

Stories won't go that far, but they're going to be coming soon, that the bombing is actually hardening the resolve of these people. These things cannot possibly be true, but we will see them in the near future.

My sense about the Taliban is that they are not 10 feet tall, that they've lost an awful lot of their military equipment and probably a lot more of their forces than we yet can tally, because it's hard to do that from the air, and that they are gravely weakened as a military force. That's what eviscerated meant. That doesn't mean they are ready to throw the towel in yet. And that's where we are.

SNOW: Juan, another change: Partisanship's back.

WILLIAMS: Big time.

SNOW: Now, the president had a meeting, and it's been reported that, in speaking with Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, he said, ``Look, I want you to help, you know, vote on some of my judges.'' And he said, ``Mr. President, you need the appropriations bills more than we do, and we'll do it in our own sweet time.''

WILLIAMS: Absolutely. And you've also seen partisanship on the House side. We had discussions here just on the show with Tom DeLay and Senator Kerry. You heard about the economic stimulus package, which barely made its way through the House. I think it was only...

SNOW: Two votes.

LIASSON: Party-line.

WILLIAMS: Party-line votes. Yes, I think it was three votes--three Democrats voted for it and seven Republicans voted against it. So basically it's a party-line vote.

And what you see here is suddenly bipartisanship is no longer the call word of the day, which was littering the landscape after September 11. Now people are back to strong political positions. Of course, the Republicans saying it's tax cuts that are needed to stimulate the economy. The Democrats saying spending; we want more spending and directed spending.

LIASSON: Well, you know, but we're not talking about some kind of partisan warfare over the war on terror. We're talking about a philosophical difference on how best to stimulate the economy. And I think that it's not surprising that you see some partisanship there. If there weren't any, then both parties would have given up their philosophical beliefs.

I mean, the Democrats believe that you should channel money to working people or unemployed people who might have been hurt by the weakening economy, and Republicans believe in tax cuts. That is a debate that I don't think will go away, nor should it.

WILLIAMS: Yes, but here's the problem. But it's not just the debate, though. The president has a well of goodwill from the American people because of their support of the war effort. And he went to a printing plant in Glen Burnie, Maryland, this week and said, ``You know what, the Democrats and Republicans are together. And if you agree with me, you've got to vote for this tax stimulus package.'' Well, I think the Democrats said no.

SNOW: Well, Juan, this will doubtless have to be compromised with the Senate, which is why the House rammed through a sort of an undiluted version of what it wanted as it did, knowing it was going to be have to be compromised. My guess is it will be, and that this package when it's finally bargained out between the House and Senate will then sail through both houses with probably very large bipartisan votes.

LIASSON: Then how is that different than before September 11? The House is the place where the president's agenda originates because they have Republican control, and it gets compromised in the Senate. I mean, to me, you know, the world didn't completely change after September 11. It just changed in some ways.

HUME: And remember that very controversial package of measures to give the attorney general more authority? Well, that sailed through the House. What was the final vote on that? 357 to 66.

LIASSON: And then it was altered a little bit in the Senate. And he got pretty much what he wanted, and we're moving forward. I don't see this as some horrendous...

HUME: The end of bipartisanship.


SNOW: So, the president got his way. We're back to normal. All right.

We'll take a break. When we return, my parting thoughts on staying focused.


SNOW: Well, it had to happen sooner or later. Our September 11 unity is beginning to fray, and we're reverting to some old habits, especially impatience.

Here we are, three weeks into hostilities in Afghanistan, with the swiftest deployment of force in U.S. history, and some people are complaining that it's taking too long.

Maybe the military is dragging its feet. Maybe the administration has lost its way. I don't know.

But I do think that we ought to bear in mind several things: First, Americans almost always underestimate the cost and duration of wars. This isn't going to be a two-month job.

Second, we need to stick by our guns literally and philosophically. The world wants to see whether we'll crack.

Third, we'll have to be loyal to our friends and ruthless with our enemies. In that region of the world, you don't make friends in order to win a war. If you win, everybody's your friend.

And fourth, our aim is not to kill a cartoon character foe. It's to wipe out an ideology that considers slaughter saintly, particularly if the victims are Americans. Remember?

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


© 2001 The Washington Post Company