Rep. Bob Barr and Frank Gaffney on "Alan Keyes Making Sense"

Now, back to the president‘s speech at West Point. Joining us to get to the heart of the matter, Congressman Bob Barr, a Republican from Georgia. He serves on three important committees: judiciary, financial services, government reform. Also with us, Frank Gaffney, founder and president of the Center for Security Policy. He‘s also a former assistant secretary of defense during the Reagan administration. Gentlemen, welcome to MAKING SENSE.

KEYES: Now, I have to tell you, I was very encouraged by the note of strategic vision that the president sounded in his speech at West Point. Though I have to say, Frank, quite frankly, looking at the past and the sort of history of a lot of our approach to this over the course of the last 20, 25 years, it does strike me that this is a significant departure from the mindset that we were gripped by in the government prior to 9/11. Isn‘t that true?

GAFFNEY: I think so. And I thought the previous conversation you had with Constantine was very illuminating on some of the reasons why we have been, in fact, disabled from thinking strategically and acting this way.

I am, however, concerned that even with the president‘s basically very good directions, unless some of these implementory, if you will, steps are taken, we are not going to see this strategy adopted and faithfully executed.

A case in point, Alan, is Iraq. We‘re — even as we speak, you have people actively subverting the president‘s apparent decision that we have to end the regime, the terror, the repression, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and so on that‘s going on under Saddam Hussein‘s sponsorship by people at State and, for that matter, by the way, at the CIA who don‘t want this policy to succeed and who are using a sort of campaign of subversion against the one group that I think has any chance of bringing about the sort of Northern Alliance equivalent in Iraq, namely the Iraqi National Congress from being able to get on the ground and start operating again inside Iraq with help as directed by Congress years ago.

KEYES: So, if what you‘re saying is correct, we now have a president who, through I think the bitter experience of events, has been brought to a strategic vision that requires a proactive approach, where we‘re moving to preempt the threats against us rather than waiting for them to ripen in ways that destroy American lives.

But you‘re expecting that he‘s going to get a lot of resistance and perhaps a lot of confusion from the bureaucracy that‘s supposed to serve him, though?

GAFFNEY: Well, this isn‘t speculation. It‘s happening. It‘s been happening for months, I think. And what‘s really troubling is the key, I believe, to a successful, probably relatively expeditious and relatively low-cost effort to liberate the people of Iraq is working with the people on the ground there.

And to the extent that the bureaucratic impediments and inertia and subversion is allowed to continue, in the immediate sense, blocking the INC from doing from what it needs to and wants to do, and in the larger sense, blocking the president‘s policy, you have got him foreclosed. You have these reports out of the military that they don‘t want any part of this. It‘s too expensive. It‘s too costly. Well, these are calculated results of a policy that, I think Constantine is right, is not being faithfully implemented by people who are committed to the president‘s objectives and willing to faithfully implement it.

KEYES: Bob Barr, a tough question for you, and I think one that must be on everybody‘s mind as we watch the events, the blame gone from CIA to FBI, the talk of who did this and who did what. What I‘m hearing from both Constantine and Frank is that, yes, this is a good vision, but if you don‘t have the right people in place, if you‘re not having people put in the key positions that are going to provide the kind of pressure and leadership that will turn the bureaucrats around, you‘re not going to get what this country needs.

I have to be frank with you, Congressman, I‘m not impressed at the moment with the will to implement this policy in terms of changes in personnel that correspond to the president‘s new vision. Are we going to see it?

BARR: I‘m a little bit worried also, Alan. I think what the president himself has laid out and what I think he believes in is absolutely enlightened and is on the right track. But whether or not it will actually be implemented, whether or not the president will expend the considerable political capital that he has that will be necessary to truly implement it, I don‘t know yet. I‘m not real optimistic at this point. I could be proved wrong.

Let me give you one example. Several weeks ago, we proposed in the Congress, through the judiciary committee, a complete restructuring of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. We believe, those of us like myself, Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner, that before we instituted any substantive changes to immigration laws, we needed first to change the entire framework within which immigration laws are implemented. We believe that if we made substantive changes and then sort of stuck those into a failed bureaucracy, that the effort would be doomed to failure.

Well, what happened was the administration, preferring to keep the mechanism intact and tinker with it, fought us. Then when it was apparent that we would succeed overwhelmingly, we had the votes in the Congress, they endorsed it. But now it seems that they‘re sort of fighting us over in the Senate to derail this. If that sort of mentality prevails in the national security area generally, then your pessimism is going to prove to be well founded.

KEYES: But we‘re not only going to see, I think, challenges in that sense of the bureaucratic administration. One element that is sort of included here, I think, especially when he talks about cells in 60 different countries and so forth, is the need to take direct action against terrorists who threaten the United States wherever they may be, up to and including, I would assume, actually making war on them, eliminating them, killing them, to be quite frank about it.

Do you think that there is going to be the necessary will to carry forward with that and the necessary understanding from the American people. I know that this is a subject you‘ve been involved with in terms of trying to make sure that we have the freedom of action to pursue this war in this way. Are we going to see it?

BARR: Well, it is going to take a very concerted effort. I don‘t know yet, Alan. I hope so.

As you know, I introduced legislation two years ago and a year ago to loosen the artificial constraints on assassinating foreign leaders such as terrorist leaders. Did not get support from the administration or from most members of Congress. We‘re getting it now, of course.

But whether or not the president will be able to force his team to do this, and it will require some new personnel at some of these key agencies, they cannot be people whetted to the status quo. And unfortunately, in many of these positions, that‘s what we now have. He is going to have to remove these people and put people in there that think like him, and that is outside the box. Right now, we don‘t see it.

KEYES: Now, it seems to me that the president in his speech recognized that there was going to be the need to break some china, to put it mildly. Listen to what he had to say.

BUSH: Other nations oppose terror but tolerate the hatred that leads to terror, and that must change.

KEYES: Now, Frank Gaffney, it seems to me that in saying that, if you really think it through, he is obviously pointing at some of the folks who are talking out of both sides of their mouth on the terror question, including, I would have to say, the folks in Saudi Arabia.

Are we given the kinds of things that Constantine Menges pointed out, with the State Department and so forth, are we going to see the kind of tough-minded mentality that can actually follow through on the president‘s words?

GAFFNEY: Alan, I hate to sound blood-chillingly calculating about this, but I think we will after some further disaster has confirmed the validity of this approach. I‘m afraid — it looks as though the effects of September 11, which were so powerful, have proven short-lived. And we‘re seeing this sort of return to business as usual among — Congressman Barr is an exception — but among many on the Hill, some among their constituencies, many in the media and, unfortunately, I think clearly at least those who really don‘t subscribe to the president‘s policies and directions within his own administration. And this is really hitting the road, as you say, with respect to some these countries that are putatively our friends.

You know, you‘re going to have Hosni Mubarak, the president of Egypt, here in the next couple of days, spending several of them with the president at Camp David. I would hope the president would say, Hosni, old boy, one thing that has got to stop now and remain stopped is your government-controlled media propounding this vitriolic, anti-American — to say nothing of anti-Israeli — inflammatory, incendiary propaganda all the time.

KEYES: And we‘ve seen the same thing, the — what is it — the chief imam, I guess you would call it, in Saudi Arabia, gave a very inflammatory speech the other day against the United States. And this is somebody who is not going to speak a word without clear sanction and approval from his government.

But this raises a tough point again, Congressman Barr, and I know it‘s tough because I get responses when I raise questions like this from folks in my audience who wonder why I‘m criticizing the president. I like what he had to say on Saturday. I think it makes sense. It corresponds to something I felt has been needed for a long time.

But if he doesn‘t have the guts and if he doesn‘t have the necessary temperament to insist that this be carried out and to get rid of those people who won‘t carry it out, aren‘t we just listening to a bunch of rhetoric here?

BARR: Well, we‘re going to make things worse if he‘s not serious about it. You don‘t lay down a gauntlet, as the president very properly did at West Point, a very, very well-thought out, well-structured, visionary speech, very powerfully delivered, and then not back it up. If you do that, if you lay that out and then you don‘t back it up, you‘re worse off than before because then our adversaries will not take us seriously when we speak.

GAFFNEY: Well, Alan, in addition, if I may, the other thing that happens is people who we‘re asking to put their lives on the line, putting their necks out, notably people in places like Iraq, to help us liberate them, are going to say — and they‘ve had reason to say this before — are going to say they‘re not serious this time either. You know, we better stick with Saddam. So will some of the others in the neighborhood, and our friends elsewhere around the world. You know, the United States is not to be backed up. This is a very dangerous policy if he is not serious about seeing it faithfully implemented.

KEYES: Well, one of the things that you just said that disturbs me greatly, and yet I think in a way, may be reflected in some of the other rhetoric that has come from the administration recently is this notion that we have got to suffer through another disaster before we galvanize the will to follow through on this clear, strategic vision.

It deeply irritates me, Frank, that several thousand people had to die before Constantine Menges‘ understanding of what we needed to do could finally be implemented. Surely, we don‘t have to wait for further such losses before we can see this carried through with conviction. I think that would be a travesty.

GAFFNEY: Yes, look, I do too, Alan, as I think you may be aware. Like you and like Constantine, I‘ve been among those, and Congressman Barr, who has been warning about some of these things for a long time and urging precisely these kinds of steps.

I hope it won‘t come to that. All I‘m saying is I think the president unfortunately will be vindicated and the policies will be implemented. The question is will the 3,000 or so people who died on September 11 be all that we have to sacrifice to get this course correction not only enunciated, but implemented, or will there be some further terrible toll required before the public is galvanized, the Congress is fully onboard, and even the president‘s own subordinates will faithfully execute his direction?

KEYES: One last thought. And I direct this first to Congressman Barr because I‘m watching these hearings that are taking place now and that have just started, and people talk about finger-pointing and blame, which seems to me to be to be a real fear of accountability going around Washington.

But isn‘t the truth that we suffered from a certain lack of strategic vision in our counterterrorism approach, and that if we don‘t admit this, we‘re not going to appreciate and follow through on the importance of the strategic vision the president has just articulated?

BARR: I think you‘re absolutely right, Alan. The problems are two-fold, and they‘re very, very fundamental. One is we have now for a generation moved away from a nation that understands strategic threats, that understands national security and places value on them. It is going to take a long time to rebuild that, and we have to do it based on really educating our citizens, our businesses, our schools, our children, everybody in our society. If we simply now become reactive, then while we may institute good programs or policies temporarily, we‘re not laying the groundwork for a strategic change in policy.

KEYES: Frank, one pointed question very quickly. Who has to go? Be frank about it. Which of the folks we‘re looking at in this administration actually constitute an obstacle to the realization of this vision? Will you frankly say?

GAFFNEY: Yes. Well, I think as you and Constantine talked about earlier, personnel is policy. I think George Tenet has got to go. He is still in, as Dick Shelby says, Senator Shelby, in denial that there really was an intelligence failure to begin with. And I think he and the approach that he brought to the problem, particularly the prejudicial view he had towards human intelligence contributed to the failure and is going to continue to cause us problems in the future if it‘s not rectified.

KEYES: If Constantine is right, though, don‘t we also have to see an overhaul at the National Security Council? We can‘t rely simply on the people who take this kind of straight-laced, professional view, but have to have some independent-minded folks brought in at the White House level?

GAFFNEY: Yes, look, I think the secret to the success of the Reagan presidency, certainly in those first three, four, five years, was the very formidable team that he assembled under Judge Bill Clark (ph) on the National Security Council staff that really were committed to the president‘s program and were very skillful in bringing it about.

This is a very important insight. It may sound like “Inside Baseball” to a lot of your listeners, Alan, but you‘ve really done a public service and Constantine has by pointing a spotlight at what has happened in the National Security Council. And it should be said, it ought to be fixed at state as well.

KEYES: Yes, I think you‘re right. Thank you both. I really appreciate your coming on...

KEYES: ... challenge. I think we need to follow up on the good words the president spoke and translate them into good, sound policy. A lot of lives depend on it. Thank you.

From later in the show regarding the EPA report:

The president says one thing and he puts people in place who are not committed to what he has said and who are implementing another policy. Isn‘t that what we‘re actually looking at?

I wanted and did not want to say this the whole day being afraid to stir the "correctness" crowd - but don't you think Dr. Keyes looked and sounded so presidential discussing strategies with serious analysts, identifying the enemies within and planning for the future?

While Keyes and others give a lot of credit to Bush for a speech at West Point it was followed by the bleak statements at other places. In view of this the following statement rings the truth:
But if he doesn‘t have the guts and if he doesn‘t have the necessary temperament to insist that this be carried out and to get rid of those people who won‘t carry it out, aren‘t we just listening to a bunch of rhetoric here?

Alas we know Bush did not have guts to fire Clinton people - he is just too nice to everybody. They are planning for the second term from the first days of the first - nice to everyone, no past guilts, no accusations, no investigations, being more left then liberals doubling up on every spending proposal... and otherwise being a puppy president - no one expects anything of him and everyone getting surprised when he does show some intellect - the ideal president. He will get a second term - maybe then, without a pressure to get another term, he will become a republican again.

I found this comment by Congressman Barr interesting:

Alas we know Bush did not have guts to fire Clinton people -

It's not just the Clinton holdovers that are the problem. I believe people like Colin Powell will resist implementing the policy Bush has stated. And look at Christy Whittman at the EPA.

I thought Keyes made a good point relating the EPA report to the national security situation:

KEYES: Hold on just a second. Aren‘t we looking — and here talking about what both of you are looking at — at the very same problem that we may have been just been talking about on the national security front? The president says one thing and he puts people in place who are not committed to what he has said and who are implementing another policy. Isn‘t that what we‘re actually looking at?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.