Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
231562409
label
[04/21/1999] [1]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
231562409
contentType
document
title
[04/21/1999] [1]
citationUrl
collections
Presidential Electronic Mail from the Automated Records Management System (ARMS)
Automated Records Management System (ARMS) Email from the White House Office (WHO) Bucket
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
231562409
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-26444785-20190154F-003-004-2020
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
15660ef519daef1e
ocrText
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Rajiv Y. Mody ( CN=Rajiv Y. Mody/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
CREATION DATE/TIME:21-APR-1999 16:25:00.00
SUBJECT: ABC Nightline, March 25, 1999
TO: Stephen A. Marquis ( CN=Stephen A. Marquis/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP[WHO
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Forwarded by Rajiv Y. Mody/WHO/EOP on 04/21/99
04:23 PM
Mark A. Kitchens
03/26/99 12:10:41 PM
Record Type: Record
To:
See the distribution list at the bottom of this message
cc:
Subject:
ABC Nightline, March 25, 1999
ABC NIGHTLINE
Aired on MARCH 25, 1998
ANNOUNCER: March 25, 1999.
TED KOPPEL, ABC News : (voice-over) When you listen to the top general,
it's cut and dry, plain as day.
Gen. WESLEY CLARK, NATO Supreme Commander: We're going to
systematically and progressively attack, disrupt, degrade, devastate and
we're going to destroy these forces and their facilities and support.
TED KOPPEL : (voice-over) But when you start listening to the political
leadership.
Pres. BILL CLINTON: Well, he has to choose peace or we have to try to
limit his ability to make war.
TED KOPPEL : (voice-over) You come to realize that victory may end up
being whatever the President says it is.
Pres. BILL CLINTON: The exit strategy is what it always is in a
military operation, it's when the mission is completed.
TED KOPPEL : (voice-over) Tonight, the crisis in Kosovo, day two.
ANNOUNCER: From ABC News, this is Nightline. Reporting from Washington,
Ted Koppel.
TED KOPPEL: On the military front, not much seems to have changed. NATO
bombers pounded Serb installations for the second night in a row and
Serbian soldiers in Kosovo continued, indeed, may even have cranked up
their war against Albanian Kosovars. European and American reporters,
photographers and camera people have been kicked out of Yugoslavia and
Kosovo, SO tonight even more than last night we are reporting on a war we
can barely see. But if you listen carefully, you can begin to hear the
faint sounds of strain in the NATO alliance. Nothing major yet, just some
grumbling from the Italians, some nervousness from the Greeks and a testy
don't fly through our air space from the Austrians. Ever so slightly, the
Clinton administration has begun adjusting, calibrating the terms under
which the bombing would be halted. Where only a few days ago the United
States was insisting that Yugoslav President Milosevic would have to sign
and abide by the terms of the so-called Rambouillet agreement, today,
Secretary of State Albright said he would only have to embrace the
framework. In other words, there's now some room for negotiation.
Where General Wesley Clark is still talking about the destruction of
Serbian forces and facilities, his political bosses back here in
Washington are setting a more modest goal, degrading and diminishing the
military capability of the Serbs. Again, a subtle difference, but
destruction is a clear and measurable goal, degrading and diminishing the
Serbs' military force, well, you could argue that that's already been
accomplished. It's a judgment call.
Kevin Newman gives us a sense of what this day has been like.
KEVIN NEWMAN, ABC News (voice-over) By first light, the only images
of damage were available from Serbian television. Some of the 50 Tomahawk
cruise missiles and NATO's laser guided bombs had hit homes and large
factory sized buildings. That much is obvious. What was in the structures
is not. Serbian TV said this was a plastics factory. NATO says weapons
were made here.
ANTHONY CORDESMAN, ABC News Military Analyst: We took no losses. There
was no real problem with any of the ground based air defense. The only air
to air encounters resulted in NATO victories.
KEVIN NEWMAN : (voice-over) But there were indications not every aspect
of the first night of attacks went as planned. Pictures of craters where
missiles had missed their mark were played again and again on Serbian
television. The pilots of these British jets returned to base without
deploying their weapons.
UNIDENTIFIED BRITISH PILOT: We had some difficulties in the area with
the amount of smoke in the area, the weather.
KEVIN NEWMAN : (voice-over) Still, NATO's supreme commander declared
himself satisfied and pledged to hit Milosevic and his forces harder next
time.
Gen. WESLEY CLARK: We're going to very systematically and progressively
keep the pressure on. We're going to grind away at him until we accomplish
the military objectives or until our political leaders tell us to halt.
KEVIN NEWMAN : (voice-over) In spite of the tough talk, Slobodan
Milosevic appeared on television with his cabinet looking relaxed. He
broke off diplomatic relations with the leading NATO nations involved in
the attack but most importantly showed no sign of easing his army's
oppression of ethnic Albanians in the southern Yugoslavian province of
Kosovo. Western wire service photographers were able to transmit these
images of the continuing flight of refugees away from fighting and murder
NATO says has intensified since the attack. Now, the images of war came
without sound or movement. As the day progressed, there were even fewer.
Serbian authorities ordered all western journalists out of Yugoslavia. ABC
Correspondent Sheila Mac Vicar and her camera crew drove north toward the
Hungarian border village of Zwieged. (ph)
SHEILA MacVICAR, ABC News: It's really hard to say exactly why they're
doing that. I think there can be a couple of reasons. One is that
historically the Serbs have felt that they've had a really bad deal from
the foreign press over the course, particularly the coverage of the
Bosnian war and the genocide and crimes against humanity which took place
there. So they feel that the foreign media is biased against them. That's
their point of view. On the other hand, this is a country which has never
really made the transition into even struggling democracy the way every
other country in Eastern Europe has. It is still very much under Slobodan
Milosevic rooted in its communist past and as such its instincts when
something like this happens, when the state is threatened, are to close in
to see outsiders as spies and as traitors.
KEVIN NEWMAN : (voice-over) That antagonism against western journalists
erupted into the open in the country immediately to the south of
Yugoslavia, Macedonia. In the capital, student protesters sympathetic to
the Serbs raced toward western media positions, pelting cars and forcing
some reporters to flee. A larger group of protesters marched toward the
nearby American embassy, setting cars there on fire but failing to breach
the compound. There was a growing sense of unease among other countries
bordering Yugoslavia. Albania and Romania sought assurances NATO would
protect them, as did democratic elements in Montenegro, the Yugoslav
province next to Kosovo. The secretary of state issued a warning.
MADELEINE ALBRIGHT, Secretary of State: I also want to stress that
President Milosevic should not attempt to use this crisis to broaden the
conflict or spread violence and instability elsewhere in the region.
KEVIN NEWMAN : (voice-over) Through the day, the diplomatic face of the
alliance was, for the most part, firm. European leaders meeting in Berlin
denounced Milosevic and the NATO Secretary-General declared no one was
wavering.
JAVIER SOLANA, NATO Secretary-General: I can guarantee you that the
solidarity, that the unanimity, the coherence of the alliance is total and
absolute.
KEVIN NEWMAN: But that face isn't without nervous twitches. Sources say
NATO ambassadors were unnerved by these pictures broadcast on Serbian
television purporting to show battle damage to
a Serbian hospital. So behind closed doors, NATO's generals played the
video for the ambassadors, paused aspects of it and built a case that it
had been faked using old footage. It wasn't the only indication that some
NATO countries are anxious. Italy's prime minister suggested it was time
to start diplomatic initiatives again, a plea echoed by Greece. To try to
soothe Italian fears, General Wesley Clark had telephoned ahead of
Yugoslavia's army, warning him any attempt to deploy in the Adriatic Sea
between Yugoslavia and Italy would bring instant retaliation from NATO. So
far, the Serbian fleet has remained in port.
RALPH PETERS: Now, I would certainly be worried about Italian
discontent for many reasons.
KEVIN NEWMAN : (voice-over) Ralph Peters is a former army intelligence
officer.
RALPH PETERS: One, because we don't want the alliance to fray. Secondly
and importantly because the key air bases from which we are flying are in
Italy.
KEVIN NEWMAN : (voice-over) That is where most of the aircraft for the
second assault came from. The raids were launched at the same hour tonight
as last night, planes taking off 15 seconds or less apart. There were also
cruise missile launches from sea, as there were last night. ABC Reporter
Bob Schmidt is aboard the USS Gonzalez.
BOB SCHMIDT, ABC News: You've just seen about 18 launches. All but two
were successful. One failure gave sailors and media people on the deck and
the bridge some anxious moments. An errant Tomahawk missile roared out of
its tube then suddenly went out of control and plunged into the sea just
after the ship.
KEVIN NEWMAN : (voice-over) NATO commanders called the second attack on
Yugoslavia a more serious, tougher assault. But there was even less
independent confirmation of the damage than on the first night. And what
it will take to stop the attacks also became less clear as they
progressed. The President, meeting with his national security team, said
Milosevic must either surrender
Pres. BILL CLINTON: Or we have to try to limit his ability to make war.
That's what we're trying to do.
KEVIN NEWMAN : (voice-over) Until then, there will be fewer ways of
knowing exactly what is happening in Yugoslavia. Tonight, as NATO bombs
and missiles were hitting targets throughout the country, Serbian TV had
stopped showing pictures of damage and instead broadcast patriotic
military marches.
I'm Kevin Newman for Nightline.
TED KOPPEL: So what does constitute a NATO victory in Kosovo? Earlier
this evening I spoke with Defense Secretary William Cohen. That interview,
when we come back.
TED KOPPEL: And we're at the Pentagon with the secretary of defense,
William Cohen.
Mr. Secretary, the President has analogized this situation to the
conditions that existed before W.W.I, some of the conditions that existed
in the Second World War. I mean those are big, big analogies. If, indeed,
the stakes are that great, and let me begin by asking you, are they that
great in your view?
WILLIAM COHEN, Secretary of Defense: Well, the stakes are high in terms
of what the potential is for this conflict sending thousands, tens of
thousands of refugees into neighboring countries and overwhelming them,
causing greater instability in those countries and possibly involving
other NATO members. And so the stakes are high. But I believe the
President's correct in analyzing this to say there's a way to intervene at
this point and do so with the use of air power to bring, hopefully, about
a peace settlement on the part of Milosevic but if not to take down
effectively his military capability to be able to wage that kind of war
against the Kosovar Albanians.
TED KOPPEL: I guess my question is if the stakes are as high as you say
they are, then one would assume that the United States and its NATO allies
would do whatever was called for. I understand it's clearly easier if you
can do it just with air power, but why rule out the introduction of ground
troops should they become necessary?
WILLIAM COHEN: Well, because the NATO countries act by consensus and
the consensus is at this point is that it's sufficient to carry out an air
operation to do several things. Number one, to send a message to Milosevic
that we're serious and determined. Number two, to try and deter him from
carrying out the kind of slaughter he has carried out in the past and
present and to, if that fails, to seriously degrade or diminish his
military capability. The NATO countries have come to a consensus that that
is sufficient at this time. Whether there's any recalculation another
time, that remains to be seen. But at this time and all we have planned
for is an air campaign, period.
TED KOPPEL: You said at this time three times now and you're careful
enough with your language. Do you mean to imply that it is possible that
you might be forced to recalculate at some other time and that you're not
ruling out the possibility of ground troops?
WILLIAM COHEN: What I'm saying is that we are planning an air operation
period. One cannot foretell the future nor should one seek to do so. But I
believe that we are satisfied that we can carry out this mission
effectively with an air campaign.
TED KOPPEL: Some military analysts have looked at the hard line
generals around President Milosevic and said they believe, the hard line
generals, that they can effectively wipe out the Albanian army in a week.
They've already been at it for two days. You and others in the
administration have indicated that if anything they've intensified their
campaign. Is this all going to be academic in five days?
WILLIAM COHEN: What the Albanian Kosovars have demonstrated in the past
is the ability to move out into the field or up into the hills and play a
waiting game and then hit and run type of guerrilla tactic. We believe
that the Serb army would not be able to wipe them out, certainly not in
five days and we think it would be really quite difficult to do it over a
long period of time. We intend from our perspective, NATO intends to
prevent that from taking place if at all possible. So we're going to try
to deter that activity from taking place and to then systematically go
after those military targets that allow him to carry out this type of
operation.
TED KOPPEL: Talk again about those military objectives. Are they,
actually some of the goals, both military and diplomatic, seem, if I've
been listening carefully enough to what you and your colleagues have been
saying over the past couple of days, actually seem to be dropping a little
bit in intensity.
WILLIAM COHEN: Well, the goals remain the same. The President indicated
this, the secretary of state has indicated this, that Mr. Milosevic holds
the keys to peace in his pocket. He can produce those keys at any time,
when he pulls his forces back and he stops the assault upon the Kosovars
who have signed up to the peace agreement and that he embraces the
framework of Rambouillet. That is the diplomatic message that has gone out
to Mr. Milosevic. The military mission --
TED KOPPEL: And it's precisely that, it's precisely that language, if I
may interrupt you just for a second, that causes me to believe you've
actually slipped back a little bit. A few days ago you were calling on him
to sign the agreement. Now you're calling on him to accept the framework.
You know as I do that that little change in language means something.
WILLIAM COHEN: Well, I think it's also been very clear that any changes
whatsoever would have to be something that would be acceptable to the
Kosovars. We're saying that you had a chance to sign up to Rambouillet.
There may be some slight modifications that could take place but only if
they were acceptable to the Kosovars as well. So basically he has to sign
up to Rambouillet. What changes might be modified at that point is up to
the negotiators.
TED KOPPEL: We're going to have to take a short break. When we come
back, let's talk about the military conditions. Back again in
a moment with Secretary of Defense William Cohen.
(Commercial Break)
TED KOPPEL: And we're back once again at the Pentagon with the
secretary of defense, William Cohen.
Mr. Secretary, we were talking about the conditions that NATO and
the United States are setting for the end of bombing. We talked about the
diplomatic conditions. Spell out for me again what the military conditions
are.
WILLIAM COHEN: We are seeking to, number one, show our resolve,
a determination on the part of 19 countries, this is not the United States
acting alone, it's 19 countries who feel very committed that Mr. Milosevic
must cease and desist from the activity of the slaughtering innocent
people and pull back his forces and sign up to this agreement. And so we
seek to send a message. And then number two, we seek to deter him from
continuing the type of activity that he has at present and in the past and
if he fails to do that to then systematically start targeting his military
infrastructure and start diminishing his capacity to wage this kind of
warfare against the Kosovars.
TED KOPPEL: Let me focus on that language for a moment, the
degradation, the diminishing of capacity. That's clearly something that
you can determine at a moment's notice. In other words, it's your
definition
WILLIAM COHEN: That's correct.
TED KOPPEL: of when his capacity has been diminished.
WILLIAM COHEN: That's right.
TED KOPPEL: So this thing could end tomorrow, it could end next week.
There is no clear objective standard by which the rest of us can say
here's what the administration is setting out to do and we'll know when
they've done it.
WILLIAM COHEN: We would make that determination in consultation with
all of the 18 other countries who are participating in this operation and
endorsing it and we would make that determination and then we could
reserve any right to respond at a future time. So we will make the
determination when we believe we have seriously diminished his capacity to
wage this kind of effort against the Kosovars and much will be, the proof
will be in the situation on the ground. To the extent that he is unable to
wage effectively an onslaught against the Kosovars, we'll know that.
TED KOPPEL: Mr. Secretary, you keep speaking of the unanimity that
exists among the 19 members of NATO. The Italians aren't happy. The
Austrians haven't given you the right to over fly. The Greeks have already
begun expressing some concern. Indeed, what we're hearing is that while
the military leadership of NATO is prepared to keep on hammering away as
long as it needs to, there are already some fractures in the political
coalition, that it's not as solid as you suggest.
WILLIAM COHEN: Well, it's always been a very tough issue in dealing
with NATO. No democracy wishes to go into this kind of a conflict as such
to use military power to achieve a diplomatic objective. But based on the
conversation that I've had with my counterparts, the secretary of state
has had with her counterparts, we also understand that NATO can only
operate by consensus. The President has talked to all the major leaders in
the NATO countries and they are committed to seeing to it that Milosevic
stop his activities. Yes, there are differences of opinion in terms of
this action, but they are committed in terms of going forward with it.
Some would like to see it settled perhaps sooner rather than later, but
all see the need, once this action is started, to continue on.
TED KOPPEL: Given those two answers that you've just given me, the one
that, in which you agreed that you can essentially define when Milosevic's
military has been appropriately degraded and that there is, indeed, some
political tension that does exist within NATO with some members preferring
to bring this thing to a conclusion sooner rather than later, it doesn't
really sound as though there is the kind of commitment to do whatever is
needed to prevent Milosevic from ever being able to do this kind of thing
again.
WILLIAM COHEN: Let me indicate very clearly I have talked with all of
the major NATO allies, in fact, all of my counterparts. There is no
disagreement on the need to carry this mission out to its completion. And
so from a military perspective, we have absolutely solid support. I
believe that the President has talked to all of his counterparts, heads of
state, and they also are committed to seeing this through. We made that
very clear from the beginning. We don't take step one without being
prepared to carry it all the way through. So while some, obviously many,
all of us would like to see this come to an end sooner rather than later,
that's up to Mr. Milosevic. He's the one who holds the keys here. And if
he decides he's going to continue his onslaught then he's going to
continue to face the kind of systematic degradation of his forces. We are
satisfied that we have all of the support necessary to carry that out.
TED KOPPEL: Mr. Secretary, let me end where we began. If conditions are
such that they are bad enough that they require us to go to war, is it not
essential that the United States go into a war being prepared to do
whatever is necessary to win it? In other words, do you begin by ruling
out all kinds of options?
WILLIAM COHEN: First of all, we're taking action to prevent Mr.
Milosevic's troops from slaughtering innocent civilians. That is our
mission. We're going to deter that and we're going to diminish his
capacity to do it.
TED KOPPEL: Although he's still doing it.
WILLIAM COHEN: He is doing it at this time and that will tell us that
he's made a choice that he wants to witness the continuation of NATO
forces taking out and taking down his military capability.
TED KOPPEL: But in answer to my question?
WILLIAM COHEN: In answer to your question, we will, we believe we have
a satisfactory method of accomplishing an objective and we intend to carry
out our mission. And so we're satisfied that we have a consensus to do
that and that's what we're going to do.
TED KOPPEL: Would you be surprised if the military part of this was
over in a week?
WILLIAM COHEN: I wouldn't put any time frame on it at all. We will do
whatever we have to do to make sure that we satisfy ourselves that we have
accomplished our mission.
TED KOPPEL: And that's going to be decided by NATO consensus not by the
United States?
WILLIAM COHEN: It's going to be decided by a consensus, the consensus
going in and we believe the consensus will hold till the end.
TED KOPPEL: Secretary Cohen, thank you very much.
WILLIAM COHEN: Thank you.
TED KOPPEL: I'll be back in a moment.
(Commercial Break)
TED KOPPEL: Tomorrow on Good Morning America, Diane Sawyer talks with
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright about the latest developments in
Kosovo.
That's our report for tonight. I'm Ted Koppel in Washington. For all
of us here at ABC News, good night.
END
Message Sent
To:
Jennifer M. Palmieri/WHO/EOP@EOP
Anthony R. Bernal/OVP@OVP
Melissa G. Green/OPD/EOP@EOP
Leslie Bernstein/WHO/EOP@EOP
Robin M. Roland/WHO/EOP@EOP
Chandler G. Spaulding/WHO/EOP@EOP
Dominique L. Cano/WHO/EOP@EOP
Dag Vega/WHO/EOP@EOP
Brenda M. Anders/WHO/EOP@EOP
[email protected]@ inet
Megan C. Moloney/WHO/EOP@EOP
Richard L. Siewert/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jordan Tamagni/WHO/EOP@EOP
Beverly J. Barnes/WHO/EOP
Elizabeth R. Newman/WHO/EOP@EOP
Julia M. Payne/WHO/EOP@EOP
Julianne B. Corbett/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jeffrey M. Smith/OSTP/EOP@EOP
Lowell A. Weiss/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jonathan A. Kaplan/OPD/EOP@EOP
Thurgood Marshall Jr/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jennifer Ferguson/OMB/EOP@EOP
Mark D. Neschis/WHO/EOP@EOP
Ruby Shamir/WHO/EOP@EOP
Nanda Chitre/WHO/EOP@EOP
Amy Weiss/WHO/EOP@EOP
Lisa J. Levin/WHO/EOP@EOP
Peter A. Weissman/OPD/EOP@EOP
William A. Halter/OMB/EOP@EOP
Eli G. Attie/OVP@OVP
Patricia M. Ewing/OVP@OVP
Sara M. Latham/WHO/EOP@EOP
Melissa M. Murray/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jonathan E. Smith/WHO/EOP@EOP
Barry J. Toiv/WHO/EOP@EOP
Anne M. Edwards/WHO/EOP@EOP
Michael Waldman/WHO/EOP@EOP
Gene B. Sperling/OPD/EOP@EOP
Paul K. Engskov/WHO/EOP@EOP
Laura D. Schwartz/WHO/EOP@EOP
Kevin S. Moran/WHO/EOP@EOP
Julie E. Mason/WHO/EOP@EOP
Steven J. Naplan/NSC/EOP@EOP
Daniel J. Gunia/OA/EOP@EOP
Alison Muscatine/WHO/EOP@EOP
Gordon Li/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jason H. Schechter/WHO/EOP@EOP
Mark A. Kitchens/WHO/EOP@EOP
June Shih/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jeffrey A. Shesol/WHO/EOP@EOP
Rochester M. Johnson/WHO/EOP@EOP
Rachael E. Sullivan/OVP@OVP
Julie B. Goldberg/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sarah E. Gegenheimer/WHO/EOP@EOP
Susanna B. McGuire/WHO/EOP@EOP
Steve Ricchetti/WHO/EOP@EOP
Edward F. Hughes/WHO/EOP@EOP
Melissa J. Prober/WHO/EOP@EOP
Justin Coleman/WHO/EOP@EOP
Clara J. Shin/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jonathan M. Prince/WHO/EOP@EOP
Joshua S. Gottheimer/WHO/EOP@EOP
Heather M. Riley/WHO/EOP@EOP
Alejandro G. Cabrera/OVP@OVP
Rebecca L. Walldorff/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jon P. Jennings/WHO/EOP@EOP
Katharine Button/WHO/EOP@EOP
Tracy Pakulniewicz/WHO/EOP@EOP
James T. Heimbach/WHO/EOP@EOP
Victoria L. Valentine/WHO/EOP@EOP
James E. Kennedy/WHO/EOP@EOP
Michael A. Hammer/NSC/EOP@EOP
Laura J. Lewis/WHO/EOP@EOP
Toby C. Graff/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sean P. O'Shea/WHO/EOP@EOP
Thomas D. Janenda/WHO/EOP@EOP
Rajiv Y. Mody/WHO/EOP@EOP
Robin J. Bachman/WHO/EOP@EOP
Saladbar 23 <saladbar23 @ hotmail.com> @ inet
Forwarded by Rajiv Y. Mody/WHO/EOP on 04/21/99
04:23 PM
Mark A. Kitchens
03/26/99 12:10:45 PM
Record Type: Record
To: See the distribution list at the bottom of this message
cc:
Subject: ABC GMA, March 25, 1999
ABC GOOD MORNING AMERICA
Aired on MARCH 25, 1999
SPEAKER: MADELEINE ALBRIGHT, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE
DIANNE SAWYER, ANCHOR
SAWYER: Joining us from Washington, Secretary of State Madeleine
Albright. Madam Secretary, SO good to have you with us.
ALBRIGHT: Good morning, Diane.
SAWYER: There are reports that the ethnic Albanians are under fierce
attack by the Serbs still. Is this air campaign working or is it making
everything worse?
ALBRIGHT: I believe that the air campaign is working, and I have to
say, Diane, in watching the films of our airplanes taking off and your
interviews with various pilots and military, I have to say how incredibly
proud I am of the American military, how grateful and how much we pray for
them.
I do think that this is an essential campaign that what we have to do
is deter Milosevic. And if he is not deterred, then seriously damage his
capability, his military capability, to keep killing and harassing the
Kosovars. And I think that reports of increased fighting are really
dreadful because who is suffering here are the ordinary civilians. And
this is Milosevic's trait is that he wants to keep himself in power while
the Serbs as well as the Kosovars themselves are suffering deeply.
SAWYER: You've talked about seriously damaging his military. After
watching two nights of the bombing, how long is that going to take?
ALBRIGHT: It's going to take -- I'm not going to comment on the time
line of this. And it is very important that we continue until the job
until our objectives here, that I've stated, are finished. And the
military people say that they are satisfied with how the campaign is
proceeding.
SAWYER: But how long are the NATO allies going to give this? Reports
now that Greece and Italy are wavering, talking about negotiations?
ALBRIGHT: What is happening here, Diane, is all of us would like to end
this peacefully and have diplomacy work. But the alliance is united in
knowing we have to attain our objectives, those that I said, deter and
damage seriously. We're all talking to each other. Yesterday
Secretary-General Solana said the alliance was strong and united. And
everyone would like to end this in a peaceful way, but we are all
together.
SAWYER: You see no cracks forming or coming?
ALBRIGHT: I see -- no, I don't. Clearly, we are all discussing this.
Everyone is assessing the situation. And this is a difficult assignment
for an alliance of 19 people. It's an alliance that operates by consensus.
But I think that as the Secretary-General of NATO says, this is a strong
and united alliance.
SAWYER: You know Milosevic. You have negotiated with him, talked with
him. You've said, too, he knows how to get in touch with us. Any word from
him? Any word of any kind?
ALBRIGHT: No. I mean, he has not been in touch. I think that what is
important here is that he knows how to get ahold of us. Basically, they
are still putting out the message that they do not like what is going on
and that they object to what we are doing. That is not the way to reverse
course. And I think that he knows the diplomatic channels are open.
SAWYER: There is talk in Washington among diplomats that his responses
are not rational. What does this mean? Is it just an intransigent
politician or do you think he's unstable?
ALBRIGHT: I think all he cares about is his own power. He has based his
power on jingoistic nationalist statements. And he is a man who does not
care about his people. He has propagandized them. He keeps saying to his
people and to anybody that talks to him that nothing is going on, that the
Serb forces are doing nothing in Kosovo. And you have just reported that
fighting has intensified. He has only one concern, his personal power.
SAWYER: Is he smart?
ALBRIGHT: I think he is smart. I think he's smart and cagey and cares
only about himself.
SAWYER: You have said that we will do whatever it takes to bring them
back to the negotiating table. What does that mean, whatever it takes?
ALBRIGHT: Well, I think that what we need to do is to stay firm here.
What -- I believe that it is important for us all to remain strong and
united and make clear that this kind of treatment of Kosovar Albanians or
anybody -- he has ethically cleansed other parts -- is unacceptable at the
end of a 20th century, a century that has been marked by extremes in terms
of killing people who are not of the same religion or ethnic background.
And I think we cannot end the century this way. I think we must take steps
in order to stop this humanitarian catastrophe. And we will use our
military force and we are always prepared to engage with diplomacy.
SAWYER: Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, always great to have you
with us. Thank you so much.
ALBRIGHT: Thanks, Diane.
END
Message Sent
To:
Jennifer M. Palmieri/WHO/EOP@EOP
Anthony R. Bernal/OVP@OVP
Melissa G. Green/OPD/EOP@EOP
Leslie Bernstein/WHO/EOP@EOP
Robin M. Roland/WHO/EOP@EOP
Chandler G. Spaulding/WHO/EOP@EOP
Dominique L. Cano/WHO/EOP@EOP
Dag Vega/WHO/EOP@EOP
Brenda M. Anders/WHO/EOP@EOP
[email protected] @ inet
Megan C. Moloney/WHO/EOP@EOP
Richard L. Siewert/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jordan Tamagni/WHO/EOP@EOP
Beverly J. Barnes/WHO/EOP
Elizabeth R. Newman/WHO/EOP@EOP
Julia M. Payne/WHO/EOP@EOP
Julianne B. Corbett/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jeffrey M. Smith/OSTP/EOP@EOP
Lowell A. Weiss/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jonathan A. Kaplan/OPD/EOP@EOP
Thurgood Marshall Jr/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jennifer Ferguson/OMB/EOP@EOP
Mark D. Neschis/WHO/EOP@EOP
Ruby Shamir/WHO/EOP@EOP
Nanda Chitre/WHO/EOP@EOP
Amy Weiss/WHO/EOP@EOP
Lisa J. Levin/WHO/EOP@EOP
Peter A. Weissman/OPD/EOP@EOP
William A. Halter/OMB/EOP@EOP
Eli G. Attie/OVP@OVP
Patricia M. Ewing/OVP@OVP
Sara M. Latham/WHO/EOP@EOP
Melissa M. Murray/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jonathan E. Smith/WHO/EOP@EOP
Barry J. Toiv/WHO/EOP@EOP
Anne M. Edwards/WHO/EOP@EOP
Michael Waldman/WHO/EOP@EOP
Gene B. Sperling/OPD/EOP@EOP
Paul K. Engskov/WHO/EOP@EOP
Laura D. Schwartz/WHO/EOP@EOP
Kevin S. Moran/WHO/EOP@EOP.
Julie E. Mason/WHO/EOP@EOP
Steven J. Naplan/NSC/EOP@EOP
Daniel J. Gunia/OA/EOP@EOP
Alison Muscatine/WHO/EOP@EOP
Gordon Li/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jason H. Schechter/WHO/EOP@EOP
Mark A. Kitchens/WHO/EOP@EOP
June Shih/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jeffrey A. Shesol/WHO/EOP@EOP
Rochester M. Johnson/WHO/EOP@EOP
Rachael E. Sullivan/OVP@OVP
Julie B. Goldberg/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sarah E. Gegenheimer/WHO/EOP@EOP
Susanna B. McGuire/WHO/EOP@EOP
Steve Ricchetti/WHO/EOP@EOP
Edward F. Hughes/WHO/EOP@EOP
Melissa J. Prober/WHO/EOP@EOP
Justin Coleman/WHO/EOP@EOP
Clara J. Shin/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jonathan M. Prince/WHO/EOP@EOP
Joshua S. Gottheimer/WHO/EOP@EOP
Heather M. Riley/WHO/EOP@EOP
Alejandro G. Cabrera/OVP@OVP
Rebecca L. Walldorff/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jon P. Jennings/WHO/EOP@EOP
Katharine Button/WHO/EOP@EOP
Tracy PakuIniewicz/WHO/EOP@EOP
James T. Heimbach/WHO/EOP@EOP
Victoria L. Valentine/WHO/EOP@EOP
James E. Kennedy/WHO/EOP@EOP
Michael A. Hammer/NSC/EOP@EOP
Laura J. Lewis/WHO/EOP@EOP
Toby C. Graff/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sean P. O'Shea/WHO/EOP@EOP
Thomas D. Janenda/WHO/EOP@EOP
Rajiv Y. Mody/WHO/EOP@EOP.
Robin J. Bachman/WHO/EOP@EOP
Saladbar 23 <saladbar23 @ hotmail.com> @ inet
Forwarded by Rajiv Y. Mody/WHO/EOP on 04/21/99
04:23 PM
Mark A. Kitchens
04/01/99 06:04:59 AM
Record Type: Record
To: See the distribution list at the bottom of this message
cc:
Subject: CNN Larry King, March 31, 1999
Larry King Live
Aired March 31, 1999 - 9:00 p.m. ET
U.S. Patrol Missing in Macedonia; NATO Expands Its
Targets in Yugoslavia; Amadou Diallo Shooting Sparks
Controversy About NYPD Tactics
LARRY KING, HOST: Tonight, NATO expands its targets in
Yugoslavia.
Will that force the Serbs to back off from attacking
civilians in Kosovo? If not,
is sending in ground troops next? In Washington,
presidential candidate Pat
Buchanan takes on Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu of
Louisiana. Plus
fighting breaks out on the floor of Russia's parliament
over the crisis in
Kosovo. We'll ask the Russian ambassador to the U.N.
about Russia's next
move.
And later, four New York City Police officers charged
today with
second-degree murder for firing dozens of bullets into
an unarmed African
immigrant. We'll speak to New York Police Commissioner
Howard Safir,
Johnnie Cochran, lead attorney for the victim's family;
from the police union,
we'll be joined by Bruce Robertson; actress Susan
Sarandon, who has joined
the protest against the police.
All next on LARRY KING LIVE.
Before we talk with Pat Buchanan and Senator Landrieu,
we have a breaking
story: an extensive search-and-rescue operation for
three American members
of a NATO force along the Yugoslav-Macedonia border
missing since coming
under fire earlier today. NATO officials confirm that.
Helicopters are out
searching, ground forces as well.
We'll start with Jane Arraf, our CNN international
correspondent at NATO
headquarters in Brussels. What can you tell us?
JANE ARRAF, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Larry, NATO says it
has
extensive forces and helicopters out combing the
countryside along with
Macedonian police in an effort to find those three
missing servicemen. It says
that they were on a normal reconnaissance patrol on a
civilian road on the
border near Yugoslavia in northern Macedonia on
Wednesday afternoon when
they radioed that they were being shot at and they were
surrounded. The base
then lost contact with them. Those search and rescue
operations are being
hampered by the rugged territory in the region. A
military official here says
nothing is easy in that terrain. There are about 1200
NATO troops stationed in
Macedonia including about 300 Americans. NATO has not
sent ground troops
into Yugoslavia and says it has no plans to do so --
Larry.
L. KING: Jane, one other quick thing, since they
reported that they were
surrounded and there were shots, is the best hope that
they were captured?
ARRAF: That could be a possibility. NATO officials here
won't speculate at
all. They say it's not clear yet until they find some
evidence what happened to
them, that they -- they say there's no use in
speculating whether they were
captured. That certainly is one scenario they're dealing
with.
L. KING: Thank, Jane. We'll be covering this story. As
soon as more
information comes in we'll get back to you, and others
as well.
Let's now go to Washington. Pat Buchanan is a candidate
for the Republican
Party nomination for the presidency. Senator Mary
Landrieu is a Democrat of
Louisiana and a member of the Senate Armed Services
Committee. We're
going to discuss this action from both aspects.
Pat, from the other night, someone mentioned to me today
-- is your position
that we do not interfere in any action that's regarding
just one country? And if
that's true, does that mean, say, if a dictator started
killing off people, but it
was in his own country, we would never interfere?
PAT BUCHANAN (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: No, I don't say
you would never interfere, but my view is that United
States armed forces,
basically, should not go into action unless American
honor or American
citizens or American vital national interests are at
stake. I don't think there's
any vital national interests, Larry, that's at stake,
and whose flag should fly
over Pristina and Kosovo. But there's no doubt the
president has us committed
to this air war, and I think we're in a situation now
where we're going to have
to either escalate or negotiate.
L. KING: So just as an example, if Hitler were only
killing German Jews you
wouldn't have bothered with that?
BUCHANAN: No, but Hitler started
L. KING: Supposing he had only killed German Jews.
BUCHANAN: Well, look let me give you an example. Stalin
killed five million
Ukrainians and FDR recognized him. Mao Tse-Tung killed
30 million Chinese,
we did nothing. Cambodians - the Cambodians killed a
million people and not
a single American recommended we go back.
L. KING: But you favor doing something.
BUCHANAN: But no, I did not favor going to work against
Stalin or going to
war against China or going to war against Cambodia or
going to war against
the Sudan where two million people have died. Larry, we
have got to have a
criterion for intervention and that criterion has got to
be: are the vital national
interests of the United States at stake.
L. KING: Senator Landrieu, your thoughts?
SEN. MARY LANDRIEU (D), LOUISIANA: Well, obviously, I
disagree
with Pat on one major point, and I would most certainly
say that it is in
America's interests to have a free and Democratic and
united, as much as
possible, Europe and that is what NATO represents. It is
the hope of Europe.
On the eve of the 50th anniversary of NATO, it's
important to think about how
important it is for NATO to be successful. The more
successful NATO is, the
more successful they can lead in this way of
peace-keeping and bringing more
democracy and stability. It's clearly in our economic
interests and our
long-term military interests, Larry, for this to happen.
L. KING: So your answer Senator to Pat it is
LANDRIEU: It is in our vital interests for Europe to be
free and Democratic,
in our economic and military analysts.
BUCHANAN: All right, we
L.
KING: We will be back hold on one second, pat.
We'll be back with Pat
and the Senator, but right now let's go to the Pentagon,
Jamie McIntyre, our
CNN military affairs correspondent. Do you have anything
to add on what we
just heard from Jane Arraf about our -- the missing NATO
people?
JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN MILITARY AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT:
Not a whole lot, Larry. Their search still continues for
these three U.S.
soldiers. They're from the 1st Infantry Division. They
were taking part in a
routine reconnaissance patrol in their Humvees when they
split up to cover
more ground, in what we're told is part of an exercise.
That's when the group
of Humvees lost contact with one of them. One of the
vehicles with three
soldiers in it radioed that they were taking small arms
fire, then they said they
were surrounded; then hadn't been heard from. This all
happened about 2:30 in
the afternoon, local time in Macedonia. Since then a
massive search has been
going on with allied troops looking for them. They have
not been found. It's a
pretty ominous situation this far after the incident not
to have found either the
troops or the vehicles.
But at this point, the Pentagon has no idea what
happened to them. These
were troops that were part of what used to be call task
force able sentry. That
was a U.N. monitoring mission on the border of Macedonia
with Yugoslavia.
They were folded into the NATO forces when the U.N.
ended the mandate
for that -- for that mission along the border. So at
this point, the Pentagon is
quite concerned about the safety and whereabouts of
these three missing
soldiers.
L. KING: Do we know who they are?
MCINTYRE: The Pentagon knows who they are. They are in
the process
now of notifying the families, but they have not
released their identities.
L. KING: We'll take a break and come back with more.
We'll be joined by the
Russian ambassador to the United Nations; Pat Buchanan
and Senator
Landrieu will remain with us. The commissioner of the
New York City Police
Department, Howard Safir will be with us at the bottom
of the hour in a major
discussion on the indictment today of four officers in
New York City for
second-degree murder.
Don't go away.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
L. KING: We'll get right back with Pat Buchanan and
Senator Mary Landrieu,
but let's check in with John King at the White House now
for the observations
there about these missing soldiers -- John.
JOHN KING, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Larry, White
House officials telling us the president was first
informed by his national
security adviser, Sandy Berger, about six hours ago,
3:00 in the afternoon here
Washington time, and the president, we're told, has been
periodically updated
since then on the search and rescue operation under way.
White House
officials referring all questions to the Pentagon about
the substance, the details
of that search.
They do say, however, that it's very disturbing, of
course, that neither the
vehicle nor these troops have been located several hours
after this.
This report comes just a short time after the White
House briefing in which
the press secretary, Joe Lockhart, once again, said that
the American people
should be well aware of the risks of this operation, and
on the eve of a visit by
the president tomorrow to the Norfolk Naval Air Station
in Virginia where he
is to meet privately first with families of some
military members overseas as
part of this operation, and then give a public speech
making his case for why
the United States should be involved, and also thanking
the military families --
those here in the United States and those overseas --
for participating in this.
Again, White House officials say the president is being
kept up to speed, but
they've very little information tonight, except that
they say that this is obviously
a very disturbing and a very distressing development.
L. KING: Thanks, John. As usual, CNN is on duty and will
be throughout the
night covering this.
Pat Buchanan, is it your position that there should be
no American troops
anywhere in this area?
BUCHANAN: Well, I would not.
L. KING: These three that are missing should not have
been there?
BUCHANAN: Well, I don't think we should have put the
troops earlier into
Macedonia; there's no vital interest in the Balkans in
my judgment. It's a
European problem; the Europeans should have dealt with
it, Larry. And it
clearly appears that the bombing, which was designed to
end a humanitarian
disaster, has only exacerbated and increased that
disaster. The president is the
victim of some very bad advice, and I think he has had
some very bad
misjudgments here, and we're in a very serious problem
in the Balkans as a
consequence.
L. KING: Senator Landrieu? LANDRIEU: Well, I disagree. I
think the
president could do a better job of communicating. I
think perhaps we all could
do a better job of that. Maybe there's enough blame to
go around.
But the fact is, is that this particular leader has been
torturing, murdering and
killing innocent civilians, not armed soldiers, for many
months, and according to
our intelligence and our military generals, this
offensive was going to take
place whether we went in there, bombed, or not. The
attempts of bombing are
attempts to weaken him.
Now, we have a mission. I hope that we will be
successful. I think we need to
do whatever it takes to be successful and for NATO to
have its credibility
intact. I think it's very important. Now, we're in
there, and we need to do our
job. And it's dangerous, it's risky, no one said it
wouldn't be, it's very serious,
but I do believe we can be successful.
L. KING: Do
BUCHANAN: Larry...
L. KING: Pat, do you regard President Milosevic as an
enemy?
BUCHANAN: I regard him as a thug. He's like a lot of
other thugs in this
world. I wouldn't want to have anything to do with him.
I understand why the
Kosovar-Albanians are trying to break away.
But Larry, you've got to look at this in perspective.
There are thuggish and
criminal Serb elements acting in Kosovo. The KLA has
been described by
Americans as itself a terrorist organization. Osama bin
Laden, the terrorist
that blew up our embassy, supports them. I don't care
which of those two
groups basically controls Kosovo, but I don't think a
lot of Americans ought to
die deciding whether it's one or the other.
If we can use our good offices to stop the killing,
fine. But thus far, American
bombing has only exacerbated the killing. So we got one
option left after the
bombing, if it doesn't work, that's send in a ground
army to put an end to this,
or basically negotiate. Now, the president of the United
States, as I understand
it, even agrees with me there. He will not cross that
line, and I think that's at
least the right decision.
L. KING: Senator, do you -- the president yesterday used
the word
"genocide." Is that a word you would use, and is that a
prime reason for
NATO being there?
LANDRIEU: I think so. I think it's going to be clear, as
these weeks unfold,
exactly the kinds of atrocities that are taking place.
This is a province --
90-percent Albanian -- that's been autonomous. We didn't
start out asking for
independence, but the international community -- NATO --
was asked for
autonomy, for peace. He has not given it. He has
continued his torture and his
rampage, and if he is allowed to get away with this, and
people continue this
kind of behavior, all of Europe, or a good part of it,
could become unstable.
That clearly, Pat and Larry, is not in our interests.
It's in our economic
interests and military interests for Europe to be strong
and united, and for it to
be democratic.
And I also think that we need to listen to our military
leaders, and if they
believe that they have got to accelerate or to move in
to be successful, then I
think we need to do that. Now, I hope that we don't, but
you don't start a fight
saying, "This is as far as we'll go." We have set our
goals and we need to
accomplish them.
L. KING: Pat, you've always been pro-military.
BUCHANAN: Well, I've been very strongly pro-military,
but I think the
president got some bad advice. But I will say this: he's
commander in chief,
and for heaven's sakes, the commander in chief of the
greatest nation on
Earth does not start an offensive without the will and
the capacity to see it
through to the end. And quite clearly Mr. Berger and the
president had no idea
what was going to happen. "Two days," they said,
"Milosevic will fold. They'll
stop the ethnic cleansing." We have seen it accelerate
and exacerbate to the
point where, all over the world, people are saying the
NATO offensive is
failing, Larry.
Now, we've got to look that in the eye. Someone gave the
president bad
advice. The American military is doing its job
magnificently --especially those
fellas that got that pilot out -- but the strategy was
flawed from the beginning,
and we got to speak the truth. And frankly, for heaven's
sakes, don't go
marching into the big muddy again on the basis of a lot
of reports we haven't
got verified.
L. KING: Let me get a break and we'll ask Senator
Landrieu if she believes
that the increased bombings into Yugoslavia themselves
are going to prove
pivotal. We'll be right back.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WILLIAM J. CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We
must not allow, if we have the ability to stop it,
ethnic cleansing or genocide
anywhere we can stop it, particularly at the edge of
Europe. So I ask you to
support our men and women in uniform, but to support the
proposition that the
21 st century world will be a case of, yes, there will be
a lot more
decentralization, there'll be a lot more individual
empowerment, but it will not
be a time of chaos and madness.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
L. KING: We'll be back momentarily with Senator Mary
Landrieu of
Louisiana and Pat Buchanan, presidential candidate,
discussing this crisis.
We now have joining us for some moments Ambassador
Sergei Lavrov. He is
the Russian ambassador to the United Nations.
Anything new you can report to us as a follow-up to the
discussions between
Mr. Kasparov and the folks in Yugoslavia?
SERGEI LAVROV, RUSSIAN AMBASSADOR TO U.N.: Well, since I
have a few moments, as you said, Kasparov is the world
chess champion.
L. KING: Oh, I said -- I meant Primakov. I'm sorry.
LAVROV: It's OK. I hope he understands.
Well, I've heard some suggestions what kind of criteria
should be used,
starting from national interests of the United States,
down to NATO 50th
anniversary celebration, and then to genocide. I haven't
heard a criteria which
I call international law. And I wonder why is that
admitted altogether?
L. KING: Do you feel -- you don't feel at all that the
people in Belgrade are
breaking any international laws?
LAVROV: No, I am not saying this. I am saying that
whatever criteria you
use, there is international law for each case, including
genocide. Genocide
convention of 1948, which took the United States 40
years to sign, provides for
the obligation of all participants to prevent genocide.
But it also provides for
mechanisms to do this, and the mechanism is, if you want
to use force to
prevent genocide, go to the Security Council.
L. KING: Mr. Ambassador, there was even arguments in
your own
parliament today in Russia -- two men got pretty angry
at each other -- I don't
know if you saw this. What are your thoughts on this?
LAVROV: Well, this is -- are you still showing the
picture?
L. KING: Yes, what was this? I mean
LAVROV: Well, that was a fight there.
L. KING: I thought there was unanimous feeling in Russia
against this war.
LAVROV: Well, it is, basically, a unanimous feeling. I
don't know what was
the exact argument about. They differ on how to proceed
in specific terms,
but they don't disagree on the need to stop the bombing.
L. KING: Is your country going to continue its efforts
like the one Mr.
Primakov made? Will there be other efforts on your
behalf to bring these
parties to cease-fire?
LAVROV: Well, we have to proceed because there is no
other choice. We
don't believe that this escalation is going to achieve
any result. It certainly
violates international law created with the full
participation of the United
States and other NATO members, and we try to convince
our partners to
come back to political solution.
We suggested the meeting of ministers of the Counter
Group countries. We
suggested what Primakov negotiated with Milosevic, and I
really don't
understand why NATO rejected it. The offer was very
simple: stop the
bombing, Milosevic withdraws his forces above the level
agreed in October
from Kosovo. He resumes negotiations, and he guarantees
the humanitarian
assistance and the return of refugees.
The argument from NATO that he first has to stop
fighting and start
withdrawing before they stop bombing -- I believe it's
not practical. If he
knows that his troops are now legitimate, quote/unquote,
target for NATO
phase two, and he has asked to start withdrawing them
before they stop
bombing him, that means that he is invited to amass his
troops in convoys on
roads and to make them an easy target.
L. KING: Would you comment on a point of concern in many
areas: Russia
has apparently officially notified Turkey that it's
going to send seven naval
vessels through the Bosporus Straits into the
Mediterranean, into the region of
conflict in Yugoslavia. James Rubin, of the State
Department of the United
States, said that, "This deployment does not send a
helpful signal to Belgrade,"
Rubin referring to the statement by the Russian
president that Russia didn't
intend to get involved. What do these ship deployments
mean?
LAVROV: Well, I hope that Belgrade itself would decide
which kind of signal
it sends to it, and Jamie Rubin would be taking his own
signals -- he's a good
friend.
But this is true: Russia asked Turkey for the permission
for seven naval ships
-- reconnaissance ships, to cross the straits and to go
into the Mediterranean.
So far, one ship is scheduled to leave on the 2nd of
April. It's a
reconnaissance ship. Its task would be to use the means
it has to assess the
situation and to get the information. This is too close
to our borders. This might
touch upon our security, and we want to have first-hand
information from
ourselves.
L. KING: Why six others?
LAVROV: In addition to CNN, of course.
L. KING: Why six other ships?
LAVROV: For the same purposes.
L. KING: Reconnaissance?
LAVROV: Reconnaissance.
L. KING: Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. We'll be calling on
you again.
Ambassador Sergei Lavrov, the Russian ambassador to the
United Nations.
Back with Pat Buchanan and Senator Mary Landrieu after
this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
L. KING: Now, our remaining moments with Pat Buchanan
and Senator Mary
Landrieu. Did anything the Russian ambassador say, Mr.
Buchanan, give you
cause for concern? BUCHANAN: No, not for concern. But I
will say this,
Larry: NATO is a defensive alliance, and under Article
Five, you have to
attack a NATO country and then all NATO countries
respond. It is true that
Yugoslavia did not attack any NATO country and that
Kosovo remains a part
of that country, so Serb troops are operating inside
that country and under the
rubric of international law, I think he may have an
argument, although my
belief is, if the vital interests of the United States
are at risk -- I don't think
they are -- but if they were, I think that we act
independently of any lawyers.
L. KING: Senator.
LANDRIEU: Yes, I'd like to say two things if I could. I
don't think Pat meant
to say that the president declare that this could be
taken care of in two days. I
think that's what you said before we got on this
segment. And clearly, that
was never stated. I mean, the president was hopeful that
these airstrikes
would be effective. They have been very effective in
damaging a lot of his
military operations. They have not been able to stop
this village burning, and so
perhaps another step needs to be taken.
For the Russian ambassador, I would just simply say that
we hope -- many of
us in the Senate -- that Russia -- we know that Russia
could be helpful. We
have made good progress with Russia. We hope that they
could cooperate,
and they could be helpful in bringing peace, so we
remain hopeful, But we
stand with our NATO allies in this, and it's very
important for NATO to be
successful.
And I would just say to Pat and others that the Security
Council voted pretty
much overwhelmingly to reject NATO's resolution last
week -- I mean, to
reject Russia's resolution last week. So with that said,
it's still a very tough
situation, but I don't think Russia should dictate our
policy. We need to stand
with our NATO allies.
BUCHANAN: But Mary, I did
L. KING: Pat, the closing word is yours. Go ahead.
BUCHANAN: Mary, I do think you have to concede that the
administration
was caught completely flat-footed by what has happened
here. They said,
"Two days Milosevic will buckle and come to the table
and sign something." In
addition to that, we were told it would stop the
humanitarian disaster. We've
got a humanitarian Bay of Pigs on our hands. We don't
know how it's going to
end. We're escalating to a degree we thought we would
never have to.
I hope it succeeds. I'm skeptical, and -- but the main
concern we've got is
those Americans who went into battle and we hope they
get those three folks
back as well.
L. KING: Thank you both very much, Pat Buchanan,
presidential candidate
for the Republican nomination of the presidency; and
Senator Mary Landrieu,
member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Democrat
of Louisiana --
or Loosiana.
We're going to take a break, and when we come back and
switch our
attention to New York. Four police officers were
indicted on second- degree
murder charges today. They plead not guilty. We'll have
a panel discussing it,
beginning with Howard Safir, who is the police
commissioner of New York.
And then the panel will consist of Johnnie Cochran, who
will be representing
the family of the gentleman who was killed; Bruce
Robertson of the
Patrolmen's Benevolent Association; the activist actress
Susan Sarandon; Ron
Daniels of the Center for Constitutional Rights; and
Murray Weiss, the
criminal justice editor of "The New York Post" who
interviewed the
policeman. That's all next. Don't go away.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: We begin with the police chief of the city of New
York, Howard Safir.
Always a great pleasure to be in his company. The
officers have pled not
guilty to charges of second-degree murder.
Happy Passover, Chief Safir
HOWARD SAFIR, POLICE COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK CITY:
Happy Passover to you.
L.
KING:
one. And two, is the police chief neutral
in this? Is he pro-the
officers? What?
SAFIR: I haven't taken a position yet, and the reason I
haven't taken a position
is because we don't know what the facts are. The police
officers have not
testified. They pled not guilty.
And in fact, until they testify at trial and tell their
side of the a story, it would
be inappropriate for me to take a position on it.
It's a tragedy. I mean, it's a tragedy. We know Mr.
Diallo was an unarmed
innocent man. But what was in the minds of the police
officers we'll have to
hear from them at trial.
L. KING: What is their standing? Are they being paid?
Are they suspended?
What?
SAFIR: As of the indictment today they have been
suspended. They'll be
suspended for 30 days.
The law in this city is that I can only suspend them for
30 days. After that,
they must come back on what's called modified assignment
with no gun and
no badge.
L. KING: It's obvious, though, Howard, and people would
say that Mr. Diallo
-- what could he have done to deserve that?
SAFIR: Well, nobody
L. KING: I mean, even if he ran, as was reported in the
"New York Post,"
even if he looked suspicious?
SAFIR: Nobody deserves to be shot who is innocent. We
all acknowledge
that. We all agree that this a terrible tragedy. The
issue is what was in the
mind of the police officers when they fired the shots.
Did they fear for their
lives? Did they think that Mr. Diallo was going for a
gun? I don't know the
answer to that. So right now, it's all speculation. And
until the police officers
have a chance to tell their story, we really don't know
what happened.
L. KING: Now you have got the other police officers in
Brooklyn with the
torture of the Haitian immigrant. That's going to go on
trial. Is this, Chief, an
aberration?
SAFIR: It is an aberration. We have 6 million contacts
with the public a year.
Civilian complaints last year had the lowest number of
force allegation in the
last five years.
We fire our weapons less than any large-city police
department in the United
States. In fact, we fire our weapons six times less than
Washington, D.C.,
three times less than most other major cities.
L. KING: Now, the Justice Department -- is this true? --
is investigating the
police of New York for pattern and practice, is what
they call it?
SAFIR: They're doing an inquiry to see whether or not
there is a pattern and
practice. I think they will find at the end of their
investigations that this is the
most restrained large-city police department in the
United States. And to
broad-brush this department with one or two incidents is
the worst kind of
group prejudice.
L. KING: How do you know whether someone is going to be
a good cop?
SAFIR: Well, we do psychological testing. We do very
stringent training. We
do retraining.
But you know, in a force of 40,000 human beings, you're
going to be
somewhat reflective of the population. There are going
to be good cops and
there are going to be bad cops. The vast majority are
good cops who put their
lives on the line every day.
You know, we have had four street-crime unit cops killed
since the unit was
formed, and I don't see anybody, you know, paying much
attention to that.
But the important thing here is to get to the bottom of
this issue, to understand
that this is not representative of the NYPD, and that's
what these
investigations will find.
L. KING: That street-crime unit is plain clothesmen,
right?
SAFIR: They were plain-clothes. I put them back in
uniform last week
because I think it's important that the public
understand who they are and
what they're doing.
L. KING: Is there an inner investigation in addition to
the district attorney and
the charges and the like? Do you have an investigation
going independent of
that? SAFIR: There will be an investigation after the
criminal proceedings. But
I can't do the investigation at the request of the
district attorney, and properly
so, because I don't want to impact on the criminal
investigation.
L. KING: Mr. Wise will be with us in a while. He wrote
an article in the
"Post" yesterday talking to the officers. And apparently
there had been a
rapist loose in the area and the man started to run.
Have you read that and do you have a comment on that?
SAFIR: Well, I did read it. I can't comment on his
speculation. What I can
comment on is that in fact the street-crime unit was
looking for a pattern
rapist. Mr. Diallo in a general way fit the description
of that rapist. But
whether or not that was the motivation for them stopping
him or not I won't
know until I know the facts.
L. KING: The problem here is split-second
decision-making, right?
SAFIR: This entire event took place in between seven and
eight seconds. And
what people have to understand is, you know, businessmen
and people in other
professions have advisers, they have minutes, they have
hours to make
decisions. Police officers have a split second to decide
whether or not they're
going to take a life or protect their own life.
It's a very difficult thing. I know; I have been there.
L. KING: What do you think about the citizen protests
every day and the
arrests of prominent people?
SAFIR: Well, I think, you know, it's -- it's become a
thing where I believe
some people are very sincere. A lot of people are
looking for their moment of
fame, looking for their 15 minutes in front of the
camera.
The other side of this is I walk around New York every
day. I am told by
citizens over and over how grateful they are to the
police department that this
is now the safest large city in America. Crime has been
reduced 50 percent,
and the people who have been demonstrating and getting
arrested I don't
believe are representative of the majority of the people
in the city.
I look on the Internet. I look at the letters I get. I
look at what people tell me.
And most people say, sure, there are times when cops do
inappropriate things.
I fired more cops than my two predecessors combined. I
will not tolerate that.
But when you look at the majority of this police force
they have made this a
city in renaissance.
L. KING: Chief, is there a danger here of the pendulum
going too far where
you put a lot of pressure on officers for arrests, and
the guy, you know, he
jaywalks, let's take him off the street, that kind of
thing?
SAFIR: I don't believe that's true. I think you have to
have a balance to make
sure that we don't violate anybody's civil rights, at
the same time we do
assertive policing. In fact, the Vera Institute, which
is a very renowned
criminal justice institute, just did a study of two of
our precincts and showed
you can do assertive policing without violating people's
rights.
I believe that's what we do. That's what we will
continue to do.
But on the other hand, there have been some valid
criticisms. We can make
improvements. I am willing to make improvements. I have
been meeting with
a lot of community groups to hear their concerns and
will continue to do that.
L. KING: A couple of other quick things. You got a lot
of criticism for coming
out for the Academy Awards. I'll be back in your city
next week.
How was -- what was your response to that during the
middle of all this?
SAFIR: Well, my response was I went with a personal
friend on my own
personal time. I have asked the Corporation Council of
the city to look into it
to make sure it's appropriate. And he will make a
determination. I believe it
was appropriate.
I don't think -- you know, I work 24 hours a day seven
days a week. If I want
to take my family on a trip on the weekend that doesn't
impact my job, that
should be my business. And that's what the overwhelming
majority of people
have told me.
But to make sure it's appropriate I have asked the
Corporation Council to
investigate.
L. KING: And finally, what is this doing or done to the
morale of the
department?
SAFIR: Well, it's devastated the morale of the
department. If you have been
putting your life on the line for five years, made this
the safest city in America
and all of a sudden all the media does is talk about the
Diallo killing and broad
brush the entire department with one incident, it has to
be devastating to
morale.
I have been working very hard to work with police
officers and with the
various units to let them know that most citizens do
appreciate what they have
done and do not associate them with this tragedy. But it
has an effect on
morale. We're going to have to rebuild that.
L. KING: By the way, Howard, I have been calling you.
chief. You are
commissioner, right? That's the title in New York.
SAFIR: I am the New York City police commissioner.
L. KING: Is there a chief or are they one and the same.
SAFIR: We have a
chief of department who reports to me.
L. KING: Again, happy holidays.
SAFIR: And you as well.
L. KING: Howard Safir, the commissioner of the New York
City Police.
We'll be back with more on this topic right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
L. KING: Welcome back.
Now joining us to discuss the Diallo shooting case, all
in New York, Johnnie
Cochran, lead attorney for the family of Amadou Diallo;
Bruce Robertson first
vice president of the police union, the Patrolmen's
Benevolent Association; the
brilliant actress Susan Sarandon, who has joined in the
protests against police
brutality; Ron Daniels, Executive director of the Center
for Constitutional
Rights; and Murray Weiss, the criminal justice editor
for the "New York
Post." He had an amazing story yesterday interviewing
the officers. We'll
have individual questions for each and then try to
round-robin in the time
available.
Johnnie, you're representing the family in what regard?
JOHNNIE COCHRAN, DIALLO FAMILY ATTORNEY: In a possible
civil
suit that will be happening. The Diallo family has
retained myself, Barry
Scheck, Peter Neufeld (ph), Kyle Waters (ph) and a
lawyer named Michael
Warren.
L. KING: A possible civil suit against the city.
COCHRAN: Against the city and the involved officers,
yes, Larry.
L. KING: Bruce, can you have a stand even though you
head the union and
the policemen belong to your union, can you have a stand
before you know the
facts?
BRUCE ROBERTSON, PATROLMEN'S BENEVOLENT
ASSOCIATION: I don't think anybody should have a stand
before all the
facts are in. I mean, it's obvious that there was a
terrible tragedy in that
hallway on that night, and five people know what
happened in there. And
unfortunately, Mr. Diallo was killed in that incident,
and God rest his soul. But,
again, our contention is that it was a tragedy and not a
crime.
L. KING: But you don't know that, do you?
ROBERTSON: No, we don't know that. Until -- until these
four police
officers can tell their story in the court -- in a court
of law, it remains -- they
seem to be the only ones that know what happened in
there.
L. KING: Your role is to stand up for them? Is that the
role as the president?
ROBERTSON: We support them because we know the kind of
work that
they do. We know the split-second decisions they have to
make. We know the
aggressive-type policing that, that particular unit
does.
L. KING: Susan, why did you take such a vocal stand
against -- before all the
facts are in?
SUSAN SARANDON, ACTRESS: I haven't taken a stand as to
their
innocence or not. I think an indictment was necessary
because otherwise, it
does a disservice to the group of good cops that I
believe most of New York
City's finest are. And to pretend that nothing happened
or that it wasn't worth
an indictment would have been just as a disservice to
them as to the Diallo
family.
I think that when the questions are asked, it's not just
to find out what was
going on in their minds, though, it's also to find out
what circumstances led to
the conditioning that puts these guys in this
circumstance. To create a task
force that quickly; to increase its number that quickly
really robbed them of
the training supervision and -- and the surveillance,
everything that they
needed to put them on the street where they were in a
position to do what
needed to be done. So I think that they're victims also.
And I think that the problem was -- the reason that we
took to the street was
that it was being handled in a way not by the police,
necessarily, but by the
powers that be, that made it seem as if it could be
dismissed or it wasn't --
something hadn't happened. It was just not quick enough
coming, and we
wanted to make sure that attention was still focused on
this, so the bigger
issues could be addressed.
L. KING: Ron, what is the Center for Constitutional
Rights?
RON DANIELS, CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS: Well, the
Center for Constitutional Rights is a public interest
legal institution which is
deeply involved in the issue of police brutality and
misconduct. When the
commissioner talks about the split-second decisions that
have to be made in
this unit, we're looking at aggressive unit that in 1997
and 1998 profiled,
stopped and frisked 45,000 people in the city of New
York. That's why you
have such outrage. The question of -- the matter is,
with Amadou Diallo, his
crime was being black or a person of color in America.
That today translates
to this
L. KING: So they just came and shot him?
DANIELS: No, what I am saying is that if he were -- if
he were in a suburban
white neighborhood, he would have gotten the benefit of
the doubt. In an
urban inner city neighborhood with the profiling that's
going on, being black or
a person of color automatically means suspect, means
dangerous, means
threatening, and that's why the Center for
Constitutional Rights in this unit, this
street crimes unit that says we own the night, we have
filed a federal civil
rights lawsuit against them because we think that people
ought not to live in
communities where their Fourth Amendment rights are
suspended.
L. KING: I got to get a break and then I want Murray
Weiss to tell us what
the cops told him that he wrote about yesterday and then
we'll round-robin as
much as we can.
Don't go away.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OFC. SEAN CARROLL, DEFENDANT: I would like to thank
everybody for
the support.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: In the middle please, I'm sorry.
CARROLL: I would like to thank the officers of New York
City for their
undaunted support; the members of the street crime unit.
OFC. RICHARD MURPHY, DEFENDANT: I am very happy with the
support that we got from the police department.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You're blocking -- I'm sorry,
officer.
MURPHY: I did nothing wrong, and this trial will show
that I did nothing
wrong and I'm looking forward to it.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I know that was a very emotional
night for all
the officers in that unit.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
L. KING: As you might imagine with the events in the
Balkans, we have
limited time. We're going to look at this subject a lot
as this trial approaches
and have all of these guests back.
But Murray Weiss of the "New York Post," can you briefly
tell us what you
learned, briefly, in that article you wrote yesterday,
the police officers' side of
this.
MURRAY WEISS, "NEW YORK POST": Yes, basically their
story is that
they came on down Wheeler Avenue in the Bronx and they
see a figure of a
man in a doorway. It's midnight at night. He looks
suspicious to them;
fidgeting, pacing looking in the window. The officers
decide to get out of the
car. The two that are on the passenger's side by sheer
fate are closest to Mr.
Diallo. They get out. They begin to approach him. They
identify themselves as
police officers. They ask him to come to him. Rather
than come to him, he
actually turns as though he's trying to go into the
building, and they continue to
approach him. When they climb the stairs and they say --
they kind of order
him to come out and to show his hands, show his hands.
Unfortunately, Mr. Diallo, according to my sources, he
begins to turn to his left
and with his right hand, he reaches into his pocket. He
pulls out what later is
identified as his wallet, unfortunately. One of the
officers sees a black object;
yells "Gun! He's got a gun"; the other officer, they're
both on the top of the
steps. He pulls out his gun and he fires a few shots. He
falls literally off the
step backwards as though he has been shot. And that
pretty much prompts the
other officers to begin to fire. They think that the
officer has been shot.
He's actually in a prone position at one point on his
back. He's trying to wiggle
away. The other two officers come around the front and
the rear of the car.
They see what they think is a gunfight. It's midnight at
night. Perhaps the
gunfire is reflecting off a glass giving the impression
there's gunfire coming
from the vestibule.
When the smoke clears basically, you know, the sad truth
is that obviously Mr.
Diallo is shot numerous times and there's only a wallet
laying 18 inches from
his hand.
L. KING: As a journalist, Murray, is this an
understandable tragedy to you?
WEISS: I think the story that I reported goes a long way
to explaining to a
large degree some of the things that happened at the --
at the scene of the
shooting. I think there are a lot of questions left
unanswered, clearly, and you
know, the liability and culpability is going to rest in
some of the great nuances
of both the evidence gathering, the ballistics, and
obviously, ultimately, the
testimony of the officers.
L. KING: We'll get some thoughts from everybody again.
I've got to get
another break. We'll be right back.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RUDOLPH GIULIANI, MAYOR OF NEW YORK CITY: The criminal
justice system has, as it has been doing now for some
time, although many
people are trying to exploit this, is operating
correctly. Charges have been
brought. In fairness to the Diallo family and their need
for a just and complete
result, in fairness to the entire city and its need for
a just and complete result,
and in fairness to the four police officers and their
need to have a fair trial, we
should allow the criminal justice system now to operate.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
L. KING: Again, we apologize for the time limitations,
and we promised a lot
more on this with all of our guests.
Johnnie, does it, Murray Weiss' explanation, as he got
it seem fairly logical?
COCHRAN: No, it doesn't, Larry, because, as I think
Murray will agree,
that's iteration No. 3.
The first version by a lawyer named Worth (ph) who
represents these officers
came out and said, look, what happened was that the
officer was shot through
his pants leg. They believed he was shot, and they were
firing in response to
that.
The second iteration had Mr. Diallo running down the
street and the officers
following him. This is the third iteration.
Let me tell you what's wrong with that. We have to wait
for the facts. Here's
the problem. We have a forensic pathologist, and I can
tell you this, Mr. Diallo
was hit with one of the first bullets that were fired at
him, struck him in his --
and perforated his spinal cord, causing him to be
instantly paralyzed. He fell to
the ground, Larry, and thereafter he was struck in the
bottom of the feet and
the leg as these officers continued firing.
The reason they are charged with second-degree because
this is willful
disregard and a violation of this man's absolute rights.
They kept firing when
he was down. It was 41 shots. It never becomes logical.
He was incapacitated and paralyzed after a short time.
And the physical
evidence will prove that. And there are going to be
several more iterations
before this is over.
L. KING: Bruce, what do you make of the severity of
second- degree
murder?
ROBERTSON: I think the charge -- I think the charge
comes about to be only
because those police officers did not get a chance to
speak and tell their story
to the grand jury. They probably will tell their story
in the trial, and the truth
will come out here.
L. KING: When you say "probably," wouldn't they
definitely take the stand?
ROBERTSON: Yes. I think so, but that's not my decision
to make. That's
going to be their attorneys' decision to make.
I know the reason that they did not take the stand or
they did not go and make
statements before the grand jury was because of the
circus atmosphere that
was created in New York City with people taking to the
streets like a lynch
mob.
L. KING: Well said. Susan, has anything been said to
assuage your worries?
SARANDON: I just hope that we don't lose track of the
need to use this
incident as a springboard to examine, you know, ways
that we can be
protected without giving up our civil liberties, that we
can get rid of terms like
"racial profiling" in order to make ourselves safe, that
we use this as a chance
to take on some of the examples in other cities where
people aren't treated as
children that need to be disciplined, but that they work
within the community,
spotting community leaders, getting more people of
neighborhoods in their
neighborhoods as policemen
L. KING: The police commissioner says, Susan, you have
the lowest crime
rate of any big city in America.
SARANDON: Well, I guess it depends on what neighborhood
you're in. And
if you're at a point where you're as afraid of policemen
as you are of being out
on the street and being shot by someone in your
neighborhood -- I don't have a
problem in my neighborhood. I am not talking about my
neighborhood.
I am talking about what's happening -- you know, the
trains run fast in Italy
too, you know. Fascism work. It's very efficient. But
it's not necessarily what
we want.
And it's not -- if it's systemic, it's not fair to the
policemen who want to
operate in a different fashion, which are the bulk of
the policemen. And to say
that starting from the top, this aggressive, you know,
anti-crime war, there has
to be a way to deal with all of the problems in every
neighborhood with more
respect that are clever and more imaginative and use the
people in those
neighborhoods to help solve crimes themselves.
L. KING: We -- I am going to have to cut you there,
because we are out of
time. We're going to have everybody back. We'll give a
lot of coverage to this.
We'll tell you what's coming up tomorrow night after
this.
Thanks, folks.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
L. KING: Again, a very happy Passover.
Tomorrow night on LARRY KING LIVE, our coverage of the
airstrikes
against Yugoslavia continues, and we'll also update that
case in New York
City of a police shooting of a West African immigrant,
all tomorrow night.
Up next, a special edition of "NEWSSTAND." "People"
magazine profiles the
late comedian Gilda Radner. Stay tuned.
END
Message Sent
To:
Joseph P. Lockhart/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jennifer M. Palmieri/WHO/EOP@EOP
Anthony R. Bernal/OVP@OVP
Melissa G. Green/OPD/EOP@EOP
Leslie Bernstein/WHO/EOP@EOP
Robin M. Roland/WHO/EOP@EOP
Chandler G. Spaulding/WHO/EOP@EOP
Dominique L. Cano/WHO/EOP@EOP
Dag Vega/WHO/EOP@EOP
Brenda M. Anders/WHO/EOP@EOP
[email protected] @ inet
Megan C. Moloney/WHO/EOP@EOP
Richard L. Siewert/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jordan Tamagni/WHO/EOP@EOP
Beverly J. Barnes/WHO/EOP
Elizabeth R. Newman/WHO/EOP@EOP
Julia M. Payne/WHO/EOP@EOP
Julianne B. Corbett/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jeffrey M. Smith/OSTP/EOP@EOP
Lowell A. Weiss/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jonathan A. Kaplan/OPD/EOP@EOP
Thurgood Marshall Jr/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jennifer Ferguson/OMB/EOP@EOP
Mark D. Neschis/WHO/EOP@EOP
Ruby Shamir/WHO/EOP@EOP
Nanda Chitre/WHO/EOP@EOP
Amy Weiss/WHO/EOP@EOP
Lisa J. Levin/WHO/EOP@EOP
Peter A. Weissman/OPD/EOP@EOP
William A. Halter/OMB/EOP@EOP
Eli G. Attie/OVP@OVP
Patricia M. Ewing/OVP@OVP
Sara M. Latham/WHO/EOP@EOP
Melissa M. Murray/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jonathan E. Smith/WHO/EOP@EOP
Barry J. Toiv/WHO/EOP@EOP
Anne M. Edwards/WHO/EOP@EOP
Michael Waldman/WHO/EOP@EOP
Gene B. Sperling/OPD/EOP@EOP
Paul K. Engskov/WHO/EOP@EOP
Laura D. Schwartz/WHO/EOP@EOP
Kevin S. Moran/WHO/EOP@EOP
Julie E. Mason/WHO/EOP@EOP
Steven J. Naplan/NSC/EOP@EOP
Alison Muscatine/WHO/EOP@EOP
Gordon Li/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jason H. Schechter/WHO/EOP@EOP
Mark A. Kitchens/WHO/EOP@EOP
June Shih/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jeffrey A. Shesol/WHO/EOP@EOP
Rochester M. Johnson/WHO/EOP@EOP
Rachael E. Sullivan/OVP@OVP
Julie B. Goldberg/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sarah E. Gegenheimer/WHO/EOP@EOP
Susanna B. McGuire/WHO/EOP@EOP
Steve Ricchetti/WHO/EOP@EOP
Edward F. Hughes/WHO/EOP@EOP
Melissa J. Prober/WHO/EOP@EOP
Justin Coleman/WHO/EOP@EOP
Clara J. Shin/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jonathan M. Prince/WHO/EOP@EOP
Joshua S. Gottheimer/WHO/EOP@EOP
Heather M. Riley/WHO/EOP@EOP
Alejandro G. Cabrera/OVP@OVP
Rebecca L. Walldorff/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jon P. Jennings/WHO/EOP@EOP
Katharine Button/WHO/EOP@EOP
Tracy Pakulniewicz/WHO/EOP@EOP
James T. Heimbach/WHO/EOP@EOP
Victoria L. Valentine/WHO/EOP@EOP
James E. Kennedy/WHO/EOP@EOP
Michael A. Hammer/NSC/EOP@EOP
Laura J. Lewis/WHO/EOP@EOP
Toby C. Graff/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sean P. O'Shea/WHO/EOP@EOP
Thomas D. Janenda/WHO/EOP@EOP
Rajiv Y. Mody/WHO/EOP@EOP
Robin J. Bachman/WHO/EOP@EOP
Saladbar 23 <[email protected]> @ inet
Kimberly S. Anderson/OA/EOP@EOP
Forwarded by Rajiv Y. Mody/WHO/EOP on 04/21/99
04:24 PM
Mark A. Kitchens
04/01/99 06:05:03 AM
Record Type: Record
To: See the distribution list at the bottom of this message
cc:
Subject: CNN Crossfire, March 31, 1999
Crossfire
Aired March 31, 1999 - 7:30 p.m. ET
Should NATO Send Ground Troops Into Kosovo?
ROBERT NOVAK, CO-HOST: Tonight, NATO aims at more
targets in
Yugoslavia, as Russian warships enter the Mediterranean.
Is Operation Allied
Force working, or is it time to send in ground troops?
ANNOUNCER: Live from Washington, CROSSFIRE. On the left,
Bill Press.
On the right, Robert Novak. In the CROSSFIRE, former
U.S. ambassador to
NATO Robert Hunter, and in Tulsa, Republican Senator
James Inhofe, a
member of the Armed Service Committee.
NOVAK: Good evening. Welcome to CROSSFIRE.
On day eight in the bombing of Yugoslavia, there was not
yet a start of
destruction visited on center city Belgrade as hinted in
advance by NATO.
But in Washington, the Pentagon did report that allied
aircraft had hit Serbian
army tanks. Meanwhile, on the day after the Russian
peace initiative was
summarily rejected by NATO, the Kremlin said it is
sending the first of seven
warships into the Mediterranean to be close to the
Yugoslav war area. News
of such Russian intervention did not exactly thrill U.S.
officials, who also have
to deal with reports that the Pentagon is running out of
million-dollar cruise
missiles.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KEN BACON, PENTAGON SPOKESMAN: We have a supply now, but
it
won't last forever, but we certainly have enough to
continue striking important
targets.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NOVAK: But the big questions deal with the possibility
of American combat
troops being sent to fight their way into Kosovo.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE LOCKHART, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: There is no
plans, no intention to send in ground troops at this
point.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NOVAK: Not at this point, the White House says, but what
about later?
Bill.
BILL PRESS, CO-HOST: Senator, good evening. Thanks for
joining us. I
think we accept and admit that the one week of NATO
airstrikes haven't done
the job in Serbia, so the question is, what course to
take now? Senator, before
I get your answer to that question, I'd like you to
listen to what one of your
Republican senatorial colleagues had to say today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: I would intensify the
bombing
campaign to a very significant degree, including
destroying a lot of the
infrastructure, dropping the bridges, turning out the
lights in Belgrade. And
then, I would tell Mr. Milosevic that -- then I would
consider the option, if
necessary, of ground troops, which I would use as a
last, absolute last resort
but not take it off the table.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PRESS: Actually, that was last night on "LARRY KING
LIVE," senator.
Do you think Senator McCain is just being too much of a
hawk here, or isn't
he on the right track?
SEN. JAMES INHOFE, (R-OK), ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: No,
I
don't think it's matter of being hawk. First of all, we
shouldn't be over there.
And we -- I can remember six months ago, tonight, I was
on CROSSFIRE
with Elliot Ingalls (ph), and at that time, I said,
we're going to end up sending
troops in there; the president knows it; he's lying to
the American people, and
now, we're now to the point where it's going to happen
-- there still denying it
-- but it's going to happen.
Now, when you say: What would you do at this point? You
know, I wouldn't
be over there to start with, right now. We did our best
to keep from sending
our equipment, our assets over there -- we can't afford
to do it, and yet,
they're over there now.
PRESS: Well, senator, I'd like to debate -- and we will
-- the question of
whether or not we should be there, but we are there,
senator, and we can't
ignore that. Now that we're there, now that the United
States and NATO are
in, isn't it important to finish the job? Isn't it
important to win?
INHOFE: No, I don't think there's any finish to the job.
If you can tell me, Bill,
what the end game is, what is the exit strategy, what is
the finish, what's the
mission, then I would agree with you, but we don't know
that; and we've tried
to get it from this administration -- we haven't gotten
it. So I would say that
we ought to drop everything we've got and get out of
there.
Right now, we're running out of cruise missile, as you
well know. We said that
several days ago. My concern is, you know they've got
surface-to-air missiles
over there. They haven't been using them; they didn't
want to waste them on
cruise missiles; then, what's next? Our airplanes go in.
PRESS: Senator, what is
INHOFE: I think it's a very, very dangerous situation
that he's got us in.
PRESS: Senator, I don't understand what's so
complicated. Isn't there an
obvious exit strategy, which is victory -- what's wrong
with that, senator?
INHOFE: They have never said that; this administration
has never said
victory
PRESS: Why don't you say it?
INHOFE: nor have they said what victory is. What's
victory? I mean, we
go in there and take out and kill a bunch of Serbs?
You know, I was over there, Bill. I don't think there's
anyone on this program
that's been -- that you've had so far -- that's actually
been over in Kosovo.
And I have to say this, and I say this in a real sincere
way. When I was going
through there about two months ago, I only saw two dead
soldiers; they were
both Serbs. And we paint the picture that there's only
one bad guy in this fight,
and I can't accept that.
PRESS: Bob.
NOVAK: Ambassador Robert Hunter, I'd like to play for
you a little potpourri
of the president, secretary of state and secretary of
defense talking about
ground troops in Kosovo. Let's take a look at it.
ROBERT HUNTER, Please do.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WILLIAM J. CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I do
not intend to put our troops in Kosovo to fight a war.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MADELINE ALBRIGHT, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: We have no
plans to use ground troops in an aggressive way, only to
implement a peace
agreement.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WILLIAM COHEN, U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: We do not
foresee
and don't have any plans to put ground forces in a
hostile environment.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NOVAK: Do you think the leaders of our country have put
themselves --
painted themselves into a corner -- no matter what
happens on the ground,
they cannot send ground troops in, after saying these
things?
ROBERT HUNTER, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO NATO: It's the
circumstances under which you send them in. There's
already the agreement,
if there is peace, for a group of 28,000 soldiers, of
whom only 4,000 would be
American, to go in and keep the peace. The question is
whether they have to
fight there way in -- nobody wants to do that.
I agree with Senator McCain, just now; I think we should
be using air power
to the maximum and see what that accomplishes.
NOVAK: Do you think that could work? Do you really think
that could work?
HUNTER: I don't know whether that could work or not.
NOVAK: You're a student of history.
HUNTER: All I know is that Milosevic, for the first
time, is feeling the full
impact, not just of the military power of the United
States, but of the entire
NATO alliance, a unified NATO alliance, where he thought
only a few week
ago, they were all going to run for shelter.
NOVAK: Do you know of any time in history where air
power without
combat troops has affected major engagement, other than
the nuclear bombing
of Japan -- do you know of any other?
HUNTER: Well, this is the question whether we can
achieve what we need to
do by breaking the will of Milosevic to carry out ethnic
cleansing, near
genocide and to try to prosecute something we haven't
seen since World War
II. This is a matter of indicating to him that he is
going to lose big time of
things he values.
INHOFE: Can I get in on this?
NOVAK: I just want to show one thing. I want to get a
testimony from an
ethnic cleanser, a fellow by the name of Arkan, who is
very notorious. He
was indicted, today, by the World Court as a war
criminal in Hague -- in the
Hague, and he also stopped by and had an exclusive
interview with CNN, and
this is how he ended the interview. Let's take a look at
it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ZELJKO RAZNATOVIC, "ARKAN": If you come with the ground
troops in
Yugoslavia, then you will have the new Vietnam in the
heart of Europe; that's
for sure.
(END VIDEO CLIP) NOVAK: Whether it's for sure or not,
isn't that a
possibility that if you send ground troops, American
ground troops, into Serbia
you would have a Vietnam situation?
HUNTER: I don't think we'd have a Vietnam situation. For
one thing, we have
a united 19 countries trying to achieve a single result.
You have a relatively
small military that you're dealing against, and we're
far better trained and far
better to operate than we did in Vietnam, but that's not
the point. Nobody is
trying to send in ground troops. What we're trying to
do
NOVAK: But you may have to.
HUNTER: In the final analysis, it might become
impossible to avoid it. But
right now, there are a lot of instruments left to try
other things.
PRESS: Go ahead, senator. I know you want to get in
here.
INHOFE: Let me just say, Bob, you gave a lot of quotes
from the
administration about ground troops not going in, never
their intention, and yet,
Wesley Clark, General Wesley Clark said -- and I quote
right now -- he said,
"We never showed him -- we never thought air power alone
could stop this
kind of paramilitary strategy." And I think that
everyone believes that. And, I,
again, go back to six months ago when we said, let's get
ready because they're
talking about sending in troops, even though they're
denying it to the American
people. Certainly General Wesley Clark knows what he's
talking about.
PRESS: Senator, I want to come back to your point that
we have no business
being over there. I suggest a couple of reasons that
have been given, I think,
legitimately, for NATO's action over there. How about a
stable Europe,
Senator? Isn't that important to the United States?
INHOFE: Well, I think, first of all, that we could get a
stable Europe, that we
have a lot of people over there -- the Italians, the
Germans and the rest of
them, who have a lot at stake militarily, a lot of
strategic interests here. We
don't have them.
And your guest, Robert Hunter, was quoted four days ago
as saying:
"Strategically, Kosovo is not important." And I don't
think it's all that important.
Here's the big problem that we failed to talk about, and
that is, what is this
doing to America and our ability to defend ourselves if
something should
happen in North Korea or something should happen in
Iraq?
HUNTER: Can I add something on that?
PRESS: Sure.
HUNTER: Let me tell you, if, now that NATO's engaged --
all 19 countries
have voted for it; 13 countries are there including the
United States -- if we
then back down, if we allow this two-bit dictator,
Milosevic, to succeed, what
we're going to find is that the North Koreans will come
at us; Saddam Hussein
will come at us again. We'll find that nobody believes
our word. Nobody
believes NATO's word, and, frankly, if we back down, we
might as well
cancel the NATO summit, because the thing that we've
worked at for 50
years -- we built to go into the 21st century -- won't
be worth very much. So
INHOFE: Robert, do you think that they believe our word
now?
HUNTER: I think they do.
INHOFE: You do think they believe that?
HUNTER: I think there was a problem for a number of
months in which
NATO was making threats and not following them through.
But day by day
now I think the credibility of NATO is back, and I think
the credibility of the
United States is
(CROSSTALK)
NOVAK: Ambassador Hunter
PRESS: I want to follow through here with the senator,
just if I can, Bob, one
other point. Senator, back to some of the reasons in
terms of strategic
interests of the United States, not to mention the
threat of a wider war. But
how about simply, sir, the genocide, the ethnic
cleansing that's taking place?
Are we just supposed to look the other way or let the
Europeans handle it?
INHOFE: Now, Bill, you're talking about humanitarian,
aren't you?
PRESS: I am. And I am not ashamed to raise that issue.
INHOFE: All right. Let me ask you this question, Bill. I
just came back
yesterday from West Africa. I was just across the border
from Angola.
For every one person that they're killing in Kosovo,
they're killing 30 in Angola,
as we speak. What about 800,000 people in Rwanda as
opposed to 2,000 in
Kosovo? Where's your humanitarian
PRESS: Your point, senator, is that since we can't be
everywhere we should
be nowhere, is that it?
INHOFE: I am saying we have a responsibility in this
country, and that is to
defend America. Right now, if we should have to put
ground troops into either
Iraq or actually go across into someplace else in that
particular theater, we
don't have the capacity.
If you doubt that, you talk to the commanding officer of
the 21st
(UNINTELLIGIBLE). He said if we have to go into the
ground -- on the
ground in Iraq, we would have to be 100 percent
dependent upon Guard and
Reserves.
PRESS: All right. Senator, Mr. Hunter, we're going to
have to take a break.
When we come back, will NATO bombs be falling next on
downtown
Belgrade?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PRESS: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. There's breaking news
on this issue.
We're going to go immediately to the Pentagon and CNN's
Jamie McIntyre.
Jamie, what's the latest there?
JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, the Pentagon
says
that they have received a report from NATO headquarters
that a three-man
reconnaissance team of NATO soldiers in Macedonia along
the border with --
with Kosovo have reported -- are reported missing and
are being searched for
at the moment.
The last report came from this three-man team as they
were driving in a
military vehicle along a civilian road in what's known
as the Kumanovo area.
They radioed that they were coming under small- arms
fire and were
surrounded, and then, according to sources, the radio
transmission broke off.
Ground and helicopter teams are searching for the
missing reconnaissance
team aided by local police that are sending patrols into
that area in Macedonia.
Again, this occurred apparently today in the border area
between Macedonia
and Yugoslavia, where NATO troops were on a routine
reconnaissance patrol
when they radioed in that they were coming under
small-arms fire. We don't
know what's happened to those NATO troops.
Bill.
PRESS: Jamie, thank you very much. We'll resume our
debate here in Tulsa,
Oklahoma, joined by Senator James Inhofe; here in the
studio, Robert Hunter,
former ambassador to NATO.
Bob.
NOVAK: Ambassador Hunter, you're not a soldier but you
have dealt with
soldiers for years over at NATO and you know something
about it. There
seems to be two separate plans. One is at NATO -- you
get from Brussels --
they talk about, if they have to go in to clean it up,
that talk about 200,000
troops. It would take about a month to get them in
place. And there's another
proposal of taking the NATO troops in Macedonia, which I
don't think include
any American fighting forces and -- what is it? 18,000
troops or less -- and
sending them in. Which of those plans is realistic or
are either of them
realistic?
HUNTER: I don't know. You'd have to ask a military
person. The basic thing
is to stay the course with the air power, and to get the
message across to
Milosevic that he is not going to be able to prevail
with his ethnic cleansing and
to prevail in taking on the mightiest alliance in
history, and show that we don't
have the moral or the political fortitude to carry on.
NOVAK: Let me ask you
a couple of political questions. One political question
is that we're getting film
from Yugoslavia, from all over Yugoslavia of a lot -- a
lot of support. There
are not five or six people. There's big support for
Milosevic, had another rock
concert in -- in Belgrade today. They seem to really be
stepping up their --
their morale and their activity.
You can take a look at it right there.
Can we say that the bombing, while it certainly has not
impeded ethnic
cleansing, has stepped up Milosevic's support in his own
country, in Serbia?
HUNTER: Milosevic always had a lot of support. The worst
thing would be if
we now allowed him to consolidate that by showing that
he can get away with
what he's doing.
Fine, if he can manufacture some popularity and get a
little nationalism going,
but that's not really what's involved here. What's
involved here is the behavior
of this government and preserving lives and trying to
build peace, not just in
the former Yugoslavia, but across Europe.
NOVAK: One more political question, and that is that
Russia announced today
-- and they're very disturbed at the Pentagon that this
might encourage the
Serbians to be more resistant -- Russia announced that
they're sending
warships to the Mediterranean.
I wonder if this little country -- and the -- pretty
soon there's not going to be
anymore Kosovars in Kosovo anyway. I don't know how you
handle that.
But we are really deteriorating our relations with --
it's not a superpower
anymore, but it's the No. 2 nuclear power in the world.
We need good
relations with them. Isn't that short-sided on the U.S.
part?
HUNTER: Absolutely, we need good relations with the
Russians, but they
ought to be coming toward us.
NOVAK: But they're not.
HUNTER: It's time they got on the right side of
history
PRESS: They do when they want the money.
HUNTER: It's time they got on the right side of history,
recognize they're
backing a loser with Milosevic, to understand, frankly,
that they can have an
honored place in European security if they will support
the way forward in
terms of -- of peace instead of getting on the wrong
side.
PRESS: Senator Inhofe, we haven't forgotten you, honest.
You want to make
a point there.
INHOFE: Yes. I really do want to make a point there. You
know, the two
powers that have ICBMs that can reach the United States
of America are
Russia and China. Russia is right now from the Black Sea
fleet sending ships
-- maybe one, maybe more -- for aid. We also know that
they have sent in a
lot of their equipment, perhaps even nuclear equipment,
for the border areas.
Here we go in. We're taking on not just Milosevic. We
can't sit here and say,
that little guy, we can whip him. We have got these two
other powers that
actually have missiles that can reach the United States
of America, and we
have zero defense -- thank you to this president.
So this is a very, very serious thing. I am very much
concerned about the
possibility of World War III.
HUNTER: Now, now, come on. Let's not exaggerate what's
going on with the
Russians.
INHOFE: I am not exaggerating what's going on with the
Russians.
HUNTER: We have got -- we have got 1,500 Russian
soldiers serving with
NATO in Bosnia. The Russians were part of the contact
group that put
together the Rambouillet peace process. You have
Primakov, the prime
minister, going to Belgrade yesterday, trying to talk
Milosevic into seeing some
kind of sense.
The Russians are making some demonstration for domestic
reasons, but even
Primakov has said we're not going to become isolated. We
want this thing to
work.
So
INHOFE: Robert, there can be no stronger
HUNTER: This is not the Cold War. This is not the Cold
War.
INHOFE: There can be no stronger statement than Primakov
and the rest of
them have said in -- for what we have done. They are
very much concerned
about it. I am concerned about it. I mean, here we are
getting involved in
something where we're so diluting our assets that we
couldn't adequately
defend America in a conventional sense if something
should erupt someplace
else like Iraq or North Korea.
This is serious, and I would just ask agree with the
statement, Robert, that you
made four days ago in the "Baltimore Sun" when you said
there are no -- let
me make sure I get this right -- "Strategically, Kosovo
is not that important." I
agree with you.
HUNTER: That's right, in raw strategic term, but in
terms of the morality of
the West, in terms of building NATO, in terms of our
credibility, that is very
important.
INHOFE: If you want to put American lives on -- just for
the morality of the
West, then
(CROSSTALK)
HUNTER: I am not asking for American lives. I am asking
to try to use the
air power of 19 countries to bring this thing to a halt.
PRESS: Senator, I want to jump in with a political
question before we the
show here, because you just took a slap at Bill Clinton.
I mean, you know
INHOFE: If you want to extend this for 30 minutes, I've
got a few more.
PRESS: I am sure you do.
My question is: How much of your position is dictated by
your hatred for Bill
Clinton, and how much of it is dictated by what's best
for the United States?
INHOFE: It's not hatred for Bill Clinton. I am chairman
of the Readiness
Committee. I know the problems that we're having right
now, and, Bill, it is
very, very serious -- somebody has to say it; I'm so
tired of wimpy politicians
who act like this isn't going to deplete our resources,
our ability to defend
America, when, in fact, it's true. And it's not hatred
of Bill Clinton, but I don't
feel very kindly to a president who has stopped us from
being able to defend
America against an incoming missile.
PRESS: Senator, this president is trying to defend
America now, and you are
sitting on your hands.
NOVAK: Well, that's a political statement from Mr.
Press. Thank you very
much, Senator James Inhofe, Tulsa. Thank you, here in
Washington, to
ambassador Robert Hunter.
HUNTER: Thank you.
NOVAK: And Mr. Press will return to his other mode, and
we'll have closing
comments after a minute.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PRESS: Tomorrow night on CROSSFIRE, Republican Senator
and
presidential hopeful John McCain tells us what he would
do about Kosovo if
he were in the White House, 7:30 p.m., Thursday, east
coast time -- Bob.
NOVAK: Bill, the president at the time of one of his
bombing raids on Iraq
said that he would hold off because of Ramadan. This is
the holiest week in
the Christian religion. The Serbian orthodox priests in
Serbia have suggested
that there be a bombing pause just for Easter. Are you
hard-hearted enough
that you think it's a bad idea for the president to
grant that?
PRESS: I would grant a bombing pause, not for the entire
holy week, but I
think there's got to be some action on the part of
Milosevic to -- not to get
back to the bombing. Here's what I'd
NOVAK: You would grant a bombing pause?
PRESS: I would not, but not a whole week. NOVAK: I bet
you President
Clinton doesn't.
PRESS: But, I got to tell you, bombs in downtown
Belgrade -- big mistake.
From the left, I'm Bill Press. Good night for CROSSFIRE.
NOVAK: I agree. From the right, I am Robert Novak. Join
us again next time
for another edition of CROSSFIRE.
END
Message Sent
To:
Joseph P. Lockhart/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jennifer M. Palmieri/WHO/EOP@EOP
Anthony R. Bernal/OVP@OVP
Melissa G. Green/OPD/EOP@EOP
Leslie Bernstein/WHO/EOP@EOP
Robin M. Roland/WHO/EOP@EOP
Chandler G. Spaulding/WHO/EOP@EOP
Dominique L. Cano/WHO/EOP@EOP
Dag Vega/WHO/EOP@EOP
Brenda M. Anders/WHO/EOP@EOP
[email protected] @ inet
Megan C. Moloney/WHO/EOP@EOP
Richard L. Siewert/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jordan Tamagni/WHO/EOP@EOP
Beverly J. Barnes/WHO/EOP
Elizabeth R. Newman/WHO/EOP@EOP
Julia M. Payne/WHO/EOP@EOP
Julianne B. Corbett/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jeffrey M. Smith/OSTP/EOP@EOP
Lowell A. Weiss/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jonathan A. Kaplan/OPD/EOP@EOP
Thurgood Marshall Jr/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jennifer Ferguson/OMB/EOP@EOP
Mark D. Neschis/WHO/EOP@EOP
Ruby Shamir/WHO/EOP@EOP
Nanda Chitre/WHO/EOP@EOP
Amy Weiss/WHO/EOP@EOP
Lisa J. Levin/WHO/EOP@EOP
Peter A. Weissman/OPD/EOP@EOP
William A. Halter/OMB/EOP@EOP
Eli G. Attie/OVP@OVP
Patricia M. Ewing/OVP@OVP
Sara M. Latham/WHO/EOP@EOP
Melissa M. Murray/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jonathan E. Smith/WHO/EOP@EOP
Barry J. Toiv/WHO/EOP@EOP
Anne M. Edwards/WHO/EOP@EOP
Michael Waldman/WHO/EOP@EOP
Gene B. Sperling/OPD/EOP@EOP
Paul K. Engskov/WHO/EOP@EOP
Laura D. Schwartz/WHO/EOP@EOP
Kevin S. Moran/WHO/EOP@EOP
Julie E. Mason/WHO/EOP@EOP
Steven J. Naplan/NSC/EOP@EOP.
Alison Muscatine/WHO/EOP@EOP
Gordon Li/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jason H. Schechter/WHO/EOP@EOP
Mark A. Kitchens/WHO/EOP@EOP
June Shih/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jeffrey A. Shesol/WHO/EOP@EOP
Rochester M. Johnson/WHO/EOP@EOP
Rachael E. Sullivan/OVP@OVP
Julie B. Goldberg/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sarah E. Gegenheimer/WHO/EOP@EOP
Susanna B. McGuire/WHO/EOP@EOP
Steve Ricchetti/WHO/EOP@EOP
Edward F. Hughes/WHO/EOP@EOP
Melissa J. Prober/WHO/EOP@EOP
Justin Coleman/WHO/EOP@EOP
Clara J. Shin/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jonathan M. Prince/WHO/EOP@EOP
Joshua S. Gottheimer/WHO/EOP@EOP
Heather M. Riley/WHO/EOP@EOP
Alejandro G. Cabrera/OVP@OVP
Rebecca L. Walldorff/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jon P. Jennings/WHO/EOP@EOP
Katharine Button/WHO/EOP@EOP
Tracy Pakulniewicz/WHO/EOP@EOP
James T. Heimbach/WHO/EOP@EOP
Victoria L. Valentine/WHO/EOP@EOP
James E. Kennedy/WHO/EOP@EOP
Michael A. Hammer/NSC/EOP@EOP
Laura J. Lewis/WHO/EOP@EOP
Toby C. Graff/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sean P. O'Shea/WHO/EOP@EOP
Thomas D. Janenda/WHO/EOP@EOP
Rajiv Y. Mody/WHO/EOP@EOP
Robin J. Bachman/WHO/EOP@EOP
Saladbar 23 <saladbar23 @ hotmail.com> @ inet
Kimberly S. Anderson/OA/EOP@EOP
Forwarded by Rajiv Y. Mody/WHO/EOP on 04/21/99
04:24 PM
Mark A. Kitchens
04/01/99 06:05:07 AM
Record Type: Record
To: See the distribution list at the bottom of this message
cc:
Subject: CNN Moneyline, March 31, 1999
Moneyline News Hour with Lou Dobbs
Aired March 31, 1999 - 7:20 p.m. ET
Signs From the U.S. Economy Indicate Stock Prices Will
Continue to Rise
JAN HOPKINS, CNN ANCHOR: The quarter's gains extend one
of the
longest-running bull markets ever, and my guest tonight
has presided over it.
He is one of Wall Street's most respected leaders,
Donald Marron. He's
chairman and CEO of PaineWebber, which controls $352
billion in assets.
Welcome back to MONEYLINE.
DONALD MARRON, CHAIRMAN & CEO, PAINEWEBBER: Nice to be
here, Jan.
HOPKINS: So, the market has done very well, we topped
10,000 even today.
Where do we go after 10,000?
MARRON: Well, I think we're obviously in a pause here to
find out what's
going to happen, but I think where we go depends on the
continuation of the
trends over the last few years. That looks pretty
positive. Low inflation, good
economic growth in terms of the managing of America's
business, and cheap
money.
HOPKINS: It's interesting, though, we had a report today
that corporate
profits are -- that growth and corporate profits is
declining and also we see
interest rates rising. These things don't bode well for
stocks, do they?
MARRON: Well, you know what it's showing, though? When
you look at the
quarter or even last year you find the biggest spread
between the results of
money managers. Just take out the sheet on the mutual
fund results in the
paper or see hedge funds. You have managers have done
very well, managers
have done very badly; my experience, the widest spread
ever. That's partly
because all boats are not rising at the same time in
this tide.
HOPKINS: So that you have to pick the winners. That's
part of the
explanation for why the Dow has outperformed other index
-- well, it hasn't
performed -- outperformed the Nasdaq for the quarter,
but why some big chip
stocks, either technology or Dow stocks, have
outperformed the rest of the
market.
MARRON: Well, I think it's much more a case now of
picking individual
stocks, but I also think the fact is there's a reason
why the big companies are
doing better. In this new world of the Internet and
world commerce,
companies have less pricing power, it's tougher to do
well; a big company with
a great franchise has a better opportunity, probably,
than a smaller company.
And the second reason is there's more liquidity in big
companies. Investors
want to know they can get out quickly when they change
their minds.
HOPKINS: Let's talk about your company in all of those
respects. We'll talk
about the Internet, we'll also talk about bigger
companies.
Lots of consolidation in your industry and yet you're
staying as a niche player,
really a boutique. Have you looked for partners, have
people come sniffing
after you?
MARRON: Well, I haven't really thought of us as a
boutique with $350 billion
in assets.
HOPKINS: But compared to Merrill Lynch and the
CitiGroup, you know, all
of the bigger and better ones
MARRON: Well, we're growing at a very good rate. We want
to accelerate
our growth in the next couple of years. I think the fact
is the new electronics
-- online trading is the most exciting addition to our
whole business. In our
case, a full service where we can combine advice with
technology, deliver it
faster, deliver it more effectively, and do the trading
online at the same time.
HOPKINS: And you're doing that?
MARRON: We have now a product called The Edge that's
been introduced
almost two years ago. We have 310,000 clients with $60
billion in assets. You
get your statement on the Internet, you get information,
you get research, you
get tracking sales.
HOPKINS: And you trade online as well?
MARRON: In the third quarter there'll be online trading
as well.
HOPKINS: You've had to rethink the business, haven't
you, as a result of the
Internet?
MARRON: Yes. This is a business you have to rethink all
the time, and the
biggest thing you have to rethink now is there's a whole
lot of new clients,
there's a clear age difference or a generational
difference here between those
people who have never seen a bear market and are
technology proficient, and
older people that are in the business. And there are
different needs now; more
people have more assets to represent more of their
future than they did 20
years ago.
HOPKINS: And you have a whole system of brokers that are
still useful with
Internet trading, or are not?
MARRON: Oh, absolutely, because our brokers have gone
from being
transactors to asset gatherers and asset advisers.
Internet trading's only one part of it. It's an
important part of it, but the real
thing is what do you do with your money? How do you get
advice? Where do
you invest it? That's timeless. That's not going to go
away. How you execute
that advice may change, why the technology's important,
but the need for it's
going up not down.
HOPKINS: Let's go back to where your company goes in
this environment.
Your stock went up quite a lot when it was a takeover
target or rumors that it
was a takeover target. Now you've lagged the rest of the
brokerage
companies. What's it say about where you are?
MARRON: Well, our stocks done well over the last three
years, five years
and 10 years, things just -- I don't, frankly -- I'm no
better predicting our stock
in the short term than any other CEO.
We're doing very well. Our assets are coming in very,
very rapidly. We've had
very good growth in our basic businesses, and our growth
is accelerating in
part because of the markets, and in part because of
technology. So we think
the outlook is very, very good for the firm.
HOPKINS: And it doesn't make sense to be connected with
a bank or a
larger company?
MARRON: Well, it would be great if we could take over a
bank but
unfortunately Glass-Steagall won't let us do it. What we
have to do is continue
to perform well. We must continue to provide innovation,
new advice, new
technology, keep growing fast. That's the most important
thing for us and our
stockholders.
HOPKINS: Thanks very much. Don Marron of Paine Webber.
NATO May Need Ground Troops to End Serbian
Aggression in Kosovo
Aired March 31, 1999 - 6:40 p.m. ET
JAN HOPKINS, CNN ANCHOR: To discuss the ground troop
option, I am
joined from Washington by the author of "Fighting For
The Future," former
Army Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Peters -- Welcome.
RETIRED LT. COL. RALPH PETERS, U.S. ARMY: Thank you,
Jan.
HOPKINS: So can ground troops be avoided?
PETERS: Jan, if we want to save anything that's left of
Kosovo I don't think it
can be avoided. However, behind the talking heads at the
White House and
State Department I guarantee you there is absolute
turmoil in the
administration and in Brussels in NATO, because frankly
this oversold air
campaign has failed to date. The pilots are doing their
very best, but they
haven't been allowed to do enough. We haven't hit hard
enough. It looks like
the future means ground troops and we're not prepared.
HOPKINS: Well, it's interesting because we heard from
Yugoslavia that in
fact if ground troops are involved this would become
Vietnam in Europe. Do
you agree with that?
PETERS: Absolutely not, that's nonsense. The Serb army,
while it's got some
power, they are half-trained butchers. They've got a lot
of equipment. We
could take them apart quickly, if we were able to
prepare the proper force and
get it in there. But that's much easier said than done.
It would take weeks.
We are not planning I can tell you the Pentagon is
not planning for this;
Brussels is not planning for it. If you want it bad, you
get it bad. Do it fast,
there will be friendly casualties and the very mess we
hope to avoid.
HOPKINS: But they've increased the bombing, is that
enough?
PETERS: We may hope, but hope is not a strategy or a
policy. I don't believe
so. Look at the faces; look at the numbers of the
refugees. Jan, beyond all the
spin it's common sense, if we meant to protect the
Kosovar Albanians we are
failing; we have failed.
HOPKINS: Jamie McIntyre was asking the question at the
end of his report,
even if ground troops go in to protect them how many
will be left in the
country? PETERS: That's a great question because we have
-- not the military
-- the military has been under great restrictions in
this. They haven't been
allowed to do much. It's been a political strategic
operation. The equivalent to
this operation would be a hospital administrator telling
the surgeon what to do
in the operating room. At a certain point you have to
let the military use their
expertise; we haven't. It has been micro-managed and
it's the worse I've
seen.
HOPKINS: Thanks very much for joining us. Former Army
Lieutenant
Colonel Ralph Peters joining us from Washington.
Flight of Ethnic Albanians From Kosovo Sparks Refugee
Crisis in Neighboring Countries
Aired March 31, 1999 - 6:35 p.m. ET
JAN HOPKINS, CNN ANCHOR: The United States today pledged
$50
million in humanitarian aid for Kosovo's refugees, on
top of the $8.5 million
already promised.
Joining us now by phone with the latest on the crisis is
Kris Janowski, from the
U.N. High Commission on refugees in Geneva.
Kris, Welcome.
KRIS JANOWSKI, U.N. HIGH COMMISSION ON REFUGEES: Hello.
HOPKINS: How are you coping with the situation? And, in
fact, are you
coping with it?
JANOWSKI: The situation is, indeed, extremely difficult.
Today we had a
good over 30 percent more people crossing than, for
example, yesterday. We
had Macedonia eventually flooded with well over 10,000
people crossing, with
the Serbs essentially sending 3 train loads of people
over the past 24 hours into
Macedonia, in what one would describe as a new phenomena
of ethnic
cleansing by train.
To Albania, we saw about 30,000 crossing, and there is
also thousands of
people crossing into Montenegro. So it's going by the
hour and it's going by the
day.
HOPKINS: How are you dealing with the situation?
JANOWSKI: We've put a lot of people on the ground,
especially in northern
Albania, which is taking the brunt of this refugee
crisis. We started an airlift
into Tirana, which we hope will be expanded in the next
few days. The
situation is complicated by bad weather, bad roads, weak
infrastructure and so
on, so forth.
But in the end, we will be able to feed these people,
even though we have to
reckon with tens of thousands more coming over --
perhaps hundreds of
thousands -- if things continue to grow the way they are
at the moment.
HOPKINS: So, the plan is to continue airlifts of
refugees out of the area in
order to provide more space, really?
JANOWSKI: We will not be airlifting refugees initially.
They are already
being moved from northern Albania further south, to
areas which are less
affected by the crisis. We are trying to house them
locally with local families.
We'll have to probably resort to tented camps as well.
And we have appealed
to all governments to keep their boarders open, since
even though we are
trying to help these people where they are at the
moment, there may be a
need to move them further into more far-flung countries
if the crisis continues
at the current pace.
HOPKINS: Because I would assume that you'd be running
out of space.
JANOWSKI: Well, we are already running out of space in
many places -- not
really Macedonia, even though Macedonia is very
affected, the Macedonian
Albanian community is very happy and very generous to
house these people.
We are running out of space in Albania already and
certainly Montenegro,
where these people are essentially going into a fairly
small mountainous area.
So tented camps will be one solution; public buildings
will be a solution, and
international organizations, not just ours, but many
others will have to put a lot
of people on the ground to deal with it; and certainly
this is the worse crisis
and the quickest exodus that we've seen since the worse
days of the war in
Bosnia a few years ago.
HOPKINS: Thanks for joining us, Kris Janowski, from the
U.N. High
Commission on Refugees, talking to us from Geneva.
NATO Expands Strikes Against Yugoslavia; Ethnic
Albanians Flee Kosovo and Serb Brutality; Albanian
Refugees Strain Humanitarian Network
Aired March 31, 1999 - 6:30 p.m. ET
JAN HOPKINS, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening. Tonight on the
MONEYLINE NEWS HOUR, NATO bombs move closer to the heart
of
Belgrade. Operation Allied Force expands dramatically,
attacking the nerve
center of Serbia's military. Traumatized and terrorized,
20,000 refugees are
fleeing Kosovo every day, as Serbia's "scorched earth"
campaign accelerates.
We'll hear the latest from the U.N. High Commission on
Refugees. And the
most explosive question facing NATO and the White House:
Are ground
troops inevitable?
We begin tonight with our report on the eighth day of
combat in the strike
against Yugoslavia. U.S. missiles, today, U.S. missiles,
today, struck Belgrade
as Operation Allied Force entered a new, intensified
phase. The strategy:
target Serb leadership.
Allan Dodds Frank has our report.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ALLAN DODDS FRANKS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Week
two of NATO's campaign started with escalating attacks,
closing in on the
Yugoslavian capital, including bombing the Serbs'
special forces headquarters
near downtown Belgrade.
NATO vowed to bomb any targets necessary to force
Yugoslavian President
Slobodan Milosevic to stop fighting in Kosovo.
JAMIE SHEA, NATO SPOKESMAN: No facility, no unit which
is currently
being used to plan, conceive, direct, or carry out the
Yugoslav campaign
against the Kosovars is going to be a sanctuary.
GEORGE ROBERTSON, BRITISH DEFENSE MINISTER: NATO's
aircraft will now increase the damage to his war
machine, including tank and
troop concentrations. We know where they're dispersed
to, and we know
where they are hiding.
FRANK: NATO briefers showed videos of bombs hitting fuel
storage areas,
heliports, police and military headquarters.
AIR COMMANDER DAVID WILBY, BRITISH ROYAL AIR FORCE:
We know that he is really running short of fuel. We are
now starting to hit him
very hard on the ground. We've hit him in his command
and control facilities.
FRANK: On Serb television, Milosevic gave no indication
of backing down. In
Yugoslavia, his supporters held large demonstrations,
rock concerts, and
picketed the U.S. Embassy.
And shortly after an international tribunal indicted the
Yugoslavian paramilitary
leader known as Arkan for war crimes in Bosnia and
Croatia, he was on
CNN, denying reports that his fighters are pillaging
Kosovo.
ZELIKO RAZNATOVIC, ARKAN: No, they are not engaged yet,
but, as I
said, they will be engaged if NATO is coming with the
ground troops. If you
come with the ground troops in Yugoslavia, then you will
have a new Vietnam
in the heart of Europe, that's for sure.
FRANK: U.S. authorities continue to say they will not
commit ground troops
to combat, even though air attacks are proving difficult
against Serb tanks.
KEN BACON, PENTAGON SPOKESMAN: The targeting has been
complicated by the fact that they are putting some of
their equipment near
schools, and mosques.
FRANK: The State Department said the Serbian offensive
against Kosovo
Albanians continues.
JAMES RUBIN, STATE DEPARTMENT SPOKESMAN: In addition to
killings and forced expulsions, Serb forces are also
engaged in identity
elimination, destroying of birth certificates, property
deeds and other
documents.
FRANK: Russia's announcement that it is sending seven
warships to the
Mediterranean was not well received in Washington.
JOE LOCKHART, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: We are
concerned about these statements, because of the signal
that may be received
in Belgrade.
FRANK (on camera): Weather over Kosovo is improving, and
the allied
forces made it clear there will be no pause in the
bombing for religious
holidays, whether its Passover, Easter, or Orthodox
Easter.
Allan Dodds Frank, CNN Financial News, New York.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
HOPKINS: The NATO attack on Yugoslavia and the Serbian
genocide have
created a refugee crisis. It's a humanitarian disaster.
The numbers can hardly
be exact, but these are our best estimates of the
dimension of the crisis: Out of
1.8 million Kosovar Albanians, fully 1/3 are believed to
be out of their homes.
And estimated 134,000 have poured out of the region
since the NATO attack
began and into nations that can barely manage their own
economic and ethnic
problems. Twenty-seven thousand have fled to Montenegro;
85,000 to
Albania; 22,000 to Macedonia.
Matthew Chance is in Macedonia and filed this report.
(BEGIN
VIDEOTAPE)
MATTHEW CHANCE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Thousands
of Kosovars are now crossing the Macedonian frontier.
Eyewitnesses say
thousands more are hiding in the hills without shelter,
waiting for their chance
to leave Kosovo.
This woman says she walked, carrying her child, until
her feet were sore. She
says the Serbs told her to leave her home or they would
shoot her family. Like
so many others here, hers is a story of Serb
intimidation and forced exile.
With new arrivals by the minute, the ethnic Albanian
charities, who are the
front line of humanitarian aid here, are stretched to
the limit. Hundreds of
people are crammed into trucks and ferried to makeshift
reception centers.
At least here, amid the gravestones, they can eat a
decent meal -- for some,
the first in days.
The humanitarian organization, El Hilal, is at the
forefront of caring for these
Kosovars. It provides the food and tries to settle
families within Macedonia's
own ethnic Albanian community.
BEHIDJUIN SHEHABI, EL HILAL (through translator): We are
doing our
best to provide whatever help we can in this
humanitarian crisis. But only
today, we have seen 3,000 refugees come across into
Macedonia, and the
situation is getting worse.
FRANK (on camera): With an increasing flow of refugees
out of Kosovo,
organizations like El Hilal are under increasing
pressure to house and feed a
burgeoning population. Although they're coping right
now, there is concern
about just how long they can keep on providing.
(voice-over): The suffering endured by these people in
Kosovo has been
immense. They've now escaped to safety, but they face
life as refugees; the
hardship may have only just begun.
Matthew Chance, CNN, Skopje, Macedonia.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
HOPKINS: The United States, today, pledged $50 million
in humanitarian aid
for Kosovo's refugees, on top of the $8.5 million
already promised.
Joining us now by phone with the latest on the crisis is
Kris Janowski, from the
U.N. High Commission on refugees in Geneva.
Kris, Welcome.
KRIS JANOWSKI, U.N. HIGH COMMISSION ON REFUGEES: Hello.
HOPKINS: How are you coping with the situation? And, in
fact, are you
coping with it? JANOWSKI: The situation is, indeed,
extremely difficult.
Today we had a good over 30 percent more people crossing
than, for example,
yesterday. We had Macedonia eventually flooded with well
over 10,000
people crossing, with the Serbs essentially sending 3
train loads of people over
the past 24 hours into Macedonia, in what one would
describe as a new
phenomena of ethnic cleansing by train.
To Albania, we saw about 30,000 crossing, and there is
also thousands of
people crossing into Montenegro. So it's going by the
hour and it's going by the
day.
HOPKINS: How are you dealing with the situation?
JANOWSKI: We've put a lot of people on the ground,
especially in northern
Albania, which is taking the brunt of this refugee
crisis. We started an airlift
into Tirana, which we hope will be expanded in the next
few days. The
situation is complicated by bad weather, bad roads, weak
infrastructure and so
on, so forth.
But in the end, we will be able to feed these people,
even though we have to
reckon with tens of thousands more coming over --
perhaps hundreds of
thousands -- if things continue to grow the way they are
at the moment.
HOPKINS: So, the plan is to continue airlifts of
refugees out of the area in
order to provide more space, really?
JANOWSKI: We will not be airlifting refugees initially.
They are already
being moved from northern Albania further south, to
areas which are less
affected by the crisis. We are trying to house them
locally with local families.
We'll have to probably resort to tented camps as well.
And we have appealed
to all governments to keep their boarders open, since
even though we are
trying to help these people where they are at the
moment, there may be a
need to move them further into more far-flung countries
if the crisis continues
at the current pace.
HOPKINS: Because I would assume that you'd be running
out of space.
JANOWSKI: Well, we are already running out of space in
many places -- not
really Macedonia, even though Macedonia is very
affected, the Macedonian
Albanian community is very happy and very generous to
house these people.
We are running out of space in Albania already and
certainly Montenegro,
where these people are essentially going into a fairly
small mountainous area.
So tented camps will be one solution; public buildings
will be a solution, and
international organizations, not just ours, but many
others will have to put a lot
of people on the ground to deal with it; and certainly
this is the worse crisis
and the quickest exodus that we've seen since the worse
days of the war in
Bosnia a few years ago.
HOPKINS: Thanks for joining us, Kris Janowski, from the
U.N. High
Commission on Refugees, talking to us from Geneva. When
the
MONEYLINE NEWS HOUR returns, Balkan tactics. Is NATO
moving
closer to the use of ground troops, that's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HOPKINS: Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic has
survived eight days of
NATO air raids; cruise missiles, stealth planes and
guided bombs have failed
to stop the ethnic purge of Kosovo or bring Milosevic to
the peace table. The
United States and NATO have pledged not to send ground
troops. Will they
keep their word?
Jamie McIntyre has the story.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN MILITARY AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT
(voice-over): NATO's air war continues to expand.
Targets now on the
approved list include buildings in downtown Belgrade, to
send a message to
Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic that there is no
sanctuary from allied
smart- bombs and missiles. But despite eight days of
bombing, and recent
attacks on Yugoslav troops, there is no evidence that
the killing of Ethnic-
Albanians in Kosovo has stopped, or even slowed.
AIR COMMODORE DAVID WILBY, BRITISH ROYAL AIR FORCE: I
think underlying all that a week of hard work, you will
start to see the resolve
starting to crack very quickly. I believe we've
accomplished one hell of a lot in
this week.
MCINTYRE: For now, Kosovar Albanians have little choice
but to run for
their lives to neighboring Albania and Macedonia. The
pentagon says it will
provide $25 million in relief supplies to aid the
refugees, including hundreds of
tents that were used to house U.S. troops in the desert
of Saudi Arabia. The
hope is that by pounding Yugoslavia unrelentingly in the
weeks to come,
eventually its army will lose its will and ability to
fight, and the refugees will be
able to go back.
KEN BACON, DEFENSE DEPARTMENT SPOKESMAN: I have every
reason to believe that once we stabilize the situation
and provide a safe
environment for these people, they will return home, and
the international
community will help them rebuild their houses and their
lives.
MCINTYRE: Its a long-term strategy, and NATO's top
commander has
requested more firepower, including the U.S. aircraft
carrier Roosevelt, which
is scheduled to arrive in the Mediterranean Sea next
week, as well as
ground-based Apache attack helicopters. But the U.S.
insists one thing is not
under consideration: sending NATO ground troops to
Kosovo to protect the
Ethnic-Albanian majority.
JOE LOCKHART, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Our position
on
ground troops remains the same -- no intention.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MCINTYRE: The Pentagon dispute the perception that the
NATO air
campaign is failing in its key goal: to protect the
Kosovar Albanians. It insists
that military planners never promised a quick fix and
that given enough time
the aerial bombardment alone can fulfill its goal of
weakening the Serb army
to the point where it can no longer attack the Kosovar
Albanians. The
question is when that happens, how many Albanians will
be left to save -- Jan.
HOPKINS: Jamie McIntyre, thanks.
To discuss the ground troop option, I am joined from
Washington by the author
of "Fighting For The Future," former Army Lieutenant
Colonel Ralph Peters --
Welcome.
RETIRED LT. COL. RALPH PETERS, U.S. ARMY: Thank you,
Jan.
HOPKINS: So can ground troops be avoided?
PETERS: Jan, if we want to save anything that's left of
Kosovo I don't think it
can be avoided. However, behind the talking heads at the
White House and
State Department I guarantee you there is absolute
turmoil in the
administration and in Brussels in NATO, because frankly
this over-sold air
campaign has failed to date. The pilots are doing their
very best, but they
haven't been allowed to do enough. We haven't hit hard
enough. It looks like
the future means ground troops and we're not prepared.
HOPKINS: Well, it's interesting because we heard from
Yugoslavia that in
fact if ground troops are involved this would become
Vietnam in Europe. Do
you agree with that?
PETERS: Absolutely not, that's nonsense. The Serb army
while it's got some
power, they are half trained butchers. They've got a lot
of equipment. We
could take them apart quickly, if we were able to
prepare the proper force and
get it in there, but that's much easier said than done.
It would take weeks. We
are not planning -- I can tell you the Pentagon is not
planning for this; Brussels
is not planning for it. If you want it bad you get it
bad. Do it fast there will be
friendly casualties and the very mess we hope to avoid.
HOPKINS: But they've increased the bombing, is that
enough?
PETERS: We may hope, but hope is not a strategy or a
policy. I don't believe
so. Look at the faces; look at the numbers of the
refugees. Jan, beyond all the
spin it's common sense, if we meant to protect the
Kosovar Albanians we are
failing; we have failed.
HOPKINS: Jamie McIntyre was asking the question at the
end of his report,
even if ground troops go in to protect them how many
will be left in the
country?
PETERS: That's a great question because we have -- not
the military -- the
military has been under great restrictions in this. They
haven't been allowed to
do much. It's been a political strategic operation. The
equivalent to this
operation would be a hospital administrator telling the
surgeon what to do in
the operating room. At a certain point you have to let
the military use their
expertise; we haven't. It has been micro-managed and
it's the worse I've
seen. HOPKINS: Thanks very much for joining us. Former
Army Lieutenant
Colonel Ralph Peters joining us from Washington.
Every military conflict has been influenced by the
communications technology
of its day. Vietnam was the first television war. Desert
Storm considered the
first war broadcast live, and this war, the leading-edge
tool of mass
communications -- the Internet -- is also a weapon.
Greg Lefevre reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
GREG LEFEVRE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): NATO says
its
Website is under attack from Belgrade. This is what the
site looked like earlier
Wednesday when hackers posted anti-Clinton and other
graffiti at Nato.int.
JAMIE SHEA, NATO SPOKESMAN: It seems that we have been
dealing
with some hackers in Belgrade, who have hacked into our
Website and
caused line saturation of the server by using ping (ph)
bombardment strategy.
LEFEVRE: In other words, the hackers have found a way to
inundate the
NATO Website with so many requests the system
overloaded. NATO says
none of its military communications were affected. It's
also been besieged by
thousands of e-mails, apparently sent to jam and corrupt
its Internet
communications.
ALEX FOWLER, ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION: This is very
early on in this crisis and Milosevic moved very quick
to try to silence those
independent sources of information. I think he is on to
what's happening online
and he knows it's out there.
LEFEVRE: Taking sides -- a Serbian group called the
Serbian Unity Congress
appears to promote the official Yugoslavian line. On the
other side: Kosovo
info with a plea for help. At Kosovo.net the writers
deny the international
media's depiction showing bomb damage as "NATO Crime."
Free Enterprise is in on the act. This Website is
sponsored by a company
specializing in industrial intelligence. It collects
data from public sources as
well as its own.
Meanwhile the e-mail from the region pours into message
boards. A woman in
Belgrade compares the atmosphere to a horror film.
"Last night they attacked some parts of Belgrade. I
heard the thunderbolts.
The doors and window were shaking. I can't explain the
feeling."
A man in Belgrade, in a plea for peace posts photos of
his children and a
child's drawing. Angry at the war, but not the warriors.
It shows a youngster
with a sling shot knocking out a NATO plane with the
pilot parachuting safely
to earth.
Greg Lefevre, CNN, San Francisco.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
HOPKINS: Coming up on the MONEYLINE NEWS HOUR, Y2K and
your
government. Washington has plenty to say about the
computer bug, but is it
following its own advice?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HOPKINS: Looking at other stories around the nation
tonight: four New York
police officers today pled not guilty to charges they
murdered an unarmed
African immigrant. The officers fired a total of 41
bullets at the victim, striking
him 19 times. The four were released on $100,000 bail.
At Susan McDougal's criminal contempt trial in Arkansas
the jury today heard
from one of McDougal's old friends. Claudia Riley (ph)
testified that
McDougal was pressured by both Ken Starr's office and
her late husband to
cooperate with Starr's investigation of President
Clinton. But Riley says
McDougal refused.
And in Texas, Texas Governor George W. Bush today
bolstered his
front-runner standing in the polls by announcing he
raised more than $6 million
this month for his possible run for the presidency.
Bush's exploratory
committee raised the money without holding a single
fund- raising event.
The White House is putting a positive spin on the
government's Y2K
readiness. President Clinton's Y2K czar, John Koskinen,
says more than 90
percent of the government's computers are fixed and
tested for the millennium
bug. But some critics question that success rate.
Ann Kellan reports from Washington.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ANN KELLAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): This is the
deadline for all federal agencies to have critical
computer systems ready for
the year 2000. Several agencies have missed the
deadline. The watchdog
General Accounting Office says it is most concerned
about three key
agencies: the health finance arm of Health and Human
Services that
processes Medicaid forms, the Federal Aviation
Administration that monitors
the skies, and the Department of Defense.
JOHN KOSKINEN, PRES. COUNCIL ON Y2K CONVERSION: So all of
those smart weapons that are, you know, in our arsenal
and in some cases
being used even today have to be tested.
KELLAN: According to the president's Y2K chair, John
Koskinen, 13 of the
24 major agencies are Y2K compliant -- at least their
critical systems are. But
11 agencies say they need three or four more months to
get critical systems
ready for the new year.
KOSKINEN: We are confident that these systems will
effectively operate.
KELLAN: Each agency will have contingency plans just in
case, because,
even though the federal government is confident it will
be Y2K ready, some
local and state agencies may not.
KOSKINEN: And our concern now is those organizations,
including some
small and medium-size cities and counties, that are
taking an attitude of "We're
going to wait and see what breaks, and then we're going
to fix it."
KELLAN: While the federal government boasts that 92
percent of its most
critical systems are Y2K ready, that number could create
a false sense of
security.
JOEL WILLIAMSON, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTING OFFICE: There
still are risk areas that need to be addressed, and so,
the pressure still needs to
be continued to be put on the federal government.
KELLAN: While this March 31st deadline was an arbitrary
one set by the
government, the deadline nine months from now, won't be
arbitrary at all.
Ann Kellan, CNN, Washington.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
HOPKINS: The MONEYLINE NEWS HOUR will return in a
moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HOPKINS: Coming up on MONEYLINE: the economy is growing,
inflation is
low, consumers are confident, so what's wrong with
corporate profits? A
sell-off for bonds hits the stock market. A full report
from Wall Street. And I'll
talk with one of the most powerful men on Wall Street:
Paine Webber
chairman and CEO, Donald Marron is my guest.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HOPKINS: Tonight on MONEYLINE, a second day of selling
storms Wall
Street as the Dow industrials end the first quarter with
a triple-digit loss. The
biggest IPO of the year is a big flop. Pepsi spins off
its bottling operation and
the reception is ice cold. And facing tough times,
American farmers find a
guaranteed customer: the government.
But we begin tonight on Wall Street. The Dow Jones
industrial average
tumbled for the second-straight day after a near
100-point morning rally
propelled the Dow over 10,000 again.
The Nasdaq composite did not fare much better on the
day, losing nearly 19
points. The Nasdaq was in record territory at one point.
A disappointing end to an impressive quarter when more
than $400 billion was
added to the stock market's capitalization.
Rhonda Schaffler has more. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
RHONDA SCHAFFLER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The
quarter ended with another volatile session culminating
in a late-day sell- off.
At the closing bell the Dow Jones industrial average
dropped 127 points to
9,786.
DOUGLAS CLIGGOTT, J.P. MORGAN: We clearly -- we came out
of the
gates strong, but then when we got the new information
about a healthier
manufacturing sector, really, than the consensus had
expected, that started
pushing interest rates up and started pushing stock
prices down.
SCHAFFLER: Philip Morris was responsible for about 11
points of the Dow's
decline, as its shares plummeted. Technology stocks,
which rallied to new
highs early in the day, lost their footing, and the
Nasdaq composite index
closed with a loss of 18 points to 2,461.
Choppy trading days were a common denominator throughout
the entire first
quarter.
VINCE FARRELL, SPEARS, BENZAK, SALOMON & FARRELL: The
first quarter continued the same trends you saw in 1998.
Very few stocks
powered the S&P or the Dow Jones average to new highs,
and extreme
volatility, like you had last year, continued in the
first quarter, with a lot of days
showing 1 percent changes, which is really unusual.
SCHAFFLER: Even after all those wild swings, most of the
key markets
managed to post a gain for the quarter. Small-cap stocks
continued to lag the
overall market. Financial stocks dominated the Dow 30
top performers.
On the big board, LSI Logic topped the list of big
gains, along with Sprint and
America Online.
(on camera): And traders say there is little out there
to dampen their
enthusiasm for the outlook in the second quarter, as
long as inflation remains in
check and unemployment remains low.
Rhonda Schaffler, CNN Financial News, New York.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
HOPKINS: Again today, market breadth was negative.
Decliners on the big
board beat advancers by a four-to-three margin.
Fifty-three stocks hit new
52-week highs; 170 stocks hit new 52-week lows.
Late today, talk of another big tie-up in the Internet
business. Bruce Francis
joins us now with the latest.
Bruce.
BRUCE FRANCIS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Jan, a tie-up that has
been
the subject of speculation for some time. A source tells
me that Yahoo! and
Broadcast.com are in late-stage negotiations. Yahoo! is
the Web's leading
portal. Broadcast.com serves up audio and video over the
Internet.
A deal expected to be announced as soon as tomorrow.
Neither company is
talking. But analysts said that Yahoo! has scheduled a
conference call for
tomorrow morning. Broadcast.com's now has a market value
of more than $4
billion. Analysts say the purchase price could be as
much $130 a share,
valuing the company at $5.7 billion, slightly more than
10 percent premium to
Broadcast.com's close.
Shares of Yahoo! also, though, have skyrocketed, giving
Yahoo! a market cap
of $33 1/2 billion. One analyst says that Yahoo! is
looking to expand content.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARK MOORADIAN, JUPITER COMMUNICATIONS: Broadcast is
certainly a leader in aggregation of audio and video.
They've got the content.
They've got an established audience there. And
certainly, as these guys move
forward, as they are serving up content to a very
different audience, Yahoo!
basically wants to make sure that they're going to
control a lot of that content.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FRANCIS: And in composite trading, Yahoo! fell almost
$4. It closed 168 3/8.
And Broadcast.com rose almost 5, to close at 118 3/16.
Interesting potential deal here, Jan.
HOPKINS: Why does Yahoo! need Broadcast.com in
FRANCIS: Yahoo! needs to get into the high-bandwidth
area, an area that
Broadcast.com is specialized in really, delivering video
and audio over the net.
They also have a more businessy audience and a businessy
flavor to their
content, something that Yahoo! lacks.
Remember, that was one reason why AOL needed Netscape.
HOPKINS: Very interesting. Bruce Francis.
The entire tobacco sector today swooned along with
Philip Morris, following
yesterday's record verdict against Philip Morris. An
Oregon jury ordered the
cigarette maker to pay more than $80 million to the
family of a man who died
of lung cancer. Philip Morris is appealing the verdict,
the largest award ever
against big tobacco.
Philip Morris slid 2 3/4, down nearly 15 percent in the
past two days.
RJR Nabisco down to 2 3/4. Lowes fell nearly four.
Brooke Group down
nearly a half.
One analyst expects more volatility in the sector.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MARTIN FELDMAN, SALOMON SMITH
BARNEY: Over the next two months or so, when we see
another important
individual case come to trial or reach a verdict, I
would expect the stocks to be
volatile and I would expect investors to remain nervous.
On a one-year point of view, I think that the stocks --
the stocks could still
look relatively attractive, although we do need some
more evidence as to how
the industry is going to deal with these individual
cases.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HOPKINS: Investors have paid a price for Philip Morris'
legal troubles. The
stock is down nearly 40 percent from its 52-week high.
Late-day plunge in stocks benefited the bond market.
Bond prices rebounded
from a sharp sell-off, triggered by an unexpectedly
strong report on
manufacturing activity in the Midwest.
The Treasury's 30-year treasury ended the day down more
than a half a point
in price, and the yield tonight is at 5 2/3 percent.
Bonds reacted little to another phenomenal report on the
economy. The
nation's gross domestic product exploded in the final
three months of last year.
GDP surged 6 percent, the strongest showing in 2 1/2
years. But the revised
estimate was slightly lower than economists first
thought.
And behind that stellar headline, a disturbing detail:
the government says
corporate profits declined last year for the first time
in almost a decade.
Peter Viles has the report.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
PETER VILES, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): For
corporate
America, it marks the end of a winning streak that
powered history's greatest
bull market. The government now says a decade of rising
corporate profits
has come to an end.
This is what the decade looked like: a burst of
double-digit profit growth in the
mid-'90s, but last year, profits fell by 2.2 percent.
ALLEN SINAI, PRIMARK DECISION ECONOMICS: For years, we've
had corporate profits growth far, far in excess of
growth in the economy. That
really was a historical anomaly, as American
corporations realized the benefits
of restructuring, the new world economy and the new
technology. We just
won't see any of that again.
VILES: Economists blame the global slump that hurt
demand for American
goods and robbed American companies of pricing power at
home. Also to
blame, rising compensation costs.
Good times means promotions and higher salaries for
millions of workers. And
companies are so optimistic, they're borrowing again,
which cuts into profits.
STEVE RICCHIUTO, CHIEF ECONOMIST, ABN AMRO: In 1998 --
and
in fact, in the second half of 1997 -- corporations
began to borrow again fairly
heavily. And as they began to borrow, even in a
declining- interest rate
environment, the net result was their interest costs
began to rise.
VILES: It's important to note Wall Street watches a
different set of profit
numbers. It strips out one-time charges and gains. But
even that measure
slowed dramatically last year, rising just 3.7 percent.
CHUCK HILL, DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH, FIRST CALL: There's a
greater degree of uncertainty about where earnings are
headed as we go
forward. I mean, it appears that earnings may be
bottoming out here, but our
confidence level is certainly not high at this point.
VILES: Economists say the earnings squeeze won't
necessarily slow the
overall economy, but Wall Street is another story.
Profit growth drives bull
markets.
Peter Viles, CNN Financial News, New York.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
HOPKINS: Solid earnings, however, were not enough to
drum up strong
demand today for Pepsi Bottling's initial public
offering. Pepsi Bottling fell
from its initial price of $23 a share. It was the most
active on the big board.
The IPO is one of the largest ever, raising $2 1/3
billion.
But as Fred Katayama reports, Pepsi Bottling's name
lacked the midas touch:
.com.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
FRED KATAYAMA, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Pepsi
Bottling Group's market debut marked the fifth-biggest
offering ever and
featured a company selling one of America's best-known
brands. But its stock
didn't produce the big pop that investors demand on day
one.
CRAIG WEATHERUP, CHAIRMAN & CEO, PEPSI BOTTLING
GROUP: This company generates a tremendous amount of
cash flow. That's
what makes it such a good investment.
KATAYAMA: Investors didn't drink to that and sent Pepsi
Bottling stock
down 1 5/16, a loss of 5.7 percent. Coca-cola's warning
Monday that
worldwide sales will slow this quarter put a damper on
demand for Pepsi
Bottling's stock. But also hurting the bottler, it's not
an Internet stock.
STEPHEN LACEY, MANAGING EDITOR, IPO REPORTER: While there
is some high growth in that business, it's not on the
same caliber as
expectations for a lot of the Internet companies.
KATAYAMA: Compare that with the debut Tuesday of online
travel booker
Priceline. The stock jumped more than 330 percent and
added another 20
percent today: this despite the fact that Pepsi
Bottling's $7 billion in sales last
year was 200 times greater than Priceline's 35 million.
And Pepsi Bottling
earned 55 million while Priceline lost 113 million.
Money-losing Internet companies, of course, are common.
Even so, Internet
stocks that hit the market this year gained on average
138 percent on their
first day. Non-Internet stocks rose just 16 percent.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
Fair or unfair, after the first day of trading, the
market valued Pepsi Bottling at
just under $3 1/2 billion, almost a third that of
Priceline.com.
One IPO watcher said, "Anyone with a brain should
realize this isn't the time
to go public unless the company has .com after its
name."
Jan.
HOPKINS: Thanks, Fred.
Another example of the gap between Internet and
non-Internet IPOs: the
stunning debut of ZDNet. The Internet spin-off of
publisher Ziff-Davis began
trading today as a tracking stock. ZDNet soared 16 3/4,
nearly 90 percent
from its offering price of $19 a share.
Meanwhile, parent company Ziff-Davis lost $7.5; that
stock has almost
doubled in the months leading up to the IPO though.
Coming up on MONEYLINE: the man who's guided Paine Webber
for almost
20 years; Donald Marron, the insider's view, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HOPKINS: Topping tonight's MONEYLINE" movers: Seagram;
the stock
jumped nearly $2 after Merrill Lynch upgraded Seagram,
predicting strong
earnings growth.
Bed, Bath & Beyond rallied $2. Late yesterday, the home
decorator reported
better-than-expected earnings.
FDX, the parent company of Federal Express, slumped
$4.5. Goldman Sachs
downgraded the stock, saying the air freight sector
won't be the main
beneficiary of the boom in electronic commerce.
And Etec Systems lost nearly a third of its value,
diving more than $13. The
chip equipment-maker warned quarterly earnings would be
disappointing.
The stock market is the subject of tonight's MONEYLINE
Focus. Even with
today's sell-off, the Dow Jones industrial average has
had a stellar first
quarter; up 6.5 percent for the quarter and year.
The quarter's gains extend one of the longest-running
bull markets ever, and
my guest tonight has presided over it. He is one of Wall
Street's most
respected leaders, Donald Marron. He's chairman and CEO
of Paine Webber,
which controls $352 billion in assets. Welcome back to
MONEYLINE.
DONALD MARRON, CHAIRMAN & CEO, PAINEWEBBER: Nice to be
here, Jan.
HOPKINS: So, the market has done very well, we topped
10000 even today.
Where do we go after 10000?
MARRON: Well, I think we're obviously in a pause here to
find out what's
going to happen, but I think where we go depends on the
continuation of the
trends over the last few years; that looks pretty
positive. Low inflation, good
economic growth in terms of the managing of America's
business, and cheap
money.
HOPKINS: It's interesting, though, we had a report today
that corporate
profits are -- that growth and corporate profits is
declining and also we see
interest rates rising. These things don't bode well for
stocks, do they?
MARRON: Well, you know what it's showing though? When
you look at the
quarter or even last year you find the biggest spread
between the results of
money managers. Just take out the sheet on the mutual
fund results in the
paper or see hedge funds. You have managers have done
very well, managers
have done very badly; my experience, the widest spread
ever. That's partly
because all boats are not rising at the same time in
this tide.
HOPKINS: So that you have to pick the winners. That's
part of the
explanation for why the Dow has outperformed other index
-- well, it hasn't
performed -- outperformed the Nasdaq for the quarter,
but why some big chip
stocks, either technology or Dow stocks, have
outperformed the rest of the
market.
MARRON: Well, I think it's much more a case now of
picking individual
stocks, but I also think the fact is there's a reason
why the big companies are
doing better. In this new world of the Internet and
world commerce,
companies have less pricing power, it's tougher to do
well; a big company with
a great franchise has a better opportunity, probably,
than a smaller company.
And the second reason is there's more liquidity in big
companies. Investors
want to know they can get out quickly when they change
their minds.
HOPKINS: Let's talk about your company in all of those
respects. We'll talk
about the Internet, we'll also talk about bigger
companies.
Lots of consolidation in your industry and yet you're
staying as a niche player,
really a boutique. Have you looked for partners, have
people come sniffing
after you?
MARRON: Well, I haven't really thought of us as a
boutique with $350 billion
in assets.
HOPKINS: But compared to Merrill Lynch and the
CitiGroup, you know, all
of the bigger and better ones
MARRON: Well, we're growing at a very good rate. We want
to accelerate
our growth in the next couple of years. I think the fact
is the new electronics
-- online trading is the most exciting addition to our
whole business. In our
case, a full service where we can combine advice with
technology, deliver it
faster, deliver it more effectively, and do the trading
online at the same time.
HOPKINS: And you're doing that?
MARRON: We have now a product called The Edge that's
been introduced
almost two years ago. We have 310,000 clients with $60
billion in assets. You
get your statement on the Internet, you get information,
you get research, you
get tracking sales.
HOPKINS: And you trade online as well?
MARRON: In the third quarter there'll be online trading
as well.
HOPKINS: You've had to rethink the business, haven't
you, as a result of the
Internet?
MARRON: Yes. This is a business you have to rethink all
the time, and the
biggest thing you have to rethink now is there's a whole
lot of new clients,
there's a clear age difference or a generational
difference here between those
people who have never seen a bear market and are
technology proficient, and
older people that are in the business. And there are
different needs now; more
people have more assets to represent more of their
future than they did 20
years ago.
HOPKINS: And you have a whole system of brokers that are
still useful with
Internet trading, or are not?
MARRON: Oh, absolutely, because our brokers have gone
from being
transactors to asset gatherers and asset advisers.
Internet trading's only one part of it. It's an
important part of it, but the real
thing is what do you do with your money? How do you get
advice? Where do
you invest it? That's timeless. That's not going to go
away. How you execute
that advice may change, why the technology's important,
but the need for it's
going up not down.
HOPKINS: Let's go back to where your company goes in
this environment.
Your stock went up quite a lot when it was a takeover
target or rumors that it
was a takeover target. Now you've lagged the rest of the
brokerage
companies. What's it say about where you are?
MARRON: Well, our stocks done well over the last three
years, five years
and 10 years, things just -- I don't, frankly -- I'm no
better predicting our stock
in the short term than any other CEO.
We're doing very well. Our assets are coming in very,
very rapidly. We've had
very good growth in our basic businesses, and our growth
is accelerating in
part because of the markets, and in part because of
technology. So we think
the outlook is very, very good for the firm. HOPKINS:
And it doesn't make
sense to be connected with a bank or a larger company?
MARRON: Well, it would be great if we could take over a
bank but
unfortunately Glass-Steagall won't let us do it. What we
have to do is continue
to perform well. We must continue to provide innovation,
new advice, new
technology, keep growing fast. That's the most important
thing for us and our
stockholders.
HOPKINS: Thanks very much. Don Marron of Paine Webber.
And for more in-depth coverage of the markets, the
economy, corporate
America, and a lot more, visit cnnfn.com any time day or
night.
But up next: seeds of worry; the worsening plight of the
American farmer.
That's when MONEYLINE continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HOPKINS: The Microsoft antitrust trial appears far from
settling and it's far
from resuming in court. The judge today said the two
sides will return to court,
but not until May 10th, at the earliest. Attorneys for
Microsoft and the
government began settlement talks yesterday. They plan
to meet again.
Microsoft shares today lost more than $3.
In other corporate news, Daimlerchrysler is playing down
reports of a culture
clash at the newly merged company. Daimler's German CEO,
Yurgen
Schrempp, said that the departure of seven American
executives is typical
following a merger. The comments come as the automaker
reports a six
percent sales gain in the first two months of the year.
Schrempp's American
counterpart, Robert Eaton, told CNN Financial News he's
upbeat about the
future.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERT EATON, CO-CHAIRMAN, DAIMLERCHRYSLER: We're just
as focused on shareholder values as we ever were, and
we're going to try to
grow those margins. We've set some very stringent
financial goals within the
new company. And at this point in time, 1999 looks like
a good year.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HOPKINS: In the five months since the merger,
Daimlerchrysler shares have
under-performed the market.
Another Japanese company is slashing jobs. Mitsubishi
Electric is cutting 10
percent of its global work force, or more than 14,000
jobs, in order to boost
profits.
Turning now to the U.S. economy, and a group that has
not participated in this
astonishing growth: American farmers. They're planning
to sow a record
soybean crop this spring, despite little hope for a
turnaround in the farm
economy. Ceci Rodgers reports from Chicago.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CECI RODGERS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Farmers are
suffering the worst slump and the lowest prices in 13
years, but eternally
optimistic, they're gearing up to plant a record soybean
crop and huge corn
and wheat crops, that raises the prospect of more
unneeded supplies down the
road.
VICTOR LESPINASSE, CARR FUTURES: What we really want to
see is
an increase in demand. We're trying to do it through
donations. We would like
to see foreign economies recover, especially in Asia,
that would then increase
their demand.
RODGERS: Why are farmers planting so many acres when
demand is so
low? Cash-strapped farmers will receive a guaranteed
price for their
soybeans. The Clinton administration is also considering
more aid for farmers,
in addition to last fall's $6 billion package.
Ag officials are also exploring more food aid to Russia,
though analysts fear
the conflict in eastern Europe could delay donations.
DICK LOEWY, PRESIDENT, AGRESOURCE CO.: With the continued
problems in Kosovo, we may not ship the wheat to the
Russians. Our export
pace is going to also be disappointing there, too.
RODGERS: Grain prices spent much of the past few weeks
on the rebound
from 13-year lows, but grain markets all staged sharp
declines on the latest
news of huge prospective plantings.
(on camera): Analysts are skeptical grain prices will be
able to recover much
in the coming months, especially with exports still
languishing and farmers
getting ready to plant yet another bumper crop.
Ceci Rodgers, CNN Financial News, Chicago.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
HOPKINS: Crude oil's recovery is having a huge impact at
the gas pump,
after a year of rock-bottom prices. The American
Automobile Association
says gas prices surged more than 10 percent in the past
two weeks. It's the
biggest jump in nine years, since the Persian Gulf War.
Earlier this week, crude oil prices hit their highest
level in a year, at $17 a
barrel; an increase of about 40 percent for the year.
MONEYLINE will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HOPKINS: Tomorrow, look for three reports on the
strength of the economy:
personal income and spending, an important indicator,
because consumer
spending makes up two-thirds of the economy;
construction spending; and the
widely followed National Association of Purchasing
Management index, that
measures the strength of manufacturing. The news comes
during a
holiday-shortened session in the bond market. It closes
at 2:00 p.m. Eastern
time, tomorrow, and will be open until noon on Good
Friday.
That's MONEYLINE for this Wednesday. I'm Jan Hopkins in
for Lou Dobbs.
Thanks for joining us. Good-night from New York.
CROSSFIRE is next.
END
Message Sent
To:
Joseph P. Lockhart/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jennifer M. Palmieri/WHO/EOP@EOP
Anthony R. Bernal/OVP@OVP
Melissa G. Green/OPD/EOP@EOP
Leslie Bernstein/WHO/EOP@EOP
Robin M. Roland/WHO/EOP@EOP
Chandler G. Spaulding/WHO/EOP@EOP
Dominique L. Cano/WHO/EOP@EOP
Dag Vega/WHO/EOP@EOP
Brenda M. Anders/WHO/EOP@EOP
[email protected]@ inet
Megan C. Moloney/WHO/EOP@EOP
Richard L. Siewert/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jordan Tamagni/WHO/EOP@EOP
Beverly J. Barnes/WHO/EOP
Elizabeth R. Newman/WHO/EOP@EOP
Julia M. Payne/WHO/EOP@EOP
Julianne B. Corbett/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jeffrey M. Smith/OSTP/EOP@EOP
Lowell A. Weiss/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jonathan A. Kaplan/OPD/EOP@EOP
Thurgood Marshall Jr/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jennifer Ferguson/OMB/EOP@EOP
Mark D. Neschis/WHO/EOP@EOP
Ruby Shamir/WHO/EOP@EOP
Nanda Chitre/WHO/EOP@EOP
Amy Weiss/WHO/EOP@EOP
Lisa J. Levin/WHO/EOP@EOP
Peter A. Weissman/OPD/EOP@EOP
William A. Halter/OMB/EOP@EOP
Eli G. Attic/OVP@OVP
Patricia M. Ewing/OVP@OVP
Sara M. Latham/WHO/EOP@EOP
Melissa M. Murray/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jonathan E. Smith/WHO/EOP@EOP
Barry J. Toiv/WHO/EOP@EOP
Anne M. Edwards/WHO/EOP@EOP
Michael Waldman/WHO/EOP@EOP
Gene B. Sperling/OPD/EOP@EOP
Paul K. Engskov/WHO/EOP@EOP
Laura D. Schwartz/WHO/EOP@EOP
Kevin S. Moran/WHO/EOP@EOP
Julie E. Mason/WHO/EOP@EOP
Steven J. Naplan/NSC/EOP@EOP
Alison Muscatine/WHO/EOP@EOP
Gordon Li/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jason H. Schechter/WHO/EOP@EOP
Mark A. Kitchens/WHO/EOP@EOP
June Shih/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jeffrey A. Shesol/WHO/EOP@EOP
Rochester M. Johnson/WHO/EOP@EOP
Rachael E. Sullivan/OVP@OVP
Julie B. Goldberg/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sarah E. Gegenheimer/WHO/EOP@EOP
Susanna B. McGuire/WHO/EOP@EOP
Steve Ricchetti/WHO/EOP@EOP
Edward F. Hughes/WHO/EOP@EOP
Melissa J. Prober/WHO/EOP@EOP
Justin Coleman/WHO/EOP@EOP
Clara J. Shin/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jonathan M. Prince/WHO/EOP@EOP
Joshua S. Gottheimer/WHO/EOP@EOP
Heather M. Riley/WHO/EOP@EOP
Alejandro G. Cabrera/OVP@OVP
Rebecca L. Walldorff/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jon P. Jennings/WHO/EOP@EOP
Katharine Button/WHO/EOP@EOP
Tracy Pakulniewicz/WHO/EOP@EOP
James T. Heimbach/WHO/EOP@EOP
Victoria L. Valentine/WHO/EOP@EOP
James E. Kennedy/WHO/EOP@EOP
Michael A. Hammer/NSC/EOP@EOP
Laura J. Lewis/WHO/EOP@EOP
Toby C. Graff/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sean P. O'Shea/WHO/EOP@EOP
Thomas D. Janenda/WHO/EOP@EOP
Rajiv Y. Mody/WHO/EOP@EOP
Robin J. Bachman/WHO/EOP@EOP
Saladbar 23 <saladbar23 @ hotmail.com> @ inet
Kimberly S. Anderson/OA/EOP@EOP
Forwarded by Rajiv Y. Mody/WHO/EOP on 04/21/99
04:24 PM
Mark A. Kitchens
04/01/99 06:05:12 AM
Record Type: Record
To: See the distribution list at the bottom of this message
cc:
Subject:
PBS NewsHour, March 31, 1999
PBS NewsHour
Aired On March 31, 1999
SENATE BRIEFING
Sen. John Warner, chairman of the Senate Armed
Services
Committee, provides an update on the NATO strikes
in Yugoslavia.
JIM LEHRER: The Senate Armed Services Committee has
been receiving regular briefings on the war. We get ours
now from the Committee's Chairman, Senator John Warner,
Republican of Virginia. Senator, can you add -- those are
terribly moving stories.
The Campaign of ethnic cleansing.
SEN. JOHN WARNER
(R-VA), Senate Armed Services
Committee: Indeed they are, Jim,
and about six months ago, I was
in Kosovo and saw the suffering
from the Milosevic butchery
campaign last summer. And we
had hoped, after the Holbrooke
mission, that we'd reached some accord, and then of course
Rambouillet, and it fell apart. And whatever we discuss
tonight and our panel to follow, I'm sure there's grounds
for
"what if" and criticism, but I would urge all at this time
to
focus on the risks being taken tonight by American fliers,
and those of eight other allied NATO nations, as they
continue to carry out this military campaign.
JIM LEHRER: Have you heard anything in any of your
briefings, Senator, that would lead you not to believe the
stories of these refugees as to what is going on and why
they are leaving Kosovo?
SEN. JOHN WARNER: No, I think there's a mounting
body of evidence to corroborate these tragic stories by
individuals.
JIM LEHRER: In a general way, how do you feel about this
mission, eight days after it began?
SEN. JOHN WARNER: Well, we had, I think, a basis to
believe that Milosevic would not have subjected his own
people in Belgrade and elsewhere to the type of very
serious damage being inflicted by the air campaign. But he
has not, for reasons, perhaps some day we will learn more
fully. I think all the diplomatic efforts, including
perhaps the
futile one by Primakov have been made, and he only
historically responds to military pressure. And we've got
to
stay the course. There are no other alternatives. I know
that
valued colleagues of mine have thought about let's arm the
Kosovars. In my judgment, and this is just one person's
judgment, I think within two weeks he will pretty well have
fulfilled his objectives in Kosovo of ridding the Kosovar
army of any ability to combat his takeover of that region.
JIM LEHRER: And so there's
literally nothing NATO could do
about it now even if they wanted
to?
SEN. JOHN WARNER: Well,
NATO has been doing
everything they can. Weather has been a serious obstacle;
terrain is like an enemy.
JIM LEHRER: Why is that?
SEN. JOHN WARNER: Well, because -- I've walked
those hills and seen them, it's very mountainous and
pockets
of fog hang in; bad weather can come up in a matter of
minutes and obscure a target. But NATO has done
everything it can within the frame work of the use of air
power and is continuing. We're moving into -- I don't know,
whether it's phase one, two or three, that's irrelevant.
What
we're doing now is concentrating on those assets that
Milosevic personally needs to continue to conduct his
campaign in Kosovo, and perhaps pose a greater threat
across the borders.
JIM LEHRER: Now, that includes some military targets
right in downtown Belgrade, does it not?
SEN. JOHN WARNER: Well, I should not -- nor should
any of us -- discuss specific targets, but the NATO people
-- mind you, this campaign is not just an American
campaign, it was planned by 19 nations and presumably the
best military staff that can be brought together and reach
a
consensus. That's why we should stick with it. But we
shouldn't discuss targets. But we know we're going to bring
it to his command and control and his ability to
communicate
with his field commanders, and at the same time, to the
extent weather and other factors, like shoulder-held
weapons, which they have in abundance down there with
the tanks in Kosovo, to the extent we can, we're going to
bring pressure on those military units, trying to clean
out the
pockets of the Kosovar resistance.
JIM LEHRER: Now you mention -
SEN. JOHN WARNER: The KLA.
The Kosovo Liberation Army.
JIM LEHRER: Yes, the KLA. Now, is the K LA effective,
is the KLA resisting this?
SEN. JOHN WARNER: This is
a legitimate question. And I think
we should at some point in time
examine the intelligence we once
had, which indicated it was
substantial and formidable. But I
have not as yet seen they have
put up the type of fight that I
thought they would in trying to resist this ethnic
cleansing of
tragic proportions.
JIM LEHRER: Well, should we arm them more?
SEN. JOHN WARNER: I think not because, remember,
the US -- and that thought only originated in the United
States -- the US has been one of a team player of 19
nations. And to inject that here in the closing days of
what I
believe is Milosevic's ethnic cleansing campaign in Kosovo,
he's created the problem he set out to do, in other words,
in
the adjoining areas with the refugees; he's pretty well
subdued whatever KLA opposition once existed, and now
he feels he's going to consolidate those gains and then
face
the world. But in the meantime, we're going to continue to
bring very severe and hopefully unacceptable damage on his
command and control and possibly targets in the central
region that you mentioned.
JIM LEHRER: But Senator, if I'm understanding what
you're saying, Milosevic has already accomplished what he
set out to do. We're talking about reversing something, is
that right?
SEN. JOHN WARNER: He hasn't fully accomplished that,
because, in doing so, he's degraded his military, and
within
the next 10 days, there will be, I think, much more than
we've been able to deal thus far in the way of damage. But
the ethnic cleansing part probably, and this is just my
judgment, will be completed in a matter of weeks. That's
why when people say let's bring to bear ground forces,
that
requires a very considerable amount of time to transport
and
put in place elements, tanks, heavy equipment, artillery,
helicopters that would be used to support those ground
units.
That option, practically speaking, is not there.
JIM LEHRER: And a lot of
people misunderstand that,
don't they, Senator? They
think, oh, well, let's put in
ground troops, somebody
snaps their finger, and
suddenly there are 200,000
ground troops. Forget it, right?
SEN. JOHN WARNER: The ones in Macedonia were
designed and equipped primarily for quick extraction of the
UN forces and the other humanitarian people who were in
there.
JIM LEHRER: That's 28,000 altogether?
SEN. JOHN WARNER: General number.
JIM LEHRER: Six thousand of them are American.
SEN. JOHN WARNER: They could probably deal with
isolated units of the Serb army, but if you had to go
through
and attack the central forces of the Serb army, you need
heavy armor of greater proportion that they have because,
remember, any offensive operation, has to be better
equipped than a defense. And they would essentially be put
on defense if we were to attack.
No contigency plans?
JIM LEHRER: Everyone who appears to be in a position of
authority within NATO and within the U.S. government,
within the Pentagon, keeps saying that there are not even
contingency plans for putting troops in there, with the
exception of peacekeeping troops. Does that jibe with you?
SEN. JOHN WARNER: That's
correct, and that has been the
plan all along. Now, there were
studies made, and I reviewed
them last September and
October, and they were
significant numbers of people and
heavy equipment, which had to
be transported from the Adriatic Sea up through Albania --
is one of the main routes - and that was a logistic
operation
that would require a number of weeks.
JIM LEHRER: Do you agree with -- in our film clip we had
Former Defense Secretary Frank Carlucci saying it would
take at least 200,000 troops; is that a figure that makes
sense to you?
SEN. JOHN WARNER: Well, some of the planning in
NATO had very high estimates, but, again, as we talk to
those issues, and I respect Secretary Carlucci, former
secretary of defense, but someone better look at where our
assets, how quickly they could be brought to bare and the
likelihood that Milosevic will not have completed what he
set out to do by way of ethnic cleansing in the period of
time
within which you could bring those in.
JIM LEHRER: So then how do we win this thing? If in fact
everybody is now saying no matter where they came down
at the very beginning on this operation, Senator, most
people
are now saying that NATO must now win this; can NATO
in fact win this without ground troops?
SEN. JOHN WARNER: Well, you have to go back and
examine very carefully the President's statement, which did
he obliquely hint at, all right, Mr. Milosevic, if you do
not
stop what you're doing, then there may be within the NATO
structure some thought independence for this country, and
there, Mr. Milosevic you will have lost your battle,
because
that's holy ground, the old 1389 battlefield. I actually
went
and saw it one time. That's holy ground.
JIM LEHRER: That's really
holy ground for Serbs.
SEN. JOHN WARNER: That's
right, absolutely.
JIM LEHRER: We did a long
piece on it the other night on this program.
SEN. JOHN WARNER: The victory in terms of clear
winning to me is quite elusive in this situation. But I do
not
at this point in time think we should be criticizing what
has
taken place because all these military people have done
what they were ordered to do as best they could,
considering the weather and the terrain and other factors.
No-win situation?
JIM LEHRER: And one of those factors being told at the
beginning, you can't use ground troops?
SEN. JOHN WARNER: Clearly the political structure, and
it's not just within -- although our President made it
clear
it was within the NATO framework of planning by this
planning staff that that would not be an option. Otherwise,
they could have pre-positioned the heavy tanks and military
vehicles and artillery and the like and then had as an
option -
JIM LEHRER: Which is what happened in Desert Storm.
SEN. JOHN WARNER: It's clearly what happened. And,
now, of course, hindsight may be that you should not have
abandoned any option in the beginning, put all options in
place, and then determine whether or not to use it. But
again, I think at this point in time, we've got to think
about
the safety of those people flying those missions and not go
back and perform a lot of "what if" and "what should have
been done." Let's see it through, stick to it.
JIM LEHRER: But see it through with air power only.
SEN. JOHN WARNER: That's correct.
JIM LEHRER: And you believe
-- and you know a lot more about
this than anybody else -- you
believe it can still happen with air
power alone?
SEN. JOHN WARNER: To the
extent we can be effective in
containing Milosevic from going across his borders,
destabilizing the other nations, and perhaps further
suffering
in the Kosovo region, air is the one option and we've got
to
pursue it. Now, again, I think probably in a matter of
weeks
he will have completed what he set out to do, because we
do not have any indications that the KLA is going to give
him that type of resistance that would delay his progress.
JIM LEHRER: So how do you feel about it yourself,
Senator? You -
SEN. JOHN WARNER: Well, it's a human tragedy of great
proportions. But you have to ask your question what if we
had done nothing as a collection of 19 nations? Here in
this
most holy of weeks of Easter, and done nothing, and
watched these same pictures -- how would you have
reacted to that? So it seems to me that we had little
choice
but the 19 nations of mounting the actions they have taken
today and to see them through to the finish.
JIM LEHRER: Senator, thank you very much.
SEN. JOHN WARNER: You bet, thank you.
END Segment One
THE NEXT STEP
Aired on March 31, 1999
Four retired military leaders discuss the
performance of NATO
forces thus far and the possibility of deploying
ground troops to stop
Serbian attacks on ethnic Albanians.
MARGARET WARNER: We
get four perspectives now on
NATO's mission and options
from four retired military leaders:
General George Joulwan was the
top NATO commander when
NATO sent troops to Bosnia in
1995; General Merrill McPeak
was Air Force Chief of Staff during the Persian Gulf War;
Rear Admiral Eugene Carroll was an Assistant Deputy
Chief of Naval Operations in the 1970's, and he is now
Deputy Director of the Center for Defense Information
here in Washington; and Lieutenant General William Odom
was Director of the National Security Agency in the
mid-1980's, and he is now the director of National Security
Studies at the Hudson Institute. Welcome gentlemen.
General McPeak, first of all, your reaction to the day's
news, which is that NATO has at least given authority to
General Wesley Clark to expand the list of targets,
included,
it is reported, government buildings in downtown Belgrade.
Is that the right move?
Stepping up the attack.
GEN. MERRILL McPEAK
(RET.): Well, first of all, I'm not
sure that move has been made.
Let me just say at a tactical level
it appears to be me that this
campaign, we're a week or so
into it now, is going very well. A
whole list of targets have been
nominated and reduced by the air crews. Very
business-like, sort of school, textbook solution, and we
have
had no combat casualties no US combat casualties in this
week -- or so -- long campaign. So I think it's been going
pretty well. The NATO authorities may conclude that they
have to expand that target list in Belgrade. I don't know
that
they've done that. If they do so, I hope they're careful,
because we do want to avoid unnecessary civilian
casualties.
MARGARET WARNER: Admiral Carroll, would you say
this is going well?
REAR ADM. EUGENE CARROLL (RET.): Tactically,
certainly. We're doing tremendous damage, and Milosevic is
paying a terrible price for his defiance. But in terms of
objectives, we're not attaining the objective that we set
for
ourselves, which was to deter aggression against the
Kosovars. He, Milosevic, is running wild there, and as we
saw in the earlier scenes, the suffering is intense, the
area is
being cleared out, and from the air we can do absolutely
nothing about it. We can bomb indefinitely, and we still
will
not affect the situation on the ground in terms of
Milosevic
control.
MARGARET WARNER: General Joulwan, would you
agree that in terms of objectives it's not being met, and
what
would you add to what Senator Warner said about why so
far the ethnic cleansing is continuing and there doesn't
seem
to be much deterrence in that at all?
GEN. GEORGE JOULWAN
(RET.): Well, I think Senator
Warner also talked about in
hindsight perhaps we would have
considered several different
options to give to our political
leadership. In hindsight, I think he
was correct. What we have to realize now, and I don't want
to second-guess commanders doing a superb job. NATO is
deeply involved. But the political objective as announced
by
the Council, North Atlantic Counsel and our own President,
was to deter, to stop the killing. Forty-thousand Serb
troops
in Kosovo, and they're carrying out this genocide. So from
a
strategic level, from a strategic-political level, it just
doesn't
seem to have met those objectives.
MARGARET WARNER: Do you agree with Admiral
Carroll that really air power just can't do the job?
GEN. GEORGE JOULWAN (RET.): Well, that's what I
keep emphasizing, that you have to have flexibility and
alternatives so not just Plan A, but B, C, D, and E. I'm
sure somewhere in the bowels of NATO, as well as in our
own joint staff, people are looking at options. We do that.
That is our profession; that's what we get paid to do. The
political authorities may limit what you can do, but the
planning that needs to go on I think should include many
options. And I think by doing that, by even doing the
planning for a ground option, you will restrict Milosevic
's
ability to just have 40,000 troops go throughout Kosovo. He
will have to put some on the Macedonian border, for
example. So how do you take the initiative away from
Milosevic? In my opinion, he has that initiative now.
Changing Milosevic's mind.
MARGARET WARNER: Do you agree he has the
initiative now?
LT. GENERAL WILLIAM
ODOM (RET.): Of course he
has the initiative. I mean, he's
winning day by day. We heard
Senator Warner say, in effect, as
I understood it, if not explicitly,
certainly implicitly, the main
reason he wants to keep bombing
is to make us feel good so we will have done something.
But he hasn't made a case that would achieve those
objectives. Clearly, you've got to consider a ground
campaign. Now, I agree with him that we're already where
we are. And second-guessing -
MARGARET WARNER: We have to start from here, in
other words.
LT. GENERAL WILLIAM ODOM (RET.):
Second-guessing what has already happened, I think that's a
useful exercise, but there's also the problem we have to go
from where we are today. Where we are today, I think we
have to put ground troops in there, I don't care if it
takes
two weeks, four weeks or six weeks. And I think we have
to set the objective of occupying Belgrade and destroying
Milosevic 's regime. And when he knows that and he's been
told in advance that we're going
to detach Kosovo, he's lost it by
doing this, then we will begin to
change the incentive structures.
Another thing we've got to do is
to put no time limit on how long
we're going to stay there because
we may need to stay there until a
generation changes and until we have a set of leaders who
are civilized. Today we don't have those. Until we're
willing
to kill them we're going to have to hit here and watch them
kill people like we're seeing on this film tonight.
MARGARET WARNER: All right. General McPeak, I
think you've just heard three of your colleagues all say
they
don't think that air power alone can do it. How would you
answer that, in terms of the political objectives here?
GEN. MERRILL McPEAK (RET.): I feel like I must have
missed something here, Margaret. No one ever said that air
power would stop Milosevic from being a nasty personality
to deal with. This whole bombing campaign has been about
introducing ground troops in Kosovo. There are 10,000 such
troops waiting in Macedonia now. The Kosovars have
agreed to let them in. Our bombing is not because we like
to
watch bits and pieces of buildings go floating by us, but
because we want to convince Milosevic that he should let
those ground troops in. That's the whole point. That would
mean that we would be inserting peacekeeping troops in a
permissive environment. I'll say one thing -- if Milosevic
continues to resist, we're going to make that environment
permissive for the introduction of ground troops one way
or
another. As I said, we have achieved good results so far
against a whole laundry list of targets, air defenses,
logistics
supporting military infrastructure, and now I would expect
to
see our air forces turn their attention or emphasize to a
greater degree attacks on the Serbian ground forces in
Kosovo. Look, it's only been
going on a week or so. It's
not time to throw in the
towel here. I said seven or
eight days ago on this
program that the biggest risk
was that we'd run out of stomach, and it sounds as though
some are willing to throw in the towel after only seven
days.
MARGARET WARNER: Do you think, Admiral, that if
NATO just keeps bombing that ultimately Milosevic can be
forced to change his mind?
REAR ADM. EUGENE CARROLL (RET.): No, I don't
believe so. He is impregnable, our bombing has actually
solidified the support for his regime. He had opposition,
and
now it's all focused on NATO, resenting the application of
our force. And in order to go to Belgrade to take him out
physically -
MARGARET WARNER: As General Odom suggested.
REAR ADM. EUGENE
CARROLL (RET.): -- as
General Odom has suggested,
you're talking about a military
campaign involving more than
100,000 troops, perhaps 200,000,
a matter of months, and of
immense destruction that will
mean no one is a winner. There will just be no victory in
this. I think Senator Warner used the term "prevail;"
that's
the best you can say, is we would prevail militarily in the
ultimate game, but there would be no victor.
What should be done?
LT. GENERAL WILLIAM ODOM (RET.): Well, this
figure of 200,000, I don't think anybody knows how many
troops are going to be there. And I agree with General
McPeak that the air campaign is having a degrading effect.
If it is, then it ought not to take 200,000 troops to do
it. We
ought to be able come in there pretty easily. It's my
understanding that the tank forces are all T-55, 1950 --
MARGARET WARNER: The Serb tank forces.
LT. GENERAL WILLIAM
ODOM (RET.): The Serb
tank forces are 1950's vintage
tanks. There's no hand-held
weapon in that - in the Serb
arsenal that would kill an M-1
tank today. Therefore, tank
forces, say coming down out the Voyavadina of Hungary,
they wouldn't be going through the mountains, and I think
it
would be a very interesting kind of campaign. The Nazis
went through there in about 14 days the whole country and
into the Greece. And I don't think that this force today
is a
great deal more competent than the ones that the Germans
ran.
MARGARET WARNER: All right. Well, let's ask General
Joulwan, who has the most recent experience with this
force and with that terrain. Tell us how, if combat ground
force had to be introduced, how would it be done, do you
think it could be done?
GEN. GEORGE JOULWAN (RET.): Well, first of all, our
forces are trained to do this. We do combined arms, that's
air, ground, sea. And you get a synergistic effect when you
put those all together. In Bosnia we had tactical air
control
parties with the UN forces when we did the air campaign in
August and September of '95. We had observed fire, and as
General McPeak knows and others, that is your most
effective fire.
MARGARET WARNER: I'm sorry, explain that kind of
fire.
GEN. GEORGE JOULWAN
(RET.): Observed fire. In other
words, you have people on the
ground that can pinpoint what
you need to shoot at, or bomb
from the air. That is to me the
best sort of eyes you can have on
target. We had those when we did the air campaign in
Bosnia. So the synergistic effect, I think, is important
here.
You have 12,000 NATO troops in Macedonia now. Perhaps
we should plan for, I don't say commit, but at least plan
for
a limited objective, something to take the initiative away
from Milosevic There's a damned good commander in
Mike Jackson of the Ace Rapid Reaction Corps in
Macedonia now. It's, to me, troublesome that we could have
that many NATO forces two to three few miles from
where atrocities are being committed and not at least come
up with some planning.
MARGARET WARNER: Are you talking about, for
instance, going at least into Kosovo a little bit and
suggesting
an enclave -- something?
GEN. GEORGE JOULWAN (RET.): A limited objective.
And, with all the air power we have there, you combine that
with some sort of limited objective, I think we could take
some of the initiative away. But the wrestling of the pros
and cons of that, that's up to the military planners at
NATO.
Let them do the pros and cons of what it would take, the
risk involved, but at least do the planning of what you
can do
with the force there, and you may have to generate more
forces. But I believe you must take the initiative away. We
fully support the air operation now, but I think we could
do
more than that operationally to try to at least get inside
the
decision cycle of Slobodan Milosevic.
Return to diplomatic negotiations?
MARGARET WARNER: Do
you agree, Admiral, that the
NATO forces ought to do
something to change this equation
a little bit?
REAR ADM. EUGENE
CARROLL (RET.): I think we
ought to resort to diplomatic negotiating tactics. I know
that's not a popular thing to say when you're talking
about a
man like Milosevic, but some place between his arbitrary
cruel, inhumane position and NATO's demand that we put
28,000 troops onto Kosovo and take control away from him
is room for some sort of a working agreement. There's also
the problem of conducting military operations through
Macedonia. There's a question of the Greek willingness to
support combat operations against Serb forces.
MARGARET WARNER: Which you'd have to go through
Greece into Macedonia. General McPeak, how do you
react to General Joulwan's suggestion?
GEN. MERRILL McPEAK
(RET.): Well, I like it better than
Bill's idea that we ought to
occupy Belgrade, or Gene's idea
that we can negotiate some more
with Milosevic. Neither one of
those options seem to make a lot
of sense to me. What George has
suggested is we ought to at least do the contingency
planning to run a ground force in there or to make some
sort
of a demonstration on the ground, and I think that might
stand Farmer Jones' logic test a little bit better. But,
look,
we're in our eighth day of air operations here. Even in
Desert Storm we bombed -- we had an air campaign that
lasted 39 days. We've had no US combat losses. We've
inflicted heavy damage on the competition. What is the
argument that we must abandon the course that we're on
here? It's unclear to me.
MARGARET WARNER: General Odom is dying to jump
in here.
LT. GENERAL WILLIAM ODOM (RET.): Nobody is
suggesting we abandon the air campaign, and I don't hear
anybody condemning the air campaign, or even criticizing
it.
What I hear is the absence of anything in addition to that.
And if -- General Joulwan's limited offensive out of
Macedonia, I would sign up for that straight away. But what
disturbs me is that we have an operation where we don't
have contingencies if at the end of the air campaign we
don't have what we consider as an acceptable objective.
Now, that seems to me would bother you, General McPeak.
Do you want to go to war with no aces in your hand when
you're getting down and you're losing all your money? You
spent all your money on an air campaign, and Milosevic is
now in charge, he's killed so many thousands of people, and
you look funny. I'm all for the bombing, but I want to go
in
with a combined arms force. I suggested a bigger campaign,
because I don't care if it takes three or four, five
months to
plan it. If you start it, that clearly is going to affect
his mind
as much or more than what we're doing right now in the
bombing.
MARGARET WARNER:
Let me ask General
Joulwan a very quick
question before we go. Do
you agree with General
Odom that the Serb military
may not be as formidable as
we think it is, if we ever got there on the ground?
GEN. GEORGE JOULWAN (RET.): I think we have to
caution there. If you do, the order of battle, you will
see that
there are disparities. They're willing to fight, we have
should
have no illusions about that. The Serb military will
fight. We
have to go in there with that in mind. I think we do have
an
advantage if we put our forces together. But history will
have to record whether we chose the right action or not.
I'm
worried about we may meet our objectives from the air
campaign, but lose tens of thousands of Kosovars who have
been ethnically cleansed, or the Serbs committed genocide,
and I'm not sure we will have gained much from the
operation.
MARGARET WARNER: All right, thank you, General,
thank you all four very much.
END
Message Sent
To:
Joseph P. Lockhart/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jennifer M. Palmieri/WHO/EOP@EOP
Anthony R. Bernal/OVP@OVP
Melissa G. Green/OPD/EOP@EOP
Leslie Bernstein/WHO/EOP@EOP
Robin M. Roland/WHO/EOP@EOP
Chandler G. Spaulding/WHO/EOP@EOP
Dominique L. Cano/WHO/EOP@EOP
Dag Vega/WHO/EOP@EOP
Brenda M. Anders/WHO/EOP@EOP
[email protected]@ inet
Megan C. Moloney/WHO/EOP@EOP
Richard L. Siewert/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jordan Tamagni/WHO/EOP@EOP
Beverly J. Barnes/WHO/EOP
Elizabeth R. Newman/WHO/EOP@EOP
Julia M. Payne/WHO/EOP@EOP
Julianne B. Corbett/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jeffrey M. Smith/OSTP/EOP@EOP
Lowell A. Weiss/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jonathan A. Kaplan/OPD/EOP@EOP
Thurgood Marshall Jr/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jennifer Ferguson/OMB/EOP@EOP
Mark D. Neschis/WHO/EOP@EOP
Ruby Shamir/WHO/EOP@EOP
Nanda Chitre/WHO/EOP@EOP
Amy Weiss/WHO/EOP@EOP
Lisa J. Levin/WHO/EOP@EOP
Peter A. Weissman/OPD/EOP@EOP
William A. Halter/OMB/EOP@EOP
Eli G. Attie/OVP@OVP
Patricia M. Ewing/OVP@OVP
Sara M. Latham/WHO/EOP@EOP
Melissa M. Murray/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jonathan E. Smith/WHO/EOP@EOP
Barry J. Toiv/WHO/EOP@EOP
Anne M. Edwards/WHO/EOP@EOP
Michael Waldman/WHO/EOP@EOP
Gene B. Sperling/OPD/EOP@EOP
Paul K. Engskov/WHO/EOP@EOP
Laura D. Schwartz/WHO/EOP@EOP
Kevin S. Moran/WHO/EOP@EOP
Julie E. Mason/WHO/EOP@EOP
Steven J. Naplan/NSC/EOP@EOP
Alison Muscatine/WHO/EOP@EOP
Gordon Li/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jason H. Schechter/WHO/EOP@EOP
Mark A. Kitchens/WHO/EOP@EOP
June Shih/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jeffrey A. Shesol/WHO/EOP@EOP
Rochester M. Johnson/WHO/EOP@EOP
Rachael E. Sullivan/OVP@OVP
Julie B. Goldberg/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sarah E. Gegenheimer/WHO/EOP@EOP
Susanna B. McGuire/WHO/EOP@EOP
Steve Ricchetti/WHO/EOP@EOP
Edward F. Hughes/WHO/EOP@EOP
Melissa J. Prober/WHO/EOP@EOP
Justin Coleman/WHO/EOP@EOP
Clara J. Shin/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jonathan M. Prince/WHO/EOP@EOP
Joshua S. Gottheimer/WHO/EOP@EOP
Heather M. Riley/WHO/EOP@EOP
Alejandro G. Cabrera/OVP@OVP
Rebecca L. Walldorff/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jon P. Jennings/WHO/EOP@EOP
Katharine Button/WHO/EOP@EOP
Tracy Pakulniewicz/WHO/EOP@EOP
James T. Heimbach/WHO/EOP@EOP
Victoria L. Valentine/WHO/EOP@EOP
James E. Kennedy/WHO/EOP@EOP
Michael A. Hammer/NSC/EOP@EOP
Laura J. Lewis/WHO/EOP@EOP
Toby C. Graff/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sean P. O'Shea/WHO/EOP@EOP
Thomas D. Janenda/WHO/EOP@EOP
Rajiv Y. Mody/WHO/EOP@EOP
Robin J. Bachman/WHO/EOP@EOP
Saladbar 23 <saladbar23 @ hotmail.com> @ inet
Kimberly S. Anderson/OA/EOP@EOP
Forwarded by Rajiv Y. Mody/WHO/EOP on 04/21/99
04:24 PM
Mark A. Kitchens
04/01/99 06:05:15 AM
Record Type: Record
To: See the distribution list at the bottom of this message
cc:
Subject: ABC World News Tonight, March 31, 1999
WORLD NEWS TONIGHT WITH PETER JENNINGS
Aired on MARCH 31, 1999
PETER JENNINGS, ABC News: (voice-over) On World News Tonight this
Wednesday -- the NATO alliance tries to raise the stakes in its campaign
against the Serbs. It says the capital city will now be a target.
Millennium computer panic. The biggest thing to fear may be fear itself.
And just days until opening day. Can money alone win or lose a season?
ANNOUNCER: From ABC News world headquarters in New York, this is World
News Tonight with Peter Jennings.
PETER JENNINGS: Good evening. The policy for attacking the Serbs in
Yugoslavia is firm for another day -- bombing, more bombing, nothing but
bombing. And by tonight, the Serbian leader, Slobodan Milosevic, has
undoubtedly heard that NATO has a new idea. It intends, so it says, to
bomb the capital city, Belgrade. We're going to begin with that potential
new dimension to the air campaign. At the Pentagon, ABC's John McWethy.
JOHN MCWETHY, ABC News: (voice-over) Taking the air campaign to
downtown Belgrade is something that NATO had been avoiding because of the
possibility of civilian casualties. Now among the targets being
considered, the Ministry of Defense and Interior and the presidential
palace.
JAMES RUBIN, State Department Spokesman: No place where attacks on
Kosovo are conceived and planned will be immune from NATO air strikes.
Gen. MIKE DUGAN (Ret.), Former Air Force Chief of Staff: It means going
places -- not where the tactical front is, not where you see the tanks and
the artillery pieces -- but where you see the decision-makers.
JOHN MCWETHY: (voice-over) Military sources tell ABC News that some
targets have been selected to send a very personal message to Milosevic
and his top supporters. Their homes and offices will be considered
potential targets. Even if buildings are empty -- which officials concede
some are -- destroying them, they argue, still sends a powerful symbolic
message.
Today, NATO released video of new strikes against ammunition and fuel
storage areas, and the Pentagon claims Serb tanks in Kosovo were attacked
for the first time. But more of the same may do little good.
(on camera) Intelligence sources say time is running out. They
calculate in another several days, Milosevic will have won in Kosovo. He
will have utterly destroyed what is left of the ethnic Albanians'
insurgent army and will have forced hundreds of thousands of the people of
Kosovo to leave the country, burning their homes as they go.
(voice-over) So the Clinton administration and America's NATO allies
are left struggling with the question -- what do we do now? John McWethy,
ABC News, the Pentagon.
The Serbian State Of Mind
PETER JENNINGS: If NATO actually does take its air campaign to the
center of the Yugoslav capital, it surely knows that the Serbian
leadership has more bomb shelters available than there are in most cities.
As for breaking the Serbian spirit, where Kosovo is involved, that's a
very tall order.
Kosovo is a national shrine, even for many Serbs who find Mr.
Milosevic's nationalism revolting. Sheila MacVicar tonight on the Serbian
state of mind.
SHEILA MACVICAR, ABC News: (voice-over) According to Serbian TV, it is
business as usual tonight. They showed pictures of President Slobodan
Milosevic, but there was no mention that NATO now has downtown Belgrade in
its sights. In the streets, the news did spread by Internet, foreign radio
broadcasts and word of mouth.
And to make a point about potential casualties, journalists were taken
to the city's largest hospital, only 300 yards from the defense ministry.
Staff and patients said they were terrified.
But on the surface, life in Belgrade goes on very much as normal.
Another government-organized rock concert in the city's center today. A
Serbian journalist spoke to National Public Radio by telephone.
Voice of DEJAN ANASTASIJEVIC, Serbian Journalist: There's plenty of
food. Serbia is largely an agricultural country, and now it's the middle
of the spring. The price of meat went down, however. It's surprising.
There's a general shortage of fuel and cigarettes. The government said
that these will be rationed.
SHEILA MACVICAR: (voice-over) But as the bombing continues and now
escalates, people are tiring of the shelters and looking outside the city
for safety.
Voice of MARIA IVANOVIC, Freelance Journalist: There is fear setting
in. It's beginning to feel more panic here, more aggressive.
SHEILA MACVICAR: (on camera) Still, there are no signs President
Milosevic is pulling back. Here in Montenegro, there is growing concern
tonight that Milosevic may be preparing to move against the Western-minded
and neutral government of this republic, perhaps even preparing a military
coup. Sheila MacVicar, ABC News, Podgorica, Montenegro.
Kosovo'S Ethnic Albanian Population Dwindling
PETER JENNINGS: The NATO alliance may not be doing much to stop the
Serb forces in Kosovo, but the State Department does seem to know what's
going on. Today, the department named 20 towns and villages in the
province where it said there is credible evidence of war crimes -- mass
executions, forced expulsion. And nearly all of it since the NATO campaign
began.
Until recently, two million people lived in Kosovo. One way or another
now, the ethnic Albanian population dwindles every day. We have two
reports, beginning with ABC's Clay Scott, who's on the Kosovo border with
Macedonia.
CLAY SCOTT, ABC News: (voice-over) They arrived at the border this
morning -- nearly 2,000 ethnic Albanians. They said they had been forced
onto trains by Serb soldiers who locked the doors shut. When the trains
reached the border, the doors were opened, and the refugees made their way
single file along the tracks for fear of buried land mines.
The Serbs took both their money and their passports, the refugees said,
and there had been worse before they left. "They shot the two sisters of
my husband," she says. This woman was on one of those trains arriving
this morning from Kosovo's capital, Pristina.
FEMALE REFUGEE FROM PRISTINA: We came without bread, without nothing.
If they stayed there one day more, two days, they are going to die, some
of them.
CLAY SCOTT: (voice-over) Aid officials are especially worried about
thousands of other refugees who are traveling by road on foot. They are
stranded in the mountainous no-man's land along the Macedonian border,
braving cold and hunger. They're still there because the Macedonian
government has been extremely reluctant to take more Albanians because
that would upset its own ethnic balance between Christians and Muslims.
This family arrived today from that no man's land after three days in
the mountains. They described the last harrowing hours in their village.
"They were killing people," she said. ``I didn't even have time to put
on my shoes." "We hid in the basement," he said. "We could hear the
Serbs enter our building. When it was dark, we crawled out the window.
There were dead people in the street."
His son and his grandchildren, he says, are still missing, lost
somewhere in the mountains of Kosovo. Clay Scott, ABC News, on the
Kosovo-Macedonia border.
The Flight From Kosovo
MIKE LEE, ABC News: (voice-over) This is Mike Lee at the Albanian
border with Kosovo. Some 10,000 refugees crossed into Albania today. Buses
were overflowing with frightened people. "There's nothing left of our
homes but ashes," said this man.
A small convoy of tractors arrived today with all those who made it out
of the village of Zym (ph). Some of them said they watched from a
riverbank as the Serbs shot to death 22 of their men. They made it to the
town of Kukes today, where thousands are scrambling for bread and other
relief supplies.
(on camera) All of this has been extremely difficult for the children.
Most of them don't even understand what a refugee is. All they know is
that their lives have suddenly been turned upside down.
(voice-over) ``My daughter asked me, 'Mommy, where are we going?"
said this woman. ``I told her, 'Don't worry. We are going to grandma's
house.' But when she looked back and saw our house on fire, she started
screaming.
"The Serb police burned our house," she says. Her name is Calabria
(ph). She is only 3 years old. ``Yes, I saw the flames. Yes, I was scared,
very scared."
Thousands of mothers are trying to comfort their children. They cry and
say, "It's just like we see on TV. Are we going to die like people die in
the movies?"
Late today, these people from one little village in Kosovo rode off to
continue life in another place. They do not know where. Mike Lee, ABC News
at the Albanian-Kosovo border.
PETER JENNINGS: Just one other note with based on what you see
there. Faced with what we can all see is happening, President Clinton has
ordered up $50 million worth of food and other emergency supplies for the
refugees.
When we come back, the debate about using ground troops in Kosovo. Not
in the White House.
(Commercial Break)
A Closer Look
PETER JENNINGS: We are going to take "A Closer Look" tonight at the
argument being waged, largely in the editorial pages, about sending ground
troops to Kosovo. Ever since the President said that he was trying to
prevent a human disaster there, it has been clear to some people that
ground troops would be needed and equally clear to others that it was not
in the cards.
It is a debate made sharper by the fact that air power alone has not
held the Serbs back. First, ABC's John Martin.
JOHN MARTIN, ABC News: (voice-over) As the air campaign continues, the
bombs fall and refugees flee, five former government officials said today
that ground troops may be needed to finish the job in Kosovo. Jeanne
Kirkpatrick was U.S. ambassador to the United Nations under Ronald Reagan.
JEANNE KIRKPATRICK, Former U.S. Ambassador to U.N.: You cannot, from a
remote location, stop troops on the ground from committing horrors, if
they are inclined to do so.
JOHN MARTIN: (voice-over) Frank Carlucci was secretary of defense in
the Reagan administration.
FRANK CARLUCCI, Former Secretary of Defense: If it does require ground
troops in order to prevail, then I think we ought to send in ground
troops.
JOHN MARTIN: (voice-over) William Howard Taft was ambassador to NATO in
the Bush administration.
WILLIAM HOWARD TAFT IV, Former U.S. Ambassador to NATO: We have the
political objectives. We should achieve them. If it takes ground troops,
fine.
JOHN MARTIN: (voice-over) But what should the military objective be?
Originally, it was autonomy for Kosovo.
MORTON ABRAMOWITZ, Former Assistant Secretary of State: I think that
has now been forfeited. It has changed dramatically with this vast
expulsion of people and this beating up on the Kosovars.
JOHN MARTIN: (voice-over) What's left -- safe havens or driving the
Serbs out? Whatever the objective, said senator and Vietnam veteran John
McCain, there must be an all-out effort.
Sen. JOHN MCCAIN, (R) Arizona: If that means at some point we may have
to use ground troops, then we may have to use ground troops.
JOHN MARTIN: (voice-over) Retired General Colin Powell, Joint Chiefs
chairman under George Bush, is reluctant to send troops.
Gen. COLIN POWELL (Ret.), Former Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff: I
think it's a point we should try to avoid and see if air power can
continue to work. At the end of the day, if you wish to seize the
initiative, then you may have to do that.
JOHN MARTIN: (on camera) But Powell does concede that right now,
without ground troops, NATO is at a disadvantage against the Serbs. John
Martin, ABC News, Washington.
Nato At Disadvantage Without Ground Troops
PETER JENNINGS: It is pretty elementary what the former chairman of the
Joint Chiefs says. NATO is clearly at a disadvantage without any ground
forces. But as Colin Powell knows better than most, senior military men
and the President are often haunted by what has gone before. Here's ABC's
John Cochran.
JOHN COCHRAN, ABC News: (voice-over) In his first year as president,
Bill Clinton learned the danger of using ground troops. Faced with another
human tragedy, starvation in Somalia, an inexperienced Clinton turned a
humanitarian mission into a futile and bloody hunt for a Somali war lord.
Thirty Americans were killed. A humiliated president withdrew.
TED GALEN CARPENTER, Cato Institute: Somalia should certainly be an
object lesson for anyone who suggests sending ground troops to Kosovo.
That was a very bitter experience. We went in with the best of intentions,
and yet we went and ended up with a lot of dead Americans.
JOHN COCHRAN: (voice-over) But what about Operation Desert Storm which
succeeded in driving Saddam Hussein from Kuwait? The difference there was
that George Bush built a coalition with overwhelming force and had plenty
of time not only to prepare for military action, but to convince the
public that casualties would be justified to protect American access to
Gulf oil. Also, the desert was perfect for allied troop operations.
But Kosovo is harder to explain to Americans, and the mountainous
terrain would be ideal for Serb guerrilla operations against NATO forces.
Some say sending in ground troops would be madness now that 40,000 armed
Serbs are already in Kosovo.
RICHARD PERLE, American Enterprise Institute: So we have come in too
late. 1 think this is negligence and incompetence on a grand scale, and I
would be very reluctant to entrust the lives of American ground forces to
the strategic thinkers who have gotten us into the situation we are now
in.
JOHN COCHRAN: (on camera) On one thing everyone agrees. There can be no
ground campaign unless the President convinces a skeptical public it is
necessary. And so far, no one seems more skeptical than the President
himself. John Cochran, ABC News, Washington.
PETER JENNINGS: Just time now to check in with our White House
correspondent. Sam Donaldson is with us. Sam, there are some suggestions
around today that, in spite of the failure to help the Kosovars or stop
Mr. Milosevic, there's talk there in the White House that the President
may, at some point fairly soon, say he's accomplished his goals, and NATO
will stop the bombing.
SAM DONALDSON, ABC News: Well, Peter, he'd like to. From the beginning,
the objective has been to accomplish limited goals -- to deter Milosevic's
ability to kill people, to damage his war machine and, at that point, to
get out.
As one senior official said the other day, "We never said we'd bomb
him back to the negotiating table." So at the moment, if you look
throughout the administration, you find all of the major players on the
same page. Bomb, bomb, bomb. No ground troops. There's no talk of that
here -- at least not today, Peter. And the guess is that there won't be
any tomorrow either.
PETER JENNINGS: Sam, very briefly, if they had to point to a result up
until now, what would it be?
SAM DONALDSON: They'd say that they wanted to demonstrate NATO's
resolve. That is that NATO said it would bomb and it did. And they've done
that. Milosevic must now understand that if NATO says we're going to bomb
you, we're going to bomb you. The problem, of course, is what does the
bombing accomplish because that, at the end of the day, is the way this
page will be written in history.
PETER JENNINGS: Thanks very much, Sam. Sam Donaldson at the White House
tonight.
We'll be back in a moment with some of the day's other news. There's
another Y2K problem. The more they worry, the worse it appears to get.
(Commercial Break)
Millennium Computer Panic
PETER JENNINGS: Now, some of the other news today -- in Washington,
the government announced that 92 percent of its critical computer systems
are ready for the Year 2000. And it promises that the computers
controlling air traffic and the ones that issue Medicare checks will be
ready this summer. That is the good news. Now here's ABC's James Walker.
JAMES WALKER, ABC News: (voice-over) Two hundred and seventy-five days
to go and the closer we get, the noisier, the more ominous the predictions
become.
NARRATOR (Clip from "Y2K & You"): Twenty-five billion microchips --
if they fail, it's an electronic ice age.
JAMES WALKER: (voice-over) There's the noise on the Net -- from the
publishers, from the sales people.
SALESMAN: Four cases lasts one family one year.
JAMES WALKER: (voice-over) The concern is that people may panic.
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Whatever I have, I intend to take out of the bank.
And if there's enough, I would probably buy gold.
PETER DE JAGER, Computer Consultant: When we panic, we lose everything.
We are no longer a civilization when we panic. And that's my fear is that
we will panic.
JAMES WALKER: (voice-over) Computer consultant Peter De Jager was one
of the first to predict a Y2K disaster. This month, he changed his mind.
PETER DE JAGER: The number-one concern is no longer the technical
issue. It is now the fear itself.
JAMES WALKER: (voice-over) There is a growing consensus that banks,
insurance and phone companies will have their computers ready for the Year
2000.
(on camera) Federal officials hope today's report that the government
is solving the Y2K problem will minimize the danger that people will
overreact.
JOHN KOSKINEN, White House Y2K Council: The overreaction risks are
that, you know, hundreds of millions of Americans decide that they're all
going to, at the last minute, take money out of the bank, money out of the
market, fill up their cars with gas and buy
a lot of anything. The system won't tolerate that.
JAMES WALKER: (voice-over) In fact, computer experts say very few Y2K
failures are likely to occur on January 1. Instead, they believe there
will be small-scale disruptions spread out over the next year or so.
VENDOR: Take Visa, Mastercard, cash, check.
JAMES WALKER: (voice-over) That's why they urge people to stay away
from those who are out to profit from doom. James Walker, ABC News, New
York.
PETER JENNINGS: "On The Money" tonight -- prices on the rise.
(voice-over) In the past two weeks, gas prices have jumped about 12
cents a gallon in most places. In California, drivers are now paying up to
40 cents more following the decision by key oil-producing nations to cut
production and since a fire shut down
a major California refinery.
(on camera) In Washington today, a report from the government's
official auditor, the General Accounting Office, says that major federal
agencies could not account for a majority of the $466 billion in assets
that they hold.
(voice-over) On Wall Street today, the Dow Jones Industrial Average was
down more than 127 points to close at 9786. On the NASDAQ, stocks were
down almost 19 points.
Graphics: Dow Jones 15-day Trend
Change: Down 127.10
Close: 9786.16
Volume: 922,062,400
NASDAQ 15-day Trend
Change: Down 18.89
Close: 2461.40
Volume: 1,074,988,205
(on camera) In a moment -- baseball, 1999. The season of the rich.
TERRY RYAN, General Manager, Minnesota Twins: It's not good for us to
go into the season thinking that we may not stand a chance from April.
That's not the way to play professional sports.
PETER JENNINGS: (voice-over) Poor teams out of the hunt before the game
begins.
(Commercial Break)
Season Of The Rich
PETER JENNINGS: Finally tonight -- the money games. This Sunday is
baseball's opening day. We learned today that the Major Leagues are
considering selling patches of advertising on players' uniforms to boost
team revenues. It's actually not such a ludicrous idea for some teams.
ABC's Aaron Brown reports tonight that today in baseball, more than ever,
winning depends on the wallet.
AARON BROWN, ABC News: (voice-over) For Major League Baseball, last
year was close to perfect. There was McGwire and Sosa, the Yankees 125-win
season.
BUD SELIG, Baseball Commissioner: I think George Will put it correctly
near the end of the year, this is probably, in many ways, baseball's
greatest year.
AARON BROWN: (voice-over) But if the summer was kind, winter was cruel.
The big teams, the teams with the deep pockets, spent their cash wildly.
The Yankees more than $85 million for Bernie Williams, the Anaheim Angels
spent more than $80 million for Mo Vaughn.
And the Dodgers, a staggering $105 million over seven years for pitcher
Kevin Brown, $15 million a year, which is about the entire Minnesota Twins
payroll. The rich got better. The baseball poor got left behind.
RANDY SMITH, General Manager, Detroit Tigers: You have to spend to win,
and if you don't spend, you're not going to win. I think you look at the
top 12 payrolls last year, 11 of them had winning records. Look at the
bottom 12 payrolls, they all had losing records.
AARON BROWN: (on camera) Baseball has always had its rich teams and its
poor teams. The Yankees haven't won two dozen championships simply because
they've had better scouts. But the disparity has never been this great,
both off the field, the money the big teams make, and on the field, the
talent they can buy.
(voice-over) While the Yankee payroll was growing -- it will exceed $80
million this year -- the Twins payroll is shrinking. They are trying to
cut salaries to between $10 million and $15 million, about half what they
paid last year. The Yankees field stars at almost every position. The
Twins will field a team so inexperienced, so devoid of stars, they not
only won't be competitive within their division, they can barely be called
major league.
TERRY RYAN, General Manager, Minnesota Twins: It's not good for us to
go into the season thinking that we may not stand a chance from April even
to compete with Cleveland. That's not the way to play professional sports.
AARON BROWN: (voice-over) But that is how baseball is being played
these days in a half dozen or more of baseball's 30 cities. And fans in
those cities are denied the very best part of spring.
BUD SELIG: They have to have the hope that their team can be
competitive and faith that they believe that. If you take that away from
too many franchises, you've obviously hurt the game.
AARON BROWN: (voice-over) In too many places, the game is hurting, and
the season is effectively over before the first pitch has been thrown.
Aaron Brown, ABC News, Lakeland, Florida.
PETER JENNINGS: Just a brief review of our top story tonight.
(voice-over) NATO now says it's going to take the air war to downtown
Belgrade, the Yugoslav capital. The White House still has no plans to use
U.S. ground troops. And as the massive flow of refugees continues, ABC's
John McWethy says intelligence reports predict that within a few days,
Slobodan Milosevic will have essentially won, driving the ethnic Albanians
from their homes and defeating what there was of their military forces.
(on camera) That is our report on World News Tonight. Don't forget
20/20 and Nightline.
I'm Peter Jennings. Have a good evening. Good night.
END
Message Sent
To:
Joseph P. Lockhart/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jennifer M. Palmieri/WHO/EOP@EOP
Anthony R. Bernal/OVP@OVP
Melissa G. Green/OPD/EOP@EOP
Leslie Bernstein/WHO/EOP@EOP
Robin M. Roland/WHO/EOP@EOP
Chandler G. Spaulding/WHO/EOP@EOP
Dominique L. Cano/WHO/EOP@EOP
Dag Vega/WHO/EOP@EOP
Brenda M. Anders/WHO/EOP@EOP
[email protected] @ inet
Megan C. Moloney/WHO/EOP@EOP
Richard L. Siewert/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jordan Tamagni/WHO/EOP@EOP
Beverly J. Barnes/WHO/EOP
Elizabeth R. Newman/WHO/EOP@EOP
Julia M. Payne/WHO/EOP@EOP
Julianne B. Corbett/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jeffrey M. Smith/OSTP/EOP@EOP
Lowell A. Weiss/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jonathan A. Kaplan/OPD/EOP@EOP
Thurgood Marshall Jr/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jennifer Ferguson/OMB/EOP@EOP
Mark D. Neschis/WHO/EOP@EOP
Ruby Shamir/WHO/EOP@EOP
Nanda Chitre/WHO/EOP@EOP
Amy Weiss/WHO/EOP@EOP
Lisa J. Levin/WHO/EOP@EOP
Peter A. Weissman/OPD/EOP@EOP
William A. Halter/OMB/EOP@EOP
Eli G. Attie/OVP@OVP
Patricia M. Ewing/OVP@OVP
Sara M. Latham/WHO/EOP@EOP
Melissa M. Murray/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jonathan E. Smith/WHO/EOP@EOP
Barry J. Toiv/WHO/EOP@EOP
Anne M. Edwards/WHO/EOP@EOP
Michael Waldman/WHO/EOP@EOP
Gene B. Sperling/OPD/EOP@EOP
Paul K. Engskov/WHO/EOP@EOP
Laura D. Schwartz/WHO/EOP@EOP
Kevin S. Moran/WHO/EOP@EOP.
Julie E. Mason/WHO/EOP@EOP
Steven J. Naplan/NSC/EOP@EOP
Alison Muscatine/WHO/EOP@EOP
Gordon Li/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jason H. Schechter/WHO/EOP@EOP
Mark A. Kitchens/WHO/EOP@EOP
June Shih/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jeffrey A. Shesol/WHO/EOP@EOF
Rochester M. Johnson/WHO/EOP@EOP
Rachael E. Sullivan/OVP@OVP
Julie B. Goldberg/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sarah E. Gegenheimer/WHO/EOP@EOP
Susanna B. McGuire/WHO/EOP@EOP
Steve Ricchetti/WHO/EOP@EOP
Edward F. Hughes/WHO/EOP@EOP
Melissa J. Prober/WHO/EOP@EOP
Justin Coleman/WHO/EOP@EOP
Clara J. Shin/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jonathan M. Prince/WHO/EOP@EOP
Joshua S. Gottheimer/WHO/EOP@EOP
Heather M. Riley/WHO/EOP@EOP
Alejandro G. Cabrera/OVP@OVP
Rebecca L. Walldorff/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jon P. Jennings/WHO/EOP@EOP
Katharine Button/WHO/EOP@EOP
Tracy Pakulniewicz/WHO/EOP@EOP
James T. Heimbach/WHO/EOP@EOP
Victoria L. Valentine/WHO/EOP@EOP
James E. Kennedy/WHO/EOP@EOP
Michael A. Hammer/NSC/EOP@EOP
Laura J. Lewis/WHO/EOP@EOP
Toby C. Graff/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sean P. O'Shea/WHO/EOP@EOP
Thomas D. Janenda/WHO/EOP@EOP
Rajiv Y. Mody/WHO/EOP@EOP
Robin J. Bachman/WHO/EOP@EOP
Saladbar 23 <saladbar23 @ hotmail.com> @ inet
Kimberly S. Anderson/OA/EOP@EOP
Forwarded by Rajiv Y. Mody/WHO/EOP on 04/21/99
04:24 PM
Mark A. Kitchens
04/01/99 06:05:19 AM
Record Type: Record
To:
See the distribution list at the bottom of this message
cc:
Subject:
CBS 60 Minutes II, March 31, 1999
CBS 60 MINUTES II
Aired on MARCH 31, 1999
SPEAKERS: WILLIAM J. CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
DAN RATHER, CBS ANCHOR
RATHER: With the air war against Serbian forces entering its second
intense week, we asked President Clinton to sit down and talk to us about
Kosovo, about what to expect next there, and about his presidency. He
agreed and this afternoon we met in the White House.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
RATHER (voice over): After walking and talking for a short while, we
sat down for our interview in the cabinet room. The president talked
passionately about the war tactics of Serbian President Slobodan
Milosevic.
CLINTON: Look at what this guy did in Bosnia. Let's go back to Bosnia
-- two million refugees, a quarter of a million people dead. And there is
no question that this is his strategy. I think he wanted to clean them
out. I think he wanted to ethnically cleanse the country as much as he
could. I think he wanted to drastically alter the population balance. I
think he wanted to eradicate all the records of the Albanians and the
property they owned. I think hi wanted to erase history and start all over
again.
RATHER (on camera): Is genocide too strong a word Mr. President?
CLINTON: Well, as you know, I've tried to be hesitant in using it.
There is no question that a few thousand people have been murdered because
they were Kosovar Albanians. There's no question about that.
RATHER: But you hesitate to use the word genocide.
CLINTON: But I think because it's only a question of whether enough
people have been killed yet. There's no question of what he was doing
constitutes ethnic cleansing and that he was killing and uprooting people
because of their ethnic heritage. There is no question about that.
And I think that not only he, but others who have been in
decision-making positions have to be held accountable for what they've
done. And of course, this whole war crimes tribunal that's been set up to
review what happened in the Balkans, we will have to review those facts.
But the main thing I want to do, whatever the label belongs on it, is
to stop it if we can.
RATHER: Mr. President, there are reports that as we speak and through
this evening that they will be-- there will be air attacks in Belgrade
itself, that you've gotten NATO to organize. That is that correct, is that
accurate?
CLINTON: It is accurate that we are attacking targets that we believe
will achieve our stated objective, which is either to raise the price of
aggression to an unacceptably high level so that we can get back to
talking peace and security, or to substantially undermine the capacity of
the Serbian government to wage war.
RATHER: In the vernacular of the military, have you authorized them to
go downtown?
CLINTON: I have authorized them to attack targets that I believe are
appropriate to achieve our objectives. We have worked very hard to
minimize the risks of collateral damage, but I do not believe that we can
rule out any set of targets that are reasonably related to our stated
objectives.
RATHER: When you say that you don't rule out any targets that could
help you accomplish the mission, would that -- declining to rule out
targets -- include the defense ministry, the interior ministry?
CLINTON: I don't think I should discuss the specific targets, because I
don't want to compromise our efforts to achieve them. But you can say that
I didn't rule out any targets anywhere within Serbia or Kosovo that would
be reasonably related to our objectives. You can say that.
RATHER (voice over): Since if bombing began, the president acknowledged
that the humanitarian crisis in Kosovo has gotten much worse. But he says
that would have happened anyway.
The forces of Serbian President Milosevic have continued to force tense
of thousands of ethnic Albanians out of their homes and out of the
country. Towns have been emptied, villages burned, and there have been
reports of mass killings.
CLINTON: We believe we can do something about it there, and I think we
have to try.
RATHER (on camera): You still believe you can do something about it
there? The last few days have indicated well, it seemed from several
points of view, Milosevic is winning and we're losing.
CLINTON: Well, we knew that would happen in the first few days. He had
planned this a long time. Keep in mind, before the first NATO plane got in
the air, he already had the 40, 000 troops there.
Think how we would feel if this were going on and we were doing
nothing. Now, there's no question that in -- we've run this air campaign
for less than a week. We've been hampered by bad weather. We had to be
cautious on the early nights to try to at least protect our planes as much
as we possibly can against the air defenses, which are quite good.
And so it takes a while to get up and going, and against that, he had
40,000 troops and 300 tanks. It shouldn't surprise anybody that he's able
to do a lot of what he intended to do, even though we've had some success
in hitting his military targets in the last couple days.
But I would urge the American people, indeed the people of all the NATO
nations, to have a little resolve here, to stay with your leaders, to give
us a chance to really see this thing through.
We cannot view this as something that will be instantaneously
successful. This is something that will require some time. So I would ask
for the American people to be patient and to be resolved and to be firm
and give our plan a chance to take hold here.
RATHER: Mr. President, I want to read you what some fairly high-rank
military people have said privately. You would understand they didn't want
their names attached to it. ``Dan, we're not employing the full power of
our Air Force."
Another one, "We ran over 200 bombing missions the first day when we
moved against Saddam Hussein. There hasn't been a single day in which
we've run as many as 50 bombing missions, with the possible exception of
today."
Why aren't we going all out? You've described a situation that you feel
passionately about and you think is wrong. Everybody knows if you get in a
street fight with a bully, you want to him hit him the hardest right at
first.
CLINTON: We have done this through and with NATO. It's an organization
that operates by consensus. One of the things that has struck me is that
in the last 48-hours, because of the actions taken by Mr. Milosevic, the
will, the steel, the determination and the outright anger of our allies
has been intensifying exponentially. So that we have now, I think, a
stronger support than we have ever had for taking the most aggressive
action we can.
I understand the frustration of some of our people in the Pentagon, but
I think that the secretary of defense and the chairman of the joint chiefs
will tell you that I have worked very hard with them to give them the
maximum possible leeway, showing sensitivity only to targets that might
have marginal benefits but cause a lot of collateral damage. I don't want
a lot of innocent Serbian civilians to die because they have man running
their country that's doing something atrocious.
But some of them are at risk because of that and must be because we
have targets that we need to go after.
RATHER: With all respect, but also directly, everybody acknowledges you
have a brilliant mind; you're an excellent speaker. But sometimes people,
people who support you and like you say, well, he parses words too
closely. What is ``is" argument -- all of that.
I want to discuss ground troops in the context of speaking as a
directly as you possibly can. When you say you have no intention to commit
ground troops to accomplish the mission in Kosovo, does that mean we are
not going to have ground troops in there, no way, no how, no time?
CLINTON: It means just what it says. You know, you -- I'll come back to
the point, but you say people say I parse words too --that's what they
said about President Roosevelt, too. He made a pretty good president.
And when people say you parse words too closely, it usually means they
want to ask you a question and get you to give an answer which is
inconsistent with the objective you're trying to pursue for the American
people and say you don't do what they want you to do.
So normally they criticize you not for what you're doing but what they
wish you would do.
Now, I have used those words carefully. I am very careful in the words
I use.
Now, on the merits of it, the thing that bothers me about introducing
ground troops into a hostile situation, and into Kosovo and into the
Balkans, is the prospect of never being able to get them out.
If you have a peace agreement, even if it's difficult and even if you
have to stay a little longer than you thought you would, like in Bosnia,
at least there is an exit strategy and it's a manageable situation.
People are frustrated because we live in an age where everybody wants
things to operate like an 30-second ad. This air campaign is not a
30-second ad. It's only been going on for a few days and it's been
undermined to some extent, by bad weather.
RATHER: Let me follow up on something Mr. President. First of all, the
pope has asked for an Easter suspension of the bombing. Are you prepared
to do that?
CLINTON: I don't see how we can do that with what's going on on the
ground there now. Mr. Milosevic is running those people to the Albanian
borders, to the other borders by the thousands a day. He's killing people.
No one would like more than I to properly observe Easter, which for
Christians is the most important holiday of all, even more important than
Christmas really because of what it symbolizes to the living.
But we can't observe Easter and honor the resurrection of Christ by
allowing him another free day to kill more innocent civilians.
RATHER: And to those people who say, Mr. President, that this is the
most important week in the whole Judeo-Christian calendar in many ways,
because you have Passover, Monday, Thursday, Good Friday and Easter, that
it is quote ``obscene to be carrying on this kind of war during this
period," you say what?
CLINTON: That we are acting in defense of the defenseless. We are not
carrying on an aggressive war. We are acting at a time when he is going
through the country, killing people, according to reports including
moderate politicians, trying to destroy records of what their land
holdings are, trying to eradicate any historical record of their claim to
their own land.
I hate the idea of having to continue this campaign during this period,
but I hate more the idea that we would walk away from this campaign while
he continues to clean out house after house after house and village after
village after village and kill a lot of innocent people. I think that is
-- I think that that would not serve to honor the occasion.
RATHER: Mr. President, as you always try to do -- you are talking in
measured tones as President of the United States, you have to be
careful what you say. But I'm told by those who are close to you that you
have a lot of pent up feelings about what's happening in the Balkans, what
we're doing there. Can you share some of that with us?
CLINTON: Well, I guess I do have a lot of pent up feelings, and
I think the president is supposed to keep a lot of his feelings pent up.
But let me say, I think throughout human history, one of the things
that has most bedeviled human beings is their inability to get along with
people that are different than they are. And their vulnerability to be led
by demagogues who play on their fears of people who are different than
they are.
And here we are at the end of the cold war, we're on the verge of the
21st century, and what is the dominant problem of our time, from the
Middle East to Northern Ireland, to Bosnia, to Central Africa? People
still wanting to kill each other because of their racial, their religious,
their ethnic, their cultural differences. This is crazy.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
RATHER: When we come back, Mr. Clinton talks about his presidency and
events of the past year.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
RATHER: There was a point in the interview in the cabinet room this
afternoon when the interview broadened out and President Clinton talked
about what's happened the past year and his presidency.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
RATHER (on camera): Could you describe for me what you believe to be
the responsibilities of a husband of a United States Senator?
(LAUGHTER)
CLINTON: I don't know, but I'm willing to fulfill them. You know, I
would do whatever.
I would fill in at dinners, make speeches when she had to vote.
I would be the main casework officer in the New York office. I'd do
whatever I was asked to do.
Let me say seriously, though, I have no earthly idea what my wife will
do. I can tell you that before some New York officials came to her, it had
never crossed her mind. And I still think it's
a highly unusual thing. And I can imagine that many voters in New York
would wonder whether even though she and I intended to move to New York
after we left the White House -- although I would also spend a lot of time
at home in Arkansas -- they would wonder, well, you know, does this make
sense for someone to be a United States Senator.
And that would be a burden she would have to carry in the campaign to
explain that. Why she was doing, that she was asked to do it, and
demonstrate her commitment to the state and its issues.
I think if she could win an election like that, she'd be magnificent.
But whatever the duties are, you know -- for 22 years now or more
we've done what I wanted to do in terms of my political career. So the
deal I made was she gets the next 22 years. And if I'm still around after
that, we can argue about the third phase. And so I'd be happy to be the
spouse of a senator.
RATHER: And you expect to do that together as man and wife?
CLINTON: Oh, absolutely. I would like I said, I don't know what the
duties are, but I'm sure I could fulfill them.
(LAUGHTER)
RATHER: Mr. President, you know Americans like to know that first
family is OK, that they're doing all right. Given the year plus, what you
and our first family have been through, tell us what you can about how the
three of you are doing.
CLINTON: Well, I think given what we've been through, we're doing
reasonably well. And, you know, we're not a large family, but we do love
each other very much. And we work hard to support one another.
And I think that this trip to North Africa has been a good thing, not
only for our country, because I think Hillary's done a great job on it. I
think it must have been good for Hillary and Chelsea too to have that time
together to do some exciting things, to be in a different environment. And
I think they've really enjoyed it.
But I think we're doing quite well considering what we've been through
and God willing, we'll keep after it.
RATHER: Well, I asked you about the first family. How about yourself?
We're here in a room with pictures of Lincoln, Washington, the Continental
Congress. When you look back over this year plus, what's the moral of it?
Does it have a moral?
CLINTON: Oh, yes. I think there's more than one lesson here. I think
first of all, the moral is there's a personal moral, which is that every
person must bear the consequences of his or her conduct. And when you make
a mistake, you pay for it, no matter who you are.
And it's true, whether or not it's made public or whether or not what's
made public is exactly an accurate reflection of what, in fact, happened,
that's not the important thing. The important thing is that there are
consequences in people's personal lives no matter who they are.
The second lesson is that the Constitution works. The Founding Fathers
were smart people. They understood that partisan passions would very often
get carried away, and the temptation to seize on events of the moments
would be too great and that's why they wrote the Constitution the way they
did. And they were awfully smart.
The third thing that I think we learned this year is that the American
people almost always get it right if you give them enough time, to think
through things and really work on it.
And the fourth thing I think we learned is that people expect their
elected officials to work for them and not to to be focused on themselves
or their adversaries in Washington. And that they will reward those who
they believe get up every day and show up for work and work for them and
their future and their children. And they will take account of those they
believe do not.
Those are, I think, the lessons of the last year.
RATHER: You said the American people if given enough time -- did you
ever consider resigning?
CLINTON: Never.
RATHER: Never for a second?
CLINTON: Never, not a second, never, never.
RATHER: Never entered your mind?
CLINTON: Never entered my mind.
RATHER: Did the first lady ever come to you and say, ``listen, I think
we ought to at least consider it?"
CLINTON: No. She felt at least as strongly as I did that it shouldn't
have been done.
RATHER: That tells me she might have felt even stronger?
CLINTON: At least as strongly as I did. But it never crossed my mind. I
wouldn't do that to the Constitution. I wouldn't do that to the
presidency. I wouldn't do that to the history of this country.
I would never have legitimized what I believe is horribly wrong with
what has occurred here over the last four or five years.
RATHER: Mr. President
CLINTON: And so, it never crossed my mind. And I always had faith. I
just prayed about it. I tried to work on maintaining my inner spiritual
strength. I tried to come to grips with the work I had to do personally
with my family and myself and the work I owed the American people.
And I just decided that, you know, that of all the options available,
that wasn't one, and it never entered my mind.
RATHER: Mr. President, I get a lot of letters not as many as you do
-- but I get a lot of letters from parents who say, some of them say,
listen, I like President Clinton. I like what he's doing for the country.
Some of them even say I'd vote for him again, but
I don't know what to tell the children.
On the worst aspects of what's happened last year, let's try to give
these parents some help. What can they tell their children?
CLINTON: It's interesting. I get a lot of letters from parents and from
children, interesting letters from children. And sometimes pretty young
children 11, 12, 13-year-old kids writing me.
Some of them on this very point are offended that they're being used in
that way. And because what they say is, what I learned from this is what
my parents always told me, that nobody is so big or so important that
they're not subject to the same rules of human conduct, and that when they
do things they shouldn't, they have to bear the consequences. But that if
they bear the consequences, say
they're sorry, and go on, they should be able to go on with their lives
because they also know that every person makes mistakes. No one is so big
or so important that they are perfect.
And so that's what I would say to our children. That's what I think the
lessons of all those Bible stories are, of the great figures in the Bible
who did things they shouldn't have done. The reasons those stories are in
the Bible is to say, everyone sins, but everyone is held accountable, and
everyone has a chance to go on.
And all that all three of those points need to be made. And if you say
that to our children, I think that's what needs to be said. Kids are
pretty smart. And they -- this is a good lesson, not a bad lesson for
them.
I'm sorry that I had to be the example, and it's painful, but the
lessons -- the right lessons properly learned -- will be good for them and
good for our country.
RATHER: The last question if you'll indulge me. You agree that whatever
you do, however this situation in Kosovo turns out, whatever else you do,
in the first paragraph of your obituary is going to be a reference to what
you consider among the worst things that's ever happened to you, only
president in the 20th century to be impeached, one of only two presidents
to be impeached. Give me some sense of how you feel about that within
yourself?
CLINTON: Well, first of all, I'm not at all sure that's right, that it
will be the first paragraph of the obituary.
And secondly, if it is, if the history writers are honest, they'll tell
it for exactly what it was.
And I am honored that something that was indefensible was pursued and
that I had opportunity to defend the Constitution. That doesn't have
anything to do with the fact that I did something I shouldn't have done,
which I'm ashamed of and which I apologized for, but it had nothing to do
with the impeachment process. And I think that's what the American people,
-- two-thirds of them knew all along.
And I stood -- and I determined that I would defend the Constitution
and the work of my administration and those that did not agree with what I
had done and were furious that it had worked, and that the country was
doing well, and attempted to use what should have been a constitutional
and legal process for political ends, did not prevail.
And that's the way I saw it. I have no lingering animosity. I don't
wake up every day mad at those people.
RATHER: You've got to be bitter about some of that.
CLINTON: I'm not. I, I have -- I'm not. I learned look, I'm not. And
I'm not saying that for any reason other than I have -- part of the
learning process that I went through in the last six years, but certainly
in the last several years when I was dealing with this, when I saw, you
know, all these other charges. They were always false. They never amounted
to anything, and half the people that were propagating them knew they were
false.
I realized that particularly in the last year, if I wanted people to
give me forgiveness, I had to extend forgiveness. If I wanted to be free
to be the best president and the best husband and father and the best
person I could be, I had to free myself of bitterness. And I have worked
very hard at it.
And I have had very powerful examples. I look at a man like Nelson
Mandela who suffered enormously. Yes, he was part of a political movement
that was threatening to the people who were in, but he didn't deserve to
go to jail for 27 years. And in the 27 years he was there, he purged
himself of his hatred and also of whatever might have been wrong with
himself, and his hatred of other people.
Now, if a person like that can rid himself of bitterness, what I went
through was peanuts compared to that. It was nothing. And I think it was
-- and any moment I spend full of anger and bitterness is a moment I am
robbing from my wife or from my daughter or from my country or from my
friends. So it's almost a selfish decision.
But I do not regard this impeachment vote as some great badge of shame.
I do not because -- I do not believe it was warranted, and I don't think
it was right.
And I believe frankly if you look back at President Andrew Johnson who
unfortunately, because of the circumstances under which he came to office,
didn't have the opportunity to achieve very much while he was president. I
think most people believe that he was unjustly impeached and that the fact
that he stood up to it and refused to give in and came much closer than I
did -- he came within only a vote of actually being removed -- reflects
well on him in the history of the country, not poorly.
And so I just don't have a bad feelings about that. That but neither do
I have feelings of anger and bitterness against those who did what they
did, whether they believed it or whether it was political or whatever. I
just think it's past us and we need to put it behind us and we need to go
on.
We owe that to the American people. Let it go. And all of us owe it to
our families and our personal lives. All the great players here, they need
to let it go and go on with the business of the country.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
END
Message Sent
To:
Joseph P. Lockhart/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jennifer M. Palmieri/WHO/EOP@EOP
Anthony R. Bernal/OVP@OVP
Melissa G. Green/OPD/EOP@EOP
Leslie Bernstein/WHO/EOP@EOP
Robin M. Roland/WHO/EOP@EOP
Chandler G. Spaulding/WHO/EOP@EOP
Dominique L. Cano/WHO/EOP@EOP
Dag Vega/WHO/EOP@EOP
Brenda M. Anders/WHO/EOP@EOP
[email protected] @inet
Megan C. Moloney/WHO/EOP@EOP
Richard L. Siewert/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jordan Tamagni/WHO/EOP@EOP
Beverly J. Barnes/WHO/EOP
Elizabeth R. Newman/WHO/EOP@EOP
Julia M. Payne/WHO/EOP@EOP
Julianne B. Corbett/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jeffrey M. Smith/OSTP/EOP@EOP
Lowell A. Weiss/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jonathan A. Kaplan/OPD/EOP@EOP
Thurgood Marshall Jr/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jennifer Ferguson/OMB/EOP@EOP
Mark D. Neschis/WHO/EOP@EOP
Ruby Shamir/WHO/EOP@EOP
Nanda Chitre/WHO/EOP@EOP
Amy Weiss/WHO/EOP@EOP
Lisa J. Levin/WHO/EOP@EOP
Peter A. Weissman/OPD/EOP@EOP
William A. Halter/OMB/EOP@EOP
Eli G. Attie/OVP@OVP
Patricia M. Ewing/OVP@OVP
Sara M. Latham/WHO/EOP@EOP
Melissa M. Murray/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jonathan E. Smith/WHO/EOP@EOP
Barry J. Toiv/WHO/EOP@EOP
Anne M. Edwards/WHO/EOP@EOP
Michael Waldman/WHO/EOP@EOP
Gene B. Sperling/OPD/EOP@EOP
Paul K. Engskov/WHO/EOP@EOP
Laura D. Schwartz/WHO/EOP@EOP
Kevin S. Moran/WHO/EOP@EOP
Julie E. Mason/WHO/EOP@EOP
Steven J. Naplan/NSC/EOP@EOP
Alison Muscatine/WHO/EOP@EOP
Gordon Li/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jason H. Schechter/WHO/EOP@EOP
Mark A. Kitchens/WHO/EOP@EOP
June Shih/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jeffrey A. Shesol/WHO/EOP@EOP
Rochester M. Johnson/WHO/EOP@EOP
Rachael E. Sullivan/OVP@OVP
Julie B. Goldberg/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sarah E. Gegenheimer/WHO/EOP@EOP
Susanna B. McGuire/WHO/EOP@EOP
Steve Ricchetti/WHO/EOP@EOP
Edward F. Hughes/WHO/EOP@EOP
Melissa J. Prober/WHO/EOP@EOP
Justin Coleman/WHO/EOP@EOP
Clara J. Shin/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jonathan M. Prince/WHO/EOP@EOP
Joshua S. Gottheimer/WHO/EOP@EOP
Heather M. Riley/WHO/EOP@EOP
Alejandro G. Cabrera/OVP@OVP
Rebecca L. Walldorff/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jon P. Jennings/WHO/EOP@EOP
Katharine Button/WHO/EOP@EOP
Tracy Pakulniewicz/WHO/EOP@EOF
James T. Heimbach/WHO/EOP@EOP
Victoria L. Valentine/WHO/EOP@EOP
James E. Kennedy/WHO/EOP@EOP
Michael A. Hammer/NSC/EOP@EOP
Laura J. Lewis/WHO/EOP@EOP
Toby C. Graff/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sean P. O'Shea/WHO/EOP@EOP
Thomas D. Janenda/WHO/EOP@EOP
Rajiv Y. Mody/WHO/EOP@EOP
Robin J. Bachman/WHO/EOP@EOP
Saladbar 23 <[email protected]>@ inet
Kimberly S. Anderson/OA/EOP@EOP
Forwarded by Rajiv Y. Mody/WHO/EOP on 04/21/99
04:24 PM
Mark A. Kitchens
04/01/99 06:05:23 AM
Record Type: Record
To: See the distribution list at the bottom of this message
cc:
Subject: FOX Special Report, March 31, 1999
FOX SPECIAL REPORT WITH BRIT HUME
Aired on March 31, 1999
BRIT HUME, HOST, SPECIAL REPORT: Welcome to Washington. I'm Brit
Hume.
There are growing indications that not even the previously confident
NATO commander Wesley Clark thinks the violence in Kosovo can be stopped
by bombing alone. He has signalled he wants more tools at his disposal,
and indications are he's meeting resistance to his request. More on that
now from correspondent Greg Palkot at NATO headquarters in Brussels.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
GREG PALKOT, FOX NEWS (voice-over): The sun is now setting on the
first week of Operation Allied Force. NATO planners are now frantically
trying to avoid their worst-case scenario for the military campaign
against Yugoslavia, that combat troops might have to be called in to deal
with the situation on the ground in Kosovo, which can't be dealt with
totally from the air.
GEN. WESLEY CLARK, NATO COMMANDER: But can we stop it on the ground?
No. You can't stop paramilitary actions from the air. We all knew that.
PALKOT: But with the political cost of calling troops so high, NATO
is trying to anyway, sending in low-flying tank-buster planes and other
aircraft to try and stop Serb sweeps against ethnic Albanians, and then
upping the ante today with a deeper campaign, hitting a larger number and
broader scope of military targets.
JAMIE SHEA, NATO SPOKESMAN: No facility, no unit which is currently
being used to plan, conceive, direct or carry out the Yugoslav campaign
against the Kosovars is going to be a sanctuary.
PALKOT: But the man responsible for the carnage and running the show
right now is Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic. That's why NATO
military boss General Wesley Clark is pushing hard for approval to hit
targets even closer to him, like the defense ministry in Belgrade. Until
that approval is given, NATO officials are preparing the public for a long
haul.
DAVID WILBY, AIR COMMODORE: Let me make it very clear that there is
no instant solution. This will be an extended campaign.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PALKOT: General Wesley Clark is a veteran of the Vietnam war. He
knows the limits of an air campaign and the ugliness of ground fighting.
Sources say while he does not rule out combat troops in Kosovo, he's
hoping that tougher bombing raids can convince Slobodan Milosevic to call
of his dogs of war.
Brit?
HUME: Within NATO, what does Clark have to do to get permission to
expand his operations?
PALKOT: Sources close to Clark tell us that he is getting resistance
from the very top -- that is, Javier Solana, NATO secretary general,
saying, "Wait. It's too politically sensitive to go in and start blowing
up the defense ministry, the interior ministry in Belgrade." But Clark
knows that the fall-out of not doing that, of having to get involved in
something ugly in Kosovo, could be even worse.
Brit?
HUME: All right, Greg. Thanks very much.
The Defense Department has tried here in the U.S. to maintain an
upbeat assessment of the progress of Operation Allied Force, and it kept
that up in its daily briefing. But there was also confirmation that NATO
commander Clark may want to hit targets and use weapons that have so far
been off-limits to him. Here's correspondent Steve Centanni at the
Pentagon.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
STEVE CENTANNI, FOX NEWS (voice-over): As NATO tries to zero in on
Serbian troops and tanks, there's a political and military debate over
whether to deploy the ultimate weapon for such an attack, the Apache
helicopter. NATO commander Wesley Clark wants them, but his request so far
has not been approved either by NATO or the Pentagon.
KEN BACON, PENTAGON SPOKESMAN: There are a number of issues. One is
basing. One is the kind and tempo of fighting that we'd be taking on.
Another is the risk.
CENTANNI: But even without the Apache, the Pentagon says there has
been some progress in attacking Serbian troops in the field.
BACON: NATO forces have been striking tanks successfully, we
believe, in Kosovo and other heavy armored or -- and military vehicles.
CENTANNI: The Pentagon also says a Yugoslavian special forces unit
was struck by NATO warplanes Tuesday, a target very near the Yugoslav
capital.
BACON: It was the closest to downtown Belgrade that has been struck
to date.
CENTANNI: Even targets right in downtown Belgrade could be hit,
including the interior and defense ministries. But a reporter who lived in
Belgrade for five years says that could be a risky move.
JONATHAN LANDAY, "CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR": emergency center
and their main hospital literally 200 yards behind the rear of both
ministries. And so I think there is a serious risk of collateral damage.
CENTANNI: Meantime, there's word for the first time that the
aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt may take part in Operation Allied
Force. The Roosevelt left Norfolk, Virginia, last Friday bound for the
Persian Gulf, but could stop instead in the Adriatic. It carries 50
warplanes and is accompanied by five ships capable of firing cruise
missiles.
While the air campaign continues, a humanitarian relief effort is
also getting under way. The Pentagon will take part in a $50 million
effort to airlift food and shelter to Kosovar refugees.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
As part of that relief campaign, the Pentagon will fly in food for
hundreds of thousands of people, and they'll move the large tents that
were being used for U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia and fly them into the
Balkans to shelter the refugees.
Brit?
HUME: Steve, as far as the U.S. government is concerned, what does
NATO commanding general Clark have to do to get permission to use
something such as the Apache helicopter? Who has to approve it?
CENTANNI: Well, in this case, first the Pentagon has to approve it
because it's going to be Pentagon aircraft that are involved. And
secondly, the North Atlantic Council, which is the political arm of NATO,
would have to give the go-ahead as well. It's the same process Clark had
to go through to get all the ships and planes involved now, but they were
all in place before the campaign began. This is a significant addition.
HUME: All right, Steve. Thanks very much.
Russia sends a warship to the Mediterranean, and we'll tell you how
the White House is reacting to that in just a moment.
(18:09)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HUME: The United States government took custody of the Yugoslav
embassy and ambassador's residence here in Washington Tuesday night,
standard practice after a break in diplomatic relations. Yugoslav embassy
personnel were ordered to leave the U.S. after the Yugoslav government
broke off relations.
Meanwhile, as our senior White House correspondent, Jim Angle,
reports, the White House is telling those who are calling for ground
troops to give the bombing campaign more time to succeed.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JIM ANGLE, FOX NEWS (voice-over): Waving American and Albanian
flags, Albanian-Americans rallied across the street from the White House
in support of the NATO air strikes but also in support of ground troops
DEMONSTRATORS: Send in the troops! Send in the troops!
ANGLE: a notion the U.S. continues to reject. Of course,
Albanians are grateful for any help, but worry NATO hasn't been able to
stop Milosevic, a view that was taken to a meeting with President
Clinton, who tried to reassure them.
AVNI MUSTAFU, ALBANIAN AMERICAN COUNCIL: The message that we've been
getting is that if we stay the course, that at some in the very near
future, it will not only slow them down, but it will stop them.
ANGLE: But NATO waited several days to target Serb troops in Kosovo
so that it could soften up air defenses to avoid risk to pilots, not much
consolation to people whose relatives are being murdered.
MUSTAFU: While we do understand that missile targets have to be
taken out, that ultimately, the success of this mission will be to protect
the people on the ground.
ANGLE: But officials point to Bosnia, where it took 12 days of air
strikes to get Milosevic to back down, and say people shouldn't rush to
judgment.
JOE LOCKHART, WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMAN: This is going to take some
time, but we will continue to, again, day by day and week by week, if
necessary, take away his ability to impose his will.
ANGLE: In the meantime, the Russians caused a flurry of concern by
announcing they were sending a warship to the waters of Yugoslav.
LOCKHART: There have been a series of mixed statements and messages
about what they're doing, what they may be doing, what they're not doing.
ANGLE: What they're not doing, Lockhart said, is getting involved in
the conflict, but the White House had another worry.
LOCKHART: Our concern is what messages might be read in Belgrade by
this.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ANGLE: The White House is afraid that Milosevic, who hardly needs
any encouragement, would interpret this as a sign of support from the
Russians for what he's doing in Kosovo. The Russians say it isn't. The
Americans say it isn't helpful, but don't see it as confrontational.
Brit?
HUME: All right, Jim. Thanks very much. Is there any sign -- I mean,
does the White House know what the Russians would be up to with this
warship?
ANGLE: They've been told that it would be intelligence-gathering,
that that is the only role. They acknowledge that there's a legitimate
interest for the Russians to be there. They're not even sure the ships are
going, though. They hear different stories from different officials.
HUME: All right, Jim. Thanks very much.
The possibility of NATO taking the bombing campaign to Milosevic's
doorstep in Belgrade is not without military, political and public
relations risks. Already the Serbs are taking reporters on tours of bomb
damage to demonstrate what they claim are indiscriminate attacks on
Serbian towns outside of Kosovo. Tim Marshall of our sister network Sky
News reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
TIM MARSHALL, SKY NEWS (voice-over): The people of Krakivach (ph)
came to see the damage and to protest against it. This was a military
maintenance depot. On Monday night it received three direct hits from what
we think were 2,000-pound bombs. The reason? To force the Yugoslav army to
maintain their vehicles in the open.
For their view, the people walked up the hills from town to a spot
where in 1941 thousands of Serbs were massacred by the Nazis. They're
making parallels. Almost the entire town appears to have turned out for
this demonstration. There's remarkably little hostility towards the
foreign press. And here, as in other demonstrations, there's one clear
message: Stop the bombing.
The mood and the damage 30 miles away, though, was very different.
Picking your way through the shattered remains of the Sloboda (ph) factory
complex is to walk through the end of a town's future. Five thousand
people worked here, making hair dryers, vacuum cleaners and cookers. It
was the biggest employer in central Serbia. No longer.
Sky News saw no evidence of a military target, but some areas were
cordoned off. We were told it was because of unexploded bombs. The Sloboda
factory was a profit-sharing enterprise valued at around 400 million
pounds. This is an area of high unemployment. The mood is one of deep
anger.
"Can this vacuum cleaner kill?" said this man. The other staff are
full of sorrow and fear for their future. It's the 50th anniversary of the
factory. The director told us, "NATO sent us a congratulatory telegram."
A few were clearing up, a futile exercise. The whole place could only be
bulldozed. What is sure is that there is no money to rebuild it. The Serbs
claim this is happening elsewhere.
Tim Marshall, Sky News, Cacak, in central Serbia.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
HUME: Coming up, former secretary of state Lawrence Eagleburger.
Stay tuned.
(18:16)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
Interview with Former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger
HUME: Who better to consult on war in the Balkans than a man who
served as U.S. ambassador to Yugoslavia during the Carter administration
and later as President Bush's secretary of state as the Soviet empire was
crumbling, and so was Yugoslavia. He is, of course, Lawrence Eagleburger.
Welcome back, sir.
LAWRENCE EAGLEBURGER, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: Thank you, sir.
Good to be here.
HUME: First of all, your take on whether, when it came down to it,
we had -- NATO and the president had to do this or -- start the bombing or
not, in your view.
EAGLEBURGER: Well, the answer to that is if you -- in the immediate
past, no question, particularly after we'd threatened it for six months.
Not to have done it would have been a terrible mistake. I can -- some
other time, not tonight, but I can argue that there was a long time that
we might have been able to do some other things to avoid it. I'm not sure
they would have worked. But in the current circumstances, yes, we had to
bomb.
HUME: Now
EAGLEBURGER: My only concern is if we're not careful, it's the
Vietnam sort of approach, which is in incremental steps, and that worries
me a lot.
HUME: Well, now, we hear now that General Clark, the American who's
the NATO commander, would like to hit targets in Belgrade, would like to
use Apache attack helicopters, which I think is far to say is as close to
ground troops as you're going to get from the air
EAGLEBURGER: Yeah.
HUME:
and that is meeting resistance, and he's having to run
through a whole set of traps that he has to go through in order to get
permission, and so on. Is that what you mean when you sense Vietnam
syndrome here?
EAGLEBURGER: That's part of it. I'd have to start off by saying you
better think very hard before you tell a general that if he says this is
what must be done if we're going to be successful that you tell him no. I
can only tell you, watching George Bush during the Kuwait-Iraqi think --
God bless him, the one thing he did was say ``We're going to win this.
Now, you guys tell me how to do it." And he would argue with them, but in
the end, the generals, who are the experts, were -- he would concede to
them that this is what should be done. And if the political issues got in
the way, he'd back them off.
Now, you know, my only concern -- well, my second concern, the
categorizing -- this moving it up inch by inch is a concern. The other
thing I would ask is if there was any question about whether the bombing
was going to drive Milosevic to an agreement or not -- and from the
beginning, we should have known that it was going to be very tough to do
that -- then why don't we do it all at once? Why did we wait and begin to
do this sort of ratcheting up the way we have? And if this doesn't work,
where do we go next?
HUME: Well
EAGLEBURGER: So I'm worried about that kind of an approach.
HUME: Let me ask you a question, then, in political terms, and that
is, given the difficulty of persuading the American people, who are always
hesitant on something like this, that we -- that this was something that
needed doing, and given the fact that in the past Milosevic, although it
took some many days 12 days, I guess -- had responded to merely being
bombed, wasn't it a reasonable calculation to the administration to make
that you don't want to throw everything at him at once, perhaps? They
hadn't had to before.
EAGLEBURGER: Well, my first point would be that you'd better throw
all or a lot at whomever the first time around, as we did in the Kuwait
issue, if you -- in order to make it clear that you're going to be
serious, for one thing.
HUME: But we did go in with air, and then later with ground, did we
not?
EAGLEBURGER: Yeah, but let me -- yeah, well, let me go back to what
you're pointing out which is, yes, we moved him then. How much success, in
the long run, we have gotten out of that I'm not sure. But here's another
point which you simply have to understand if you're going to understand
Serbia and Milosevic. And that is that the Kosovo is different from
Bosnia. In their mind, in their gut, Kosovo is old Serbia. It is -- it is
quite different emotionally to Serbs.
And I have not believed from the beginning that Milosevic was easily
going to give that up, and I will also say that I believed from the
beginning that if, in the end, he has to back off, he's going to have to
be able to go to the Serb people and say to them, ``I was forced to do
this. It is not something I wanted to do."
HUME: Now, when you say "give it up" -- he's not really being
asked to give it up, is he?
EAGLEBURGER: He thinks he is. I think he is.
HUME: Because of the NATO
EAGLEBURGER: Because I
HUME: Because of the NATO
EAGLEBURGER: think the dynamic --
HUME: peacekeeping troops on the ground and
EAGLEBURGER: Well, I think the dynamic is such is that if you get
the NATO peacekeeping troops in there, I will bet you $5 to a hole in a
donut that 9 out of every 10 Kosovars -- the Albanian Kosovars -- already,
in the end, believe that independence not only is what they want, but what
this process will bring them. I think Milosevic knows that.
I think if you analyze the situation, and you put these NATO
peacekeepers in, assuming there's an agreement, it is only a matter of
time before the Kosovo is in a position to declare its independence. And
if the Kosovars see NATO standing in the way of that, we could well become
the target of their affections, too, in terms of they might decide they're
going to have to take a crack at us.
But there's no doubt in my mind that the Kosovars, by and large, see
independence at the end of that road. And whether they're right or not, it
is also in my mind clear that Milosevic sees that if you get into this
process, the ultimate end is the independence of the Kosovo.
HUME: You seem to be saying, Mr. Secretary, that at Rambouillet,
NATO and the allies offered Milosevic a deal that in political terms he
couldn't accept.
EAGLEBURGER: Couldn't accept if he believes, as I think he does,
that this dynamic leads him down the path. And the second thing is you
have to understand Milosevic has lived politically from crisis to crisis,
and if he had to create one in order to strengthen himself at home, he'd
do it. And I think he saw this not only in
terms of the emotional attachment of the Serbs to the Kosovo, but also he
saw this as a crisis which in the end would strengthen him at home. And
clearly, so far, it's done that.
So I think his political analysis and, in fact, his geo-strategic
analysis (INAUDIBLE) get one -- get one through his head, was that in
every sense he has to resist this. I personally believe that it's going to
-- I think the odds are close to 50-50, if not beyond that, that we are
not going to succeed in driving him to the table with the bombing, even
with Apaches and whatever else. But even if he agrees to do it, he would
be able to go back and say, ``I was forced to it.
And by the way, if we get that agreement and, in fact, he pulls his
troops out, that is only the beginning of another drama that's going to go
on for some time that we ought to be worried about.
HUME: So at this juncture now, what's the proper course?
EAGLEBURGER: (laughs) You got me in the middle of something I can't
answer. No, that's not -- I can tell you what the proper course is with
great -- I mean, I think it's the proper course, but with great
reluctance. The issue becomes, in the end, is the United States prepared
to be seen to have lost? In quotes. We'll get some sort of a cover to it,
I suppose, but we and NATO, have we lost to this pipsqueak Balkan
dictator? Has he called our trump and called our -- that -- and trumped
it? And right now, that's the one alternative.
If we -- if we some way or another stop the bombing in return for
some sort of compromise on his part, supposedly, he's won, not us. And it
will be seen that way in Serbia and around the rest of the world. So
you've got that on one side, and you've got -- clearly, the only way you
can be sure that we win is to put ground troops in there and fight a
battle with lots of people killed, including a lot of ours, I think. And
those are the two alternatives.
I guess I would have to say to you with the utmost reluctance, I
cannot see the U.S. and NATO being in the ``lose" position, so I guess I
would say -- and I hate it -- is ground troops.
HUME: Secretary Eagleburger, thank you very much. No good choices.
We have to take a break to do the news. We'll be right back. Stay
tuned.
(18:28)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
Political Headlines
HUME: A huge crowd of refugees is gathered on the border between
Kosovo and Macedonia. Macedonian troops and border guards have attempted
to stem the flow of Kosovar Albanians into Macedonia, but without results.
FOX NEWS correspondent David Lee Miller is there and brings us the latest.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DAVID LEE MILLER, FOX NEWS (voice-over): A human train of more than
1,000 refugees crossed the border from Kosovo into Macedonia. Their
journey began with the Serbs locking them in railway cars without food and
water for the trip to the border. All passports and ID papers were
confiscated, making it impossible for them to prove their lives in Kosovo
ever existed. They entered Macedonia on foot, walking along the train
tracks, afraid to step outside the rails, which the Serbs said had been
mined. Young and old made the exodus. Anyone left behind risked the wrath
of the Serbs.
REFUGEE: Look! My father is invalid!
MILLER (on camera): Your father is an invalid?
REFUGEE: Yes. Don't have one leg.
MILLER (voice-over): Macedonian troops herded the refugees to a
border checkpoint, where they were given food and processed by
authorities. Others, meanwhile, are in the mountains surrounding the
border, afraid to come down. Humanitarian workers say as many as 20
Kosovar Albanians have died from exposure. They fear the number will
increase because Macedonian troops will not permit them to offer
assistance.
PHILIPPE CHABOT, HUMANITARIAN AID WORKER: We can't get to them.
MILLER (on camera): So they stay up here in the Mountains, you're
here to help, and you can't?
CHABOT: Basically, yeah. There's a political problem with the
Macedonian government.
MILLER (voice-over): The military also tried to prevent journalists
from meeting with the refugees. As we trekked the hilltops, they fired a
warning shot. When we got too close, we were physically restrained.
MACEDONIAN SOLDIER: No! No!
MILLER (on camera): Here in the mountains of Macedonia, it is
difficult to determine exactly how many refugees are hiding out. But of
this we are certain. They are cold, hungry and desperate for help, help
that is apparently not forthcoming.
(voice-over): Macedonia is rapidly reaching the breaking point. If
the crisis continues, it may be forced to close its borders.
At the Kosovo-Macedonia border, David Lee Miller, FOX NEWS.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
HUME: NATO leaders say the Kosovo conflict has turned into the
biggest humanitarian crisis in Europe since World War II, and it looks as
if it will only get worse. Now the Clinton administration wants to make
very clear there's only one person responsible for the crisis, and that's
Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic. State Department reporter Kelly
Wallace has the story.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KELLY WALLACE, FOX NEWS (voice-over): Since NATO's air assault on
Yugoslavia began, more than 100,000 Kosovars have fled to Albania,
Montenegro and Macedonia. Many thousands more are expected to depart, and
the allies now have a refugee crisis on their hands. But the State
Department bristles at any notion the air strikes, started in part to
prevent a humanitarian disaster, actually caused one.
JAMES RUBIN, STATE DEPARTMENT SPOKESMAN: And people should stop
looking for scapegoats, start listening to the Kosovar Albanians, who are
very clear that "If NATO did not bomb, the Serbs would destroy us
anyway," and put the blame where it belongs, on president Milosevic, for
orchestrating this horrible policy.
WALLACE: It's a policy that hits home with these Albanian-Americans
in Washington.
UNIDENTIFIED BOY: They killed one of my uncles. And half of my
family's in Kosovo, and half of them are in Montenegro.
WALLACE: The U.S. stepped up assistance to Montenegro and the other
countries in the region that are now starting to feel the strain of taking
in so many refugees every day.
KAREN ABUZAYB, UN HIGH COMMISSION ON REFUGEES: All of these
countries already had refugees over the last year from Kosovo, and others
had other refugees from other parts of the former Yugoslavia. So the -- I
think their capacity is fast being used up.
WALLACE (on camera): The State Department doesn't know if Milosevic
is forcing the Albanians out to destabilize his neighbors or simply to get
rid of them. But either way, the U.S. may find itself facing not only a
military operation but a massive humanitarian relief effort.
At the State Department, Kelly Wallace, FOX NEWS.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
HUME: Is the Republican Party splintered on its foreign policy?
A full report in just a moment.
(BEGIN ON SCREEN)
The word "Balkan" comes from Turkish. It means mountain and has
been used to describe the area since the early 19th century.
(END ON SCREEN)
(18:36)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN ON SCREEN)
Kosovo facts
In February, 1998, Slobodan Milosevic launched an offensive to crush
the separatist Kosovo Liberation Army. Since then, more than 2,000 people
are believed to have been killed; 443,000 have been driven from their
homes.
Source: NATO
(END ON SCREEN)
HUME: The crisis in Kosovo has sparked an international debate over
NATO's role in Yugoslavia. Domestically, a similar debate exists within
the Republican Party, whose members are not unified behind any particular
policy. FOX NEWS correspondent Carl Cameron takes a look at the divisions
within the GOP.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
RONALD REAGAN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (June 12, 1987): Mr.
Gorbachev, tear down this wall!
GEORGE BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (January 16, 1991): Five
months ago, Saddam Hussein started this cruel war against Kuwait. Tonight
the battle has been joined.
CARL CAMERON, FOX NEWS (voice-over): Once galvanized and decisive on
foreign policy, the Republican Party has splintered on international
affairs. In the crowded presidential field, Texas governor George Bush,
first in the polls, was last to comment on Kosovo -- not with his own
views, but on President Clinton's policy.
GEORGE W. BUSH, TEXAS GOVERNOR: Now that the president's committed
to use force, I hope he will do so decisively and, of course,
successfully.
CAMERON: Elizabeth Dole supports U.S. involvement, but does not say
how. Lamar Alexander backs air strikes, along with Steve Forbes and John
McCain, who's unenthusiastic.
U.S. SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN (R-AZ): I will, with reluctance, support
this action.
CAMERON: But others are adamantly opposed.
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JOHN KASICH (R-OH): But I don't support getting
involved in ethnic strife and civil wars.
CAMERON: Former vice president Dan Quayle says stay out, along with
Pat Buchanan and other would-be Republican presidents Gary Bauer and Bob
Smith. Divisions are just as pronounced in Congress.
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE TOM DELAY (R-TX): Mr. Chairman, I rise today to
voice my complete opposition to sending American troops to Kosovo.
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE HENRY HYDE (R-IL): We do have a national
interest in halting the killing.
CAMERON: Beyond rhetorically safe support for U.S. troops,
congressional leaders, who hope to make Clinton foreign policy mistakes a
political issue, offer little else.
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS HASTERT (R-IL), HOUSE SPEAKER: But I have
not made up my mind, and I will listen intently and closely to this
debate.
U.S. SENATOR TRENT LOTT (R-MS), SENATE MAJORITY LEADER: Any time our
military men and women are ordered into action by the president of the
United States, certainly, the Congress supports them, and would not want
to do anything to undermine what they are doing.
U.S. SENATOR DON NICKLES (R-OK): I don't think you can bomb a
country into submitting into a peace agreement.
U.S. SENATOR JOHN WARNER (R-VA): We're doing what's in the best
interests of mankind.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CAMERON: now seems destined to be a major issue in the campaign
of 2000. Republicans had hoped it would be so, noting polls that indicate
the American people trust the GOP more than Democrats on it. But with the
crisis Kosovo, concerns over China and numerous other countries, a number
of Republicans have been found to have deep disagreements, and in some
cases indecision, if not, at least, a reluctance to take a position now on
some very tough problems.
Brit?
HUME: Carl, we're at that stage of the political season where among
those presidential candidates it's really a race -- the race is on to see
who can raise the most dough. I know you've been following that. Where's
that stand now?
CAMERON: Tomorrow is the end of the first quarter, in which the
Republican candidates, the Democratic candidates, as well, have to file
their first financial disclosures. So they are in some cases boasting, and
in other cases sort of low-balling how much money they've raised. George
W. Bush, the governor of Texas, on the Republican side, will announce that
he has raised more than $6 million in the first three months of this year,
a substantial amount. In fact, it is on a pace to break the records set by
both his father and Bob Dole in previous presidential campaigns for the
amount of money raised. Elizabeth Dole, by contrast, will have less than
$1 million raised, and her organization points out that she got a late
start and that they have asked many of their contributors to hold off a
lot of their giving until the next quarter, so they can create the
appearance of big momentum for them in the next three months.
On the Democratic side, no word specifically as to how much Vice
President Al Gore will declare yet, but Bill Bradley, the challenger, will
have over $5 million, as well. And for him, that is considered a strong
showing, but it should be pointed out, Brit, that Mr. Bradley does have
the benefit of being the only opponent to Mr. Gore, so he will enjoy a lot
of default money and a lot of default support as the only person in the
race who is not Al Gore.
Back to the Republicans -- some people who have yet to raise as much
as might have been expected, folks like Lamar Alexander, who will come in
at under $1 million, and having run in '96, a lot of folks thought that
perhaps he would post a larger gain.
So this is the point where they're talking about raising money. They
have been aggressively out around the country going to fund-raisers, and
it's just the first measure of how successful they could be.
HUME: Very quickly, Carol -- is President -- Governor Bush on a pace
where it looks as if he could go ahead and raise all his own money and not
take any federal matching money and get out from under those regulations?
CAMERON: That's a decision he says he will not make until next fall.
Twenty million dollars is the record, again, held by his dad and Bob Dole.
He could do that.
HUME: All right. Very good. Our panel of journalists is coming up
next.
(18:44)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
Special Report Roundtable
HUME: Some perspective now from Bill Sammon, White House
correspondent of the ``Washington Times," from freelance journalist Linda
Killian, author of `The Freshmen: What Happened to the Republican
Revolution?" and from the White House, our own senior White House
correspondent, Jim Angle.
I want to start with you, Bill, but not perhaps in the way you
think. I'm going to start with something that we heard you say earlier.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BILL SAMMON, "WASHINGTON TIMES": Is it fair to ask the question
this way? One week into this military operation, are we so far winning or
losing?
LOCKHART: I think it's impossible to answer that question, and I
don't see that there's a utility. What I can tell you is we got into this
for the right reason, because, as the president said at his press
conference, the price of inaction here is much higher than any price we
pay for action.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUME: All right, Bill, you get to translate Lockhart for us.
SAMMON: Well, let's deconstruct that. I think -- it is telling you
some information when the White House press spokesman says that he can't
tell you whether we're losing, and he also can't tell you whether we're
winning. So you're giving him a lot of options there. You're not asking
him whether we've won or -- in fact, I specifically phrased it in such a
way -- "So far, are we winning?" I mean, we're a week into this thing.
And I think it is telling that they can't even say that we're winning, at
this point.
I think that means the other possibility is what we're looking at. We are
losing.
HUME: Jim Angle, do you agree with that assessment?
ANGLE: Well, I think it's a difficult question for them, and that,
of course, is our job, is to ask difficult questions. The problem is that
-- they are making some progress, and you started to hear a little
optimism today from NATO, saying that Milosevic is beginning to run out of
fuel, they're beginning to cause him some pain on the ground. The problem
is that no matter what they do militarily at this point, it is too late
for the Kosovars. So no one here is ever going to say that it's a victory
or that they are winning, that they have won this because the damage on
the ground to the Kosovar Albanians is devastating. And no matter what
they eventually do to Milosevic, it's not going to matter that much to
those people.
HUME: Jim, it is interesting, though, that we now -- it's now clear,
based on what Ken Bacon said at the Pentagon today, and what Greg Palkot
reported from Brussels tonight, that Wesley Clark, the NATO commander,
wants to do things that he is not -- yet, at least -- being permitted to
do here, that this is a case where the general is really not running this
war. And I wonder what I wonder what that tells us.
ANGLE: Well, the White House says it -- one of the things he had
asked for -- and in fact, there was some delay in his effort to expand the
targeting to some things that involve higher levels of the Yugoslavian
government or the Serbian government.
But one of the things we're told is that his request for attack
helicopters, for Apache helicopters, which would be somewhat reminiscent
of Vietnam, of course, is that that decision has not yet come to the White
House. Now, we do know that he's asking for them, but we don't know what
levels of the political bureaucracy at NATO have not yet passed on it.
And that's one of the problems. Everything he wants to do, of
course, they have to get the political OK not only from President Clinton,
but also from all the rest of the 19 NATO allies.
HUME: Linda, let me ask you this question about -- about the
political implications of the use of Apache helicopters, for example,
which would certainly raise the prospect of casualties. It's the closest
thing I guess you can get to ground troops without putting people
physically on the ground. How -- would that -- how would that go down on
Capitol Hill? Would that be a loss of support for the president, what?
LINDA KILLIAN, FREELANCE JOURNALIST: I don't think there's any
stomach for that on the Hill. The buzz on the Hill today -- reporters
calling congressmen and saying "This is -- is it" whether you call it
``ineffective" or whether you call it an unmitigated disaster, it's not
good. And that is what members of Congress are hearing. And they're
nervous, and I don't think -- there's absolutely no support for troops on
the ground. And there really is no support for anything that could cause
any American casualties, I don't think.
HUME: None at all?
ANGLE: Brit, could I add one thing on that?
HUME: Yeah. Go ahead.
ANGLE: I mean, one of the problems here is that once you send in
helicopters, even once you send in the A-10 Warthogs, is that they can
easily be shot down by shoulder-fired missiles. This is something that
anyone can step out of a building or a barn and shoot. And the whole
problem so far has been they could have attacked his forces in Kosovo
days ago. They waited because they wanted to reduce the risk to pilots.
Now, that's not much comfort to the people on the ground, but that is, in
fact, what they did. The president simply wants to have a war that is
without casualties, and that makes it very difficult to do to Milosevic
what you need to do to stop him in Kosovo.
HUME: Does this raise the question, Bill, that -- that the president
-- I mean, we thought in the aftermath of Vietnam, with the way Ronald
Reagan mounted military operations, leaving things pretty much to the
generals -- and the same for Bush, as Larry Eagleburger was pointing out
earlier, in the Gulf, that he basically let the generals run the war --
this is the kind of thing that went on during Vietnam. You know, there
were tales of Lyndon Johnson with his shirttail hanging out at the White
House, poring over target lists.
SAMMON: Yeah. Right. I think the analogy goes only so far in that,
yes, it is frustrating to military commanders to have to, you know, run
everything up to the White House in terms of whether they can get
helicopters or not
HUME: Well, not only the White we know Javier Solana has to sign
off. The Pentagon has to
SAMMON: But it's even worse, in this way. In Vietnam, and in these
other conflicts, they were long enough where you could change that policy.
You could say, ``Look, we've got to give the generals the freedom here."
You know, "This is obviously not working. Let's let them do it the way
they want to do it." You don't even have that option here because the
window of opportunity is so narrow and is slamming shut so quickly that
it's a moot point. I mean, even if Clinton said today, "We're going to
let the generals do it the way they want," the generals couldn't get
ground troops in there. And they're not quite ready for the attack
helicopters yet, until these A-10 or whatever they're called
HUME: Warthogs, yeah.
SAMMON: Warthogs -- those need to do the -- those are the next
step, OK? Then you bring in the tank-killer Apache helicopter gunships to
go you know, you're getting closer and closer to the ground each time.
And like you said, that's as close as you can get without actually
putting
HUME: Yeah, the
SAMMON: troops on the ground.
HUME: Yeah, the Warthogs attack tanks, and the helicopters can
attack units. But Linda, is Congress now prepared for a military failure
here, and a policy failure? How would that go down?
KILLIAN: Well, the one thing -- a Democratic office that I spoke
with today said it's too soon to know -- the Defense Department doesn't
yet know what how what they've done on the ground, there are no
really good assessments at this point -- and that it's
a rush to judgment. It's only been a week.
HUME: Well, it clearly hasn't stopped the refugees.
KILLIAN: That's right.
HUME: It hasn't stopped the slaughter in Kosovo.
KILLIAN: That's right. And
HUME: So that's -- that's manifest.
KILLIAN: And the Democrat -- the White House argument may be, "OK,
we didn't get that, so what we'll go after is trying to destroy the
Serbian army. And that may be their next -- their next argument.
HUME: Well, yeah. One sensed that when he talked about ``if
necessary, we're going to do that" -- and Wesley Clark has been quite
confident about the ability to do that -- is that the fallback position,
Bill, you think, that
SAMMON: I don't know, but I just want to pick up on a point you
made, and that is preparing for a failure. I think, as we get into April
now, you're going to hear more and more talk about this NATO summit that's
coming up at the end of the month.
HUME: That's here.
SAMMON: Here in Washington.
HUME: Right.
SAMMON: We're hosting the 50th anniversary of NATO. It's part
summit, part celebration, more world leaders than have ever been assembled
before in the history of Washington. And Slobodan Milosevic and this
little obscure once obscure province of Kosovo stands to spoil the
party, to completely turn out to be a debacle, ruining this whole summit
for NATO. And so I think we're going to hear a lot more about that.
ANGLE: Yeah, Brit, I -- this is a tremendous challenge for NATO. One
of the problems here, of course, is that the speed with which NATO is
moving is completely mismatched with the speed that Milosevic is moving.
And the White House has said repeatedly it took 12 days to bomb Milosevic
into submission in Bosnia in 1995, and that is reasonable to wait for that
long. The problem is that he is moving much faster than that on the ground
in Kosovo. So I don't -- I have no doubt that over time, NATO will be able
to punish him and seriously degrade his military abilities and make him
pay for this. But as I said, that doesn't help the people in Kosovo, and
that makes it very difficult to declare victory here.
HUME: Yeah. Can that -- that's a good question Jim raises. He says
it's difficult, but can the administration cite that -- very quickly -- as
a victory?
SAMMON: I believe the Clinton administration is capable of spinning
almost anything. I don't think they'll be able to spin this one.
HUME: Will that fly on the Hill?
KILLIAN: No. When you have a defense spokesman saying We haven't
prevented a single brutality," no. I don't think so.
HUME: All right. Thanks to all three of you.
Next up: Members of the Russian parliament hot under the collar.
Stay tuned.
(18:56)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HUME: Finally, Russia may be new to democracy, but the TV coverage
the Russians permit of their legislature, the Duma, could teach the lords
of Congress a thing or two about openness. Watch what happened and what
the Russian people saw on television when the debate over Kosovo got
heated in the Duma.
(CLIP FROM RUSSIAN DUMA FISTFIGHT)
HUME: On second thought, maybe our Congress already learned that
lesson, and that's why the cameras here are so tightly controlled.
And that's it for SPECIAL REPORT this time. Please come again next
time, and in the meantime, stay tuned. More news is next.
END
Message Sent
To:
Joseph P. Lockhart/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jennifer M. Palmieri/WHO/EOP@EOP
Anthony R. Bernal/OVP@OVP
Melissa G. Green/OPD/EOP@EOP
Leslie Bernstein/WHO/EOP@EOP
Robin M. Roland/WHO/EOP@EOP
Chandler G. Spaulding/WHO/EOP@EOP
Dominique L. Cano/WHO/EOP@EOP
Dag Vega/WHO/EOP@EOP
Brenda M. Anders/WHO/EOP@EOP
[email protected]@ inet
Megan C. Moloney/WHO/EOP@EOP
Richard L. Siewert/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jordan Tamagni/WHO/EOP@EOP
Beverly J. Barnes/WHO/EOP
Elizabeth R. Newman/WHO/EOP@EOP
Julia M. Payne/WHO/EOP@EOP
Julianne B. Corbett/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jeffrey M. Smith/OSTP/EOP@EOP
Lowell A. Weiss/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jonathan A. Kaplan/OPD/EOP@EOP
Thurgood Marshall Jr/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jennifer Ferguson/OMB/EOP@EOP
Mark D. Neschis/WHO/EOP@EOP
Ruby Shamir/WHO/EOP@EOP
Nanda Chitre/WHO/EOP@EOP
Amy Weiss/WHO/EOP@EOP
Lisa J. Levin/WHO/EOP@EOP
Peter A. Weissman/OPD/EOP@EOP
William A. Halter/OMB/EOP@EOP
Eli G. Attie/OVP@OVP
Patricia M. Ewing/OVP@OVP
Sara M. Latham/WHO/EOP@EOP
Melissa M. Murray/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jonathan E. Smith/WHO/EOP@EOP
Barry J. Toiv/WHO/EOP@EOP
Anne M. Edwards/WHO/EOP@EOP
Michael Waldman/WHO/EOP@EOP
Gene B. Sperling/OPD/EOP@EOP
Paul K. Engskov/WHO/EOP@EOP
Laura D. Schwartz/WHO/EOP@EOP
Kevin S. Moran/WHO/EOP@EOP
Julie E. Mason/WHO/EOP@EOP
Steven J. Naplan/NSC/EOP@EOP
Alison Muscatine/WHO/EOP@EOP
Gordon Li/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jason H. Schechter/WHO/EOP@EOP
Mark A. Kitchens/WHO/EOP@EOP
June Shih/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jeffrey A. Shesol/WHO/EOP@EOP
Rochester M. Johnson/WHO/EOP@EOP
Rachael E. Sullivan/OVP@OVP
Julie B. Goldberg/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sarah E. Gegenheimer/WHO/EOP@EOP
Susanna B. McGuire/WHO/EOP@EOP
Steve Ricchetti/WHO/EOP@EOP
Edward F. Hughes/WHO/EOP@EOP
Melissa J. Prober/WHO/EOP@EOP
Justin Coleman/WHO/EOP@EOP
Clara J. Shin/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jonathan M. Prince/WHO/EOP@EOP
Joshua S. Gottheimer/WHO/EOP@EOP
Heather M. Riley/WHO/EOP@EOP
Alejandro G. Cabrera/OVP@OVP
Rebecca L. Walldorff/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jon P. Jennings/WHO/EOP@EOP
Katharine Button/WHO/EOP@EOP
Tracy Pakulniewicz/WHO/EOP@EOP
James T. Heimbach/WHO/EOP@EOP
Victoria L. Valentine/WHO/EOP@EOP
James E. Kennedy/WHO/EOP@EOP
Michael A. Hammer/NSC/EOP@EOP
Laura J. Lewis/WHO/EOP@EOP
Toby C. Graff/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sean P. O'Shea/WHO/EOP@EOP
Thomas D. Janenda/WHO/EOP@EOP
Rajiv Y. Mody/WHO/EOP@EOP
Robin J. Bachman/WHO/EOP@EOP
Saladbar 23 <saladbar23 @ hotmail.com> @ inet
Kimberly S. Anderson/OA/EOP@EOP
Forwarded by Rajiv Y. Mody/WHO/EOP on 04/21/99
04:24 PM
Mark A. Kitchens
04/06/99 04:58:15 PM
Record Type: Record
To: See the distribution list at the bottom of this message
cc:
Subject: CNN Larry King, April 5, 1999
Larry King Live
Aired April 5, 1999 - 9:00 p.m. ET
Is It Too Late to Stop Ethnic Cleansing in Kosovo?
KING: Tonight, NATO vows to keep pounding Yugoslavia,
and help is on
the way for the refugees. Is it all too late to stop
ethnic cleansing of Kosovo?
Tonight, the president of Albania will join us from
Tirana to discuss the
refugee crisis. We'll speak with Yugoslavia's charge
d'affaires at the U.N.,
plus a debate on sending in ground troops.
Republican Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania,
Democrat Dick Durbin
of Illinois will join us from Springfield.
Then from Phoenix, Arizona Republican John McCain will
be with us.
From New York, CNN's senior analyst, Jeff Greenfield.
They're all next on LARRY KING LIVE.
Our first guest tonight is the president of Albania, a
return visit for president
Rexhep Meidani. He is on tap in Tirana, Albania.
Is it true that Greece is now helping Albanian refugees?
REXHEP MEIDANI, PRESIDENT OF ALBANIA: Yes, by
humanitarian
hats (ph). Some hats (ph) are entering Albania now.
KING: Are you surprised at that?
MEIDANI: No. Because our neighbors are friendly
countries and are
supporting each other, and we're cooperating quite well
these last years.
KING: Do you know how many Albanians have fled your --
have come to
your country? Do you know the numbers?
MEIDANI: Now -- now you mean?
KING: Yes.
MEIDANI: It's more than 220,000 deported people.
KING: How are they being fed, housed, clothed?
MEIDANI: I can say that the situation is still critical,
and their health also.
Some of them are quite sick. Some have been beaten and
are telling us some
horrific stories.
So a lot of people have been massacred inside Kosovo,
also
(UNINTELLIGIBLE). It's a kind of genocide and more
deportation, not
known since the Hitler and Stalin time.
KING: What do you think of Germany and the United States
and Turkey
and Sweden taking in many, many refugees? The United
States, 20,000;
Germany, 40,000. What do you think of that?
MEIDANI: I think (UNINTELLIGIBLE) these people left to
stay in the
region and to put pressure also to this machinery of war
by different ways,
airstrikes, and also other options to stop the bloodshed
and this deportation,
this ethnic cleansing and physical elimination, and to
create possibly this --
for these people to go back: to return to their houses
and to their land. This
is important for the moment.
KING: So you're glad they're doing it, but eventually --
I don't want to put
words in your mouth. Eventually you're saying those
people will go back to
where they come from?
MEIDANI: Yes, indeed. For the reason, the most part of
them, they have to
stay in the region near Kosovo.
KING: Do you favor NATO's bombing of Belgrade and the
possibility of
ground troops?
MEIDANI: I can say that the airstrikes have to continue
by different means
and ways, also inside Kosovo, because it's a real
humanitarian catastrophe
inside Kosovo. Thousands and thousands of Albanians are
living outside.
They're hungry. They're suffering. And a lot of people
died and have been
killed.
So it's a problem how to help them. And this is a
problem of time: how to
accelerate the time, because I am quite sure that the
last step will be the
presence of the international troops, of ground troops
on the land like a
protection of these people and like -- the possibility
of these people to be
back.
KING: Tell me how the people of your country are
handling the people
coming in.
MEIDANI: Yes. It's solidarity of Albanian people, of
Albanian families to
support this people and also to help them. Most Albanian
families are
helping them, are lodging and accommodating them -- are,
in fact,
distributing their bread, which is quite limited also.
KING: How do we end this, Mr. President? If the refugees
eventually go
back, how do we not know whether President Milosevic
does it again?
MEIDANI: This is the problem. The problem is to destroy
this machinery of
war and also to reduce this military potential, and to
save Balkans, to give
the possibility of Balkans for real democratic
development, economic
development, a kind of Marshall Plan for Balkan
countries, so to create a
new area in this region: because since 10 years in the
Balkans, when you
only war, bloodshed and the genocide, and there was the
same machinery
which has exercised this massacre and this ethnic
cleansing.
KING: Do you see an end in sight?
MEIDANI: I am quite sure -- I am optimistic about --
because always there
is an end for barbarism and for dictatorships.
KING: Thank you very much, Mr. President. Thank you for
joining us.
President Rexhep Meidani of the president of Albania,
the poorest country
in the region. Average Albanian makes $850 a year.
They're accepting all
these people in. He hopes the refugee situation, coming
to other countries, is
temporary, and thanks Greece for their support.
Greece and Albania have not always had the greatest of
relationships.
We'll be back with more of LARRY KING LIVE right after
this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: Welcome back to LARRY KING LIVE. We're east this
week, in
New York.
Finally get a chance to meet him in person. He has been
with us so many
times by satellite. Vladislav Jovanovic. He is the
Yugoslavian charge
d'affaires of the Yugoslav mission to the U.N.
Can you bring us up to date, Mr. Ambassador, on the
bombings? There
were more airstrikes tonight. What can you tell us about
damage in your
country?
VLADISLAV JOVANOVIC, YUGOSLAV CHARGE D'AFFAIRES,
UNITED NATIONS: The targets are more and more civilians,
and there is
not any attempt to consider this fact. One of the
objectives of that expansion
of bombing is, which is openly said, to -- to pressure
the population to start
cracking its morale and to start abandoning the policy
of defending the
country.
But unfortunate -- contrary to what some planners in --
in NATO do
expect, the resolve of the population to keep going, to
defend the country at
all costs is
KING: Are you saying civilians are being killed?
JOVANOVIC: Yes.
KING: Do we have any numbers?
JOVANOVIC: More than a couple hundred.
KING: More than a couple hundred?
JOVANOVIC: Not today, but altogether. KING: Yes.
Citizens.
JOVANOVIC: Citizens, civilians. I don't count soldiers
among that, and
even more wounded people, including the refugees in a
few camps.
KING: How do you react to President Clinton saying that
if he -- if Mr.
Milosevic does not agree to sit down, does not agree to
the accords and to
have someone monitor this, he's going to pound them more
and more? I
mean, how much more can your country take?
JOVANOVIC: Our history was not very gentle with us. We
have been
hardened for -- through history because our state has
been built up on the
roads, and for that reason, we have to defend ourselves
against many
invaders. So our determination to resist, to fight is
unlimited, even if we
remain without any mode of weapon. And to the question
you mentioned --
to your first question, Larry -- what about the targets
that shall hit. Let me
remind you that the bridge near Novi Sad which was hit a
couple of days
ago had special place in our memory, in the memory of
our people because
on that bridge, the Nazi had killed in 1942 a few
thousands of Jews and
Serbs and thrown them into the Danube. And there is a
memorial complex
very near with plates, with description of names. All
that is now destroyed.
So it is the second insult to the victims.
KING: How do you feel, Mr. Ambassador, when you see all
of these
refugees leave? I mean, other countries starting to take
them in? Do you at
all feel that your country is at all part to blame?
JOVANOVIC: The pictures are certainly very disturbing.
KING: And they don't lie.
JOVANOVIC: There is -- there is something which missed.
This is the
situation of other refugees, internal refugees,
population of Yugoslavia. They
are all victims and sufferers of the airstrike campaign.
Those people are out
of their home in the shelters or even without shelters.
They're not regularly
supplied; they don't have normal, regular medical and
other aid and
assistance. So, that part of picture missed. And this is
the reason why the
population in this country and the West in general
risked to be one-sided
informed. But all of them, 11 million Yugoslavs,
including Albanians in
Kosovo are victims primarily of the aggression of the
bombing campaign.
KING: There was no aggression prior to the bombing?
There was reason
for them to be happy prior to the bombing?
JOVANOVIC: There were not any mass exodus or any reason
for them to
leave Kosovo unless they were incited by the terrorist
KLA in order to
make some show for media and TV.
KING: Terrorism may be terrible, but also in history,
terrorism sometimes is
on the right side. The Ergund (ph) were terrorist,
American revolutionaries --
lots of people have done damage for liberty. There may
have been
Yugoslavian terrorists who did damage to the Nazis for
liberty. Why single
them out? JOVANOVIC: Because they are victims. They are
targets. We're
not only policemen and soldiers and clerks working for
the state, but many,
many defenseless Albanians and other civilians.
Three-hundred Albanian
civilians were killed by those (UNINTELLIGIBLE) in order
to intimidate the
silent majority of Albania, and to force them to follow
the policy of
extremists, separatist, and terrorists.
KING: Since your president does not want to see -- I
would assume his
own people die, why doesn't he come to the table?
JOVANOVIC: He's always sitting around the table, but the
other side, the
countries responsible for launching that aggression
against Yugoslavia had
left the table in Paris and opted for the war.
KING: Because they wanted to allow troops in to keep
peace in Kosovo.
What was wrong with that?
JOVANOVIC: Because they formulated impossible condition
for one
self-respecting country to accept foreign military
presence which is a form of
occupation of one part of the territory and to accept
the loss of that territory
if not immediately, then certainly after three years of
the interim period.
There is no case which is recorded in the modern history
that one sovereign
state accepted to -- to give -- make a gift of its
territory to one national
minority or to one foreign state wishing to -- to --
that kind of gift to be
done.
KING: A couple of other things. You have not been home
in how long?
JOVANOVIC: More than two and a half years.
KING: Your brother is there.
JOVANOVIC: Yes.
KING: Are you able to communicate with family?
JOVANOVIC: It's not easy to -- to get connection because
of many
pressure, many demands, and probably that it is the
result of the bombing --
not only civilian, other objects were targeted, but
especially the
communication and other centers for civilian use, not
for military and others.
So this is more and more a form of total war which NATO
countries have --
are deciding to apply against
KING: Do you expect ground troops to come in?
JOVANOVIC: I still believe that the people who are
responsible for major
-- major countries are reasonable people and that --
that they would avoid
to -- to jump -- to leap into dark. Whoever tries to --
to start ground
operation in the Balkan in general risks never to get
out from.
KING: I want to understand what you said earlier. There
are no
circumstances under which President Milosevic or your
people will give up?
JOVANOVIC: We are not going to give up our territory and
our
sovereignty.
KING: No matter how much they bomb?
JOVANOVIC: Doesn't matter. But what we already -- and we
have been
ready up to now is to grant to our Albanian citizens and
other people living
there very impressive, substantial autonomy and
Democratic
self-government.
KING: And a safe return?
JOVANOVIC: Of course, a safe return. And I would like to
tell you that
after the meeting between President Milosevic and Dr.
Rugova, today there
was the second meeting between Dr. Rugova and the
Federal Deputy Prime
Minister Sainovic. They continued talking about
political settlement and the
safe return of all refugees who had to leave Kosovo
Metohija (ph).
KING: Will Mr. Rugova be available for an interview?
JOVANOVIC: Why not? He has already addressed press
people in those
couple of days. Yesterday he received the Russian
ambassador to Baghdad,
and he -- he will talk with some generals. He's a free
man. He can go
whenever he wish. Only his security can be put into
danger if he -- he is not
advised to take some precaution.
KING: Thank you, Mr. Ambassador, as always.
The guest has been the ambassador, charge d'affaires,
Yugoslav mission to
the U.N., Vladislav Jovanovic. When we break, we'll come
back with
Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois, who supports the
airstrikes, Senator Rick
Santorum of Pennsylvania, who does not and Lieutenant
General Thomas
McInerney, United States Air Force, retired, to get us
up to date; and lots
more guests coming. And Walter Cronkite tomorrow.
Don't go away.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: Welcome back to LARRY KING LIVE. What you're
seeing now is
something we just received at CNN headquarters from
Serbian television
now. This is in Aleksinac in Yugoslavia. This is damage
from a bombing.
And this is just in to CNN again from, as we mentioned
there, Serbian
television.
We now welcome to LARRY KING LIVE -- I am in New York. In
Washington is Senator Rick Santorum, Republican of
Pennsylvania, member
of the Senate Armed Services Committee; in Springfield,
Illinois, Dick
Durbin, Democrat of Illinois; and in Washington,
Lieutenant General Thomas
McInerney, United States Air Force, retired, who has
been kind enough to
be with us on many occasions.
First, let's get an update from the general. We had some
criticism the last
time you were with us. The first three days went well.
The rest have been
weak. How is it picking up now? RETIRED LIEUTENANT
GENERAL
THOMAS MCINERNEY, UNITED STATES AIR FORCE: Well, it's
picking up now, Larry. The weather broke for them, and
they were able to
get a lot more sorties in today. And tonight, as you
see, they're going to hit
around Belgrade and that area pretty hard.
They have added the Teddy Roosevelt, the battle group.
They have got, as
you know, 13 more F-117s came in over the weekend. And
secretary of
defense announced the Apaches coming in. Of course, they
won't have an
impact for quite some time. But that is an addition and
they are stepping up
the tempo.
KING: Something you're in accord with.
MCINERNEY: Absolutely.
KING: Senator Santorum, you are not.
SENATOR RICK SANTORUM (R), PENNSYLVANIA: Well...
KING: I don't want to put words in your mouth. I know
you voted against
it.
SANTORUM: I did vote against it, and I failed to see at
that time -- and I
think it has been borne born out -- how we could
accomplish the political
objective, the policy objective of getting the Serbs to
agree to a peace that is
fundamentally counter to everything they believe in. I
fail to see how any kind
of military action of what the president contemplated,
which is airstrikes,
would move them to do that. And I think that we're
seeing that, particularly
as the general pointed out, with the limited number of
strikes that we have
engaged in.
We have not aggressively gone after these targets and we
have not
aggressively prosecuted this war to the point that we
should have if we were
going to proceed down that course. And while I had
hesitancy, and still do,
that we were able to accomplish a mission, we have made
it much tougher
by not aggressively going after these targets.
KING: You would not change your vote in hindsight?
SANTORUM: No, I wouldn't change my vote in hindsight.
But now that
we're in the current situation, we have got to prosecute
this war to win, and
we aren't doing that.
KING: Senator Durbin, you are -- as I understand it, you
favor the airstrikes
but no ground troops? In other words, just keep
pounding?
SENATOR RICHARD DURBIN (D), ILLINOIS: Yes, I think the
strategy
we're currently using is the best for the moment, and I
would have some
serious misgivings about using ground troops. That
should be subject to a full
congressional debate. The Constitution requires it.
But make no mistake: We know what Mr. Milosevic believes
in. He believes
in ethnic cleansing. He announced it as his policy. And
now we have seen
the genocide and suffering of hundreds of thousands of
people.
KING: But the ambassador just says they'll never give
up.
DURBIN: Well, of course, they don't want to give up. And
that's why the
president, along with 18 other countries and NATO, are
trying to pound
them so that they don't have the military capability to
take advantage of more
helpless people.
What are we going to do? A lady in Chicago that I spoke
to who had been
a victim of the Holocaust said, we always wondered why
they never tried --
the allies never tried to stop what was going on in the
concentration camps.
For all the criticism of this policy by NATO, we're at
least trying our very
best to stop Milosevic's ethnic cleansing.
KING: We'll be back with some more moments with our
guests and then
more guests. This is LARRY KING LIVE. Don't go away.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WILLIAM J. CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The
ethnic cleansing of Kosovo cannot stand as a permanent
event. We cannot
say, well, we'll just take all of these folks and forget
about their rights to go
home. I don't believe anyone wants to do that. That's
not what we're about.
But we have to help deal with the practical, immediate
human problems
these families face and that these front-line nations
face.
The refugees belong in their own homes on their own
land. Our immediate
goal is to provide relief. Our long-term goal is to give
them their right to
return.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: General McInerney, do you still believe ground
troops are going to
have play a part in this?
MCINERNEY: I think in the final analysis there's going
to have to be a role
for ground troops, and clearly, it is probably going to
be the thing that will
finally get him to the negotiating table. And I think
the introduction of the
Apaches and what that entails is a good start.
KING: Senator Santorum, do you support all of these
refugees coming in?
SANTORUM: Well, yes. I think we have to do our
humanitarian best, and
that is, obviously, support the surrounding countries
and our other European
allies who are trying to deal with that. And obviously,
we're airlifting some
people to Guam and Guantanamo Bay. And we have to do our
part to stem
the human suffering.
KING: Do you share Senator Durbin's view that if there
are ground troops,
you should vote on it?
SANTORUM: I do. But I'll tell you another mistake, in my
mind, was the
administration coming out right at the start and saying
there won't be any
ground troops. That's like, you know, playing in a
football game and saying,
we're not going to run to the right side.
You have to have all your -- all your weapons at your
disposal if you're
going to be a credible threat. And while I don't support
ground troops, I
think that's something, as Senator Durbin said, we need
to discuss in
Congress.
Taking it off the table, I think, gave the wrong signal
to Milosevic at the
wrong time.
KING: Senator Durbin?
DURBIN: Frankly, I think we have got to be very honest
about what we get
into with ground troops. This is not the Persian Gulf,
flat as a table. It's
mountainous terrain and terrible weather and people
defending their
homeland as they see it.
I think, frankly, we ought to debate that long and hard
before we make that
choice. I think the president was right. I think using
air power at this point to
try to tell Milosevic that we are serious is the way to
go, and then, of course,
meeting with our NATO allies decide what the appropriate
step is beyond
this.
KING: At this point, General, are you optimistic? Or is
that too strong a
word?
MCINERNEY: That's too strong right now, Larry. I think
we're really in a
gray area, and we have got a lot of work to do.
KING: Senator Santorum?
SANTORUM: Well, I am optimistic that our military will
carry out the
orders in the best possible way. I just have concerns
about who is issuing
those orders, and to the extent that we're engaging in
this conflict, that we're
engaging it to win.
KING: Senator Durbin?
DURBIN: This has been going on a long time. Those who
thought we'd
wrap it up in 10 days after 10 years of ethnic cleansing
I think ought to wake
up to reality. This will take some time.
KING: Thank you all very much. We'll take a break and
come back, and
meet Senator John McCain, Senator Joe Biden, Mike
Boettcher, who will
come for us right from Macedonia. We'll also have our
own Jeff Greenfield
aboard as well. Panel of five, your phone calls too.
Don't go away.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CLINTON: If Mr. Milosevic does not do what is necessary,
NATO will
continue an air campaign. It will be undiminished,
unceasing and unrelenting.
It will inflict such damage that either he will change
his calculations or we will
seriously diminish his capacity to maintain his grip and
impose his control on
Kosovo. We are prepared to sustain this effort for the
long haul.
Our plan is to persist until we prevail.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: Welcome back to LARRY KING LIVE.
Joining us now on our panel the rest of the way in
Phoenix, Arizona Senator
John McCain, member of the Senate Armed Services
Committee; in
Wilmington, Delaware Senator Joseph Biden, Democrat and
ranking
member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; in
Washington, D.C.,
our senior White House correspondent Wolf Blitzer is
aboard; in Skopje,
Macedonia is Mike Boettcher, our CNN correspondent on
the scene; and
here in New York, CNN's senior news analyst, Jeff
Greenfield.
Let's go first to Mike Boettcher. Anything up to date
you can report on
events where you are tonight?
MIKE BOETTCHER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, at the present
time, there's the transfer under way of refugees from
this transit camp on the
border of Macedonia and Yugoslavia to various camps
around and the air
transfer tomorrow of refugees to other countries around
the world. I spoke
to many refugees today, though, who said that they do
not want to go to
other countries around the world. And in the meantime,
they're sitting out
there, Larry, in the cold, freezing -- thousands of them
tonight.
KING: Senator McCain, if they don't want to go, what do
you do?
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: We act as quickly as
possible
using all means at our disposal to destroying Mr.
Milosevic and his military
so we can move them back to their homes and rebuild
their homes and their
communities as quickly as possible.
KING: Is this action, in your opinion, going well?
MCCAIN: No, it's not going according to plan, obviously.
But the fact --
that's what happens in wars, and terrible things happen
in wars, and that's
why they're the last resort. We have to adjust our means
to obtain the ends
that we sought at the beginning, and that is to move
these people back or
prevent the ethnic cleansing of them which would be hard
to do now, but at
least move them back; break Mr. Milosevic so that he and
his thugs can
never do this again.
KING: Senator Biden, can that work with bombing alone?
SEN. JOSEPH BIDEN (D), DELAWARE: Maybe not. But I don't
think
we have given it nearly as much time. We talk about the
number of sorties,
the number of bombs dropped, the number of cruise
missiles. We really
have only had probably -- John would know better than me
-- but we only
probably only had four to six days of any serious
ability to inflict that
damage. But I agree with John completely. I think that
we have to use
whatever means available to us. There has to be a sense
of resolve here.
There has to be a sense of purpose and there has to also
be an open mind as
to whatever means are necessary to get rid of Milosevic
in terms of his
ability to be able to engage in this ethnic cleansing.
This guy is a thug. He
should be tried as a war criminal.
KING: Wolf, you have observed this president for a long
time, you ever
seen him more resolute?
WOLF BLITZER, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE
CORRESPONDENT: Well, he is described by all of his
advisers who are in
those very small meetings, his national security team as
the one who has to
cheer everybody else up. He gives them pep talks. He
tells them to go out
there, and they're on the right course; don't give up.
He's almost like the
coach.
The problem right now is that there isn't a whole lot of
time left. What they're
really worried about in the White House, Larry, is that
there's a Defense
Department intelligence analysis right now that suggests
that Slobodan
Milosevic will have achieved his objectives within,
perhaps, only five days.
At that point, he's probably going to call for a -- even
a unilateral cease-fire.
He may even announce a partial troop withdrawal, all of
which is designed
to split the NATO alliance to show that this is over
with. But that's not going
to cause the NATO allies to stop bombing. It's going to
complicate the
matter when all is said and done.
KING: Jeff, would that mean the statement, where did we
go right, prevails?
JEFF GREENFIELD, CNN SENIOR ANALYST: I am wondering,
actually, whether or not Senators Biden or McCain are
following up on the
notion that Senator Biden just said, that Milosevic
should be tried as a war
criminal. Senator Biden, if he's tried as a war
criminal, that presupposes he's
in the hands of the NATO forces.
BIDEN: Sure does.
GREENFIELD: Does that mean we have to go to Belgrade?
BIDEN: Well, it means that we should not rule that out,
Jeff. It seems to me
that there's two things we should be doing now. The
first and foremost is to
cleanse Kosovo of his forces, and if -- in order to be
able to have a
practically permissive environment to go back in,
practically meaning that
there's not an ability to -- for his forces to threaten
NATO troops or the
people going back in. If it means we got to go into
Belgrade or toward
Belgrade, I would not take that off the table.
But again, it's premature to make these judgments. Here
we're 13 days into
what is planned to be somewhere on the order of a 30-day
bombing
campaign, half of which has been able to be executed so
far. So, I don't
think we have to make those judgments at this moment.
KING: Jeff has another question for
GREENFIELD: For Senator McCain, though, do we -- General
Odom, the
former national security agency director, made such a
proposal. Is the logical
consequence of what you're saying, absolute
resoluteness; this has to be
won. Does that mean going to Belgrade as the general
suggest, maybe a
NATO occupying force for several decades? Is that where
we may be
headed?
KING: Take Yugoslavia.
MCCAIN: No, I don't believe that's absolutely necessary.
If you break the
Yugoslav military, Milosevic will go. That's the only
thing that's keeping him
in power, as you know. But the president -- look, the
president cannot win a
war without waging war. You have to say everything's on
the table;
everything can be used. And to preclude the use of
ground forces if
necessary is only be a source of encouragement to Mr.
Milosevic. And time,
as the Pentagon study indicated, is not on our side, and
we have to lead.
And we are a superior force. We can and will prevail.
KING: We're going to take a break. When we come back,
we're going to
ask Mike Boettcher -- he got into a roped-off,
not-allow- media in refugee
camp. He'll tell us about it. Then our panel will
discuss this issue at greater
length.
Don't go away.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: We're back.
We'll go to Mike Boettcher. We've lost the line for a
moment. As soon as he
returns we'll come back for that refugee story.
Senator McCain, handling all of these refugees, is this
a major logistic
problem for Germany, Turkey, the United States?
MCCAIN: Yes, I think it's a big problem, and the quicker
we can defeat
Milosevic and get them back to their homes and
communities, the less of a
problem it will be.
And let me just make one additional point, if I could.
There's not only this
humanitarian tragedy that's taking place, but it's also
the credibility of the
United States and the future of NATO. They're paying
attention to what
we're doing, in Pyongyang and in Baghdad and Tehran and
Tripoli. And if
we fail here, they're going to be on the march, and I
think a lot of Americans
may be sacrificed in a lot of other places if we don't
prevail.
KING: We have got Mike Boettcher back. He's in Skopje,
Macedonia.
Tell us that story of what you did. You risked it a
little. But you went into a
refugee camp you weren't supposed to go to? BOETTCHER:
That's right.
The transit camp on the frontier where you're seeing all
of these pictures of
upwards of 50,000 refugees living in squalid conditions
-- and it's cordoned
all. There are army troops all the way around to keep
them from getting out
and to keep us from getting in. And not to give too much
away, we basically
snuck between two of these soldiers, army sentries, who
are posted all along
the way for about three miles, and then walked into the
camp along the
Kosovo-Macedonia border.
KING: What did you see?
BOETTCHER: And when we got there, the conditions were --
I'll tell you
what, Larry. It -- it -- it looks horrible. It smells
horrible. But the thing that
really gets you when you walk in there, all you hear is
this coughing from
everybody. Thousands of people sick, Larry.
It's -- it's -- you know, it's a place where these
little paths are basically open
sewers, where people are living under pieces of plastic,
where there are
newborn babies and very old people who are incredibly
ill and who are
dying, where people have enough food right now, just
barely, but have to
stand in line for hours to get it, who are fighting to
try to get clean water.
I saw a little girl with a plastic bottle filling it up
in the river, and just up the
river is basically the toilet facility.
KING: How do you handle something like that emotionally?
BOETTCHER: Well, you know, Larry, I'd experienced
something similar
when the Kurds were run out of northern Iraq by Saddam
Hussein, and at
that point, I guess in 1991, basically, I adopted one
family and took care of
them, because the problem was so massive, you can't --
you can't -- you
can report on everybody, but you can't take care of
everybody.
So in that instance, I did that, and today, I kind of
joined one family and kind
of stuck with them and talked to them. And I didn't have
anything to give
them, but I told them that pretty soon they were going
to be moving, it
looked like. And I didn't know where. And that's when
they told me they
didn't want to go out of this area. They wanted to stay
close. They felt that
they were going to go back. They wanted to go back, that
if they were going
to die, they wanted to die in their homeland.
KING: Senator Biden, can you understand that, that many
don't want to go
to the safety of Germany or the United States?
BIDEN: Sure, I can, Larry. I don't think any of them
want to go anywhere
else.
You know, a point that Jeff made earlier -- I mean,
Milosevic's goal here is
very clear from the beginning, and some of us have been
saying it for the last
month and a half. His goal is, first of all, to cleanse,
then to divide -- divide
Kosovo, in my view -- and then to divide the alliance
into agreeing to his
new split and his new operation.
And you know, what would have happened -- people are
calling this a civil
war. You know, that's a little bit like calling the Nazi
cleansing of Germany,
of Jews a civil war. What the hell are we talking about
here?
We're talking about a guy who has had a -- he is engaged
in genocide. And
I hope to God that he doesn't know Europe as well as he
thinks he knows it,
because I believe that he believes, as Jeff implied,
that at the end -- or
somebody implied -- Wolf maybe it was -- that at the end
of the day, he's
going to split the alliance by engaging in a unilateral
cease-fire.
And to say that he has won and that he has already
cleansed presupposes
that we are going to allow him to do that and we are not
going to continue to
stay the course and move them back.
KING: I want to get a word from -- word from Wolf.
First, Jeff.
GREENFIELD: Then that implies that what the president
has said, that there
is a way for Milosevic to get back to the peace table
is, in your view,
Senator Biden, completely irrelevant. You don't want him
back to the peace
table.
BIDEN: I think it is irrelevant now. I think we're
beyond the point where he
comes to the peace table. I think this is a point -- the
only way it works at
this point on is if we, the West, dictate -- NATO
dictates to him an
outcome. And I don't think he can be part of the outcome
in the end of the
day, because I think if -- I think absolutely the -- the
statement made by
John McCain is we're assuming Milosevic is synonymous
with the Serbian
people.
The only thing that keeps him alive and in play is the
military. And that's why
we cannot allow the military to remain a viable force no
matter what
happens.
KING: We'll take a break, pick up with Wolf and John and
more talk. Don't
go away.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: Welcome back. What you're seeing now is the first
pictures of the
first wave of refugees landing in Turkey. Other
countries that will be taking
them include the United States and Germany and Greece
and others. But
these are the ones arriving in Turkey.
Mike Boettcher has to leave us because our satellite is
going to go down in
about a minute. How many are going out tomorrow, Mike,
from where you
are?
BOETTCHER: It's hard to say. The process is either
speeding up or slowing
down no matter who you're talking to here. I -- I think
you're going to see
probably around 10,000 or so out tomorrow. And I -- I
talked to this other
family there and talked to them about Guam and
Guantanamo Bay. And
here are people who live in an Alpine country who are
kind of incredulous
that they were going to kind of a tropical atmosphere.
They just had a hard
time understanding that, frankly.
KING: Thanks, Mike, great job.
Wolf Blitzer, does the -- is the White House aware that
these people are
going reluctantly?
BLITZER: Yes, they're fully aware of that. They're fully
aware these people
want to go back home, and the White House is making a
commitment that
they will be allowed to go home. They're saying that
they haven't yet
completely shut the door to Slobodan Milosevic. A lot of
senior
policy-makers with whom I have discussed this issue in
the past few days
privately fully agree with Senator Biden and Senator
McCain: You have to
write off Slobodan Milosevic and assume he's not going
to be part of any
solution.
But the official White House position as enunciated
today by Press
Secretary Joe Lockhart and by the president himself is
that there still is an
opportunity for Slobodan Milosevic to accept these four
conditions that
President Clinton laid out. If he accepts those
conditions, including allowing
the Kosovar refugees to go back to their homes, an
international
peacekeeping force, the framework of the Rambouillet
agreement and a
withdrawal of Serb forces from Kosovo, then you could
possibly make a
deal.
The problem with writing Slobodan Milosevic completely
out of it right now
is then, assuming the military in Yugoslavia stays with
him, he could be
around for a long time, meaning this Kosovo crisis isn't
going to be a
problem for only a few more weeks or even months but
maybe for years.
KING: Senator McCain, having the benefit of hindsight,
what would you
have done differently?
MCCAIN: I -- I'm hesitant to do that, because it could
be criticism of the
president. But I would have started a bombing campaign
along the lines that
we did at start of Desert Storm rather than this very
incremental beginnings. I
would have taken out the infrastructure immediately. I
would have had
troops massed and armored capabilities on borders of
Macedonia and into
Macedonia and Albania, if necessary, and other places to
move quickly into
Kosovo, never discounting the probability that we might
have to use ground
troops, since air has never really decided any major
battles. And made clear
our resolve to win this war and do whatever it takes.
KING: We'll take break, come back with our remaining
moments, and Mr.
Greenfield has that look of another question.
Don't go away.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: Mr. Greenfield with a question for the senators.
GREENFIELD: Well, I am just wondering if this notion
that I have been
playing with rings a bell with you gentlemen, that over
the last few years,
politics has in a lot of ways been diminished. We don't
have a cold war. The
economy is going good. People don't vote as much as they
used to. The
impeachment process was as much a farce as it was a
serious piece of
business. The late night comics will joke about the
president in ways we
couldn't have imagined 25 years ago. Suddenly we're
faced with a situation
where literally the most serious life and death
questions are on table. Is the
political community, is the journalistic community ready
to grapple with so
serious a matter given what we have been through over
these past few
years?
BIDEN: No. It has demonstrated, Jeff, it's not. Let me
give you an example.
John just said what he would have done. Were John
president and I were
secretary of state, I would say, yes, Mr. President, go
ahead and do that.
The difference is there are 16 other, 17 other NATO
nations that have to
sign on and plus there's a political community. Let me
give you one example.
The so-called Biden resolution is the resolution that
passed the Senate
authorizing the use of air power, and the Republican
leadership insists that
there be a provision in it saying no ground troops. 1
was about to pass
because they told me that I didn't have the votes to
pass it without it. John
McCain came to the floor, faced down the Republican
leadership and a few
Democrats and said, this is outrageous to put this
prohibition in front end;
take it out. It got taken out. But it shows the
environment in which this whole
thing started.
KING: John.
BIDEN: So, the idea now that we're going to be able to
separate politics out
and the press is not going to want instant response and
instant analysis and
instant victory, I think is not realistic but time we
will -- there will be a little
maturation going on here.
KING: John.
MCCAIN: I think there's maturation because of what the
American people
and the journalists and we politicians are seeing.
BIDEN; Right.
MCCAIN: But let me -- let me also quickly add that I
believe that you have
to calculate what your chances of success are, and if
you don't -- if you
aren't sure that you can bring according to the Powell
doctrine overwhelming
force in a minimum amount of time and make the most
amount of
effectiveness out of it, then you shouldn't go in
because the worst of all
worlds, as we know is, the kind of standoff that we have
experienced in
previous conflicts.
KING: Wolf, is the White House going to keep prominent
people in the
administration available to the media on regular
interview basis?
BLITZER: Yes, and we're also being told the president
himself will do more
interviews. He did one, as you know, with Dan Rather
last week. He's going
to be coming out almost on a daily basis making
statements about the
situation in Kosovo.
A lot of people, though, inside the White House, Larry,
a lot of my
journalistic colleagues have come to the very, very sad
conclusion, though,
that this Kosovo crisis which seemingly sprung out of
nowhere should not
have come as that great a surprise. The problem that
those of us in the news
media over the past year -- we were so engrossed with
the Monica
Lewinsky investigation, the Ken Starr investigation, the
impeachment
process; we didn't pay attention that much to what was
happening in
Kosovo. The same is true of the top political leaders at
the White House.
They were so engrossed in trying to make sure the
president stayed in office,
they didn't educate the American public the way they
probably should have.
This problem should not have come as a surprise. The
tragedy is that it has.
KING: Thanks, Wolf. We have about 30 seconds, Jeff, for
the closing
comment. We were Monica-ized.
GREENFIELD: We all know this -- in journalism, in
politics, that the half life
is about eight days. And it is absolutely astonishing
that -- what was it, 10
weeks ago, as Wolf said, the only game in town was
Monica and
impeachment. If somebody had come to a -- to a
journalism group and said,
we got to do a big story on Kosovo, we all would have
looked and said --
get with the program; it's impeachment. And here we are
facing the most
serious use of force in Europe I think since the end of
World War II and
we're on a "dark lean plain," to quote a poet.
KING: Thank you all very much. We're out of time. Tell
you about
tomorrow night right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: Tomorrow night on LARRY KING LIVE, the president of
Macedonia will be one of the guests; as will Morley
Safer of "60 minutes"
and the legendary Walter Cronkite.
Up next, the latest on the crisis in Kosovo. And then
"NEWSSTAND:
CNN & TIME." The plight of refugees from one Kosovar
village and the
story behind the mass exodus across the border. It's
next. Stay tuned.
END
Message Sent
To:
Joseph P. Lockhart/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jennifer M. Palmieri/WHO/EOP@EOP
Anthony R. Bernal/OVP@OVP
Melissa G. Green/OPD/EOP@EOP
Leslie Bernstein/WHO/EOP@EOP
Robin M. Roland/WHO/EOP@EOP
Chandler G. Spaulding/WHO/EOP@EOP
Dominique L. Cano/WHO/EOP@EOP
Dag Vega/WHO/EOP@EOP
Brenda M. Anders/WHO/EOP@EOP
[email protected] @ inet
Megan C. Moloney/WHO/EOP@EOP
Richard L. Siewert/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jordan Tamagni/WHO/EOP@EOP
Beverly J. Barnes/WHO/EOP
Elizabeth R. Newman/WHO/EOP@EOP
Julia M. Payne/WHO/EOP@EOP
Julianne B. Corbett/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jeffrey M. Smith/OSTP/EOP@EOP
Lowell A. Weiss/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jonathan A. Kaplan/OPD/EOP@EOP
Thurgood Marshall Jr/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jennifer Ferguson/OMB/EOP@EOP
Mark D. Neschis/WHO/EOP@EOP
Ruby Shamir/WHO/EOP@EOP
Nanda Chitre/WHO/EOP@EOP
Amy Weiss/WHO/EOP@EOP
Lisa J. Levin/WHO/EOP@EOP
Peter A. Weissman/OPD/EOP@EOP
William A. Halter/OMB/EOP@EOP
Eli G. Attie/OVP@OVP
Patricia M. Ewing/OVP@OVP
Sara M. Latham/WHO/EOP@EOP
Melissa M. Murray/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jonathan E. Smith/WHO/EOP@EOP
Barry J. Toiv/WHO/EOP@EOP
Anne M. Edwards/WHO/EOP@EOP
Michael Waldman/WHO/EOP@EOP
Gene B. Sperling/OPD/EOP@EOP
Paul K. Engskov/WHO/EOP@EOP
Laura D. Schwartz/WHO/EOP@EOP
Kevin S. Moran/WHO/EOP@EOP
Julie E. Mason/WHO/EOP@EOP
Steven J. Naplan/NSC/EOP@EOP
Alison Muscatine/WHO/EOP@EOP
Gordon Li/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jason H. Schechter/WHO/EOP@EOP
Mark A. Kitchens/WHO/EOP@EOP
June Shih/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jeffrey A. Shesol/WHO/EOP@EOP
Rochester M. Johnson/WHO/EOP@EOP
Rachael E. Sullivan/OVP@OVP
Julie B. Goldberg/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sarah E. Gegenheimer/WHO/EOP@EOP
Susanna B. McGuire/WHO/EOP@EOP
Steve Ricchetti/WHO/EOP@EOP
Edward F. Hughes/WHO/EOP@EOP
Melissa J. Prober/WHO/EOP@EOP
Justin Coleman/WHO/EOP@EOP
Clara J. Shin/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jonathan M. Prince/WHO/EOP@EOP
Joshua S. Gottheimer/WHO/EOP@EOP
Heather M. Riley/WHO/EOP@EOP
Alejandro G. Cabrera/OVP@OVP
Rebecca L. Walldorff/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jon P. Jennings/WHO/EOP@EOP
Katharine Button/WHO/EOP@EOP
Tracy Pakulniewicz/WHO/EOP@EOP
James T. Heimbach/WHO/EOP@EOP
Victoria L. Valentine/WHO/EOP@EOP
James E. Kennedy/WHO/EOP@EOP
Michael A. Hammer/NSC/EOP@EOP
Laura J. Lewis/WHO/EOP@EOP
Toby C. Graff/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sean P. O'Shea/WHO/EOP@EOP
Thomas D. Janenda/WHO/EOP@EOP
Rajiv Y. Mody/WHO/EOP@EOP
Robin J. Bachman/WHO/EOP@EOP
Saladbar 23 <saladbar23 @ hotmail.com> @ inet
Kimberly S. Anderson/OA/EOP@EOP
Erica S. Lepping/WHO/EOP@EOP
Forwarded by Rajiv Y. Mody/WHO/EOP on 04/21/99
04:24 PM
Mark A. Kitchens
04/06/99 04:58:18 PM
Record Type: Record
To: See the distribution list at the bottom of this message
cc:
Subject: CNN Crossfire, April 6, 1999
Crossfire
Aired April 6, 1999 - 7:30 p.m. ET
Are Ground Troops the Only Way to Accomplish the
Clinton Administration's Political Objectives?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WILLIAM J. CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: If
Mr. Milosevic does not do what is necessary, NATO will
continue an air
campaign. It will be undiminished, unceasing and
unrelenting.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MIKE KINSLEY, GUEST HOST: Tonight, the strike against
Yugoslavia
intensifies. As more bombs fall, the U.S. prepares to
send in helicopters.
Will this be enough to stop Slobodan Milosevic, or is it
time for ground
troops?
ANNOUNCER: Live, from Washington, CROSSFIRE. On the
left, Bill
Press. On the right, Robert Novak. In the crossfire, in
New York, former
NATO Supreme Allied Commander General George Joulwan.
KINSLEY: Good evening. Welcome to CROSSFIRE. I am Mike
Kinsley
of Slate.com on the Internet sitting in all this week
for Bill Press.
What is the exit strategy for Kosovo? How will it all
end?
President Clinton put it very simply today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CLINTON: We're prepared to sustain this effort for the
long haul. Our plan
is to persist until we prevail.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KINSLEY: But what will it take to persist and prevail?
Today NATO officially approved the use of attack
helicopters and 2,000
troops to go with them, all based next door in Albania.
Is this a first step
from air war to ground war?
In other developments, the first 90 Kosovar refugees
were airlifted to safety
in Norway: 90 down, 400,000 to go.
The United States has offered to take 20,000 but plans
to keep them in
Guam and Guantanamo, not the U.S. itself. And the air
war continues. With
better weather, NATO planes have begun to hit
Yugoslav-Serbian ground
troops who are driving the Kosovar Albanians out of
their homes. But some
experts believe the only answer to ground troops is
ground troops.
Across the table is the youngest person ever to wear a
bow tie on television,
Tucker Carlson of "The Weekly Standard," a magazine
printed on paper.
Tucker.
TUCKER CARLSON, GUEST HOST: Thanks, Mike.
General, Let's enter the world of make believe for a
moment. Pretend you
are General Wesley Clark and the president has asked you
to rid Kosovo of
Serb forces and make it safe for the refugees to return.
How do you do it?
Do you use ground forces? If so, how many divisions, how
many planes,
how do you enter the province? What do you do?
RETIRED GENERAL GEORGE JOULWAN, FORMER NATO
SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER: Well, this was a very similar
question we faced in Bosnia. And I would hope that the
supreme
commander at this time said, "What is your political
objective?" If it is as you
stated to deter or to stop the 40,000 Serbs from doing
what they're doing,
killing Kosovars and doing ethnic cleansing, then I
think you have to come
up with a realistic option to say, how do you do that.
And if air strikes alone will not accomplish that, you
better have a plan B, C
and D, which may include ground forces.
CARLSON: I am assuming, right, that those three plans
would. But what,
then, about NATO? Other NATO countries -- even our
closest ally,
England -- Tony Blair today essentially ruled out his
support for ground
troops. Would that jeopardize the alliance if the United
States were to go
ahead and support ground troops?
JOULWAN: Well, I think that it is again a question of
leadership. If this is
what it's going to take to realize the political
objective of both the United
States and NATO, then I think we in the military have
the obligation to lay
out what it's going to take to do that. And then the
United States, as we
have done in the past, needs to provide that leadership
within the council to
get consensus to meet the political objective.
KINSLEY: General, you keep saying if the air war -- air
power is not
sufficient. How long, in your opinion, is a fair test of
that "if"? It's only been a
week and a half. Most -- most of that time, the weather
has been very bad,
and NATO airstrikes have been limited for that reason.
And there are
people saying it will never work. Do you agree with
them?
JOULWAN: Again, I would go back to the political clarity
that's needed
here. What do you want to accomplish? If you want to
degrade his
capability, if you want to degrade his infrastructure,
then I think you could go
on for weeks and weeks of airstrikes. If you want to
prevent the genocide
that's occurring now...
KINSLEY: Yes.
JOULWAN: that we knew 40,000 Serb troops were in
Kosovo in
violation of the October agreement, then you need to
take, I think, more
than just air action. And that is up to the political
leadership and to the
military, professionals to say, "What would that take?"
And I would tell you that I am surprised if the friends
that I know in the joint
chiefs of staff and within the alliance would rely
solely on air.
KINSLEY: Well, we -- you haven't used it, but many
people who say we
have to go to ground troops use this word "quagmire,"
which, of course,
comes from the Vietnam War, which lasted for eight
years.
Is it fair to say we're in a quagmire after a week and a
half?
JOULWAN: As one who spent two combat tours in Vietnam,
much of that
scar tissue I tried to use later on in my professional
career, that is why you
need to have clarity. We really weren't clear, I don't
think, in the political
objectives in Vietnam. We had some micromanagement at
the top by our
political leadership.
And NATO is better than that. The U.S. is better than
that.
In Bosnia, we had clear political objectives. And the
air campaign we
conducted there were for clear political reasons.
I find that difficult now in trying to ascertain what
those political objectives
are in Kosovo.
CARLSON: Well, fair enough. Then perhaps you could fill
in the blanks.
What should the objectives be? Clearly it's too late to
stop ethnic cleansing.
Should we target -- specifically target Milosevic for
removal?
JOULWAN: Why is it too late to stop?
CARLSON: Well, because people are continuing to be
killed. And the fact
is, as you know, the killing increased in ferocity since
the airstrikes.
JOULWAN: Every more reason why we should have options. I
know this
president. I briefed him on the plan to commit ground
forces in Bosnia.
There was a groundswell of opposition against it at that
time. There was not
support either in the press or in the Congress for it.
But this president made
a tough decision to commit ground forces in Bosnia. And
I think we need to
have that -- that same clarity right now.
I think it's -- it's really sad that we're now in 1999
watching the same
atrocities by the same person with the same troops that
we saw in
Srebrenica in 1995.
CARLSON: Yes, that is sad. But in one sentence, can you
clarify for us, for
viewers what precisely our goals should be?
JOULWAN: I think the goal of preventing the genocide
that we're seeing
today in Kosovo, the uprooting of people, the loading of
train cars with
people on them, that should be our political objective.
But we should match
it with the means to accomplish it.
KINSLEY: Well, General, I've got to say, it seems to me,
pretty clear, just
as someone sitting, reading the paper out in Seattle
that that is our political
objective.
JOULWAN: But where are the means to achieve it? That's
the point I am
trying to get at. You need to marry up the political
objective with the means
to achieve it. And if you're not achieving it, you
better change your tactics.
KINSLEY: Can you talk a little bit about the differences
and similarities
between the situation in Kosovo, both political and
military, and the situation
in Bosnia, which, I guess, you would maintain was a
successful use of
military power?
JOULWAN: In Bosnia, it -- after Srebrenica, the NATO
alliance and the
world community at the London conference in July of '95
passed some --
some very clear resolutions and guidance to me with
triggers attached. And I
say "triggers" -- when we could act if we saw a
concentration of forces
against a safe area.
It wasn't just for Dick Holbrooke's mission at Dayton.
It was to stop an
attack on safe areas. It was -- it was reduce the siege
of Sarajevo. And it
was to prevent the maneuver of Mladic in doing just what
we see in
Kosovo.
We accomplished all those objectives, to include later
Dick Holbrooke's
mission at Dayton.
CARLSON: Yes, but now NATO is not, by everyone's
admission,
achieving the single objective of stopping the killing.
If at some point the
killing continues and NATO refuses to either step up
with ground troops or
to halt it completely, what is the point of NATO? Isn't
that utter failure in its
sort of core mission to keep order in Europe?
JOULWAN: I hope not. As I said, NATO is better than
that. I know the
leadership. I know the military side of it. But you must
get political clarity.
You must have clarity of mission and purpose.
CARLSON: Yes, you keep saying that, that NATO is better
than that, but
the fact is it hasn't been better than that so far. Why
not? And if there's a
lack of clarity politically, where is that lack of
clarity coming from? Is it
President Clinton?
JOULWAN: I think part of that has to do with U.S.
leadership. We are the
leader of the alliance. And I think we need to provide
that leadership. If we
rule out a ground option here at home, I could assure
you the alliance will
not support it.
KINSLEY: Well, as I as I was saying, General and I
thought you
agreed. It seems to me that what you started ought to be
the purpose is quite
clearly the purpose. And then the question becomes the
means, which is to
stop the ethnic cleansing in a nutshell.
I I I -- I think that's what motivates most of the
people out in the
outside world who are appalled by what's going on there.
The original idea two weeks ago, as was was that we
would achieve that
by getting Milosevic to sign this peace accord, which
created an autonomy,
a semi-autonomous region in Kosovo.
But is that practical now, I mean, now that he's driven
-- can people really
go back to their homes side by side with their Serbian
neighbors and -- and
-- and be essentially ruled by Milosevic once again
after what he's done in
the past couple of weeks?
JOULWAN: I think it's going to be very difficult, but I
think we now need to
come up with a plan to carry out our political
objectives. And I think that's
going to include if you rule out ground options, what
you do is Milosevic
only has to face one dimension of our power, which is
air.
We talk in the military about combined arms, where you
put air, ground and
sea together. That's what's missing in in in
Kosovo. And so we're not
utilizing the full capability the alliance has and that
-- and that the United
States has in Kosovo today.
KINSLEY: OK. Thanks, general. We're going to take a
break. And when
we come back, we'll ask the general about these stories
leaking out of the
Pentagon about how the president ignored their advice.
Is that how a good
soldier behaves?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KINSLEY: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. I'm Mike Kinsley of
Slate, the
Internet magazine, sitting in for Bill Press. We're
talking with the former
supreme allied commander in Europe, General George
Joulwan. General
Joulwan ran NATO during the 1995 military operations in
Bosnia. So he's
an authority on dealing with Slobodan Milosevic. He's
now a professor at
West Point.
The fellow at this table who looks like a professor is
actually Tucker
Carlson, a writer for "The Weekly Standard" magazine.
Tucker.
CARLSON: Thanks, mike. General, there has been a great
deal of
off-the-record criticism of the president from his own
military advisers. Last
week, one unnamed high-level Air Force officer described
the Kosovo
campaign as a disgrace. This morning in The Washington
Post members of
the joint chiefs of staff were quoted anonymously saying
that they knew from
the outset that an air campaign would not be effective
against the Serbs.
It sounds to me like a lot of high-level military
officers have very little
confidence in the president's ability to lead. Now, you
know him. Should
they have confidence in his ability to be commander in
chief?
JOULWAN: I think so. What we need, though, is from those
same military
leaders the moral courage to stand up and say, if this
is your political
objective, Mr. President, this is what you need,
regardless of whether we
think -- what impact this will have on readiness, what
impact this will have
on the budget, this is what it will take to achieve it.
And -- and I -- I hope
that was done. If it wasn't done, then I believe that's
a mistake by our
military.
KINSLEY: But irrespective of what they think, is -- is
it proper for them to
be undermining the president, really undermining the war
effort in this way by
leaking their doubts to the newspapers?
JOULWAN: No, I don't think so. I think they should not
do that. It's time to
pull the team together. We're in this. We are where we
are. And we have to
get on with it.
I truly, though, think that the planning at least -- and
even planning was ruled
out for a ground option, which I think is inexcusable.
KINSLEY: But if -- if you were a general who really
believed this was
disastrous and believed it beforehand and not after the
fact when it's a little
bit easy, shouldn't you, if you decided it was so
important you were going to
speak out (a) speak out publicly and not anonymously and
(b) do it
beforehand when it might have prevented this thing that
you think is so
terrible?
JOULWAN: Absolutely, and that's why we have the
Goldwater- Nickles
Act. That's what CINCs do, forward-deployed commanders,
and that's
what our military leadership should do as well.
KINSLEY: You better explain the Goldwater-Nickles Act.
JOULWAN: That was passed to ensure that the military had
a voice,
particularly to the Congress, and they would give their
personal opinions,
and in this case, beforehand, on actions that were to be
taken.
CARLSON: But you can understand why individual officers
would be
hesitant to criticize the policies of the president. I
wonder why there has
been so much criticism of his leadership. Are these
people insane? Are they
making this up?
JOULWAN: I really don't think it's -- the criticism
comes after the fact. The
moral courage by our leadership comes before the fact.
This should have
been done during the debate on the decision, not
afterwards.
CARLSON: Well, let's talk about -- quickly about another
gripe that many
in the military have, and that is this idea that the
president has helped gut the
armed forces, that when he assumed office, I think there
were 18 divisions in
the U.S. Army. I think there are about 10 now. There's
this
widely-reported-on shortage of cruise missiles. I think
the question now is, if
a conflict were to break out somewhere else in the
world, say in North
Korea or Iraq, would the United States have the forces
to conduct a war in
two theaters, or two different wars. Would it?
JOULWAN: That's a fair question. I don't think so. I
think we have
problems with our force structure and with our strategy.
And so, no, I don't
think -- I think we would have great difficulty in
trying to carry out not only a
major war contingency, but also the lesser regional
contingencies that we're
faced with throughout the world today.
KINSLEY: General, when you get together with your fellow
generals and
retired generals and talk about the things that we are
talking about in society
at large -- specifically, do we want the United States
to play a role in the
world beyond just protecting our own national security
interests, narrowly
defined? Should the military power of the United States
be used to protect
people from ethnic cleansing and other humanitarian
things, which don't
strictly affect our national security? -- is there a
view in the military about
whether that's a proper use?
JOULWAN: Let me just give you my view, which
KINSLEY: All right, that's fair enough.
JOULWAN: I have spent 36 years in service to my
country, 18 of those
in Europe. I was a second lieutenant when the Berlin
wall went up. I was a
lieutenant general when it came down. And I was a
supreme commander of
NATO in this new NATO we're building.
Never in my wildest dreams did I think we would see the
horrors that we
have seen in Bosnia and Kosovo, a repeat of what we saw
in World War II.
My whole life was devoted to preventing that.
That is the professionalism of our armed forces today.
That's what we need
to oppose. And whether that's a major regional war or a
lesser regional war,
that is not the issue here.
The president said, here is an our political objective.
NATO said this is our
political objective. We in the military said how do we
get the conditions for
success -- not carping about what it's going to cost,
but what do we need
for success. That is what we should be doing.
KINSLEY: But -- go ahead.
CARLSON: Well, there's obviously a great deal of
conversation about what
we need to do. And you must be privy to some of it after
36 years in the
military. You must hear things. The question obviously
before the country
now is, will we send in ground troops? The
administration has been very
cagey on this question. What do you think is going to
happen? What do you
hear?
JOULWAN: I think in order to get Milosevic just from
looking at one
dimension of our power, if you put at least the planning
for a ground
operation, he has to divert troops from the killing
fields of Kosovo to take
that into account. Whether you come in from Albania,
Macedonia or
elsewhere, he has to take that into account.
So I think the planning for that by NATO and by the
United States is
essential here. And I would urge that at least the
planning go on and let the
political decision be made later.
CARLSON: Is it going on?
JOULWAN: I -- again, if one could -- could listen to our
political
leadership, they have not even said they have authorized
the planning for
that. And that, I think, is a mistake.
KINSLEY: And is -- is -- let me ask you the same
question about -- I
asked about the generals about the people who would be
the ground troops.
We have an all-volunteer Army. Do people -- do people
sign up for the
Army hoping never to use the skills that they're
developing or -- or -- or
only using them in extreme emergencies for our national
security? Or -- or
do you think from talking to them that -- to the extent
that you can
generalize, that the -- that the man who would be -- and
women -- who
would be the ground troops could do this with a whole
heart?
JOULWAN: Look, I have committed this force, this
magnificent armed
forces we have in Rwanda to stop the dying there; in
Liberia, to help liberate
our force -- our embassy there; in Macedonia, in
northern Iraq. These are
magnificent soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. If
the clarity is there, if the
political guidance is correct, these men and women will
do the job.
Whether that's in Kosovo or whenever you send them, they
are well-trained.
KINSLEY: OK. Thank you very much, General Joulwan.
Tucker and I will
be back in a little bit.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KINSLEY: Tucker, there is an acronym I believe they use
in the Army and
elsewhere called CYA, which is "Cover Your Rear End."
And it seems to
me that that's what these generals are doing in a pretty
flagrant way, or these
-- I assume they're generals at the Pentagon
CARLSON: Well, they are.
KINSLEY: leaking -- leaking oh, we told President
Clinton not to do
that.
CARLSON: But you have got to -- look, these are people
who take war
seriously, who understand its costs. They're being led
by a man who wants a
war where no one gets hurt, a free-lunch war. That's
enough to make
anyone nervous. And you feel for them.
KINSLEY: Well, the country wants a free-lunch war, and
you have got
Republicans, on the one hand, saying don't do it at all,
and on the other
hand, saying, as you are, do it with ground troops, and
Clinton has typically
compromised.
CARLSON: But the Republicans aren't the president, are
they? So they're
not responsible for that. And he is
KINSLEY: They're not responsible at all.
CARLSON: Well, that's true too.
KINSLEY: And what about these generals? I mean, they're
actually
undermining the war effort by -- it seems to me. But
that's just my view.
From the left, sitting in for Bill Press, I am Mike
Kinsley.
CARLSON: Sitting in on the right, I am Tucker Carlson,
sitting in for Bob
Novak.
Join us again tomorrow night for another edition of
CROSSFIRE.
END
Message Sent
To:
Joseph P. Lockhart/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jennifer M. Palmieri/WHO/EOP@EOP
Anthony R. Bernal/OVP@OVP
Melissa G. Green/OPD/EOP@EOP
Leslie Bernstein/WHO/EOP@EOP
Robin M. Roland/WHO/EOP@EOP
Chandler G. Spaulding/WHO/EOP@EOP
Dominique L. Cano/WHO/EOP@EOP
Dag Vega/WHO/EOP@EOP
Brenda M. Anders/WHO/EOP@EOP
[email protected] @inet
Megan C. Moloney/WHO/EOP@EOP
Richard L. Siewert/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jordan Tamagni/WHO/EOP@EOP
Beverly J. Barnes/WHO/EOP
Elizabeth R. Newman/WHO/EOP@EOP
Julia M. Payne/WHO/EOP@EOP
Julianne B. Corbett/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jeffrey M. Smith/OSTP/EOP@EOP
Lowell A. Weiss/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jonathan A. Kaplan/OPD/EOP@EOP
Thurgood Marshall Jr/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jennifer Ferguson/OMB/EOP@EOP
Mark D. Neschis/WHO/EOP@EOP
Ruby Shamir/WHO/EOP@EOP
Nanda Chitre/WHO/EOP@EOP
Amy Weiss/WHO/EOP@EOP
Lisa J. Levin/WHO/EOP@EOP
Peter A. Weissman/OPD/EOP@EOP
William A. Halter/OMB/EOP@EOP
Eli G. Attie/OVP@OVP
Patricia M. Ewing/OVP@OVP
Sara M. Latham/WHO/EOP@EOP
Melissa M. Murray/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jonathan E. Smith/WHO/EOP@EOP
Barry J. Toiv/WHO/EOP@EOP
Anne M. Edwards/WHO/EOP@EOP
Michael Waldman/WHO/EOP@EOP
Gene B. Sperling/OPD/EOP@EOP
Paul K. Engskov/WHO/EOP@EOP
Laura D. Schwartz/WHO/EOP@EOP
Kevin S. Moran/WHO/EOP@EOP
Julie E. Mason/WHO/EOP@EOP
Steven J. Naplan/NSC/EOP@EOP
Alison Muscatine/WHO/EOP@EOP
Gordon Li/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jason H. Schechter/WHO/EOP@EOP
Mark A. Kitchens/WHO/EOP@EOP
June Shih/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jeffrey A. Shesol/WHO/EOP@EOP
Rochester M. Johnson/WHO/EOP@EOP
Rachael E. Sullivan/OVP@OVP
Julie B. Goldberg/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sarah E. Gegenheimer/WHO/EOP@EOP
Susanna B. McGuire/WHO/EOP@EOP
Steve Ricchetti/WHO/EOP@EOP
Edward F. Hughes/WHO/EOP@EOP
Melissa J. Prober/WHO/EOP@EOP
Justin Coleman/WHO/EOP@EOP
Clara J. Shin/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jonathan M. Prince/WHO/EOP@EOP
Joshua S. Gottheimer/WHO/EOP@EOP
Heather M. Riley/WHO/EOP@EOP
Alejandro G. Cabrera/OVP@OVP
Rebecca L. Walldorff/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jon P. Jennings/WHO/EOP@EOP
Katharine Button/WHO/EOP@EOP
Tracy Pakulniewicz/WHO/EOP@EOP
James T. Heimbach/WHO/EOP@EOP
Victoria L. Valentine/WHO/EOP@EOP
James E. Kennedy/WHO/EOP@EOP
Michael A. Hammer/NSC/EOP@EOP
Laura J. Lewis/WHO/EOP@EOP
Toby C. Graff/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sean P. O'Shea/WHO/EOP@EOP
Thomas D. Janenda/WHO/EOP@EOP
Rajiv Y. Mody/WHO/EOP@EOP
Robin J. Bachman/WHO/EOP@EOP
Saladbar 23 <saladbar23 @ hotmail.com> @ inet
Kimberly S. Anderson/OA/EOP@EOP
Erica S. Lepping/WHO/EOP@EOP
Forwarded by Rajiv Y. Mody/WHO/EOP on 04/21/99
04:24 PM
Mark A. Kitchens
04/06/99 04:58:21 PM
Record Type: Record
To: See the distribution list at the bottom of this message
cc:
Subject: CNN Inside Politics, April 5, 1999
Inside Politics
Aired April 5, 1999 - 5:12 p.m. ET
GOP Presidential Candidate Lamar Alexander Expresses
his Opinion About NATO's Mission in the Balkans
WOODRUFF: Throughout the NATO mission in the Balkans, we
have
heard presidential hopefuls express their opinions about
the airstrikes, about
the president's performance and the possibility of
ground troops.
Joining us now with his views, GOP presidential
candidate Lamar
Alexander.
It turns out Governor Alexander, there is a broad
spectrum of views among
the candidates in your party, or presumed candidates in
your party. Where
do you fit in on this spectrum?
LAMAR ALEXANDER (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I think
there is talk about methods, not enough about
objectives. We're all trying to
be armchair generals saying no ground troops, ground
troops.
The president go to Congress, make a speech to them, to
the American
people and define our objectives. He ought to say, when
we started, we
threatened to bomb this thug unless he would sign this
agreement -- he didn't
sign it. Then kept bombing to stop the atrocities. He
kept going, so our
objectives have now changed. Now we have to win, and by
winning, I mean
put the Kosovars back so they can live safely, and I'm
asking Congress to
let me have all of the authority I need in order to
reach those objectives. In
other words, make his objectives clear, be vague about
his means -- not rule
them in, not rule them out.
WOODRUFF: But if you're saying that the president should
ask Congress
for the authority to do whatever it takes, that by
necessity is going to include
ground troops -- is it not?
ALEXANDER: That's true. That is true. It could include
ground troops. But
we're least likely to use ground troops if Milosevic
thinks we're most likely
to do it. So while -- you know, this is much easier said
than done; it will take
two or three months. It's not easy in Albania and the
other countries right
there to have a staging area for that. In the meantime,
we could continue with
our airstrikes; we could train Kosovar insurgents, and
perhaps we wouldn't
have to use ground troops.
But we've got to fit our means to our ends, and the
president has been vague
on his objectives and clear on his means, and it should
have been the
reverse. WOODRUFF: Are you suggesting that in the middle
of the all of
this, the president should go to Congress? It seems the
war is now under
way, the NATO mission is now under way and you're saying
it's almost as if
the president should double back and talk to Congress.
ALEXANDER: I am indeed saying that, Judy, because
otherwise we'll be
sliding into a ground war without knowing what we're
doing.
Look back at Somalia, 1992 and '93. There we went from a
peace-
keeping mission to a nation-building mission. We sent in
an elite group of
Americans to -- because our peace keepers were getting
killed -- they were
being ambushed -- they were stepping on land mines --
and our men and
women got slaughtered and drug through the streets. We
do not want to
slide into a ground war, so the president should go
before Congress and do
just what you said. The objectives have changed -- I'm
here to tell you that
-- and to define what we're doing.
WOODRUFF: How is what you're saying different, for
example, from what
John McCain is saying, when he says "we need to do
everything possible to
win." It sounds to me as if that is about what you are
saying.
ALEXANDER: We need to do everything -- I'm not sure what
Senator
McCain has said. I respect him for speaking out
forcefully on the issue.
What I'm saying is the president should admit that two
weeks ago, our
objectives were one thing, and today, they're another.
And when you have
different objectives, you have different methods, and
the Congress would
welcome that. I think Senator Lugar, Senator McCain and
others would give
the president the authority he needed to reach whatever
the appropriate
objectives are.
WOODRUFF: Some days ago, you were calling on the
president to
announce his exit strategy. Now the question about doing
that was: Do you
telegraph to the enemy to the other side during a
conflict like this what your
exit strategy is -- are you still arguing that, that
should be out there as well?
ALEXANDER: Yes he should. He should say -- for example,
Tony Blair
has been very specific -- more so than the president --
in saying to the
Kosovars, our promise to you is that we'll take you
home, and you can live
their peacefully. Now our exit strategy would be when
you are home, and
when you're living there peacefully, we get out. Now
that could be our exit
strategy -- the president should telegraph that.
What he should not telegraph is -- are the means that we
need to get there;
That's a matter between him and the joint chiefs; it's a
matter of tactics and
surprise. We don't need 400 armchair quarterbacks in
Washington D.C. and
around the country on television and off television
second-guessing this.
We ought to all agree on what the objectives are; the
Congress approves it;
and the military men and women tell him how to do it and
help him get it
done.
WOODRUFF: Lamar Alexander, thank you very much for
joining us.
ALEXANDER: Thank you, Judy.
WOODRUFF: I appreciate it.
END
Message Sent
To:
Joseph P. Lockhart/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jennifer M. Palmieri/WHO/EOP@EOP
Anthony R. Bernal/OVP@OVP
Melissa G. Green/OPD/EOP@EOP
Leslie Bernstein/WHO/EOP@EOP
Robin M. Roland/WHO/EOP@EOP
Chandler G. Spaulding/WHO/EOP@EOP
Dominique L. Cano/WHO/EOP@EOP
Dag Vega/WHO/EOP@EOP
Brenda M. Anders/WHO/EOP@EOP
[email protected] @ inet
Megan C. Moloney/WHO/EOP@EOP
Richard L. Siewert/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jordan Tamagni/WHO/EOP@EOP
Beverly J. Barnes/WHO/EOP
Elizabeth R. Newman/WHO/EOP@EOP
Julia M. Payne/WHO/EOP@EOP
Julianne B. Corbett/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jeffrey M. Smith/OSTP/EOP@EOP
Lowell A. Weiss/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jonathan A. Kaplan/OPD/EOP@EOP
Thurgood Marshall Jr/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jennifer Ferguson/OMB/EOP@EOP
Mark D. Neschis/WHO/EOP@EOP
Ruby Shamir/WHO/EOP@EOP
Nanda Chitre/WHO/EOP@EOP
Amy Weiss/WHO/EOP@EOP
Lisa J. Levin/WHO/EOP@EOP
Peter A. Weissman/OPD/EOP@EOP
William A. Halter/OMB/EOP@EOP
Eli G. Attie/OVP@OVP
Patricia M. Ewing/OVP@OVP
Sara M. Latham/WHO/EOP@EOP
Melissa M. Murray/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jonathan E. Smith/WHO/EOP@EOP
Barry J. Toiv/WHO/EOP@EOP
Anne M. Edwards/WHO/EOP@EOP
Michael Waldman/WHO/EOP@EOP
Gene B. Sperling/OPD/EOP@EOP
Paul K. Engskov/WHO/EOP@EOP
Laura D. Schwartz/WHO/EOP@EOP
Kevin S. Moran/WHO/EOP@EOP
Julie E. Mason/WHO/EOP@EOP
Steven J. Naplan/NSC/EOP@EOP
Alison Muscatine/WHO/EOP@EOP
Gordon Li/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jason H. Schechter/WHO/EOP@EOP
Mark A. Kitchens/WHO/EOP@EOP
June Shih/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jeffrey A. Shesol/WHO/EOP@EOP
Rochester M. Johnson/WHO/EOP@EOP
Rachael E. Sullivan/OVP@OVP
Julie B. Goldberg/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sarah E. Gegenheimer/WHO/EOP@EOP
Susanna B. McGuire/WHO/EOP@EOP
Steve Ricchetti/WHO/EOP@EOP
Edward F. Hughes/WHO/EOP@EOP
Melissa J. Prober/WHO/EOP@EOP
Justin Coleman/WHO/EOP@EOP
Clara J. Shin/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jonathan M. Prince/WHO/EOP@EOP
Joshua S. Gottheimer/WHO/EOP@EOP
Heather M. Riley/WHO/EOP@EOP
Alejandro G. Cabrera/OVP@OVP
Rebecca L. Walldorff/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jon P. Jennings/WHO/EOP@EOP
Katharine Button/WHO/EOP@EOP
Tracy Pakulniewicz/WHO/EOP@EOP
James T. Heimbach/WHO/EOP@EOP
Victoria L. Valentine/WHO/EOP@EOP
James E. Kennedy/WHO/EOP@EOP
Michael A. Hammer/NSC/EOP@EOP
Laura J. Lewis/WHO/EOP@EOP
Toby C. Graff/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sean P. O'Shea/WHO/EOP@EOP
Thomas D. Janenda/WHO/EOP@EOP
Rajiv Y. Mody/WHO/EOP@EOP
Robin J. Bachman/WHO/EOP@EOP
Saladbar 23 <saladbar23 @ hotmail.com> @ inet
Kimberly S. Anderson/OA/EOP@EOP
Erica S. Lepping/WHO/EOP@EOP
Forwarded by Rajiv Y. Mody/WHO/EOP on 04/21/99
04:24 PM
Mark A. Kitchens
04/06/99 04:58:24 PM
Record Type: Record
To: See the distribution list at the bottom of this message
cc:
Subject: PBS NewsHour, April 5, 1999
PBS NewsHour
Aired on April 5, 1999
NEWSMAKER: JAVIER SOLANA
NATO's Secretary General Javier Solana speaks with
Jim Lehrer
about air strikes in Yugoslavia.
JIM LEHRER: A newsmaker
interview with NATO
Secretary General Javier
Solana. I talked with him late
this morning, Eastern daylight
time.
JIM LEHRER: Mr. Secretary-General, welcome.
JAVIER SOLANA: Good morning. How are you?
JIM LEHRER: Fine, sir. Sir, in general terms, what has the
NATO air campaign accomplished thus far?
JAVIER SOLANA: The NATO campaign is going
according to plans. We have had some days of bad
weather that has prevented to achieve all the objectives.
In
general terms, the campaign is going as was defined and as
planned.
JIM LEHRER: What has it accomplished?
JAVIER SOLANA: Well, it has accomplished -- is in the
first phase, as you know, it was basically to damage the
air
defenses of the country. And the second phase started a
few days ago to try to damage as much as possible the
war machine of Milosevic, the war machine of the Serbian
army and the Serbian police.
JIM LEHRER: Now, when you say it's gone has planned,
the large-scale exodus by the ethnic Albanians was not
part of the plan, was it?
JAVIER SOLANA: Our
responsibility was to try to stop
the criminal activity of
Milosevic. As you know, this
criminal activity was planned
way before our first air strike.
In fact, the air strike was a
response to the behavior President Milosevic has been
planning for months and this criminal behavior. The
question of the exodus of refugees is nothing which is
dramatically new, unfortunately. It has been taking place
for months. It is true that the last few days the behavior
of
Milosevic has achieved levels of criminality that no
rational
man could have believed. And that is why the exodus has
increased in numbers, and that is why the alliance and all
the allied countries are doing its utmost to stop this
massacre first and then to help the consequences of the
massacre of Milosevic; therefore, we have at this point two
objectives: first, to do as much damage as possible to the
war machinery; and second, to help as much as possible
the consequences of massacres which are the refugees.
What is NATO doing about refugees?
JIM LEHRER: All right,
now, the refugee camp
now, there are some figures
out today, 44,000, another
44,000 left yesterday, is
that correct?
JAVIER SOLANA: Well,
the figures that are produced by the Organization of the
UN are more or less like that. I would not be prepared at
this point to be precise on the figures. The figures are
being
given by the UNHCR, the agents of refugees, but,
unfortunately, more or less, are like the ones you have
just
given.
JIM LEHRER: Yes. But your spokesman, the NATO
Spokesman, Jamie Shea, said this morning that 360,000,
an estimated 360,000 ethic Albanians have left Kosovo in
the last two weeks since the bombing began, is that, that's
a correct figure?
JAVIER SOLANA: It, more or less - more or less, that is
the figure we have on this point, although it's very
difficult
to be absolutely precise. The basic counting and the basic
figures are provided by the agents of refugees of the UN,
but, more or less, are the same that we have at this point,
yes.
JIM LEHRER: Now, NATO is stepping in, as you said, to
try to assist these refugees. Specifically, what is NATO
going to do about it?
JAVIER SOLANA: What NATO is now going to do it is
already doing. As you know, we have troops deployed
already in Macedonia; we are going to deploy troops in
this very moment in Albania to do whatever we can; we
are not going to spare any effort to put all the military
capabilities that we have to the service of the
humanitarian
relief. NATO and NATO countries are doing the utmost
with no spare effort to help the humanitarian catastrophe
that we cannot forget had been created by Milosevic's
behavior.
JIM LEHRER: And that includes, does it not, taking some
of those refugees from Macedonia and Albania to other
countries nearby, is that correct?
JAVIER SOLANA: Well, as you know, many, many
countries, not only countries that belong to NATO, but
also partner countries, are offering their possibility of
receiving in their countries some refugees. Now, we would
like to have as much as possible to help - in particular
the
Macedonian government - to handle the humanitarian
crisis, and, therefore, some of these refugees will be good
to take into other countries, but the principle that we'd
like
to defend as much as possible is that these refugees do
have the right to return to their homes, to return to their
country, and, therefore, we would not like to see these
refugees going very far away from the region where they
should return. So this is the violence we want to strike,
to
relax the situation in Macedonia and Albania, but at the
same time have the commitment, the guarantee that these
people had the right in the international community
obligation to allow them to return to his country.
JIM LEHRER: You use the word "guarantee." NATO will
guarantee that these folks will be allowed or will be able
to
return to Kosovo?
JAVIER SOLANA: It is my
point that the international
community, of course,
including NATO, should
guarantee that these people
that have been forced out of
their country by the criminal
atrocities of Milosevic to have the guarantee that they can
return as they so wish to their country. Yes.
JIM LEHRER: And that is now one of the priority goals of
the NATO operation?
JAVIER SOLANA: Well, at this point, the priority goal is
double - as far as the consequences of the Milosevic
actions, they are for the refugees to help them as much as
possible, with all our capabilities, capabilities of NATO,
the capabilities of the NATO countries, and capabilities,
also, of the organization of the United Nations, UNHCR,
the European Union, the OSCE, all the international
communities together in a very well coordinated manner
that had started two days ago here in Brussels. And, of
course, here at the same time we are going to continue
striking to damage the machinery of criminal - the criminal
machinery that Milosevic has put forward to really kill and
expel the thousands and thousands of people from
Kosovo.
Air strikes alone?
JIM LEHRER: And you
believe that can - you still
believe that can be done by air
strikes alone?
JAVIER SOLANA: I think
that is absolutely necessary to
continue with the air campaign, and the air campaign is
what can really damage at this point in a more important
manner the capabilities that the Serb army and the
paramilitary forces do have. That is our opinion. That is
the
opinion of all the countries that belong to NATO, and we
have to succeed with the air campaign to stop - and I
would like to say a behavior that nobody could have even
thought in the most difficult nights of nightmare - the
behavior of somebody like President Milosevic at the end
of the 20th century.
JIM LEHRER: As you know, Mr. Secretary-General,
here in the United States, at least, the debate has gone
beyond that, that former Secretary of State Henry
Kissinger, among others, said on this program Friday night,
for instance, that victory is the only alternative for NATO
and whatever it takes. Ground forces, in addition to air
strikes, victory must be attained by NATO. Do you agree
with that as a general premise?
JAVIER SOLANA: I agree. I agree completely that
victory is the only outcome, and victory not only for
NATO, victory for the values that we want to defend, the
countries that belong to NATO, the people of the
countries that belong to NATO, and many other citizens of
the world that cannot live with this behavior of somebody
in the European territory at the end of the 20th century;
therefore, victory is the only thing, the only exit of this
conflict, and victory means to uphold the values that
civilized people in the world want to have as we enter into
the 21st century. Yes, I agree with that.
JIM LEHRER: Now, Winston Churchill, who is the
grandson of "the" Winston Churchill, the prime minister of
Great Britain in World War II, the grandson was a
member of the parliament in Britain, wrote a piece that
appeared in the "Wall Street Journal" here in the United
States, and let me read you how it ends: "The sooner that
the alliance's" - he's talking about NATO - "The sooner
the alliance's political leadership recognizes that the
operations in Yugoslavia must now enter the phase of
ground warfare and that Kosovo will ultimately become a
free, independent nation the sooner the bloodshed and
suffering will be ended." Is he right?
JAVIER SOLANA: Well, I
have great respect for what he
represents and his thinking, but
at this point the countries that
belong to NATO, they have a
slight different approach. And
the approach is that at this
point we are not in the position to deploy troops at this
point to the ground; we want first to have all the air
campaign finished, to try to have a cease-fire, and,
therefore, after that to deploy the troops, which are
already prepared, already prepared to guarantee that,
among other things, that the refugees return to their
country, if they so wish. As far as the final stages of
Kosovo, the only position, the common position of the
international community on this point is what was agreed in
the Rambouillet Agreement, or in the measures in the
Rambouillet Agreement, and it goes through in the
direction of a very profound self-government for Kosovo,
and not any other - any other position has been taken by
the international community. But it's true that the
evolution
of the situation on the ground, the behavior of President
Milosevic is so dramatic that there may be an event that
we will have to think about some other alternative. At this
point, the agreement that was signed by the Kosovars in
Rambouillet should be the basis of the discussions for a
final solution to the crisis.
Are you surprised?
JIM LEHRER: You were, of
course, involved in all of the
discussions that led up to the
decision to launch this air strike
campaign. Are you personally
surprised or whatever word
you would want to use here
about the fact that Milosevic
continues to do what he's been doing in spite of the NATO
air attacks after almost two weeks now?
JAVIER SOLANA: Well, I'm not surprised at what
Milosevic is doing. I've been involved in the crisis in the
Balkans since 1992. I know fairly well what has been the
war in Bosnia, the behavior of President Milosevic, and in
the war against Croatia and the war against Bosnia - we
cannot forget that Milosevic is not a new personality in
this
crisis in the Balkans. What he is doing now is something
that goes beyond anybody could have imagined, the
behavior, the cruelty, the manner in which he is deporting
people, that is what it is - it's a deportation of people,
of
people of his country - it's something that to me probably
is the only small surprise that I've had. How much cruelty
could be in somebody at the turn of the century?
JIM LEHRER: Mr. Secretary-General, one
decision-making question, the United States has offered to
send 25 Apache helicopters to the NATO force to assist
in attacks on Serb ground forces, tanks, et cetera, that
there seems to be some confusion about whether NATO
wants to use these helicopters or the ambassadors, having
made a political decision yet. Can you clarify where
matters stand on the helicopters?
JAVIER SOLANA: Yes. I would like to, with pleasure.
Of course, we welcome very much the commitment of the
American people, the administration, President Clinton, to
continue to providing the help through new assets, assets
that will be very, very important to do what we want to do,
to damage as much as possible the war machinery of
President Milosevic; therefore, we welcome very much all
the NATO countries, we welcome very much the decision
of the American administration, and President Clinton.
Yes, we welcome very much.
JIM LEHRER: Has the decision been made whether or
not to use these 25 helicopters? Has NATO accepted the
offer, in other words?
JAVIER SOLANA: The
decision has been made - a
decision has been made. We
are at this moment in
consultations with the
government as to whether the
helicopters will be deployed,
and in a question of minutes I would say the answer will be
given, but I can tell you that everybody, it looks - this
decision of President Clinton with great satisfaction.
JIM LEHRER: But the Albanian government you're
referring to specifically, that's where they'd be used,
correct?
JAVIER SOLANA: Yes.
JIM LEHRER: All right. But, in other words, there's no
problem -
JAVIER SOLANA: Yes.
JIM LEHRER: There's no problem here, right? In other
words, those helicopters aren't going to be used -
JAVIER SOLANA: No. On the contrary. Right. On the
contrary, there's very, very profound gratitude for the
contribution and assets of your government.
JIM LEHRER: Okay. Because
the question has been raised
about why were ambassadors
and political people making
decisions that were basically
military decisions, but that's not
a problem?
JAVIER SOLANA: No, not at all. The only political
decision that has to be taken and has already been taken is
a decision about allowing military assets to belong to the
NATO countries - in this particular case to your country -
to be deployed in countries which are not NATO
members. That is the only decision that has to be taken; it
has already been taken.
JIM LEHRER: Now, should that be read as - some
people are reading it here as a step toward the
introduction
of ground forces - should that be read that way?
JAVIER SOLANA: Well, I don't think that this is
interpretation - the correct interpretation. I think that
your
administration, the American administration explained very
clearly yesterday that this is a new asset to be provided
in
order to achieve the same objective, the objective of
damaging and destroying, if possible, the military machine.
At the level we are now after several days of air
campaign,
it could be of great help to have these new assets, Apache
helicopters, to continue in the same mission - destroying
and damaging as much as possible the machinery of
Milosevic.
JIM LEHRER: Back to the general and finally, Mr.
Secretary-General, is there any question in your mind that
the 19 members of the NATO alliance have the
wherewithal and the will to see this thing through to a
conclusion that will, in fact, do all the things that you
and
others have outlined?
JAVIER SOLANA: I can tell
you that I chair the North
Atlantic Council every day,
and some days I share two
meetings, and I can tell you
that all the countries, the 19
allies at this point, are
absolutely together, behind the decision that we had taken
several days ago, and they are absolutely determined to
see this through to the victory.
JIM LEHRER: Mr. Secretary-General, thank you very
much.
JAVIER SOLANA: Thank you very much.
JIM LEHRER: And since that interview this morning,
Solana did receive preliminary approval from Albania to
deploy those Apache helicopters, NATO officials told the
NewsHour. And the first airlift of Kosovo refugees took
place. Hundreds were flown to Turkey.
END Segment One
SEEKING REFUGE
Aired on April 5, 1999
As refugees continue to flow across the borders,
NATO decided to
relocate 100,000 of them. Margaret Warner talks with
Brian Atwood
of AID, Karen Abuzayd of the United Nations High
Commissioner for
Refugees and Bill Frelick from the U.S. Committee
for Refugees.
JIM LEHRER: And more now on that Kosovo refugee
story. Tim Ewart of Independent Television News begins.
TIM EWART: This is the
border between Kosovo and
Macedonia, a vision more
hellish with every passing day.
The Macedonian government
now estimates that 115,000
people are trying to cross,
people they don't want,
refugees who they say should be NATO's problem. The
first group of refugees were at last allowed to move to a
camp run by NATO forces. As British soldiers handed out
food, there was anger at what many see as Macedonian
indifference. Four thousand people are in the care of
NATO tonight, their suffering alleviated, although far from
over. This camp is at last offering shelter to some of the
refugees. It's a start, albeit a small one. But across
those
hills on the border with Kosovo, there remain scenes of
almost unimaginable misery. The days ahead here are
awful to contemplate. NATO countries are talking of
airlifts on the clogged roads out of Kosovo; that seems
like
a distant dream.
The relocation effort.
JIM LEHRER: And Margaret Warner takes it from there.
MARGARET WARNER: Three perspectives now on
NATO's decision to relocate some 100,000 ethnic
Albanian refugees. Brian Atwood is head of the Agency
for International Development or AID. President Clinton
just named him to coordinate the US refugee rescue effort.
Karen AbuZayd is head of the US regional office for the
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which
will help coordinate the relocation program. And Bill
Frelick, senior policy analyst at the U.S. Committee for
Refugees, a private, non-profit group.
MARGARET WARNER:
Brian Atwood, starting with
you, give us a sense of how
this program is going to
work. How soon will we see
it on a really massive scale?
How long will it take to
move 100,000 refugees?
BRIAN ATWOOD: Well, it started today. And let me say
at the outset that this is not the kind of a program that
we
like to run. The relocation effort is a temporary one, and
these people will be temporarily relocated. They all want
to go home. And we expect that they will be going home.
The problem is, as you just saw on your show, this is a
very serious tragedy on the border of Macedonia. We
want to get access to those refugees. The Macedonian
government is obviously very sensitive about all of these
people coming into their country. Clearly their
infrastructure is overwhelmed but there are political
ramifications as well. So, we have been negotiating with
the Macedonian government. Yesterday, Strobe Talbot
and Julia Taft were there, and I believe we're beginning to
see some relief.
MARGARET WARNER: Explain Strobe Talbot and Julia
Taft, both senior -
BRIAN ATWOOD: That's the Deputy Secretary of State
and Julia Taft is the head of the refugee office at the
State
Department. Today we saw approximately 10,000 people
leave this no man's land, as we come to call it, and we're
beginning to see some relief there.
MARGARET WARNER: You're talking about now just
leaving this sort of, as you said, no man's land that's on
the
border, and they actually were moved into Macedonia.