Rush Interviews Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice

time is limited. The press conference today the President had about the congressional legislation he wants Democrats opposed. I'm not trying to draw you into political questions here. The rest assured you've got the three Republicans McCain and Warner and UH and Lindsay Graham joining the Democrats opposing this. Secretary Powell wrote Senator McCain a letter that McCain is publicized. You have responded in a letter to Secretary Warner. What did you say? Well, in fact, I sent the letter

before I had seen a Secretary Pell's letter. I My letter simply stated the Department of States position, which is at UH the interpretation of a US treaty obligation through US law is something that we do frequently and all the time. We're not trying to change what's called Common Article free. We're not trying to UH to weaken it. We just want our professionals to have clarity so that they know what is legal and what is not. And I have absolutely no problem defending what the President has

asked the Congress to do. When I go internationally, I think it only makes sense that you would not leave UH a very unclear standard like that of Common Article three, which talks about outrages on human on human dignity, for instance Rush. You don't want to leave that to unaccountable prosecutors for instance, internationally. You want US law to defend, to define that, Madam Secretary, People like me don't understand

the substance of this. UH. We see pictures of people jumping out the World Trade Center on nine eleven this week, we we remember the videotapes of the kind of treatment American and foreign hostages receive at the hands of our

enemy when when in their captivity. I don't understand the effort on the part of those who opposed this in Congress to try to establish a moral equivalency between the way we treat prisoners and the way our enemy does, and to suggest that, uh, we can't do something here because it might incite them to be even meaner to us. Could you help me and others like me understand the common sense of opposing this. I can't, I can't get

my arms around it. Well, Rush, I have to say, I think I don't quite understand either, why we would not give the the professionals, our professionals a clear standard so that they know that they are obeying the law. These are people who take tremendous risks to try and

defend us. Uh. They have made tremendous trades in getting information from people like collegue Chech Mohammed who planned nine eleven, from people like Ramsey Ben al Sheep, who you saw on that videotape with al Qaeda just a few days ago crowing about September eleven. They have made great strides in getting information from these people that have prevented other attacks, and by the way, not just prevented attacks here in the United States, but prevented attacks in other parts of

the world too. To have a piece of legislation that does not protect them and does not give them a clear legal standard I think is simply wrong. Um, do you find yourself in a in a in an uncomfortable circumstance, what with the secretary Eparty leaving aside the apparent lack of loyalty that exists in his letter. Do you find it like I have the New York Senatorial here showdown or headline rather show down set between Rice and Powell.

Do you think this is descending into something personal? No? No, I don't see it that way. Colin Powell is a private citizen. He can have his views, and I think that's the nature of our great democracy. He's a well respected private citizen. It's my responsibility now to help defend the United States. It's my responsibility now to defend American policies abroad and to try through diplomacy to make us safer.

And I am quite confident that UH, the United States UH can both get the information that it needs and live up to our treaty obligations, and that the legislation that the President has proposed does exactly that. At his press conference today he introduced something new. UH. Basically, if I if I understand it right, the President said, if he doesn't get what he wants, if there's not clarity defining and specifying the the vagaries and ambiguities of common

Article three. He said the program will not go forward, and I interpreted that to mean he'll scrap it. And he's he's not going to put our professionals as you refer to them, in any kind of precarious circumstances if they don't go along with what he wants, he'll scrap the whole program. And I assume that means the focus of attention on the lack of the program existing from

that point forward will be on Congress. Well, I feel very strongly is does the President that these men and women who go out and do this, this difficult and dangerous work, deserve clarity about the legal ground on which they're standing. And uh, I don't think that you will get people who will actually participate in this program if you don't get that kind of clarity, So you won't have a program. And it would be unfortunate because we have learned a lot from this program. We have prevented

attacks Russia. Information is the long pole in the tent in the fight against terrorists. If you wait until a terrorists has committed his act, then three thousand people die. What you want to do is to prevent them. And the only way that you can prevent them is to know what they're thinking, to know what they're planning, to know what they're plotting. And this program has been essential in helping us to find that out. Madam, the Secretary

of the average American understands this. This is uh, this is UH. It's not it's not complicated, and it's that's why so many people understand the actions of those in the President's party who are attempting to to halt this. They're thinking, there's got to be something behind the scenes that matters more than just the specific of this. I'm

not I'm not asking you to address that. I know your time is limited, and I have one more question for you, and I assure you I'm asking this solely from the from the position of wanting to learn and wanting to understand. And I want to go back to the recent um war between the Hesbalah and Israeli forces. Um. It seems that that when it comes to Israel and their fight against terrorists, cease fires and resolutions are the rule of the day, even though they really haven't worked

in ceasing these hostilities and bringing about peace. They just bring interruptions to it. Yet when we are fighting terrorists, no, we don't tell ourselves to cease fire and negotiate with them. What what is it about the paradigm of the Middle East that requires the fight against terrorism they're befought differently than the way we're fighting it against us. Well, I

would think of it a little a little differently. Rush what we What you have there is you have a Lebanese government that wants to fight terror, and that is the beginnings of a democratic government that could be could

be actually a partner for Israel in fighting terror. And so the ceasefire was really with the Lebanese government, and now we're trying to help the Lebanese government deal with the effects of a hispola that launched that attack without leban and even knowing I think of it the following way. We are fighting terror in Iraq, but we're doing it with an Iraqi government. We are fighting terror in Afghanistan

and we're doing it with an Afghan government. So the way to think about what happened in Lebanon is that we're going to fight terror, but we need to do it with a Lebanese government that is devoted to fighting terror So um, I think with the from our point of view, there isn't any difference. No terrorists can be

uh supported or understood or negotiated with. What you can do is to find moderate governments, moderate leaders in those countries that are suffering from terrorism themselves and enlist them in the fight to help defeat terrorists. Is Lebanon really serious about this? I mean if if if the if the Hasbata group was able to attack without even the government of Lebanon knowing it, then what good does the ceasefire with the government of Lebanon do. Well, you have

to strengthen that government. It's a weak government and it but it is getting stronger. It's finally deployed its military forces throughout its whole country for the first time in more than three decades. And uh, this is a government that came to power when the extremist assassinated the reformist Prime Minister of Lebanon, Rafik Hariri. And so this is a government that comes from the right set of values and the right set of principles. It's just not not

very strong. We're trying to help build it up, build up its security forces. But when We've done that in Lebanon and in Iraq and in Afghanistan. And indeed, if we can find that kind of government government in the Palestinian territories, having those strong moderate forces to help you fight terror, indigenous forces to help you find fight terror

is extremely important. Okay. So the theory is that terrorists will gravitate to UH areas where there are no states, where there are no governments, but they like they did Afghanistan and UH and the and Somalia exactly, and so you have you have to build up governments that can prevent that from happening. And it's hard. They're allied with us. These these are governments, they are allied with us. It's

it's hard work. They're they're sacrificing to UH. There was an attempt on the life of the Deputy Interior Minister of of Lebanon just a few days ago, so they're sacrificing too. But these are these are really good partners. We just have to build them up and help them to fight the terrorists in their midst before you go are there days you wish that you could have become the commissioner the National Football League. I love it that you're a football fan. Oh yes, of course they're as

I wish I could. Oh. Look, I love what I'm doing. Um, and it's uh, I'm really lucky to be here at this particular point in time. But at some point I'm going to want to go to put to one of my first loves, which is well, let me there are a lot of Americans who are thrilled that you're there too, because they understand the battle you have with with a lot of career people in the State Department who are there before the administration got there. And and uh, you

bring a comforting staff to a lot of people. But the way you conduct yourself in the in the office. Do you have a favorite NFL team or you Well, I do. Let me just say Russia. I want you to. I just want to say one thing. I really do like being secretary. I've got a great team here, a great group of people and uh, career and professional. They're working hard, and people are serving in places like Baghdad and Cobble, sometimes without their family, always without their families.

They're good folks. But in a in a couple of years, I'll be glad to go. And yes, I have a favorite NFL team, The Cleveland Browns Cleveland. We'll manage to let Reggie Bush have a great rookie the first game. What a disappointing season you are headed for. Well, now let's just let's just watch it. I'm a I'm a Steelers fan. Oh I see anyway, I I appreciate your time. We need to have conversations more often. It's very enlightening. I like that rush. Let's let's let's let it be

too long. The next time we'll do that. Thank you very much for your time today. Secretary of State Condole is A. Rice