Reply #25: Transcript

[mbali]

Read it and grin . . .

BLITZER: Joining us now talk about this heated exchange, two guests. Richard Falkenrath was a deputy homeland security adviser to President Bush. Susan Rice is a former assistant secretary of state, now a senior foreign policy adviser to the Kerry campaign.

Thanks to both of you for joining us.

Do you think the vice president wants to refine, fine-tune his comments, which have caused such controversy?

RICHARD FALKENRATH, FORMER DEPUTY HOMELAND SECURITY ADVISER TO BUSH: I think the vice president said what he means and what he's saying is that the threat to America is sort of constant. The terrorists want to attack us if there's a Democrat president or Republican president. That makes no difference.

How we will respond is quite different, and that's why he believes and many Americans believe this is such an important election.

BLITZER: Does he mean to suggest that if Kerry is elected, terrorists are going to come and kill Americans?

FALKENRATH: What I think he means to suggest is that Senator Kerry's doctrine on this appears to be highly reactive. He says we will respond vigorously if we are hit.

What the president is saying is that he's going to be responding preventively before we are hit. He will take action to prevent the attacks and not just wait until we're hit and then strike back.

BLITZER: Susan, you're shaking your head.

SUSAN RICE, FOREIGN POLICY ADVISOR, KERRY/EDWARDS CAMPAIGN: That's not what Vice President Cheney said. What Vice President Cheney said was one of the most outrageous, unpatriotic comments I've heard out of a senior American official.

To suggest that the American people don't have the right to exercise their vote without fear that terrorists will attack is a stunning statement, and that is, in effect, what he said. This from an administration that never had a high-level meeting on the al Qaeda threat until seven days before 9/11.

BLITZER: But is Richard -- Is Richard right when he says that John Kerry would simply be reactive, respond to a terrorist attack, or does he endorse the president's preemptive strategy?

: It's absolutely a dead-wrong characterization of John Kerry's view. John Kerry has been very plain. He would never hesitate to respond to a threat to the United States using force. He would never allow an international organization to organize a veto over our use of force.

That's just one of many distortions of John Kerry's record that the Bush administration has touted.

BLITZER: Richard? FALKENRATH: As the Senator said, he will respond vigorously if we're hit.

RICE: No, the senator...

FALKENRATH: He's also -- he's also said, Susan, that he thinks it's more of a law enforcement matter, not a war. He quarrels with the characterization of the war on terror as a war.

RICE: He does not, and so did President Bush, by the way. President Bush in his comments to the Unity Breakfast a few weeks ago said it's a misnomer to call it a war on terror. He's also said he's not sure if we can win the war on terror. He's flip-flopped on that.

FALKENRATH: Well, look, if we're going to talk about flip-flops and...

RICE: I'd like to talk about flip-flops.

FALKENRATH: ... then let's look pretty hard at the Kerry campaign. There's no question this is an important difference between the two candidates. The president is committed to preventive action. Senator Kerry is far more reactive...

BLITZER: Let's -- let's be precise. What is John Kerry's position on a preemptive strike? When would that be justified, if ever?

RICE: He has said what every president has said for the last 50 years: the American military and the commander in chief always had the right to respond preemptively to a threat to the United States. That's always been the case, and that's not changed.

BLITZER: So, if there were a threat, then he'd proceed, with Afghanistan and Iraq or any place else. He would go ahead and order the bombing of those sites before.

RICE: If he -- if he thought -- if he thought that we faced an imminent threat, absolutely and he's been plain on that. So, let's stop distorting the record.

BLITZER: So, that sounds like the Bush administration's stance.

RICE: But...

FALKENRATH: The difference is -- what Susan says is right. Every president has this right to use force preventively. The difference is the orientation of the two candidates.

This president has shown that this is how he will act. When he's faced with a decision he will act every time to take the threat out preventively. Senator Kerry's orientation is far more reactive. It's far more passive, and it views the war on terror as a law enforcement matter.

RICE: Well, that's a gross distortion. First of all, there's nothing passive about John Kerry's approach. He'd take the war to the terrorists where they are.

But he wouldn't mislead the public with the notion, as President Bush has done, that we're fighting overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan so we don't have to fight the terrorists back here. That is contradicted by Ashcroft and Ridge saying we face the threat of an imminent attack here on the homeland.

BLITZER: But what -- what Richard and other Republican supporters of the president are -- are dwelling on are those words in John Kerry's acceptance speech in Boston at the Democratic convention. And I'm paraphrasing now, and he said if attacked we would respond.

RICE: Well, that's the case, we would respond, but we would also respond, as he said on numerous occasions, to any threat that we face that we deem to be imminent. We wouldn't wait for the terrorists to hit us here. That's a gross mischaracterization.

BLITZER: All right. So, are you ready to accept that as the position of John Kerry?

FALKENRATH: No, it's not the position of John Kerry.

RICE: It is the position.

BLITZER: She's speaking for John Kerry.

FALKENRATH: And a lot of people speak for John Kerry, and John Kerry in fact says a lot of different things at different times.

There's no question this is a difference between the two candidates, and this president is all about taking preventive action to protect America.

RICE: Then why has President...

FALKENRATH: His record is -- his record is rock solid in this area.

RICE: Rich, why has President Bush, then, allowed Iran and North Korea to develop nuclear weapons, two very active state sponsors of terrorism. And his response to it is, well, we'll allow diplomacy to play out. There's a massive contradiction there.

FALKENRATH: Are you suggesting that we should taking, perhaps, military forces...

RICE: I'm suggesting -- I'm suggesting that you exercise this consistently.

FALKENRATH: They're very complicated situations. Iran probably does not have nuclear weapons; North Korea may well. And no reasonable person is saying that we should just launch strikes out of the blue.

RICE: But you're saying that President Bush, if he sees a threat will act on it preemptively, no matter what.

FALKENRATH: And he's done that in Iraq, and he's done that in Afghanistan.

RICE: Not consistent.

FALKENRATH: And he's done it against al Qaeda.

BLITZER: We'll continue this conversation. Susan, thanks very much.

RICE: Thank you, Wolf.

BLITZER: Susan Rice, Richard Falkenrath, thanks both of you for joining us.

FALKENRATH: Thank you, Wolf.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0409/08/nfcnn.01.html