September 16, 2021 • 11 mins
RUSH: I’m really happy to introduce to you Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who joins us from Washington. The last time I spoke to you, Madam Secretary, was during the 2000 presidential campaign, so it’s long overdue, but welcome to the program here.
SECRETARY OF STATE RICE: Well, it’s great to be with you, Rush. I can’t believe it’s been that long.
RUSH: Time flies when you’re having a good, good time.
SECRETARY OF STATE RICE: (Laughs.) It does. It does.
RUSH: Look, I want to get straight to this because I know your time is limited. The press conference today the president had about the congressional legislation he wants, 45 Democrats opposed — I’m not trying to draw you into political questions here, rest assured — you’ve got the three Republicans here, McCain and Warner and Lindsey Graham joining the Democrats opposing this. Secretary Powell wrote Senator McCain a letter that McCain has publicized. You have responded in a letter to Senator Warner. What did you say?
SECRETARY OF STATE RICE: Well, in fact I sent the letter before I had seen Secretary Powell’s letter. My letter simply stated the Department of State’s position, which is that 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 3. We’re not trying 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 a very unclear standard like that of Common Article 3, which talks about “outrages on human dignity,” for instance, Rush. You don’t want to leave that to unaccountable prosecutors, for instance, internationally. You want US law to define that.
https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2006/09/15/rush_interviews_secretary_of_state_condoleezza_rice/
Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
I'm really happy to introduce to you Secretary of State
KNDA Liza Rice, who joins us from from Washington. The
last time I spoke to you, Madam Secretary, was during
the two thousand presidential campaign. So it's long overdue, but
welcome to the program here. Well, it's great to be
with you Russia. I can't believe it's been that long.
Time flies when you're good, good, good time. Look, I
want to get straight to this because I know your
(00:21):
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.
(00:46):
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
(01:06):
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
(01:30):
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
(01:54):
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
(02:16):
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
(02:36):
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,
(02:57):
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
(03:20):
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
(03:42):
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
(04:05):
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
(04:31):
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
(04:53):
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
(05:13):
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
(05:35):
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
(05:55):
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
(06:18):
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
(06:40):
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
(07:00):
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
(07:21):
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
(07:43):
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
(08:05):
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
(08:26):
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
(08:48):
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
(09:10):
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
(09:32):
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
(09:52):
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
(10:13):
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
(10:34):
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
(10:56):
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.
(11:17):
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
I'm really happy to introduce to you Secretary of State
KNDA Liza Rice, who joins us from from Washington. The
last time I spoke to you, Madam Secretary, was during
the two thousand presidential campaign. So it's long overdue, but
welcome to the program here. Well, it's great to be
with you Russia. I can't believe it's been that long.
Time flies when you're good, good, good time. Look, I
want to get straight to this because I know your
(00:21):
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.
(00:46):
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
(01:06):
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
(01:30):
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
(01:54):
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
(02:16):
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
(02:36):
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,
(02:57):
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
(03:20):
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
(03:42):
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
(04:05):
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
(04:31):
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
(04:53):
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
(05:13):
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
(05:35):
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
(05:55):
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
(06:18):
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
(06:40):
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
(07:00):
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
(07:21):
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
(07:43):
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
(08:05):
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
(08:26):
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
(08:48):
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
(09:10):
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
(09:32):
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
(09:52):
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
(10:13):
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
(10:34):
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
(10:56):
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.
(11:17):
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
Rush Limbaugh - Timeless Wisdom News
Popular Podcasts
United States of Kennedy
United States of Kennedy is a podcast about our cultural fascination with the Kennedy dynasty. Every week, hosts Lyra Smith and George Civeris go into one aspect of the Kennedy story.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com