(00:00:10) Good afternoon, and welcome back to midday on Minnesota Public Radio. I'm Gary eichten for the most part Congress has been unusually quiet about the war in Kosovo today though. We're going to hear from both the Minnesota's US senators on the war in Kosovo the war and the lessons of the Lewinsky story and subsequent impeachment trial from last year Democrat. Paul wellstone and Republican Rod grams made a rare joint appearance at this week's Frank primack Memorial lecture at the University of Minnesota program is sponsored by the school of Journalism and mass communication and the Minnesota journalism Center and is named after the Star Tribune reporter and editor Frank primack. It's held each year to honor journalistic excellence in Minnesota and each year. The program features a well-known speaker this year the program featured two speakers, Minnesota's senators. They were originally asked to discuss the state of Journalism and politics in America and they did that but they were also asked to discuss u.s. Involvement in Kosovo. The moderator of the program was Tom hamburger Washington correspondent for the Star Tribune. Minnesota's Senators (00:01:17) have been through quite a year. They have watched with the Press Corps that I now had pleased to see his increasingly disturbed about falling poll numbers the latest Pew Center report, as you know shows that the level of respect for our institution. That is the press the fourth estate has fallen to an all-time low level. It is now at the same level of those of the Republican house managers. That is actually not a joke Senator Rod grams. I know would say something that Paul wellstone would also say to even in the face of public opinion. It's a it is necessary sometimes to persevere. These two senators, although it's often thought they don't have much in common are both men who persevere. They are. Iconoclastic Senators as you most of you know, they did not come they came to Washington without any prior experience as elected officials. Senator Graham's was in radio and television broadcast. Senator wellstone is professor at Carleton College. They both are pugnacious and have a Resolute commitment to ideas and they're both on foreign relations and there. the similarities end you can't find a major topic that comes back comes before that committee. I don't think on which you'll find these two senators agreeing not on China, which is going to be an important issue this later this week, not on Kosovo. not on domestic issues of social security or health care (00:03:00) and it's rare (00:03:01) and this is a coup for the school of Journalism the Humphrey Institute and the premack awards to have the two of them appearing together. We are delighted to have them both to have them both here. It's unusual. It's a coup to have these guys in as I think about them disagreeing and how much they disagree on so many issues. I thought wouldn't Frank (00:03:26) primack love this. (00:03:32) So I think we're going to let's begin by inviting Paul Paul wellstone to the podium each. Senator is going to speak for 7 minutes, and then will invoke cloture and then we'll sit together and have a discussion with all of you. Okay. let me Well, first of all, I'm actually going to try to do this in seven minutes. Although I have to say to Tom and everybody here, you know, this is like the functional equivalent of the 10 second sound bite, you know to talk about Frank primack some of the real giants in the field of Journalism. What Civic journalism is all about. Why did why the gap between the ideal and and and so much of where journalism is heading recommendations about what should what we should do and all done within 7 minutes that's too difficult to do but I'll try here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to do it a little differently. I'm going to say that all the people that receive these Awards in my not so humble opinion and I never had a chance to meet Frank. I wished I had represent a really powerful tradition and this is a tradition of Journalism that is willing to take chances. To inform people to to even provoke people to care deeply about the issues that affect their generation and and and and and the the history and where the country is going to go. These are people who take chances and are willing to to inform citizens and help citizens understand with some subtlety and with some texture Tom the the tensions inherent in the Democratic process. And these are this is a tradition if we're talking about the Frank primack Awards as I listen to people tonight and see and see them receive these Awards. This is a tradition that also speaks to not not journalists. I'm not trying to preach it anybody but not journalists that that are kind of benign neutral observers, but are willing to take some chances to help if you will nurture and build a democratic politics. And and who are willing to report on the work of people in public office pluses and minuses. I mean that that I think is the tradition that is that is represented here tonight and let me just say that the question then becomes now, I'm sort part two of my very brief presentation. The question then is well is this just Grist for seminar discussions at the University of Minnesota the Humphrey school to school of Journalism at the Frank primack Awards. This is kind of academic topic but frankly, it's all very naive in the age of all Scandal all the time and SMBC Fox Drudge Report. I'll tell you something. I hope not I think not and with the risk of sounding melodramatic, I pray not I don't think so. I don't think so at all. But I think it's important to raise this question because I think there is a gap. Between this ideal represented by this tradition by Frank primack and by the recipients of these Awards and maybe our performance and especially in this last year. I was saying to Frank right earlier. I don't think this past year has been a very good year for Tom the profession. I think there has I think the professions has strayed in terms of quality of coverage in terms of accuracy in terms of a sense of proportion in terms of Prudential judgment in terms of a sense of History. I think I think that they're I think that's just a reality and I'm not just talking about the Bottom Feeders. I'm not just talking about the trash talk TV and some of those quote journalists that we don't consider journalist. I think a good part of the mainstream profession in many ways engaged in a rather trivial and tangential coverage of the whole Clinton scandal, I think True and that led to and I think the reason is it a lot of journalists thought at the beginning that this was a Watergate that this was going to be the issue that was going to topple the president and it didn't turn out that way and that led to what your colleague David Corn has called the umbrage gap between the sort of anger and indignation of the elite journalist versus the people in the country, but you know what, I think people in the country in many ways were wiser about this. I was on a show one of many, I guess Larry King shows and it was with Bill Bennett and I think the idea was it would be like Gladiators who would be in this debate and it will go on for an hour. We agreed on about 80% of what we talked about that lusts that night. I wasn't about and Rod knows his I wasn't about to defend Bill Clinton's personal conduct. I've been a harsh critic of it so on and so forth and and we talked about values and we talked about values connected to public life and there was a lot of agreement the place where I disagree with Bill Bennett is that he was very he was and is very frustrating. And he feels that the fact that people didn't have more of a sense of indignation and didn't want the president removed from office meant that they had no moral compass. My view is they had a moral compass it just pointed them in a different direction from where Bill Bennett and others were going and I think people felt that there was no sense of proportionality to this and that there were reasons why we had never removed a president and I think they showed good judgment. I think the United States Senate showed good judgment as well this past year and now I'm on point. I'm on third part now, I only have one other quick part. This is a quick summary. I'm not doing Justice to what I want to talk about here. And I'm going to hold this against you Tom hamburger forever. The third part is it's a long sad year. And did we pay a price as a country? Yeah, we have and you know what and I guess this is a connection to some of the discussion we're going to have we paid a price for a lot of reasons because a lot of what people were saying to journalists and two people to politicians was talk about issues that are important to our lives. We want to know what you're going to do about Medicare and how that's going to affect us in Tower and how it's going to affect us in how it's going to affect us in Tower or how it's going to affect us in Luverne or how it's going to affect us in Northfield. And what is social security going to go broke or not and talk to us about education for our children and talk to us about at economic opportunities. And we didn't we had precious little discussion of all those issues and you know, the Minnesota advocates for human rights will tell you that for the last several years they have Pushed compelling reports about what was going on in Kosovo. I know because I've included all of them in the Congressional Record and they will also tell you that there was precious little if any coverage about what they were trying to say. So was there a way that we could begin to talk about what was going on in Kosovo? So that people in the country would have a better sense as to evaluate what this means for the world and what would be the proper course of action as difficult as it is to even know what the right course of action is and the answer is no so yeah, we paid a real deer price, but I want to conclude. Um by mentioned one bigger issue than President Clinton or his tormentors in the Congress. And by the way, I hold President accountable. I hold tormentors in the Congress accountable but frankly, I think there's an even bigger issue and boy, this is one that I have no time to even talk about I pulled out a page. I'm working on a book right now. And and I wanted to pull out one page from one chapter and Sheila said if you read it, it's going to take a full five minutes, but I will tell you that I think there's something else going on and that is this just this this distrust that people have in the political process and in politics this disillusionment this disengagement and the feeling that when it comes to our concerns there of little concern, I think people believe that so little good happens that affects our lives and I think people believe that if you if you pay you get to play and if you don't pay you don't get to play and I think this mix of money and politics and this whole question of reform in this whole question of democratic with and I use that with a small D not as in large party renewal is Most critical issue of all because what we have right now, someone said I don't want to plagiarize but I like it what we have right now is the Democracy without citizens in a democracy without citizens does not work and you know what whether we are Democrats or whether we are Republicans or whether we are Independence or whether we're Urban or Rural and all of the rest. It seems to me that the most precious thing I'm talking about. I'm talking as a first-generation American it's true the Immigrant background really affects the way you think about it. We've got this noble experiment that that we have conducted for what two hundred twenty nine years in self-rule and it's the most precious thing of all and I think that's what's most at risk and I would say that I want to see some journalistic work that talks about more than just. Oh gee gosh now we've spent a record number of dollars this year on top of last year. I hope that will be much more careful investigation. I hope there will be much more work. I hope the Not be made that people are bored and don't want to know about it. We treat people with intelligence. We focus on issues that are important. We focus on the importance of public life and all of us can make a difference. Thank you. I'm (00:14:02) not sure it would have had the 60 votes to invoke cloture. (00:14:06) I want to next invite Rod grams to the podium and we'll we'll then go immediately into our discussion with all of you. (00:14:24) Well, thank you Tom. And the first thought I had is I was going to disagree with Paul but I noticed that would be just a knee-jerk reaction. So I'm not going to right now, but I want to thank you Tom and everybody else here for the invitation. And when I looked at my schedule this morning, I thought for sure there must have been some kind of mistake and Reviewed it. You know I've been invited to be on the same panel an event with Senator wellstone. I had agreed to be questioned by some of Minnesota's most decorated and hard-nosed journalists. And also one of the main subjects of discussion was going to be impeachment but I'm glad I'm here and I want to congratulate all the award winners tonight for all the fine work that they did over the past months and have earned this reward when we talk about impeachment by the way. Even Strom Thurmond said while we were debating it and listening to the testimony. He said I've never seen anything like this in my life. So, you know, it has to be an historic event in the United States. But before we move on to some of the questions that you have and I'll try to be brief as well. I didn't want to take a couple of minutes to offer some thoughts about a relationship between the media and elected officials has what has been said here already tonight and I believe that the roles of elected officials and the media are uniquely similar. I have an obligation as an elected representative to the US Senate to remain accountable to my constituents and Journalist, you have an obligation to report on Civic actions as well and ranging from a city hall meeting on tax Provisions to the impeachment trial of the president of the United States and is the infamous fourth estate you often take the role of Watchdog over the government. But many asks who's watching over the media. Well, I think it's obvious that both elected officials and the media are held accountable not to each other but by those who elected us who read us who watch us who listen to us, they ultimately will decide our faiths and that being the case we're both doomed I think Nationwide voter turnout as you've noticed is that disturbingly low ABS here in Minnesota. We've led the nation or close to it with over 60% of the vote but disinterest in politics and more importantly disinterest in the serious issues facing this country seem to have been on the decline as an elected official these Trends mean fewer and fewer people are being engaged in democracy and you as journalists are no doubt concerning And about similar statistics suggesting that maybe fewer people are reading newspapers or viewership is down of local news coverage and attention spans for television programs or continually decreasing mistrust of the media Rivals as we've heard here tonight, the mistrust of politicians, why is the public dis engaged with our professions and that's what we both need to explore today the impeachment trial I think offers good Compass of where we are today and and also maybe what direction we need to go the Senate return to Washington at the beginning of the year to fisa to face articles of impeachment. Now that was a very difficult time especially as the trial war on as every comment wink and Nod was being interpreted as a revelation on how one was going to vote on those articles rumors flew around the capital faster than politicians could run to the cameras and I know Ben nighthorse Campbell who was on the 1960s Olympic team said that his desk was very close to the cloakroom and he said by the time he'd get out of his desk and walk into the cloakroom. Already be senators in front of the TV Camera when a break was called and I know the impeachment process was on trial just as much if not more than the president in hindsight. I believe that under the rules governing the trial the Senate acted both constitutionally and in a matter of fitting that great institution. I hope we did not set a president or make a mistake that other congresses. God forbid will have to undertake the same thing. We did we'll have to match in the future prior to the trial beginning. I decided not to make those daily comments to the Press on my impressions of the case. I recognize that the public had a right to know how I was going to approach my obligations to my constituents. I therefore promise to keep them informed as the votes of curd. I also talked about the process and the schedule but nothing more than that. I didn't think the role of any Senator as a juror should be that of an advocate in the trial under an oath to do in partial Justice. I didn't want to be distracted or I did not want to miss cast publicly as I reviewed the materials submitted to the Senate and I didn't want Try influence my colleagues as they did their respective duties, of course unless until we got into the deliberations behind closed doors, but I also took to heart in something that Abraham Lincoln said he said it's better to keep one's mouth shut and to be thought a fool than to open it and resolve all doubt. My dad used to tell me that as well, but it only been one historic precedent of a senate impeachment trial and a sitting chief executive prior to the one that we faced and I found it curious that some colleagues and pundits and Advocates became overnight experts on the subject or at least found the information that they could spin to justify their votes or their comments and while colleagues and I really really seen in the past were suddenly making the rounds of many of the newscasts and many of the talk shows and I fear that many have resolved all doubt of what what the trial was about politicians weren't the only ones the press to became entranced with many of the details making the star report blush in comparison Daniel chemists of Speaker of the Montana House of Representatives wrote a book recently entitled community and the politics of place. His basic premise is simple. He says the environment which surrounds us shapes the manner in which we approach and Define our politics. His definition was expanded however, with the impeachment trial and the community inside the Beltway a community that is at times alarmingly distant from the rest of the country became Central to the politics or the positions of the country as he were running a little bit out of time, but I had a lot more here, but I just I really just wanted to say I believe that our roles are very similar and that is we have to make some very tough decisions in Washington and our job is to inform our constituents of the decisions. We made why we made it excetera in our thinking process and I think it's also very important for the press to follow those same events and do the best they can also to inform the readers or the viewers their constituents to make sure that they Make the best decisions when it comes to these very very important articles and and questions that we have to face. So at that time, I'll break from here and thanks. Well, I saved about four minutes for questions. So thank you (00:20:50) very much Jorge's permission. We're going to will go a few minutes (00:21:01) over (00:21:02) I have just before we turn to the audience a quick question for both of you and I will get a quick answer. I hope Senator wellstone you said in your remarks you referred to all Scandal all the time what's happened to our profession? It seems to a number of us that what that underneath a lot of the discussion of the Lewinsky case is a substantive question of how far journalists should go in investigating the private lives of public figures to determine questions of character some say in fact, if the Press was more aggressive with Bill Clinton, we might not have had this impeachment Master face in the first place your thoughts how briefly how far. Should the Press go and investigating the private lives of public figures? Wow. I don't. I don't know if I have a good answer. I don't remember when this first came up with Gary Hart and I remember thinking to myself then. And people were saying don't you shouldn't be writing about quote character issues if they're not related to Performance in office. And I remember thinking to myself I think Character Matters, so I didn't agree. Although I didn't particularly like the tactics. I didn't agree that the discussion about Gary Hart was off-limits, even though it wasn't directly related to what kind of President he would be. So I don't think quote character question of character is sort of off the table, but by the same token, I do think that Beyond a certain point and I think we saw it Go Way Beyond the certain point in the whole Monica Lewinsky Affair the coverage can become repetitious it can become trivial and it can become tangential. Yes, but Graham's quickly for his thought how far should the Press go and investigating the private lives of public officials. And do you agree with Senator wellstone that we went too far in this case (00:23:01) and that's basically what I was thinking when he was talking what you know, I think character does But I think in the recent year, I think maybe we've gone too far and a lot of people have said that some of the things that were reported maybe we're more of the personal nature and not what involves the office itself. So I don't know where you draw the line. I know it was covered a lot different in 1998 and it was in nineteen would have been in 1960 or 1965. So it has changed and I we have moved I think down the field along way. So I again I agree that character does matter but I think we've gone too far but just where that line is. I think it's going to have (00:23:44) to so for example, Tom. I know you want to keep going on, but just to get just real quickly when I was running for for when I was involved in this presidential race. The two questions that were very personal and really one both through me. I should have expected. Both of them one was to do you think the country is ready to like the Jew president which you know was asked by Young African-American woman at the Boston Globe and I think she was the right person to ask the question and I told her by the way since I heard Frank's common about humor I said to her Sheila was with me I said that's not the question you really wanted to ask. She looked at me like what and I said you really want to know whether a short liberal Jew can get elected president and I said because you know, if you're going to change history you need to do it in one swoop the second question though, the second question, for example, the second question of which only if people here want to go on with the discussion, which was not uncommon was have you ever had an extramarital affair? So then the question becomes do you say I'm not going to dignify the question because I don't think that's a relevant question or do in which or do you answer the question and you want to know how answered the question but see what I'm saying? Those are the kind of questions, right? Well we've achieved these are the two senators who from the same state who disagree more than the senators of any other state in the front primack lecture tonight. They've agreed that we have this year gone too far. Let's have some questions from our (00:25:20) audience. I'll just say one thing every time that I think Congress went too far in doing a lot of things that they had done before and it's releasing a lot of the information the transcripts testimony things like that. I think down the line in the years ahead. We might regret how much of the grand jury testimony and everything else was released as well. So that's another concern I had My name is Tom Berg. You've all three decried a little bit the problem of our democracy and I've got a question for actually all three of you and asked Tom if he'd answer it first. Would you support legislation that would require television radio and if you constitutionally could do it the print press to accept or provide free time for candidates significant time in in prime time for to State their positions during campaigns as a way to get rid of this in horrible part of money in (00:26:26) politics. That's how I feel. Like I should respond no comment at this time. I think it's Paul Taylor who was the chief political reporter for the Washington Post for many years and got a kind of a rising star up there and thought to be the next David Broder as many of you know was became so Disturbed at what's happened to political coverage in this country that he quit his job as an objective reporter and became an advocate for free airtime for candidates and although the solution. He recommends is not legislative. I find a great deal of Merit and what he says, however, I have not chosen the path that he has chosen. So I'm going to let the Senators answer your question. (00:27:12) Well, I wouldn't support offering more free time. I think the stations and newspapers and radio is right now do a great job of that and you know offering time for debates and I know when I worked at Channel 9, we look for opportunities to be able to host debates on all levels. Whether was governor Congressional races the senate race even Races but to Advocate that they have to give up more of their time. I don't know do we ask General Motors if they're going to provide cars or u.s. West of they're going to provide free telephones. I mean, it is their business it is their livelihood. So the demand more I don't know if that's what we should do on top of what they already offer and I also always know it and I know maybe campaign Finance reform will come up maybe it won't yet tonight. But I have some real problems at some of the limitations that are being talked about. The last thing I want to see is public financing of campaigns. I think the the candidates should be out and talking to people looking in for their support in their health and a lot of times it doesn't always come from dollars. It comes from volunteerism Etc. But I'm the u.s. Congressional delegate to the UN and I remember up there in one of the meetings in one of the fellows there was bragging about what a good deal the u.s. Gets in supporting the UN it's only three dollars and ninety cents per person per year for the u.s. To support the UN and if you look at all of the money spent on campaigns in this country, it's less than three dollars and forty. As per person per year. So I think that to support our system of democracy and our politics in this country. I think is very important and I think to start putting limits on it. I don't (00:28:39) approve of Senator Elton. Well, we have we have auctions now, we don't have elections and I think this would be a very I think it's a very positive proposal and I strongly would support it and I think the more you can have the debates in the media is you know, it's the only private Enterprise in the country with first amendment protection and there's a reason for that is rolled me. That's what's this what's this evening is about the media plays a vitally important role hopefully in informing the public in helping people to to be able to understand the world they live in and the country they live in or the state they live in and I think this is is I think your proposal is right on the mark and should be a part of it of any reform agenda. (00:29:21) I'm Norbert mccrady. I've been in political fundraising Senator Graham's mentioned three dollars and forty. Two person which would be acceptable except for the fact that it's not equally apportioned among all of the people having been in political fundraising. I know and nearly everyone in this room knows that political fundraising has to do with who gets the adequate attention to get their point across. It's it's not all bad. Somebody has to support the candidates, but I think there should be a better way because it's inevitable that those who make major contributions. They know that they're going to get more of the attention. They know that they're going to have a better chance of getting the office holders vote and I don't think that's really what we (00:30:13) want. okay, do we have a Another question on just the quickest comment what Norman said I know we're probably gonna have a discussion about Kosovo or we would want to you know, I think more but I'm just I'm to just sort of reinforce your point. I believe this is this is close to be an accurate that forgetting soft money, which is even larger amounts of money that one tenth of one percent of the population given contributions of the thousand dollars of more and that's over 50% of the financing of campaigns in the country. That is that is not very healthy. (00:30:55) Let me also remarked that I'm not saying that there isn't some reforms that should be made in in campaign financing but I think to put some harsh limits and stuff on it. I disapprove I like full disclosure Etc. So I'm not totally against needing to open up and look at how campaigns are financed but at the same time to very, you know, strongly of avoid a lot of restrictions of First Amendment rights, and that's free speech and to be able to be involved. Can campaigns one way or the (00:31:18) other? Is there a member of the audience who has a question for these two senators on the Foreign Relations Committee related to Kosovo? Is that a leading question? Yeah, I've got the Hot Potato. My name is Melanie Evans and my question for you as members of the Foreign Relations Committee and is senators from the state of Minnesota with America's involvement as a as an economic force and as a other security or a peacekeeping force. Abroad with how do you define your constituents? And from that? How do you define your obligations? To your constituents as members of the Foreign Relations Committee as US senators from the state of Minnesota. Go ahead. If you want us to also use this as Kosovo as an example, so we don't run out of time. Go ahead (00:32:08) run. Well, I tried to Define my constituents and when you said you're a u.s. Senator from the state of Minnesota that the whole country. I mean you take into consideration the impact it's going to have on our economy or whatever. It is has a whole, you know, you want to protect Minnesota and do the best you can but at the same time, you've got the whole entire nation our national security or foreign policy issues ETC that you have to take into consideration on Kosovo. I believe that this time that the president had an outlined at this point. What was our national security interest for being in Kosovo. I voted against the resolution. In fact after 13 days of bombing in the briefings, I've had since if the vote came up today, I'd still say no. I know there was a lot of efforts put in over the recent months and years as Paul mentioned some of these red flags were being waved years ago, but not only in then Kosovo but in Rwanda as well and in the Sudan were in Rwanda for instance alone over eight hundred thousand residents have been killed in a genocide, Alaska. Effort there so but I believe right now that we're involved in a what is the Civil conflict and Kosovo. I have not supported this move as yet. I know that everybody watching the stories day after day seeing the pictures hearing the stories of the of the atrocities that were going on. It was awfully hard to sit back and watch without trying to do something. I Just Disagree that this point of our (00:33:30) military actions the Farms now that we've gotten this far that is that we've engaged in these bombing runs. We have this massive Exodus 350 thousand refugees on the Move. What do we do now? Well I said the (00:33:42) president's probably got two options right now and that is either to withdraw or to invade with ground forces and most military people you talk to will tell you that there is no Victory unless ground forces are involved. I was very critical of the president that in all the talks in the briefings and the addresses he made to the public and into Congress and in our briefings there was never a mention of ground forces. It was always horses. II don't and wild our men and women are involved now, we've got to give him all of our support in order to carry out the mission. They've been given but to put ground forces in to Kosovo now would be a tremendous escalation of our (00:34:17) involvement. You suggested two options withdraw or ground forces. Is that menu favor withdrawal. Well, I don't know what the (00:34:23) president's going to do that mean. (00:34:28) Rob we're in a group of right now. I wouldn't favor. (00:34:31) I wouldn't favor the ground trip. So I would try to find some way to at least halt our bombing right now and then go from there, but I would not at this point say that in order to move forward that it's going to have to automatically include Ground Forces. Okay. So right now I'd be opposed to an end. I would like to see some kind of a ceasefire and then to find out now we've got three hundred and fifty thousand refugees. We've got long lines. We're talking about sending millions of dollars in Aid resettling a lot of those who have been displaced. I think the situation today is much worse than it was 14 days (00:35:03) ago Senator. Welcome to cease fire. Let me let me let me can I go back to the question and I'll know the answer is I don't think that'll happen right now. Let me let me go back to the question and go to Kosovo. I got to give a little context now, right? Okay, the first the first part of your question is and I look at looking over it. Jim this is like out of political science class in a way whether it be Foreign Relations Committee or whether it be domestic issues. This is the age-old question about whether or not to what extent do you vote your conscience or what you think is right to what extent do you view yourself as a sort of a delegate and you try to vote the if you can discern the Viewpoint of the majority of the people you represent. It's an interesting question that comes up over and over and over again, and and I and frankly I mean I think on certain issues I vote what I conscience to the maximum extent possible. Of course, you always feel more comfortable when you can represent the Viewpoint of the people that you represent a lot of times. You don't know you can't discern it. And this is a good example. I don't think it was and there are many others that are good example as well. My view about about was happens a little different. I don't view this as a Civil War. I believe at all. I believe a civil if this was KOAT. And and milosevic was taking action against kl8 Civil War. This is the systematic Slaughter of non-combatants civilians. This is let me just finish and my therefore my view I it's I heard Madeleine Albright say this Sunday was the single most important thing that was said on any of the talk shows and actually I don't brag, but I swear I've actually said exactly the same thing which is this. I would far rather be ask the tough questions about airstrikes. Is it enough should the president have at the very beginning said no ground troops, etc. Etc. I'd rather be ask those questions than the question. You did nothing. Now. I will tell you that I went to Kosovo. I met with Lopes was the only person ever shook hands with I visited there since I saw what he did in Bosnia and it was clear to me that there was no question. He was going to kill people day by day and there with this Slaughter would take place. I think now where we are at which is the other part of the question is the three options I think one option is to is for the airstrikes to actually work to the point where you do degrade his military capacity, by the way, I think that can happen. This is just started. This is just started and I think the goal the only goal right now is to degrade his military capacity and to Sure, that the coast of ours have a chance to go back frankly. Anything short of that is an absolute disaster. The second option is to arm the KLA and I don't think that's a good option. I hope we don't have to do that or the third option is ground troops. And I don't think that's a good option and I hope we don't have to do that. I don't agree that it's a Civil War and I do not agree that with Rod that these are the only two options for the policy that so far (00:38:18) has I think you would a great made matters worse not better (00:38:22) would not I wouldn't well I would not make the argument that this policy has made matters worse. I think that what I think that what milazzo fish would have done would have been the same Slaughter. He just would have done it. You wouldn't have done it right away. He would have done it in such a way that the just like he did in Bosnia that he would keep the threshold to the point where there wouldn't have been International intervention and I would not concede Tom right now. You ask me what the options are. I would not concede that the airstrikes will not work, but I supported the air strikes because I I think the world or the NATO and the United States is a part of NATO can just turn its gaze away from this kind of Slaughter or genocide of people. I don't believe that and what do we do if the evidence of genocide and Slaughter continues even under your plan of continuing with airstrikes then then would you well My Hope Is My Hope Is My Hope Is that weather permitting we can fly lower and by the way, I've been up at nights because we will lose Pilots when we fly lower but to be able to begin to go after his military people and his police and I think ultimately it's not satisfying for me to say this the fact of the matter is he has been able he will 10 days from now or 20 days pretty much be done with ethnic cleansing which has a Jew sends chills down my spine, but that does not mean That we cannot do all that we can do to degrade his military capacity to make it impossible for him to do it again to make it impossible for him to continue to do this and for him not to pay the price and for the coast of ours not to be able to go back that's that is the goal and I believe the only way you can do it is right now with this option if it doesn't work. God forbid it (00:40:07) doesn't work. This is an issue and they're willing to do that. So you're in trench than into a position where you're going to say. If you're going to try work out a deal with the Kosovo s are going to be allowed to return the coast of ours. You're going to set up this this tremendous fighting to begin with OR in continuing depends on the extent to which and we're going to have to defeat the serbs for the coast of ours in order for that to return then we have stepped in the middle of this and that's the concern (00:40:32) I have well depends upon the extent to which whether or not you are able to degrade his capacity. That is the question. That is the big question right now. (00:40:40) But also just quickly, I mean you can degrade his tanks and is Sam's and all of those, you know, utilities and Munitions factories Etc. But if you can't stop the trucks loaded with Soldiers with small arms that can go into these Villages and do the exact thing that we're trying to (00:40:55) stop that. He's done that (00:40:56) right. He's done that in our bombing is not going to be able to stop that on any kind of a scale. The only way you'd stop that is actually sending troops in on the ground and I think that was a foregone conclusion, but many experts I think laid this out to the president before we started that you can bomb but you can't have Victory with bombing you're going to need to do one step more and I think the decision was that the white house that we can do it with just bombing and now we're going to have to wait and see whether the White House was right or if it's going to require ground troops in his Paula said and I agree with them. I hope we don't have to come to that. (00:41:26) I think that I think that ground troops will two different issues. I do not believe it is true that there was a uniformity of military advice. To Bill Clinton as to as to what would work and what would stop the slaughter number one? I don't think every military person said it would necessitate ground troops or proposed that second of all ground troops people horn for ground troops. Now take three to four weeks that is irrelevant to what's going on at the moment. I'm just telling you that right now it's very unsatisfying but right now the focus should be on a the humanitarian assistance to people my God look at the situation right now be degrading his military capacity. I've got a lot of concerns about what that means, but we don't have time to talk about it and see making sure that the people who have with milazzo fishes ethnic cleansing who have been driven out those that who were not executed. Those are children didn't die or parents didn't die. We'll be able to go back to Kosovo that that is absolutely critically important. Otherwise, the I believe the consequences of this for the world for years to come will be awful. That's my belief. This is (00:42:48) I'm curious to know whether you think that Linda McDonald of the Pioneer Press if the president had been direct about the lack of likelihood that airstrikes alone would be successful could he have one public support and Congressional support for using ground troops as an essential part of this operation and second question for Senator wellstone, how do you get close of ours back to their Homeland without using ground troops? Isn't that inevitably a piece of (00:43:23) this? Let me take you want me to go first one. Yeah, let me take the Second part of your question first Linda there are a number of different. I don't have easy answers. I mean, there are no easy answers. There are a number of different scenarios. And one of them is sort of depends upon me their number of different scenarios. One of them is that milosevic pays a deep price. What I worry about is a lot of innocent civilians in the city of Belgrade will pay a dear price. I don't want to see that happen. But he pays a dear Price He is flattened militarily and the KOA is supported. Okay, the KOA is supported and that's a part of what gives the people a chance to go back. That's number one a second possibility is that you do have at a certain point in time. Once it becomes crystal clear to whomever that this is for real. You do have negotiation not right now not right now he can't control the timeline of the negotiation in which case then you've got a whole different situation of some Americans in with a whole different equation, which is no longer hostile. Okay, there's a possibility that that could happen. So that's another scenario and there are other scenarios as as well on the first question. I think I think people. I think people in our country. This is this is such a agonizing. It's so agonizing and it's such an irony because in many ways we're not even doing this. We're not even doing this out of sort of national for National strategic reasons this actually a very powerful moral case can be made for what we're doing. I think this is the right thing. I believe it is right thing, but I think it would have been very difficult and I myself would have been I don't know how you get ground troops out. I think the case was made that the airstrikes would work based upon an assumption of different conditions and they and obviously didn't turn out that way. I think now you still have a very important goal and I don't think no I don't think there would have been support for putting ground troops in right away. Not until people saw what they now see on TV and even now there would be questions and I have questions about it and you know what? I don't think the administration should I don't think the administration my advice I talked to to secretary Cohen Saturday night. He called and I said my you know, I was interested in humanitarian assistance. How did it be that we weren't ready for this? That's what I want to know. But but his point well I said it's just my just my advice is a senator. I'm not a military person. It's hard for me to embrace military options there only. The last option my view is right. Now you ought to stay with this military objective. I've heard to what military people have said and I think we can achieve it. (00:46:24) I don't believe the president would have gotten support at least in the Senate if you would have talked about ground troops. Openly if he would have said it's going to take bombing for a week or two and then we're going to send in ground troops. I don't think you would get the support. He was very silent on the issue never talked about it even in the senator Byrd's resolution for approval only talked about air power and not anything on the ground forces. So I don't know if any if there would have been in the votes in the Senate if ground troops were one of the calculations to be put into it and Paul mentioned one of the options might be to arm the KLA. I think that's what you said as far as helping (00:46:56) in terms of scenarios. It is an (00:46:57) option. I think it's a good one. But it is if we do that if we arm the KLA you can bet the Russians are going to arm the serbs and if we start that we're going to just maybe begin the whole cycle of a cold war standoff all over again because the Russians are very close to the serbs and they're going to be there and defend and help them. If we think that we can arm the KLA and have no response from the Russians on the other side. I think we're mistake and I think there would be and then what kind of hostilities would that begin to? Perform, and I've know I've heard a lot of people talk about milosevic is the problem The Butcher milosevic and we had a briefing by dr. Henry Kissinger and he said milosevic was not the problem and he said that in a way because he said if it wasn't milosevic it would be another Serbian leader because that's the way they view this issue and if it wasn't bullosa bitch leading this it would be somebody right behind him. So if we get rid of milosevic the next name you here would be doing the same thing. So it's really a commitment. I think by the serbs are the conscience that this is probably be one of the birthplaces the little bit of History. I've been able to learn about this that they lost this big battle to the Turks in 1389. And this is their Homeland and they're not going to give it up. And so this is that's why I say it's more of a civil war or it's a it's a war over territory as well. As you know, the ethnic problems that are there, but (00:48:17) thank you both for and the audience for a rich discussion (00:48:20) and it's on the Senators Rod grams and Paul Wells. Tone speaking this week at the annual Frank primack Memorial lecture held at the University of Minnesota. The program was moderated by Star Tribune Washington correspondent Tom hamburger. It was sponsored by the University of Minnesota School of Journalism and mass communication and the Minnesota journalism Center. Well earlier today in case you missed it President Clinton spoke. Once again about us goals and Kosovo spoke this morning at a meeting of the u.s. Institute for peace. And as we wrap up this hour we thought it would be worthwhile to rebroadcast what he had to say. The United States has the largest and strongest country in the world at this moment largest in economic terms and military terms. Has the unavoidable (00:49:09) responsibility to lead in this increasingly interdependent (00:49:14) world. To try to help meet the challenges of this new era. Clearly our first challenge is to build a more peaceful world. One that will apparently be dominated. by ethnic (00:49:34) and religious (00:49:35) conflicts We once thought of primitive but which Senator Moynihan for example has referred to now as postmodern? We know that we cannot stop all such conflicts. but when the harm is great and when our values and interests are at stake and when we have the means to make a difference, we should try. That is what we and our NATO allies are doing in Kosovo. Trying to end the horrible War. They're trying to Aid the struggling democracies of Southeastern Europe. All of whom are threatened by the violence the hatred the human Exodus president milosevic is brutal campaign has Unleashed. We are determined to stay United and to persist until we prevail. It is not enough now for mr. Milosevic to say that his forces will cease fire and Kosovo denied its freedom and devoid of its people he must withdraw his forces let the refugees return permit the deployment of an International Security Force. Nothing less will bring peace with security to the people of Kosovo President Clinton speaking this morning at a meeting of the u.s. Institute for peace president devoted most of his remarks, by the way during that speech to a China and the reason in part the president will be meeting tomorrow in Washington with Chinese Prime Minister. Zhu rongji. The prime minister is on a tour of several cities in America and Canada tomorrow. He goes to Washington at a time. Of course, when u.s. Chinese relations have been under some pressure the continuing debate over human rights in China. China's dissatisfaction unhappiness with us policy in Kosovo. There are the charges of spying that we've heard about and what President Clinton suggested today is what could turn into a campaign driven cold war with China, he urged presidential candidates running for president next year not to turn these ongoing disagreements over US policy toward China into such a cold war. He says that such a development would only antagonize the Chinese at a time when the when the chat when China is a slowly moving toward reforms some Republican candidates have attacked the president's policy of so-called constructive engagement former Vice President. Dan Quayle is accused of Clinton administration of appeasement and Pat Buchanan said on Monday that Clinton's policy is quote degenerated into willful. Of delusion and Craven appeasement. He said that the policies leading directly to a confrontation and possible conflict with China or tomorrow on. Midday. We're going to hear more of what the president had to say on US policy toward China and it will also be joined by a China expert Roy grow and we hope you'll be able to tune in as well. So that's tomorrow over the noon hour our Focus Shifting the US China relations, of course at 11. We'll continue our special news updates on the situation in Kosovo Gary eichten here. Thanks for tuning in today. (00:53:04) All Things Considered what more could a news listener want? (00:53:09) I'm Lorna Benson inviting you to tune in weekdays from 326 (00:53:12) 34 the most comprehensive (00:53:13) Roundup of the day's news on your radio dial. It's all things considered on Minnesota Public Radio. You're listening to Minnesota Public Radio. We have a sunny Sky 62 degrees at Kenner wfm 91.1 Minneapolis. And st. Paul Sunny through the afternoon with a high reaching the low 60s yet today, but where it is clear tonight with a low in the mid to upper 30s, then tomorrow increasing cloudiness winds will pick up 40% chance for rain with a high tomorrow in the middle 50s.