Rep. Peter King and Rep. Lynn Woolsey on John King, USA
CNN national political correspondent Jessica Yellin spoke with Rep. Pete King (R-NY) and Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) about Libya. This interview will air tonight on John King, USA — 7pm ET on CNN. A full transcript and a highlight from the interview are after the jump.
MANDATORY CREDIT: JOHN KING, USA
HIGHLIGHT FROM FULL INTERVIEW
THIS IS A RUSH FDCH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
JESSICA YELLIN, HOST: Congresswoman, if you could briefly, now that we are in, would you support more funding if the president asked you for it?
REP. LYNN WOOLSEY (D), CALIFORNIA: It is costing us $6.5 billion a week in Afghanistan. The very thought that we would start investing in a war in another country makes my stomach ache.
YELLIN: OK.
WOOLSEY: No, I wouldn’t vote for it.
YELLIN: Finally, Congressman King, you’ve caused some controversy recently with your decision to look into Muslim radicalization here at home.
Could you maybe make a little news for us now and tell us what’s next?
You said that was the first in a series of hearings.
And have the Arab uprisings changed your approach or your thinking about these hearings?
REP. PETER KING (R), NEW YORK: No, I think they’re entirely consistent. What I — right now, the next hearing would probably be in early June and it will be on radicalization in the American prison system.
YELLIN: All right.
FULL TRANSCRIPT
THIS IS A RUSH FDCH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
JESSICA YELLIN, HOST: Among the members of Congress who have questions about the president’s decision to take action in Libya, New York Republican Peter King, who’s chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, and California congresswoman, Lynn Woolsey, who has joined with other Democrats in calling on President Obama to immediately end the bombing in Libya.
Congressman King, let me start with you. The U.S. has now handed over primary control of the no-fly zone to NATO and our coalition allies.
Do you feel that it’s clear what the U.S.’ responsibility is now and what the end game is?
REP. PETER KING (R), NEW YORK: No, it’s not. But let me say at the outset, I support the president’s right to send in U.S. air power. I believe it’s the right thing to do.
My criticism of the president is — or my question to the president is I’m not sure exactly what the end game is. I don’t know what our ultimate purpose is.
Is it to remove Gadhafi?
Is it to help the rebels?
Is it just to control the air space?
And now with NATO, what does that mean, to have NATO in charge, exactly, because my experience — I remember going back to Kosovo, really, none of the NATO countries is able to control the air the way the U.S. does.
And are we really stepping back or is this just a cover?
So I just would want the president to be more specific as to what NATO’s role is, what our role is, what he sees as the goal are — is — is NATO going to be attacking…
YELLIN: Right. A lot of questions.
KING: — Gadhafi’s ground forces?
YELLIN: Yes.
KING: Yes.
YELLIN: You’d like some questions clarified.
KING: Yes.
YELLIN: Representative Woolsey, to you.
In a statement, you agreed with some of your Democratic colleagues that there are too many questions outstanding on Libya.
Do you think that the U.S., for example, still owns the situation there and for how long?, you said.
My question is, Secretary Clinton said that the U.S. stayed — averted a humanitarian catastrophe.
So do you now think it was the right thing to do to go in?
REP. LYNN WOOLSEY (D), CALIFORNIA: Well, actually, that’s probably what happened in the near-term. But what we’re concerned about is the long-term. I mean it was very unclear from the beginning, when the president didn’t come to the Congress. And there are so many questions remaining now.
For example, where do we go from here?
What does it mean to monitor ground troops?
I mean why — why, when we secured the no-fly zone is the United States still up front and center to this, what could be a long, ongoing war?
YELLIN: May I ask you…
WOOLSEY: — and we do not…
YELLIN: — for a moment…
WOOLSEY: — want that.
YELLIN: If I can interrupt you for a moment. You were arrested some years ago because you protested the lack of action to protect people being targeted in the Sudan.
So why is this different?
Why did you want action there, but in this instance, you’re more hesitant?
WOOLSEY: Because it’s unclear.
Why didn’t we help Sudan?
And I wasn’t talking about sending in a war machine to help Sudan. I was talking about humanitarian efforts, the United States power as — as the number one superpower…
YELLIN: Right.
WOOLSEY: — and stepping in and making sure.
YELLIN: OK.
Representative King, you’ve said that because…
WOOLSEY: There is a difference.
YELLIN: — because of military operations in Libya, you’ve said that, quote, “The risk of attack is greater now than it was two weeks ago.”
So what is the specific terrorist threat that you’re concerned about and
— and why are you supporting an effort that could increase the likelihood of terrorism?
WOOLSEY: Well, no, what I’m…
KING: We can’t back down just because the enemy may threaten to attack us back. What I was saying is that Gadhafi is known to have had an international terror machine. Quite frankly, I don’t think he’s capable of attacking the mainland of the United States, but he may well. And I know that our homeland security forces have upped their efforts here, that they are monitoring carefully. It’s more likely if he does attack, it could be in Europe.
But again, we have no evidence of it. But the presumption is that we certainly have to be ready in case that he does. And, again, to me, it is important that Gadhafi be removed. I’m just not certain or understand why the president went into this without all of this being decided in advance — how far we’re going to go.
For instance, if the air power continues to work but Gadhafi still remains in control, what are we going to do?
Are we going to send in ground forces?
Are we going to more actively arm the rebels?
You know what — what is our — our purpose here?
YELLIN: Right. And…
KING: Once we’re in, we’re in. And that’s — that’s my concern.
YELLIN: There are clearly so many questions.
So Representative Woolsey, to you.
The president is being criticized for not clarifying to the American people exactly — and to Congress — where the U.S. responsibility ends, etc.
Do you think he needs to give a speech to the public on this and how soon?
WOOLSEY: Immediately. And, yes, we need to hear — we’re going back into session on Monday — Tuesday of next week. I think he should come to the Congress and talk to all of us about what he’s doing and why he’s doing it and what it means now that we’ve accomplished the no-fly zone, why are we still leading and particularly on the — the — the monitoring ground operations?
YELLIN: Can I ask you…
WOOLSEY: What does that mean?
YELLIN: — in any circumstance, would you support military intervention, Congresswoman?
If he clarified these issues and gave you an end game, could you support any military effort?
WOOLSEY: Well, I’d have to hear what that was. I do have to know that we’re — the ground effort is being supported with humanitarian effort, that we aren’t just going to make things worse…
YELLIN: OK.
WOOLSEY: — and that we’re not going to be in a third — a third war.
YELLIN: One thing the president does not have control over is the purse strings. Representative King, the president said we can currently pay for military operations out of already appropriated funds.
But if this drags on and he’s forced to go to Congress to ask for more money, would you support him?
KING: Yes, I would, because I want this mission to succeed. I want to support the president. I mean Lynn and I have a basic fundamental philosophical disagreement. I respect her opinion. I disagree with her.
I want us to take out Gadhafi. I want this effort to be a successful.
I just don’t think it’s been thought through.
So I would not be willing to cut off funding. I want the president to lay out exactly what our plan is. And I don’t think we can go in half way and somehow say we’re in there but we’re not really doing it, somehow it’s NATO. The fact is, if we’re in, it’s the U.S. is the major power, no matter how we try to cut it. And we can’t just be saying we’re hiding behind a U.N. resolution…
YELLIN: OK…
KING: — or someone else in NATO is doing it. NATO — we are the dominant power in NATO.
YELLIN: Congresswoman, if you could briefly, now that we are in, would you support more funding if the president asked you for it?
WOOLSEY: It is costing us $6.5 billion a week in Afghanistan. The very thought that we would start investing in a war in another country makes my stomach ache.
YELLIN: OK.
WOOLSEY: No, I wouldn’t vote for it.
YELLIN: Finally, Congressman King, you’ve caused some controversy recently with your decision to look into Muslim radicalization here at home.
Could you maybe make a little news for us now and tell us what’s next?
You said that was the first in a series of hearings.
And have the Arab uprisings changed your approach or your thinking about these hearings?
KING: No, I think they’re entirely consistent. What I — right now, the next hearing would probably be in early June and it will be on radicalization in the American prison system.
YELLIN: All right.
Congressman King and Congresswoman Woolsey, thanks to both of you for joining us on this Friday evening.
KING: Thank you, Jessica.
WOOLSEY: Thank you very much.
###