Gary Hart News Conference, Jan. 9, 2003

Former Sen. Gary Hart (D-CO)
Remarks at News Conference
Cannon House Office Building
January 9, 2003

Former Sen. Gary Hart and Rep. Mark Udall (D-CO) held a news conference after Hart spoke to the House Democratic caucus on national security. Only Sen. Hart's remarks are transcribed below. The transcript shows Hart's command of national security issues and his thinking about a possible presidential campaign.

HART...It's a pleasure to be here and I want to join Mark in welcoming you and apologizing for the delay; there was quite a long discussion. Some of you, I'm trying to get some age estimates here, a few of you might remember the vice presidential debate in 1976 which featured then-Senator Bob Dole, and one of the lines he used in those debates, now 26 years ago, was that he criticized the Democrats for Democrat wars and commented on the fact that when Democrats were in the White House they always got the country into war.

Of course I'm a native Kansan, and I remember that kind of isolationist sentiment. If you want to stay out of war, don't vote Democratic. Well then a very interesting thing happened just about the time Dole was harking back to that past, the isolationist past of the Republican party. We came out of the Vietnam War, and one of the results of that war was that it divided the Democratic party very badly, and one of the things that I felt in coming into the United States Senate was the vacuum in the Democratic party on defense and security related issues. And, having managed an anti-war campaign in '72 and having entered the Senate two years later from a conservative Western state, I sought membership on the Armed Services Committee and majored more or less in security-related matters.

And I tried, as one individual in that institution, to change the nature of the debate away from spending more or spending less, because that was pretty much the way the defense debate went on. And it was basically on weapons systems. Are you for the B-1 bomber? Are you for the B-2 bomber? Are you for the Trident submarine? Are you for this weapon system or that--the MX missile? And the shorthand, because as many of your know these things get down to shorthand, I used when I was a candidate in '84 was, it's not whether more is better or less is better; better is better. And so the focus should be, I felt on the quality of our military.

Well that's some history and background. Now flash forward [inaud.] The nature of the world fundamentally changed in 9-11. The two great dramatic events in the late 20th/early 21st century were the collapse of communism, and therefore the end of America's national security doctrine of containment of communism, and then ten years later almost to the month the advent of a new kind of conflict visited on our homeland. So if you put those two events together, one in '91 and one in 2001, they bracket the new age in which we live: the end of the Cold War, the end of the doctrine of containment of communism and the introduction of a new kind of conflict for which we are totally unprepared.

Mark [Udall] was kind enough to mention my activities and service on the U.S. Commission on National Security that predicted those attacks and urged the new administration to create an accountable department of homeland security, and subsequently the Council on Foreign Relations task force report, which came out last October documented that very, very little had been done in the year after those attacks to make this country safer. So our activities here today, thanks to the leadership of the House caucus, were to begin to build consensus in the Democratic party, in its leadership, in its elected leadership, as to what a new Democratic and national, more importantly national, security policy should be, and in a word what I advocated was, be proactive.

Don't just vote against things put forward by this administration and don't let just one party or one administration define national security, but the Democratic party has to reclaim its legitimate heritage and legacy in defining the national security in this country. And we can start with homeland security and we must. Mark and I'll be very happy to entertain your questions or answer anything you have to ask.

Q: Reporter asked Hart if he could give a sense of more specific policy prescriptions.

HART: ...I listed about say 8 or 9 specifics that the Democrats could take the initiative on, and the first one was oversight of the new department. Now I am quite possibly the first American to advocate a department of homeland security, and being so am [keenly?] aware of all the hazards that department represents.

One is a huge new bureaucracy.

Second is a kind of domestic Pentagon, which is the slush fund, a kind of new military-industrial complex if you will, that is just the source of a lot of contracts and money and therefore a system of homeland security industry lobbyists, lobbyists handing out campaign contributions and a replication of what we have internationally with the DOD. That would be a disaster.

So one of the things the Democrats can do is make sure this department works properly and oversee its operations or insist upon the oversight of those operations.

I went on to some other things. I think the Democrats should initiate and propose massive overhaul of the intelligence community; not just creation of a new intelligence czar. But the centerpiece of the network of intelligence upon which this country depends for its international and domestic security is the CIA. The CIA is a Cold War institution. Now that doesn't mean it should close its doors; it just means it ought to be fundamentally reformed for this new age of conflict. The list goes on--

Q. Reporter asked Hart if that included a new domestic intelligence service, like Britain's MI5.

HART: It includes the possibility of that. Reforms start with hearings. You hold hearing; you hear options. I certainly would think that would be one of the options on the table; whether I would end up favoring it, I have to wait and see what the [inaud.].

I can read you the shopping list if you want more.

REPORTER: Sure.

HART: I'll just tick 'em off very fast.

Champion the citizen soldiers. I mean the front line of defense for this country now isn't the 82nd Airborne and the 1st Marine Division, it is the National Guard and the military reserves, and secondly the so-called first responders, which are local fire and police departments and emergency medical care workers. One of the things the Council's task force found was that these people not only haven't received any money, they haven't received any information. I had a Denver fire captain tell me he had heard nothing. They have not received one piece of equipment. This is a year after 9-11. It's a scandal. It's an outrage.

I don't say this to pick a fight with the administration, but we're about to go to war in Iraq. There will inevitably, inevitably be retaliatory attacks on this country and we are not prepared for them. Full stop. So however else you feel about war in Iraq, you don't go to war in Iraq if you believe--and I think the director of the CIA and president himself believe--we will be increasingly vulnerable to these terrorist attacks as a result of that. And we're not ready.

I advocated acceleration of the force transformation. You know Secretary Rumsfeld's now undertaking force transformation; it's a big deal. It's a big deal, a historic thing--he's changing the nature of the military. Now the interesting thing to me as the founder of the military reform caucus 21 years ago, starting in 1981, is he's using the principles that caucus advocated 20 years ago. The Democrats should be doing that; they should be leading on that.

I talked about increasing air and sea lift. If we had an emergency abroad, we couldn't respond quickly because we can't get the troops and equipment there. There's a shortage of planes and ships. So we're talking about war here, war there--sometimes war happens faster than you want it to; we don't control these things. So we can't fight even if our vital interests are concerned because we can't get the forces there.

The list goes on. I made a point of closing unnecessary military bases. I didn't notice a lot of cheering in the caucus over that.

Q. Reporter asked a question of Udall.

UDALL response...

Q. "Sen. Hart will you seek the Democratic nomination?"

HART: I'm not prepared to make that kind of--actually I can make some news here today. Gen. [Wesley] Clark said not only was he not a Democrat, bue he was not a candidate for anything. So that's the news.

Q. How are you paying for--you don't have an exploratory committee set up--?

HART: No.

Q. How are you paying for trips to Iowa and so on?

HART: Very carefully.

Q. How?

HART: Out of my pocket.

Q. Can we ask though are you contemplating a run for president?

HART: Well I think that's--many of you who've covered me over the years know I hate political cliches, so I'll start with one: My friends are encouraging me to think about it. There have been enough of those stories I think it's in the last 60 days, and they're reasonably accurate. And to which my response is on the record, that yes, I have given it thought and that goes up to delivering what are usually called major policy speeches in the next month or two on national security, on foreign policy, and on a new approach to economics in the 21st century.

Some of you may recall the phrase from '84 of new ideas. I'm still committed to that. And so I think anybody who aspires to any kind of leadership or voice is obliged to put forward those ideas. And actually I think the Democratic party would be well served if its first primary, contrary to what goes on in Washington, isn't to raise the most money, who's got what endorsements, who's highest in the polls. All of that stuff that I can guarantee a year from now is not going to matter.

The first primary is the primary of ideas. I would like to see everybody--John Kerry, whom I've known for 30 years, Joe Lieberman, all the rest--spend the next two to three months telling us what they believe, what their vision of the country's future is, not just in rhetorical terms, but as specifically as possible, and then let the activists in the party begin to decide, based on those ideas; not who's got the most money, not who's got endorsements, not who's highest in the polls, but who has the best ideas to lead this country. Then enter the fray, and I think--

You know in my case I only held one office in my life and that was the United States Senate. I am not a career politician, but I am a public servant. And that is like Mark, I mean that's endemic, that's part of who you are. And we're so used to careerism in politics that you run, you run, you run, you run and when you quit running--you either get defeated or you quit--you go away. And I suppose there are a few people at least that would like for me to go away, but I find it very difficult.

Q. Reporter asked Hart why now, why not in 1992, 1996...?

HART: Well why did Franklin Churchill come back--Franklin Churchill!--Winston Churchill, mixed my leaders, why did Winston Churchill come back after ten years out of office? I mean the times change; the times change.

Q. Reporter asked Hart if he's "interested in actually being president" or just wants to shape the debate.

HART: I would love to be president; I would love to be president. I would have been a very good president, and in some ways I'd be an even better one now, but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm going to run for president.

Q. Reporter asked Hart what he's doing about raising money and building an organization.

HART: Well, I don't know; I don't know. I haven't even thought much about that. There are people much younger than I who understand these things who believe that there's a vast reservoir of small contributions out in the country from people who are looking for [a?] different kind of leader[s?], perhaps one who has had experience in national government and politics but who's now outside the system and not coopted by it and who is independent of the special interests and who has experience traveling the world, meeting with world leaders and perhaps writing books and putting forward ideas, and it's a bit of Field of Dreams I guess. If you meet those criteria, then the money will come.

You know it was amazing to me, I think it was your story or one of the early stories in November where critics were asked their views on all this, and I believe it was Norm Ornstein, who I've known a long time, say well unless he's got, what was the quote, well unless he's got $20 million, he shouldn't even think about it. That was the worst thing I've read in-- I mean I know Norm and I think he's bright as he can be, but that's an indictment of American politics.

Q. Reporter asked question about Hart's need to make a contribution.

HART: Run for or be appointed to. But the Bush administration hasn't been calling recently, so I don't hold out hopes for that.

Q. Reporter asked if Hart's role as policy advisor to the Democrats satisfies his need.

HART: It helps. Yeah, it certainly helps. You know there's no beaker here that when you get to the top of, that's satisfaction. I mean I--this is very difficult to explain. If you care about the country, you can't sit on the sidelines. It's that simple. And I care about this country. And I didn't quit caring when I retired from the United States Senate; I didn't quit caring when I retired from the United States Senate. And I know that I have some talents, to be very blunt about it. Are they extraordinary? Probably not. Are they unique? Certainly not. Does no one else on the planet have them? Of course not, but I have some experience and talent and the compulsion to serve does not die with age.

Q. Reporter asked about rehabilitating the party on the national security issue.

HART: Well it wasn't just me. I mean Wes Clark was there, although he started out by saying he wasn't a Democrat, which I thought was interesting, but secretary of state--former secretary of state, former national security advisor, first team policy people there--Jessica Matthews and others. So this is a party that--I mean Sandy Berger was eloquent on the fact that what the Clinton administration, the last Democratic administration, did in the area of security and foreign policy, that it's not getting a whole lot of credit for. And as I said earlier there is this impression that if you care about national defense you're a Republican or vice-versa and that's just wrong, that's just wrong.

Let me tell you something as a veteran of the Armed Services Committee, it is so easy to vote for everything whether the military wants it or not and go home and say I'm for a strong defense. I got so tired in the Senate of hearing people say "I'm for a strong defense," I would have cheered if somebody got up and said I'm for a weak defense--I mean I wouldn't have cheered, but I would just make the point. Why does everybody have to preface everything by saying "I'm for a strong defense." Who's for a weak defense?

Q. Reporter asked about "negative ink about your personal life." "Have you thought through what you will say or do as a candidate...?"

HART: I'm sure nobody in the press will do that.

Q. What's the answer to that question? Have you thought through how you will handle the issue if it comes up?

HART: Maybe it won't come up.

Q. Reporter asked a question of Udall.

UDALL response...

Q. Reporter asked Hart for his views on Iraq.

HART: We should not undertake military action until the president has answered to the American public at least four questions.

Who is going with us and in what capacity? And I don't mean a symbolic French frigate 700 miles off the coast; I'm talking about who is on the ground. Now I did see a story 24-48 hours ago: British are calling 1,500 reserves. Boy that'll scare Saddam Hussein to death. Who is going with us and in what size?

Second, what are the dollar costs? Now this is a particularly sensitive issue for this administrationn because Mr. [Lawrence] Lindsey, if you'll remember the late Mr. Lindsey, said $100 to $200 billion and within a week he was out on the street. And I don't think it was for overestimating.

Third, how long are we going to be there? And that gets very tricky because there are published reports that senior officials of this administration have in mind a long-term substantial American military presence in Iraq, once conquered, that will have the effect of subduing or at least conditioning Iranian behavior and Syrian behavior, protecting Israel and substituting Iraqi oil for Saudi oil. Now the president hasn't said that, Secretary Rumsfeld hasn't said that, Secretary Powell certainly hasn't said it, but there are people whose names have been identified who have argued for that policy. So that's why we need these questions answered. What are the larger [inaud.] if any? If the president is willing to say, we're going to nation build and we can do that in 18 months and we're out, all the better.

Fourth and most important question, and I would urge all of you in this room to ask it, because I don't think it's been asked. How many casualties? How many casualties? Has any one in this room or anyone you know asked Ari Fleischer, "Mr. Fleischer, how many casualties?"

They owe it to the American people; they owe it to the American people. Now he's not going to answer the question--I am not stupid--he's going to say national security blah, blah, blah. But I'm telling you something. There is on a desk in the Pentagon, there are casualty estimates. American forces and civilian Iraqis. I know they're there. I, in several speeches in Colorado, gave my estimates based on some information I had picked up, and one of the hometown newpapers, I won't say which one, took my head off in an editorial--it wasn't the Denver Post--for being an armchair general who'd been wrong about everything... Well the response of the newspaper shouldn't be to take my head off, the response of the newpaper should be to ask the questions. How many casualties?

The military in this country doesn't belong to the President of the United States; it belongs to us, it belongs to the American people, and we are entitled to know the risks of this operation.

And finally--those are the four questions--there's one final condition. We don't invade Iraq until, as I said before, we are prepared for the inevitable retaliatory attacks... Council on Foreign Relations' report, 25th October 2002. It's titled "America Unprepared, America Still at Risk." We are going to be attacked in retaliation for the invasion of Iraq, and the American people are not today protected.

Q. Reporter asked both on the congressional role.

UDALL response...

HART: I'd just add a footnote. Once the first shot is fired, and the first American soldier crosses the Iraqi border, criticism ends. American lives are at risk. And so then is when you shouldn't be an armchair general. We can raise all the questions and ought to raise all these questions right now, but once the balloon goes up, criticism ends. You've got American lives at stake. It's not a question of partisanship or criticism for any of us. There'll be plenty of time later on, if things go badly, particularly to second guess, but you don't do it while American lives are at risk.

Q. Reporter asked with reference to Americans not being prepared, "what would you tell individual citizens?"

HART: Well three observations.

One is, this is a real test of federalism. Not only the first responders, but the brunt of protecting this country isn't being handled at the federal level; it's going to be handled by state and local law enforcement agents and first responders, and as I said National Guard and reserves. These are the people on the front line.

Second, the private sector. There is something in this country called the critical infrastructure, that is composed of, in the first circle, of communication(s?) systems, financial systems, transportation systems, and energy production and distribution systems. In the circle around that is chemical production and so forth and so on. This is the burden principally of the private sector.

And I am told there is a bill that would require the chemical industry to increase its protection, and the chemical industry is busily lobbying against it. Well the president ought to call those people into the White House and say, I am today asking you to do your job as Americans and that is prevent anybody from destroying your factories or endangering the public safety because of that, and does anybody have any problems with that. I doubt that any of those executives would say, oh excuse me Mr. President, I've got to slip out and get my lobbyist to pay some congressmen a lot more money so they'll vote against this. That's leadership.

It's also leadership to call the governors in and say what have you done? Gov. Owens... what have you done in Colorado. Well they're all going to say I haven't done anything Mr. President; we're still waiting for the money. He should call the mayors in and say the same thing. What're you doing? What're you doing? They're all going to say, we're waiting for the money. But that's ridiculous. There are things that can be done. The Israelis drill constantly. They drill their medical workers; they drill their first responders; they drill their fire departments. We're half way to the Israeli world now...[cont'd for about a minute more].

Hart continued to talk with reporters after the news conference. Below are some of his ruminations on what a campaign might look like and on the state of American politics today. Picking up on his conversation, he talks about how a campaign might be run without need for millions of dollars...

HART: ...dollars doing all this, had a team of young people, who knew how to operate a digital camera and you cut the production costs of your media by 90 percent. That's my answer to you question. Washington standards are crazy. Somebody says to me, don't even think about running for president until you have $20 million--there's a lot of subtext to that. That means you've got to hire [an] expensive pollster, you got to hire a media conslutant, you got to hire a campaign team that will tell you how to run for office. I mean that's part of the problem of politics in America today. You shouldn't be running for office if you have to hire all those people.

So it's a roundabout way of saying there are ways of confronting this system and beating it; not accepting it. If you accept--look if I thought conventional wisdom as espoused by the talking heads in Washington was the only way to conduct politics in America, I would go away to Ireland. I mean if there's no way to break this code, then we all ought to give up because it's a lost game. It's a game for the rich; it's a game for the people who sell out; it's a game for the professionals, and ordinary people--and by the way the signal that sends to young people in this country is outrageous. It just says, I mean what Ornstein's comment is to tell every young person in America, forget about elective office unless your father happens to be Goldman Sachs. It's outrageous. Aren't you outraged?

Q. If you did run would you aim your message at youth the way McCain did?

HART: Oh, absolutely. I did in '84; I did in '84. I've done--I've been in three campaigns in my life or four with McGovern, but it's all been young people. I mean it's the core. Grassroots politics. But you know how you get 'em? You don't get 'em by saying, hey I'm going to win and if I win you'll get a job in Washington. You say this country can do better. You do it the same way John Kennedy did. Not "get involved in politics," [but] "help make this country better." And I'm telling you every generation of young people between 18 and 25, before people get married, you know get married and mortgages and kids and careers, there is that idealism. And people just don't tap it. John [McCain] did, I did, a few others did, but it's now-- Why I'm so upset about the Ornstein is it says volumes to young people. It just says check out, forget about it; it's a done deal. You're either in or you're out.

Q. One of the criticisms of the parties in this system is that both parties seem to be aiming for the middle using polls...

HART: And by the way the other phenomenon is not only the aiming of the middle but the declining number of people who participate, so the whole thing is shrinking down. So it's two--it's both those things together.

Q. ...How would you seek to get around that?

[Hart pulls out a pen and draws a sketch on the back of a report. First he draws a horizontal line.] HART: Here's American politics. Left. Right. [Hart labels the ends of the line "left" and "right."] That's the way people running Washington see American politics. But there's another dimension. [Hart draws a vertical line.] This is the the past and this is the future. [Hart adds the labels "past" and "future" to the vertical line.] The centrists go here. [Hart points to the intersection of the two lines.] I go here. [Hart points to a place up on the Y-axis.]

You redefine the issues the country's confronting; you redefine the nature of security. You don't say, oh the Pentagon needs $500 million to make us more secure and I'm going to vote for every dollar. You say that's [inaud.]; security is something else. It's up here. That's what these speeches are going to try to do. I'm not writing these speeches so I can get here. I'm writing these speeches so I can get here. That's the dimension that people ought to pay attention to...

...Q. Senator when will you make the decision?

HART: Well there clearly is a practical deadline down the road where if you wait too long-- I am not-- I've been accused now of being coy on that. I'm not coy; I don't know. I mean I really don't know what to do. I really don't know what to do. I think I've got something to say; I know I've got something to say. I know what I have to say is different from everybody else and I want to make a contribution and that's all I'm trying to do is figure out how to do that. If it means running for President, I'll do it; if it means doing something else, I'll do something else. But the more immediate and direct answer is no later than April, probably March...