Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Talkback Live
President Prepares State of Union Address; Survival Training for Journalists
Aired January 29, 2002 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ROBIN MEADE, HOST: Today on TALKBACK LIVE: "America Speaks Out", the State of the Union: It could all hinge on the curl of a lip, the wink of an eye, the tone of voice.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: And it is strong.
SEN. TRENT LOTT (R-MS), MINORITY LEADER: The president is trying to change the tone. He's trying to reach out.
MEADE: Eighty-four percent are you are already convinced. How much reaching does he have to do?
Also, survival training for journalists. Learn how to keep this from happening to you, or what if it does?
And give us three good reasons why this guy should be back in the ring.
(APPLAUSE)
Well, hello everybody. Look at our audience today, and look at you. Hi, everybody. So glad to have you here and welcome to TALKBACK LIVE: "America Speaks Out". I'm Robin Meade. Thank you so much having us in and spending this time with us.
You know, you may be among the many people speculating about President Bush's State of the Union speech, which comes tonight. You know, here's a president who has an unprecedented approval rating, 84 percent. Does it get any better than that? That is pretty high.
Well you know that we as a people, we can be pretty fickle and fortunes can change. So could what you hear tonight change the president's numbers? You know, the approval rating numbers. How much do you think he is doing a good job?
All right. Well here to talk about it today, Joe Conason. Joe is a columnist and a political editor at the "New York Observer" and SALON.COM, he wanted to say. Hi, Joe, appreciate your time here.
JOE CONASON, COLUMNIST: Thanks for having me. MEADE: Let me also tell the folks that he is also the author of "The Hunting of the President". That book is about what Hillary Clinton called the vast right-wing conspiracy. We will get to him in just a minute. Joe, hold on.
And then we also have Matt Robinson, who is the managing editor of "Human Events" magazine. Hey, Matt. He is also author of "Mobocracy: How the Media's Obsession with Polling Twists the News, Alters Elections and Undermines Democracy". Some serious matters there.
All right. So, Matt and Joe, appreciate your time you guys. Let me start with Matt. Matt, can you make the argument that President Bush just simply cannot lose tonight? He's very popular, 84 percent job approval rating.
MATT ROBINSON, MANAGING EDITOR, "HUMAN EVENTS": Well, he could lose to the extent that, you know, he's facing such high poll ratings that it's almost hard to go any higher. So what he talks about tonight is really going to be, I think, very safe and very reassuring, reminding the American people about the war on terrorism and his focus on those issues.
And he could lose if he starts talking about domestic issues in a way that, you know, starts showing some missteps and mistakes. But I highly doubt that. I mean, the one thing we have learned about George is he is the president of the entire United States of America and he is very careful, very cautious and, you know, he attempts to be bold but always with a great deal of efforts towards not making any missteps.
MEADE: All right. So that was Matt. And now let's talk to Joe and get maybe a counterpoint here. Joe, maybe would you like to rather make the point that this man cannot win, given that he is at 84 percent approval rating. Certainly, can it go any higher? Is he ready to come back down off of that? What you do you think? Can he win?
CONASON: Well, first of all, his father's poll ratings after the Gulf War were slightly higher. I mean, you reach a point where it's all within the margin of error and you can't really tell.
But at one point, George Herbert Walker Bush actually peaked at about 91 percent. And within a year after that, he was on the downward slide and considered irrelevant and not in touch with the country's real problems. So, I think there are certainly pitfalls for the president and his staff is very well aware of it as I'm sure he is too.
I think Matt was right, that the best thing from his point of view is to gloss over the domestic issues, although he has to offer some reassurance about the economic decline in the country, and avoid subjects that are particularly damaging to him and his records such as the growing deficit, which he promised would not happen, the tax cuts, which are not really very popular and a whole range of issues that are easier to conceal beneath sort of an unfurled flag and what is bipartisan unity behind the war effort.
MEADE: Should be interesting to see what happens. You know...
ROBINSON: Well, let me jump in there...
MEADE: You know what? Before I let you guys do that -- now hold that thought, Matt, OK, because I will get right back to you. Let us talk a little bit more about the historical perspective, because obviously President Bush is not the first President Bush and he is also not the first president to have very high approval rating.
Let's talk to Frank Gallup -- Frank Newport. He is with the Gallup Poll. Frank, nice to see you. Talk to me a little bit about the historical precedence of what a job approval rating or maybe if you peak too early, what may happen.
FRANK NEWPORT, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, GALLUP POLL: Sure, we can put it in context. We went back and looked at where all other presidents since World War II had been just before their State of the Union addresses. And as you kind of been alluding to, Robin, Bush this year has a higher rating going into the State of the Union address than any other president that we've ever measured.
Here is the context. That's that 84 percent that not surprisingly, as one of your guests just mentioned, it was his father back in 1991, who came into his speech with an 83 percent rating. The Gulf War was actually going on at that time in late January. The others: Eisenhower just after his re-election in '57 had a 79 percent; and then two Democrats, John Kennedy in '62 and LBJ, Johnson back in 1964, both went into their speeches with 77 percent job approval ratings.
So just as you have been saying, Robin, George W. Bush enters his speech tonight, enters that House chamber with the more positive sentiment from the public than we have seen since World War II.
MEADE: All right. Hey, Frank, it's nice to see you, by the way. Appreciate the information that you gave us.
You know, somebody on the phone is Mike -- do I have that name right? Mark, Mark, glad to hear you. Glad to have you here. So, Mark, what do you have to say about this whole thing?
CALLER: Yes, hello, Robin. I am not one of the 84 percent that find this president doing a good job. I think the administration is capitalizing off of this horrific act that happened September 11 and this president and this administration needs to do a lot more to spin this economy in the positive direction.
MEADE: All right. Appreciate your comments there. We have two people in the studio I want to speak to. And, Chris, you've got Steve. Steve, what do you think? What would you like to hear the president say tonight or would you like to comment on something else along those lines?
STEVE: Well, I think he's doing a really good job. And I think that he, you know, got involved in a situation that no one could anticipate and I just think he handled it really well.
MEADE: All right. And what would our guests like to say about that? Joe, what would you say back to that person, that, you know, this man is handling something that none of us would ever want to have to handle and here we are and he is doing a pretty good job. So, you know, his State of the Union speech, we will listen to it, but we all think he is doing pretty good. You know, kind of what Steve said.
CONASON: Well, I don't -- you heard from a caller just now who is not so sure he is doing that well. I think that in people's minds, there are probably two separate issues. One is do you support the president during war after a terrorist attack on the United States? And very, very few people, including me, would answer that question no. So I think the popularity reflects that.
But if you look at the underlying or other questions in these kinds of polls, you find doubts about President Bush, particularly on the domestic issues, his closeness to corporations like and corporate interests like Enron and other things that could prove to make him vulnerable later.
But I think there's -- look, there is no question that the destruction of the Taliban regime is a major step for America. Everybody supports that or almost everybody. And I think he has bolstered himself with that and he deserves that credit. I also think that Democrats who supported him deserve credit too. And I think one of the things that is disturbing that happened recent weeks was that Karl Rove, the president's political adviser, said we are going to use the war for political gain in this midterm election and try to show that...
ROBINSON: Well, that's not what he said. That's...
CONASON: It certainly is what he said. It's exactly what he said.
(CROSSTALK)
He said we are going to use this -- he said we are going to use this to show that we are better at defending America than the Democrats are. And by the way...
ROBINSON: Now, that's what he said. That's...
CONASON: Well, but that's...
(CROSSTALK)
MEADE: Well, we are going to have to let Matt have a say because I did cut you off the last time.
CONASON: Well, I don't really see the difference, to tell you the truth.
ROBINSON: Well, this is -- well, it's the difference between portraying something as just mere political expedience and trying to portray something as a legitimate issue that is number one in the public's mind and something worth looking at in a deeper way for a campaign...
CONASON: Why is it legitimate and why is that a legitimate issue?
ROBINSON: Pardon me. I listened to you. Thank you.
CONASON: OK. Actually you have interrupted, but go ahead.
ROBINSON: I think the thing that you have got to feel like if you are an incumbent congressional Democrat at this point is that it's raining hammers right now because Bush holds not just an advantage on these issues that Karl Rove was speaking about, but he also holds the advantage on things like taxes, on education and on the economy. So he has...
CONASON: Where does he hold the advantage on taxes?
MEADE: Now, Matt, what about -- let me interrupt you gentlemen. Matt...
ROBINSON: Oh, take a look at the new Gallup Poll. Talk to Frank Newport. He's right there.
MEADE: OK. Let me interrupt you guys. Matt, Matt...
CONASON: Look at the "New York Times" poll.
MEADE: You guys. OK. I'm going to talk right over you here. Let me ask you, Matt, do you think the president needs to say anything about energy and fraud?
(CROSSTALK)
ROBINSON: I think, you know, this is a guy who is willing to expend political capital. I think that what you will probably hear is maybe not tonight, but certainly tomorrow and in the week following, you are going to see some great strides towards going after a full investigation of Enron. I mean, this is not something that this administration is comfortable with and they want to get it out of the way, I'm sure right now.
What we have seen from this president is, you know, an honest attempt to engage what concerns the public, which is why I think people are so...
MEADE: You know, obviously a lot of people...
CONASON: A full investigation. Will that include Vice President Cheney's records, do you think? Matt, do you think Vice President Cheney should release the records of his dealings with Enron?
ROBINSON: I think that's why we have a representative government. And this is why we're having...
CONASON: No, no. What do you think?
ROBINSON: ... a discussion between the congressional and executive branch.
CONASON: What do you think?
ROBINSON: Oh, I think...
MEADE: Yes, sticky in here, isn't it? Gentlemen, you know, a lot of people in our audience may have concerns too about the economy and a lot of polls have shown that people, while we are watching the war on terrorism, are also concerned about the economy in their everyday lives and their jobs. And someone here in the audience would like to talk, I think, about how she feels about the job that the president is doing. And that's Marsha -- Martha. Hey, Martha, nice to have you here.
MARTHA: I just think that right now, if you say that you think the president is doing a bad job, it's almost like you are unpatriotic. And I think that any president right now with the September 11 situation would be doing well because we are all behind him. And I think we're about to see the backlash from that with Enron and all the rights with the tribunals and people losing some of our civil rights. It's going to come back the other way.
MEADE: OK. That's a very excellent point about what is OK to be saying right now. What would it be OK for him to say that would make you feel better about the job that he is doing or about the State of the Union, which the address is about tonight, Martha.
MARTHA: I don't know that there is anything that he could say that would change my mind just from...
MEADE: Really?
MARTHA: ... you know, watching the news right now and how things are going.
MEADE: And you mean about economy or are you more concerned about Enron and energy and that kind of thing?
MARTHA: I'm more concerned about that Enron thing.
MEADE: Are you really?
MARTHA: And I think if he came clean on that, people would feel better about it. But right now, with them withholding information on who they spoke with to form energy policy and everything, I think if this were a different administration, we would be spending all kind of money trying to investigate it.
MEADE: All right. Well, I appreciate your input on that. And I know, Joe, you would probably like to say something back to that, no?
CONASON: Well, I certainly agree that there ought to be a full investigation. I don't agree with Matt's remark that the Bush administration is pursuing a full investigation. They have spent eight months trying to deny Congress the right to review the records of the energy panel, to try to conceal the fact that they talked six times with Enron, which finally came out. And there is no sign that they want to reveal anything. The president said yesterday that he agrees with Vice President Cheney, that they ought to be able to consult with corporate lobbyists and not reveal it to anyone. I think that's a big problem.
MEADE: I'm kind of going to change subjects here. But we are going to stay on the State of the Union Address. I don't know if our audience members have heard, but there was a story today about the daughter of Governor Jeb Bush, who is the president's brother, that his daughter was arrested, accused of trying to get hold of some illegal prescriptions, basically.
Do you think that this will have any impact upon how the president is viewed in his speech tonight or do you think, maybe, you know what, it's none of our business to be even talking about this, even though she is an adult. She is the daughter of the governor's...
CONASON: It won't (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
MEADE: ... the governor's child. Go ahead, Joe.
CONASON: It won't have any impact and it should not have any impact. It's not George W. Bush's fault that this happened. It's probably not even Jeb Bush's fault that it happened. And it's a private family matter. The thing that...
ROBINSON: Well, I hope you apply that same kind of logic to a lot of the Enron contacts that occurred in the past since that...
CONASON: I do not. That's public business.
ROBINSON: We have now reversed our position from the eight years past that people who are friends of the administration are somehow responsible.
MEADE: All right. Gentlemen, I going to have to interrupt you guys. We have some breaking news, I understand. And we are going to talk to -- who are we talking to? Wolf Blitzer now with more on a story today. Wolf go ahead, please.
(INTERRUPTED FOR BREAKING NEWS)
MEADE: Coming up, risky business, a survival school for journalists. Learn how to get through this kind of terror alive. That's next on TALKBACK LIVE.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(APPLAUSE)
MEADE: Well, welcome back everybody. You know, Joe Conason and Matt Robinson, who we were speaking to, in the last break, they had to go. But I want to thank them so much for their time, for being here. Also, I want to thank you for joining. Once again, I'm Robin Meade.
All right. Now let talk to you about what we are going to be talking about in this segment. You know, last week, "Wall Street Journal" reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped by some obscure Pakistani group in Karachi and these are the pictures. They are just hair- raising, aren't they?
Well, among other things, the group is demanding that the U.S. release Pakistani detainees in Cuba in exchange for Pearl's life. Well, you might wonder how Pearl got into this situation to begin with or what you might do if someone kidnapped you. Well, we are going to learn just a little bit today about personal survival and staying alive from Eric Margolis. He's the author of "War at the Top of the World". Hey, Eric. He is a former instructor in strategy and tactics for the U.S. Army. So I bet he knows his stuff, is going to share a little information with us. Also, he is a member of the International Institute of Strategic Studies. Nice to have you here. We are going to be talking with you in just a moment. Hang on.
Let me introduce our other guests in this segment. On the phone is Paul Rees. Now he is the founder and the director of the Centurion Risk Assessment Services in Habersham, England. What's that? Well, he runs risk training courses for journalists, so we are going to talk to him as well. Gentlemen, thank you both for being here. Paul, I just want to check to make sure you are there. Hey, Paul.
Well, maybe we will get Paul in just a minute. So, let me talk a little bit with Eric. Eric, how is it that reporters get into this situation? Did this ever happen to you? Were you ever in a situation like what has apparently happened to Daniel Pearl?
ERIC MARGOLIS, AUTHOR, "WAR AT THE TOP OF THE WORLD": Well, frequently. I covered 14 wars in Asia and Africa and Central America and I have been in positions where, of course, under fire but also cut off, isolated behind enemy lines and with people looking for you. And the most recent was in Afghanistan in the early '90s.
When the Communists were still in power in Kabul and the Communist regime put a $50,000 price on my head.
MEADE: You're kidding?
MARGOLIS: I was with the Mujahedeen. I wish I was worth more, but that was the price in those days, a lot of money in Afghanistan...
MEADE: You can say that now in retrospect, right, now that you are safe?
MARGOLIS: That's right. Well, I was with the Mujahedeen forces fighting the Communists. And they wanted to capture me. I was a thorn in their side. They wanted me delivered to the Afghan secret police for a very slow and painful death. They paid -- they offered the money to the Afridi (ph) tribesmen along the Khyber Pass...
MEADE: So people were looking for you? MARGOLIS: They were looking for me. They were gunning for me. And, in fact, I had to the run the Khyber Pass at night in a Jeep with the headlights turned off, breaking through a roadblock that the Afridis (ph) had set up, managed to get out and get to Pakistan before they grabbed me.
MEADE: So, is this a situation in which you learned what to do, just kind of stay out of danger and stay away from danger or did you kind of know before how to handle yourself and make it so that you were safe?
MARGOLIS: This is strictly on-the-job training. You learn as you go. The best rule is don't get yourself into dangerous spots, but journalists do this. You know, you go after stories. You want to be in the field. Too few of our American journalists actually go out and risk their lives in the field to bring in the stories. Too many sit back in comfortable hotels, as in the Gulf War, for example.
But it's dangerous work and many good journalists are killed in the line of duty. And caution is always advised.
MEADE: And very many patient families also kind of put up with the dangers of their job. Now, Paul Rees is on phone. And once again, I think I kind of explained to you guys, he run kind of a school for journalists to kind of help them, keep them safe. So let's talk to Paul a little bit now. Paul, you joining us now?
PAUL REES, CENTURION RISK ASSESSMENT: Yes, I am. Good evening.
MEADE: Nice to have you here. We appreciate your time. Paul, what do you start with when you are teaching journalists? What's do you mean to teach them to stay safe when they have to go to areas that some people think are dangerous? What's the first thing, the most important thing you tell them?
REES: Well, especially down to risk assessment and analysis, but listening to that story there, that was one hell of a story and...
MEADE: Wasn't it though?
REES: ... and it seems you had a good run for your money there even if it was only $50,000.
Basically, it's common sense. As a colleague there saying -- you are correct in saying that it used to be on-site training. Nowadays, because of the technology and the changing of the strategy of wars, where it used to be weeks, it's now days to hours before battle plans change, journalists find themself stuck either in between two warring factions or even behind the enemy lines.
MEADE: You know what was -- and, Paul, now, I suppose you probably know about as much as about Daniel Pearl's story as we all do. What, based on what little knowledge we all know, what can he do in this situation now?
REES: Well, the only thing he can do is think about his family, his home life, keep something in his mind that's precious to him, keep him going, think that there will be a safe ending to this. Whether the outcome is tragic or peaceful, in his own mind and now, what he's got to especially keep are sweet thoughts in his head and just think about home life and how good it will be to get back. He has got to keep himself alive. He has got to keep his mind active. He has got to try and keep in contact with the time, the duration, how long he has been there.
MEADE: Yes, you kind of -- you just really wonder about the sharpness of the mind, how you said, you have to keep your thoughts going and think of when you are going to get out.
David is on the phone. And, David, apparently you don't think that journalists should be going around unless they are armed in dangerous places. What do you think? Tell me.
CALLER: That's definitely correct. I mean, in situations when a journalist is traveling in hostile environments across -- obviously in areas where they are not welcome, they should definitely be armed, be able to defend themselves.
MEADE: Well, let me talk to Eric Margolis. Eric, what do you think about that?
MARGOLIS: That's a very bad idea. I have often thought about it myself in combat zones. But if you are caught armed, you will be shot or at least treated as a hostile enemy combatant. It's also against American law, by the way, to engage in foreign hostilities of being armed. So, no, this is not what journalists are supposed to do.
And what I have done in the past is, for example, just leading up to the war in -- the 1991 war in Iraq, I was in Baghdad. I made sure that I went in with a money belt filled with gold coins and maps of two exit routes out of Iraq in case the United States attacked Iraq when I was there and I had to walk my way out. I carried $100 bills rolled up in my socks to buy your way out of trouble, which is far more effective than carrying a weapon.
MEADE: I see. Well, I certainly -- I guess it does seem logical that people would wonder, you know, like our caller, David, did, hey why don't you carry something to protect yourself with. And you are saying money is the protection. Paul, what do you tell the reporters when they come to school? What is it that will protect them beforehand?
REES: Well, again, it's common sense and just defusing the situation, if possible. Now on both sides, there is a story there. I agree definitely with journalists should not carry weapons. The only reason is, I won't go into the examples now, but I'll just add seven of my instructors out with media crews in Afghanistan advising them to safety, watching their back and also advising them on how to live out in the field type of thing.
Now, on numerous occasions, because of your special forces out there, our special forces out there in civilian clothing, carrying weapons, if you are caught with a weapon, if you are even caught with a map in the wrong place, wrong time, you could get killed for even as a spy. And that could end you up in all sort of trouble.
I can also understand the reasons why people do think you should carry a sidearm for your own self-protection, especially if it's very, very, very unstable, as some parts of Afghanistan was over the last few months.
MEADE: Now, Paul and Eric, you guys, hold on. We have a few people in the audience who would like to speak. We always like to give them a chance. I think Steve has something to say about all of this. You have some thoughts, Steve?
STEVE: Yes, I have a question. I'm curious why we don't use some type of technology when we're sending people into combat zones, to track them, a bracelet, some type of device that would help us track them?
And I guess the second question is: Are we doing anything to find this guy?
MEADE: Well, I guess -- I would make the -- I would wonder -- I don't think -- you would mean along government lines? Why don't we have to wear bracelets when we are out reporting stories so that people could find us?
STEVE: Well, I think if you are going to send somebody into a combat area like that, where's there's a chance they...
MEADE: So their workplace, you're saying, should have some type of technology that...
STEVE: Correct. Yes.
MEADE: Well, that's a good point.
What do you think about that, Eric?
MARGOLIS: Well, again, it's...
MEADE: Money, money, right?
MARGOLIS: It's a good idea on paper, but I remember going into Baghdad in the late '70s with one of these little hand Dictaphones. I was stopped by security, by the secret police. And they say: Ah, radio, CIA spy.
MEADE: No kidding?
MARGOLIS: If you are interviewing people who are undercover, they do not want you there with a transponder or a device. They will automatically assume that you are spying.
In many countries, journalists are spies. I must say, the United States has a very fine reputation of religiously separating journalists from the espionage business. And we never want to put our reporters and journalists in a position where they can be considered as spies. MEADE: But that was a pretty creative thought, Steve. It makes people kind of wonder. If you have the technology, why couldn't you use it? Good thought, though.
Someone else who has a thought here in the studio is Ann.
And I think you have a question, actually, for Paul, the person who runs the school over in London or is with the school.
ANN: I'm curious as to how long the training for something like that would be. It seems like a lot of information to squeeze in like a week-long boot camp.
MEADE: So she wants to know, Paul -- good question, Ann -- how long is that camp for, that school for reporters?
REES: Yes, it's not a boot camp, please. It's not a military camp at all. It's totally -- we are all civilians now. We have all have served in the Majesty's Royal Marine Commandos in the United Kingdom. And we're all from the special forces background, but it's not a boot camp. It's all journalistic safety awareness training taken from the militarily background and knowledge.
We have been running this for seven years now. And it has taken a long time to get it right for journalists. Our clients -- there is a big list of very big clients from the media world. And it's normally a five-day, fully residential. And you're exactly right. It is -- five days is lot of information pumped into them. And they are like sponges anyway, journalists. They just take a lot of information in. And they assimilate knowledge. And they come out with life- saving options and points that we give them.
MEADE: I want to talk to Eric again.
So, Eric, in these situations, usually what do the captors want?
MARGOLIS: They think you are a spy. Or they want to hold you for monetary ransom. A number of journalists have kidnapping insurance, which you can get, so when they start chopping your fingers off and sending them back that there is somebody at home who can pay them and who is authorized to pay them.
But they also hold you for hostages against men of theirs who are captured. And the Pakistan situation with "The Wall Street Journal" reporter is a perfect case. Pakistanis are being held both in Cuba at America's Devil's Island and in Pakistan, and they want their men back. So there are all these reasons. Or just they hate you locally and they want to get back at the Americans. It's a way to getting media attention, all kinds of reason, very dangerous.
And, as I said before, it is very important that the U.S. media should be sending out veteran war correspondents instead of neophytes and beginners who have never covered a war before.
MEADE: All right, we are going to end it right there on this segment anyway. So, Eric and Paul, I want to thank you guys both for your time. And I am sure that a lot of people in the audience are hoping that the thing with Daniel Pearl turns out all right and that he will be home to his family soon. All right, appreciate you guys.
Up next, folks at home, hope you're able to stick with us. This is what we are going to talk about. Is there room in the rink for Mike, Mike Tyson? We are going to take a break for news and we'll be right back here at TALKBACK LIVE.
I'm Robin Meade. Hope to see you on the other side of a break.
Still ahead: Put on your gloves and explain why this man should still have a place in the ring. Do you like Mike? Sink your teeth into this one next on TALKBACK LIVE.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MEADE: All right. Welcome back this afternoon, everybody.
This is what we are going to be talking about in this part of the hour. Remember this tantrum? Let me show you the video here. It was the last straw in a string of incidents that put the Lennox Lewis-Mike Tyson match in jeopardy. I know you have seen this video a lot, but every time, you just kind of notice new things, like there is a lot of people in there.
Tyson faces the Nevada Athletic Commission today about whether he is going to allowed to fight in that state. Is it about making boxing history or about making a big purse? We are going to talk about it this afternoon.
And here to talk about it: Bert Sugar, a boxing historian.
Hey, Bert.
BERT SUGAR, BOXING HISTORIAN: How are you, Robin?
MEADE: And a prolific writer -- good to see you -- and an analyst as well. And he is the former editor of "Boxing Illustrated" and "Ring" magazine. I just love your hat there, bud. His latest book is titled "Sting Like a Bee." So you know who that is about, Ali. Also with us is Peter Noel, a columnist and a radio talk show host on WRKS in New York.
Nice to have you here. Appreciate your time, Peter.
PETER NOEL, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Thank you, Robin.
MEADE: All right, let me start with Peter.
So why does Tyson deserve a chance at this? Do you feel he does?
NOEL: Look, I think the sport -- yes, he deserves a chance.
I think that the sport, boxing, is so lethargic right now. I believe -- I've been saying this all along -- that if Marjan, the one- eyed Afghanistan lion, were alive, the people who are putting on this thing should hire him to pace the ring.
The sport needs somebody like Mike Tyson. We need him because he provides a type of entertainment for us. He bum rushes the ring with no socks or shoe on his foot. And he runs in there. And he is too blocky. He is too strong. And he takes on anybody in the ring. We want that brute. We want that brawler. That is what we need.
MEADE: So you are saying he is kind of entertaining and that people, even if they say something bad about him, they like to see what he is doing?
NOEL: Of course. He is like the Dennis Rodman of the boxing ring. We need somebody like Tyson. We need entertainment. I do not watch too much of these boxing matches anymore because there is nothing. Tyson is the one that draws it. Michael Jordan is back in basketball and everybody is flocking to see him play. And I think people will do the same thing for Tyson. The sports need him.
MEADE: Bert Sugar, let's welcome you back to the show. So what do you think of Mike Tyson? Does he deserve a chance at this, or is that just the final straw? If what happens if he does get the nod from the Nevada Gaming Commission?
SUGAR: Well, I always thought, having talked to Peter in the green room, he was an intelligent man. I don't know what all that was.
I don't think Mike Tyson deserves it. And I will tell you why. In his last fight at the same facility that this fight is theoretically supposed to be, in June of '97, MGM Grand, he bit Evander Holyfield's ear not once but twice, the second time just in case the referee, Mills Lane, missed it. And Mills Lane disqualified him before Evander ran out of body parts.
Now he is going back there to the place that had a riot by his followers afterwards. This ain't boxing. This is a circus. We do not need this. The sport is not to be judged by this.
MEADE: You know, Peter, I know you have something to say back to that, but let me ask you something. What do you think it is that Mike Tyson has to say before the Gaming Commission, because now he does have to appear in front of them before their make their decision at about 4:00?
(CROSSTALK)
SUGAR: Well, it's not the Gaming Commission. It's the Boxing Commission.
MEADE: The Boxing Commission, thank you. This for correcting me, the Nevada Boxing Commission.
So what you think he has to say these folks?
NOEL: Well, look, I can't understand why Mike Tyson did what he did. If he was acting, then Hollywood could not have written a better script. Now, if he was not acting, something terribly is wrong with Mike Tyson.
But the issue is, he provides that type of entertainment. And if they drum up interest in a fight, they do it. This is classic in terms of modern-day boxing. We need something to show our generate to generate our interest. I think they should give him the license because we need to bring people back to watching this sport, if it's a sport.
MEADE: Bert, let me ask you, so what the Boxing Commission -- let's talk about the math of it all. How many people?
SUGAR: To answer Peter, why didn't he just go see a Hannibal Lecter movie?
(LAUGHTER)
NOEL: Bert, do you want to see Mike Tyson fight again?
SUGAR: No, I'm not going to go. It is a zoo.
(CROSSTALK)
MEADE: If he gets the nod, you are not going, Bert?
SUGAR: I don't cover circuses. I cover boxing.
NOEL: Listen, I think it is going to be good for the sport. I would like to see Mike Tyson take on Lennox Lewis. It was a classic match-up. It is supposed to be a classic match-up. People are going to spend their money. People are going to want a fight. This is, since Ali and Frazier and all these things, pretty much I don't really watch them, because it is dull. This is what I am looking for.
MEADE: All right, Peter.
So, Bert, do you think -- is it going to come down to a yes or a no? And let's talk about the math. How many people are on that boxing commission? How many people have to vote yes for him?
SUGAR: Five people on the commission. Three have to say yes.
MEADE: So three votes we need.
If it comes down to a yes, is it about money or is it about the sport?
SUGAR: No, it is not about the sport.
If they license Tyson -- and he has been suspended twice -- if they license Tyson, why do we need a boxing commission? They would license anybody. The problem here is money vs. the safety of not only Lennox Lewis, but the fans. The last time they had a fight at the MGM Grand, there was a riot. Ask Tupac Shakur how he likes Mike Tyson. He got...
(CROSSTALK) MEADE: You know who is aching to get in this fight -- because you gentlemen look like you are about to duke it out -- is Steve. He is on the phone. And I know he has got something to say.
Hey, Steve.
CALLER: How are you doing, Robin?
MEADE: Good. Good to hear from you.
Go ahead.
CALLER: Well, Peter, first of all, the only correct thing you've said yet far is that people are going to spend the money. And that is exactly why he is going to receive his license.
Bert Sugar, there is a reason that you are a respected journalist. You hit it right on the money. He is going to get his license. He is going to fight because Las Vegas wants those hotel rooms sold out. They want people flying from all over the world to see a spectacle. Now, this isn't the WWF. This is boxing. So if there is any chance to retain any respect in it left, you can't license Tyson to fight. We do not need boxing where we have boxers who are going to eat other boxers.
(CROSSTALK)
MEADE: You hold that thought, gentlemen, Peter.
And, Steve, by the way, Thanks.
We are going to take a break. Bert and Peter, we'll be right back. So hold your thought. We will give you a couple of minutes to think about it, OK?
TALKBACK LIVE, and we're back after this. Hope you are, too.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MEADE: All right, welcome back, Everybody. This is "America Speaks Out," TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Robin Meade. Nice to have you here.
So maybe before the break, you were listening. And we were talking about Mike Tyson. Will the Nevada Boxing Commission give him the nod to get the license so that he and Lennox Lewis can fight there in Las Vegas?
So a lot of people calling. And our guests today, by the way, if you are just tuning in, we have Peter Noel and Bert Sugar.
Peter, I promised that you would be able to talk back to Steve, who was our caller, who basically said: You know what? This is kind of how I kind of read what he was saying. If Mike Tyson gets the nod, then the sport is in a bad way. What was your comeback on that?
NOEL: Listen, it is not about bringing back respect to the ring. It is about bringing back -- again, I want to stick with this thing -- it's about brining back some entertainment.
Mike Tyson is a brawler from the hood. And his homeboys in Brownsville or Brooklyn, where he is from, want to see him knock out this boy from England. And that is just what it is all about. And if it means biting off or biting him on his foot, why not? That's what they want to see.
MEADE: Well, you know you are going to get a lot of feedback here in the studio about that comment.
NOEL: I am getting it from Bert right now.
MEADE: Yes, you are.
Bert, you guys are sitting in the same studio, right? Watch out, you guys.
(CROSSTALK)
MEADE: All right, Karen.
KAREN: Boxing is a sport. It is supposed to be entertainment. That is not entertainment. You're watching people almost kill each other. How many chances can you give this man? I don't care if it's about the money. Nevada will -- they'll let him go through. I believe they will. But I think it is wrong.
MEADE: So, Bert, do you think that Nevada will give him the go- ahead to fight there? Do you think the license will come back?
SUGAR: I think Nevada is on a very -- or the boxing commission, the five-man commission, is in a very tenuous spot. They either have turn down a fight that can bring in -- the guesstimates are $400 million -- I do not know who came up with that figure, maybe Arthur Andersen -- or turn it down in the name of safety and also in the good name of the state, because you have to remember, Las Vegas is advertising itself as a family tourist place. And this is Mike Tyson, who is not exactly a poster boy for great family relations.
NOEL: Look, I tend to disagree with the fact that
(CROSSTALK)
SUGAR: You disagree with everything I say.
(LAUGHTER)
MEADE: No surprise, huh?
NOEL: Even though they are advocating the issue of family, Tyson has kids. Of course, he is going through a divorce right now, but that is not the issue. The issue is whether or not Las Vegas needs another spark to bring back life into the City of Lights, the city that never sleeps. We need that. We need Mike Tyson. We need to tell him when to throw a left hook, when to throw a right hook. We need to tell him when to rope-a-dope. People want to see that. (CROSSTALK)
SUGAR: Do we need to have somebody tell him when to bite?
MEADE: I am going to interrupt you guys and say that Nathan is on the phone. And I know Nathan wants to get in involved in this, too.
Nathan, good afternoon to you, bud.
CALLER: Yes, good afternoon to you.
I think that boxing is a violent sport. Before the advent of boxing gloves, these men used to kill themselves. Bert and I know well, coming from the same group, I think, I think you do not have your (UNINTELLIGIBLE) out there in the ring fighting. They would be killed, mercifully. I'm going to Minion (ph) tonight. There is not going to be anybody from Minion who can fight him.
So you get these guys. They've been fighting since they were little boys in the all states and all areas of the country. They're 1 percenters. It is a violent sport and that is the way that is. Accept it or do not go to the fight.
MEADE: So, Bert, what does Nathan mean when he said you guys are from the same group? Is that what he said?
SUGAR: That is what he said.
(CROSSTALK)
SUGAR: I will admit to his tribe.
(LAUGHTER)
SUGAR: The point, though, he is also making is, yes, I will accept the fact that boxing is legalized assault. That being said, it has rules and regulations, as any sport does. And when you confront or go beyond the bounds of those rules and regulations, you are to be, within reason, punished. Mike Tyson has.
(CROSSTALK)
MEADE: All right, now, Bert and Peter, someone here in the audience -- actually, I guess this is Angie. You might remember seeing someone that looked like her just a few minutes ago. And that was Ann, her twin. We've got twins here in the studio.
SUGAR: Oh, they're ganging up on us.
(LAUGHTER)
MEADE: There you go.
Angie was at the ear-biting incident fight. ANGIE: Yes, I was. And with what Bert just said, I totally agree with that. This is not the first time that he has done something like this. And I think that it is time for him to start being accountable. And it was really a scary experience to be there.
I wasn't right in the thick of it, but close enough to it that it was -- that is supposed to be -- boxing is supposed to be a sport. It's supposed to be entertaining. And when it goes past that point, then it is just -- it was not fun at all.
MEADE: So what is your vote for the day if you were on the commission?
ANGIE: I would keep him out of it. I would vote him out of Nevada.
(CROSSTALK)
MEADE: Which kind of brings up to an interesting point. So do you guys think it will be a yes or a no? I want you guys both to weigh in on this, yes or a no?
NOEL: I think he would get a license. They need it. Look, just to piggyback on what Bert was saying a little bit -- look, we watch people dying in Afghanistan. We want to see the war. We want to talk every day about what is happening to people dying in Afghanistan. We want to see people. We want to see footage from Pakistan and different things. We do this even though we know that people are dying there. We still want to see them brining out body bags and different things.
It is the same thing. To some of us, it's entertainment. To others, it's tragic.
SUGAR: My turn. Shut up.
(CROSSTALK)
(LAUGHTER)
NOEL: That was a right jab. That was a right jab.
MEADE: I am going to referee. And, Bert, you go ahead. You do get your say now.
SUGAR: This is not what the sport is about. I understand excitement and entertainment. This is not excitement and entertainment. This is barbarity. And I think that the only reason -- and I would vote no -- that the Nevada State Athletic Commission will vote yes is because they are puppets and rolling over for the hotels and casinos and not for the people of the state. The money would be the only reason they could license him.
MEADE: But, Bert, couldn't they be arguing that they are doing it for the state, because these people stand to gain some money?
OK, you know what? I guess we are out of time. So, anyway, Bert...
SUGAR: I want to holler at him again.
(LAUGHTER)
MEADE: Bert and Peter, you guys are the best. Thank you so much for being with us. We do appreciate it.
And we are out of time here at TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Robin Meade. And I want to say thank you to the audience, all of you guys, for being here. That includes you at home, too. I have really enjoyed hosting the show, kind of filling in and helping out.
Normally you can catch me early mornings on HeadlineNews from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Eastern.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
