Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Sunday Morning
Interview with Mark Riley, Armstrong Williams
Aired February 03, 2002 - 08:33 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.
MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: It's time now to step back and look at the news of the past week from a slightly wider perspective with my two guests. They are Syndicated Columnist Armstrong Williams in Washington, Radio Talk Show Host Mark Riley in New York. Do we have that right? Is that backwards?
MARK RILEY, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Yes.
O'BRIEN: Yeah, it is right. This pundit journalism thing is got be all rattled. All right, who's a pundit, who's a journalist here?
ARMSTRONG WILLIAMS, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: I'm the pundit, no journalist.
O'BRIEN: All right. Mark, what are you?
RILEY: I'm just Mark. I try not to get into either one of them.
O'BRIEN: Just call me Mark. The question is, what's better, being a pundit or a journalist? We can -- we'll do that at some other occasion.
Hey, let's talk about airport security since we were just talking about it. You know, we keep hearing these stories about what seems to be the clearly obviously wrong people that are just given the full body cavity search, practically, while these people are -- who have all kinds of suspicious things with them are getting through the barriers. What is going on? And, of course, this leads to a discussion of profiling. Who wants to go first on that?
ARMSTRONG: You know, I don't know. Actually, Miles, I have been flying like mad over the last month or so. It's been unbelievable. Much has changed and...
O'BRIEN: Flying will make you mad over the last month or so. But, anyway, go ahead.
ARMSTRONG: You know I have these boots that they always make me take off. They make me take my cell phone off. They take my belt buckle off.
O'BRIEN: Yeah.
ARMSTRONG: And it's just sometimes I feel like I'm being stripped down. But, you know what, I understand why it's being done. I'm not offended by it. I remember one day I was going to New York and the Former Trade Ambassador (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Hill (ph) had to go through the same thing. So it's not profiling. They're just trying to make sure that they do a very good job and not slow down the traffic and the movement at the airport, not to inconvenience people too much.
I think they're doing their job. They will never be perfect; but I must admit, from my experience, it is much better. We can see the progress that has been made. And as we move this thing along in the future it's going to only get better. But this is necessary, what our government and what the airlines are doing now.
O'BRIEN: Yeah, but Mark, I'd like to just pose this to you. With the millions of people that fly in this country, isn't it necessary to profile because you just -- you can't search everybody. And how do you start?
RILEY: Well I don't know if it's necessary to profile. I have not flown since September 11th; but I must say, the fact that you have situations where people who are perfectly innocent are ending up detained, while people with explosives in their shoes get through, means that there needs to be training. There needs to be a level of instruction for baggage screeners and for package screeners, so that they're better able to do their jobs. I think they really have to start looking at doing certain things differently.
Now perhaps, as Armstrong says, they have started to do that. But, obviously, there are some problems. Some people are getting through airports apparently with a minimum of scrutiny and others are not. And, you know, there's a whole question of whether federalizing these jobs is going to make them any better.
My feeling is that you have to train people, no matter whether they're federal, private or whatever. You have to make sure that they're properly trained by hopefully experts in their field.
O'BRIEN: Yeah, I think that's probably something that you wouldn't quibble with, Armstrong. I mean, good training is a good idea. Pay them well -- maybe not have the airlines paying them. It seems to be a little bit of a conflict of interest there.
ARMSTRONG: No, he's absolutely correct. But on your best day, there is this thing you call human error, and there are people who are slick and spent a lifetime trying to just put it back in your faith (ph) that you're still not doing as good a job as you think you're doing, and they're going to still get through security. I think the best thing that we can do as passengers, whenever someone is going through the security and the security is alerted by some object that they see on the conveyer belt, it is our job to try to stop that passenger before they complete (ph) (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Even if we have to body tackle them.
I think we all have to participate in this process to help our government in stopping these people who want to do harm to us.
O'BRIEN: Amen to that one. All right, let's move on to Enron, shall we?
This report which came out this morning is sort of like I guess old news at this point. The report says that these partnerships were kind of a bad idea, maybe. How's that for a news flash? But a couple of things that I find interesting, the Justice Department, you know, dialing up the executive branch and saying, you know, "By the way, don't be destroying any e-mails or correspondence related to Enron." Kind of a little shot over the bow there. What is that going to lead to, do you think?
RILEY: I don't know what it's going to lead to, but, I mean, you have to realize that the head of the Justice Department, the attorney general, had to recuse (ph) himself from this entire thing because when he ran for reelection for the Senate in Missouri, he got money from Enron. I think, you know, as these congressional investigations go forward, one of the first things that needs to happen is that any congressperson or senator that's going to question these folks at Enron needs to stand up and say publicly whether or not they took any money from Enron.
I'm not sure the American people know how many people in Congress are actually...
O'BRIEN: You got to wonder if there's anybody in Washington who didn't get a check from Enron, Armstrong. I mean, it's amazing.
ARMSTRONG: Absolutely.
(CROSS TALK)
ARMSTRONG: There was an article this week that even Senator Joe Lieberman was on the take.
RILEY: Oh yes.
ARMSTRONG: And his newspaper, the Hartford (UNINTELLIGIBLE), is giving him a hard time. Prince Charles took over a million dollars for his fund, his charity. I mean, everybody's on the take, that's why it's so very difficult to find someone with integrity and who has no holes in their clothing to come forth and say, "Listen, I'm a man of integrity. I did not take one dime, and we're going to investigate this to its fullest." But the other thing that we're not talking about is how we've set up a society where they believe that you can play the stock market and you're going to get rich overnight.
Somebody buys this stock, Enron, at $5 a share and your employer matches that stock and then the stock shoots up to $90 a share and you assume that you're a millionaire. But the only thing you've ever invested was your $5 per share. A lot of these corporations are forced to lie and manipulate...
O'BRIEN: Forced (UNINTELLIGIBLE)?
RILEY: I don't know about being forced to lie. They're lying because they want to make money.
O'BRIEN: Who's making them lie, Armstrong?
RILEY: Nobody's holding a gun to them making them lie.
ARMSTRONG: Their shareholders -- their shareholders. Come on, man. There's a lot of pressure in corporate America to cook these books to make sure that it looks as though they're making a profit. But people out there have to understand that there are risks involved with playing the stock market.
O'BRIEN: But wait a minute.
ARMSTRONG: At some point, people like ourselves have to take responsibility.
(CROSS TALK)
O'BRIEN: Armstrong, let's get this straight. Are you an apologist for Enron here?
ARMSTRONG: No, no, no. Not at all, no.
O'BRIEN: OK (UNINTELLIGIBLE) forced to lie.
RILEY: Look, if corporations can't make money without cooking the books or can't satisfy their shareholders, they shouldn't be public corporations. It's as simple as that.
ARMSTRONG: It's not that simple, though.
RILEY: State private, state family-owned or whatever, don't...
O'BRIEN: All right, but having said all that...
RILEY: ... (UNINTELLIGIBLE) corporate America has to do this, because not every corporation in America, in fact, does it.
O'BRIEN: Don't you think the system needs reforming? I'm not just talking about the political system here, just the whole way that the SEC governs all of this and the reporting and the way that the auditing goes on. Clearly, that's a sick system.
WILLIAMS: It's an argument, clearly, for campaign finance reform. I think it's absolutely time to have a serious discussion of campaign finance reform, to take a look at this accounting system that is set up, because these people are running rampant. I think the government -- I can't believe I'm saying this as a conservative -- we need more regulation from the government because these people are out of control. Innocent people are losing their fortunes, they're losing their healthcare, they're losing their homes. And something must be done.
O'BRIEN: All right. Wait a minute, Armstrong Williams, on February 3rd said he needed more government regulation. I just wanted to write that down, right? We got the tape rolling folks?
RILEY: Yeah, I want to write that down too. But you know, what, though? The larger issue here is one of greed, on the one hand.
WILLIAMS: Yes.
RILEY: It's also a matter of government being in a situation where incumbent politicians believe it is in their best interest to continue the campaign finance system that we have.
O'BRIEN: All right. We're running out of time here. I want to get quickly -- a quick assessment of the State of the Union address. Armstrong, you go first.
WILLIAMS: Oh, it was absolutely tremendous, as many of the American people responded. The president talked about the economy, he talked about terrorism, he talked about compassion, he talked about the military, he talked about heroes. Everybody was included in that speech. It's just so amazing seeing the transformation of President George Bush. He's not the same person that he was a year ago this time.
O'BRIEN: Mark, would you go along with that?
RILEY: No, absolutely not. He seems to me to be exactly the same person he was a year ago. I just -- you know, I -- he leaves me cold, and this is just a personal judgment of, you know, his Sate of the Union and many of the other speeches. I just don't see an overarching vision here for the future of the country. I know he perhaps tried to articulate it, but I didn't hear it.
O'BRIEN: All right. All right, gentlemen. Finally, before we get away, some Super Bowl prognostications from you, please. Armstrong?
WILLIAMS: The Super Bowl needs to be played on grass. It is such an advantage for the St. Louis Rams playing that game on 100 percent turf (ph). We need to go back to the days of the 60s and 70s and play that game on grass and make it more even.
O'BRIEN: There he goes with more government regulation. You want to...
(CROSS TALK)
RILEY: That is regulation, Armstrong. That's definitely regulation.
WILLIAMS: You agree?
O'BRIEN: All right. Mark, what do you think?
RILEY: Rams by a little bit. I think the Rams have to get off early. If they don't, this is going to be a very, very close game. They played before, the Rams only won by a touchdown. This is going to be a closer game than a lot of people think.
WILLIAMS: Really?
RILEY: Yes.
WILLIAMS: On grass in New England, come on now.
(CROSS TALK)
RILEY: On grass in New England there would have been a pass that ended up being a fumble. It was called an incomplete pass, just like when my team the Raiders played the Patriots a couple of weeks back.
WILLIAMS: The Rams will win by 13 points.
O'BRIEN: All right, gentlemen. I think we agreed on that one. Both of you think the Rams will win. All right.
RILEY: Yeah, but I only say a field goal.
O'BRIEN: All right.
WILLIAMS: OK, we'll give that to him.
O'BRIEN: Now remember, gentlemen, no wagering please. All right. Armstrong Williams...
RILEY: Yeah, no betting.
O'BRIEN: ... Mark Riley, good to have you with us and we'll see you again soon.
WILLIAMS: Thank you.
O'BRIEN: Thanks for joining us this morning on CNN SUNDAY MORNING.
RILEY: All right.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
