Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Talkback Live

What is the Bush Administration's Policy on the Middle East?

Aired April 01, 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.
ARTHEL NEVILLE, HOST: Lively crowd. Hello everybody welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville. Israel has upped the ante in the Middle East declaring war on terror following what has been a relentless campaign of suicide bombings, six in as many days, the last one just hours ago at a busy intersection in Jerusalem.

Now some members of Congress want the president to take more action. Is it up to us to the U.S. to settle the violence? If you could, what advice would you give President Bush? I want to hear from you on that. Here's the number 1-800-310-4CNN, or e-mail me; TALKBACK LIVE at CNN.com.

Now let's go to Jerusalem where we are joined by CNN's Bill Hemmer -- Bill.

BILL HEMMER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Arthel good evening. What a day this has been. The events have been so quickly unfolding. It was just about 2 hours and 25 minutes ago behind my right shoulder over, across the city of Jerusalem about 4 or 5 blocks a large explosion was heard. The end result, Arthel, was a car essentially blowing up at a check point. Israel police tell us that the car looked somewhat suspicious and as police approached it, the explosion occurred. One person inside is dead. A police officer on the Israeli side is seriously injured as a result of that.

Not quite clear, Arthel, what the intent was for the driver in there, but were some indications through the Israeli police that it may have been a suicide bombing that was simply thwarted again in Jerusalem.

Meanwhile in Ramallah, another violent scene again today. Remember this is the town in the West Bank where Yasser Arafat right now has been holed up inside the compound for four days running. The images captured by CNN photographer Margaret Mob show quite a violent scene there.

Israeli soldiers on the outside firing at this building on the inside. Palestinian gunmen suspected on the inside. And not only did the bullets continue to fly but larger explosions soon followed. Gives you an example of what has happened there in Ramallah. That has been essentially a flash point in the Middle East for four days running.

Also in Ramallah, Israel now confirms right now -- the government, anyway -- that 700 detainees have been apprehended in Ramallah alone. Again this was a number we were trying to obtain throughout the day and just a short time ago we were told 700 is the number right now, but again that could go higher.

Last night Ariel Sharon in an address to the Israeli people says the purpose in part for this operation is to find what Israel considers suspected terrorist and again, this is parts of it with this detainee sweep that we are seeing right now. Earlier this morning, though, we did see tanks roll into Qalqilia a West Bank town that sits along the green line that separates the West Bank from Israel proper, about 100 tanks rolled in there. We are told water was cut, electricity was cut. Then a short time ago another town known as Tulkarem apparently the escalation does continue in terms of the widening offensive here on behalf of the Israeli military. Tanks going into that town as well.

I can tell you, Arthel, that a lot of people right now have put the talk of a cease-fire behind them because given the events we are seeing it's unclear right now whether Anthony Zinni truly will have any chance at even putting a dent into this operation. It apparently has some momentum right now that has no signs of slowing -- Arthel.

NEVILLE: Bill, there's talk on this side that perhaps someone of the stature of Colin Powell should go over there and help ease the situation. Have you heard anything of that such on your end?

HEMMER: Yes. A lot of people are talking about it but to be frank a lot of people also on the U.S. side shooting down that possibility. Some questions today at the White House about it, but they are saying right now that is not going to be the case. It won't happen.

What is important, though, on the U.S. side is that Anthony Zinni is here on the third trip. The White House absolutely insisted they will not pull him out of here. To do so would cause the U.S. to lose some face in the region. They say he will continue to forge forward and work towards some sort of cease-fire. We do have indications Arthel, there is communication at some level with Anthony Zinni and the Israelis on one side and the Palestinians on the other.

But frankly whether he's having any success is a bit difficult to measure right now and based on the events that we are seeing on the ground it appears right now that that's success is extremely limited.

NEVILLE: Any idea of if or when the Israeli troops will leave Arafat's compound?

HEMMER: No. Quite frank with you, we were asking that question over the weekend. Some people said days. Some people said weeks. I heard today from the mayor of Jerusalem, he said the operation may last as long as two months and if you can imagine day one today extending that over the next several days and weeks just how incredibly bloody this entire region may be.

Again, some people think the Israelis are simply trying to wear Yasser Arafat down, make him tired. There has been talk about deporting him. Sending him into exile. All that stuff is talk right now. It's unclear what happens to Yasser Arafat inside that compound but he does remain there with several other people inside still.

NEVILLE: Bill, during a live exclusive interview here on CNN Friday Christiane Amanpour spoke with Arafat, he told her he was very upset he said listen, I can't do anything because my hands are tied with this current stand-off. Any word on that from your end?

HEMMER: Yes. Here's what we are hearing. On the Palestinian side they are saying the intent of the Israeli government is to isolate Arafat and essentially take him out and remove him from the current picture. From the Israeli side they say they are just trying to isolate Arafat so that they can carry out the rest of the operation.

They continue to say that he's irrelevant, but then again when asked whether or not if someone else would step in Arafat's place and become some sort of negotiator for the Palestinians, there are no public names given by the Israelis. It does not appear that there can be any talk or any negotiations between these two sides unless Yasser Arafat is involved in it. For right now it appears that contact is amazingly limited right now, Arthel.

NEVILLE: Bill Hemmer, live in Jerusalem. Thank you for the update.

We are going to take a break right now. President Bush is under a lot of pressure at the White House saying that he should get involved a little bit more. If you were the president and in his shoes what would you do? Let me know. I'm at 81800-310-4CNN. Or e- mail me: TALKBACK@cnn.com. We will check in with the White House right after this.

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: Welcome back, everybody. The pressure is on President Bush to take a more active role to end the violence in the Middle East. Mr. Bush has called on Yasser Arafat to condemn the suicide bombings and ask Ariel Sharon to lead a path way to peace. CNN White House correspondent Major Garrett joins us now with the latest reaction from the Bush Administration -- Major.

MAJOR GARRETT, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Arthel, you summarized the events to date. Let me give you a couple other new points that are really crucial to understanding the direction of the story at least as far as the Bush Administration is concerned.

An interesting pronouncement from Ari Fleischer the White House press secretary this morning at the White House. In a series of questions the White House made it clear that the Bush doctrine on terrorism, that is the doctrine that says if you harbor a terrorist or give aid or comfort to a terrorist and you are a terrorist yourself, and will receive the full justice of the U.S. government once it turns its attention to you -- well, that Bush doctrine does not apply at least as it relates to the Israelis and Palestinians.

Why? Ari Fleischer says that's because the Israelis and Palestinians have agreed to a peace process, and even though the Israeli government has branded Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian Authority chairman, as an enemy of the state and believe he is the proximate cause of so many of these suicide bombing attacks in recent days, the Bush Administration says not only is Yasser Arafat a negotiating partner in good standing, but that he can do more to reduce the suicide bombings, but that he himself in his leadership of the Palestinian movement has been undermined by the recent suicide bombings.

That is certainly not the interpretation of the Israeli government. They don't believe he has been undermined at all. They believe he has been an agitator. Secondarily, Arthel, the Bush Administration made it clear today that Anthony Zinni, the president's personal envoy will remain his point person in the region and he is not giving any active consideration to elevating the status of his lead negotiator in the region.

That means no trip by secretary of state Colin Powell to the region which many in the Arab world have asked for and even some Republicans and Democrats in the United States Senate over the weekend called on the Bush Administration to do. That's basically the latest on the Bush Administration policy as things develop and move forward in the Middle East.

NEVILLE: Major, if you can standby for a second I'll open up to audience questions for you. We have Marcus (ph).

MARCUS: I want to know, is Yasser Arafat a terrorist or is he with the United States and he wants to promote peace for the United States and for the rest of the countries?

GARRETT: It's an excellent question and it's one we try to put to the White House today. How can on one hand Yasser Arafat be someone who is the leader of a Palestinian movement that has many factions and yet the factions, at least some of them keep sponsoring suicide bombing attacks on Israel be a negotiating partner in good standing. The administration reaction is; he signed the peace accords. He's committed to a process, a path toward peace. Therefore we are going to stay with him as the leader of the Palestinian movement.

I think what you can interpret from that is the administration has concluded, there are no better alternatives to Yasser Arafat. That is not exactly the conclusion the Israeli government has come to, but because the United States is such a central player in this, the U.S. government's opinion matters and now it stands that Yasser Arafat is someone the United States wants to continue to work with.

There was actually an interesting piece of phraseology from Ari Fleischer today. He said the path to peace leads through Yasser Arafat. Not exactly the interpretation shared by the Israeli government.

NEVILLE: Rona (ph), from New Jersey has a question.

RONA: I'm just curious about what the White House thinks of Sharon's policy of containing Arafat. How is that going to help the process moving forward?

GARRETT: Another very good question. I tried to get at that at the White House briefing today. I said you know, Ari, two weeks ago from this very podium, President Bush said that much more limited Israeli military activity in the occupied territories was, quote/unquote, not helpful. I said what about what's going on now, what about the siege of Yasser Arafat and other military incursions throughout the occupied territories? Are they helpful? Ari Fleischer wouldn't take the bait.

All he said is that the U.S. government urges the Israeli government to be mindful of the consequences of military activities and to try to keep in mind that as it acts militarily in justifiable self-defense, that it has to figure out a way to keep the pathway to peace open. That's a completely undefined criterion for the Bush Administration. There is no time limit on when the Israeli government should withdraw from Ramallah, no time limit when all these other Israeli defense forces activities should cease, so all the White House will say is, try to be mindful, try to be helpful to pursue peace. But that's certainly not what is going on on the ground in the occupied territories.

NEVILLE: Major, thanks for answering these questions. I do have one final question here from John, from Michigan. Your question is?

JOHN: What would it take to send Colin Powell to Israel?

GARRETT: What it would probably take, John, is a sense from the Bush Administration that there was something for Colin Powell to actually ratify. That the two sides had reached an agreement, a cease fire that would be implementable and with conditions that both sides would agree to, sign on a dotted line.

The administration does not want to repeat what it perceives to have been the mistakes of the Clinton Administration, which is to have very high level people involved in the ongoing negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians on a minute by minute basis. They want the Israelis and the Palestinians to commit themselves to a peace process and when they have something to agree upon, bring in a closer, if you will, Colin Powell, or final settlement agreement on all political issues, the ultimate closer would be President Bush.

But until that kind of closing situation presents itself, the administration wants to work through slightly lower ranking envoys, in this case Anthony Zinni to get things done because they want to withhold or retain the authority of the U.S. government, the clout of the U.S. government for the ultimate moment when an agreement is reached and not dissipate it trying to reach an agreement.

They want to stay there and keep the big boys reserved for a time to close the deal instead of trying to constantly hour by hour coax the two sides to a deal. NEVILLE: Major Garrett, thank you very much. I know were you not expecting those audience questions. Thank you for fielding those.

GARRETT: My pleasure.

NEVILLE: And with us now is Rich Galen, a political columnist. He is former press secretary to Dan Quayle and Newt Gingrich. His Web site address is mullings.com, is that correct, sir? Your e-mail address.

RICH GALEN, COLUMNIST: That's right, Arthel.

NEVILLE: Also with us is CROSSFIRE's Paul Begala, former adviser to President Clinton. And Paul joins us from the new CROSSFIRE set at Gorge Washington University. Looking good over there.

PAUL BEGALA, HOST, CROSSFIRE: We love it. Thanks, Arthel.

NEVILLE: Good. Welcome to both of you. Rich Galen, I would like to ask you, is the White House sending mixed messages?

GALEN: Before I start, I want to wish Paul and my back-door neighbor James Carville the best of luck tonight in the relaunch of CROSSFIRE. Paul and I have done a lot of TV together and I think you will be great.

BEGALA: Thanks a lot, Rich. In fact, let me plug you right now. We want to have you come on so we can have a little left right debate on CROSSFIRE as well.

NEVILLE: It's a love fest. It's great.

GALEN: Let me tell you. Here's what is going on. This is a situation which didn't begin yesterday, it didn't begin 5,000 years ago either, as people like to say. It really started in the immediate post World War II era and since 1948 we have had 10 administrations, this is the 11th, that have had this in their lap and tried to come up with some kind of solution. And it has been intractable.

I gave Bill Clinton great credit on its president when he used a lot of political capital, a lot of domestic political capital to try to get these people to agree to some kind of long-term settlement, and Bill Clinton couldn't do it and he, remember, he stuck everybody out at the Aspen Institute at (UNINTELLIGIBLE) for weeks to try to get a solution, and it couldn't happen. So I think what the administration here is trying to do, and I'll stop filibustering...

NEVILLE: We'll let Paul jump in. So I don't have to cut you off.

GALEN: Let me just make this last point. What they are trying to do is to make sure all sides understand, not the Palestinians because they are what they are, but the Saudis and Jordanians and everyone else understand that we have not decided to close the door on anybody, that anybody who has a good idea the administration is willing to listen to. NEVILLE: Paul, is the White House sending mixed messages?

BEGALA: They plainly are. We have an incoherent Middle East policy. I say this as someone who sports President Bush on the war in Afghanistan. But I think in the Middle East it's time to call it what it is, which is incoherent.

Here's why. Within hours, the president of the United States, theoretically the leader of our country and our foreign policy gave a statement at Crawford, Texas where he seemed to endorse the incursion of Israeli tanks into the West Bank as legitimate self-defense. A position I actually happen to hold.

At the same time he was supporting a United Nations resolution that attacked those incursions and called for a withdrawal. Either the United States thinks it's legitimate for a Democratic free government in Israel to defend itself against terrorism like we did in Afghanistan, or he thinks it's wrong and he is going to side with the terrorists who are trying to kill as many Israelis through the suicide bombings as they can.

NEVILLE: I know you guys can keep going, but I'll Ed here speak.

ED: I would like to agree with what Rich said before about the background of this whole thing that it has been going on and on and on for a lot of years. I would like to suggest that we break off attempting to talk to either of the sides and have the president convene a group of nations, 5 or 6, and come up with a decree, just like a court would come up with a decree after it has collected all of the facts.

And we have collected all of the facts over these years. We have seen what each side contends. We have heard everything from each side just like it would be a trial where a court has heard both sides. The time has come for a decree to be handed down from a high court, from a judge or from a convening 5 or 6 countries who will formulate through the State Departments or their leaders a basic order, so to speak, a decree saying to the countries saying this is what you are going to do and we are going to enforce it and we are going to put teeth in this decree and call an end to this because it is just going on and on and on.

NEVILLE: Thank you, Ed, for your comments. And actually right now what I'd like to do right now is pull up an e-mail and read that to you at this moment. If we can pull that up. I think someone sharing those sentiments. Alex in Georgia. "Mid east violence won't stop unless the Palestinians get a homeland of their own. Israel's reluctance to quit occupying Palestinian areas is the cause of violence."

And to my guests, Rich, Paul, that's a great point. And Ed over there is talking about a peace agreement, but I think that is what at the heart of the problem.

BEGALA: What's at the heart of the problem though, Arthel, is I think you need three things to have peace there. You need an Israel that is willing to recognize a Palestinian state and we have one. You need a United States that is deeply engaged and can guarantee to be the good faith third party arbiter between the two. We had that under Clinton, we don't have that any more under Bush. Third, you need Palestinians who are willing to recognize the legitimate need for Israel to live in peace, secure and defensible borders. We don't have that with Yasser Arafat.

The one constant, Rich talked about going back to the second world war, the one constant has been Yasser Arafat, who was a terrorist who was brought to the brink of peace and Palestinian statehood with a Capitol in east Jerusalem by Bill Clinton and Ehud Barak, the Israeli prime minister, and even walked away from that. So I think there is very little doubt that Arafat is the man who is going to condemn his people to terrorism rather than search for the state that he ought to have.

NEVILLE: Stand by for me. I have to take a break. I want you at home to think about how involved you want the U.S. to get in the Middle East conflict. We'll talk about that up next. Don't go anywhere.

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: Welcome back. We are talking with Rich Galen and Paul Begala about what, if anything, the U.S. should do to settle the violence in the Middle East. I'll let each of you answer that quickly because I want to get some audience involved. Go ahead and start. Rich, go ahead.

GALEN: Well, I want to make, say something about something Paul mentioned before the break. When the Clinton Administration presented a sophisticated approach to try to solve this, Paul considered that a good thing. When the Bush Administration is trying to come up with a nuanced approach, he considers that to be incoherent. I saw Sandy Berger over the weekend, Paul, and I thought he was pretty honest about the complexities that everybody is facing and I didn't, I didn't get that he thought that incoherent approach.

NEVILLE: Quick response.

BEGALA: He must have missed what President Bush did over the weekend because I saw it. It's a complex problem and I think the president needs to deal with it as a complex problem instead of abandoning it, walking away, going off to chop wood or whatever the hell he does at Crawford, Texas. He comes out -- same day, Rich, we all saw this -- that the U.S. support a U.S. resolution that said it was wrong for Israel to defend itself in the West Bank. Bush said it was OK.

Let me finish. At the same time Bush said it's OK for Sharon to send tanks in the West Bank. He has his envoy to the U.N. vote with the Israel haters of the U.N. in favor of a resolution that criticizes Israel for that incursion. Either it's incursion is justified, which I believe it is, or it is not. NEVILLE: All right, here I come, jumping in because Vivian for Virginia is going to speak now. Vivian, your advice?

VIVIAN: Well, I personally feel like President Bush should be more active and take an aggressive role in the leadership and to send troops over there and intervene because Israel is simply fighting for their homeland. It's always been an age long battle for Israel and Arafat has tried to show that Israel is the aggressor and they haven't been.

They have tried to make peace. And I personally think he would like the Arabs to get behind him and the idea that that is not the case. And the word of God says whoever blesses Israel that God is going to bless. We need to protect and preserve and help our allies rather than not support them in their time of need.

(APPLAUSE)

NEVILLE: Thank you, Vivian. Anyone would like to respond to that. Agree or disagree with what Vivian just said? Ted, I am coming over to you. Please stand up.

TED: Yes. I'm 100 percent against sending troops to Israel. Israel knows how to handle this situation. They have been through it before. I think Arafat speak was a forked tongue. He doesn't want peace. I think all the Arab nations want Israel out of the Middle East and I don't think we should send troops there because we are spread very thin right now. We have troops in Korea, we have troops in the Philippines. We have called up our guard to guard our airports for security. We have guards at the bridges and they have even talked about discontinuing the flights over New York City for security, and sending troops to Israel would be a very wrong thing.

NEVILLE: Thank you very much, Ted. Thank you for the comments. Rich Galen I'm out of time, but I wanted to thank you so much for joining us here today.

GALEN: Thank you, Arthel.

NEVILLE: Any time. Come back.

And Paul, before you go, quickly tell us about the new CROSSFIRE. What will you be talking about tonight?

BEGALA: Of course the Middle East. I wish it were a lighter topic and have more fun, but we will have the Senate majority leader, Tom Daschle of South Dakota, and we will be giving him from the right and the left the third degree about the Middle East and what the Senate should do and what the United States should do, but we will be doing it in this new set, I don't know if you can see it...

NEVILLE: Oh, yes, we are showing it now and it is a little swanky swanker than the TALKBACK set. What's up with that?

BEGALA: Oh, it's great. Like you all, we will have a live audience and we'll be able to interact with them, which will be an awful lot of fun. And it will be a hour-long format. Now whether they, even an hour, they can contain all of my hot air and James Carville's is kind of going to remain to be seen, Arthel.

NEVILLE: I have a feeling that the people won't get a chance to speak. You all will do all the talking.

BEGALA: That's a distinct possibility.

NEVILLE: Anyway, Paul, thanks so much for joining us. And, of course, we'll be watching you. As they say, break a leg.

And right now, we're going to break for the news. We'll see you after the update.

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NEVILLE (voice-over): Coming up on TALKBACK LIVE: A dress for success book enrages a salesman who says the advice is racist. You are going to meet him. And find out what the book advises in the chapter titled "When Blacks and Hispanics Sell to Whites and Vice Versa."

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(APPLAUSE)

NEVILLE: All right. Welcome back everybody to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville.

OK, let's say you and a co-worker showed up wearing a lavender shirt, both of you, right, and you joke and say, oh, I see you got the memo, right? You have done that before.

Well, there is a book by John T. Malloy that's been advising people for years about what to wear to work and what to avoid if you want to succeed in corporate America. But, when Shawn Brooks' boss gave him a copy of the new "Dress For Success" book, Brooks didn't find it funny at all. In fact, he got so mad, he quit his job and he sued.

And Shawn Brooks is joining us from Philadelphia along with his attorney, Tom Holland. And Shawn, if you can hear me, good afternoon to you.

SHAWN BROOKS, PLANTIFF: Good afternoon.

NEVILLE: Shawn, when you read this book -- your boss gave it to you. You read it. What did you think?

BROOKS: Initially, I couldn't believe that in this day and age, someone would actually, especially a company like Viacom, would actually distribute a book like this to their employees as a training manual.

NEVILLE: Yes, but come on. Don't be so politically correct here, Shawn. You read this book. You are suing. You are mad. Tell me what you thought when you read this book?

BROOKS: I think you have jumped to the suing part very quickly. Actually, what happened when I couldn't get anyone in management to direct me to human resources, which was actually based in New York City -- I'm in Philadelphia. I didn't know that until some three weeks later, that's when I resigned. So it wasn't me just reading the book. If they had actually been forthright in saying we are not going to sweep this under the carpet, we are going to open the door and sweep it out, it wouldn't have never came this far.

NEVILLE: Oh, I understand. So then, that's a good point you make there. You know what? I want to share with the audience right now a couple of excerpts from the book so we can understand what we are talking about here, because it says -- one chapter, "When Blacks and Hispanics Sell to Whites and Vice Versa", quote: "Blacks selling to whites should not wear Afro hairstyles or any clothing that is African in association. If you're selling to corporate America, it is very important that you dress not as well as the white salesman, but better than them."

And then moving on to the next graphic regarding Hispanics, it advises Hispanics to "avoid any hair tonic that tends to give a greasy or shiny look to the hair. This also triggers a negative reaction."

You pointed out these excerpts to your bosses and they said what to you?

BROOKS: Actually, nothing. Basically, you mentioned some statements but they weren't the ones that really, really, I guess, hit home with me. The statements regarding most blacks being anti- establishment as well as don't dress as a ghetto black man selling to middle-class blacks. They were the statements that really, I guess, set home because you start -- I guess the author started to group just an entire race of people into an anti-establishment group.

But any way, I did contact an administrator. I felt as though as insulting as it was, I just wanted to follow company protocol and speak to someone in human resources. Actually, I got the runaround and, in essence, had the managers and directors who actually gave me the book calling me with the -- like secretively calling me when they never did before. And they had nothing to do with the hiring process as far as human resources was concerned.

NEVILLE: Gilbert from California, your thoughts?

GILBERT: I just have a comment about advertising to all audiences. Adidas, Sprite, they seem to enjoy advertising with famous basketball player Kobe Bryant. And it seems that no matter who purchases his -- whether it be his shoes or, you know, I have seen that new Sprite commercial, he wears his Afro or -- I'm not sure if he wears African clothing -- but I think that his look or his appeal is very, very profitable to not only Sprite, but Adidas as well.

NEVILLE: So what is your point here?

GILBERT: Just that the way that advertisers use African- Americans should not be -- I think, the person's book is an opinion and I believe that with the advertisers...

NEVILLE: So it doesn't offend you if someone says that most blacks do this and most blacks dress this way and you shouldn't show up -- in fact, your hair would be inappropriate?

GILBERT: Yes, I believe that that...

NEVILLE: Mine too, for that matter.

GILBERT: I just believe that that's the author's opinion, and that no company, I mean -- I believe that the company itself, they were -- if Viacom was to give this individual his book to read that the author's opinion is based on -- is going to show the view of this company.

NEVILLE: OK. Thanks, first of all, Gilbert.

What I want to do now is bring in Michael Smerconish. Michael is a columnist with the Philadelphia newspaper and the "Philadelphia Daily News", that is. And, Michael, you have been listening to this conversation here. What do you make of all of this?

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, COLUMNIST: Much to do about nothing, Arthel. And I say that because the statements in the Malloy book which, by the way, came out 14 years ago and there hasn't been a controversy since.

BROOKS: That's not very long ago.

SMERCONISH: They are stupid statements and you really can't defend them. But I think it's all about crass salesmanship and not about racism. And I have got a hunch, I have got a hunch that some colleague of Shawn Brooks, because he's a pretty well dressed fellow, as you can see on camera right now.

I suspect that someone who worked with him was a poor dresser, so the manager comes in, hands out a copy of this book to everybody who is a part of the sales force and says, you know, we have all got to dress well. And now, he turns around and he quits and he said, well that's racism. The issue is did the book create a hostile work environment, those four pages out of 400 pages? And the answer to that no.

NEVILLE: But, Michael, those are four crucial pages, and what Shawn is saying is that the book didn't just say, OK, we all have to dress appropriately. It specifically targeted black people and Hispanic and it made some pretty derogatory remarks.

SMERCONISH: Well, it targeted others as well. I mean, it had comments about women, Arthel, that are reprehensible and about Jews as well. But, you know what? There's a uniform for doing business and I don't think that you are being racist to talk about wearing the uniform. I mean, look at us. We're on television. You look good today. I'm wearing a tie. You know, Shawn Brooks is wearing a tie. It's closing the deal.

NEVILLE: Mike?

MIKE: Well, I think in the corporate world you need to portray a certain kind of image. And I think by Shawn Brooks taking such offense to a four-page excerpt in a book that probably centered whites just as well as they did blacks and other minorities. I think he's causing more damage to racial tensions in this country by making this stand and by making this case and by going on TV and doing this right now.

NEVILLE: Shawn, I would like to you respond to that quickly and then, I'm going to take a break. What are your thoughts, Shawn?

BROOKS: Actually, back to Michael. It doesn't take for a hostile situation or environment. It only takes an individual to say something to you or call you a derogatory name. Even Michael wants to change his whole view of how the company perceives certain individuals. And for me being the only African-American account exec, it's only me.

Now, with the statements about Jewish people, it was one statement and it was very -- I have a ton of Jewish friends -- and saying, when selling to Jewish people, don't wear brown. That in itself is ridiculous, but then it moved on to cover other races. It did not get into calling any particular other group anti- establishment. Those four pages cut just as if, you know, they were swords. It's that simple. I can't understand how someone can say OK, you are making a big to do about nothing.

SMERCONISH: Well, my concern, Shawn is that...

NEVILLE: OK, hang on guys. I have got to take a break. We definitely want to talk about this when we come back. Don't go anywhere. And, Gwen, I know you are on the line. I'm going to get your call when we come back, OK?

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: (OFF-MIKE) "Dress For Success" book that Shawn Brooks says is racist. And, Michael Smerconish, before the break, you were making a statement. What were you saying, Michael? Can you hear me, Michael?

SMERCONISH: I have to adopt my own wardrobe to different audiences. If I'm trying a case in Philadelphia as a lawyer where I have a minority jury, I might dress a little bit differently than I would in upstate Pennsylvania, where I'm going to have ethnic whites. Now, am I necessarily dressing with a racial animus? I don't think so. It's all about salesmanship. It's as old as time.

NEVILLE: OK. Gwen from Illinois, you're on the air. I'd like to hear your thoughts.

GWEN: Hi. I would just like to say this is just a perfect example of white America trying to make everybody else fit their mold. I mean, I work for a big insurance company and I'm so proud of Shawn for bringing this to the light because people of color, African- Americans, Latino, we should not have to subdue to corporate America. We should be able to bring our culture to the company so that they can add to the company and not have to be like they are.

NEVILLE: Thank you for your comments. And, Tom Holland, haven't heard from you yet. You are Mr. Brooks' attorney. What exactly are you suing for and what do you hope to gain?

TOM HOLLAND, ATTORNEY FOR SHAWN BROOKS: We are suing to have him reinstated in his employment and for money damages also. But the main thrust, our objective, is to have him reinstated in that job. He wants his job back.

NEVILLE: OK. You know what, Tom Holland, there are people in my audience here, they are yelling out that he quit. He quit. So why are you trying to sue to have him reinstated?

HOLLAND: Well, he left the job because his rights under the employment manual were not abided by. He didn't have the opportunity to speak with human resources to air his complaint. He left in protest, it's true. But we call that a constructive discharge. He left under protest.

NEVILLE: Taj (ph)?

TAJ: Yes, my question is this. Being that I'm sure the company had a dress code prior to knowing he was going to take the job. So my question is if knowing that your company had a dress code and it gave you a book, why did you quit and now you want the job back? I don't understand. If you're against it, why would you want to work for the company that you disagreed with? I don't understand that.

BROOKS: Well, actually, I think that...

(APPLAUSE)

... it's off the tangent of what I had been -- my case is actually about certain statements. When you talk about dress code, the way I'm dressed now and I dressed prior to working for the Philadelphia Eagles network, never had a problem with dressing.

My issues were with when you start labeling people anti- establishment. That has nothing to do with dress code. That's about profiling people you don't know. I can look around your audience now and I couldn't tell you where you are from or any other person. So that there, you know, makes no sense. The biggest deal I closed was for close to a quarter million dollars. I actually did it without a tie, and I was selling to white men. So there, it's about knowing your product.

If any of you ever sold, the first thing you should know is everything about your product. Then you can figure out how it works for people and how you can make a match with your services are to those individuals. So I guess the answer to your question, I would love to have my job back because I did it well. You know, it's a career position.

SMERCONISH: Arthel, can I respond to that?

NEVILLE: Go ahead.

SMERCONISH: If we were talking about a situation where Shawn's sales manager brought him in and said, Shawn, the Afro has got to go and the kinte cloth is not an appropriate part of your wardrobe, then I would say he's right to say that this is a case of racism.

But we are not talking about that. We are not talking about the distribution of a best-selling book that is comprised of 400 pages. And one other point I want to make. If you call this racism, it's the boy that cried wolf, because tomorrow when there's real racism, everybody is going to say oh, we have heard it before. And that's the real harm here.

BROOKS: Michael, what is real racism? If you call someone anti- establishment, you know, I really challenge you since they're goofy statements, we are on national television, to take these statements and endorse them yourself.

SMERCONISH: I would never endorse them, but I'm not going to hold a company accountable for a 400-page book.

BROOKS: How can you call them goofy then? Then you make no sense, Michael. You are saying, well, we are not accountable. So, for anybody that does anything wrong, you don't take accountability. I think that's the problem. See, I come from a very diverse family. Maybe, Michael, you don't. I have white first cousins. I have white, Latino, an Asian fiance. And for me, I know what offensive is. I just use a simple rule that I do unto others as I would choose to have done to me.

SMERCONISH: I live by that same rule, Shawn. But I'm telling you...

NEVILLE: Nick from Nebraska.

NICK: Other than those four pages that you seem to disagree with, is there any part of the book that you did agree with?

BROOKS: Actually, those four pages was enough to make me change my view about the entire book. Really, when you say do I agree with any -- anything, really, I felt as though in reading the book and getting to that point, everything else was nullified because I just felt like I couldn't agree with this individual at all.

You know, if it made statements about anyone other than myself in the same magnitude -- I actually read on to see, well, if it talks about just about everyone else in this same fierce way, then I wouldn't have an issue. You know, I would actually take and, you know, go to human resources like I wanted to and say we need to toss this book out.

NEVILLE: So, Shawn, had they responded in HR, then we wouldn't even be here today, is what you're saying?

BROOKS: Absolutely.

NEVILLE: OK. Shawn Brooks, Tom Holland and Michael Smerconish, thank you all for joining me here today.

And up next, your chance to speak up or shut up. I'll be checking those e-mails to see what you are saying. So get busy. Back in a moment.

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: All you Indiana and Maryland fans in here. All right, it's time to speak up or shut up. And I have gone through the mail bag to find your comments about the fighting in the Mideast.

Here's a thoughtful question from Faris in Washington: "Who should be held responsible for the next suicide bombing, an Arafat under siege or a Sharon who provoked it? Occupation breeds hatred, despair, violence and terrorism."

And Robert, Monroe, Michigan says: "Had these Palestinian terrorists attacked the U.S., do you think we would have responded any differently? It is time the media recognizes that these terrorists are part of an organized military campaign."

Addy in Florida says she's on the side of the Palestinians. She says -- all right, we are going to pass on that one and we're going to go to Dan in New Hampshire: "If the United States wants to go on record as being pro-democracy and anti-terrorism, it must stand with Israel."

While John in Ontario comments: "The Palestinians and Israelis can sit down and talk or they can kill thousands of both of their people, and then sit down and talk. Who dies? Jewish boys and girls out for a dinner or a dance and Palestinian boys and girls in the streets."

OK. Now a couple of comments on Friday's show and whether college basketball has anything to do with education. David in Arkansas says: "For those without NBA futures, college is great. But we need to stop pretending that a college degree is worth more than a multi-million dollar contract."

But in the opinion of Daniel from North Carolina, he says -- oh, I just read that. OK. That's it. Done with the e-mails people, OK. That is going to do it for today. I want to thank all of you Indiana and Maryland people for showing up.

(APPLAUSE)

NEVILLE: Who is going to win? Who is going to win? We'll find out. All right, everybody.

Thanks so much for joining me. I'm Arthel Neville. And I'll be back again tomorrow, 3:00 Eastern, that's noon Pacific, with more of TALKBACK LIVE. We're going to try to get into the kind of a suicide bomber. They are so young. Why do they do it? You don't want to miss that. That is going to be quite interesting. I'll see you then.

And right now, we are going to go to Judy Woodruff with a look at what's ahead on "INSIDE POLITICS." Thanks everybody.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com