Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Talkback Live

Robert Blake Arrested For Murder of Wife; Is There Anything U.S. Can Do About Middle East Crisis?

Aired April 19, 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: That works. I like that. Hello everybody. Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville.

As you can hear by the applause here, it is Free-For-All Friday. We have some new faces on our panel today, enough topics to fill two hours and we have got some e-mails yesterday I want to address. Now I know you want to get in on all of this fun, right? So give me a call at 1-800-310-4CNN or e-mail talkback@CNN.com.

OK, get ready, here's what we are doing today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(voice-over): Actor Robert Blake under arrest for killing his wife.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They have these two people who have come forward and say that Mr. Blake tried to hire them to kill his wife.

NEVILLE: Blake says he's not the real killer.

Also, Secretary of State Colin Powell returns from the Mideast empty-handed.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: This is a part of the world where killing has been going on for a long, long time. And one trip by the secretary of state is not going to prevent that from happening.

NEVILLE: Is there anything the U.S. can do?

And the pope orders all American cardinals to the Vatican. What do you think he has to say about the priest sex scandals?

And somebody at Abercrombie & Fitch thought this t-shirt was really clever. So why aren't Asian Americans laughing?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(on camera): OK, everybody, let's meet today's panel. Mike Siegel is a radio talk show host with Premier Radio Networks. His busy schedule includes a weekend program on KIRO in Seattle. Kellyanne Conway is Republican Pollster and President of The Polling Company and Woman Trend in Washington. Ed Tyll is a syndicated radio talk show host, based in Portland. And Karel Bouley is a talk show host. He works for KFI Radio in Los Angeles and only goes by one name, so I didn't know the last name.

KAREL BOULEY, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST, KFI RADIO: It's a Cher thing.

NEVILLE: Yes, it's a Cher/Madonna thing. I understand. All right. Let's get started here. We are going to start with murder suspect Robert Blake. He is accused of killing his wife last year. Bonnie Lee Bakley was found shot to death inside the couple's car. The motive? Police say he had contempt for Bonnie Lee Bakley, that he was trapped in a marriage he wanted no part of. Let's get more details now from CNN correspondent Frank Buckley. Frank, are you there?

FRANK BUCKLEY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I am, Arthel.

NEVILLE: All right, Frank, here's a question for you. I was curious as to what prompted authorities to arrest Blake yesterday and why has getting to go this point taken so long?

BUCKLEY: Well, police told us at the news conference last night that they have been looking at Robert Blake as a suspect from very early on. They wanted to get their investigation right. They told us last night that they have interviewed someone 150 witnesses. They had an unprecedented level of travel involved in the investigation. They went to 20 different states. They also had some 900 pieces of evidence to sift through and evaluate. So they had a lot of stuff to look at. They also knew that their primary suspect, Robert Blake, wasn't going anywhere. He was in Los Angeles. There's no Statute of Limitations on murder. They had all the time they needed to get it right. They say there was no key break or anything like that that prompted the arrest now. They were simply ready to move forward.

NEVILLE: How did they know he wasn't going anywhere. Was he mandated to stay in Los Angeles by the police?

BUCKLEY: No. He wasn't mandated to stay. It's not the Wild West where the sheriff can say don't leave town. He just wasn't leaving town. He was known to be in this area. It was known where he was staying. He's represented by an attorney, Harlan Braun, who is someone considered to be reputable in this community, who gave his word that his client was still in the area. So police didn't have a concern of flight.

NEVILLE: All right, Frank, of course, everybody is watching this case. By the way, do you think it's going to turn into another O.J. media frenzy?

BUCKLEY: That's a good question. Last night, it sure seemed that way. But I think this case is not O.J. Robert Blake didn't enjoy the same level of celebrity that O.J. Simpson did. You don't have the racial component that occurred in the Simpson case. And also in that case, what kept the story alive was the fact that there was a television camera in the courtroom. The atmosphere is different now. Judges tend not to allow cameras in their courtrooms, now, on these high profile cases. If that camera doesn't get in for the trial when it comes, I suspect that the level of interest will drop significantly.

NEVILLE: Tell me a little bit about the jail conditions where Robert Blake is at this moment.

BUCKLEY: I just was talking to Robert Hoffman (ph) who is the chief of the custody operations division of the L.A. County Sheriff's Department. He's being held at the Men's Central Jail, the same facility that did hold O.J. Simpson. In fact, he's in the exact same cell that Robert Downey Jr. was in at one point during his troubles. He is in an 8 by 10-foot cell in the old hospital ward section of Men's Central Jail. The actual hospital ward is at the twin towers facility. He has a 9 by 9-inch window in his door. It's not bars; it's a door. He's checked on every 15 minutes. He gets three meals a day. He gets three hours of exercise per week. He doesn't have access to television yet. At some point, they will probably wheel a television in a few hours a day for him to look at. He has access to periodicals and books. He doesn't get a daily newspaper. He's essentially isolated by himself according to the custody operations division, for his protection, because he is such a high profile inmate.

NEVILLE: Frank Buckley, thank you very much for the update. And we'll be watching this case, of course, everybody.

OK, panel. Let's start with you. Karel, I'd like to know, why do you think police took so long to arrest Robert Blake?

BOULEY: Where is that bird when he needs it, right? Come on. Yesterday it was so funny here in L.A. Every 10 minutes, it was breaking news: Robert Blake still not arrested. I think they took a long time because they wanted to get this right. And we have already tried it, all of us, by our water coolers. Oh, he did it. Of course he did it. Now they know that public opinion is that he did it, so they want to make sure that they have their ducks in a row.

NEVILLE: Mike Siegel, what do you think?

MIKE SIEGEL, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST, PREMIER RADIO NETWORKS: I think, obviously, they wanted to be very careful about this. He's absolutely right. This is too high profile of a case. After what happened with O.J. and all of the allegations about miss-handling of evidence, they didn't want to mess with this. And as there is no Statute of Limitations on murder, it was obvious that they could take the time they needed. Blake wasn't going anywhere. They have him now, and I think they have probably got a very strong case. And I think it's going to be very interesting to go see what happens with this case, too.

NEVILLE: Kellyanne, what do you think will happen?

KELLYANNE CONWAY, REPUBLICAN POLLSTER: The main thing I'll be focusing on next week is whether or not Robert Blake is denied or granted bail because one can argue that he is somewhat of a flight risk now, even though, as your reporter said, he has pretty much stayed in the L.A. area since the murder, he is a flight risk now, perhaps, because he has opportunity to flee. And one can argue he has had opportunity to plan such fleeing for the last year or so. He also is a man of some resources anyhow. I don't know how much. But he has time; he has money; and he is able to flee. And I think the circumstances that surround this case, mainly because it's not just a murder charge, but also solicitation of murder, which is very different from the O.J. trial from the beginning - that probably can all add up to him being in a little bit more trouble than may seem right now.

NEVILLE: Ed, what do you think about all of this?

ED TYLL, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST, Well, Arthel, I think maybe the most important issue that will come out of this case is not whether or not Robert Blake is guilty - certainly that will be the concern of the court - but the biggest consequence of the O.J. trial was what does the public make of the justice system. Is there confidence in a system that can sift through evidence under the law and reach a truthful conclusion based on a great degree of legalism along the way? So perhaps the reason that it took as long as it did to file actual charges against Robert Blake is not just to secure his conviction from the prosecution and police side, but to restore some of the confidence that the American people seem to demand in the aftermath of trials like O.J., which left the American people pretty much divided on whether or not the system works.

SIEGEL: Yes, but that probably isn't going to be here because Robert Blake doesn't have the race issue attached to this case. I think the big problem ...

NEVILLE: That's our reporter just said, yes.

SIEGEL: The big issue in that case was the race issue. Johnny Cochran used that very effectively. And there was a lot of conversation about that. This case has nothing to do with race.

TYLL: Mike, I think that's half the story. If you play the race card in comparison to the criminal justice system, you are not telling the whole story. The story of the criminal justice system, I think, for the average American today who supports it, to a great agree, with taxpayer dollars, hard earned money going into that courtroom, they want to know, regardless of race, is it a legitimate search for the truth? Does the conclusion of a criminal trial reflect what really happened? Or does the entry of a high powered legal defense team distort and obscure the truth and derail the system?

NEVILLE: OK. Hang on one second. I don't want to get that technical in the legalities here. Let me let Joe (ph) jump in here for a second. Joe (ph) from Michigan, speak out on TALKBACK LIVE.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I disagree when you say the race card hasn't been played yet because O.J. Simpson, they didn't wait 11 months to indict him. He immediately was brought in. And after you wait almost a year and you say the race card - I don't think I could be accused of murder and be out 11 months in America. BOULEY: But O.J. was on his way down the 5 freeway with a shovel and money under the back. Robert waited in the front.

CONWAY: I'm sorry. I'm sorry.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So was someone waiting at Robert's house to see was he taking a flight to leave the country or anything like? Was he a watched man?

BOULEY: They didn't need to. He was sitting in the front yard in a swing. He was actually almost - he had a school boy there with him

NEVILLE: Oh, oh, oh, we've got the bell. Got to move on guys. OK. Up next, the catholic priest sex scandal reaches Rome, and the pope orders all American cardinals to the Vatican. What does the pope hope to accomplish? Isn't the horse already out of the barn? We'll talk about that after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: Breaking news now, a follow up. The U.S. Attorney General cautions the FBI has unsubstantiated information that terrorist may be considering targeting U.S. banks. We go for more information to Washington, with Kelli Arena. Kelli?

KELLI ARENA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Fredricka. As you said, information has come in to U.S. Intelligence suggesting that there could be a physical attack against U.S. financial institutions. The FBI says that out of an abundance of caution, it is disseminating that information to financial institutions through the northeast. They call the threats unsubstantiated and unspecific and that the group, in the official statement, was not identified. However, sources do tell us that the threat did come from the al Qaeda terrorist network. The information, we are told, did come from a variety of sources, including information from interviews with detainees that have been questioned, as a result of the September 11 investigation. The information has been coming in over the last few days. The states that are involved - I'm sorry, I think we just had a map up - the states that are involved include Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, and the District of Columbia. We did hear a little bit from the Attorney General a little earlier, trying to explain why the information was disseminated, even though the information was not very specific. Here's what he had to say.

JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: When we believe that disseminating information will improve the public safety and security of the nation, we share it. It's important to note that there is no specific threat being communicated to any specific institution. We are not chancing our assessment of the overall national threat level. And we are not asking banks to close or urging people to stay away from banks. We are alerting law enforcement and financial institutions and the American people to be vigilant and to be aware of anything that appears suspicious. ARENA: Sources also suggest that the intelligence gathered shows that the mode of attack would be a suicide bomber. That, though, contradicts some other information that came in. But that is what we have on that front. Also, I want to point out that the overall threat level, not only in the northeast region, but nationwide, remains at yellow. For those of you who are not as familiar with this, that just means that we are at an elevated level of risk. And as you heard the attorney general say, that means that citizens need to be vigilant, aware of their surrounding, aware of suspicious packages, suspicious people, suspicious activity. Of course, this threat is centered on financial institutions. There is no recommendation to financial institutions in terms of closing or increased security. That is up to them. But the word is vigilant. Fredricka?

WHITFIELD: Once again, Kelli, Atty. Gen. Ashcroft saying there are no specifications on any particular banks targeted either.

ARENA: That's right. No specific target, no date, no time. Again, I will point out that the FBI says out of an abundance of caution. And they really are between a rock and a hard place here. They have information, but it's not very specific. So they walk a very fine line in terms of what do they disseminate to the public in order to make everyone aware, without going overboard, in case this does prove not to come true. The hope, of course, is that they are overcautious and it doesn't come true. But it is a very fine line. There was a great deal of discussion between, not only the FBI, but Justice and Treasury as well, and Homeland Security. So this was a group decision to come out with the information.

WHITFIELD: All erring on the side of caution. Thanks very much, Kelli Arena, from Washington. Now, back to TALKBACK LIVE with Arthel Neville.

NEVILLE: OK, Fredricka. Thanks very much. We've been listening to that breaking news. And when our audience heard it, this gentleman here, Paul (ph), had this reaction. Your reaction was?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Basically, that it's not over. We all have to be vigilant and start looking out for this stuff. As you could see, the attacks in Israel and all that. It's only a matter of time until it starts occurring in the United States unfortunately. I think we can diffuse that, as American citizens, if we keep an eye out and report suspicious activity to our local law enforcement and the FBI.

NEVILLE: What about anybody else in the audience here? Thank you Paul (ph). What about anybody else in the audience? How does that make you feel when you hear this sort of breaking news, possible threats against us banks in the northeast region? Young people here. Mia (ph), LaShandra (ph), what do you guys thing? Stand up for me and talk to me. I'd like to hear what you have to say. Stand up for me. Step lively now. Come on now. When you hear this kind of information, how does it make you feel inside?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Like the same thing this man said over here. It's like it's not over. It's just going to keep happening until somebody doing something about it. NEVILLE: What do you think>

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's actually scary to know that these people are out here doing this and to know it's not over. It isn't really.

NEVILLE: Thank you very much. OK, panel you heard the audience members here. What do you have to say about this. Ed?

TYLL: Well, you know yesterday's attack in Milan was not a terrorist attack, but it does turn out, they're reporting now, that this could have been a suicide mission on the part of this elderly pilot. Even though it turned out not to be the kind of terrorism that we are on the look out for, it certainly served as reminder, as the coverage unfolded yesterday, that we in the United States and capitals all over the world and countries far and wide still remain vulnerable. And I think it's a good drill for us to be reminded, from time to time, just as we are in an elevated state of concern today, that we are not nearly out of the woods here.

NEVILLE: Mike, I think you wanted to jump in there. Guys, if you can make your comments quick on this one.

SIEGEL: I think that was a good idea for the attorney general to do that, to give us that warning. I think the banks could be more alert. It's always good to bring that to the public's attention. And as you walk that fine line you were talking about, it was the right thing to do to let the banks know to be careful and cautious.

BOULEY: I think it's a great idea to let the banks know. But all it does for us is instill more fear. We're all afraid enough. They know nothing. They have no facts. They haven't told them to change the way they are doing business. It makes a good headline and that's it. What are we to do? Nothing, except be afraid. I think we are already afraid.

CONWAY: Yes. But, sir, excuse me, if the attorney general had not told us and something were to happen, then everybody would pounce on him for not telling us. So I think that Kelli Arena's reporting was very smart and very clear that you can't have - we always want to know in this country. But this reminds me, Arthel, that peace, just like vigilance is a process.

BOULEY: But what do we know? What do we know? What did he tell us?

CONWAY: Vigilance is a process. We in America always want results. We want instantaneous fixes, where all of this is really a process. It's going to take a long time, and we don't know how to measure progress. We don't know how to measure results.

NEVILLE: OK I'm going to take a break right now. And up next, American cardinals head to Rome. What, if anything, can the pope do with the sex scandal rocking the Catholic Church? We're going to talk about that. Don't go anywhere. TALKBACK LIVE continues after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: Welcome back. I'm Arthel Neville. "Free for all Friday" continues. America's Catholic cardinals are heading to the Vatican next week where they will be looking for guidance in dealing with the priest sex abuse scandal. Among the issues they are expected to discuss is a "one strike and you are out" policy for sex offenders, celibacy and screening of gay candidates for the priest hood. I want to start with my panel once again. Kellyanne, I want to start with you. Another topic up for grabs will be that of ordaining women priests. How do you think that will go over with the pope?

CONWAY: I doubt that's up for grabs. I would be very surprised if that were part of the official agenda. That probably won't solve one person's proclivity to want to prey upon young victims for sexual reasons. And actually, the Catholic doctrine, to which I prescribe, has celibacy and has no marriage for its male priests for a reason, that they are only meant to be wed, so to speak, to one commitment. They are only to take vows either through holy orders to the priesthood or to marriage to a woman. So it would be - it's not going to take just one meeting, in my view, to welcome women into the ordination. And is actually is an abrogation of scripture for Catholics.

NEVILLE: Wait. Do you not think it should be changed, though? Do you personally think that women should be allowed to be priests this the Catholic Church?

CONWAY: No.

NEVILLE: Why not.

CONWAY: For the same reason that I believe any law or doctrine - and this is a religious doctrine - should be adhered to unless there is a compelling reason to change it. And it's one thing to just be philosophical about something and say, gee, I think everybody should be able to do everything just to prove a point or because they want to. Where exactly is the public hue and cry among women within the Catholic Church to want to actually become ordained? Where is the Catholic doctrine that would allow a significant change?

NEVILLE: But that's the point that perhaps they need to change the Catholic doctrine.

CONWAY: But why? How would that have solved the pedophilia problem?

BOULEY: They changed it other times. I was raised Catholic. They certainly have changed the doctrine before. This is a small number of priests here, first of all. You would think that it's every single priest out there. It's not. As we look at this, it's a no brainer. First of all, the church shouldn't be involved. This is a criminal offense. If someone has been accused of child molestation, then you report them to the authorities. That's a no brainer.

TYLL: I would agree with. I think that the main thing that needs to be accomplished with the pope is that the pope should be encouraging the leaders of the American church to have those involved in this activity stand up, accept responsibility, surrender to criminal authorities, and not to revamp the Catholic Church because these people committed crimes.

SIEGEL: But all of those comments ...

NEVILLE: Hang on guys. Dadra (ph) from Mississippi is going to jump into this conversation.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm ordained minister of the gospel myself, not Catholic. But in general, if a need for a female to minister is not necessarily a doctrinal - shouldn't have to be a doctrinal issue, if they would be able to be addressed in that way. However, I agree that, if they are guilty of criminal behavior, they should be dealt with accordingly. And no meeting is necessary because the other person ...

SIEGEL: Arthel, what we are missing here is the fact - what we are missing in the whole conversation is the fact that the church has been the culprit over decades in covering this up. It's a policy in the Catholic Church to cover this up, to do it secretly, and to investigate secretly, and then transfer priests from one diocese to another.

NEVILLE: That's right. That's right.

BOULEY: But wouldn't any billion dollar corporation ....

TYLL: Those are individual criminal acts. That's certainly not the policy of the church.

CONWAY: Well, I think both gentlemen are right.

SIEGEL: That certainly was the policy of the church, Ed. It was the policy of the church.

TYLL: That's a crime, what's being described there.

SIEGEL: It was the policy of the church. The pope himself, within the last six months, put out a written document stating that all of these matters were to be investigated internally. They were not to be turned over to the authorities.

BOULEY: And wouldn't any CEO of any billion-dollar corporation? The Catholic Church is a billion-dollar corporation. His cardinals are his board of directors. He's calling them in.

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: Karel, as someone who grew up Catholic, does that bother you?

(CROSSTALK)

SIEGEL: You have to protect the children.

BOULEY: Arthel, it bothers me when any person is allowed to molest a child and go unreported.

TYLL: Indeed. That's the bottom line.

(APPLAUSE)

BOULEY: But it does not surprise me. This is a billion-dollar corporation.

And when you look at Enron or you look at any other corporation, with their internal dealings, they would have -- and now everyone is coming out of the woodwork to sue the church. I might sue the church because I wasn't molested. That's the ultimate rejection, right?

(CROSSTALK)

SIEGEL: That's a very flippant comments.

CONWAY: Everybody is right, because...

NEVILLE: Troy, go ahead. Speak out.

SIEGEL: That's a very flippant comment.

TROY: I am myself am a minister. And, in Protestant circles, if you do what is being said is being done, you are out. You are no longer a minister. You find another job. And I don't understand why it's not the same in the Catholic Church.

TYLL: And this is the way it ought to be handled inside the Catholic Church: to root out the problem and bring it to the authorities.

(CROSSTALK)

SIEGEL: It has not been handled that way in the past.

(BELL RINGING)

NEVILLE: OK, I know I heard this bell , but if I could get Virginia right here to stand up for me for one second here.

Ma'am, you said you are how old?

VIRGINIA: I'm 76.

NEVILLE: And what happened to you when were you how old?

VIRGINIA: I was about 10 or 11. And the priest -- I was starting to make my confirmation. And he was talking to me outside. And he started fondling me. And it was very upsetting.

But the thing I do want to say is why people continue to go back, because I avoid -- I never went near that man again. And I wonder why some -- you hear on TV hundreds of times and everything. And I wonder, why would they not avoid him?

NEVILLE: Sure. You know how it is. You can stay here.

You know how it is when people are young. They're a little bit scared of people who are authority figures.

VIRGINIA: Yes, I was scared. That's why I stayed away.

NEVILLE: Sure. Well, listen, thanks for sharing that with us.

The bell rang, so I've got to switch topics right now. And up next, we are going to talk about the Mideast. Does either Israel or the Palestinians want it? We are talking about peace. And is there anything the U.S. can do to make it happen? Find out how the president is rethinking his options right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: Welcome back, everybody.

Will anyone or anything ever create lasting peace in the Middle East? The standoff at the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem continues, as does the siege of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat's office in Ramallah. Secretary of State Colin Powell has returned without any type of compromise agreement. So, now what?

With us is CNN White House correspondent Major Garrett.

Major, there are a lot of important meetings today. Give us a laundry list, if you will, of who is meeting with whom and why.

MAJOR GARRETT, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Arthel, let me do that in just a second. Let me set the scene for you.

We are here in the White House briefing room, not because I have any Ari Fleischer envy in particular, but because we are trying to avoid a ferocious spring thunderstorm here in Washington: heavy rain, heavy winds and marble-sized hail. The good news for the president, who is helicoptering from Beltsville, Maryland right now to Camp David, is, he's safe. He has been able to avoid the storm. He'll be landing there and spending the weekend there.

Now, for the meetings here at the White House, the president gathered his National Security Council here today at the White House. With him was the secretary of state, Colin Powell. And on the table was where to go next in the Middle East. And there was no hard decisions yet reached by the president or his top advisers. But a lot of issues are being debated.

First and foremost, does the United States need to shift its policy in the Middle East? Does it need to move beyond some names that we have sort of gotten familiar with: the Tenet security plan and the Mitchell peace process plan? Some in the White House believe that those two plans, which have been on the table for a long time and which, at least in word, the Israelis and Palestinians have committed themselves to, simply aren't bringing the breakthrough that is necessary. So, there's some talk about trying to move things forward with maybe a U.S.-backed peace plan, maybe bringing surrounding Arab nations into something that is more definitive as far as a final solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and also a good deal of conversation here in the White House about how much money to put on the table from the United States as part of a global effort to rebuild shattered Palestinian refugee camps and cities in the aftermath of the Israeli Defense Force's anti-terror campaign.

So, those are some the topics on the table here at the White House -- Arthel.

NEVILLE: Major, even if the Bush administration wanted to back out at this point, they can't, right?

GARRETT: Well, there is no talk about backing out here.

And, of course, the administration always argues that it has never been out of the entire Middle East peace process situation; it has been engaged. But, clearly, the level of engagement has changed. At first, the Bush administration, it defined engagement by saying that it was going to put down a broad vision. It was the first White House in American history -- Republican or Democrat, it's worth pointing out -- to specifically endorse a Palestinian state and say that the United States would back that goal, that it was a concrete vision, and it expected Israel to understand that and move toward creation of that Palestinian state, to live in security alongside of it.

(VIDEO GAP)

SIEGEL: ... and encourage them to do, and Iran because they support Hamas and Islam Jihad. You have got Syria supporting Hezbollah, which is starting another front on the Lebanese border. You have got a problem there that is much larger than the Palestinians and Israelis.

I'll go back to a time when I wrote a Ph.D. dissertation about the Middle East. I had an Egyptian and an Israeli on my committee. And the Israeli said to me, as the Egyptian did, if the Palestinians and Israelis could sit down together to solve this problem, they would do it. They are cousins. They are both of Semitic background. They would create two states side-by-side, which is really in the best interests of everyone.

With these other Arab countries getting involved, they create the turmoil. They create the political unrest because they don't want to deal with their own internal problems. They are all dictatorships. They are brutal dictatorships. And, as long as there's an external enemy called Israel, they don't have to worry about their populations worrying about the problems in their own countries. They can turn to the enemy, Israel, as the people of those countries do, and deal with that external threat.

That's a big part of this problem. We, in the long term, have to deal with it. NEVILLE: Karel, I see you shaking your head. Go ahead. What do you have to say?

BOULEY: Well, you know, the opinions on the Middle East are like opinions on art. Everyone has got one and we all can't figure out exactly what it means.

If they were a married couple, they would need to get a divorce. For thousands of years, there has been problems here, and more in the recent past. No regime, Republican or Democratic, has been able to solve this. And I think the other panelist was correct when he said that this problem is much larger than us. And I'm not optimistic right now that it's going to be solved in the near future.

These people inherently hate each other, at least the extremists do. And, as he said -- I agree -- if you let the people decide, they don't want war. No one wants to live in that situation, either Israeli or Palestinians. I think it is a brave step, though, to recognize Palestine as a state. I think that would be a good first step.

NEVILLE: OK, I have got Pavan (ph) here from Virginia.

CONWAY: It is very important to remain engaged.

NEVILLE: Go ahead, Pavan.

PAVAN: I really don't think that separating the country into two different states based on religion would really help. When India first separated from Britain, it separated into India and Pakistan. And still to this day they are still fighting in the Kashmir area. So I really don't think it would help that much.

SIEGEL: Well, there's going to have to be a state of Israel. That already exists. There has to be a Palestinian state, because the Palestinians were given a state back in 1948.

The problem was, the Arabs asked them to leave so they could destroy the new state of Israel, and then they would go back and have the whole territory. Now the Palestinians are caught in the middle in this limbo. They do need a state. They need one in a peaceful environment. And they need to get that...

(BELL RINGING)

NEVILLE: OK, Mike, you hear the bell. You hear the bell. You are hearing bells.

BOULEY: Arthel, i love that bell. I love that bell.

NEVILLE: you love it? Thank you very much. But guess what? We are going to get to keep talking about this topic, because you guys are all excited about it. And so TALKBACK LIVE continues after the break, more on this same topic.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) NEVILLE: Welcome back, everybody.

Secretary of State Colin Powell is meeting right now with Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres. We expect they will make comments after that meeting. And, of course, CNN will bring it to you live as that happens.

Now, we are talking about the peace in the Middle East, as they are. And a lot of our audience members had something to say as to whether or not they believe that is possible.

Mike, stand up for me.

MIKE: I just want to know, why is it just the United States that has to clean this up? Why aren't other countries helping?

NEVILLE: And, panel, you can jump in at any point.

(CROSSTALK)

TYLL: Boy, I want to agree that. That is exactly what I was going to say, that we need a coalition here. We definitely need a group of nations other than the United States spearheading this peace movement. And, basically, Europe has been on the sideline. We also have to find a way to engage moderate states in the Arab world. And it seemed to work a whole lot better when we were involved with Iraq and we had a coalition of reasonable nations. And I think the gentleman in the audience is absolutely right.

BOULEY: Agreed, and particularly since the United States has been seen so pro-Israel in all this. And I think the American people want to hear about both sides.

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: OK, guys, one second.

As I told you, the meeting between Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres and Colin Powell, it has just ended.

Let's listen in to Secretary Powell.

(JOINED IN PROGRESS)

COLIN POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE: ... the impressions of my trip. We talked over the framework that I described in my press conference the other day of security followed quickly by negotiations for a political solution. And we spent quite a bit of time lingering on the humanitarian issue that is becoming uppermost in our mind, and how the international community has to be positioned to assist with humanitarian relief, reconstruction and economic activity in the territories once we get to that point.

As you all know, we are anxious to see the operation currently under way concluded so that we can move forward with security discussions again, but bring forward in an accelerated way a political process so that we can substitute for hopelessness hope, so that young people can see that there is a future for them; there will be a state for the Palestinian people living side-by-side in peace and harmony with a Jewish state called Israel, of course.

And so once again, I benefited from the foreign minister's wisdom, and I look forward to our next meeting.

Shimon?

PERES: Thank you very much, Colin.

For me it was an occasion to express our appreciation for the visit of the secretary in our region.

I think, in real terms, there were three important achievements. One, which people don't notice enough, and that is the harmonization of the international line. If there will be a disagreement between Europe and the United States and Russia, or disagreement between the United States and the United Nations, we shall feel it in the region.

And I think one should pay the utmost attention to keep the camp together in a positive manner.

I think the Madrid conference, before the secretary came, was, in that sense, a real achievement, and we appreciate it very much.

The second point was that tranquilization in the north. The tension reached a very dangerous point. It was almost like destroying the least hope for a controlled situation in the Middle East. It was very close to escape the control of all people.

And I think, since the visit of the secretary to Syria, we can see now a quiet north, which holds the water, and this is, again, a tangible achievement.

And the third one was the clarification of the demands that were put to all sides.

The secretary spelled it out in unmistakable terms. Some answers were given; I think mostly by us. Some answers were not given, and they still are awaiting the right opportunity.

What I tried to tell the secretary -- my own impression -- we cannot permit a lull in the situation. His visit was an important step. It cannot end as it is.

And we expect the continuation of the diplomatic, security, economic and humanitarian activities, both by sending a representative of the United States in the near future and we hope also the return of the secretary to the region in due course. And also by nominating somebody to have a look how to offer immediate help to the Palestinian people, economically and otherwise.

And also we attach great importance to the conference. In the conference we can contain different visions, beginning with the American vision, as it was announced by the secretary at the United Nations and it was repeated by the president on two or three other occasions.

There is the Saudi proposal, which we welcome basically. There is an agreement -- understanding between Abu-Al (ph) and myself.

I think all those visions can be linked and can keep the Middle East busy not just in exchanging fire but in comparing notes.

And I believe even if we have some more warnings about terror, we shouldn't fall into the trap of just handling the situation militarily, but also offer a parallel line for negotiations and hope.

Needless to say that we see eye to eye. We appreciate very much the declaration of the president yesterday. We appreciate very much the visit of the secretary. And we really mean well. Our aim is not victory in the military sense, but peace in the political meaning.

Thank you.

POWELL: Thank you.

QUESTION: Mr. Minister, if I may, you were speaking about unity. Let me ask you about Israel.

Israel, political differences aside, have been put aside in support of Mr. Sharon. Now that the administration is perceptibly, day by day, reaching out more and more to the Palestinians, more and more emphasizing how they oppose settlements, how they want Israel to pull back, calling it an occupation, et cetera, do you think the doves will ever fly again in Israel?

Do you think the unity will remain behind a hard-line prime minister or are we going to hear now more of a variety of positions?

PERES: Compared to the alternatives, the dove will continue to fly.

Let's distinguish between the declared positions and the real ones. We are convinced, right and left in Israel, there is no alternative for peace, that it is impossible to achieve peace without compromise, including painful compromise, and the time available is not as long as people think. We have really to move energetically ahead.

POWELL: Thank you very much. I'm afraid we do -- are running out of time now. Thank you very much. Take care. God bless you.

NEVILLE: And there you heard comments from Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres and Secretary of State Colin Powell, saying that we cannot allow a lull in the situation, calling for someone to look into offering immediate help, economic and otherwise, as well for the Palestinians, and that it is impossible to achieve peace without painful compromise.

And I'd like to bring my panel in to discuss those comments as well.

Let's start with you, Ed. What do you have to say about it?

TYLL: What a refreshing tone from Shimon Peres. This is someone who has seen all the events over the several decades that have led us up to this point. And this is a certain change and I think a very big difference.

As I might have alluded to earlier, we are laying the groundwork for peace in the Middle East, the United States. And I think as it gathers support around the world -- and that gentlemen in the audience made such a salient point before. But I believe that is the sound of strength on the one hand and understanding that peace is necessary for the future in the other.

SIEGEL: Well, that's well said.

But the real problem is: Are they going to be able to control the terrorists? Look, if we had, from Mexico or Canada, almost on a daily basis, terrorists coming into this country bombing shopping malls and killing innocent civilians, how long would we allow that to happen until we finally took a stand and said, "We are going into either Canada or Mexico to get rid of those terrorists"?

(CROSSTALK)

SIEGEL: Israel has been in that position.

TYLL: No disagreement.

SIEGEL: And the real result of this is going to be that, hopefully, if somehow the Palestinian people can be shown that peace with Israel is the answer, and that they are going to have a much better quality of life by having that peace, and that these terrorists have to be controlled, because, obviously, Arafat hasn't done it. He hasn't controlled them. He hasn't shown the will to control them, nor the ability to control them.

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: Guys, let me let James jump in here, James from Pennsylvania.

JAMES: Well, I think we have to be patient, first off, because we are all trying to rush our government. And they need some time, because we are talking about creating an entirely new nation on this planet. And we need to give them time to do that. But, at the same time, as soon as we can do that, we're all going to be able to sleep a little easier, because we are not going to be as worried about terrorism. But I think Bush is doing a good job. We just -- we have to go with it. We have to let them do what they need to do.

NEVILLE: Thank you.

CONWAY: Patience is the new patriotism. And we learned to exercise in it Afghanistan. We need to learn to exercise it towards our views in the Middle East as well. It's a very, very nice comment.

(BELL RINGING)

NEVILLE: Kellyanne, thank you very much -- to all my guests.

That's all the time we have on this edition of "Free-For-All Friday."

BOULEY: Thanks, Arthel.

NEVILLE: Mike Siegel, Ed Tyll, Kellyanne Conway and Karel, thanks so much -- for you guys at home, too, for watching.

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: I'm Arthel Neville. I'll be back Monday at 3:00 Eastern with more TALKBACK LIVE. I'll see you then. Have a great weekend, 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