Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Talkback Live

Will Israeli Attack Provoke Palestinian Violence?; Should Colleges Include the Koran in Studies?; Should Visiting Cuba be Legalized?

Aired July 24, 2002 - 15:09   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.
KATHLEEN KENNEDY, GUEST HOST: Hi there everybody, and welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Kathleen Kennedy. Arthel Neville is on special assignment this week to "AMERICAN MORNING."

We're going to start today in the Mideast, where there is plenty of fallout from Israel's killing of a Hamas military leader and his family in Gaza.

Revenge is expected, and the U.S. consulate in Jerusalem told Americans in the area to avoid malls, bus stops, restaurants, cafes and theaters, as well as the Old City of Jerusalem.

Now, the White House called the fighter attack "heavy-handed," and Israel expressed regrets that civilians, including nine children, died in this raid. But Israel says a bin Laden-style terrorist is now dead.

Here to talk about this today are political reporter Nancy Collins, Julian Epstein, former counsel for Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee James Braude, a radio talk show host on WTKK in Boston, and Steve Malzberg, a radio talk show host and co-host of the "Buzz" on WABC. He is also a columnist for newsmax.com.

Thanks, guys, to all of you, for being on the show today.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you

NANCY COLLINS, POLITICAL REPORTER: Thank you.

KENNEDY: Now international reaction has been swift and strong, and here, before we get started with you, to fill us in on all this, is Andrea Koppel, who is at the State Department.

Andrea, tell us a little bit about this. The administration has been decidedly on the side of Israel through this conflict, but does this signify a change of direction, a change in policy?

ANDREA KOPPEL, CNN STATE DEPARTMENT CORRESPONDENT: I don't think so, Kathleen. What you had, really, was a strong criticism issued in the name of President Bush from the White House, the spokesman Ari Fleischer. You did not have a condemnation of the Israeli action. In point of fact, the reason that the U.S., that the Bush Administration felt compelled to speak out as strongly as it did was the fact that this was not only a strike that killed a Hamas leader, but also it was done in the middle of a crowded Gaza neighborhood, and it struck an apartment building where there were civilians there, in fact 14 other people were killed, nine of them children, including a 2-month-old child.

But I should say that the U.S. reaction was not nearly as strong as the reaction from the international community, including the Europeans and many in the Arab world, who spoke out and condemned the action. In fact some have been saying maybe this should be brought before the new International Criminal Court, known as the ICC.

KENNEDY: Who specifically?

KOPPEL: The Europeans. They are the biggest supporters of the ICC.

KENNEDY: Now I am curious about President Bush and the way he approached this. He went through diplomatic channels to condemn this raid instead of just picking up the phone and calling the prime minister himself. Why?

KOPPEL: Well, as you know, Kathleen, there are different degrees of diplomacy, and for the president to actually pick up the phone and speak to another leader, to criticize what that country has done, is considered fairly high up there on the range of options that is before President Bush.

He did sort of the next step down, which is to issue this criticism through his spokesman, but also remember back in April, when President Bush delivered his first major speech on the Middle East, and he called for Israel, he called specifically on Ariel Sharon in the days that followed to withdraw all Israeli troops from having reoccupied various West Bank towns and cities, and remember Ariel Sharon didn't do it, at least he didn't do it right away, it took a couple of weeks.

So this is a way for the president to both appease some of the international community, also the Palestinians and say look, we have spoken out against this, but not going so far as to potentially embarrass himself again and have the Israeli prime minister ignore his criticism.

KENNEDY: There is also a question of whether this raid was in violation of U.S. law. The arms export control act, Israel used American-made F-16s to carry out this raid.

KOPPEL: That's exactly right. That's the 1952 arms export control act, and under this act, it is illegal under U.S. law for the United States to sell weapons to a country unless they are used for defensive purposes. Now the Israeli government says that these targeted killings that they carry out are in fact taken in self defense. They say that this Hamas leader has been responsible for numerous attacks against Israelis, numerous terrorists attacks, and in fact was in the works, was planning another one, and so while the Israelis say this was in self defense, there are others who say look, this was a F- 16, they used a one-ton bomb and they dropped it basically on this apartment building and killed 14 other civilians.

So you can see that there are differences of opinion. And also, I should say, that the Israelis say, look, you Americans can criticize us, but look what you are doing in Afghanistan. You are using American weapons and you are targeting al Qaeda and Taliban and there are Afghan civilians who are being killed. Remember just earlier this month there was that Afghan wedding party that the U.S. military accidentally -- it says it accidentally attacked.

KENNEDY: OK, Andrea Koppel, we have to leave it there and get to our guests right now.

Let me begin with Steve. Israel says this was a mistake, that it didn't know civilians were in this area, though it is a very densely populated area. Do you buy that?

STEVE MALZBERG, WABC TALK SHOW HOST: No. I think some people in the Israeli he government, mostly from the Labor party, are saying that in the aftermath I stick with what Ariel Sharon said originally and is still saying, that this was a great military success.

And obviously, it was a great military success. It was a great, great thing. It's terrible, it's a tragedy that children were killed and the innocent were killed, but you know, it's the responsibility of the terrorist who knows he is a marked man, who knows Israel is after him, who sleeps in a different bed every night and has since December, to go and visit his family in a crowded apartment.

It's just his responsibility not to put the others in danger, and furthermore, we in the United States, and rightfully so, by the way, this is not a criticism, were bombing Tora Bora, going after Osama, hoping to hit Osama, when we knew he was traveling with some family members including some of his young children, so don't tell me we wouldn't have done the same thing if we knew Osama was in a apartment building in Afghanistan, we wouldn't have fired that rocket in to get him, because we would, and it would be right, it would be just.

KENNEDY: All right. Julian, do you agree with that?

JULIAN EPSTEIN, DEMOCRATIC ATTORNEY: No, I don't agree with that. I don't think it's ever just when you take military actions and you know that there are going to be civilian deaths. I think we make a distinction in this country, and I think it's an intellectually honest distinction, between terrorism and collateral damage, terrorism being when you intend to kill civilians, which is one of the worst crimes on the face of the earth, and collateral damage, when you unintentionally do it, but I think that when you take actions and it is foreseeable that many civilians will die, I think that is not acceptable. I think the Bush Administration has been very inconsistent on this. One day they criticize Israel, the next day they give them a carte blanche. I think the Clinton Administration was 95 percent of the way towards getting an agreement between the Palestinians and the Israelis. The Bush Administration came in, said they basically didn't want to dirty their hands in the Middle East. They stepped away from...

MALZBERG: You've got to be kidding.

EPSTEIN: ... the bargaining table, things got much, much worse...

MALZBERG: You've got to be kidding.

EPSTEIN: I think as a result of that, and now, what the Bush Administration is getting in and saying they want to be an honest broker, and condemning actions that forseeably lead to civilian deaths, I think that's a good thing. I think it's a little bit late, but you know, I think that to the people over there, whether it's Israelis or Palestinians, there has been hundreds of deaths on both sides. So the distinctions that we make between terrorism and collateral damage don't mean that much to them.

KENNEDY: Nancy, did Israel really have a choice here?

COLLINS: Sure, Israel had a choice. But let me make this point first.

There are no accidental dictators. This Hamas guy put himself in the line of fire by actions, and if he wanted to protect his family, he should have thought of that way ahead of time. Years ago I went over -- not too many years ago, went over and interviewed Yasser and Suha Arafat, and they were aware of that all the time, because Suha lived right there with Yasser Arafat, and he sent her away, in fact she is in Paris with her child, to protect her. And this man, if he wants to be this sort of famous firebrand leader, should think about his family as well.

However, on the other side of the coin, you know, Israel has taken the moral high ground always by claiming that this land was entitled to them, that God gave them this land, and so one would think that they might take more of a morally high ground position. I mean, you may call the Palestinians barbarians, but you want to act like them as well.

What really gives me pause is that Ariel Sharon seems to be operating as a law unto himself, because there was negotiations going on with Hamas, actually this week, that were supposed to pull back on the cessation of bombing on Israeli citizens but Ariel Sharon totally ignored that and went ahead and bombed anyway.

KENNEDY: Jim, I want to bring you into this. Palestinians, after this attack, paraded the body of a dead child through the streets. We have all probably seen this video by now. Why? JAMES BRAUDE, WTKK RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Well, as a father it was one of the most moving scenes I have ever seen, and assume regardless of where you are on this issue, your heart had to break when you saw that little 2-month-old baby. I have no clue, though, what was the intent nor the motivation of the Israelis.

I think we should bring it back home, as was said a minute ago.

KENNEDY: Well, maybe that was...

BRAUDE: The Bush Administration has no foreign policy in the Middle East. As Andrea Koppel said before, in April we were excoriating Sharon for failure to withdraw from the West Bank. In June he was a hero in the war against terrorism, and now this...

MALZBERG: But we do have a policy...

BRAUDE: Secondly, let me finish please...

MALZBERG: Gee whiz.

BRAUDE: How about hypocrisy? As was said before, we are bombing Afghanistan, we drop a bomb on a wedding where scores of civilian people die, and the same Europeans are criticizing us, yet all of a sudden we raise the same concerns about the Israelis. Consistency would be a good thing.

KENNEDY: Do you think that this may be been an effort to draw the United States into this further, to strum at the American heart strings?

BRAUDE: You mean the picture of the dead baby?

KENNEDY: Yes.

BRAUDE: It's very possible. I mean, everybody uses the same sort of thing. There's nothing like a child to elicit sympathy from anybody regardless of your point of view. But frankly...

MALZBERG: Well, the Palestinians...

BRAUDE: One of the things I like about Sharon, I don't think he gives a darn what the Americans think as evidenced by how he has responded to Bush in the past.

MALZBERG: Look, the Palestinians have used children for years and years. It started with the rock throwing at tanks. Then it advanced on to throwing gas bombs and Molotov cocktails and firing machine guns at tanks. They use their children, they train their children to be suicide bombers. Golda Meir once said that this will end, this whole mess will end when the Palestinians love their children more than they hate the Israelis,

BRAUDE: That is a wonderful rhetoric.

(CROSSTALK) But the fact remains that there was a dead 2-month-old baby who was...

(CROSSTALK)

MALZBERG: Yes, but you know what? And there's a dead terrorist and they will be less dead Israelis which is Israel's concern.

EPSTEIN: It is a pointless argument, I think, to keep going back and talking about who has got the moral high ground or is there moral equivalency. The bottom line is that none of this is working. This cycle of violence, and there has been wrongdoing on both sides, is taking us nowhere. And all that is happening is that the extremists on both sides are becoming empowered, which is why I think the Bush administration's inconsistency in this area, one day, it is in with both feet, the next day it pulls out, I think has been a real problem.

If the Bush administration now wants to say we're going to put our prestige on the line, we are going to do what is necessary to get these parties back at the negotiating table, empower the moderates, that is what is important here, not this debate about who is morally right or wrong.

MALZBERG: I liked the way you ended it, empower the moderates. How do you do that? Just exactly how do you empower the moderates...

EPSTEIN: You bring -- you bring...

MALZBERG: How do you do it? If they could do that, they could talk to a partner that wants peace. Arafat is there...

EPSTEIN: Well, I think the point of the matter is that is Arafat...

MALZBERG: ... Hamas is there, Islamic Jihad is there...

(CROSSTALK)

KENNEDY: Let me break in here for a second. I want you guys to take off the boxing gloves for just a moment. Let's get a caller in here. Randolph (ph) from New York, you have something you wanted to say?

CALLER: Yes. It is unfortunate that we still think that ideas are live in the body of a person. By killing this person, they have not killed the ideas or the issues that are fueling these fires that are in the Middle East. All we have done, all of that was done was that the fire has grown again, and there will be reprisals, unfortunately. We are continuing a cycle.

MALZBERG: Should we kill Osama bin Laden? Should we kill Osama bin Laden, caller?

CALLER: Excuse me?

MALZBERG: Should we kill Osama bin Laden as we are trying to do caller? Should we?

CALLER: Should we kill Osama bin Laden?

MALZBERG: Yes.

CALLER: We have to stop al Qaeda. That is what we have to do.

(CROSSTALK)

Excuse me, you asked me a question. If in the process of stopping Osama bin Laden, we kill innocent civilians, people are not going to be favorable to that. Is it necessary to kill Osama bin Laden to stop al Qaeda?

EPSTEIN: You know, the problem -- I think the problem...

KENNEDY: You guys, we have to -- go ahead. Go ahead.

EPSTEIN: Well, I was going to say, I think the problem with your other guest's point of view is that it's very one dimensional. His notion is all -- the only dimension to this whole struggle that we face and that Israel faces right now is a military dimension, and I think that's nuts.

I think, you know, there is a billion Muslims in this world. And I think a lot of them happen to be sympathetic towards the United States. I would like to keep at least a group of Muslims that are sympathetic, that are pro-U.S., that are pro-West in that camp.

KENNEDY: All right.

EPSTEIN: The more that we engage in this -- just this military campaign without -- in the absence of real diplomatic efforts, I think moves a lot of the world community out of our camp. And I think that is the is mistake.

BRAUDE: We should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time.

KENNEDY: OK, we have to leave it right there guys. We have got to get to a break, pay some bills. And we'll be right back.

(APPLAUSE)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(voice-over): Still ahead on TALKBACK LIVE, should the Koran be mandatory reading for college freshmen? Find why some students at UNC-Chapel Hill are suing to keep the Islamic text off their reading list. We'll be right back.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KENNEDY: Welcome back everybody. Is the Koran on your summer reading list? It might be if you are headed to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill this fall. Actually, a book called "Approaching the Koran: The Early Revelations" is on the required reading lists for all incoming freshmen. School officials say that the subject is timely and informational, but not intended to promote Islam. Now, students who object to it don't have to read it, but are required to put their objections in writing.

Now, at least three university students have put their objections into a lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed by the Family Policy Network, who's president, Joe Glover, is on the phone with us right now. Joe, thanks for coming on.

JOE GLOVER, PRESIDENT, FAMILY POLICY NETWORK: Kathleen, thanks for having me.

KENNEDY: All right. Why are you filing this lawsuit?

GLOVER: Well, we are filing the lawsuit because No. 1, of the legal issue, which is a Supreme Court precedent from 1992 which says that you cannot require students at a publicly funded institution to study any particular religious text, whether it's Christian, Islam or any other.

The fact of the matter is that this particular book is especially egregious because it gives a one-sided presentation on Islam. It does not give any of the information pertinent to what happened on 9/11. For example, surahs 4, 5 and 9 are left out of this book altogether, no mention of any of the material found in those that's vitriolic toward Christians and Jews and very denigrating to women. For example, surah 4 says, "as to those (UNINTELLIGIBLE) on whose part you fear disloyalty" -- and I'll pass over a few words of it -- but basically to beat them if they do not comply.

Surah 551 says: "Do not take the Jews and Christians for friends, for they are friends of each other. And whomever amongst you does take them for a friend, surely he is one of them."

KENNEDY: OK. Joe, let me ask you this, though.

GLOVER: Sure.

KENNEDY: Given the climate after -- post-9/11 climate, isn't it important though to have an understanding of Islam?

GLOVER: Well, you know what? It is an interesting question and a good one because if a person wants to know about Islam in light of 9/11, you are not going to find any of the things that incited these Muslims to commit violence against Christians and Jews in this book. That is the problem. This book does not give you any of the insight into the mind that is encouraged towards violence in the Muslim community that people need in order to understand current events.

KENNEDY: But is it just the book that bothers you or the Koran?

GLOVER: Well, the fact of the matter is, if this was a course on New Testament Christianity, with a required text written by Jerry Falwell, we would object just as vehemently simply because we don't expect a state university in North Carolina to get that right either. We don't think it's a good idea for state universities to use taxpayers' dollars to indoctrinate students on a religious text regardless of what it is.

KENNEDY: But, Joe, in all fairness, the...

GLOVER: This is in all fairness. We said any religion.

KENNEDY: ... university -- but the university did amend the policy, and students can file an objection. They have to write a one- page objection to the school, and that means that they do not have to read it.

GLOVER: It's funny. You started your statement with in all fairness. Let's talk about all fairness. An 18-year-old little girl who is Jewish, for example, comes from a small town in North Carolina, all her life wanted to go to UNC. She's paid her money. She's ready to go to the school. And she all of a sudden gets a card in the mail saying she's forced to read a text that, because of her deeply held religious beliefs, she objects to.

A 1992 court decision says she does not have to do it. The university says OK, so do not do it, but defend yourself in a one-page of paper and bring it with you when you come to school and you can defend yourself on the basis of your religious beliefs, which ought to be private, by the way, in front of four or 500 other students. I do not think that is fair at all.

KENNEDY: All right. Are you going to continue with this lawsuit then...

GLOVER: Absolutely.

KENNEDY: ... even though they amended the policy. All right, Joe Glover, from -- president of the Family Policy Network, thank you for coming on and...

GLOVER: Appreciate you having me.

KENNEDY: ... and telling us all about it.

Let me bring in our guests. You've heard what he had to say about this. What do you think? Nancy, why don't you begin.

COLLINS: Well, first of all, I would like to know why they chose this particular version of the Koran or this book and why they cut out those particular passages, No. 1. No. 2, I actually do not think it is going to hurt anybody. I think you can -- I mean, the whole point, if you know how they pray, you know how they play. And it does not hurt Americans who are woefully behind in understanding anything about the Muslim religion to read about it, to take the understanding as far as they can go in this simple course. It does not mean that they're going to rush off and go to the drafting quarters of al Qaeda. This is simply an intellectual exercise, and I see nothing wrong with it. KENNEDY: Steve, do you see it like that?

MALZBERG: No. It is a state-run university. And I agree with Joe wholeheartedly. It would be just as wrong if they had a book on Christianity that was required reading, and certainly the whole entire media would be up in arms if it was a book written by Jerry Falwell that was the required reading.

And to say they made an exception and amended their policy, why should you get a scarlet letter, in effect, because you don't agree with this policy? Why should you be made to stand out? And, again, this is a state-run institution. So, you know, where are all the liberals claiming, oh, you can't have God in the classroom, forcing somebody to read an edited version on the Koran, which edits out the parts, as Joe mentioned, that tell Muslims not to befriend Jews or Christians, is lopsided, one-sided, and it's just unfair.

KENNEDY: All right. Julian and Jim, we are going to give you a chance at this when we come back after the break. Stay right there.

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KENNEDY: Welcome back everybody.

We're talking about whether state college students should be forced to read a book on the Koran. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill is requiring incoming freshmen to read a book on the Koran. And now they have amended their policy. I believe we have a student from North Carolina in the audience. And I am wondering, how are the other -- what are the other students saying?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Many of the incoming freshmen that I have talked to have questioned me about it, and have kind of complained and feel that it is an infringement on their rights.

KENNEDY: Julian, what do you think?

EPSTEIN: Well, I have -- don't have access to the text and I am not an expert on Islam by any stretch. So, I do not know about Joe's point about whether the text that students are being to required to read is an accurate or a fair presentation of Islam.

Let me say that I think as a lawyer, however, that there is not a problem with a school working Islam and the Koran into the curriculum if a couple of conditions are met. One is if students have a choice not to participate in it and don't any way feel compelled to participate in that curriculum.

Secondly, if, in fact, it is a fair portrayal; and third, if it is basically an educational curriculum, not a religious indoctrination curriculum. And if that is the case, then -- I am not sure that is the case in North Carolina -- but if that were to be the case, then it is fine. I think then students have every constitutional right they want to be ignorant of that part of the world if they make that choice.

I think it is an important thing to study, but I think it has got to be done in the right way. So, there may be some validity to what Joe is saying if it is not done in the right way.

KENNEDY: And I think if you are an atheist, wouldn't you be wondering why do my reading requirements have to include a book about religion? There's so many other subjects out there.

EPSTEIN: The reason why, it's not the teach you about the religion. It's to teach you about the rest of the world that has a big impact. The Islam and all of its different embodiments and different sex and beliefs has a big impact on our life today, whether we like it or not. So it is a question about whether or not you want to agree with it. It's a question about whether you want to be an educated person in the world today.

KENNEDY: Well, why not say the Bible then, Jim?

EPSTEIN: I think...

BRAUDE: The Bible is perfectly fine.

(CROSSTALK)

BRAUDE: Can I get one word in here? Julian is right to a great degree. And these kids -- the two words for them is grow up. The reason you go to college is to learn about the things, particularly those things you do not know in the world around you. This is not about freedom of religion.

As Julian said, it is about education. Now, should we not offend the sensibilities of Jews like me and teach about the Nazis? Should we not offend black students at North Carolina by teaching about the Klan? Of course not. How about the troubles in Ireland with the Catholic/Protestant thing over centuries...

MALZBERG: This is a religious text you're learning here.

BRAUDE: Wait a second. Of course you treat -- the answer to this thing is not to get your collegiate...

MALZBERG: But this is a religious text. It's not history.

BRAUDE: ... undies in a bundle. The solution is to learn, not litigate. That's what the...

MALZBERG: So they got to read a book on Buddha, right? They got to read a book on Buddha. They got to read the Old Testament, the New Testament, and they got to read the Koran as well.

BRAUDE: If the leaders of this college...

KENNEDY: All right. Fair enough. Let's get a caller in here, guys, real quick. Marley (ph) from Oklahoma, what did you want to say? CALLER: I was a recent -- I've just recently graduated from college and I was just a general freshmen going in. And we studied everything. We studied Buddha. We studied the Koran. We studied all Western religions. And the beautiful thing about it that I have it say is that I know so much more about the people I work with. And, yes, I understand that the Supreme Court says you should not apply religion into a state school. But knowledge is power. That is the beauty of a university is to go in and get more knowledge.

KENNEDY: Nancy...

MALZBERG: But there's no indication they're going to educate on other religions here.

(CROSSTALK)

KENNEDY: Nancy, do you think we've become a less tolerant society?

COLLINS: Of course they are going to educate other religions.

MALZBERG: They're going to make them read the Old Testament, a book on that, and a book on the New Testament, a book on the Bible, a book on Christians...

EPSTEIN: You know, this should not be a very difficult issue to figure out. It really shouldn't be. I mean, the basic thing that I think we can all agree on is that nobody ought to be forced or in any way compelled to participate in the curriculum. Secondly, this should not be about indoctrination. It should be about education. It should be fairly presented in a comparative way, and then people should have the choice whether they want to be educated or not...

(CROSSTALK)

BRAUDE: First of all Julian, we don't all agree.

(CROSSTALK)

COLLINS: They're meant to have -- wait a minute. They're meant to have a discussion period as part of the program, so I assume other ideals will come into play. You're not just going to have a monologue situation on the Koran.

BRAUDE: Exactly. Exactly.

(CROSSTALK)

COLLINS: ... to learn about these kind of things...

(CROSSTALK)

KENNEDY: You guys, I want to get Kevin (ph) in...

COLLINS: They're going to be reading the Bible later; they're going to be reading Buddha later. It's not going to hurt them. KENNEDY: OK, Kevin (ph) in our audience has something to say.

KEVIN: I think if the goal is to develop a better understanding of all of the religions and all of the people, then maybe they've taken a positive step. But it needs to go further than just a half- step.

You need to look at all the aspects of it. You need to look at Christianity, you need to look at Buddhism. You need to look at all the other doctrines in order to develop that understanding. It's either -- it seems like it's either all or nothing; but you can't just go halfway and expect people to be accenting.

BRAUDE: But Kathleen, there's no such thing as "all."

(APPLAUSE)

KENNEDY: No such thing as all?

BRAUDE: No, there's no such thing as all. College is four years long, not 400 years long. And hopefully some balance, hopefully some diversity. But I think these kids should be forced to learn about the world around them.

KENNEDY: Well, I wish we had more time for this subject, but we have to take another break.

Up next, Cuba vacation. Is it time to lift travel restrictions to the island nation? Congress looks ready to say yes; so why is the White House threatening a veto?

We'll talk about it right after this break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KENNEDY: Welcome back everybody.

What do you think about vacationing in Cuba? Well, the House thinks it's a fine idea, but the president, well, he might need some convincing.

For the third year in a row, the House has voted to end travel restrictions to Cuba. A similar measure passed a Senate panel last month, and if it gets through the full Senate it could reach the president's desk, where it's expected to meet a veto.

The administration warns that Cuba remains hostile to the United States and gives refuge to U.S. fugitives.

Let's get back to our guests now.

Steve, this sounds a little bit like the U.S. wants its cake and eat it too.

MALZBERG: Well, I'm not exactly sure in what regard you mean that, but I'll say this... KENNEDY: Well, we don't want to lift economic sanctions, but we want to lift the travel ban.

MALZBERG: Oh, I see what you're saying.

Well, I think that Congress is dead wrong. I think the president is exactly right, as was Bill Clinton before him in not going through with what the Congress passed.

This is ridiculous. You know, there were Congresspeople -- not all of those who voted today -- but there were some Congresspeople, in particular in the New York area -- that are in love with Cuba. They take trips there, they come back and they say, oh, they have the greatest education system, and, oh, they have the greatest medical system.

I don't see many heads of state going to Cuba for medical attention when they need it. They come here to the United States.

If Cuba is so great -- listen, Cuba was taken over by Castro on the deaths of hundreds and thousands of people. It's a dictatorial regime. It's communist to the core. People are not free. They cannot choose their religion. They cannot choose what books they read.

And we want to embrace this dictator who's been in power and spit in our face since 1959. The answer is no.

KENNEDY: Nancy, what do you think? Nancy, what do you think?

COLLINS: Well, on balance, I agree with Steve, actually.

I think they said that they want to do this because the Treasury wouldn't have to pay some sort of fine about how -- you know, chasing down people who did go illegally.

Well, how much money are we really going to save in chasing down these people?

On balance, I think until Castro plays ball, we shouldn't play ball.

KENNEDY: So do you think a lifting of economic sanctions is in our near future?

COLLINS: In Cuba?

KENNEDY: Yes.

COLLINS: I don't think so, actually. I think it's going to take a while. This is a Republican president. There's nothing in him for it -- nothing in it for him to lift them. And I think that -- not until Castro dies. I really think it will take Castro's death.

KENNEDY: OK, we have somebody in the audience who wants to speak up. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is Poe (ph). Go ahead, Poe (ph).

POE: I believe if we send tourists and everybody to Cuba, then we'll be supporting communism. And I don't believe that we should be supporting communism here in the United States.

KENNEDY: That's a good point: We travel there, we spend money there, and ultimately that boosts Cuba's economy. Is that a little bit hypocrisy?

Jim?

BRAUDE: Kathleen, the answer is not -- what's hypocrisy is having the Bush administration support trade and travel to other nations with which we disagree which suppress human rights.

This is not about foreign policy, it's totally about politics.

Let's look at this for a minute: 200,000 Americans travel every single year to Cuba already by going through third countries. So what is this really about? It's about the fact that the Cuban-American vote is huge, they're angry at Castro and they come out in real big numbers.

That's what this whole charade is about.

EPSTEIN: I agree with that very much, Kathleen.

Look, we do -- as you just pointed out -- we do business with countries like China which, in many ways, have worse human rights records; and we have travel and we don't have the same type of economic sanctions.

The Europeans are in Cuba now extensively, as are the Latin Americans. A lot of our business operations believe that if we go there we will -- all you do is, when you bring Western economic influence in there, is you weaken the grip of Castro and you make people more sympathetic to getting rid of Castro.

So I think the argument that travel there is strengthening Castro is not a particularly strong argument.

And I think the other point is absolutely right, too. This is about election-year politics. It's particularly about presidential politics. We all remember the importance of Florida in the year 2000 election. The Cuban-American population there has a -- which I respect very much -- has a very emotional reaction to anything that is even irrationally perceived as being supportive of Cuba.

And I just think we're cutting off our nose to spite our face. I think travel to Cuba will only strengthen the cause of Democracy, not weaken it.

KENNEDY: OK, Chris, who do you have over there?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Karen (ph) from Tallahassee, Florida -- Karen.

KAREN: I would just like to say, I just came back from Cuba. I spent eight days there. It's a fantastic country. I wish all of us could go. The people are literate -- 98 percent literacy. They speak English, they watch CNN -- so hola to everybody that's in Cuba.

MALZBERG: Well, that might be the only good part.

KAREN: Well, have you been?

MALZBERG: No, I haven't been, and I wouldn't...

KAREN: Then you don't know.

(CROSSTALK)

MALZBERG: You think you saw the real Cuba?

KENNEDY: OK, let's take a quick break and then talk about the rowdy representative from Ohio. You know who I'm talking about.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(voice-over): Coming up on TALKBACK LIVE: What is it about James Traficant that has everyone talking?

REP. JAMES TRAFICANT (D), OHIO: I cut my hair with a weed whacker.

KENNEDY: Ohio Congressman James Traficant promises his appearance in Congress tonight will be exciting. If expelled, he says he won't go quietly, or even permanently.

TRAFICANT: Now about the election, I'm running. And I wouldn't be surprised if I'm elected from a jail cell, because people know I got railroaded back here.

KENNEDY: Do you think the Ohio Democrat will get another chance? TALKBACK LIVE continues after this.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRAFICANT: I cut my hair with a weed whacker. I'm just a son of a truck driver. Forget this Congress business, I'm just a regular guy.

And you know what? Look at my wide-bottom pants, my boots and my skinny ties, and I certainly haven't changed. I don't have a three- piece suit on with my hands in my lapel, trying to act like JFK with my fly open.

I'm the same guy that went down there, and I'm going to be the same guy. And I'm proud of the $1.3 billion I brought back to my district, that had a 22 percent unemployment rate when I was elected. It is now under 7 percent, and I'm still not satisfied.

And I want your help. I want your help to get the message out to the American people that we don't need to fear our government, and we should take it back.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(APPLAUSE)

KENNEDY: Welcome back.

Well, to call him "colorful" would be understatement of the year.

If Congressman James Traficant lives up to his reputation, it will be a memorable night on the House floor tonight. Traficant faces possible expulsion from Congress after being convicted on federal corruption charges. He has maintained his innocence, and over the weekend a juror who helped convict Traficant expressed doubts about his conviction.

The Ohio Democrat says a Michael Jackson moonwalk could be part of his presentation tonight. Yes, I would like to see that one.

The flamboyant representative has been reelected eight times, and says he might even run for office again from prison. A colorful guy, indeed.

Now, the question I want to pose first to Jim -- you've had very little time today, so I want to give you this one.

Should he be expelled? He does plan to appeal this conviction. Is the House jumping the gun here?

BRAUDE: No I think, based on the merits, he should be expelled.

But let me tell you, I hope we can all agree, there are nowhere near enough characters left in politics these days. Sadly, the Traficants, the Buddy Ciancis, Providence mayor, who are the real characters, are all felons.

So, you know, is he going to take his hair and go home? Probably not. I think what he said before is probably prophetic: He probably is going to get reelected and be sworn in from a jail cell.

KENNEDY: But you have one juror who is expressing doubts over whether or not he is guilty. Don't you think he at least deserves postponement of a vote?

BRAUDE: No, I think the facts here are overwhelming.

And the jury has spoken. What a juror says informally after the fact, frankly, is irrelevant, and often totally off the point.

What matters is, he's convicted, and I think the vote tonight should be to send him home.

KENNEDY: Steve, what do you think?

MALZBERG: Well first of all, you know, he asked for eight hours to defend himself, and is getting 30 minutes. So you might have seen the moonwalk if he had eight hours. I don't know -- I think that's down on the list for tonight's performance.

But I agree. I think he should be expelled. There's no room for a convicted felon in the Congress, just as I thought when Bill Clinton lied under oath before a federal grand jury, he should have been impeached -- which he was -- and taken out of office.

I do think he'll run again, and I do think he will win, especially if there's doubt cast upon the guilty verdict down the road.

So he'll be back. I don't know the logistics or the legalities of serving from a jail cell, if that's the case; but he will run if he's legally able to, and he will win.

KENNEDY: Julian, a quick comment. We're about out of time here.

EPSTEIN: Well he -- this guy thinks he's Billy the Kid; he's really turned into a cartoon or a gargoyle.

Even if he runs again, in the same way the House can expel him, they don't have to seat him again. So I think we've seen the last of him at this point.

Republicans were talking about holding it up, Dick Gephardt said no way. So I think you'll see the expulsion tonight.

KENNEDY: All right, we've got to cut out.

I'm looking forward to the moonwalk, I don't know about you.

Nancy, Julian, Jim and Steve, thank you all for being with us today. And thanks to all who are watching today.

I'm Kathleen Kennedy. I've had a great time filling in for Arthel Neville.

You can find me on Headline News Monday through Friday, noon to 3:00.

Judy Woodruff is up next.

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