Should U.S. Wait For Iraq to Attack First; Should Government Pay Reparations For Slavery?
Aired August 19, 2002 - 19:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ANNOUNCER: CROSSFIRE. On the left, James Carville and Paul Begala. On the right, Robert Novak and Tucker Carlson.
In the CROSSFIRE tonight, should the U.S. wait for Saddam to shoot first?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We are preparing that any military aggravation could take place tomorrow.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We have to do this by stages in a mature, responsible, comprehensive way.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: Going to the Mall with a message: white America, pay up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LOUIS FARRAKHAN, NATION OF ISLAM LEADER: We need payment for 310 years of chattel slavery.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: Plus, advice to the lovelorn, but not from Dear Abby, ahead on CROSSFIRE.
From the George Washington University, James Carville and Tucker Carlson.
JAMES CARVILLE, CO-HOST: Welcome to CROSSFIRE tonight. It's time for the U.S. to do the Baghdad bounce. Also, the author of a controversial book on how to manage an extramarital affair. It could be the best-seller in some quarters here in Washington.
But first, as we do every day, let's start with the best political briefing on television, our CROSSFIRE "Political Alert."
In what could turn into a clash of the titans, the vast right- wing conspiracy has a new target, none other than the "New York Times." According to the right-wing's world view, the "Times" is singlehandedly trying to wreck President George W. Bush's chances to go down in history by fighting a war with Iraq. Its proof: They cite front-page stories about Republicans who questioned the president's policies, leaks of Pentagon war plans, and analysis of possible economic costs of a Desert Storm II. Sounds like good reporting to me. Of course, the right wing's idea of good reporting is, yes, Mr. President; that's wonderful, Mr. President; whatever you say, Mr. President.
TUCKER CARLSON, CO-HOST: You know that that's not true, James. Many liberals have complained lately about the "New York Times" and I think it's fair to ask for no slant in your news pages.
CARVILLE: Oh, really? Tell that to the "Washington Times."
CARLSON: That's right.
The National Education Association has released its lesson plan for September 11 suggestions for what teachers should teach their classes on the first anniversary of the tragedy. Among its directives, don't, quote, "suggest any group is responsible for the attacks," the NEA urges. "That would be insensitive." Instead, the union, which is perhaps the largest lobby within the Democratic Party, advises teachers to, quote, "discuss historical instances of American intolerance, including what it describes as backlash against Arab- Americans during the Gulf War. In other words, religious fanatics murder 3,000 innocent Americans. To commemorate the event, educrats lecture school children about intolerance and the racism of America. Coming soon to a school near you.
CARVILLE: I think they can say that Islam is a great religion and the people who did at are completely at fault and not adherent of what traditional and good Muslims should be. I have no problem with that.
CARLSON: Well, you should tell the NEA that, which is the single largest...
CARVILLE: If I thought that this thing was accurate that you did, I would. But I suspect if I call them, I'll be glad to call in the morning to find out what they really said.
CARLSON: Well, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) what they say.
CARVILLE: The Republicans keep shouting they want to leave no child behind. But Florida's Department of Children and Families would rather leave no child's behind alone. Jerry Rigas (ph) sees nothing wrong with spanking that causes bruises or welts. He also co-authored an essay that says Christians shouldn't marry non-Christians and the husband should get the final say in a family dispute. I like that one, partner. Just call my wife and tell her that, that wives should view working outside the home as bondage and that federal and state law should conform to the bible's view of reality and morality. Aides admit Governor Jeb Bush didn't learn of Rigas (ph) views. I think Bush doesn't learn anything -- views until a few hours before his appointment was announced, but went ahead with it anyway.
CARLSON: You know the guy didn't write that. Those were the views of the group he belonged to, just like the views of Louis Farrakhan are the views of the Democratic Party. But, I'm not holding you responsible for that.
CARVILLE: I'm not the chairman of Louis Farrakhan's group...
CARLSON: Well, how about Al Sharpton? I don't hold you responsible for anything Democrats said.
CARVILLE: He's not the chairman of the Democratic Party.
CARLSON: He's close.
CARVILLE: No, he's not.
CARLSON: Yes, he is.
More news tonight from the pot calling the kettle black department. The latest issue of "Time" magazine details the degree to which the Clinton administration's energy policy was dictated by none other than Ken Lay of Enron. Throughout the 1990s, Enron officials were invited to travel with Secretary of Energy Hazel O'Leary on trips to India, China, Pakistan and South Africa. In return, Enron gave cash in O'Leary's name to charity. By 1995, one Clinton energy official was assuring Enron in writing that the administration's energy policy would be rewritten, quote, "to take into account the specific comments and suggestions you made." The following year, Enron made its largest political donation ever, $100,000 check made out, surprise, surprise, to the Democratic Party, and so on and on and on. The Democratic Clinton embarrassment file grows thicker.
CARVILLE: Let me ask you something. Who is the biggest contributor to George W. Bush's political career?
CARVILLE: OK. Thank you. That's all.
CARLSON: Yes, but whose energy policy was...
CARVILLE: I love these guys, man. You can't beat -- it's all Clinton's fault. Former Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris' attempt to move up in the world came to a screeching halt. Her opponent the Republican primary for Congress is suing to have Harris' name taken off the ballot. John Hill says Harris messed up the paperwork required by Florida's obscure election laws. Well, sure they're obscure. They (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the books. We sure know about these. Harris admits filing some of her paperwork late, but it's hoping that everyone will give her a break. Yes, right, just like she gave a break to the thousands of people who wanted their votes counted two years ago. Honey, what goes around comes around.
CARLSON: Yes, I guess I'm just not into beating on women like that in public.
CARLSON: She didn't do anything wrong.
CARVILLE: I don't think you should beat women, but I think you should slam them for idiotic policies just like this woman had.
CARLSON: You want to beat up on girls that's your problem. It is.
CARVILLE: Aah, like that. Women in public life are immune from criticism. Never, never Mister -- Never, Mr. Carlson...
CARLSON: I'm saying don't pick on the weak, is what I'm saying.
CARVILLE: The secretary of state, you steal an election, I'm going to criticize you, man, woman or child. Period.
CARLSON: That's unfair and outrageous.
Exciting news in the Traficant for Congress campaign. The research service in the Library of Congress has been checking and concludes that Traficant may in fact be entitled to run for his Youngstown, Ohio district, even though he is doing time in a Pennsylvania prison. That's because the Constitution requires candidates to be, quote, "inhabitants of their district, not residents." Welton's (ph) decision may be up to a court, and his repeated felony convictions could remain an obstacle. But so far, neither Democratic or Republican have challenged Traficant's spot on the ballot. As an independent, Democratic voters in Ohio are said to be thrilled.
Iraq's parliament today voted unanimously to support Saddam Hussein for another seven-year term as president. Wow, there's a surprise. However, the Bush administration is thinking seriously of imposing term limits. Is it time to just do it? First in the CROSSFIRE tonight, Ken Adelman. He is the former director of the United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency and is now host of defensecentral.com; and former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger. Welcome to CROSSFIRE. It's an honor to have two gentlemen (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
CARLSON: Yes, it is. Secretary Eagleburger, welcome.
Everyone agrees and I'm certain you agree that Saddam Hussein is a mennance to the world.
LAWRENCE EAGLEBURGER, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: Yes. I'm not sure after listening to the two of you fight I should be here at all tonight, but...
CARLSON: James has calmed down a little bit. But I think you agree he's a menace. I know you do. Why not take him out now? EAGLEBURGER: Why not take out the head of North Korea? I can name six or seven menaces. Do you want to take them all out at the same time?
CARLSON: Well, I don't know. Let's just start with him. I mean, if he's a menace, people could have said that about Osama bin Laden 10 years.
EAGLEBURGER: No. 1, I'm not totally opposed to taking him out, but you have got to prove to me first that this is the time we have to do it, that he's that big a threat, and you got to demonstrate to me that we are serious enough about it that we're going to call up the reserves that are going to be necessary, that we're prepared to understand that when we take him out, if we do, that we're going to have to then figure out what we're going to do with Iraq afterwards and how are we going to explain to the Iraqi people that we're putting somebody in in his place. How long are we going to stay in Iraq?
In other words, what I'm really saying is if the president can get up and tell me that there is a good and serious and immediate reason to get him out of there, weapons of mass destruction and so forth, and he has a hand on the trigger, I'm not going to argue with it because, in other words, I'm not in the position of saying under no circumstances should we get him out of there. I want to know why we would want to do it now.
CARLSON: Well, sure. And I think most Americans do. But you don't really think the president would call America to support a war on Iraq before articulating the reason why.
EAGLEBURGER: No, absolutely not. I want, in other words, instead of all of the (AUDIO GAP) flowers bloom, which is what's been going on in this country for the last month, with all of this debate that's going on, which I find irresponsible, frankly. But instead of all of that, if the administration will make its case to the American people, I'm going to believe the president if he says this is what we must do. He wouldn't lie to us.
But what bothers me now is we have got all of this debate going on back and forth. And by the way, in the process, I think we have -- the administration has begun to lose the support for an invasion they had a month ago because people are now beginning to question it, as I am. A month ago, I was more certain about this than I am now. I really have begun to wonder whether this is the time to do it. Why this minute? Why right now?
CARVILLE: Mr. Adelman, this is a former secretary of state by everybody's -- one of the most esteemed foreign policy people we've had in this country.
EAGLEBURGER: Don't go that far.
CARVILLE: Well, no, (UNINTELLIGIBLE), people have told me. Tell him why we got to do it right now.
KEN ADELMAN, FORMER DIRECTOR, ARMS CONTROL & DISARMAMENT AGENCY: And I worked with Larry Eagleburger. He's a wonderful man and he did a wonderful job. And he says, well, why Saddam Hussein and not the other eight? Saddam Hussein is the only person who is violating U.N. resolutions right now very clearly.
EAGLEBURGER: I'm not curious about the other eight. Why Saddam now?
ADELMAN: I'm going to tell you. No. 2: He's the only one with a massive, biological, chemical and nuclear weapons program. No. 3: He's the only one who has been involved in international terrorism. No. 4: He's the only one who has invaded two of his neighbors. No. 5: He's the only one whose used gas against his own people and his own neighbors. I could go on and on and on.
But if the question is timing, I agree totally with Larry Eagleburger that we should have gone in six months ago.
CARVILLE: For the moment, let me say -- let me say for the purposes of the discussion here that everything you say is true, why the hell hasn't the president told us this? If all of this is true, and you're sitting here saying this, why doesn't the president of the United States get on television and say, my fellow Americans, boom, just like you did, one, two, three, four, five?
EAGLEBURGER: Because I'm not sure that he believes what he said. That's my opinion, and I'm not sure of that. Ken, I'm not sure he believes all that.
ADELMAN: OK. Well, if he doesn't, then he's just wrong, to tell you the truth. No, seriously. I think if you look at the evidence, I think if you look at the evidence, I think it is unmistakable, the pattern of behavior that Saddam Hussein...
CARVILLE: We love having you on here, you're a bright guy, but you're not the president. And you're just not making that case to a former Republican secretary of state. He's not making it to the American people. He's not making it to the allies. He's not making it to other people. Is that too much to ask?
ADELMAN: I want him to make the case when he's decided to go in, and that will be the time to make the case. And I think that he is -- I think that if Larry Eagleburger was saying he should have gone in months ago, I think that's absolutely right. We should have gone in -- I'll tell you why, because every day we wait, his weapons of mass destruction arsenal get more and more, and people say, oh my gosh, he's on the verge of getting nuclear weapons. And he will, before the next presidential election, before 2004, he will have nuclear weapons. Is that the time we want to deploy Americans to the area? Is that the time we want to get the allies?
CARLSON: What about the other consequences. I mean, I agree with you, Mr. Secretary, that the president hasn't fully articulated the reasons that we need to go to war with Iraq. But he has said, it seems to me pretty clearly, that we are going to. Well, he's hinted that we are fairly strongly. And I wonder what the consequences of not doing it at this point would be. Wouldn't that be essentially bluffing and showing the rest of the world that we...
EAGLEBURGER: No, see, that's the problem. I don't think that's the case at all. And I think this argument that if we don't do it after all this blather -- and I think a lot of it is blather. I think we've had a less than constrained situation here in terms of people talking when they shouldn't. But I don't think it follows at all that because all these people have talked, we've got to do something. And I'm still back to saying -- look, I'll say to you at some point, at some time, there's no question in my mind we're going to have to deal with Saddam Hussein. But we have got a lot of other terrorist targets out there that we haven't dealt with.
And I think by going after Saddam now when you don't have the allies with us and so forth, that we're going to miss a lot of other terrorist targets where the allies would be with us. And I'd like to see those dealt with unless you can prove to me the president can, that there is an immediate reason to get a hold of Saddam right now, I don't know why we have to do it right now.
CARLSON: The president -- it's not just blather. When the president gets up and says the policy of the United States government is a regime change in Iraq, that's a pretty clear statement that we want Saddam out. It couldn't be any clearer. And so, you really don't think there are any consequences of not following up on that?
EAGLEBURGER: No. But do we have to do it tomorrow morning? Couldn't we do it next year? See, that's my point. No. 1, if he wants Saddam out, there's a lot of time to do it. What I'm back to saying to you is now why is there all of this issue about doing it now? And if we're going to do it now, then I come back to saying, somebody has to explain to me, how we are going to deal with all of the consequences that come thereafter, which have not been discussed at all? Are we going to have American troops in Iraq for the next two years?
CARVILLE: Mr. Adelman, let me make a point here. As I watch this unfold, I got to tell you, in the papers, in the press and everything else, your side has taken a severe ass-whipping. The people that are against this are leaking stuff. They are hitting you from every side. And there is a little bit of a thing for me sitting here and saying I hope that they execute -- we go to war with Iraq, I hope the execution of the war is better than the execution of the lead-off program here. What are you guys going to do to get your point across? How are you going to get the president to make it?
ADELMAN: Well, I don't think it's a very hard argument to make. And I think that once the president, as Secretary Eagleburger says, says that we absolutely have to go in. And I think it's overdue. I think that the view of Americans, 90 percent of Americans would say that's a very good thing. Larry Eagleburger wants proof, OK? He wants Osama bin Laden-like proof... EAGLEBURGER: I want the president to tell me -- don't go that far. I want the president of the United States to tell me that in his judgment, it is essential that we do it now. And I'll believe him if he tells me that.
CARLSON: We're going to have to take a quick break now. We'll be back. And we'll ask our guests why the Democrats are maintaining radio silence in the Iraq debate.
Later, for those prone to stray, some alternatives to transparent finger-shaking denials.
And our "Quote of the Day" proves the times, as in the "New York Times," is changing. We'll be right back.
CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE.
Among Republicans, there is genuine angst over the question of whether the U.S. should go it alone against Saddam Hussein. A spokesman says (AUDIO GAP), but rather, is, quote, "constructive part of the process." We're talking Iraq with the former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger and former U.S. arms control negotiator Ken Adelman.
CARVILLE: Mr. Adelman, let me show you a quote from President Bush here that I find instructive and disturbing at the same time.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: But America needs to know I'll be making up my mind based upon the latest intelligence, and how best to protect our country plus our friends and allies.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARVILLE: Now, the president -- couldn't he have said I want to bring our allies into this, the American people, the Congress. I mean, somehow or another, is this all just in the president's thing or does he have some obligation as a leader of this country and as a leader of the free world to bring allies, congressional people, the American public...
ADELMAN: You bring people along once you've decided what you are going to do. And that is exactly -- no, listen to me, James. That's the way the senior Bush did in the Gulf War when Larry Eagleburger was in office. And it worked very well. What you say is this is the right thing to do. We are sending Americans over there. We are going to liberate Kuwait and we are going to face Saddam Hussein. And then, all kinds of people in Europe and in the Middle East adjust themselves and say, oh, my gosh, we have to be part of this process. And when Larry Eagleburger says, as he did a few minutes ago, well, no one will be with us, that's just not right. People will be with us once we decide what we're going to do. CARVILLE: You graciously came even before we had the show on -- we did a segment on this. That was in late March. It is now getting to be late August. When is he going to decide? Are we just going to be doing CROSSFIRE four years from now talking about whether or not we should invade Iraq? I mean, when is he going to tell us what the hell we should do?
ADELMAN: James, I was on here before. I thought it was overdue then. I think it's real overdue now. When Larry Eagleburger says there's too much discussion going on, there's all this blathering, you know why? Because policy abhors a vacuum. And if there's a vacuum on foreign affairs, then a big issue like Iraq, as there is right now, then all these people rush in to give their opinion. If the president said, as he did for the first six months after 9/11, this is the way we're going, you're either with us or against us, we have to combat these people before they attack us again because they could have weapons of mass destruction and therefore we're going to be tough. If the president took that stand, you'd see none of the blather that Larry Eagleburger talks about today.
CARLSON: Now, Secretary Eagleburger, the government of Israel appears to be in favor of an American attack on Iraq. These are serious (UNINTELLIGIBLE) a lot about the region. I wonder why they would be for a move like that if it was, in fact, premature and was going to result in destabilization in the (AUDIO GAP)?
EAGLEBURGER: They would be for it because we'd be clobbering one of their worst enemies. By the way, I need to tell you, this is the first time in my life I have ever agreed with the gentlemen to my right...
CARLSON: And it may be the last.
EAGLEBURGER: But in response to your question, I mean, look, what is -- I think, by the way, the government of Israel is making a terrible mistake when they seem to be in favor of this thing because if we go after Saddam, the first people who are going to be hit are going to be the Israelis. I was there the last time running around Israel trying to persuade them not to come into the war. And I was there when the Scuds were landing in Israel. And this time around, it will be a lot worse, if in fact it happens.
ADELMAN: OK, let me just tell you...
EAGLEBURGER: So, let me just say -- all I'm saying is I think the reason they want it is because we will then be taking on one of their worst enemies.
ADELMAN: Two weeks ago I was left -- two weeks ago, I was in Colorado with Shimon Peres, who was prime minister, foreign minister, defense minister, everything in the world. People said, this is a terrible mistake, you'll be hit first. And you know what he said? We're on the frontlines and we're very willing to do it. This is the most important thing America could do for civilization, and not just to protect face (ph).
ADELMAN: You can say he's wrong, but he's on the frontlines.
CARLSON: Secretary Eagleburger, Ken Adelman, thank you both for joining us. We are out of time, sadly.
Still to come, adultery, to commit or not to commit? An author on the subject joins us to debate it.
And then, reparations for slavery. Louis Farrakhan is in favor of them. Should you be?
And finally, our "Quote of the Day" comes from the new editor of the "New York Times." Things have changed there. We'll explain. We'll be right back.
CARVILLE: It isn't your grandfather's "New York Times" and it sure isn't your grandfather's boyfriend's "New York Times." Over the weekend, the paper notified its readers that starting next month, they'll be seeing more than just usual wedding notices. The Sunday style section will also publish reports of same-sex commitment ceremonies. Our "Quote of the Day" goes to the paper's executive editor, Howell Raines. He writes, quote, "I'm making this change. We acknowledge the newsworthiness of a growing and visible trend in society toward public celebrations of commitment by gay and lesbian couples."
Paul (ph), you and I have had some terse conversations with Mr. Raines during Whitewater. But I congratulate the "New York Times" on this. I think this is an acknowledgment of something that is happening in American society, and the fact they're the vanguard of it is something that is good. I just wish they'd take back all those stupid Whitewater editorials.
CARLSON: Those are the best things, actually, about Howell Raines. And I want to thank him for those yet again. There are two things that are phony about this. The first is there is no gay marriage. So, to run these in the wedding pages is kind of weird.
CARVILLE: You can't -- the reason they don't have gay marriages is they won't let people have it. It's not because they don't want to get married.
CARLSON: If I can just finish. And the second thing that's phony about it is the idea that the "New York Times" is acknowledging a change in society is only partly true. The "New York Times," as you know, the most powerful paper in the world, is changing society in the act of doing this. That may be right or wrong, good or bad, depending on your position. But to say that we're just reacting to society's changes is not true. CARVILLE: They're not creating an announcement that happened. Two people get married, say we're having a celebration. They should do it.
CARLSON: I mean the deeper sense, James...
CARVILLE: What's your problem with gay people being together?
CARLSON: You settle down. I have no problem with that. I just think they ought to admit what it is.
Coming up in a CNN "News Alert," more tire problems and more recalls. CNN's Connie Chung will have details in a minute.
Later, a book of unimpeachable rules for husbands, wives and significant others with wandering eyes, i.e. mistresses.
Also, reopening a chapter of American history for profit, of course. We'll be right back.
CARVILLE: This past weekend, several hundred people rallied in front of the nation's capital demanding reparations for slavery. Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan was among the speakers. He called for millions of acres of land to be given to African-Americans. Others want money or at least an official national apology.
Is this a discussion that should have been held years ago or is it finally payback time? Joining us in Los Angeles is David Horowitz of the Center of the Study of Popular Culture. He is the author of a book called "How to Beat the Democrats -- (UNINTELLIGIBLE) just stack the Supreme Court -- And Other Subversive Ideas." And here in Washington, University of Maryland political scientist Ron Walters.
CARLSON: Mr. Walters, thanks for joining us. Isn't the basis of western justice the idea that you are responsible for what you do. You are not responsible for what your relatives do. You are not responsible for what your ancestors did. Given that, isn't it against the idea of justice in this country, maybe even immoral, to take money from people as punishment for a deed they didn't commit?
RON WALTERS, POLITICAL SCIENTIST: Well, it's not a question of taking money from people. It's a question of the government of the United States having a debt that they had owed for 245 years of unpaid labor, 137 years of racist oppression in this country. And that is as much a responsibility of the government of the United States as defense or anything else.
CARLSON: Wait a second. I mean, when you talk about government, I mean, government is, of course, funded by ordinary citizens, taxpayers. And I'm wondering if, say, the descendants of the 350,000 Union soldiers who died trying end slavery, should have to pay for reparations? How does that work exactly?
WALTERS: Well, Tucker, they didn't die trying to end slavery. What was in their head was keeping the Union whole, the unity of the Union. And I don't think there were very many people who went on that battlefield talking about they were going to liberate slaves.
CARLSON: Well, (UNINTELLIGIBLE), isn't that the point? I mean, isn't that some of them died presumably to end slavery, others didn't, but we can't know. So, why tax their descendants then?
WALTERS: Well, the fact of the matter is we have a written record. We have a written record.
CARVILLE: David, we can all agree that slavery and the general treatment of African-Americans is the darkest chapter of our nation's history, can't we?
DAVID HOROWITZ, AUTHOR: We can, but it has another side. Of course, I think all Americans today would support reparations for slaves and former slaves. The problem is they are all dead. And the other side of the story is the black people in America today are the richest and freest black people on the face of this earth. And that's because a lot of Americans, white and black, gave their lives for certain ideals that this movement, and Ron Walters in particular, don't want to recognize.
When he speaks of 245 years of slavery that the American government is responsible for, he's going back to 1619. There was no American government in 1619. There wasn't one until 1776 or 1787. And that American government announced that, you know, all men are created equal and the country was torn apart. And we paid a huge price not only to end slavery in America, but in the whole Western Hemisphere and across the Atlantic.
CARVILLE: Just to start, we do know that from the beginning of the Constitution up until secession, that the government of the United States protected slavery as the institution, fostered it, set rules for it and everything else. That we know, don't we?
HOROWITZ: Well, the government was really split. Benjamin Franklin led a delegation in 1790 to the Constitution...
CARVILLE: If you were a slave, it wasn't split. You were a slave.
HOROWITZ: Oh, no. It was half free...
CARVILLE: But if you were a slave in Louisiana, you were a slave. It wasn't split, man. You couldn't leave.
HOROWITZ: Well, that's true...
CARVILLE: You got sold.
HOROWITZ: ... but what was the alternative? The alternative was not to have a union. The alternative would have been that the South would have aligned with Britain, crushed the North and established slavery throughout the continent. The government...
CARVILLE: I'm not necessarily...
HOROWITZ: If Ron Walters wants to sue a government, he should sue the Confederacy. I agree with you 100 percent. But the government of Lincoln freed the slaves. And the...
CARLSON: Mr. Walters, I wonder how you'd figure out who should pay for the reparations and who should receive them? I mean, the great immigration in this country, of course, happened after the Civil War.
WALTERS: We aren't concerned about figuring out who should pay it and who should receive it. What we are figuring out here is the integrity of the claim. The question of whether or not there was unpaid labor for 245 years, the question of whether there were not slaves actually cleared. What we have today right down the street, the capital of the United States, and place the statue of freedom on top of the building and put the stones in place, and so many other buildings the slaves built in this city, in this very city that we're sitting in. So, it's really beyond argument that slavery was contributory to the development of this country.
CARLSON: But nobody argues that.
WALTERS: Well, yes, some people argue that. Horowitz argues that we shouldn't actually go back that far, except for the fact when you look at the fact that, yes, slaves are not here, except isn't it a mystical idea that slaves don't have legatees, don't have aunt, uncles, don't have grandchildren who have actually gone through this same situation.
CARLSON: So how do you find out, with blood tests?
CARVILLE: I completely agree. I think it's a horrible thing. We waited too long to get rid of slavery. But where you got to get me -- where you got to take me is how do you get from where you are -- what are reparations? It means you get something. What is it in the ideal world that you think that we should do as a result of this?
WALTERS: This is a country that was able to figure that out when it came to Hawaii, when it came to Japanese, when it came to Native Americans, when it came to Jewish Americans. They were able to figure it out.
CARVILLE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) but we herded all the Native Americans to reservations.
WALTERS: The fact of the matter is you didn't do a good job, but they paid reparations to Native Americans. So, what I'm saying is that give us a chance to figure it out in this case. Congressman John Conyers has a bill, HR-40. It has not gotten the support in the Congress of the United States to even study the proposition. If we could study it, begin at the beginning, not at the back end, where Horowitz wants to begin, the beginning...
CARLSON: The Horowitz in question here, why not study it, as Mr. Walters said, whatever that means?
HOROWITZ: Well, look, it's not like slavery hasn't been studied for 100 years. Just to take the unpaid labor, a segment -- slavery was a monstrous, immoral institution, and that's why it should be condemned. But if you are looking at it economically, two economotricians won the Nobel Prize for studying slavery and they came up with the figure of 10 percent of a slave's wages were unpaid labor because the slave, after all, got food, clothing and housing.
Now, you and I, Tucker, and James and Ron Walters pay -- 30 percent or 40 percent of our labor is unpaid because it goes to the federal government. So this is -- there's -- this isn't the issue. This is just the camel's nose in the tent. And it's a complete misrepresentation to say the Japanese got any kind of reparations that we're talking about here. The Japanese who were paid reparations were the actual people who suffered. They had their property taken away. They were put in relocation camps. There are no slaves...
CARLSON: We are running out of time.
CARVILLE: David, I want to be sure -- Mr. Walters never said we should study slavery. We should study the issue of reparations. It's an entirely different thing. It's should be characterized right. Unfortunately, thank you all for being here. We're running out of time and the time goes gone. Appreciate it.
CARLSON: Coming up in our "Fireback" segment, a viewer who thinks we on the right are being a bit too gentle.
But next, an author who has been called the bin Laden of love. She's written a handbook for philanderers. It's hard to believe, but believe me, she's our guest next in the CROSSFIRE.
CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. We're coming to you from the George Washington University here in downtown Washington, D.C.
As you all know through repeated bipartisan experience, few if any of the Ten Commandments apply here in Washington. But help is here for those who choose to ignore the adultery one. In "The 50-Mile Rule: Your Guide to Infidelity & Extramarital Etiquette," Judith Brandt offers practical tips for those of you who cannot resist a little sex on the sly. Our wives more than happy to take the opposing side, so we thought it was best to talk with author Judy Brandt via satellite. She joins us from far more than 50 miles away in our L.A. bureau. Welcome.
JUDITH BRANDT, AUTHOR, "THE 50-MILE RULE": Thank you very much.
CARVILLE: Ms. Brandt, just in a short time, just give us the sort of synthesis of what you are advocating here in your book?
BRANDT: Well, it's important to point out that I'm really not advocating adultery. I think we all know that adultery is wrong. But people are doing it anyway. And so what I'm trying do is help people make smarter choices about their sexuality within marriage. If this is the route that they decide to go, be smart about it and don't necessarily take actions that are going to affect that primary relationship.
CARLSON: Well, wait a second. Wait a second. You are an admitted adulteress, right?
CARLSON: I mean, you've had an affair with married men. Now, what do you think, when you are off playing couchball with some guy, do you ever think about his wife and how betrayed she would be and the damage you could be inflicting on someone else's marriage? Sort of awful, isn't it?
BRANDT: Well, yes, there's certainly a way of looking at. But there's another way of looking at it too. When this guy leaves me, he is feeling better. He is feeling more relaxed. He is feeling refreshed. We have a terrific repoire (ph). He goes home into this relationship and is able to deal with it on a better basis. So, he is not divorced probably because of me.
CARLSON: Well, it's awfully nice of you.
BRANDT: Isn't that generous? I'm very generous. We're providing a public service.
CARLSON: I've heard that description applied to other professions. But let me just ask you this, though. What about the sisterhood here? I mean, don't you feel just a wee bit guilty as you are doing this thinking of some suburban housewife whose mate you are stealing? I mean, that never -- doesn't make you feel bad?
BRANDT: No, that doesn't make me feel bad. First of all, there is no sisterhood. And the old phrase that all is fair in love and war, I think should have been coined by a woman and really applies. I mean, we are all needing to look out for ourselves. And of all of the reasons not to have an affair, you know, helping out another woman is probably the least realistic one. CARVILLE: Well, the reason I don't is my wife would take a pair of garden shears to me and I'd be missing something rather dear to me. But my father gave me a piece of advice, and he was a very wise man and I'll never forget it, he told me -- he said this about affairs. You got to remember something, these things are a lot easier to get into than they are to get out of.
BRANDT: And that is absolutely the case.
CARVILLE: And the best way not to get out of an affair is to never get into one. Would you agree with that?
BRANDT: Right. And that is absolutely the case. I mean, they certainly are fraught with peril and they are a game for adults and you should not be playing this game if you don't feel that you can take it all the way to the end.
CARVILLE: But it's not just you. It's the person that you are playing this game with too, right?
BRANDT: Absolutely. I mean, yes, when you are engaged in an affair, you are basically in partnership with somebody who can do you a lot of harm and a lot of harm for a lifetime, even when this relationship ends. So it's very serious business.
CARVILLE: So, what you seem to be saying is is the best thing to do is not to have an affair.
BRANDT: That can be. On the other hand, affairs can be the very best thing that you ever did. You can find somebody that is absolutely suited for you. You can find somebody who is going to create an event or some sort of weekend or, you know, something that's going to last a lifetime and be far more resonant than your marriage...
CARLSON: Now, you make it sound great. But I wonder if you have ever met a...
BRANDT: It can be great.
CARLSON: Doubtless, but I wonder if you've ever met a child who -- one of whose parents has had an affair who feels the same way about it that you do. You just mentioned you can have, you know, lovely little weekends, weekend getaways or whatever. But, you know, you think of all the kids whose parents break up. I mean, to the average 8-year-old, that means absolutely nothing. You're destroying his life. And I want to hear you feel a little more guilty, I guess is what I'm getting at here.
BRANDT: No, you're going to be hitting me very hard to make me feel a little more guilty. But let's put it this way. When you are talking about kids, divorce is kind of the most drastic measure that you can take in terms of kids. I mean, people don't want a divorce because they know what the impact is going to be on children. Because the successful affair is the undiscovered affair, what you really need to be doing is, if you are going to be stepping out on that relationship, you are doing it in such a way that is discreet so that your kids are not involved so that you are able to, you know, go about your business and really not affect them. Divorce might affect them a great deal more than a few discreet affairs here and there.
CARLSON: Doesn't that poison the whole marriage, though, if there's deceit that at that level. Doesn't it just sort of affect every part of the marriage?
BRANDT: Well, of course it does. But generally speaking, when you get to that point, deceit is part of the marriage anyway. So, this is just a matter of degree.
CARVILLE: Let me go back, Ms. Brandt. Now, first of all, I may not agree with you, but I certainly admire you for coming on here. In these affairs that you have, there's no way to get around it, I mean, you meet this guy and you all would like service each other, and then everybody would go home, and then three weeks later, you would sort of come back? I mean, what was...
BRANDT: Well, you know, I mean, these are long-term. Certainly, the one I'm involved in now is a fairly long-term matter and we see each other once in awhile. And it really is not kind of one of these titanic love affairs. But it is something where there are two people who have a lot of interest and love and enjoyment for each other, and we see each other on occasion and then we both go home and it suits us both fine.
CARVILLE: How many phones do you think you're going to get tonight after this show?
CARLSON: Let me just add the man's perspective. I mean, if you are a married man with a happy life, you are not sitting in bed at night thinking about your mistress. I mean, you are being used in a pretty obvious and kind of sad way, don't you think?
BRANDT: Oh, yes, absolutely, as long as you are -- if people harbor these kind of unrealistic expectations of these things, yes, then using is definitely a word that comes to mind. One of the things I tried to talk about in my book though is to not create those kind of expectations. If people understand what they're getting themselves into and are accepting it, it's just great. This works great for me. And it works for him too.
CARLSON: Low expectations, the name of the game. Judith Brandt...
BRANDT: Yes, well, sometimes it is.
CARLSON: ... thanks so much for joining us.
BRANDT: Thank you very much.
CARLSON: You are a realist. Thank you. Next, our viewers "Fireback" at us via e-mail. Believe it or not, one of our viewers wonders if James Carville's head is good for something besides reflecting the TV lights. We'll be right back.
CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. Time for our "Fireback" segment. To the e-mail bag we go. First up, Laura Harrison in Richmond, Virginia writes: "Tucker, if you love James Traficant so much -- and I do -- why don't you campaign for him from jail? I'm sure he'd appreciate it a lot." Laura, he did appreciate it a lot. You thought I was on vacation, but no.
CARVILLE: All right. "By virtue of the amount of debate, it is clear that we should not attack Iraq at this time. Haven't we learned from Vietnam, the consequence of engaging in warfare without consensus." Paul Sullivan of (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Connecticut.
You're right. What I want to know is, where's the president on this. We have got everybody else in, we should do this or shouldn't do this or anything else. And the one voice that I want to hear from and the rest of the world wants to hear from is President Bush, and apparently he's still trying to make up his mind.
CARLSON: I think we'll hear from him after August. "Real conservatives drink beer, cuss like sailors, knock the crap out of playground bullies like Begala and Carville, but still love God, their families and their country. Fight the perpetual playground bullies and stop being so damn nice," says Steve Mezhir from Papillion, Nebraska. Steve, rest assured, I'm a deeply mean guy right beneath the surface. Have no fear.
CARVILLE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE). "James, do you ever let the other guys on CROSSFIRE rub your head and make a wish?" Go ahead, Tucker. Rub it, baby. There you go!
CARLSON: May your wishes always come true. And in a minute, our studio audience has their chance to "Fireback" at us. One of them has a big problem with something I said tonight. Stay tuned. We'll be right back.
CARVILLE: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE, coming to you live from the George Washington University in beautiful Foggy Bottom in Washington, D.C. Now, time for our favorite part, where we have audience questions. And our first question, this young lady has one for you, Mr. Carlson. Fire away, young lady.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, Tucker, actually, you said that James is only berating Katherine Harris because she is a woman, while I on behalf of my entire sex, thank you very heartily for your rather misplaced chivalry. My real question is -- or I'd like to make a suggestion that just being a woman shouldn't serve as protection from criticism for idiotic and/or irresponsible behavior. CARLSON: Needless to say, and you'll find me assaulting women nightly on CROSSFIRE. The point I was hoping to make was she is weak and she was a target of opportunity on which all the frustration of the Democratic Party could be placed. She was expendable and I was offended by it, and still am.
CARVILLE: There is someone who is one of our great heroines of the world is Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York. God knows no one ever attacked her. Thank God (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
CARLSON: Yes, ma'am.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hi. Why wasn't all this dealt with with Saddam, or as the original George Bush would say, Saddam, why wasn't this dealt with when father George Bush was president during the Gulf War? Why are we doing it now? Why wasn't it done then?
Well, that's an excellent question. A lot of people are wringing their hands about it and upset about it. There was some debate at the time, but the coalition of Gulf states and European allies were fairly clear that they wanted it to end once the U.S. moved out of Kuwait. And so we did.
CARVILLE: That seemed to be a fairly accurate answer and recapitulation of what happened. And that's all the time we've got. From the left, I'm James Carville. Good night for CROSSFIRE.
CARLSON: From the right, I'm Tucker Carlson. Join us again tomorrow night for yet another edition of CROSSFIRE. "CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT" begins immediately after a CNN "News Alert." See you tomorrow night.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Government Pay Reparations For Slavery?>