Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Talkback Live

Saudi Arabia Launches PR Campaign; Pepsi Dumps Rapper's Ads; U.S. Makes Terrorism Arrests

Aired August 29, 2002 - 15:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(APPLAUSE)
LEON HARRIS, HOST: My goodness, you would think it was Friday, not Thursday, with this kind of crowd we got here today.

Good to see you all.

Hello, everyone, and welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Leon Harris. I hope you could tell that. Arthel Neville is not here. She's taking some time off today.

Now, what went through your mind when you heard that five men living here in the U.S. may have been helping al Qaeda in its violent jihad against America, possibly planning to even poison or firebomb people or launch attacks in Disneyland or Las Vegas? Pretty incredible stuff. Well, could all of this just be happening right here under our noses? We'll be talking about that today.

And then stay tuned because, later on, we want to know exactly why Saudi Arabia is shelling out big bucks, millions we hear, all to convince you that they're the good guys. And we'll find out whether or not that campaign is working.

Then, we want to know if you think rapper Ludacris is all about the Pepsi generation. Find out why Pepsi's decision to can the singer's ads is provoking so much controversy. See who is really losing on that decision.

All right, now we're going to start, though, with this conspiracy indictment story that broke this morning. It's about these indictments, rather, brought against one man in Seattle and four others who are in Detroit. Earnest James Ujaama of Seattle -- you see him there on the picture on the screen -- he was charged with conspiracy in a plot to destroy property, maim and murder people in the U.S..

The conspiracy allegedly involved providing safe houses, training grounds and recruits. Now, in Detroit, four men there charged with operating a cell that provided fake I.D.s and other documents to potential terrorists.

CNN justice correspondent Kelli Arena joins us now.

Kelli, good to see you. Now, tell us, how big a deal is all of this?

KELLI ARENA, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, these men are not major players, according to investigators, in the terrorist structure. But officials say that they are important and it is important to have them in custody, because what they were, they played a pivotal role in providing the infrastructure that exists in the United States that terrorists can take advantage of.

And by infrastructure, I mean people who are involved in recruiting efforts, getting people that are like-minded together, in providing safe houses, in providing fake documents. If you remember, a while back, there were some arrests of people who were available to take English-language exams for immigrants looking to come in on student visas. Terrorists sometimes come in on student visas.

So, there is a large infrastructure within the criminal world that makes itself available, wittingly or unwittingly, to the terrorist population and makes it easier for them to pull off terrorists acts.

HARRIS: So, what are your sources there in Washington telling you? Do they believe this may be the tip of iceberg and there will be more arrests coming?

ARENA: Well, officials did say yesterday, in public, that they expected that there would be more indictments.

As you know, James Ujaama, who was indicted as part of an investigation in Seattle, that investigation has tentacles that reach to Britain. He is part of a larger investigation into a radical sheik, Abu Hamza, who is in London, who happens to affiliated with the mosques that both Zacarias Moussaoui and the alleged shoe bomber, Richard Reid, attended.

Investigators believe that Abu Hamza is a senior al Qaeda recruiter. That is a charge that he denies. And he has not been charged. So we need to point that out. But these investigations have tentacles that are not only here in the United States, but that reach to other countries as well. So, yes, they do believe that these will lead to other indictments.

HARRIS: All right, Kelli Arena in Washington, thank you very much. That is quite sobering news there.

Joining us now is David Isby. He's an intelligence analyst and a freelance writer as well. He has covered Afghanistan and the Mideast for some 20 years. Now, David has authored several books and was once with "Jane's Intelligence Review." So, he is quite conversant in these subject matters.

David, let me ask you, what do you think about this and whether or not you believe this is the tip of the iceberg here?

DAVIS ISBY, INTELLIGENCE ANALYST: Certainly, these are not the only people who are conducting these activities. Terrorists groups -- not just al Qaeda, but a wide range of them -- have support and money in the United States. We saw recently the trial in North Carolina of two brothers who were bootlegging cigarettes and passing the profits off to Hezbollah, the London-based terrorist group. So, not just al Qaeda, but many terrorist groups have these sort of supporters in the United States, who, as they say, provide documents, provide expertise in interfacing with the Western world that the hard-core people might not have.

HARRIS: Well, what does that say about the administration and even the U.N.'s effort to shut down this money pipeline to al Qaeda? You are talking here about illegal cigarette sales. We also heard things about cash being smuggled in, counterfeit cash and checks being sold and moved all the away around the states in various points, as well as Detroit and Vegas. But what does that say, then, about the efforts to shut down this pipeline?

ISBY: That it's going to be a long, hard battle.

Money pipelines do not have one spigot. One thing you can look at is American efforts to stop funding of terrorist groups in Northern Ireland. The United States has been doing this since the 1980s. And it has been a very difficult process. And, even to this day, we really haven't totally succeeded. So, both in the United States and in less-developed countries, Saudi Arabia, it is going to be a very hard battle, even if the will is there.

HARRIS: Now, the thing that jumped out at me this morning was finding out that this James Ujaama, who was arrested in Washington state, he is an American citizen. He is now the second American citizen to be facing charges and actually being indicted, with the so- called Johnny Taliban being the first one, John Walker Lindh.

What does that tell you? Does that say something about perhaps there being some silent cells, more than even the government could possibly know about at this particular point? Could it be neighbors of ours that we may be not even be noticing that are doing these sort of things?

ISBY: No.

Certainly, there are Americans here who are very much involved in the politics of the Old World, of the countries they came from, in the case of immigrants, or cases, in the case of the native-born, that they have interest in. And this has been going on, so help me, since people went back to fight in the English Civil War from Massachusetts in 1642.

So, it is part of America. It has been here for a long time, that people here get involved in Old World conflicts.

HARRIS: How about the targets that we learned about that were included some of the documentation that was uncovered? Does this tell you anything? Like, for instance, the MGM Grand Hotel and Casino in Vegas being a target, what does that tell you? ISBY: Well, we don't know necessarily if they were targets. We know these people scoped them out in a way which might prove useful for targeting. So, we don't know whether these indeed were going to be a target.

HARRIS: But what does that tell us about their thinking right now, though?

ISBY: Look, this is what you would call a countervalue target, rather than a symbolic target, one which is going to create economic damage. And, indeed, we don't know whether these people were freelancing or someone had asked them to do it.

That is the key thing: to find out whether these people are just like-minded individuals operating independently or they are responding to a tasking from al Qaeda, some other terrorist group. That is the key thing. These people may be relatively small fish, as your report said. The interesting thing is going to be: Where are their connections?

HARRIS: Exactly.

Also, I understand Disneyland was also one of the sites listed as a possible target as well. That's in California. We have a caller from California on the line now.

Phil, are you there?

CALLER: Yes.

HARRIS: What is your comment or your question?

CALLER: I can't believe everybody forgot Oklahoma City already and Tim McVeigh. Look, you live in a world of six billion people. There will always be terrorists. You will never do away with it. Thank you.

HARRIS: Thank you, Phil.

That is a rather valid point. Can't argue that one at all.

But, David, let me ask you something else about this international network. Is it possible that we are learning just how much we may have underestimated all of this?

ISBY: I think that we find more and more. We are not learning just now.

We also have learned a great deal from documents captured in Afghanistan, from interrogations of captured individuals, and from trials in other countries. In fact, yesterday, we saw the first indictment in Germany, where there are 71 investigations in progress. They indicted someone who worked with Mohamed Atta, the hijacker.

HARRIS: So, even after all of these months now of trying to shut this -- at least shut the financing network down, how much money would you guess al Qaeda might be sitting on right now?

ISBY: Probably not a lot. They have lost a lot of it. They are able to make the money go farther because they get other people to fund them.

They get people to think they are donating to charities, and they fund al Qaeda. They get al Qaeda people put on the no-show jobs at organizations. So that is the genius, if you will, of this sort of terrorist infrastructure. It is concealed. It's embedded in other things. It's camouflaged. So it is very hard to say just cut off the money supply and they're out of business.

HARRIS: David Isby, thank you very much. We're out of time. Thank you for joining us. Appreciate the insight.

All right, coming up next: Can Saudi Arabia buy your goodwill? Find out why the Arab nation is trying to put its best foot forward -- coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS: Right now on TALKBACK LIVE: Are terrorist sleeper cells thriving in your own backyard?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My sense is that these people are probably very low-lying fruit.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARRIS: Also: Saudi Arabia wants to buy a nice-guy image. It might offer 9/11 victims a Kentucky Derby-winning race horse. Would you look this gift horse in the mouth?

TALKBACK LIVE continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS: And welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE this afternoon.

Now, the next question: Does Saudi Arabia need a friendlier face? According to "The New York Times," the Saudis are spending a lot of money now to convince not just politicians, but you everyday Americans that they're on the same team in the war on terrorism.

There's even talk that a member of the royal family might be making a gift of War Emblem. You see the horse on the screen there? You race horse fans might remember, this is the horse that won the Preakness and the Kentucky Derby earlier this year.

Adel Al-Jubeir is a foreign policy adviser to Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah. He joins us from Washington.

Good to see you again, sir.

ADEL AL-JUBEIR, FOREIGN POLICY ADVISER TO SAUDI CROWN PRINCE: Thank you, Leon. My pleasure.

HARRIS: Thank you for taking time to talk with us this afternoon.

I'm very curious about this decision by your government to wage this P.R. campaign. As I understand it, this was your idea, correct?

AL-JUBEIR: No, no, no.

We have had for a number of years done public-relations efforts in the U.S. This time, we decided we needed something that is sustainable, that is long-term. And we wanted to take our message directly to the American public.

HARRIS: Well, let me ask you this. If you are conceding that your image needs to be repaired in some way, is the Saudi Arabian government prepared to admit or concede that some mistakes were made by the government?

AL-JUBEIR: Well, in terms of how we communicate with the American people, we were not aware of all the things that needed to be done. Maybe we focused too much on dealing with the U.S. government and not enough on getting our message directly to the American public.

Maybe we didn't do a good job in terms of the press and having the press come to Saudi Arabia and see for themselves, walk the streets, talk to Saudis. Those are the things that we are trying to work on with our current campaign.

HARRIS: What kind of message is it you think the American people have not been getting?

AL-JUBEIR: Well, to begin with, Leon, there were a lot of charges that were made Saudi Arabia that simply are not true: that Saudi Arabia supports terrorism -- that is nonsense -- that Saudi Arabia has not been cooperating in the war on terrorism. That is also nonsense.

We froze bank accounts. We arrested people. We detained people. We questioned people. We vetted charities. We worked with you in terms of logistical support for the effort in Afghanistan. We've worked the international community on tracking down the accounts of those suspected of supporting terrorism. And we have done pretty much everything that we could do.

And the president has said this publicly and repeatedly. That is a message that has not come through to the American public. The message of friendship that has existed between our two countries for over 60 years is one that we probably could do a better job explaining to the American public. We are not enemies. There is no enmity between our two people. We are friends.

Do you know, Leon, that one of the largest communities of Americans that lives outside the U.S. lives in Saudi Arabia? Were you aware that you can walk on the streets of Riyadh and run into an American whose grandfather came to Saudi Arabia? Not too many people know this.

HARRIS: But, sir, we are also quite aware that we have seen plenty of reports about different brands of fundamentalism being fostered there in Saudi Arabia. And we have seen the product of that in what's happened on 9/11 last year.

Let me ask you this, because one of the things that I think most American people would like to see and hear, and not just in the words in some of these campaign images that you are trying to portray right now, is some sort of addressing of the fact that 15 of the 19 hijackers that struck this nation September 11 of last year were from Saudi Arabia.

AL-JUBEIR: Yes, Leon, Osama bin Laden has over 5,000 members in al Qaeda. They come from over 50 countries. He could have chosen any nationality to put on those planes. He chose Saudis in order to give this operation a Saudi face and to create doubts in the minds of Americans about Saudi Arabia and drive a wedge between our two countries.

And you know what? He succeeded. People in America have doubts about Saudi Arabia as a consequence. People in America think that because there were Saudis on the planes, there's a problem with Saudi Arabia. And Osama bin Laden, that was his objective.

HARRIS: All right, sir, hold that thought, if you could, for just one moment, please. We have to take a break right now. I want to pick that up with you when we come back after the break.

Stay with us, folks.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS: About this public-relations campaign waged by the Saudi Arabian government to boost its image here in the U.S., and we are joined this afternoon by Adel Al-Jubeir, who is a foreign policy adviser to Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah.

Thank you for sticking around and giving us some extra time. We appreciate that.

But I want to ask you about a point you were making right before we went to the break when I asked you about Saudi Arabia addressing the fact that 15 of the 19 hijackers that struck this country were from Saudi Arabia. Now, you know this country is one in which words -- actions, rather, speak louder than words.

And what I what you know is, you are saying, then, that there is no responsibility on the society that's been bred in Saudi Arabia? You are saying that the fact that 15 of the 19, that makeup of the group of hijackers is all because Osama bin Laden orchestrated that on purpose to hurt Saudi Arabia?

AL-JUBEIR: I was saying, Leon, that there were 15 Saudis on the planes, without a doubt. This is a source of great shame for Saudi Arabia. We are very sorry that our sons were on those planes and that they committed this crime, this horrible crime in which over 2,000 people were murdered. There is no justification for it whatsoever.

The point I was make something is that Osama bin Laden could have put any nationality on those airplanes, including Americans. Remember, he even has American members of his organization. But he intentionally chose to put Saudis on the plane in order to make this operation look like a Saudi operation, in order to drive a wedge between our two countries by creating doubts in the minds of Americans about Saudi Arabia and its commitment to its relationship with the U.S. and its commitment to peace and stability.

Now, after September 11, in Saudi Arabia, we went through a lot of soul-searching: Is there something that we could have done differently that could have prevented this? Is there something that the Europeans could have done differently in terms of denying them hospitality? Is there something that the U.S. could have done differently in terms of paying maybe more attention to this phenomena?

We set up a counterterrorism committee with the United States in the mid-1990s whose objective was to go after bin Laden and his al Qaeda organization. We are trying to reassess. What could we have done better -- we meaning both of us -- in order to make sure that something like this does not happen in the future?

But my point to you is that we should not let the fact that 15 Saudis were on the plane paint an image of 16 million God-fearing, law-abiding, peaceful Saudis. These people represent our country as much as Jim Jones or Timothy McVeigh represent America. They are deviants. They are criminals. We reject them.

HARRIS: Sir, let me ask you finally this afternoon, don't you think it would make more of an impression on the society here, here in America, if we were to see Saudi Arabia actually embrace and actually encourage more democracy in its country; that impression would make actually more mileage with the American public than just mere words?

AL-JUBEIR: Well, that is a good point, Leon. And I take it. And it is very valid.

And it goes to the heart of what we are trying to do. People don't know what is going on in Saudi Arabia because they hear things by somebody who may have little experience and they assume that Saudi Arabia is one place, when it is an entirely different place. Forty years ago, we had no schools. We had no government institutions. We had no hospitals. We had no roads.

So we took a country that was a sandbox, with a lot of help from the U.S. in terms of technical assistance and brain power, and took this sandbox and built a modern nation. As we were doing this, we began to build institutions. We know what the direction we need to move in. And we are moving in that direction. We are doing it at our own pace and we are doing it very effectively.

HARRIS: We will be watching as you do make that move, sir.

AL-JUBEIR: Thank you.

HARRIS: Adel Al-Jubeir, thank you very much. We appreciate your time, as always.

AL-JUBEIR: My pleasure.

HARRIS: All right.

Stay with us, folks. We'll have some more on Saudi Arabia's bid for a good image here in America coming up. Plus, after the break, we want to know if you have an opinion on this topic, actually on this topic and some others. So we'll take your questions and comments as well right after the break.

Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS: Welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE.

We are here to debate now whether Saudi Arabia is America's friend or foe.

Joining us is Blanquita Cullum. She's a radio talk show host for Radio America, a frequent guest on this show as well.

BLANQUITA CULLUM, RADIO AMERICA TALK SHOW HOST: Hi, Leon.

HARRIS: Hey, good to see you again.

CULLUM: Thank you.

HARRIS: Also joining us is Kathryn Lopez. She is executive editor of the "National Review Online," as well as associate editor of "National Review" magazine. Good to see you as well. How are you?

KATHRYN LOPEZ, NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE: Hi, Leon.

HARRIS: I wanted to ask -- first of all, Blanquita, I have to start with you, because as I understand it, you were -- did you listen just moments ago to the foreign adviser there to Saudi Arabia?

CULLUM: Yes, I did. I did.

HARRIS: As I understand it, you have actually participated in some of these trips over to Saudi Arabia?

CULLUM: Well, let me tell you how this came about, because you know, being in talk radio, Leon, we're not the guys and gals who necessarily get invited, like the mainstream press, because we are, like, at the low end of the pecking order.

But the interesting thing is I had Adel al-Jubeir on my show, and it was an interview. And during the break, I said, you know something? We don't who you are. Most people have never been to Saudi Arabia. So I said to him, at some point down the road, I think it would be interesting to take a coalition, a variety of hosts, and go to Saudi Arabia. So we sat down and talked about it. Now, one of the things that I said to him was, look, I cannot say that I am going to have a group of people there that are going to agree with your point of view or be sympathetic. But I can say that I will have a group of hosts that will be open-minded. And it was an interesting mix.

HARRIS: All right.

CULLUM: There were lefts, there were rights, there were four women, four men, three who were Jewish, one young woman who was an Egyptian Muslim, a citizen -- an American citizen but of that extraction. And it was an interesting variety of people that went.

We broadcast every day to our audience. And it was interesting, because even though we would be talking about what was going on, remember, the voice of the people have their own point of view.

HARRIS: But, see, what we want to know, though...

CULLUM: So it was a fascinating trip.

HARRIS: But, Blanquita, what we want to know is what was it they allowed you to see? If they were trying to clean up their image, I want to know if they let you go and see everything you wanted to see.

CULLUM: Well, we saw a lot -- OK.

HARRIS: Or if they just basically gave you the cleaned-up, sanitized version of the stories?

CULLUM: Well, I mean, look, you know, if you're having anybody come to your home, aren't you going to try to show them the best part of the house before you show them the worst part?

We saw a lot. We went to -- you know, we saw Riyadh. We went to Jeddah. We want to Dhahran. We went to the oil fields. We went all over the place. We went to hospitals. We met the chambers of commerce. We went to the markets. We met a lot of the average people. We went to a lot, and we had a couple of meetings with the press.

Most of the people that went out of the way were very, very hospitable. A lot of people didn't like us, but most people liked us.

HARRIS: Yes.

CULLUM: It's like this country.

HARRIS: Yes. Kathryn...

CULLUM: There are a lot of people that are not going to like you, and some people are going to love you.

HARRIS: All right, Kathryn, what do you think about this, and about this campaign overall? Is this -- do you think this is the right thing to do, or is this just some of crass effort to gloss over some pretty ugly facts?

LOPEZ: Well, I think to some extent, they have to do this, because they have a lot to cover up. That is why they are, you know, spending all of the money on the commercials and offering us gift horses.

It's too bad that when Blanquita and company were in Saudi Arabia, they couldn't have talked to some of the American citizens who are unfortunately...

CULLUM: We did! We actually did.

LOPEZ: Did you talk to Pat Roche's girls, for instance?

CULLUM: We talked to one woman who was not happy about a situation where she had driven and had some problems. We talked to a lot of people.

HARRIS: Yes.

CULLUM: Let me tell you that we asked very tough questions. We didn't ask little squishy questions.

HARRIS: Yes.

CULLUM: We met with the man who is considered the Colin Powell, Prince Saud al-Faisal.

I think what's interesting is that people would immediately think that we were going over there as little squishes, and that's why I'm glad we had broadcasts, because we did ask very tough questions...

HARRIS: Yes.

CULLUM: ... and in fact, had a very tough encounter with the press.

HARRIS: Well, let's go to the phones right now. Jerry from North Carolina, are you there?

JERRY: Yes, sir.

HARRIS: What's your comment or your question?

JERRY: Well, my question is pretty much for Blanquita, and my question is, you know, the U.S. stood beside Saudi Arabia in the Gulf War against Iraq, and we gave a lot of support. And I'm kind of curious now, where is our support, you know, from Saudi Arabia? And where is our support for our war against terror, against Iraq?

HARRIS: Yes. Blanquita, were those the kind of questions you were able to ask?

CULLUM: Absolutely. We asked a lot of those questions. And then, frankly, you know, I think some of the questions that we asked were a lot -- were tougher. But you know, you are sitting there and you're looking at a country that is on the border of Iraq.

Now, my own personal point of view is this. Look, I heard from a lot of people in Saudi Arabia that said they absolutely hope the United States took out Saddam, and that they hated him. And remember, when you hear an opinion from one prince, there are 7,000 princes there. You know, being a prince in Saudi Arabia is like having the last name of Smith. So you know...

HARRIS: It's a big family. It's a big family.

CULLUM: It's a very big family, and some more pro-American and others not.

HARRIS: All right, let's get Kathryn to weigh in real quickly, if we can, before we go to break.

LOPEZ: Yes, I am glad Blanquita got to ask some questions while she was there. I wish that instead of just great photo-ops in Crawford, the president would put the Saudis on the spot a little bit more. Ask, as the caller did...

CULLUM: But how do you know he's not?

LOPEZ: Ask, as the caller did, and let Prince Bandar or Prince Abdullah, whoever he is talking about -- talking to, come clean on the funding of terrorist networks, the funding of madrasas across the world that teach the radical strain of Islam, that the Saudi...

CULLUM: Leon?

HARRIS: Yes.

LOPEZ: ... regime supports.

HARRIS: And that is a topic that I brought up...

CULLUM: And, Leon?

(CROSSTALK)

HARRIS: ... with Mr. Al Jubeir...

CULLUM: And, Leon?

HARRIS: But, listen, we've got to take a break right now.

LOPEZ: And let them be honest about the roots of the...

HARRIS: All right.

LOPEZ: ... funding of the terror around the world.

HARRIS: All right, sorry, but you guys know radio, you know TV, you know how it works here.

CULLUM: Absolutely, Leon. HARRIS: We've got to take a break, OK? Stay there.

LOPEZ: Absolutely.

CULLUM: Absolutely, you go for it.

HARRIS: We're back with more in just a minute, all right?

Well, actually, we've got to say thank you to both of you, unfortunately, because we have to move on, because we're out of time. We were pressed a little bit at the top of the show.

So Blanquita, Kathryn, thank you very much.

CULLUM: Thank you, as always, Leon.

LOPEZ: Thanks, Leon.

HARRIS: But it was great...

CULLUM: It was nice to be with you.

HARRIS: But it was great. Thank you very much.

CULLUM: Thank you so much.

HARRIS: All right, take care.

Now, we're going to move on and hit our next topic after the break. Does Ladricus have too much mouth for Pepsi? That's saying a lot -- stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS: All right, welcome back, folks.

Rap entertainer, Ludacris, apparently isn't a member of this Pepsi generation. Ludacris was part of the company's multicultural ad campaign. The key word here being "was."

However, the company pulled the ads featuring the performer one day after Fox TV host, Bill O'Reilly, criticized the rapper's profanity-laced lyrics, and called for a boycott of the company.

Now, Pepsi says that they pulled the ads because of consumer complaints. However, some are crying foul.

And here to talk about that is Frank Ski. He is a syndicated urban radio host of the "France Ski in the Morning" show here in Atlanta. Glad to have you here with us.

Also joining us is Naomi McCotter, who is the national grassroots director of the Parents Television Council.

Good to see you, Naomi. How are you?

NAOMI MCCOTTER, PARENTS TV COUNCIL: Hi, Leon. Thanks for having me.

HARRIS: Now...

Good to see you.

HARRIS: Now, as I understand it, Frank, this did come up on your show this morning?

FRANK SKI, SYNDICATED DJ: Oh, yes, it came up very early, about 6:30 on our first entertainment report, and then, of course, at 8:30, it really got blown up. So it's a big deal. It's a very big deal.

HARRIS: All right, so what are people saying about it?

SKI: Well, I think people are mostly upset about it, because I think the biggest issue is that Pepsi made a move after Bill O'Reilly complained about it. And the question is for most of urban America: Who is Bill O'Reilly, and why is he causing change in a community that he is not even a part of?

HARRIS: And, Naomi, how about that?

MCCOTTER: Well, basically, Bill O'Reilly just told his viewers what was going on, and it's the American voices that were heard and that Pepsi listened to. And we applaud Pepsi for taking responsibility and listening to their consumers and acting responsibly.

HARRIS: Well...

MCCOTTER: So...

HARRIS: I'm sorry. I didn't mean to cut you off there. I just want to know if anybody can explain to me how it was that Pepsi picked him in the first place.

SKI: Right. That's my point. The point of the matter is evidently Pepsi picked him, it was a multicultural ad. It was an ad aimed after the urban community. Pepsi is not going to pay millions of dollars for somebody to endorse them and not already know this.

So evidently, they already knew this is what they wanted. And Ludacris is a great person. And I mean, if you're going to start picking one artist, there's a whole lot of other artists you can start with, namely Britney Spears and others who are already doing the same thing.

I mean, whether or not you consider the lyrics is what is, you know, you're opposing, or it's the cultural or it's the dress or it's the message, or whatever it is, the issue is not even about that. And we can go back and forth all day with many people in the community as to what is right and what is wrong.

The issue is, here is Bill O'Reilly, a white, conservative journalist, talking about something that's affecting the black community. And the black community has to stop allowing people outside to influence what goes on in our community.

HARRIS: Naomi, real quickly.

MCCOTTER: That's not the issue. The issue is the American citizens have spoken up, and their voices have been heard. And they have power, and Pepsi has acted responsibly. Pepsi listened to, not Bill O'Reilly, Pepsi listened to all of the thousands of e-mail that they received. And that's...

SKI: And when they did hear about the e-mails? After Bill O'Reilly said it.

And the point is: Who does Bill O'Reilly talk to? Bill O'Reilly is what? 50? I mean, who is his audience? His audience is not the market that Pepsi is going after.

MCCOTTER: Well, it obviously is.

SKI: Believe me, Pepsi is going after mainstream America, which is 25.

MCCOTTER: Obviously, the writers that wrote into Pepsi is who Pepsi is going after, because Pepsi reacted, and they pulled their ads.

HARRIS: All right, let me -- let's bring in some other outside reaction. We've got -- Kendis Gibson is right now standing -- he's in New York. The MTV Video Awards are going to be held tonight, and Ludacris is expected to be there.

And, Kendis Gibson, our entertainment reporter, is there -- as you can see, out there in the crowd. I think it finally stopped raining up there in New York. And Kendis has been asking folks up there what they think about all of this.

Kendis, what have you been hearing?

KENDIS GIBSON, CNN ENTERTAINMENT CORRESPONDENT: Leon, we wanted to come here, because a lot of the folks who are lined up all behind us are the folks who were targeted by this Pepsi ad campaign -- young, black Americans who are fans of Ludacris and Shakira and the other artists.

And, Sheniqua (ph), here, you're a big fan of Ludacris. Many who were complaining were saying that he is just a little bit too sexual. Your thought is what?

SHENIQUA (ph): I don't find him sexual at all. I mean, the lyrics that he say, you know, is just things that -- is things that he, like, just write about, he is thinking about, that something that's on his mind or things that are going on in his every day life, or things that he probably experienced or know of.

GIBSON: But they are saying it's a little bit too explicit for -- still, for a national campaign like Pepsi.

SHENIQUA (ph): I don't think about it. I don't even him sexual at all. I don't find anything that he's that sexual.

GIBSON: OK. What about Brenda (ph), over here, who has been -- go ahead.

What about Brenda (ph) over here, who has been waiting around forever, also looking for other celebrities like Ludacris to get here. Brenda (ph), you know, even with -- you said that he doesn't grab, you know, body parts like Michael Jackson does. Is he as sexual, you would say?

BRENDA (ph): Ludacris?

GIBSON: Yes.

BRENDA (ph): No, he's just a regular person that's trying do his thing, and I don't find him sexual in any kinds of ways, like, he's just showing...

MCCOTTER: He is degrading to women.

BRENDA (ph): He's just being himself.

MCOTTER: He is degrading to women.

BRENDA (ph): That's just how it is.

GIBSON: All right, well, these folks probably don't feel that way, but you know, these are the target audience. Who knows?

HARRIS: Yes. That's a very interesting question, Kendis. That's the audience. Well, let's see who Pepsi is going to listen to in the end.

Thanks, Kendis -- Kendis Gibson reporting from outside of Radio City Music Hall in New York.

Now, we did invite Pepsi to come on and give us their view directly. They didn't send anyone to talk with us, but they did give us a statement, and we'll have that for you right after the break to hear their side -- stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS: Well, it doesn't seem to be much of a shortage of opinion on either side here about this issue about Pepsi dumping the rapper, Ludacris, from an ad campaign.

Now, as we said before the break, we invited someone from Pepsi to come on and explain to us exactly, first of all, why they chose him in the first place, and then why they chose to dump him. They chose not to send anyone, but they did send us this statement, and let's go ahead and put that up on the screen now.

Here is the statement: "We have a responsibility to listen to our consumers and customers, and we've heard from a number of people that they were uncomfortable with our association with this artist. We decided to discontinue our ad campaign with this artist, and we're sorry that we have offended anyone."

Naomi McCotter -- oh, actually, here is another page. I didn't realize there were second pages here.

"There are many different types of talented celebrities and artists, but not all of them are compatible with our brands and what consumers have come to expect from us. We are still 100 percent committed to multicultural marketing, but we clearly need to be more careful about how we select artists to represent our brands."

And of course, all of this came about, because of a call for a boycott against Pepsi by television host, Bill O'Reilly.

Frank Ski, you are with us, and I heard talk at one point about you saying something about there perhaps needing to be a boycott against Pepsi by African-Americans or by the urban community?

SKI: Well, I think that would not even address the issue. The issue is much bigger than just a boycott. The issue is about activism. The issue is that -- and I'm advocating a boycott against Pepsi in any way. I am advocating people in the urban community become active. I want the urban community to be the ones sending the letters to Pepsi, because I bet you if you looked...

MCCOTTER: That's great. Let them do it.

SKI: Absolutely.

MCCOTTER: If they feel like this is appropriate for children to be watching and have Ludacris their role model, is that appropriate?

SKI: Can I ask you a question? Can you, like, recite one of Ludacris' items in his songs? I mean, you know, because...

MCCOTTER: I don't...

SKI: ... you sound like a Ludacris expert to me, and I just...

MCCOTTER: I...

(CROSSTALK)

SKI: ... kind of want to know, give me a line of who -- tell me something that Ludacris has said, and then we can...

(CROSSTALK)

MCOTTER: It's degrading to women, and it's not appropriate for...

(CROSSTALK)

SKI: And Britney Spears coming on half-naked with a boob job is not? And doesn't Britney Spears endorse Pepsi, too?

HARRIS: All right, let's... MCCOTTER: That's...

SKI: OK.

HARRIS: I'm sorry. Let's get to the phones. We've got someone who has been waiting for a while to get on. Rogge (ph) from California, are you there?

ROGGE (ph): Yes, how you doing?

HARRIS: All right. What's your comment?

ROGGE (ph): Well, my comment is, you shouldn't judge a person from the work that they are doing, because you wouldn't stop Arnold Schwarzenegger from advertising your muscle builder, so why would you stop Ludacris from going to rap about Pepsi? Because he wouldn't get on a Pepsi commercial and just talk about women and all of that. He's just -- he's going to get out there and try to appeal to the younger audience and the children.

And I feel that's could be better off for Pepsi and Ludacris and the rap family at all the same time.

HARRIS: Real quickly, Naomi, let me ask you this.

MCCOTTER: OK.

HARRIS: Doesn't it seem a bit ironic that all of this -- in the end, you've got to believe that in the end, all of this is going to do is just sell more Ludacris CDs?

MCCOTTER: That, or it could sell more Pepsi. Obviously, it was affecting Pepsi's bottom line. Otherwise, why did they pull their advertising and discontinue their campaign? It was obviously going to affect them. Otherwise, they wouldn't have done this.

HARRIS: Yes.

MCCOTTER: And we applaud them for being responsible and listening to the American people. We have voices, and we are glad that the advertisers are taking responsibility and letting the American voices be heard. And this applies for any race. It's not aimed at any particular race.

HARRIS: All right. Right now, I need to let the voice of Judy Woodruff be heard. We are going to talk about this some more in just a couple of minutes. But Judy Woodruff is going to check in from Washington right now to tell us what's coming up on "INSIDE POLITICS" today later on.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS: And welcome back. We are going pick up the last couple of minutes here our conversation about Pepsi dropping the rapper, Ludacris, from their ad campaign, and the controversy that has spawned. We've got a member the audience who has got a comment about that.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Darlene (ph), go ahead.

DARLENE (ph): My comment is this. Really, the bottom line goes down to censorship, and is that something we want to allow Bill O'Reilly to take away from us is our freedom of rights. And he is starting on Ludacris. It could be any other artist, too. So we need to stand up.

HARRIS: Well, let me ask you about that, Frank, especially, with you on this. Doesn't this sort of put the urban community in a weird position to be rallying behind a rapper who is being touted because his lyrics happen to be sexual and overtly violent?

SKI: No. No, I don't think it's that. I think the rally is for us to be more proactive again. The rally is tomorrow when we get on the air, we will give you Pepsi's e-mail address and their phone number and their address, and give you the ammunition, much like the things that we haven't been doing.

We need to be more proactive. If we decide that Ludacris is an artist that we don't want to endorse our products, then let us decide that. You know, we have been able to decide things on our own. We don't need somebody else to decide what's right, what's wrong, what we're going to eat and what we're going to drink, being based upon somebody else's opinion.

HARRIS: All right, Naomi, we'll give you a quick second to weigh in here, before we get out of here.

MCCOTTER: OK. Well, I just want to praise Pepsi for listening to the American voices. This is not Bill O'Reilly's voice. This is the American voices. This is concerned parents that don't want Ludacris as their role model for their children, and we are not censoring who anybody listens to or watches. That rap music is fine for any adult, but it's not appropriate for children. And we appreciate and applaud Pepsi for taking responsibility and for listening to the American voices.

HARRIS: We got you, and I'd be surprised if none of those parents had children who weren't listening to this sort of stuff. But that's a topic for another day.

Naomi, thanks for joining us.

MCCOTTER: Thank you very much.

SKI: Thanks, Leon.

HARRIS: We appreciate the insight -- take care both you.

We're out of time right now. Thanks to you folks at home for watching. Thanks to the audience for coming in. We appreciate you chipping in. I'm Leon Harris, filling in this week for on TALKBACK for Arthel Neville. She's going to be back on Tuesday. I'll be back tomorrow morning at 10:00 Eastern on "CNN LIVE TODAY." Hope you'll join me then.

Stand by. Judy Woodruff is coming up next with "INSIDE POLITICS."

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