Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Talkback Live

What Will President Bush Do Next to Gain Support in Attacking Iraq?; Should Accused Priests Be Allowed to Sue Their Accusers?

Aired September 04, 2002 - 15:00   ET

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

ARTHEL NEVILLE, HOST: Hello everyone and welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville.
What will President Bush have to say to convince you that Saddam Hussein has to go? The president's Iraq mission seems to be on the fast track. Just back from vacation, Mr. Bush is already building his case and seeking support from congressional leaders. He called Saddam a significant problem the country must deal with. Let's listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: For 11 long years, Saddam Hussein has side stepped, crawfished, wheedled out of any agreement he had made not to harbor, not to develop weapons of mass destruction. Agreements he made to treat the people within his country with respect.

And so I am going to call upon the world to recognize that he is stiffing the world.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEVILLE: And also, Mr. Bush said, today, this is a debate the American people must hear and understand, so we are going to follow the President's lead.

Let's meet, now, our guests, Congressmen Robert Wexler, a Florida Democrat, and Joe Pitts, a Republican from Pennsylvania.

Want to welcome both of you.

REP. ROBERT WEXLER (R), FLORIDA: Good afternoon.

REP. JOE PITTS (R), PENNSYLVANIA: Good afternoon.

NEVILLE: OK good afternoon. What we are going to do is go down the list of some of the questions Congress needs answers to, and then I'm going to get each of you to expound.

And Congressman Wexler, you're going to be up first on this one, OK?

Dealing with Mr. Bush's timetable for a military offense, and how many troops, and how much money would be involved, the feasibility of an attack without support from other nations. If you would address some of those?

WEXLER: Well, I support the President's stated goal which is a regime change in Iraq.

And I agree with the president that Saddam Hussein has to go. For me, the only question is how do we accomplish the goal of getting rid of Saddam Hussein in the smartest way, in the way that maximizes our chances of success?

And I think that the way in which we do it, the smartest way, is to go to the United Nations Security Council, get a strong resolution supporting our activity and try to create as large a coalition as possible, so that when we go in, we don't go in unilaterally.

And then as to the part of your question relating to cost. You know, in the Gulf War, I think it cost something like $60 billion. Because we had a coalition, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait wound up paying almost all of the cost. I'd like to see a repeat of that situation where Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other Arab moderate countries...

NEVILLE: But the problem is this time, they're not on board the way they were before.

WEXLER: Well, that's what the president has to do. And by going to the United Nations Security Council, I believe, if the president lays out the case. And this is the disturbing part. You know, one day Vice President Cheney says Saddam Hussein may have nuclear weapons or the capability he may be getting close.

And then, it seems that Secretary Powell, on the other hand, speaks from a different perspective. The administration needs to get its own house in order, and it needs to make a coherent, consistent argument.

And if the president has the evidence, which I presume that he does, I think he will be able to engage in a very constructive dialogue and convince the world that what the United States is doing is the proper course, and then, they should chip in and pay for both of it.

NEVILLE: And you say you presume the president has enough evidence so that is enough for you to go on with whatever the president tells you?

WEXLER: Well, no, it's not. I don't just believe the president carte blanche. We all know that Saddam Hussein has the capability with respect to chemical weapons. He's used chemical weapons against his own people and against Iranian soldiers. So we know he's got chemicals weapons.

I want to see the President's information relating to biological weapons. I want to see the President's information relating to nuclear weapons and any other kind of weapon of mass destruction, and the case is a strong case. If Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, then we need to go in, get him out and get those weapons because is he dangerous.

NEVILLE: OK, I have some follow ups for you.

But I want to go ahead and give Congressman Pitts a chance to jump in there, and again, I'll kind of go down the list, which is Bush's timetable for a military offense, how many troops, and how much money is this going to take, and the feasibility of an attack without support from other nations.

PITTS: Well, one option that has not been discussed is the possibility of a surgical strike. Going in and removing Saddam Hussein like we did in Panama with Noriega. Noriega sits in a jail in Miami, today.

And I tend to think if Saddam Hussein was removed, the people in Iraq would jump for joy, as they did in Afghanistan. And I think, probably, the military would be very relieved.

So I don't think we're necessarily talking a full-scale invasion, as we were in Desert Storm with the Gulf War. I do think that a diplomatic effort informing, consulting with allies, building up a coalition of support, and some of it will come ahead of time. Some of it, probably, will come after the fact.

But when we explain the evidence that we have and the administration has to do that, as far as Saddam Hussein being close to getting nuclear weapons, this becomes a very dangerous world. If a state sponsor, like Iraq, which can develop, and mass develop, weapons of mass destruction, they make those available to terrorist groups or they decide to drop one on Tel Aviv, this becomes a very dangerous, unstable world. I tend to think that the support will be there, at that point.

But at this point, the president has not shared the new information they have, and I think the administration is speaking with one voice in attempting to focus the dialogue on the danger of weapons of mass destruction and not just having thousands of innocent victims like 9/11...

NEVILLE: Sir, sir, let me jump in there while I'm...

PITTS: ... but potentially tens and thousands.

NEVILLE: Pardon me for a second, though...

PITTS: Yes.

NEVILLE: ... because you mentioned you're not sure if the president is sharing all of the information he has. Quite frankly, should he because just like when you get it, he shares it with you. We get it. Everybody else gets it.

PITTS: Yes, unfortunately, Congress leaks like a sieve. A couple of months ago, the administration briefed the intelligence committees in the house and senate with highly classified information. Within 24 hours, I think there was something like three leaks that had been of classified information that had been head for eight months that jeopardized national security.

NEVILLE: You make a good point there.

Let me go to my other point or question for you, and that is, you mentioned this surgical removal of Saddam Hussein. I got to tell you what, he's not going to sit back there and wait for that to happen. He's going to fight like there's no tomorrow.

PITTS: I'm sure that he will. But I think that we have the capability to use whatever means necessary to remove him and...

NEVILLE: Didn't we feel that same way back during the Gulf War?

PITTS: Well, if you look at Gulf War, that was an all-out effort. It lasted about one week, after we started the hostilities. It was very successful, and I tend to think we have the capabilities of going in and removing Saddam Hussein.

NEVILLE: OK, hang on for me because I have a call, now, from Joanne (ph), I think, is calling in from Washington. Go ahead. What do you have to say?

CALLER: Well, I really think that there shouldn't be any debate about this. President Bush has made a strong case. We wait around until something happens like 9/11. I wish that Congress and representatives like Wexler would get on the bandwagon for president and support the president, or we're all going to be sorry.

WEXLER: Well, may I respond?

NEVILLE: Absolutely.

WEXLER: I do support the president in terms of his objective of regime change in Iraq. And I will, ultimately, support the president in terms of an authorization of military action, but the president has an obligation to lay out what the threat is and what our plan is.

And I don't think we should underestimate the enemy and what the president also needs do, like Mr. Pitts said, in terms of the possibility of a strategic strike. The president, also, needs to explain to the American people how many troops are going to be necessary under different scenarios, like an occupation and an invasion.

And he needs to let the American people know that this may require an occupation of several weeks, maybe months, and the president also needs to lay out another vision, which he hasn't done.

And that is, what will the Iraq -- what will it look like once we're successful, militarily? We don't want an Iraq that splits up. We do not want the Kurds in the north end calling for a Kurdistan. We need to make certain that we're able to create a kind of governing coalition, once we're successful.

And the president, also, needs to line up who is going to pay for this. I do not think that the American taxpayer should be saddled with entire bill. And those are the issues that the president has yet to come either to the American people or to the congress. And he needs to do it.

NEVILLE: OK, those are some valid points there. Andrea (ph), what do you think?

ANDREA: Well, I think what the caller was saying -- I mean, I'd want to see more proof that what the president has in terms of really something that's against Saddam Hussein. I don't think we should be going in there just on oh, he's not keeping his promise or stiffing people. I mean, it's got to be incontrovertible, if we're going to take this kind of action. Otherwise, we're just going to look too militaristic. That's what I need to see.

PITTS: And could I say something?

NEVILLE: Absolutely.

PITTS: Could I say something about that?

NEVILLE: Of course.

PITTS: The president will make his case at the appropriate time. I'm convinced of that. And he will consult with congress and get the necessary support from congress.

But we cannot afford to let a -- rogue dictator, like Saddam Hussein, get nuclear capability. If he gets that, it is too late. Because he has shown a willingness, as Wexler said, to use it, not only on his own people, but on his neighbors.

And we know how he feels about Israel. We cannot afford to let him get that capability. It becomes a very dangerous world and region, if that happens.

NEVILLE: OK, listen, I have to take a break right here.

I still want to know what you, how you feel about this. If you are convinced, and I'd like you to give me a call at 1-800-310 -- there's the number -- 4CNN or, of course, you can e-mail at talkback@cnn.com.

By the way up next, is Colin Powell on the same page as the rest of the administration? Hear what the secretary is saying today about Iraq.

That's after this. Don't go anywhere.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: Right now on TALKBACK LIVE, are you convinced that the U.S. must attack Iraq?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What will it do to our War on Terror? What will it do to our relationships with other countries? How much will this cost and who pays for it?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEVILLE: And is it causing a rift in the administration?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: There are always differences of perspectives.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEVILLE: Speak your mind, right here, as TALKBACK LIVE continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: Hello, everybody. Welcome back.

I want to let you know we're waiting to hear from Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, who has been briefing senators, and we expect him to address the press, shortly, and, of course, we'll bring you that, live, as it happens.

By the way in the meantime, we're going to as you this: is there a rift between Secretary of State Colin Powell and the rest of the administration over U.S. policy on Iraq? Powell spoke about Iraq today in Johannesburg, South Africa, and our State Department correspondent, Andrea Koppel, is here with that story.

And Andrea, what did Powell have to say about the ongoing debate among administration officials?

ANDREA KOPPEL, STATE DEPARTMENT CORRESPONDENT: Well, Arthel as you can imagine, Secretary Powell was questioned quite deliberately by reporters to see if there's and how much daylight exists between the Secretary's position as to what the president should do, vis-a-vis Iraq, and others in the administration, like Vice President Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.

Secretary Powell, at least on the record, tried to brush aside any talk of a rupture or a major split in among the advisers. He said that, obviously, the president is getting different opinions from different people, and the bottom line is, he said, that's to be expected.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COLIN POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE: The president benefits from all of the advice we give him as a group. And a lot of the chatter about all of the disagreements that take place within the administration is mostly that, chatter. We talk to each other in opened, candid environment. We're, all, old friends. There are no wars going on within the administration.

There is good debate, and that debate and that discussion, and the advice that we give to the president has only one purpose. And that's to make sure that the president understands all of the issues with respect to any particular problem that is before him.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KOPPEL: But Arthel, as we all know having listened to Vice President Cheney deliver two speeches last week, and Donald Rumsfeld giving a speech last week and then talking yesterday, there really is a difference, and a rather strong difference of opinion, among President Bush's advisers. On the one side, the more conservative members, Vice President Cheney and Rumsfeld, believe that the U.S., if necessary, should and could go it alone against Iraq.

If the Iraqi president doesn't listen to the United States and prove, which they do not believe he can, that he does not have weapons of mass destruction.

And on the other side, you have the Secretary Powell, who believes very strongly that the U.S. should not go it alone, that it needs the support of key U.S. allies, if it were to take military action, and, at the very least, Arthel, needs to go to the United Nations and, perhaps, get a new U.N. resolution to try to get those weapons inspectors back into Iraq.

Even if we know ahead of time that Saddam Hussein won't give them full access, at least, Secretary Powell believes you will have gone through the motions of showing the international community that you're serious about trying every last option.

NEVILLE: Understand. Thank you, Andrea Koppel, for that story. Nice to see you. I have not seen you in a while on TALKBACK.

All right. Little personal note, there. Hey, listen, I want to get the congressmen response to what Andrea just had to report.

But what I want to do, first, I've got some interesting members, here, in the audience. Starting with Frank (ph), who is from Holland, I'd like to hear your take on this whole situation.

FRANK: Well, from my point of view, I'm wondering, where is Europe in this story? What I see is that it's a, it's some missing link, like the foreign politics. And I think he should ask about the opinion of Europe, in this case. So that is what I am missing.

NEVILLE: Congressmen, either one of you, what -- you want to jump in at any point, feel free.

WEXLER: Yes. If I could...

PITTS: The president -- go ahead.

WEXLER: Oh, I think it is very important that we keep the big picture perspective, here. If Saddam Hussein has nuclear weapons or a capacity to use weapons of mass destruction, then we need to go in and get them. It will be better if we do it with a coalition. We can do it alone, but that creates greater risks. And one of the risks it creates, if we do it alone, is it will negatively affect our larger war against terrorism. Remember, on September 11, we were attacked by Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. We have not gotten bin Laden, yet. And we're, now, learning that al Qaeda has rebuilt itself. It's got financial resources in Sudan. It has not even begun to find itself in a financial pinch, so...

NEVILLE: So then, let me ask you this, Congressman, then, would an attack on Iraq heighten the war in the Middle East and, also, increase the possibility for a terrorist attacks, here on the U.S.?

WEXLER: Well, that is why it is so important that we, when with go into Iraq, we do it in the smartest way. And the smartest way is to do it with the broadest coalition as possible. And I believe that the president, President Bush, if he makes a strong case to our NATO allies, to the moderate Arab nations, like Kuwait, which has, essentially, said to us, we're with you, and Tony Blair, who's made a strong case for why England will be with us, we will prevail. But, remember, we shouldn't wait for Europe...

NEVILLE: Right.

WEXLER: ... We went into Kosovo...

NEVILLE: I am going to jump in there because...

WEXLER: ... The Europeans did nothing.

NEVILLE: Excuse me. I am running out of time, but I have a gentleman from England, here right now. I'd like to hear his opinion on this.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, certainly, Tony Blair has said, for the last couple of months, that the British government, by and large, would support the Americans in a some sort of invasion. The Congressman, there, is talking when we invade, not if or whatever. There seems to be a train of thought and a, perhaps, something going on that, eventually, we will (UNINTELLIGIBLE) to invade, and the decision seems to have been made.

PITTS: I think Congressman Wexler is right. And we are in the process. The president said, this morning, that he is calling a number of European leaders, as we speak.

As far as the disagreements on his -- in his administration, these are strong individuals, and they are professionals. They have been around. They were around during Desert Storm, and the president needs all of their advice, but in the end, the president will develop the consensus and call the shots, and I think that you will see the administration acting and speaking with one voice.

NEVILLE: And that is the last word. Congressman Wexler and Representative Pitts, thank you very much to both of you for joining us, here, today.

PITTS: Thank you. WEXLER: You're welcome. Nice to be with you.

NEVILLE: Great. Thank you.

Up next, experts tell us what they think about a war in Iraq. Is this a quick hit or a long haul?

Don't go anywhere because more discussion on this topic after the break. TALKBACK LIVE continues in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody.

Want to remind you that we are waiting from Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, who has been briefing senators and, shortly, he will brief the press. And when that happens, we will take that, live. In fact, it looks like we've got some movement coming into the room. That is not the Secretary, so we are going to continue with the program, right now.

And we're talking about the President's plans for Iraq. And right now, we're going to look at that from a diplomatic, as well as a military standpoint. Joining us, on that front, is Retired Army Colonel David Hackworth. Hi. He's America's most decorated living soldier and author of "Steel My Soldiers' Hearts."

Also, Daniel Pipes, Director of the Middle East Forum. Daniel is the author of a new book called, "Militant Islam Reaches America."

I want to welcome both of you to the show.

DAVID HACKWORTH, RET. ARMY COLONEL: Thank you.

NEVILLE: And, Colonel Hackworth, I want to start with you, asking you, is there justification for a U.S. attack on Iraq?

HACKWORTH: Well, I've been listening to the suits talking, civilian suits, none of which have ever worn a soldier suit. And for the last 57 years, I have worn a soldier suit or been a reporter about soldiers in Desert Storm and places like that.

I know this, war is damned easy to get into, hard to get out of and very expensive. For example, in Desert Storm, we went in there with a force of 700,000 soldiers. We, now, have over 210,000 of those soldiers are Gulf War Syndrome casualties, and 110,000 of those are disabled by the VA's certification.

NEVILLE: So having said that, is there justification at this point?

HACKWORTH: Well, I think what we need to do is to learn what caused all of these casualties. Most Americans do not realize this, and I think the president, and I believe he's going to make this case, needs to do exactly as John Fitzgerald Kennedy did in October of 1962 during the Cuban Missile Crisis, when he got on TV, showed photographs of Soviet missiles, launchers, and, also, soldiers in Cuba threatening America with their missiles. And he said, this will not do. This will not stand, and the American people said, go get them.

So I think the president has to make his case, quit giving us circumstantial evidence they may have nukes, they may have weapons of mass destruction, because guess what?

In 1991, when then Defense Secretary Cheney was running the show and let Saddam up from the map, where we were stomping him into the ground, destroying his military force, Secretary of Defense Cheney knew that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. What's new? He still has them.

NEVILLE: Daniel Pipes, how do you see this?

DANIEL PIPES, MIDDLE EAST FORUM: Well, Arthel, I see it as a matter of fighting with Saddam Hussein, now, before he has nuclear weapons, or fighting with him later when he does have nuclear weapons. And I would suggest that we're a lot better off taking him on, now, before he has them than later, when he does have them.

It's a very simple equation. Saddam Hussein is a monomaniacal thug, who is intent on getting the largest, meanest weapons he can get and then, using them. We've got to stop him, before he gets them. Simple.

NEVILLE: OK. I have to take a break, right now.

More on what an invasion of Iraq would do, over here in America, after the break.

TALKBACK LIVE continues in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: And welcome back everybody. We're talking with Colonel David Hackworth and Daniel Pipes about how a military mission into Iraq might be carried out.

But before I get to you, gentlemen, I'd like to take a couple of phone calls right now.

First up is Mike from New Jersey. Hi, Mike.

MIKE, CALLER: Hi.

NEVILLE: What do you have to say, Mike?

MIKE: Oh, OK. I think that Saddam Hussein does have weapons of mass destruction. I think that President Bush should make the case that we need to go further in keeping in the case that he is already in. If we attack, he's going to use them, and I think that the public should be warned of what they're going to be in for if that happens.

NEVILLE: Thank you. And I want to go now to Brian (ph), who is calling in from Illinois. Brian (ph), go ahead. BRIAN, CALLER: Hello. The way I see it is that Saddam Hussein, he's got something, and George Bush or every -- you know, people the White House there, they know that he's got something, and they are not telling us what he's got.

But the way I see it, any way we go about it, he's going to consider it as a very big threat, and he is going to -- I feel that he will retaliate big with some great force.

NEVILLE: Well, thank you, callers.

First of all, Colonel Hackworth, they make interesting points that the question would be: Is the U.S. prepared to deal with the chemical and biological agents if, in fact, the U.S. attacks Saddam Hussein? Because, of course, he has nothing to lose, so he'll use everything he has.

HACKWORTH: Well, let's assume the president makes the decision, has the backing of Congress and gets the support of a lot of allies, and we go about it. Our force is so lethal, so fast, that it would knock his military out on the ground in less than 21 days after an air preparation.

Certainly, there is the probability that he'll use weapons of mass destruction, because he'll know he's going down for the count.

Our soldiers there are well-protected with gas masks, protective suits and excellent training, as is the Israelis, who have sealed rooms in every home, every citizen has a gas mask, the first responders all have shots for smallpox, and so on.

But we don't have that capability in America, and we have to give credit to Saddam Hussein that he has infiltrated sleepers in this country who could have weapons of mass destruction here.

NEVILLE: Colonel, I want to follow up on something you said that it could take 21 days possibly to wipe out Saddam and his troops. Did you say that?

HACKWORTH: Yes.

NEVILLE: OK. Then once again, why didn't that happen before?

HACKWORTH: Well, it did happen before. I was...

NEVILLE: Saddam is still here.

HACKWORTH: I was -- wait a minute. I was in the desert during Desert Storm, and I said on a national TV show on the first day of the ground attack that it would last one week. And Charlie Gibson from ABC looked at me like I was smoking something funny. It lasted four days.

It was a political decision, probably the worst political decision made by any president of the United States not to finish off Saddam Hussein in 1991, when we knew he had weapons of mass destruction and had the capability some day of acquiring nuke weapons.

NEVILLE: Daniel, I know you are there. I just have to have one last question with the colonel.

And that is: How do you strategize against the lack of the element of surprise?

HACKWORTH: Well, you'll have the element of surprise. We'll be hitting him when and where he doesn't know from, regardless of what the newspapers are reporting. That's not the battle story. His military is down on its butt. It's nowhere near what they were in Desert Storm, and they couldn't surrender fast enough there.

Our military will be coming from many directions. I have no doubt of its capability. My only reservation is: Does he really have these weapons, and is the risk worth the gain?

NEVILLE: Interesting.

Daniel Pipes, what do you say -- final words from you?

PIPES: A final word is that I believe that Saddam Hussein has shown over his long and undistinguished career that he is aggressive, murderous, brutal, and will use whatever means he can to extend his power.

And when he gets nuclear weapons, which I don't think he has yet, he will use them against us or anyone else in his way. So we've got to stop him. We've got to stop them, no doubt about it.

NEVILLE: OK, Colonel David Hackworth and Daniel Pipes, thanks to both of you for joining us here today on TALKBACK LIVE.

And up next, we're going to switch gears, as we always do on this show. Should priests sue their accusers, or turn the other cheek? I'll explain that when we come back. Don't go anywhere.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: Welcome back everybody.

Are Catholic priests using the law to intimidate victims of abuse? That's how the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests see it. It's also known as SNAP. The group wants priests to stop suing their accusers. Across the country, several priests have filed defamation suits, saying they've been falsely accused of abuse.

Well, our guests today are David Clohessy. He is the national director of SNAP. And Philip Moran is the general counsel with the National Catholic Alliance, and I'd like to welcome you both to the show.

DAVID CLOHESSY, DIRECTOR, SNAP: Thank you, Arthel.

PHILIP MORAN, ATTORNEY, NATIONAL CATHOLIC ALLIANCE: Thank you, Arthel. NEVILLE: OK, David, I'm going to begin with you. Don't priests have the right to defend their names?

CLOHESSY: Certainly they do, and especially if a priest is falsely accused, he has the right to defend himself.

But there's a difference between defending yourself and attacking your accuser, and that difference needs to be maintained. Priests can gather evidence, they can gather witnesses, they can do anything that someone who is charged with a crime can do.

But we think that priests need to be held to a higher moral standard, and not go on the offensive and brutally attack in the courts someone who has accused them of sexual abuse.

Just on Saturday in "The New York Times," the church's leading defense lawyer, a man who has handled 500 cases of accused priests, he admitted that less than 10 of those cases, less than 10 out of 500 were false accusations. And I think that we need to keep that in perspective.

NEVILLE: OK, Mr. Moran, I want to give you an opportunity to respond.

MORAN: I would think that the SNAP, particularly where they are concerned about survivors and victims, would look at the priests who are falsely accused as victims also.

And if, in fact, the priest is falsely accused, as we just had Monsignor Michael Foster Smith here in Boston was falsely accused last week, he went on the offensive. And as a result of going on the offensive, the individual who made the false accusation backed off, admitted it was false.

And so, without that, without him going on the offensive, Monsignor Foster Smith would have been out of commission for several months. Hopefully, he'll be reinstated by the archdiocese. He is the leading cannon lawyer in the Archdiocese of Boston. He was accused of this, evidently falsely.

And I would say to David, if you don't have any rights, the priests don't have any civil rights, then these people who are making false accusations have everything to gain and nothing to lose.

CLOHESSY: Philip, listen to what I said. I said, priests do have the right to defend themselves, and that's exactly Monsignor Smith did. It turns out that the case against him was dropped, not because of anything he did, but because the press looked into it and found out that there were some problems with the allegation.

Monsignor Smith did not file a suit and sue his accuser, and in fact, said yesterday in this morning's "Boston Herald," said that he would not go on the offensive and attack his accuser.

Let's remember what the Bible says. The Bible says, "Turn the other cheek." That's what Monsignor Smith is evidently doing in Boston, and we applaud him for that.

MORAN: How about some of the people of SNAP turning the other cheek. It appears to me that you are asking that a priest who is accused wrongly can't defend himself. Monsignor Smith didn't have to go to court, because this individual -- and with the help of the "Boston Globe," I might add -- did back off rather quickly.

Now, down in Cleveland, you have some priests who have been accused by three individuals who has brought suit, and it is my understanding that you are asking Bishop Gregory to ask this individual to waive his civil rights. And I don't think a priest, when he takes the -- when he is ordained, he may take a vow of chastity or obedience, I don't think he gives up his civil rights.

And I would say that, in fact, if it weren't for the fact that these gentlemen are Catholic priests at the ACLU would be all over these people.

CLOHESSY: Well, for the third time, we are not saying they give up any constitutional rights. Priests have the right...

MORAN: You are asking them not to sue.

CLOHESSY: Philip, let me finish, please.

Priests have all kinds of constitutional rights. They have a constitutional right to go to a strip bar, to look at pornography, to do all kinds of things that we don't think priests should be doing. The church can't have their cake and eat it, too. If bishops are saying, if you are abused, come forward, and get help, and at the same time, they are allowing their priests to sue their parishioners, you can't have it both ways.

NEVILLE: Hey, David, let me ask you this. Why would a lawsuit by a priest stop someone from suing a priest or accusing a priest?

CLOHESSY: Because there are huge obstacles. It's very hard for somebody who has been sexually victimized to admit it to themselves, and to gather the strength and the courage it takes to come forward and disclose their abuse to a stranger, whether it's a prosecutor or an attorney or a bishop or whoever. That's part of the reason why this problem has gone on for so long...

NEVILLE: So you feel like it's a form of intimidation?

CLOHESSY: Absolutely, absolutely. Victims -- and not only victims, let me point out that witnesses -- other people who have information about crimes.

You know, if a church housekeeper has seen a priest take children up to his bedroom night after night, or has seen kiddie porn in the priest's bedroom, that housekeeper is much less inclined to go to the prosecutors and report this now, because she is going to be afraid, oh, my gosh, maybe I'll be sued. It sets up a terrible climate of intimidation. MORAN: David, nobody is denying that a victim is a victim is a victim. And God help us, those poor victims who deserve to be compensated and taken care of should be.

But when someone makes a false accusation, or if a priest claims he has made a false accusation, then that priest should be able to go to court. And I am one who believes in the jury system.

And in fact, if you -- the word verdict means to seek the truth, and if a priest is seeking the truth, and the victim, if he is truly a victim, should have no problem being sued, because he can defend himself.

CLOHESSY: Then what...

NEVILLE: OK, I'm going to jump in there and give Paul from New Jersey a chance to speak.

PAUL: Hi. My question is for David. I agree with you that it's not a good thing that priests can sue their accusers, because that just seems wrong, given what they might have done. But at the same time, how do you plan on taking away that right from priests? It seems to me you'd have to go down almost to making like a constitutional amendment to take that right away from them. So how would you plan to do that?

CLOHESSY: No, we're asking priests and bishops to voluntarily not exercise that right. You know, certainly we are not proposing any kind of amendment to the Constitution or anything radical like that. We simply believe that priests do need to be held to a higher standard. And they need to understand that when they immediately go on the attack against their accuser, they are frightening, not just clergy abuse victims, but parishioners in their parish.

A 9-year-old girl who is being abused by her uncle, or a 12-year- old boy who is being abused by his coach, those kids are much less inclined to come forward if they see alleged perpetrators filing intimidating lawsuits against their accusers.

NEVILLE: Hang on, David. Paul has a follow-up for you.

PAUL: So have you already asked the priests not to do this or...

CLOHESSY: Yes, we sent a letter -- hand delivered a letter last week to Bishop Gregory of Belleville, who is the head of the National Council of Catholic Bishops. We have not gotten a reply yet.

NEVILLE: OK, thanks, Paul.

Hey, listen, I have to take a break right now, and we're going to hear from you about this, if priests should fight back against claims of abuse. I have some ladies in the audience who wants to speak out -- who want to speak out, and I want to hear from you as well. So we'll talk to you after the break. Don't go anywhere.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) NEVILLE: I think my audience just had some coffee. You guys sound energized.

All right, we're talking about whether priests should sue their accusers, or just wait it out?

Philip Moran, what do you think about that?

MORAN: Well, I don't think they should wait it out. I guess to paraphrase Bud Wilkinson, who used to be a good football coach at Oklahoma, that maybe the best defense is a good offense. Because I would think that SNAP also would agree with me, because what you do here is if you have people making false accusations, you diminish the rights of those real victims who are out there who should be compensated.

And to do nothing about it and turn the other cheek and just pretend that nothing has happened, you have ruined the man's life, you have ruined his career.

You take a person who has been a priest for 30 or 40 years and someone makes an accusation against him which is false, and to simply say, well, that's tough luck, you know, I'm not going to do anything, because I might offend somebody out there...

NEVILLE: Right.

MORAN: ... is ridiculous.

NEVILLE: And then you have ruined his reputation, and pretty much at the end of the day, isn't that all the priests have?

MORAN: That's absolutely right. And to restore his reputation is impossible. I mean, Monsignor Smith -- Foster Smith has asked to be reinstated as the judicial vicar of the Archdiocese of Boston, and the Archdiocese of Boston -- despite the fact that the victim has backed off and there is no lawsuit, the Archdiocese of Boston says well, we're going to continue to look and see whether or not these allegations may be true.

And so, Monsignor foster is in limbo at this point in time, and that's absolutely absurd.

NEVILLE: Right, because speaking of Boston, just today, a man who had accused a senior archdiocesan official of molesting him in the '80s, withdrew his suit, after reports that he had a history of misrepresenting events in his life.

CLOHESSY: Arthel?

NEVILLE: Now, listen -- let me get -- David, I know I want to get you I there.

But let me go ahead and get Jerry in. He's calling in now from North Carolina. Jerry, go ahead. You are live.

JERRY, CALLER: Yes, Arthel.

What I wanted to say was -- I speak from experience. My brother and I were raised in the Catholic Church, and we used to spend a lot of time with our priest privately. And he was accused, when I was a child, of being -- of molesting young kids, and nothing could be farther from the truth. He never tried anything with me or my brother. And to this day, we can't believe that he could have done anything like that.

And so, I think it's really important that the priests are able to fight back and to make it public that, hey, you know, not all of us are doing this. And I think that for every case that comes about that is an accurate accusation, the ones that are falsely accused, those should be brought into the public's eyes. Well, because priests do do a lot of good...

NEVILLE: Jerry -- Jerry, let me ask you this. What happened to your priest?

JERRY: Well, actually -- he actually left the parish and was moved to another parish. And shortly afterwards, he committed suicide. And like I said, to this day, my brother and I both cannot believe those accusations. I don't see it in him at all.

NEVILLE: Jerry, thanks a lot for calling in.

I have Ira (ph) here from Georgia.

IRA, CALLER: I feel that priests should not be allowed to sue their accusers, because usually, when these crimes are forced on the children, they are at an age where they cannot defend themselves, and they are looking at the adults as the authority figure.

And I feel in today's society, with all of the crimes that are being done to our kids, we have more of an obligation to try to protect our children and make society where they can feel that they can speak out without being sued. That will allow them to speak for themselves.

And if the priests are, indeed, innocent, then that would be proven in court.

NEVILLE: OK, thank you very much.

Arthel, can I make one point...

NEVILLE: Go ahead. Yes, go ahead, David.

CLOHESSY: You know, I would just ask everyone think about the example of Jesus Christ. Can anyone really imagine that Jesus Christ would file a lawsuit against somebody?

NEVILLE: OK, David, you know what?

CLOHESSY: And the pope, let me...

NEVILLE: David? Just hang on.

CLOHESSY: ... when the pope was assassinated...

NEVILLE: David, David, hang on here, because you're using biblical references, and -- stand up for me. I'm not against the Bible or anything, but the priests weren't relying on the Bible when those who were doing and molesting those kids, they weren't relying on the word.

Excuse me, Yvonne (ph), what do you have to say?

YVONNE: No, I was just going to say that these people are not Jesus Christ, so we're not going to go there. That's what I was saying.

NEVILLE: Yes. OK, listen, I have to take a break...

CLOHESSY: But what about the pope, when the pope was assassinated...

NEVILLE: I have to take a break right now.

CLOHESSY: And the pope has forgiven his accuser.

NEVILLE: David, I am definitely going to give you a chance to speak after the break, but I do have to take one right now. You'll get a chance one last time to tell us what you think as well.

But first, Judy Woodruff wants to tell us what she has planned for "INSIDE POLITICS" today.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: OK, welcome back everybody.

Before the break, David, you were trying to get in there. I want you to clarify what you said when you were using those biblical references, so I want to make sure I understand where you were coming from.

CLOHESSY: Well, I was simply saying that look at the example of Jesus Christ. Jesus said, "Turn the other cheek."

And look at the example of the holy father. A man tried to kill him, tried to assassinate the pope, and the pope has forgiven that man, gone to visit him in jail, prayed for him. The pope didn't file a lawsuit against this man.

NEVILLE: So what's your point here?

CLOHESSY: My point is, again, that you can defend yourself without attacking your accuser. And that's the Christian response.

NEVILLE: OK, then, what are the options? What would you suggest as another course of action that a priest who truly believes that he was wrongly accused, what should he do? Do exactly what the Monsignor in Boston that Philip talked about did. Simply let the process work, and let the -- You know, I, too, believe in the jury system. I believe in our criminal justice system. Put it in the hands of the unbiased professionals in law enforcement.

NEVILLE: Right. I understand -- hey, David...

CLOHESSY: And let them determine who is telling the truth.

NEVILLE: I understand what you are saying, but let's think about this. Let's say a priest is really, really wrongly accused, and he waits it out. Meanwhile, his reputation is getting chipped and chipped and chipped away at consistently.

And I wonder if he could even, once it does comes up, some people would look at him and say, well, he's not saying anything, he must be wrong, he must be guilty.

CLOHESSY: Well, nobody is arguing that the priest should be silent. No one is arguing that the priest shouldn't hire a defense attorney and file motions and do all of those legal things, if a priest is sued. And if he is innocent, do all of that.

We are simply saying don't take that one extra step and go on the attack against the accuser, because when you do that, you set up a climate where all victims are afraid to come forward...

NEVILLE: Are afraid to come out, OK.

CLOHESSY: ... and other witnesses as well.

NEVILLE: OK, thank you for clearing that up.

Linda from California, what do you say?

LINDA: I understand what David is saying as far as they shouldn't. I don't agree with it totally. They should have and exercise their right. They just need to be careful in a spiritual manner as far as their congregation and how it affects. You can't teach effectively if you're living different to what you are teaching. So they should use extreme caution in how they go after the matter.

NEVILLE: OK, thank you very much. I think we have to go. We are out of time.

I want to thank David Clohessy and Philip Moran for joining us here today, and thanks to...

MORAN: Thank you.

NEVILLE: OK.

And thanks to all of you for watching. I am Arthel Neville. I'll see you again tomorrow at 3:00 Eastern, noon Pacific, with more TALKBACK LIVE.

"INSIDE POLITICS" 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