Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Crossfire
House Votes to Give Bush Authority to use Military Force to Disarm Saddam; Democrats Spilt on Vote
Aired October 10, 2002 - 19:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ANNOUNCER: CROSSFIRE: On the left: James Carville and Paul Begala. On the right: Robert Novak and Tucker Carlson. In the CROSSFIRE tonight:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The days of Iraq acting as an outlaw state are coming to an end.
ANNOUNCER: The House makes history. Senator Daschle makes a deal.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. TOM DASCHLE (D-SD), SENATE MAJORITY LEADER: I will vote to give the president the authority he needs.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: Will President Bush be able to make peace once he gets authority to wage war?
Adding up the clues from a killing spree. Will they produce a portrait of a sniper?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He may be wanting to say, look, I can hit anywhere.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: Plus, singing the praises of God and country: Pat Boone and his new song.
Ahead on CROSSFIRE.
From the George Washington University: Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson.
TUCKER CARLSON, CO-HOST: Good evening, and welcome to our praise God and pass the ammunition edition of CROSSFIRE.
Singer Pat Boone is warming up his vocal chords in a new song about the pledge of allegiance. Also, the House of Representatives gives President Bush ammunition he wants against Saddam Hussein.
But first, our turn to fire. Prepare for the CROSSFIRE "Political Alert."
This afternoon, the House of Representatives voted 296 to 133 to give the president authority to use military force to disarm Saddam Hussein. In the praising of bipartisan vote, President Bush declared the House spoke "clearly to the world and to the U.N. Security Council. The gathering threat of Iraq must be confronted fully and finally."
Democrats, as predicted, split on the issue, though most voted against it. But their opposition is crumbling. Even Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle today announced he will support the president when the resolution comes up for a vote late tonight or early Friday in the Senate.
PAUL BEGALA, CO-HOST: Now I have to give Bush credit and the Democrats. The Democrats pushed the president and he moved. He came to Congress, when many said he wouldn't in his administration. He came to the U.N., when his administration said he wouldn't. And now he's saying we're for weapons inspections and disarmament, not regime change. So I give Bush a lot of credit and the Democrats for trying to come to some consensus there.
Well, when New Jersey, Democrats replaced Bob Torricelli with Frank Lautenberg, the right-wing crowd was squealing like a pig stuck under a gate. And, yet, in a move that's hypocritical even for Republicans, the GOP candidate for Senate in Montana announced today he is pulling out of the race under an ethical cloud. And some Republicans want to replace him with former Governor and current Republican National Committee Chairman Mark Racicot.
Well I'll be consistent. I say put Racicot on the ticket. Even though Montana law bars replacements within 85 days of an election, because who better embodies the Bush Republicans than Racicot, a highly paid lobbyist for the corrupt corporation of Enron?
CARLSON: Well, first of all, the talking point, as you well know, is give the voters a choice. That's what Democrats said about Lautenberg. I have news, though, for you. Governor Racicot is not running.
And I do think it's a bit much to imply that he's involved in criminal behavior. He is the last person in the world who would be involved in criminal behavior, whatever his other faults may be. Pretty ethical guy.
But on another note, for eight years you heard Democrats repeat the same talking points. Sure Bill Clinton has a messy personal life, but at least he isn't greedy. Not surprisingly, this turned out to be 50 percent false. Since leaving office, the former president has devoted considerable time to raking in tens of millions in speaking fees.
And the pattern of materialism goes back years, it turns out. Today's "New York Times" reveals that while in the White House the president and his wife accepted more than $1 million in jewelry, rugs, furnishings, sculptures, clothing and hand bags given by, among other unsavory characters, Denise Rich, Johnny Chung and admitted criminal James Riatti.
The law requires presidents to report gifts over $260, but the Clintons declared none of it. Senator Clinton's office responded predictably, "old news," said a spokesman, which is only partly true. That they would do it is old news, that they actually did it is still stunning.
BEGALA: And I presume you were just as stunned when Ronald Reagan's friends gave him a mansion. The house alone was worth more than everything the Clinton's ever took in eight years. So it's a little selective outrage here.
Well a new poll released by the University of New Hampshire shows the democratic governor of that state, Jeanne Shaheen, has surged ahead of her GOP rival, Congressman John Sununu. Now the race is still too close to call. But with Shaheen now leading 47 to 44 with 26 days to go, she's definitely in the driver's seat.
Now analysts attribute Sununu's stumble to his support for privatizing Social Security to the divisive GOP primary he ran against Senator Bob Smith, and the fact that Congressman Sununu was confused with his father, former Governor John Sununu, the former host of this broadcast. We all know, of course, hosting CROSSFIRE is the political kiss of death.
CARLSON: I actually think that being co-host on the right is a perfect platform for which to run for public office. But I will say, to say that he's surging ahead, when the poll was still within the margin of error, I'm not sure that's a surge, when it's statistically in a dead heat, which I think it is.
But proving once again that there's an interest group for everyone, the American Tarot Association responded angrily yesterday to reports that the sniper now stalking the D.C. suburbs had left a Tarot card at the scene of one of his crimes. "Whoever did this has no idea about Tarot cards," complained Ricky Height (ph), membership coordinator for the fortuneteller's lobby.
Mr. Height went on to say that the "misuse of the death card by a serial killer will only enforce the public's negative image of fortune tellers," who surveys have shown are generally regarded as frauds, swindlers, crack pots and bunko artists. Tarot card readers around the country will soon unveil a public relations campaign designed to change that image.
As a first step, The United Fortunetellers Union has offered to help police by putting a very powerful hex on suspects.
BEGALA: Of course the fortunetellers should have seen this coming. We actually will talk about this later on in the program as well. Well, yesterday, the "Wall Street Journal" reported that as an oil man, George W. Bush set up a partnership that was, in the journal's words, "much like the controversial investments that Enron corporation set up." Well, today, the "Washington Post" has more. It reveals that the banker who bailed Bush's oil company out, A. Robert Abboud, "had been a prominent supporter of Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq before the Persian Gulf War."
Mr. Abboud apparently rescued Bush's firm in 1990, years after Saddam Hussein had used chemical weapons against both the Iranians and his own Kurdish population. That Bush would look to a supporter of Saddam Hussein as his business salvation goes to show you George W. Bush is not the kind of man to let something like a little bit of a war criminal get in the way of business.
CARLSON: OK. Just three quick things: you make it sound as if Saddam Hussein was bailing out the president's company. That's not true. Second, many Americans were, if not supporting Saddam Hussein, considered him a reasonable person during the Iran-Iraq war. Donald Rumsfeld met with him, as you know.
And, third, there's no evidence at all that Bush knew that this guy supported Saddam Hussein. Whatever that means.
BEGALA: Actually, "The Post" said he was well known as a supporter of Saddam Hussein.
CARLSON: But not to Bush.
BEGALA: Who was then an evil, evil man. He was already gassing the Kurds and Iranians. He was a war criminal then.
Anyway, we'll move on to our next topic here. The sense of paranoia continues to grow here in Washington D.C. Or is it paranoia, because we have news of yet another fatal shooting that happened last night in Manassas, Virginia.
Now an hour ago, police announced that ballistics evidence ties the shooting to the string of sniper attacks that have now left seven people dead and two others wounded.
Now what kind of a maniac could be doing this? Joining us to discuss it from Boston is James Alan Fox, a Professor of Criminal Justice at Northeastern University. The author of a book called, "The Will to Kill: Making Sense of Senseless Murder."
CARLSON: Mr. Fox, thanks for joining us.
JAMES ALAN FOX, PROF. OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY: My pleasure.
CARLSON: Now it seems to me a lot of studies have been done on what sort of person becomes a serial killer. But I haven't seen very much, if any research, on why people would want to become serial killers. What drives a person to want to shoot strangers with a high- powered rifle. FOX: Well, the shooter in Maryland is very different than most serial killers. Most serial killers want to become what they are because they have very vivid fantasies involving sexual sadism and torture. And they want to be very intimate with their victims. They want to squeeze their victim's last breath of life from their bodies. So they're really driven by their fantasies.
This man is different. He doesn't have any contact with the victims. His victims are incidental. He doesn't care if they're young or old or male or female, black or white. They're just targets.
His objective is, first of all, to turn the entire region into his own personal shooting gallery. Two, he loves the notoriety, I'm sure of that. And three, he's enjoying the fact that he's elusive and is able to outsmart the police.
BEGALA: Well, Professor Fox, let me ask you about one piece of information that has been reported, that is that the man left a Tarot card with a note on the back that said, "Dear Policeman, I am God." What do you make of that?
FOX: Well, "The Dear Policeman" show as lot of respect. This is a man for whom respect is a big issue. I would expect that in his ordinary life at work or at home he doesn't get a lot of respect and he is trying to grab that respect with a gun. "I am God," well he is, indeed, playing God. He enjoys the role of taking life.
He enjoys the power, the dominance that he now has. He is in command. As far as the Tarot card, I would agree with the fortunetellers, that the death card is not necessarily a bad one. This may just be his gimmick to intensify the aura and the drama associated with this crime spree. He's loving every minute of the attention he's getting.
CARLSON: Well, as you may know, Professor Fox, the police departments around Washington sort of rose up as one yesterday to decry the leaking of this knowledge that a Tarot card was left at the scene. And the point they made was this knowledge hurts the investigation.
We tried to get an answer out of a number of guests last night, as to how this could hurt the investigation. Didn't get one. What do you think? How did this hurt the investigation?
FOX: Well, I don't really think it does. The only way it could hurt is, indeed, we have learned later that the perpetrator left a little note saying "Don't give this information out to the press, out to the public." They were concerned that there was a breach of trust.
Other than that, it is true that the police generally have to keep, hold back information, so they can determine later on if someone is a suspect if they trip up. If they slip up and tell the wrong story, or to check on compulsive confessors. But generally, the police need to manager the information and that's the problem here.
This guy is watching. He's watching television. He's reading the news.
It's amazing he even has some free time to kill with all the attention he's getting, and that he's watching. He is responding to the police. Last weekend, the police said schools are safe. So what does he do next? He goes to a school as if to say you're not so smart.
Last week, the police did geographical profiling to look at the small cluster of crime sites in Maryland and to say this is where he's operating. What does he do next? He goes to Virginia and to Prince George's County, as if to say, hey I'm over here. So he is having a wonderful time at our expense.
BEGALA: Well let me ask you about how we're going to catch him, then. Is this just going to be by almost accident, the way, for example, the son of Sam was caught because of parking tickets? Tim McVeigh was caught because he had a license plate missing on his car? Do we just wait for him to make a mistake? Or does he kind of want to get caught?
FOX: No, he doesn't want to get caught. That's a myth right out of the detective novels. He has proven that he has a certain degree of criminal savoir faire. After all, he stayed at large for more than a week now, shooting multiple people.
What will likely happen is at some point he'll start to feel so invincible, so God-like, so unstoppable that he won't be so careful. And maybe he'll slip up a little bit and hopefully the police will be there when he does. The police haven't gotten lucky yet. But eventually they will.
CARLSON: James Allen Fox, it was a fascinating update. Thanks very much for joining us.
FOX: My pleasure.
FOX: My pleasure.
CARLSON: By a better than 2 to 1 margin, the House of Representatives says President Bush can sick the military on Saddam Hussein. Is that the inevitable next step? If not, what is?
We'll put these questions and more in the CROSSFIRE in a minute.
And, later, he was patriotic when patriotism wasn't cool. Pat Boone is over his leather phase, and will join us to sing the praises of the pledge of alliance, under God included.
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE.
Six brave Republicans in the House today dared to buck the president of their own party, voting with 126 Democrats and one independent against the administration's version of a use of force resolution in Iraq. Now, I wonder if the Republican attack machine will impugn the patriotism of those Republicans? Probably not since they are, after all, mostly in tough races.
The Senate is expected to take up the resolution tomorrow. It is expected to pass overwhelmingly there as well. And so the question is, what's next?
In the CROSSFIRE to discuss this from Albany, New York, former U.N. Chief Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter. And, on Capitol Jill, Arizona Republican Congressman John Shadegg who voted with the majority today.
Gentlemen, thank you both very much for joining us.
CARLSON: Scott Ritter, thanks for joining us.
As you know, war is not inevitable. On Monday in Ohio the president laid out three conditions that Saddam Hussein can meet to avoid war. The first is eliminate your weapons of mass destruction. The second is allow witnesses and their families to leave Iraq to be interviewed by the United States or the U.N. And the third is allow U.N. inspectors access to every site they want to see within Iraq.
It strikes me the ball is now in Saddam's court. If there is a war, it's because he didn't meet these conditions and it's his fault. Isn't that right?
SCOTT RITTER, FMR. U.N. CHIEF WEAPONS INSPECTOR: I assume you're asking me this question.
CARLSON: That's the question to you, Mr. Ritter.
RITTER: Well, no. Look, let's not play games here. The president just got his war powers resolution and we're going to war. I don't care what you say about mincing words. If you wanted peace, if you wanted inspectors in, you would allow the inspectors in right now in accordance with the existing resolutions, which are more than capable of handling the aspect of disarming Iraq.
They allow access to presidential palaces. And if Saddam Hussein chose not to cooperate, then the president could come to Congress, get his war powers resolution and move forward with a unified Security Council to take Saddam Hussein into account. Here we have basically passed a death penalty before we found the person guilty.
CARLSON: Wait. Before we get into rhetoric, I just want you to answer in a way that I can understand a little more clearly why it's outrageous to say to Saddam Hussein, as the president has, look, give us access to every site we want to see in your country. If you do that we won't invade you. That seems like a very straightforward condition. Why can't he meet it?
RITTER: I sort of have a problem with your question, sir. Because it presumes that the United States has a right to ask that question. It seems to me that these are Security Council resolutions. And this is a question that should be put forward by a unified Security Council, not the president of the United States, not the Congress of the United States, but the Security Council.
BEGALA: Congressman Shadegg, let me bring you into this. Before we get started on a new war with Iraq, let me ask you about the war that I think we all agree we must fight and we have not yet won: the war against al Qaeda. Just in the last few days, al Qaeda allegedly bombed a tanker, a French oil tanker. They are rumored to be behind the murder of an American soldier in Kuwait.
Now we have a new tape from the number two man, Dr. Zawahiri, and this from the Associated Press. Let me read it to you. "Counterterrorism officials have said two top bin Laden lieutenants, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Abu al-Rahim al-Nashiri, are continuing to organize strikes. Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the September 11 attacks, has been tied to the April bombing of a synagogue in Tunisia. And al-Nashiri is suspected of organizing plots against U.S. and British warships.
Why risk diverting a single bullet until every one of these SOBs in al Qaeda is in hell?
REP. JOHN SHADEGG (R), ARIZONA: Look, we clearly have to deal with al Qaeda. There's no question about it. But let's go back and talk about what Mr. Ritter just said. He was one time a hero...
BEGALA: Come on, they killed 3,000 of our people. I just don't want to let you go with dismissing it with, well, yes, we've got to deal with al Qaeda. Don't we have to deal with al Qaeda first, sir?
SHADEGG: No, we don't have to deal with al Qaeda first. By dealing with Saddam we are, in part, dealing with al Qaeda. And we are sending a message.
But you need to hear what Mr. Ritter just said. He said go in under the existing inspection regime. He knows darned good and well there are hundreds of acres of presidential palaces which off bounds.
A regime where we inspect, and we're excluded from hundreds of acres, is no inspection regime at all. That's a fraud. And when Scott Ritter was there, and when I thought he was a hero, he was saying he needed unqualified access. The guy stood with a gun at his head saying we've got to get in there. And now he says we should inspect without the conditions of being able to get in?
And, on top of that, he knows right now they have mobile production facilities. You can't inspect a country effectively, you cannot have meaningful inspections if they have mobile production facilities which they will not disclose to us. It is clear that he's already made a decision, he says, well, the president's already going to war.
That's dead wrong. The president needed this resolution to force the U.N. to act, and he needed this resolution to build an international coalition. And the guy that can change all of this is Saddam Hussein, who can come forward and do precisely what you asked in your first question. And that is, let us have access to everything.
CARLSON: Well, Scott Ritter, it is true that over four years ago you were saying, you said it in a lot of places, I can have the quote. I won't bore you with it, because you know what it is. You said it, that we know that we didn't find all the weapons of mass destruction within Iraq. And isn't it just what the congressman said, that some of them may be in these massive presidential so-called palaces? Is that not true?
RITTER: Let's deal with the facts here, OK? It is true. I said that we hadn't disarmed Iraq. And I didn't just say that four years ago, Tucker. I'm saying it right now. You're damn right.
Now I'm telling you we have to get inspectors in. But we have to get the inspectors in the country, we've got to let them do the work. And, first of all, you know I hope Representative Shadegg certainly didn't vote to go to war based on the concept of mobile laboratories. Because, Mr. Shadegg, I'm here to tell you right now, those are a construct of inspector's imaginations that came out in 1993 to try and figure out why we couldn't find anything.
So we made it up. They don't exist.
SHADEGG: That's not true.
RITTER: Oh, it is true.
SHADEGG: Every single authority that exists says that those mobile weapons production facilities exist. But let's not duck the issue. What about the palaces?
RITTER: No, let's talk about that, Tucker. Where do they exist? How do they exist? What is the intelligence? Because we're going to war based upon this information. Come on, Tucker, let's be fair.
RITTER: We have the intelligence in every other defense.
BEGALA: Just a second. Let Congressman Shadegg answer your question. Congressman Shadegg, how do we know that they have these mobile facilities, sir?
SHADEGG: We know we have those mobile facilities because our -- every other intelligence source we have from the CIA and on down the line, the DIA, you name it, confirms that they have these facilities. But beyond that, I was in Bahrain within days of when the weapons inspectors were first kicked out. They were kicked out, I believe, on November 13, 1987 --1997. I was there on the 20th, and I met with five different weapons inspectors.
You have a photo of me meeting with them. Those weapons inspectors told me face to face back then, that every time they got close to getting to the weapons, every time they were really hot on something, they were blocked, they were frustrated, they got no chance to go in. And they told us back then that they would be stalled at the front door, for an hour, hour and a half, two hours, three hours, and they would watch trucks carrying equipment going out the back door.
This is nothing new and nothing secret. This is something we have known for a long time. And I would appreciate it if Mr. Ritter would discuss the palaces.
I agree with him, we need an inspections regime. But as recently as yesterday, Saddam Hussein said he will not agree to any new inspections. That means he will not agree to inspection of the palace grounds. And that means we simply will never know if they have the weapons.
RITTER: That's simply...
(CROSSTALK)
RITTER: That simply shows your ignorance, sir. They have agreed to a resolution that says that palaces can be inspected. It's in the memorandum of understanding.
SHADEGG: No they have not.
RITTER: Look, you're lying to the American public if you're saying that. They have said they will agree to inspections under existing Security Council resolutions. And Resolution 1154 clearly states that the memorandum of understanding, that it was agreed upon between Kofi Annan and the Iraqi government, allows inspectors in.
SHADEGG: But not -- come on, let's be honest about it. Let's deal with the facts. Not to inspect the weapons, the presidential palaces.
RITTER: No, you're wrong, it is to inspect the presidential palaces. You should do less soul searching and more researching.
CARLSON: If I can break this up for a one second. We want to take a quick commercial break and we'll be back in just a minute to take up where we left off. We'll be right back.
Some people say Scott Ritter became a trainer when he spoke before the Iraqi national assembly. We'll ask him if he is next.
And, later, a debate you won't want to miss. A man who sued to get "under God" taken out of the pledge of allegiance steps into the CROSSFIRE with singer and God supporter Pat Boone. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: Welcome back.
President Bush this afternoon praised the House of Representatives for the quality of its debate on the use of force resolution, as well as the result, of course. A lopsided 296 to 133 vote authorizing the use of force against Iraq. With the Senate passage of the resolution now assured, we're asking what is next.
In the CROSSFIRE tonight are former U.N. Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter and Arizona Republican Congressman John Shadegg.
BEGALA: Congressman Shadegg, before we went to break you guys were having a fascinating debate. It was basically: I say A and you say B. So let me try to appeal, though, to somebody. With all due respect to you, who I think knows a whole lot more about it. That is, a Marine general, a highly decorated general by the name of Anthony Zinne, who was the commander in chief of central command. The very people who will be fighting this war if, God forbid, we're called upon to fight one.
Here is what General Zinzi had to say to say to the Reuters news service. "If we look at this attacking Iraq as the beginning of a chain of events that means that we intend to do this through violent action, we are on the wrong course. First of all, I don't see that that's necessary. Secondly, I think that war and violence are a very last resort and we have to be careful how we apply it, especially now in our position in the world."
"I would take those priorities before this one, Iraq. My personal view is I think this isn't number one. It's maybe sixth or seventh."
Why, sir, do you know better than General Zinni?
SHADEGG: Well I don't think I do know better than General Zinni. What I think is important to understand is the president isn't going to war today. What the president is doing is trying to pressure the United Nations and trying to build an international coalition to disarm Saddam Hussein.
I would personally disagree with General Zinni when he says this is way down the list. Because if you look at the weapons that Iraq clearly has, you look at his willingness to use them, you look at his development of delivery systems, including delivery systems...
BEGALA: Do you not think General Zinni looked at those things? Sir, with respect, don't you think General Zinni kind of studied that a little bit when he was commander of central command?
SHADEGG: That's when he was the commander of central command. I am still a United States congressman and I have to look at those issues now. And I think the thing we would do that would be wrong is if we send a signal of weakness.
If we allow Saddam Hussein to continue to develop these weapons and to continue to develop mechanisms for their delivery, some of which could deliver them to American soil today without doubt. And at work with terrorists, which we know he is doing, whether it's al Qaeda or others, who could also deliver those weapons here, and we do nothing about it, we are inviting devastation and destruction.
CARLSON: OK. Scott Ritter, recently you spoke to the Iraqi national assembly. I want to put up a quote of what you said when you were in that building. "The rhetoric of fear that is disseminated by my government and others has not today been backed up by hard facts that substantiate any allegations that Iraq is today in possession of weapons of mass destruction or has links to terror groups responsible for attacking the U.S. Void of such facts, all we have is speculation."
Now, that's your opinion. You're, of course, entitled to it. But to express that, to attack the government of the United States within the walls of the Iraqi national assembly at a time when Iraq is firing at American aircraft, don't you think that's kind of offensive?
RITTER: No, I think it's important that the American people understand the sham that's being perpetrated by the president, by Congress right now. And whether I can say that -- frankly, with all due respect, Tucker, if I tried to get on CROSSFIRE and say that before I went to Baghdad, you wouldn't have had me on. You have me on today because I went to Baghdad. That was the only place I could go to get the media to pay attention.
CARLSON: Actually, Scott, as you may remember, we had you on before you went. But let me ask you this thing, you also briefed a number of Hollywood celebrities, I guess, actors, Warren Beatty, Susan Sarandon, on the war. I'm wondering, Susan Sarandon, where is she on foreign policy now? What kind of effect did you have?
RITTER: I have no idea. Who is Susan Sarandon? Did I brief her? You better get your facts right, Tucker, because facts...
CARLSON: I read that in the "Washington Post, " that you're a briefer to the stars.
BEGALA: Congressman Shadegg, let me ask you about something that was in today's "Washington Post." Let me quote you from today's "Washington Post." A. Robert Abboud, then head of First City Bankcorp, decided to take over another of the bank's loans to Harken Energy in 1990 and rescue Harken from default. Harken, of course, being George W. Bush's oil firm. Aboud had been a prominent supporter of Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq before the Persian Gulf War.
Does it undermine our moral authority when we learn that our president was, in 1990, in business with a supporter of Saddam Hussein?
SHADEGG: No, and I don't think you can go back to 1990 draw any conclusions. What you can do is try to contrast what people say then and then say now.
BEGALA: What would you be saying if Bill Clinton had been in business with a Saddam Hussein supporter and then was calling us to go to war against Saddam Hussein?
SHADEGG: There is no way that you can conclude what he was doing then -- if that's true, then Mr. Ritter has no credibility in this show at all, because he's currently by -- or working with a backer of Saddam Hussein in the United States who funded this film that he did.
RITTER: Mark your words very carefully, Mr. Representative. Mark you words. Be very careful..
SHADEGG: I'll mark my words carefully.
RITTER: Be very careful what you're saying, sir because -- you better be very careful.
SHADEGG: Let's talk about the defense of Mohammed Atta. Let's talk about the defense of Mohammed Atta, which you proffered in a speech which you gave in September of last year -- I'm sorry, in December of last year, to the Center for Policy Analysis, in which you said that it was appropriate for Iraqi officials to be meeting with Mohammed Atta and that you indicated that it would be appropriate for Mohammed Atta to destroy a radio-free Europe tower which is broadcasting --
RITTER: No, no, no. You are so pathetic.
CARLSON: Did you say that, Scott Ritter? Did you say that?
RITTER: I said -- I said that when United States hires Akhmed (ph) Chalibi (ph) to target Saddam Hussein, to remove him from power, Saddam Hussein would be foolish if he didn't seek to destroy the transmitter.
I also said that I would condemn such action. But I would understand why it's being undertaken. But I was also fighting against it. So, please don't put me on the same page with a man who killed 3,000 Americans. That's pretty pathetic.
SHADEGG: I think you put yourself on the same page with him.
BEGALA: That will have to be the last word. Scott Ritter, former U.N. weapons inspector, thank you for joining us, sir.
Congressman John Shadegg of Arizona, thank you as well. Very good for both of you to be with us.
We will get an update on the Washington area sniper investigation next in the "CNN News Alert."
And then: Pat Boone sings the praises of "under God" in the "Pledge of Allegiance," while atheist Michael Neudow (ph) fires back. This is worth staying for.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BEGALA: A little bit later, one of our viewers will ask Tucker Carlson to drop a certain word from his vocabulary.
But next: the man who wants the phrase "under God" dropped from the "Pledge of Allegiance" steps into the CROSSFIRE with singer Pat Boone.
Later, our "Quote of the Day." Has one of the country's most famous curmudgeons finally gone too far?
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. We're coming to you from the George Washington University here in downtown Washington D.C.
Singer Pat Boone is adding his voice to the "Pledge of Allegiance" debate. That would be his singing voice, of course. Boone is releasing a new song called "Under God." Perhaps we can all sing it while the Court of Appeals reconsiders this summer's absurd ruling that the phrase is unconstitutional and breach of the separation of church and state.
Joining us from Sacramento, California tonight is Dr. Michael Newdow, whose lawsuit provoked the ruling.
And here in Washington, in our studio, is Pat Boone himself.
BEGALA: How are you? Thank you for coming.
They love you.
The song is out today. I want to get to that in just a second.
But first, as a liberal, let me salute you for praising the work of the Rev. Francis Bellamy, who was a socialist one-worlder. I didn't know Pat Boone was plugging a socialist one-worlder's work.
PAT BOONE, SINGER: Well, you'll have to clue me in. I don't know what you're talking about.
BEGALA: Rev. Francis Bellamy, in 1892, wrote the "Pledge of Allegiance." He was a Baptist minister and a socialist who most famous sermon was entitled "Jesus the Socialist."
He saw this as a unifying thing for the world, not just the United States of America.
BOONE: Well, I do then praise him for his crowning achievement, the "Pledge of Allegiance." I do.
BEGALA: And so you've become a proponent of the one-world socialism. Make some news here on CROSSFIRE.
BOONE: No, no, no, no, no. Far from it, in fact. But no, if he wrote it, and I was not aware of that, but I accept it and I'm -- and I congratulate him. It's a great peace of Americana.
BEGALA: Certainly is.
BOONE: Yes.
CARLSON: Now Mr. Newdow, the constitution allows or directs the Congress of the United States to make the laws. And as it happens, Congress took up this very question about the "Pledge of Allegiance" and the national motto "in god we trust" just the other day. And the results were pretty definitive. Only five members of the House, all Democrats, voted against the "Pledge of Allegiance" in the national motto.
Polling has showed that the American public is pretty much on the same side, 97 percent of the people support keeping "Under God" in the pledge.
Balanced against that is you, a guy with a lot of free time and an animos toward the "Pledge of Allegiance." Why should you win out against the public?
DR. MICHAEL NEWDOW, PLAINTIFF: It's called the Bill of Rights. What we're supposed is uphold the rights that are enunciated in the constitution, so.
CARLSON: But Congress, again, which makes the laws has said and has said as an extension of the will of the people it represents, that is what we as a country want.
Again, why should you get to overturn that?
NEWDOW: It's the First Amendment. It says, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. If they make a law that respects an establishment of religion, they're not allowed to do it. They make the laws, but they're supposed to abide by the constitution.
BEGALA: Pat, go ahead. You wanted to respond?
BOONE: I'd say he left out part of that First Amendment, and I understand why. Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion nor restricting the free exercise thereof.
That's the rest of that phrase.
NEWDOW: And that's why you can write a song about God and have as much fun as you want. But the government can't. That's what you have to keep separate.
BEGALA: I've been dying for to you sing a few bars, Pat. Can you give us just a few? We can play the CD, but you're here live, you got an audience that wants to hear you.
BOONE: I'll tell you what...
BEGALA: Have you got a mike?
BOONE: Yes, I do.
BEGALA: If you'd rather, we'll play the CD because we don't have a house band.
BOONE: Can we compromise? Can we play it, let me sing with it?
BEGALA: There we go. Let's play the CD -- if we could cue that up, Howie. And Pat Boone singing...
BOONE: Yes, you know, because, you know, to hear it without the music -- I purposely tried to Springsteen it up a little bit.
BEGALA: We usually have a butt-rocking house band, but they're off tonight. (SINGING)
BEGALA: There you go. All right!
CARLSON: I must say. I must say, I'm sitting right next to you. Your voice is absolutely fantastic. That's great.
Now, Mr. Newdow, Dr. Newdow, no offense or anything, but I bet you can't top that, can you?
You've written your own songs.
NEWDOW: I wrote one song.
CARLSON: Why don't you give us just a quick selection. See if you can beat that.
BEGALA: Battle of the bands, is that what we want?
NEWDOW: This is just the chorus, here, OK?
(SINGING)
BEGALA: All right! Michael Newdow. Oh my gosh, that's outstanding. That takes a lot of guts.
Now, Michael Newdow is also, you should know, Pat, he's an emergency room surgeon. I don't know that you want to try fixing a sucking chest wound...
BOONE: Oh, no, please.
BEGALA: But it takes a lot of guts, you got to admit, for him to go back-to-back with Pat Boone.
CARLSON: With that voice, I think that was bold.
BOONE: Can I -- We've heard from him. Can I just quote from, and you quoting from the socialist.
Let me quote from the first chief justice of the Supreme Court, and one of the three major writers of the constitution, John Jay. These are his words: "Providence has given to our people the choice of their leaders, their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."
Now, this was the chief justice of the Supreme Court who helped write the Constitution itself.
Who do you suppose knows a little more about what the Constitution intended?
BEGALA: Well, you aren't suggesting that we should only vote for Christians as our leaders? I voted for Joe Lieberman for vice president and he got more votes than Dick Cheney. And I think he's perfectly fit. You aren't suggesting...
BOONER: No, I'm not suggesting that. I'm quoting the chief justice, the first chief justice of the Supreme Court and one of the guys, one of the three guys along with Adams and Jefferson who wrote, and Monroe, who wrote the Constitution.
NEWDOW: Which doesn't say anything about Christianity or God.
BEGALA: Jefferson was over in France, actually. He didn't have anything to do with...
BOONE: They know what they intended.
BEGALA: What they wrote into it was -- let me let Michael Newdow jump into this.
CARLSON: Really, Mr. Newdow, I would feel irresponsible if I didn't ask you if something I read was a new campaign of yours to replace pronouns in the English language, sex-specific pronouns, he and she with re, res, and urm in place of he, his, and him and she, her, and hers.
Now that's not really true, is it?
NEWDOW: I'm not trying to replace it. I just think our language is short something. For instance, God. For example, when you talk about God, you have to see he or she or something. Why don't you just re? That way we take care of...
CARLSON: And would you take that to currency, replacing all references to God on coins and bills and public buildings?
I mean, do you think those ought to be --
NEWDOW: You left pronouns, but yes, I would -- I would get rid of God on anything that has to do with government, OK?
If Pat Boone wants to praise and God and tell us that Christians are great, that's fine. The government can't tell us that. That's all.
BEGALA: In fact, let me put Pat Boone on the spot. I know you're a great capitalist but also a great patriot.
Will you be donating all the proceeds of this song to a 9/11 charity or other charity?
BOONE: This has happened so quickly, we haven't made any provision to do it, but I'd be happy to. It's not a moneymaking thing for me. What I hope is to remind people why the words "under God" are in the "Pledge of Allegiance" to begin with.
It's because people came to this country seeking freedom of, not from, of religion. And would I like to say to Mike, and I respect him.
That he is...
NEWDOW: Mostly for my voice.
BOONE: He is preaching a religion, his atheism, is a belief system concerning God. He believes God doesn't exist. He can't prove it. So he has to take that by faith. We believe he does exist.
NEWDOW: I agree 100 percent. But the question is: Why should government come in on your side? Why doesn't government just stay out of the business?
BOONE: It's not a matter of government.
BEGALA: That is where we're going to have to leave the debate.
Dr. Michael Newdow, you've been on before, I promise you'll be on again.
And Pat Boone, you have an open invitation, any time you want to come and sing on CROSSFIRE, by golly, come on in.
Thank you both, Dr. Newdow, Pat Boone.
Coming up in our "Fireback" segment, a Canadian viewer points automatic a chilly difference between the Clinton economy and what W has done.
But next: we'll line up under center and take a pass at our "Quote of the Day."
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE.
Still swooning from Pat Boone, but we have other entertainment news: CBS commentator Andy Rooney's latest book is called "Common Nonsense." Nonsense, apparently, is very common with Mr. Rooney, as he proved just the other day. It seems Andy takes exception to TV's latest trend of stationing women correspondents along the sidelines of football games.
They interview coaches, they talk to players, they give injury updates, offer other insights.
Andy's opinion on that gets our "Quote of the Day," plus 15 yards for unsportsmanlike conduct.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANDY ROONEY, CBS, "60 MINUTES": I'm not a sexist person, but a woman has no business being down there trying to make some comment about a football game.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: I bet that made his fellow liberal Democrats -- because he is a liberal Democrat -- pretty mad.
But I have to say, I'd much rather look at a woman on TV than John Madden. So I'm...
BEGALA: Or Tucker Carlson, Paul Begala.
CARLSON: In just a minute, someone who signs himself "an ashamed Democrat" -- there are many of them -- gets a chance to "Fireback."
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BEGALA: And welcome back to CROSSFIRE.
It's time now for "Fireback."
Let's go straight to your e-mails: "What has happened to the Democratic Party? They are bowing down to this president. They're not leading, they're following. Now I understand why President Clinton had such a hard time. It's a shameful time to be a Democrat. Yours truly, An Ashamed Donkey in Texas."
Wow.
CARLSON: It's always been pretty embarrassing.
Next up, Jim from Edmonton, Alberta, Canada -- that's a foreign country -- writes: "There is an old saying, that when the U.S. economy gets the sniffles, Canada catches a cold. As an investor during the Clinton years, I can afford to visit your country and escape the Canadian winter six times during those years. Now that the GOP is back in the White House, looks like I'll curl up in my igloo."
Which, of course, is the entire point, Jim.
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: Jay Leno had a great line the other night. He said: Bush has three reasons for going to war: the Dow Jones, the Nasdaq, and the S&P 500. Good for Jay Leno.
Carl E. Turley of San Antonio, Puerto Rico writes: "Since America is so equally divided on politics, maybe it would be a good idea to have CROSSFIRE all day long to present both sides."
CARLSON: Do we get overtime? A fine idea.
CARLSON: Better call the union to find out.
OK, next up, Edward Castillo from Santa Monica, California writes: "Tucker Carlson needs to expand his vocabulary beyond `outrageous.' I think his overuse of this word is offensive, contemptible, despicable, disgraceful, et cetera. Need I say more?"
Well Edward, you left out "odious" which is, itself, offensive, and outrageous.
BEGALA: Outstanding answer.
Yes, sir, what's your name and hometown?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My name is Frank Lankey (ph). I'm from Edison, New Jersey. This comment is geared toward you, Paul.
Paul, I've been a supporter of Senator Daschle since he became majority leader until now. He sold out the Democratic Party by agreeing to this resolution. If he can't listen to the opinion of Democratic voters, maybe we should have a majority leader who does.
BEGALA: Yes, I think he's listening to his conscience. I think he's done a great thing.
I'm not for war in Iraq. I suspect Tom Daschle is not. But he did exert a lot of pressure.
And we should give our president credit, too, for coming to the Democratic position on going to the U.N., coming to the Congress and insisting this is now a war if we have one for disarmament rather than just going in trying to have regime change.
CARLSON: He totally sold out your party. And Democrats of conscience -- some of them have pretty decent, thoughtful arguments against a war in Iraq -- are really frustrated because nobody in the leadership has the courage to stand up and articulate.
BEGALA: He is an extraordinary leader.
Yes sir?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Good evening. My name is L.J. Koch. I'm from Tenafly, New Jersey. And Tucker, this question is for you.
CARLSON: All right L.J.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why should Americans pledge allegiance to God in order to pledge allegiance to the flag? Must we believe in God in order to be patriotic Americans?
CARLSON: Oh, of course not. I'm not sure if you're familiar with the phrase "straw man," but that's one of them. That is a straw man, of course.
The Pledge of Allegiance, first of all, is not legally binding, which -- you may be taking it a tad too seriously. And, secondly, you don't pledge allegiance to God within it. I think it reminds us that our government is not the highest authority in the universe, and that is something nice to be reminded of.
BEGALA: But does it actually work?
We have on our currency, for example, this phrase here that says "In God we trust." Do you think any of those ripoff artists at Enron looked at this before the greedy bastards got their hands on the money and said, oh, gee, I should worship God instead of money?
No chance.
from the left, I'm Paul Begala. Good night for CROSSFIRE.
CARLSON: High hopes.
From the right, I' Tucker Carlson.
Join us again tomorrow night for yet another edition of CROSSFIRE.
"CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT" begins right now.
See you tomorrow.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
to Disarm Saddam; Democrats Spilt on Vote>
Aired October 10, 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:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The days of Iraq acting as an outlaw state are coming to an end.
ANNOUNCER: The House makes history. Senator Daschle makes a deal.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. TOM DASCHLE (D-SD), SENATE MAJORITY LEADER: I will vote to give the president the authority he needs.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: Will President Bush be able to make peace once he gets authority to wage war?
Adding up the clues from a killing spree. Will they produce a portrait of a sniper?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He may be wanting to say, look, I can hit anywhere.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: Plus, singing the praises of God and country: Pat Boone and his new song.
Ahead on CROSSFIRE.
From the George Washington University: Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson.
TUCKER CARLSON, CO-HOST: Good evening, and welcome to our praise God and pass the ammunition edition of CROSSFIRE.
Singer Pat Boone is warming up his vocal chords in a new song about the pledge of allegiance. Also, the House of Representatives gives President Bush ammunition he wants against Saddam Hussein.
But first, our turn to fire. Prepare for the CROSSFIRE "Political Alert."
This afternoon, the House of Representatives voted 296 to 133 to give the president authority to use military force to disarm Saddam Hussein. In the praising of bipartisan vote, President Bush declared the House spoke "clearly to the world and to the U.N. Security Council. The gathering threat of Iraq must be confronted fully and finally."
Democrats, as predicted, split on the issue, though most voted against it. But their opposition is crumbling. Even Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle today announced he will support the president when the resolution comes up for a vote late tonight or early Friday in the Senate.
PAUL BEGALA, CO-HOST: Now I have to give Bush credit and the Democrats. The Democrats pushed the president and he moved. He came to Congress, when many said he wouldn't in his administration. He came to the U.N., when his administration said he wouldn't. And now he's saying we're for weapons inspections and disarmament, not regime change. So I give Bush a lot of credit and the Democrats for trying to come to some consensus there.
Well, when New Jersey, Democrats replaced Bob Torricelli with Frank Lautenberg, the right-wing crowd was squealing like a pig stuck under a gate. And, yet, in a move that's hypocritical even for Republicans, the GOP candidate for Senate in Montana announced today he is pulling out of the race under an ethical cloud. And some Republicans want to replace him with former Governor and current Republican National Committee Chairman Mark Racicot.
Well I'll be consistent. I say put Racicot on the ticket. Even though Montana law bars replacements within 85 days of an election, because who better embodies the Bush Republicans than Racicot, a highly paid lobbyist for the corrupt corporation of Enron?
CARLSON: Well, first of all, the talking point, as you well know, is give the voters a choice. That's what Democrats said about Lautenberg. I have news, though, for you. Governor Racicot is not running.
And I do think it's a bit much to imply that he's involved in criminal behavior. He is the last person in the world who would be involved in criminal behavior, whatever his other faults may be. Pretty ethical guy.
But on another note, for eight years you heard Democrats repeat the same talking points. Sure Bill Clinton has a messy personal life, but at least he isn't greedy. Not surprisingly, this turned out to be 50 percent false. Since leaving office, the former president has devoted considerable time to raking in tens of millions in speaking fees.
And the pattern of materialism goes back years, it turns out. Today's "New York Times" reveals that while in the White House the president and his wife accepted more than $1 million in jewelry, rugs, furnishings, sculptures, clothing and hand bags given by, among other unsavory characters, Denise Rich, Johnny Chung and admitted criminal James Riatti.
The law requires presidents to report gifts over $260, but the Clintons declared none of it. Senator Clinton's office responded predictably, "old news," said a spokesman, which is only partly true. That they would do it is old news, that they actually did it is still stunning.
BEGALA: And I presume you were just as stunned when Ronald Reagan's friends gave him a mansion. The house alone was worth more than everything the Clinton's ever took in eight years. So it's a little selective outrage here.
Well a new poll released by the University of New Hampshire shows the democratic governor of that state, Jeanne Shaheen, has surged ahead of her GOP rival, Congressman John Sununu. Now the race is still too close to call. But with Shaheen now leading 47 to 44 with 26 days to go, she's definitely in the driver's seat.
Now analysts attribute Sununu's stumble to his support for privatizing Social Security to the divisive GOP primary he ran against Senator Bob Smith, and the fact that Congressman Sununu was confused with his father, former Governor John Sununu, the former host of this broadcast. We all know, of course, hosting CROSSFIRE is the political kiss of death.
CARLSON: I actually think that being co-host on the right is a perfect platform for which to run for public office. But I will say, to say that he's surging ahead, when the poll was still within the margin of error, I'm not sure that's a surge, when it's statistically in a dead heat, which I think it is.
But proving once again that there's an interest group for everyone, the American Tarot Association responded angrily yesterday to reports that the sniper now stalking the D.C. suburbs had left a Tarot card at the scene of one of his crimes. "Whoever did this has no idea about Tarot cards," complained Ricky Height (ph), membership coordinator for the fortuneteller's lobby.
Mr. Height went on to say that the "misuse of the death card by a serial killer will only enforce the public's negative image of fortune tellers," who surveys have shown are generally regarded as frauds, swindlers, crack pots and bunko artists. Tarot card readers around the country will soon unveil a public relations campaign designed to change that image.
As a first step, The United Fortunetellers Union has offered to help police by putting a very powerful hex on suspects.
BEGALA: Of course the fortunetellers should have seen this coming. We actually will talk about this later on in the program as well. Well, yesterday, the "Wall Street Journal" reported that as an oil man, George W. Bush set up a partnership that was, in the journal's words, "much like the controversial investments that Enron corporation set up." Well, today, the "Washington Post" has more. It reveals that the banker who bailed Bush's oil company out, A. Robert Abboud, "had been a prominent supporter of Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq before the Persian Gulf War."
Mr. Abboud apparently rescued Bush's firm in 1990, years after Saddam Hussein had used chemical weapons against both the Iranians and his own Kurdish population. That Bush would look to a supporter of Saddam Hussein as his business salvation goes to show you George W. Bush is not the kind of man to let something like a little bit of a war criminal get in the way of business.
CARLSON: OK. Just three quick things: you make it sound as if Saddam Hussein was bailing out the president's company. That's not true. Second, many Americans were, if not supporting Saddam Hussein, considered him a reasonable person during the Iran-Iraq war. Donald Rumsfeld met with him, as you know.
And, third, there's no evidence at all that Bush knew that this guy supported Saddam Hussein. Whatever that means.
BEGALA: Actually, "The Post" said he was well known as a supporter of Saddam Hussein.
CARLSON: But not to Bush.
BEGALA: Who was then an evil, evil man. He was already gassing the Kurds and Iranians. He was a war criminal then.
Anyway, we'll move on to our next topic here. The sense of paranoia continues to grow here in Washington D.C. Or is it paranoia, because we have news of yet another fatal shooting that happened last night in Manassas, Virginia.
Now an hour ago, police announced that ballistics evidence ties the shooting to the string of sniper attacks that have now left seven people dead and two others wounded.
Now what kind of a maniac could be doing this? Joining us to discuss it from Boston is James Alan Fox, a Professor of Criminal Justice at Northeastern University. The author of a book called, "The Will to Kill: Making Sense of Senseless Murder."
CARLSON: Mr. Fox, thanks for joining us.
JAMES ALAN FOX, PROF. OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY: My pleasure.
CARLSON: Now it seems to me a lot of studies have been done on what sort of person becomes a serial killer. But I haven't seen very much, if any research, on why people would want to become serial killers. What drives a person to want to shoot strangers with a high- powered rifle. FOX: Well, the shooter in Maryland is very different than most serial killers. Most serial killers want to become what they are because they have very vivid fantasies involving sexual sadism and torture. And they want to be very intimate with their victims. They want to squeeze their victim's last breath of life from their bodies. So they're really driven by their fantasies.
This man is different. He doesn't have any contact with the victims. His victims are incidental. He doesn't care if they're young or old or male or female, black or white. They're just targets.
His objective is, first of all, to turn the entire region into his own personal shooting gallery. Two, he loves the notoriety, I'm sure of that. And three, he's enjoying the fact that he's elusive and is able to outsmart the police.
BEGALA: Well, Professor Fox, let me ask you about one piece of information that has been reported, that is that the man left a Tarot card with a note on the back that said, "Dear Policeman, I am God." What do you make of that?
FOX: Well, "The Dear Policeman" show as lot of respect. This is a man for whom respect is a big issue. I would expect that in his ordinary life at work or at home he doesn't get a lot of respect and he is trying to grab that respect with a gun. "I am God," well he is, indeed, playing God. He enjoys the role of taking life.
He enjoys the power, the dominance that he now has. He is in command. As far as the Tarot card, I would agree with the fortunetellers, that the death card is not necessarily a bad one. This may just be his gimmick to intensify the aura and the drama associated with this crime spree. He's loving every minute of the attention he's getting.
CARLSON: Well, as you may know, Professor Fox, the police departments around Washington sort of rose up as one yesterday to decry the leaking of this knowledge that a Tarot card was left at the scene. And the point they made was this knowledge hurts the investigation.
We tried to get an answer out of a number of guests last night, as to how this could hurt the investigation. Didn't get one. What do you think? How did this hurt the investigation?
FOX: Well, I don't really think it does. The only way it could hurt is, indeed, we have learned later that the perpetrator left a little note saying "Don't give this information out to the press, out to the public." They were concerned that there was a breach of trust.
Other than that, it is true that the police generally have to keep, hold back information, so they can determine later on if someone is a suspect if they trip up. If they slip up and tell the wrong story, or to check on compulsive confessors. But generally, the police need to manager the information and that's the problem here.
This guy is watching. He's watching television. He's reading the news.
It's amazing he even has some free time to kill with all the attention he's getting, and that he's watching. He is responding to the police. Last weekend, the police said schools are safe. So what does he do next? He goes to a school as if to say you're not so smart.
Last week, the police did geographical profiling to look at the small cluster of crime sites in Maryland and to say this is where he's operating. What does he do next? He goes to Virginia and to Prince George's County, as if to say, hey I'm over here. So he is having a wonderful time at our expense.
BEGALA: Well let me ask you about how we're going to catch him, then. Is this just going to be by almost accident, the way, for example, the son of Sam was caught because of parking tickets? Tim McVeigh was caught because he had a license plate missing on his car? Do we just wait for him to make a mistake? Or does he kind of want to get caught?
FOX: No, he doesn't want to get caught. That's a myth right out of the detective novels. He has proven that he has a certain degree of criminal savoir faire. After all, he stayed at large for more than a week now, shooting multiple people.
What will likely happen is at some point he'll start to feel so invincible, so God-like, so unstoppable that he won't be so careful. And maybe he'll slip up a little bit and hopefully the police will be there when he does. The police haven't gotten lucky yet. But eventually they will.
CARLSON: James Allen Fox, it was a fascinating update. Thanks very much for joining us.
FOX: My pleasure.
FOX: My pleasure.
CARLSON: By a better than 2 to 1 margin, the House of Representatives says President Bush can sick the military on Saddam Hussein. Is that the inevitable next step? If not, what is?
We'll put these questions and more in the CROSSFIRE in a minute.
And, later, he was patriotic when patriotism wasn't cool. Pat Boone is over his leather phase, and will join us to sing the praises of the pledge of alliance, under God included.
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE.
Six brave Republicans in the House today dared to buck the president of their own party, voting with 126 Democrats and one independent against the administration's version of a use of force resolution in Iraq. Now, I wonder if the Republican attack machine will impugn the patriotism of those Republicans? Probably not since they are, after all, mostly in tough races.
The Senate is expected to take up the resolution tomorrow. It is expected to pass overwhelmingly there as well. And so the question is, what's next?
In the CROSSFIRE to discuss this from Albany, New York, former U.N. Chief Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter. And, on Capitol Jill, Arizona Republican Congressman John Shadegg who voted with the majority today.
Gentlemen, thank you both very much for joining us.
CARLSON: Scott Ritter, thanks for joining us.
As you know, war is not inevitable. On Monday in Ohio the president laid out three conditions that Saddam Hussein can meet to avoid war. The first is eliminate your weapons of mass destruction. The second is allow witnesses and their families to leave Iraq to be interviewed by the United States or the U.N. And the third is allow U.N. inspectors access to every site they want to see within Iraq.
It strikes me the ball is now in Saddam's court. If there is a war, it's because he didn't meet these conditions and it's his fault. Isn't that right?
SCOTT RITTER, FMR. U.N. CHIEF WEAPONS INSPECTOR: I assume you're asking me this question.
CARLSON: That's the question to you, Mr. Ritter.
RITTER: Well, no. Look, let's not play games here. The president just got his war powers resolution and we're going to war. I don't care what you say about mincing words. If you wanted peace, if you wanted inspectors in, you would allow the inspectors in right now in accordance with the existing resolutions, which are more than capable of handling the aspect of disarming Iraq.
They allow access to presidential palaces. And if Saddam Hussein chose not to cooperate, then the president could come to Congress, get his war powers resolution and move forward with a unified Security Council to take Saddam Hussein into account. Here we have basically passed a death penalty before we found the person guilty.
CARLSON: Wait. Before we get into rhetoric, I just want you to answer in a way that I can understand a little more clearly why it's outrageous to say to Saddam Hussein, as the president has, look, give us access to every site we want to see in your country. If you do that we won't invade you. That seems like a very straightforward condition. Why can't he meet it?
RITTER: I sort of have a problem with your question, sir. Because it presumes that the United States has a right to ask that question. It seems to me that these are Security Council resolutions. And this is a question that should be put forward by a unified Security Council, not the president of the United States, not the Congress of the United States, but the Security Council.
BEGALA: Congressman Shadegg, let me bring you into this. Before we get started on a new war with Iraq, let me ask you about the war that I think we all agree we must fight and we have not yet won: the war against al Qaeda. Just in the last few days, al Qaeda allegedly bombed a tanker, a French oil tanker. They are rumored to be behind the murder of an American soldier in Kuwait.
Now we have a new tape from the number two man, Dr. Zawahiri, and this from the Associated Press. Let me read it to you. "Counterterrorism officials have said two top bin Laden lieutenants, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Abu al-Rahim al-Nashiri, are continuing to organize strikes. Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the September 11 attacks, has been tied to the April bombing of a synagogue in Tunisia. And al-Nashiri is suspected of organizing plots against U.S. and British warships.
Why risk diverting a single bullet until every one of these SOBs in al Qaeda is in hell?
REP. JOHN SHADEGG (R), ARIZONA: Look, we clearly have to deal with al Qaeda. There's no question about it. But let's go back and talk about what Mr. Ritter just said. He was one time a hero...
BEGALA: Come on, they killed 3,000 of our people. I just don't want to let you go with dismissing it with, well, yes, we've got to deal with al Qaeda. Don't we have to deal with al Qaeda first, sir?
SHADEGG: No, we don't have to deal with al Qaeda first. By dealing with Saddam we are, in part, dealing with al Qaeda. And we are sending a message.
But you need to hear what Mr. Ritter just said. He said go in under the existing inspection regime. He knows darned good and well there are hundreds of acres of presidential palaces which off bounds.
A regime where we inspect, and we're excluded from hundreds of acres, is no inspection regime at all. That's a fraud. And when Scott Ritter was there, and when I thought he was a hero, he was saying he needed unqualified access. The guy stood with a gun at his head saying we've got to get in there. And now he says we should inspect without the conditions of being able to get in?
And, on top of that, he knows right now they have mobile production facilities. You can't inspect a country effectively, you cannot have meaningful inspections if they have mobile production facilities which they will not disclose to us. It is clear that he's already made a decision, he says, well, the president's already going to war.
That's dead wrong. The president needed this resolution to force the U.N. to act, and he needed this resolution to build an international coalition. And the guy that can change all of this is Saddam Hussein, who can come forward and do precisely what you asked in your first question. And that is, let us have access to everything.
CARLSON: Well, Scott Ritter, it is true that over four years ago you were saying, you said it in a lot of places, I can have the quote. I won't bore you with it, because you know what it is. You said it, that we know that we didn't find all the weapons of mass destruction within Iraq. And isn't it just what the congressman said, that some of them may be in these massive presidential so-called palaces? Is that not true?
RITTER: Let's deal with the facts here, OK? It is true. I said that we hadn't disarmed Iraq. And I didn't just say that four years ago, Tucker. I'm saying it right now. You're damn right.
Now I'm telling you we have to get inspectors in. But we have to get the inspectors in the country, we've got to let them do the work. And, first of all, you know I hope Representative Shadegg certainly didn't vote to go to war based on the concept of mobile laboratories. Because, Mr. Shadegg, I'm here to tell you right now, those are a construct of inspector's imaginations that came out in 1993 to try and figure out why we couldn't find anything.
So we made it up. They don't exist.
SHADEGG: That's not true.
RITTER: Oh, it is true.
SHADEGG: Every single authority that exists says that those mobile weapons production facilities exist. But let's not duck the issue. What about the palaces?
RITTER: No, let's talk about that, Tucker. Where do they exist? How do they exist? What is the intelligence? Because we're going to war based upon this information. Come on, Tucker, let's be fair.
RITTER: We have the intelligence in every other defense.
BEGALA: Just a second. Let Congressman Shadegg answer your question. Congressman Shadegg, how do we know that they have these mobile facilities, sir?
SHADEGG: We know we have those mobile facilities because our -- every other intelligence source we have from the CIA and on down the line, the DIA, you name it, confirms that they have these facilities. But beyond that, I was in Bahrain within days of when the weapons inspectors were first kicked out. They were kicked out, I believe, on November 13, 1987 --1997. I was there on the 20th, and I met with five different weapons inspectors.
You have a photo of me meeting with them. Those weapons inspectors told me face to face back then, that every time they got close to getting to the weapons, every time they were really hot on something, they were blocked, they were frustrated, they got no chance to go in. And they told us back then that they would be stalled at the front door, for an hour, hour and a half, two hours, three hours, and they would watch trucks carrying equipment going out the back door.
This is nothing new and nothing secret. This is something we have known for a long time. And I would appreciate it if Mr. Ritter would discuss the palaces.
I agree with him, we need an inspections regime. But as recently as yesterday, Saddam Hussein said he will not agree to any new inspections. That means he will not agree to inspection of the palace grounds. And that means we simply will never know if they have the weapons.
RITTER: That's simply...
(CROSSTALK)
RITTER: That simply shows your ignorance, sir. They have agreed to a resolution that says that palaces can be inspected. It's in the memorandum of understanding.
SHADEGG: No they have not.
RITTER: Look, you're lying to the American public if you're saying that. They have said they will agree to inspections under existing Security Council resolutions. And Resolution 1154 clearly states that the memorandum of understanding, that it was agreed upon between Kofi Annan and the Iraqi government, allows inspectors in.
SHADEGG: But not -- come on, let's be honest about it. Let's deal with the facts. Not to inspect the weapons, the presidential palaces.
RITTER: No, you're wrong, it is to inspect the presidential palaces. You should do less soul searching and more researching.
CARLSON: If I can break this up for a one second. We want to take a quick commercial break and we'll be back in just a minute to take up where we left off. We'll be right back.
Some people say Scott Ritter became a trainer when he spoke before the Iraqi national assembly. We'll ask him if he is next.
And, later, a debate you won't want to miss. A man who sued to get "under God" taken out of the pledge of allegiance steps into the CROSSFIRE with singer and God supporter Pat Boone. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: Welcome back.
President Bush this afternoon praised the House of Representatives for the quality of its debate on the use of force resolution, as well as the result, of course. A lopsided 296 to 133 vote authorizing the use of force against Iraq. With the Senate passage of the resolution now assured, we're asking what is next.
In the CROSSFIRE tonight are former U.N. Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter and Arizona Republican Congressman John Shadegg.
BEGALA: Congressman Shadegg, before we went to break you guys were having a fascinating debate. It was basically: I say A and you say B. So let me try to appeal, though, to somebody. With all due respect to you, who I think knows a whole lot more about it. That is, a Marine general, a highly decorated general by the name of Anthony Zinne, who was the commander in chief of central command. The very people who will be fighting this war if, God forbid, we're called upon to fight one.
Here is what General Zinzi had to say to say to the Reuters news service. "If we look at this attacking Iraq as the beginning of a chain of events that means that we intend to do this through violent action, we are on the wrong course. First of all, I don't see that that's necessary. Secondly, I think that war and violence are a very last resort and we have to be careful how we apply it, especially now in our position in the world."
"I would take those priorities before this one, Iraq. My personal view is I think this isn't number one. It's maybe sixth or seventh."
Why, sir, do you know better than General Zinni?
SHADEGG: Well I don't think I do know better than General Zinni. What I think is important to understand is the president isn't going to war today. What the president is doing is trying to pressure the United Nations and trying to build an international coalition to disarm Saddam Hussein.
I would personally disagree with General Zinni when he says this is way down the list. Because if you look at the weapons that Iraq clearly has, you look at his willingness to use them, you look at his development of delivery systems, including delivery systems...
BEGALA: Do you not think General Zinni looked at those things? Sir, with respect, don't you think General Zinni kind of studied that a little bit when he was commander of central command?
SHADEGG: That's when he was the commander of central command. I am still a United States congressman and I have to look at those issues now. And I think the thing we would do that would be wrong is if we send a signal of weakness.
If we allow Saddam Hussein to continue to develop these weapons and to continue to develop mechanisms for their delivery, some of which could deliver them to American soil today without doubt. And at work with terrorists, which we know he is doing, whether it's al Qaeda or others, who could also deliver those weapons here, and we do nothing about it, we are inviting devastation and destruction.
CARLSON: OK. Scott Ritter, recently you spoke to the Iraqi national assembly. I want to put up a quote of what you said when you were in that building. "The rhetoric of fear that is disseminated by my government and others has not today been backed up by hard facts that substantiate any allegations that Iraq is today in possession of weapons of mass destruction or has links to terror groups responsible for attacking the U.S. Void of such facts, all we have is speculation."
Now, that's your opinion. You're, of course, entitled to it. But to express that, to attack the government of the United States within the walls of the Iraqi national assembly at a time when Iraq is firing at American aircraft, don't you think that's kind of offensive?
RITTER: No, I think it's important that the American people understand the sham that's being perpetrated by the president, by Congress right now. And whether I can say that -- frankly, with all due respect, Tucker, if I tried to get on CROSSFIRE and say that before I went to Baghdad, you wouldn't have had me on. You have me on today because I went to Baghdad. That was the only place I could go to get the media to pay attention.
CARLSON: Actually, Scott, as you may remember, we had you on before you went. But let me ask you this thing, you also briefed a number of Hollywood celebrities, I guess, actors, Warren Beatty, Susan Sarandon, on the war. I'm wondering, Susan Sarandon, where is she on foreign policy now? What kind of effect did you have?
RITTER: I have no idea. Who is Susan Sarandon? Did I brief her? You better get your facts right, Tucker, because facts...
CARLSON: I read that in the "Washington Post, " that you're a briefer to the stars.
BEGALA: Congressman Shadegg, let me ask you about something that was in today's "Washington Post." Let me quote you from today's "Washington Post." A. Robert Abboud, then head of First City Bankcorp, decided to take over another of the bank's loans to Harken Energy in 1990 and rescue Harken from default. Harken, of course, being George W. Bush's oil firm. Aboud had been a prominent supporter of Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq before the Persian Gulf War.
Does it undermine our moral authority when we learn that our president was, in 1990, in business with a supporter of Saddam Hussein?
SHADEGG: No, and I don't think you can go back to 1990 draw any conclusions. What you can do is try to contrast what people say then and then say now.
BEGALA: What would you be saying if Bill Clinton had been in business with a Saddam Hussein supporter and then was calling us to go to war against Saddam Hussein?
SHADEGG: There is no way that you can conclude what he was doing then -- if that's true, then Mr. Ritter has no credibility in this show at all, because he's currently by -- or working with a backer of Saddam Hussein in the United States who funded this film that he did.
RITTER: Mark your words very carefully, Mr. Representative. Mark you words. Be very careful..
SHADEGG: I'll mark my words carefully.
RITTER: Be very careful what you're saying, sir because -- you better be very careful.
SHADEGG: Let's talk about the defense of Mohammed Atta. Let's talk about the defense of Mohammed Atta, which you proffered in a speech which you gave in September of last year -- I'm sorry, in December of last year, to the Center for Policy Analysis, in which you said that it was appropriate for Iraqi officials to be meeting with Mohammed Atta and that you indicated that it would be appropriate for Mohammed Atta to destroy a radio-free Europe tower which is broadcasting --
RITTER: No, no, no. You are so pathetic.
CARLSON: Did you say that, Scott Ritter? Did you say that?
RITTER: I said -- I said that when United States hires Akhmed (ph) Chalibi (ph) to target Saddam Hussein, to remove him from power, Saddam Hussein would be foolish if he didn't seek to destroy the transmitter.
I also said that I would condemn such action. But I would understand why it's being undertaken. But I was also fighting against it. So, please don't put me on the same page with a man who killed 3,000 Americans. That's pretty pathetic.
SHADEGG: I think you put yourself on the same page with him.
BEGALA: That will have to be the last word. Scott Ritter, former U.N. weapons inspector, thank you for joining us, sir.
Congressman John Shadegg of Arizona, thank you as well. Very good for both of you to be with us.
We will get an update on the Washington area sniper investigation next in the "CNN News Alert."
And then: Pat Boone sings the praises of "under God" in the "Pledge of Allegiance," while atheist Michael Neudow (ph) fires back. This is worth staying for.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BEGALA: A little bit later, one of our viewers will ask Tucker Carlson to drop a certain word from his vocabulary.
But next: the man who wants the phrase "under God" dropped from the "Pledge of Allegiance" steps into the CROSSFIRE with singer Pat Boone.
Later, our "Quote of the Day." Has one of the country's most famous curmudgeons finally gone too far?
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. We're coming to you from the George Washington University here in downtown Washington D.C.
Singer Pat Boone is adding his voice to the "Pledge of Allegiance" debate. That would be his singing voice, of course. Boone is releasing a new song called "Under God." Perhaps we can all sing it while the Court of Appeals reconsiders this summer's absurd ruling that the phrase is unconstitutional and breach of the separation of church and state.
Joining us from Sacramento, California tonight is Dr. Michael Newdow, whose lawsuit provoked the ruling.
And here in Washington, in our studio, is Pat Boone himself.
BEGALA: How are you? Thank you for coming.
They love you.
The song is out today. I want to get to that in just a second.
But first, as a liberal, let me salute you for praising the work of the Rev. Francis Bellamy, who was a socialist one-worlder. I didn't know Pat Boone was plugging a socialist one-worlder's work.
PAT BOONE, SINGER: Well, you'll have to clue me in. I don't know what you're talking about.
BEGALA: Rev. Francis Bellamy, in 1892, wrote the "Pledge of Allegiance." He was a Baptist minister and a socialist who most famous sermon was entitled "Jesus the Socialist."
He saw this as a unifying thing for the world, not just the United States of America.
BOONE: Well, I do then praise him for his crowning achievement, the "Pledge of Allegiance." I do.
BEGALA: And so you've become a proponent of the one-world socialism. Make some news here on CROSSFIRE.
BOONE: No, no, no, no, no. Far from it, in fact. But no, if he wrote it, and I was not aware of that, but I accept it and I'm -- and I congratulate him. It's a great peace of Americana.
BEGALA: Certainly is.
BOONE: Yes.
CARLSON: Now Mr. Newdow, the constitution allows or directs the Congress of the United States to make the laws. And as it happens, Congress took up this very question about the "Pledge of Allegiance" and the national motto "in god we trust" just the other day. And the results were pretty definitive. Only five members of the House, all Democrats, voted against the "Pledge of Allegiance" in the national motto.
Polling has showed that the American public is pretty much on the same side, 97 percent of the people support keeping "Under God" in the pledge.
Balanced against that is you, a guy with a lot of free time and an animos toward the "Pledge of Allegiance." Why should you win out against the public?
DR. MICHAEL NEWDOW, PLAINTIFF: It's called the Bill of Rights. What we're supposed is uphold the rights that are enunciated in the constitution, so.
CARLSON: But Congress, again, which makes the laws has said and has said as an extension of the will of the people it represents, that is what we as a country want.
Again, why should you get to overturn that?
NEWDOW: It's the First Amendment. It says, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. If they make a law that respects an establishment of religion, they're not allowed to do it. They make the laws, but they're supposed to abide by the constitution.
BEGALA: Pat, go ahead. You wanted to respond?
BOONE: I'd say he left out part of that First Amendment, and I understand why. Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion nor restricting the free exercise thereof.
That's the rest of that phrase.
NEWDOW: And that's why you can write a song about God and have as much fun as you want. But the government can't. That's what you have to keep separate.
BEGALA: I've been dying for to you sing a few bars, Pat. Can you give us just a few? We can play the CD, but you're here live, you got an audience that wants to hear you.
BOONE: I'll tell you what...
BEGALA: Have you got a mike?
BOONE: Yes, I do.
BEGALA: If you'd rather, we'll play the CD because we don't have a house band.
BOONE: Can we compromise? Can we play it, let me sing with it?
BEGALA: There we go. Let's play the CD -- if we could cue that up, Howie. And Pat Boone singing...
BOONE: Yes, you know, because, you know, to hear it without the music -- I purposely tried to Springsteen it up a little bit.
BEGALA: We usually have a butt-rocking house band, but they're off tonight. (SINGING)
BEGALA: There you go. All right!
CARLSON: I must say. I must say, I'm sitting right next to you. Your voice is absolutely fantastic. That's great.
Now, Mr. Newdow, Dr. Newdow, no offense or anything, but I bet you can't top that, can you?
You've written your own songs.
NEWDOW: I wrote one song.
CARLSON: Why don't you give us just a quick selection. See if you can beat that.
BEGALA: Battle of the bands, is that what we want?
NEWDOW: This is just the chorus, here, OK?
(SINGING)
BEGALA: All right! Michael Newdow. Oh my gosh, that's outstanding. That takes a lot of guts.
Now, Michael Newdow is also, you should know, Pat, he's an emergency room surgeon. I don't know that you want to try fixing a sucking chest wound...
BOONE: Oh, no, please.
BEGALA: But it takes a lot of guts, you got to admit, for him to go back-to-back with Pat Boone.
CARLSON: With that voice, I think that was bold.
BOONE: Can I -- We've heard from him. Can I just quote from, and you quoting from the socialist.
Let me quote from the first chief justice of the Supreme Court, and one of the three major writers of the constitution, John Jay. These are his words: "Providence has given to our people the choice of their leaders, their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."
Now, this was the chief justice of the Supreme Court who helped write the Constitution itself.
Who do you suppose knows a little more about what the Constitution intended?
BEGALA: Well, you aren't suggesting that we should only vote for Christians as our leaders? I voted for Joe Lieberman for vice president and he got more votes than Dick Cheney. And I think he's perfectly fit. You aren't suggesting...
BOONER: No, I'm not suggesting that. I'm quoting the chief justice, the first chief justice of the Supreme Court and one of the guys, one of the three guys along with Adams and Jefferson who wrote, and Monroe, who wrote the Constitution.
NEWDOW: Which doesn't say anything about Christianity or God.
BEGALA: Jefferson was over in France, actually. He didn't have anything to do with...
BOONE: They know what they intended.
BEGALA: What they wrote into it was -- let me let Michael Newdow jump into this.
CARLSON: Really, Mr. Newdow, I would feel irresponsible if I didn't ask you if something I read was a new campaign of yours to replace pronouns in the English language, sex-specific pronouns, he and she with re, res, and urm in place of he, his, and him and she, her, and hers.
Now that's not really true, is it?
NEWDOW: I'm not trying to replace it. I just think our language is short something. For instance, God. For example, when you talk about God, you have to see he or she or something. Why don't you just re? That way we take care of...
CARLSON: And would you take that to currency, replacing all references to God on coins and bills and public buildings?
I mean, do you think those ought to be --
NEWDOW: You left pronouns, but yes, I would -- I would get rid of God on anything that has to do with government, OK?
If Pat Boone wants to praise and God and tell us that Christians are great, that's fine. The government can't tell us that. That's all.
BEGALA: In fact, let me put Pat Boone on the spot. I know you're a great capitalist but also a great patriot.
Will you be donating all the proceeds of this song to a 9/11 charity or other charity?
BOONE: This has happened so quickly, we haven't made any provision to do it, but I'd be happy to. It's not a moneymaking thing for me. What I hope is to remind people why the words "under God" are in the "Pledge of Allegiance" to begin with.
It's because people came to this country seeking freedom of, not from, of religion. And would I like to say to Mike, and I respect him.
That he is...
NEWDOW: Mostly for my voice.
BOONE: He is preaching a religion, his atheism, is a belief system concerning God. He believes God doesn't exist. He can't prove it. So he has to take that by faith. We believe he does exist.
NEWDOW: I agree 100 percent. But the question is: Why should government come in on your side? Why doesn't government just stay out of the business?
BOONE: It's not a matter of government.
BEGALA: That is where we're going to have to leave the debate.
Dr. Michael Newdow, you've been on before, I promise you'll be on again.
And Pat Boone, you have an open invitation, any time you want to come and sing on CROSSFIRE, by golly, come on in.
Thank you both, Dr. Newdow, Pat Boone.
Coming up in our "Fireback" segment, a Canadian viewer points automatic a chilly difference between the Clinton economy and what W has done.
But next: we'll line up under center and take a pass at our "Quote of the Day."
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE.
Still swooning from Pat Boone, but we have other entertainment news: CBS commentator Andy Rooney's latest book is called "Common Nonsense." Nonsense, apparently, is very common with Mr. Rooney, as he proved just the other day. It seems Andy takes exception to TV's latest trend of stationing women correspondents along the sidelines of football games.
They interview coaches, they talk to players, they give injury updates, offer other insights.
Andy's opinion on that gets our "Quote of the Day," plus 15 yards for unsportsmanlike conduct.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANDY ROONEY, CBS, "60 MINUTES": I'm not a sexist person, but a woman has no business being down there trying to make some comment about a football game.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: I bet that made his fellow liberal Democrats -- because he is a liberal Democrat -- pretty mad.
But I have to say, I'd much rather look at a woman on TV than John Madden. So I'm...
BEGALA: Or Tucker Carlson, Paul Begala.
CARLSON: In just a minute, someone who signs himself "an ashamed Democrat" -- there are many of them -- gets a chance to "Fireback."
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BEGALA: And welcome back to CROSSFIRE.
It's time now for "Fireback."
Let's go straight to your e-mails: "What has happened to the Democratic Party? They are bowing down to this president. They're not leading, they're following. Now I understand why President Clinton had such a hard time. It's a shameful time to be a Democrat. Yours truly, An Ashamed Donkey in Texas."
Wow.
CARLSON: It's always been pretty embarrassing.
Next up, Jim from Edmonton, Alberta, Canada -- that's a foreign country -- writes: "There is an old saying, that when the U.S. economy gets the sniffles, Canada catches a cold. As an investor during the Clinton years, I can afford to visit your country and escape the Canadian winter six times during those years. Now that the GOP is back in the White House, looks like I'll curl up in my igloo."
Which, of course, is the entire point, Jim.
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: Jay Leno had a great line the other night. He said: Bush has three reasons for going to war: the Dow Jones, the Nasdaq, and the S&P 500. Good for Jay Leno.
Carl E. Turley of San Antonio, Puerto Rico writes: "Since America is so equally divided on politics, maybe it would be a good idea to have CROSSFIRE all day long to present both sides."
CARLSON: Do we get overtime? A fine idea.
CARLSON: Better call the union to find out.
OK, next up, Edward Castillo from Santa Monica, California writes: "Tucker Carlson needs to expand his vocabulary beyond `outrageous.' I think his overuse of this word is offensive, contemptible, despicable, disgraceful, et cetera. Need I say more?"
Well Edward, you left out "odious" which is, itself, offensive, and outrageous.
BEGALA: Outstanding answer.
Yes, sir, what's your name and hometown?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My name is Frank Lankey (ph). I'm from Edison, New Jersey. This comment is geared toward you, Paul.
Paul, I've been a supporter of Senator Daschle since he became majority leader until now. He sold out the Democratic Party by agreeing to this resolution. If he can't listen to the opinion of Democratic voters, maybe we should have a majority leader who does.
BEGALA: Yes, I think he's listening to his conscience. I think he's done a great thing.
I'm not for war in Iraq. I suspect Tom Daschle is not. But he did exert a lot of pressure.
And we should give our president credit, too, for coming to the Democratic position on going to the U.N., coming to the Congress and insisting this is now a war if we have one for disarmament rather than just going in trying to have regime change.
CARLSON: He totally sold out your party. And Democrats of conscience -- some of them have pretty decent, thoughtful arguments against a war in Iraq -- are really frustrated because nobody in the leadership has the courage to stand up and articulate.
BEGALA: He is an extraordinary leader.
Yes sir?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Good evening. My name is L.J. Koch. I'm from Tenafly, New Jersey. And Tucker, this question is for you.
CARLSON: All right L.J.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why should Americans pledge allegiance to God in order to pledge allegiance to the flag? Must we believe in God in order to be patriotic Americans?
CARLSON: Oh, of course not. I'm not sure if you're familiar with the phrase "straw man," but that's one of them. That is a straw man, of course.
The Pledge of Allegiance, first of all, is not legally binding, which -- you may be taking it a tad too seriously. And, secondly, you don't pledge allegiance to God within it. I think it reminds us that our government is not the highest authority in the universe, and that is something nice to be reminded of.
BEGALA: But does it actually work?
We have on our currency, for example, this phrase here that says "In God we trust." Do you think any of those ripoff artists at Enron looked at this before the greedy bastards got their hands on the money and said, oh, gee, I should worship God instead of money?
No chance.
from the left, I'm Paul Begala. Good night for CROSSFIRE.
CARLSON: High hopes.
From the right, I' Tucker Carlson.
Join us again tomorrow night for yet another edition of CROSSFIRE.
"CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT" begins right now.
See you tomorrow.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
to Disarm Saddam; Democrats Spilt on Vote>
