|
CNN TALKBACK LIVE
U.N. Weapons Inspectors Arrived in Baghdad Today; Did a Leading News Executive Get Too Cozy With The White House?
Aired November 18, 2002 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ARTHEL NEVILLE, CNN HOST: Hello everybody, and welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville.
The first of the inspectors are settling in at their hotel room in Baghdad. We'll talk to a former chief weapons inspector, Richard Butler, about what kind of truth they can expect from Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
And then stay tuned, because later, Bill Maher drops by and explains why he thinks SUV drivers are aiding and abetting terrorists.
Also, did a leading news executive get too cozy with the White House? We'll read the memo, and let you decide.
First, the search for biological, chemical and nuclear weapons in Iraq. Hans Blix, head of the U.N. inspections team, says he hopes Iraq won't blow this opportunity for cooperation.
Joining us from Baghdad is CNN international correspondent, Nic Robertson, to tell us how that all looks -- Nic.
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Arthel, well, so far, things seem to be going well for Hans Blix. He had a meeting this evening with President Saddam Hussein's top scientific adviser, General Amir al-Saadi. He wanted to meet with top Iraqi officials, so that seems to be going well so far, as you say.
They've checked into their hotel. The other members of the team have got a pretty tight deadline to work to here. We saw antennas and communication equipment coming off the back of their aircraft. Now, they've got to get all of that installed, the offices cleaned out, the laboratories cleaned out, computers installed, so that the teams -- the real inspection teams -- of course, this is just an advance team -- the real inspection teams can begin inspections on the 27th November.
NEVILLE: OK, Nic, thank you very much for that report.
We are going to move on now, and joining us is former chief U.N. weapons inspector, Richard Butler. He joins us from Sydney, Australia.
Good day, sir.
RICHARD BUTLER, FMR. CHIEF WEAPONS INSPECTOR: Good day. How are you? NEVILLE: Good. Thank you.
First of all, Nic Robertson just reported that they are expecting cooperation over there. Hans Blix says that he hopes Iraq uses this opportunity to cooperate and to reach a peaceful resolution.
How do you see this working out, sir?
BUTLER: Well, it's fascinating to me, of course, to see them going back there, but they've gone back there, Arthel, with powers that I never had -- very, very considerable powers, which if the Iraqis allow them to exercise those powers, they will be able to get the job done. Iraq, I suspect, has attempted to conceal weapons, and -- but with those powers, they should be able to root those out.
What we see happening is what you would expect. That office has been empty for four years. I can just see it, listening to your report that, you know, opening up the laboratory again, getting things up and running. But what Nic Robertson referred to as the equipment coming off the back of the plane is also very important, because this inspectorate has more sophisticated, new and more accurate equipment than we had at our disposal.
But finally, it's up to the Iraqis. Hans Blix has had his first meeting with General Amir al-Saadi. Saadi is the scientific adviser to the president of Iraq, Saddam Hussein. And I have to say, amongst a cast of rather extraordinary characters that we dealt with in the past, he was possibly the most deceptive of them. The man is smooth, potentially a bit charming, but his ability to look you in the eye and tell you something that is simply not true, and he knows to be true, is a tad (ph) breathtaking.
NEVILLE: So, then will those...
BUTLER: We'll just have to wait and see.
NEVILLE: Will those insidious characteristics prevail this time around, do you think?
BUTLER: Well, I don't believe that Iraq is telling the truth when it says it has no weapons of mass destruction. In fact, I know that to be wrong, as many other people do. It's simply a lie, and that's where they started.
Seven or eight days ago, when they agreed that inspectors could come back, and that they would abide by the new resolution, they also said in a six-page letter that they had no weapons of mass destruction. That's a pretty bad place at which to start.
But you know, by the 8th of December, they have to submit a written declaration of their weapons status. That will be the next big milestone.
NEVILLE: Right.
BUTLER: That will be fascinating to see, you know, whether they actually try to fudge that or tell half the truth or any of the truth, and that will be the crucial moment.
But the real direct answer from me to your question, Arthel, will they do it? I suspect they won't. I suspect they'll try and wriggle out of it, as they did in the past.
NEVILLE: So, then, let's say they declare nothing come December 8, once again, we have no weapons of mass destruction. Does that make it more difficult for the inspectors or not?
BUTLER: Well, obviously, it puts the inspectors in a rather odd place. But their job is essentially to verify an Iraqi declaration. That's how it works. Iraq declares, the inspectorate verifies. And then, if weapons are revealed, the inspectorate destroys, removes or renders them harmless. That's the kind the rhetoric (ph) under which they operate.
If Iraq gives a blank piece of paper or a declaration that is obviously funny, it puts the inspectors back a little back against the wall. But more important than that, if that happens, you can be sure that the United States will be straight back into the Security Council saying, look, this is a joke. These people have demonstrated that they have no intention of cooperating.
And whether the U.S. would ask the Council to then take action or, in fact, wait for the inspectors to go out and look at a few places, notwithstanding the emptiness of Iraq's declaration, I don't know which choice will be made to say, look, it's over. Let's just go to enforcement action, or give the inspectors a chance to go and attempt to verify even a phony declaration.
NEVILLE: Now, what do you think is the most dangerous weapons inspectors should be checking for at this point?
BUTLER: Well, we've heard a lot about the possibility, and I believe it's true, that Saddam in the period without inspections brought his nuclear weapons design team back together, and was attempting to acquire parts and equipment for the manufacture of a nuclear weapon. So, I think that's pretty serious, and obviously the inspectorate will want to have a hard look at that.
Chemical, we know that Iraq had a very substantial part of their chemical weapons. It used them in the past, outside and inside Iraq. And that's a fairly obvious one to go look for, because they're devastating, and they were really into chemical weapons.
But the area that I used to call the black hole, a place with no light, a place where you just really couldn't tell exactly what was happening was biology. But all of the signs were that Saddam attached immense importance to biological weapons. So, they'll want to have a very hard look at that as well, I think.
And there are also disturbing current reports that Iraq has, you know, further developed its biological weapons program.
NEVILLE: Ambassador Butler, on this show, we like to take questions from ordinary people -- people like Noah (ph). NOAH: I had a question for you. Who decides and how do they know whether the Iraqi government's disclosures are credible?
BUTLER: Well, that's a terrific question. Essentially, the inspectorate has to form a technical and scientific judgment, and give that to the Security Council. And the Security Council has the political responsibility to decide what to do about the inspectorate's report.
But having made that clear as the basic setup it is the case that a number of countries also have their own intelligence reports on Iraq's weapons activity -- the U.S., the U.K., French, for example. And they are free to bring that capability to bear in forming any judgment. In fact, the Security Council resolution calls on all countries, all states, to provide whatever information, and render whatever assistance they can to this task.
So, I think there would be national inputs as well.
NEVILLE: And we do have another question now from Jonathan (ph).
JONATHAN: Mr. Butler, having stated that you believe that Iraq does, indeed, have weapons of mass destruction, do you believe that military action is inevitable?
BUTLER: It's not inevitable, if Iraq complies with this Security Council resolution. I was really quite stunned by this resolution. If you'd asked me two months ago, would this come about? I would have almost fallen on the floor laughing.
I have argued for years that the fundamental requirement to get Iraq disarmed is unity in the Security Council. And lo and behold, we saw it. Two weeks ago, the Security Council came together with a really strong resolution, and said something in that resolution which, by the way, is binding in international law. That's the Security Council's path.
They said something in that resolution that is unique. I have never seen anything like this before. They said to a country -- in this case, Iraq -- this is your final chance. And those words are there in the resolution, and it gave the inspectors all of the powers they need.
That's a very powerful situation. If Iraq cooperates with that, and it will mean that they'll have to give up weapons of mass destruction, if it does that, then, no, war is not inevitable. War enforcement action would not be necessary. And of course, that would be the desirable course of action. But surely, the idea that Iraq will do that and give up its weapons of mass destruction is something I don't believe in at this stage, given that they started by saying they had no such weapons, which is simply not true.
NEVILLE: OK, Ambassador Butler, thank you very much for joining us here today on TALKBACK LIVE.
BUTLER: My pleasure. Hope to do it again. NEVILLE: Great. OK, we'll have you back. Thank you.
And right now, we're going to take a break.
Up next, is there anything wrong with a news executive passing along advice to the president? We'll tell you who allegedly was doing that following the September 11 attacks.
And of course, you can give me a call at 1-800-310-4cnn, or e- mail us at talkback@cnn.com. And we are back in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE (voice-over): Today on TALKBACK LIVE, should high- powered news executives be giving advice to the White House? We'll tell you about the memo Fox News' Roger Ailes allegedly sent after the 9/11 attack.
Are journalists and the news media generally too cozy with the White House?
The talk continues after this.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back everybody.
Want to know what goes on behind closed doors at the White House? Bob Woodward will talk about his new book, "Bush at War," and dish (ph) with Larry King tonight at 9:00 Eastern.
Now, the book is raising questions about the actions of one leading media executive. Woodward says that following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Roger Ailes, chairman of the Fox News Channel, sent a confidential memo to the White House. Woodward says: "His back- channel message: The American public would tolerate waiting and would be patient, but only as long as they were convinced that Bush was using the harshest measures possible."
The memo continued, "Support would dissipate if the public did not see Bush acting harshly."
Now, Woodward said the message had to be confidential, because Ailes, a flamboyant and irreverent media executive, was currently the head of Fox News, the conservative-leaning television cable network that was enjoying high ratings.
In that position, Ailes was not supposed to be giving political advice.
OK, let's talk about that with Armstrong Williams, the syndicated columnist and host of the syndicated television show, "The Right Side with Armstrong Williams."
Hello.
ARMSTRONG WILLIAMS, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Hello. It's good to see you again.
NEVILLE: Good. Glad to have you back.
Also with us is Norman Solomon, a syndicated columnist who writes on media and politics. He is the author of "The Habits of Highly Deceptive Media."
Good afternoon. How are you, Norman?
NORMAN SOLOMON, AUTHOR, "HABITS OF HIGHLY DECEPTIVE MEDIA": Good to be here with you.
NEVILLE: All right, Norm.
Roger -- you know what, Armstrong? You're first on this one. Roger Ailes is the chairman of the Fox News Channel, but he says he's also an American citizen. So, did he have the right to send the memo?
WILLIAMS: Absolutely. I mean, your former president of CNN, Rick Kaplan, was a golfing buddy of the president, spent many nights in the Lincoln Bedroom, was a close confidant of the president. And if you're going to hold Roger Ailes to that standard, then you should hold your former boss to the same standard.
NEVILLE: Now...
WILLIAMS: It happens all the time.
NEVILLE: Sure. Let me just bring this up on that note. Of course, folks who say there's a difference in seeking access to the administration, as opposed to giving unsolicited political advice.
WILLIAMS: How do you know what they're doing when they're in the company of the president? One can only assume. Obviously if they have the president's ear, they're going to push their agenda, whether they like it or not.
And then the other thing that we must also realize that many of these gentleman, including Tom Johnson at CNN, had relationships with president of the past, but they may have known these guys before they ever became president and they had personal relationships.
And so, obviously, if they had relationships where it was a confidential relationship, they had a friendship, obviously that friendship is not going to stop once they're in the White House. I see absolutely nothing wrong with it. It's how you build relationships and how you expand on those relationships when friends of yours get into positions of high power and influence.
NEVILLE: OK, Norm, before we get to you, we do have a response from Mr. Roger Ailes that we'd like to share with everybody right now. Mr. Ailes says: "Bob Woodward's characterization of my memo is incorrect. In the days following 9/11, our country came together in non-partisan support of the president. During that time, I wrote a personal note to a White House staff member as a concerned American expressing my outrage about the attacks in our country. I did not give up my American citizenship to take this job."
And, Norm, we'd like to hear your response.
SOLOMON: Yes, well, Mr. Ailes certainly had a right to send a memo to Karl Rove at the White House for the president. I could send a memo, too. We know which one is going to be paid attention to and taken seriously.
I want to say at the outset, I'm not here to flack (ph) for any or against any network. I've been on all of the major cable news networks. I criticized all of them as a media critic. They all are too close to political power in Washington. They're all too deferential to the president of the United States, whoever that may be.
But it must be said to put this in context, of all of the major cable networks, Fox is the most obsequious to the Republican Party. Mr. Ailes worked for Rupert Murdoch, who is the owner of Fox News, a big contribution to the Republican Party with money, but more importantly, with Fox News, which has been very deferential to the Republicans.
One study done by the media watch group, FAIR, documented statistically, for every Democrat on the prime Fox News program, eight Republicans have appeared. So, what do you say about a network that had eight Republicans for one Democrat? Clearly, what Mr. Ailes was doing with his memo was simply back-channel what he tries to do on the air with his network, which is to help the Republicans.
WILLIAMS: Oh, I think that is such a stretch. I would not sit here and say today just because Rick Kaplan had a favorite status with former President Bill Clinton that CNN's news was twisted towards Democrats, even though that criticism was alleged. I assume that people are astute enough and understand their journalist role in order to separate the two.
SOLOMON: No, I'm saying...
(CROSSTALK)
WILLIAMS: Just because the head of the organization has that relationship, it doesn't mean that it necessarily trickles down to all of the staff members and their reporters. Come on!
SOLOMON: Armstrong...
WILLIAMS: You're really making a stretch here.
SOLOMON: Armstrong, you're missing the point.
WILLIAMS: Yes, I'm listening.
SOLOMON: Yes. When Fox News has an 8 to 1 ratio of Republicans to Democrats on the air, and CNN has about a 50/50 ratio, you're missing the boat here. You're not dealing with the realities of the content of that network.
WILLIAMS: And what are you basing your facts on, on this ratio, with Fox?
SOLOMON: I am basing the facts on a documented, unchallenged report by the media watch group, FAIR. Everybody can go to their Web site, www.fair.org. The statistics were nailed down...
WILLIAMS: Well, I read the Media and Research Center with Brent Bozelle (ph), and his statistics are quite different from yours.
SOLOMON: Well...
WILLIAM: So it all depends on what you read.
SOLOMON: Hey, look at the documentation, Armstrong, www.fair.org. It's really shameful that a major network that claims, "We report, you decide," is actually functioning as, "we distort, you decide."
WILLIAMS: Oh, you're really stretching it today. I disagree with you.
SOLOMON: Well, facts are facts.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: OK. I have to take break right now. Excuse me, everybody. I'm jumping in with a break.
Is the Ailes memo anything new? How have past presidents gotten along with the media?
Presidential historian, Doug Brinkley, joins us next -- don't go anywhere. TALKBACK LIVE continues in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(NEWSBREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back everybody. I'm Arthel Neville.
We're talking about journalists who rub elbows with the president.
Joining us now is Douglas Brinkley, director of the Eisenhower Center for American Studies and distinguished professor at the University of New Orleans. He is a prolific author, and his most recent book is a biography of Rosa Parks.
And, professor, I want to welcome to the show. DOUGLAS BRINKLEY, PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: Thank you. Thanks for having me.
NEVILLE: Absolutely. We've been talking about the Roger Ailes memo. I'm wondering what your thoughts are.
BRINKLEY: Well, I don't find it to be some big, new revelation. I think Bob Woodward did a nice piece of investigative journalism, but it's sort of a one-day news blip. The truth of the matter is, journalists are always interacting with the White House in one way or another.
I was recently up in Buffalo, New York, where McKinley was assassinated, and Theodore Roosevelt got sworn in. And the thing he did was bring in some friendly journalists to help him keep some of the cabinet members, and to convince the American people there would be a smooth transition from McKinley to T.R.
I could go on and on and on. Every administration has them. Most famously, I'm reviewing a book right now on James Reston, and he used to be the great "New York Times" insider. In fact, he ran messages all the way from FDR to Jimmy Carter. And for Henry Kissinger, he went to Cuba ostensibly for an interview for "The new York Times," but then broached ways to lift embargoes.
So, there are times when key journalists are always close to the White House. And, yes, it's -- we should be somewhat concerned about it. But the fact that Roger Ailes wanted to write a memo after September 11 with his views to a staffer in the White House hardly seems to me to be something we should be too worried about.
It does do one thing. It does show that Fox News is very close to the Bush White House. President Bush watched Fox News for the returns on the midterm elections. And I think that notion that Fox is "fair and balanced news" as their slogan is a lot of bunk. Certainly, Fox News tends all the time to point towards conservatives in the Republican Party, and they often claim, well, maybe we do. So what? The other three networks -- main networks are more Democratic. That's an argument that constantly happens.
But Ailes can be seen, and Fox can be seen as the favored channel of the Republican Party.
NEVILLE: OK, I have Annetta (ph) here.
ANNETTA: I guess my question is, just because this gentleman happens to run a news organization, he didn't give up his rights to be a U.S. citizen. And just because he's friends with the president of the United States doesn't necessarily mean he can't be objective. I think that's just a little bit too much protestation.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, I think -- yes.
NEVILLE: OK, thank you very much.
(CROSSTALK) NEVILLE: Norm, do you want to respond to that?
SOLOMON: Yes. He certainly -- Roger Ailes certainly has the right to send a letter to anybody he wants. But whatever he does doesn't change the realities of what his network does. And when the network is functioning to serve the interests of the party in power in the White House, then we have to take a look at that and be honest about it.
Let me give you an example as well. During the 2000 election, on election night when it was such a close call in Florida, there was a guy named John Ellis (ph). He had been hired by Roger Ailes, that entire outfit, to run what they called the Decision Desk to call a state for one candidate or the other.
And what happened was that Mr. Ellis (ph), who was a strong pro- Bush person, who is a cousin of George W. Bush, who had been a newspaper columnist in Boston, said he was so partisan, so extremely in favor of the George W. Bush candidacy, that that had to be out front and understood. He was chosen by Fox News to be in charge of what they call the Decision Desk.
And that night when Florida was like this...
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: And what's your point, Norm Solomon?
SOLOMON: Here's the point, and it's an important and historical one. He called -- that Decision Desk called Florida for George W. Bush, the first network to do so. The rest of the networks followed suit. And that was very important in framing that 35-36 days afterwards. It was a very important push for George W. Bush's campaign.
WILLIAMS: If I can add -- if I can just add this, and that is, this is something that other networks, including CNN and NBC, has been accused of for decades as favoring the Democratic Party. I mean, I think some people would celebrate what Norm was saying, oh, finally, there are networks out there that favor the Republicans.
I don't think necessarily that they favor the Republicans. I don't think necessarily they have some conspiracy going on at Fox News, where they say, well, let's make the Republicans look good. Obviously, there are a lot of Americans out there that identifies with Fox values system, and they watch the network. And I think Americans are intelligent enough to decide for themselves.
I just think, it seems as though you've got this thing about Fox. It would be one thing if you were just talking about Fox, but you won't even talk about the other networks and the biases that have been accused with them by the other Americans in the past. It just seems as though Fox, which is the new kid on the block, you've reserved all of your criticism for them, as if they're doing something that is so outrageous that has never done before, so they're setting precedence in this matter. (CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: I have to take a break, gentlemen. Excuse me.
Later this hour, "Talk Back" to Bill Maher. He says Americans refuse to sacrifice and suffer for their freedom. He'll tell us why he thinks we have it too good, so don't go anywhere. TALKBACK LIVE continues in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(NEWS ALERT)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody.
We're talking about how close journalists should get to the White House. And we're going to go to California now, where Damian (ph) is on the phone. Go ahead, Damian (ph), you say what?
CALLER: Hi.
NEVILLE: Hi.
CALLER: Hi, Arthel, how are you? I think that a relationship this close between the White House and those that are supposed to be reporting objective journalism only makes the American public more cynical as to the validity of news.
NEVILLE: OK. Damian (ph), thank you. And I'm going to let Tommy (ph) speak out.
DAMIAN: Well, I just take issue with this. And I tend to agree with Mr. Solomon. I think that, as a journalist, one has to be extremely careful when one moves into that position. They know they cannot say certain things and do certain things. Mr. Ailes sent a confidential memo serving as a political adviser to the president, not as an unbiased newscaster.
WILLIAMS: What do you mean as a political adviser? He had an opinion. He felt he had something to say to the president from his experience on 9/11 and he sent him a memo. Obviously, if he has influence with the president, his memo has more of a chance of getting read, it's just the way it works.
If Arthel was to become president of the United States, I'm sure some of her close friends are not going to say, well, because I'm a journalist now I'm going to change my relationship with her. In fact, it enhances their relationship. How could they not use that?
NEVILLE: Armstrong, when I become president, I might not know you. Just kidding.
WILLIAMS: That's OK, too.
NEVILLE: I'm just kidding. Give me a call anytime. Let me get Mary (ph) from Georgia in here. MARY: Well, I just thought that the journalist was speaking as an American citizen for the American people.
SOLOMON: Let me comment on that, because it's understandable. Some people who write to the White House get a form letter back. Some people have the memo or letter personally handed to the president, who understands that he runs a network.
The problem is that Fox News channel and Fox News in general are claiming to be providing non-partisan so-called balanced or objective reporting. They can't have it both ways. On the one hand, Roger Ailes can't keep saying, we report, you decide, we're not spinning in any direction. We trust you to make your own decision.
Meanwhile, he continues to function behind the scenes as an operate for the Bush White House. You can't have it both ways.
BRINKLEY: I think that's too extreme to say -- I was just going to say it's too strong to call him an operative for the Bush White House. And I think we're making, maybe, a little too much of this. Any major journalist that works the White House beat forms relationships. Sometimes their adversarial, sometimes they're warmer.
You need White House, State Department, Defense Department resources for leaks. People like Bob Woodward get in there. Then it's like this becomes public, we air them out. It will put Ailes on a little more alert to be more careful with that kind of letter. But to kind of use it as he did something that's unusual or strange, I think is not true.
NEVILLE: Professor, is it unrealistic to think that personal relationships will never be developed? And, in fact, if there is a personal relationship in place, then professionalism goes out the window?
BRINKLEY: Well, I once went over to see Ben Bradley (ph) of "The Washington Post." I was writing a book on Jimmy Carter. And Carter couldn't stand Ben Bradley (ph), and he hated "The Washington Post." And Carter wrote Ben Bradley (ph) all of these letters saying, why are you burying my news? All you do is put Ted Kennedy stories on the front page of the "Post." My trade summit meeting gets page eight.
Every president has complaints about the media. Most of the time, journalists, particularly after Watergate, are looking to get the president, not be in cahoots with them. And occasionally presidents will have favorite journalists that they end up giving information to, leaking, people they can trust.
Roger Ailes is a known political entity who's worked with Ronald Reagan in a very -- really built the image of Reagan. Also worked with George W. Bush's father. He came into the Fox News world after that background.
One could only assume that he's going to be using some of his contacts to get first crack interviews with people like Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, the president himself. That's the name of the game. Just like George Stephanopoulos at ABC will probably be able to get key interviews coming up with candidates like John Edwards and John Kerry, perhaps, before Fox News gets them.
It's just part of the modern media game. We need people to watch it, we've got to be careful on it. We need books and people like Bob Woodward to dig it up. But let's not make it out to be something bigger than it is.
I think it's a combination of Ailes -- when I read that, this is a guy who wanted the White House to know what he thought because they would value his opinion. And, yes, somebody out in the middle of Missouri or Iowa or New Mexico's letter may not have been read carefully by the president or seen it all. But this is a man who runs a major network, and the president should have read his letter and at least taken into consideration what he had to say.
NEVILLE: And that is the last word. Armstrong Williams, give me a call, OK? When I'm the president even.
WILLIAMS: I will call you.
NEVILLE: Norman Solomon, thank you. And Douglas Brinkley, thank you very much for your comments as well. Thanks to all of you for joining us. We have to take a break right now.
Bill Maher is selling sacrifice. He'll tell you why you haven't suffered enough, right after this. He's standing by. Don't go anywhere.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. I'm Arthel Neville.
What can you do to fight the war on terrorism? Our next guest says we should take a page from World War II and sacrifice. Comedian Bill Maher is author of "When You Ride Alone, You Ride with bin Laden." And he has a definite idea of what freedom means. Hello, Bill.
BILL MAHER, FMR. TALK SHOW HOST: How are you doing, Arthel?
NEVILLE: I'm good. Nice to see you.
Listen, of course during World War II there was a poster that said, "When You Ride Alone, You Ride With Hitler." So I ask you to tell us about the correlation between not carpooling, driving SUVS and supporting terrorists or dictators?
MAHER: Well, right. As you point out, in World War II, this was this great poster, "When You Ride Alone You Ride With Hitler." And at the bottom, it said, "Join a car sharing club today." And if you look at these World War II posters, they were all trying to get citizens to do their part, to pitch in. The idea back then was that we are all in this war. Not just the guys who go over there and fight in the Army, the Navy, the Marines and Air Force, but the citizens on the home front can do a lot to help the war effort. And it's funny, if you look at those posters back then, Uncle Sam was not afraid to stick his finger in people's chest and say, Hey, buddy, more production. Plant a victory garden, save tin, rationing, whatever it was.
Now this is a very different war, but you know we have the same responsibility as citizens now. We can help. But our government doesn't ask us to help much anymore. What they say is, keep shopping and go see "Cats" again and eat out, and travel.
NEVILLE: Right. And Bill, I want to get to that a little bit later, but right now I want to go ahead and tell everybody that, in fact, your book prompted our question of the day, which is: Should Americans give up their SUVS?
We want to hear from you, of course. We'll take your calls and e-mails at the end of the show. So we want to hear from you then.
And, again, getting back to what you were saying, Bill, that people don't do enough. I know you go after people with flags on their cars saying that, again, they're not doing enough. What should people be doing?
MAHER: Well, I have nothing against the flag on the car. I just think that it doesn't actually help. And when people think that they're actually doing something by doing only something symbolic, yeah that is not a good thing. So that's why the poster we had there says, it's literally the least you could do, and the empty gestures don't win any wars.
And when you put it on an SUV, it is a little ironic, because one of the things people could do is to use less oil and gasoline, because, let's face it, our enemies, al Qaeda, are funded by oil, not by Swedish people. Not by drug users, as the administration would like you to believe.
Obviously, the connection is between Osama bin Laden and his brethren in the oil-producing countries. It's just a bad coincidence that all the oil is under what they consider the holy land. And as long as oil remains our vulnerability -- and it is our vulnerability as long as we're junkies for it -- this is going to go on. And we don't really have to reduce the amount of oil we use by that much to improve our standing a lot.
And let's not forget. Even before terrorism, it was a good idea to use less for environmental reasons.
NEVILLE: Now, is that the kind of thing, those sorts of messages, is that what the government should be telling the average American as to what they could do to fight this war on terror?
MAHER: That's one of the things. I mean, yes, there's obviously the oil connection. That's a big one, but there are many things. I mean there's a lot of posters in this book, and a lot of them have to do with making connections. People, I think, don't make connections between what they can do to actually help.
And when I travel the country, what I find is people want to do something. They're good people. They want to help. They're just not instructed and they don't have those connections made for them.
I heard the president talking the other day again about tax cuts and we're going to have less taxes and make the tax cuts permanent. And we have a poster in the book that shows a policeman, a fireman, an Army guy and a teacher. And at the top, it says, "We say they're our heroes." And at the bottom it says, "But we pay them like chumps."
And people need to make the connections that, when taxes get cut, when there's a lot of tax whining that goes around, the people who wind up paying are the ones at the very bottom of the pay scale. And those are the very ones that we say are our heroes.
NEVILLE: OK. Jonathan (ph) from Massachusetts has something to say.
JONATHAN: I think to say that just because you don't carpool or you're not conserving or you put a flag on your car that you're helping aid Osama bin Laden and terrorism is a little extreme, Mr. Maher.
MAHER: Well, that's why I didn't say that. I didn't say that.
JONATHAN: You pretty much did, though. You pretty much did.
MAHER: Did you read the book?
JONATHAN: No, I haven't had a chance. I'll be sure to pick it up after the show.
MAHER: OK. Well, I didn't say it here, and it doesn't say in the book. So you're saying it. I'm not saying it.
JONATHAN: No, you're saying it. But what I'm saying is that the president and the world leaders -- the leaders of our country have encouraged us to continue with our way of life. To not let terrorism win. I mean if we alter our lifestyle, then they're winning. And...
MAHER: Well, that's exactly the wrong attitude. That is not the attitude they had in World War II. You're attitude is that freedom means you can do whatever you want whenever you want it. And that sacrifice is somehow un-American.
Sacrifice is not un-American, and we should be able to continue with our lifestyle, of course. But the idea that we should also be defensive about our flaws and our weaknesses and our vulnerabilities is ridiculous. Just because our flaws are American doesn't mean that they're good. If we become better people, we win, not them.
JONATHAN: That's one opinion. You know, but we have a great, great, great lifestyle here, and I... MAHER: Yes, and it's our...
JONATHAN: ... think it should be protected and...
MAHER: Right. It's a great lifestyle that is under attack by terrorists. It's a great lifestyle that's not going to be such a great lifestyle unless we make some fundamental changes.
NEVILLE: OK.
MAHER: Yeah, I'm for preserving our lifestyle. I'm for doing it in a way where we win this war.
NEVILLE: Bill, we have an e-mail coming in I want to share with everybody right now. It's from Bob in Elkhart, Indiana. He says, "Bill Maher does not live in a snow belt next to a great lake, nor could be pull my boat, my cargo trailer or my utility trailer."
MAHER: Well, yes, I could, and I could do it with my bare hands. I'm in the iron man competition this year. I don't know what that has to do with anything, but you know I'm not for people wholesale change their entire lives. I'm not a communist, I'm not a fascist, I'm not looking to make this country anything than what it already is, the greatest country in the world.
But that doesn't mean that we can't adapt ourselves. That's what successful species do. They evolve a little bit.
NEVILLE: OK, Bill. We have to take a break right now. Federal screeners are set to take over at the nation's airports. We will see what that will mean to travelers after the break. And we'll ask Bill Maher what he thinks about airport security. Stay with us. TALKBACK LIVE continue after this break.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back.
Federal screeners must be on duty at all U.S. airports by tomorrow morning. But it appears they've beaten the deadline. CNN's Patty Davis is at Reagan National Airport in Washington -- Patty.
PATTY DAVIS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Arthel, in fact, they did beat that deadline. A big ceremony today here at Reagan National Airport. The transportation secretary, the homeland security chief, announcing, in fact, that federal screeners, 44,000 of those federal passenger screeners are in place at 424 airports across the country. Now, that does not include five.
There are five more airports. And those are Kansas City, San Francisco, Rochester, New York, Tupelo, Mississippi. And there's one more, Jackson Hole, Wyoming. Private screeners are continue there.
The difference, though, this is a test. This is where private screeners have been trained exactly the same way as those federal screeners to see whether or not they can do the job as well. You know they've been subject to a lot of derision over the past year. But we'll see when that test is complete.
Now what is the difference? These federal screeners get 100 hours of training, 40 hours of classroom, 60 hours on the job. The previous private screeners only got four to five hours of training.
Also, other standardized screening process. You're going to see the same kind of screening every single airport that you go to. Now what about delays? The Transportation Security Administration saying today that, in fact, it has been looking at that issue, because it was concerned the increased security might delay passengers, increase the hassle factor, as they call it.
They say it's not happening. Delays across the board, 10 minutes at the most -- Arthel.
NEVILLE: OK. Patty Davis, thank you very much for that report.
We now go back to Bill Maher. Bill, I want to ask you, do you feel safer now that the new screeners are in place?
MAHER: You know, I've been traveling an awful lot, because I'm on this book tour. So I'm in airports all the time, and I have been even before this because I do my stand-up comedy act on the road all the time. So I see a lot.
So, I mean, this is just my impression. Don't quote me on this, but it just looks to me like they fired all the black people and hired white people. That's what it looks like.
NEVILLE: So what's up with that?
MAHER: I don't know. I'm just saying, that's what it looks like to me. I don't know if that's true, because I have no statistics. I'm just saying, from somebody who's in airports all the time, that, to me, is the big change.
I don't see any change in security methods. I was in the airport the other day and I get pulled out of line quite a bit, and I very often am like this, and while the wand is going over me, I'm signing an autograph. And I just want to say that, you know, terrorists don't usually sign autographs. I don't know. It's a strange thing.
NEVILLE: So then what should they do differently, Bill? The screeners?
MAHER: Well I'm for profiling. And profiling becomes a very dirty word, because it's one of those words that people associate with something bad. And there is bad profiling. Pulling over black people in expensive cars is wrong profiling.
But profiling is behind all real detective work. There is no police work possible without it. Any nation that has had terrorist attacks in the past, like Israel, of course engages in profiling. And it's funny, when I do my stand-up show, I do it with the posters from this book flashed behind me now.
So when I mention the word profiling, I can hear people in the audience, they get very uncomfortable. But when we show the poster of Osama bin Laden, guy looks like him going through with the grandmother being frisked, people applaud. Yeah. They like the idea.
They understand that we need to do this at the airport. That we need to do this in life, and that it's not being prejudice against Muslim people. It's just that we were attacked, and are still under attack by a specific group of people, and they have, therefore, a certain responsibility, as we do, to protect ourselves.
So it's funny. People are a little two-minded on this.
NEVILLE: Bill, I have to take a break right now. You heard Bill Maher make his place. So America, should drivers give up their SUVS? Phone or e-mail now and we'll tell you the results after this break. Don't go anywhere.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. We are going to get right to the question of the day: Should Americans give up their SUVS? Let's take a look at an e-mail coming in now from Jess in Washington.
"I use an old SUV to tow a little boat and to get out of our driveway when it snows. It's an insult to say that people like me support those with designs against our country." And thank you, Jess.
We are now going to go to Michigan, where Lyle (ph) is on the phone. You're live. OK. Good.
We will go to David (ph) in the audience. See what you think about all of this.
DAVID: I think if you can give up your SUV, definitely give it up. But I think the bigger picture is the government needs to tell us what else can we do to help. Is there more? World War II they told us how we could help, what we needed to give up, what we could do. So they need to tell us, how can we help, not just bring up the one situation, give up your SUV.
NEVILLE: OK. Thank you very much, David (ph). And we have another e-mail coming in right now from Mark in Oklahoma. "Americans should give up their SUVS when they decide they don't want to drive them or cannot afford them. The government should not decide."
And we have Noah (ph) in the audience again.
NOAH: I think like other products with negative externalities and so forth, I think there should be a luxury type of tax or some sort of tax on the SUVS so that if you really need it, you'll pay...
NEVILLE: You drive a hybrid car, right? NOAH: Yeah. I drive a Honda hybrid.
NEVILLE: All right, thank you. And Bill, so do you, right?
MAHER: I drive a Toyota. But no one is suggesting that the government mandate this. I'm not suggesting that. That guy you had on right over there, he hit right on the money. The government should be telling you these things, not making do you it. But just making the connection for you so that you can make the decision yourself.
But since they're not, I'm doing it. And I'm doing if in a funny way.
NEVILLE: All right. Bill Maher, thank you so much for being with us here on TALKBACK LIVE.
MAHER: Thank you.
NEVILLE: We're out of time. Thank to all of you who are watching. I'm Arthel Neville. I'll be right here again tomorrow at 3:00 Eastern with more TALKBACK LIVE, so join me.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com.
Leading News Executive Get Too Cozy With The White House?>
|
