|
CNN TALKBACK LIVE
Free-For-All Friday for December 26, 2002
Aired December 27, 2002 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
MILES O'BRIEN, HOST: Hello, everybody. Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE.
I'm Miles O'Brien, in for Arthel Neville.
Great holiday crowd here. Everybody is in a good mood, right?
(CHEERING)
O'BRIEN: All right, that's good to hear.
We start with the most amazing story. We're a little skeptical, aren't we? A little skeptical? Raise your hands in you're skeptical on the cloning story? OK, good. Just wanted to make sure.
The reported cloning birth of a 7-pound baby girl. Her name: Eve. Adam is on his way, we think. The announcement was made this morning in Hollywood, Florida, by a company named Clonaid. The company is associated with a group that believes all life on Earth was created by extraterrestrials. I am surrounded now by aliens. Should I be nervous?
Brigitte Boisselier is the company's scientific director.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BRIGITTE BOISSELIER, SCIENTIFIC DIRECTOR, CLONAID: The parents are American citizens. The mother is 31. She is the one who has been cloned, and she carried her baby cloned. We have been discussing at length the implication of that, and she is doing really well with that. She is -- the whole family is very happy and, actually, probably the best proof that we can have -- sorry, Dr. Guillen, but it's probably the grandmother who said, she looks just like the mother.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O'BRIEN: Proof, the P word. No proof was offered, as a matter of fact. As a matter of fact, the only thing that would prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt would be a comprehensive look at the DNA of little baby Eve. We don't have that just yet. All we have is a news conference.
One of the people who has been following this very closely, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, joining us from New York City.
Sanjay, we are quite skeptical about this and we aren't even doctors. How about you?
DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes.
Well, you're not alone. A lot of scientists have been very skeptical about this, no question, over the past several years, this organization, Clonaid, have been followed and have been talking about the fact that they would actually try and clone a baby. This is the first time they have actually come right out and said that they were going to do it.
But, as you mentioned, Miles, no proof, no pictures, no DNA evidence, no nothing, really, as far as trying to prove that this baby actually exists. So, people are very skeptical about it. They say eight to nine days before we have any sort of proof.
O'BRIEN: All right, Ike has a good question. And sorry to put you on the spot, Sanjay, but this is a technical question.
Ike, go ahead.
IKE: I wanted to know, if you're cloning, what happens to the fingerprints of the one clone? Is it the exact same? The retina? And if you say it's identical, I want know if everything is a true identical?
O'BRIEN: Ike's looking for a potential alibi in the future, maybe.
GUPTA: That's a good question, actually.
The fingerprints usually, even in identical twins, may still be a little bit different. There is something called mitochondrial DNA which may account for slight variances within some of the physical features such as fingerprinting. I actually don't know about the retinal scans. That's a good question. I'll have to sort of look into that one.
But everything else, really, from a genetic standpoint, is really still very much the same. In fact, if this baby is born, Eve, as they're calling her, she'd not only be the daughter of her mother; she'd also be the twin sister. That's a pretty spooky thing.
O'BRIEN: All right, Sanjay, I want to get Kelly in here.
But we got to spend a few moments talking about the Raelians in just a moment. First, I think Sanjay Gupta probably needs some help with his earpiece at the moment, if you can help him in the control room. He's getting an echo, which is just so annoying at times, Kelly.
But why don't you offer up your question and hopefully we'll get that rectified? Go ahead, Kelly.
KELLY: OK.
When there are inbred children, it usually has physical consequences, birth defects for the child. Is there going to be similar things with this child, this Eve?
O'BRIEN: Good question, Kelly.
The question of birth defects. I know, Sanjay, in the sheep, for example, Dolly the sheep, there were all kinds of problems with birth defects and deformities. Is this something that we might expect when there's some attempt to go after and try a human clone?
GUPTA: Yes, that's exactly the concern. No question about it.
I'm sorry. I'm having a problem. I'm just going to take this out.
There's a real concern about the fact that, even if this baby is born healthy -- and they're saying that the baby is -- quote, unquote -- "fine," Brigitte Boisselier, who had this news conference, didn't say what fine meant. But even if the baby was born fine, the baby still may have other problems, lots of medical problems down the line.
Some of the animal clones that we've been seeing actually developed extreme obesity, other medical problems, such as diabetes. And a lot of them have very shortened lives. So, you can understand why there's a lot of concern, a lot of skepticism about going here.
Let me just say another thing about this particular organization. They never cloned anything before. And just the typical scientific way to do things is to start with something smaller and work your up to a human being, a human clinical trial. This woman, Brigitte Boisselier, or the Clonaid organization has never successfully cloned anything in the past. So, that, obviously, also very concerning as well -- Miles.
O'BRIEN: All right, Dr. Gupta, why I don't you just a second to put your earpiece in your ear. And as you put it in, thumbs up if you can hear me.
GUPTA: I got you.
O'BRIEN: Excellent. Excellent.
Dennis has a question for you. We apologize for all the technical issues here.
Go ahead, Dennis.
DENNIS: What sort of measures will be taken to prove whether this is true or false?
GUPTA: Basically, what they have to do here in this situation is do a sort of a genetic test that's actually pretty commonly done. They do this in paternity testing all the time to try and figure out if someone's actually the father of a child. It's a DNA genetic test. They usually can just take some blood from the baby and from the mom and actually combine them.
I'm sorry, not combine them, but actually analyze them separately and see if they match. If there is a significant match, then almost 99.9 percent accuracy that this is going to be a clone or an accidental twin. But because of the situation being the way it is, it would be a clone.
While we have no proof of that yet, what they told me when I interviewed them earlier, Dr. Boisselier, is that, within eight to nine days, she would provide some sort of proof through an independent science organization that would come and take that blood and do that genetic analysis.
O'BRIEN: All right, let's just for just a moment about this group the Raelians, which has at least a philosophical link to this company, Clonaid.
It goes back to 1973. The founder of the group says he was driving along in France, saw a spaceship. Out came a little green man. I'm not making that up. It was a little green man. He spent about six days having a little confab with the green men on the spaceship -- this is all true -- this is according to the Web site for the a Raelians -- and determined that we are all from another planet somewhere.
Sanjay, a little while ago, had an interview with the founder of this outfit. And let's listen into it briefly.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: One more time, it's completely separate. I am just here to guide humanity toward a higher level of spirituality and visions of future, and to make people believe in science instead of a primitive God.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O'BRIEN: OK. What do you think, Jenna (ph)? You buying it?
JENNA: I think he's a nut. I was just wondering if there's any legal restrictions on the cloning?
O'BRIEN: Legal restrictions, good question.
Now, Sanjay is an M.D., not lawyer, but give it a try.
GUPTA: In fact, we have been talking about that all morning as well.
Actually, it's not illegal. There are four states here in the United States which don't allow either privately or publicly funded cloning of any sort. But, for the most part in the United States and around the world, it's not illegal. Of course, the ethical and moral questions are totally separate. But you can do this in a lot of places around the world.
O'BRIEN: By the way,, the rest of that interview will air on the "WOLF BLITZER" show at 5:00 p.m. Eastern time. We invite you to tune in for that. Alisar (ph), go.
ALISAR: I was just wondering. This is the first time somebody comes out and says, we've cloned a baby. Could it be that someone has done it before and it's not announced? And if that is the case, shouldn't we be scared, if this is a real clone?
O'BRIEN: Do you an announcement to make, Sanjay? You have a clone or anything like that?
(LAUGHTER)
GUPTA: No. No. I am definitely not a clone, although I wish I were at times, no question about it.
We don't know the answer to that question. Could there be another clone out there? I guess possibly. What would do know is that, besides Clonaid, the organization we've been talking about today so much, there are two other scientists who have been very vocal about the fact that they want to clone as well.
In fact, one of them says that they'll probably have a clone in January. Should we be scared? That's a good question. I guess that's sort of an individual issue. I think a lot of scientists are scared about this, because they don't think we're ready, scientifically, to do this.
Again, remember, when Dolly was cloned, there were 276 attempts before we got Dolly. What you didn't hear about for the most part were, what those other 276 attempts? They were sort of this subspecies of animal. And no one wants to create a subspecies of humans, which may be the sort of case if human cloning is attempted.
O'BRIEN: Yes, they might grow up and become one of our bosses or something like that.
(LAUGHTER)
O'BRIEN: All right, Sanjay Gupta, thank you for making, as always, excellent set calls and helping us understand this a little bit. We appreciate it.
Now, let's get our panel involved in all this. John McIntire is the host of "Nighttalk With John McIntire" on Pittsburgh's cable news channel. The's PCNC. Joel Mowbray is a syndicated columnist and contributor to "The National Review Online." Gary Dauphin, editor in chief of Africana.com. And Cheri Jacobus is a Republican political consultant and former spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee.
I guess we should go ladies first, Cheri.
CHERI JACOBUS, REPUBLICAN POLITICAL CONSULTANT: OK.
O'BRIEN: As long as we've got the "Hollywood Squares" up here.
Did you just see that interview with Rael, the man who is the chief Raelian?
JACOBUS: That was something. That was something.
First of all, I think he's nuts. I think we've established that.
(CROSSTALK)
O'BRIEN: That word comes up time and again, Cheri, for some reason.
JACOBUS: For good reason, I'm sure.
No, this is something that's absolutely appalling. The world is not ready for this. I don't even think that the little green men from other worlds are quite ready for this. And I doubt very much that they came here to tell us to do this.
One of the persons earlier you were talking to brought up the issue of birth defects. I think that is a very, very serious question. We do not know what's going to happen. Well, first of all, we don't know what the effects are for some animals that have been cloned. And to use humans as guinea pigs like this, before this was sort of an ethical, moral question that we looked at in terms of the future of all humanity.
Now, quite possibly, if this story is real, there's a real baby whose health might be at risk, who's been allegedly created what, I think, just to take care of someone's ego and ambition, hence, the press conferences. So there's some new concerns here. I think that the world community is going to be outraged if the news come out, if this is, in fact, true.
O'BRIEN: Let me ask. Before I get Scott from the audience in, is there anybody on our panel who defends the effort, the goals of Clonaid? You may not support their philosophical or religious beliefs on the alien issue. But on the whole issue of cloning a human, is anybody in favor of that idea?
The silence is deafening.
Gary, why don't you go?
GARY DAUPHIN, AFRICANA.COM: I'll venture out on the limb and say that.
Although I wouldn't necessarily endorse the goal of creating a mothership down in Hollywood, Florida, I do think that there are legitimate scientific questions at play in terms of biology, the creation of kids for infertile couples. I think, moreover, the other issue that clones, so to speak, is already out of bag on this.
In the much same way that we've seen in the area of, let's say, biological warfare, individuals, small groups are able to do things that, 20 years ago, involved entire labs or millions of dollars. Individuals are pursing scientific research on their own.
So, the question is, how are we going to deal with this after the fact, really? And what kind of society are going to we have?
O'BRIEN: All right, Scott has a question. Go.
(CROSSTALK)
O'BRIEN: Let me get Scott in first.
SCOTT: Yes.
I was just curious if this was being done in the United States or if it was offshore? There was some talk some while back about the Italians and other groups who were trying to do this. Any comments?
O'BRIEN: Well, they won't say. They won't say, right?
John, do you want to go?
JOHN MCINTIRE, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: I think sometimes science fiction gives us a warning about the future. Did you ever see the episode "The Flintstones" where they cloned Fred and he was walking around going "Yabba, daba, do"? Is that what we want, a bunch of monotone Flintstones?
(CROSSTALK)
MCINTIRE: And then they had: "Fred Flintstone, please step forward." It was a whole messy -- I don't think we want that.
O'BRIEN: Was Gazoo involved in that one?
MCINTIRE: Quite possibly.
(BELL RINGING)
O'BRIEN: All right, Joel, real quickly, since the bell rang, I'm going to let you -- you wanted to say something. Go ahead.
JOEL MOWBRAY, "THE NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE": Yes, well, I think even a clone of Fred Flintstone would be much better than a cloned Raelian. But of the people that you want to have cloned, are the Raelians really the ones you want to have cloned? That's the pressing question.
O'BRIEN: All right, let's leave it at, a good place to leave it. Once again, the word is nuts, right? All right, thank you.
All right, time to take a break.
If you could clone someone, who would it be? That's my choice right there. What do you think, guys? Miles and Miles and Miles and Miles. Call me or one of my clones at 1-800-310-4CNN. E-mail TALKBACK@CNN.com. We've got a team of clones there in the control room to take your responses.
We'll be back shortly.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
JENNY: What's her life going to be like? She's just going to be a freak.
O'BRIEN: All right, on that point, we're going to tell folks that we are going to be right back, talking about the possibility that a baby girl has been cloned from the skin tissue of a woman. Jenny (ph) from England says the F word: freak.
And, also, is North Korea a nuclear threat? A lot of people say, you bet.
Join the "Free-For-All" right here on TALKBACK LIVE in just a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O'BRIEN: Welcome back. We're back talking about cloning.
And Jeff had a good point. And I want to get right to the panel with this. Jeff's from Nebraska.
Jeff, go ahead.
JEFF: I was wondering if, with this new cloning procedure, if it's going to push lawmakers to perhaps pass some laws or legislation that would cover the topics of cloning, if it's legal or not legal in various places?
O'BRIEN: Oh, panel?
Now, usually, what happens is, legislators are often way behind the times on science. Do you think this is going to lead to a raft of legislation, anti-clone legislation?
JACOBUS: I think that this could definitely lead to legislation.
(CROSSTALK)
O'BRIEN: All right, I'll tell you what. Cheri, go first.
JACOBUS: I think you'll see a number of pieces of legislation introduced.
And, again, those early pieces of legislation might be flawed. It might take a while before we get it. But I think this is going to be on the radar screen of our politicians and our leaders for quite some time, until we get it right. I don't think it's going to go away easily. But now we're faced with this. It's there.
O'BRIEN: Jeff, what's on the books right now Jeff? Jeff?
Joel. Joel.
(LAUGHTER)
MOWBRAY: Well, right now, what we have is very little in terms of on the books.
(CROSSTALK)
O'BRIEN: I was talking to your clone. I apologize. He couldn't hear me.
All right, Joel, go ahead. What is on the books?
MOWBRAY: Well, there's a few states that have laws, four states. But from the national scale, there's not anything.
But Congress has already been looking at a number of bills. And I think that, normally, what you have is, after some watershed event, something like this, Congress is in a mad dash to pass legislation. But, thankfully, this time, they've already been studying and analyzing the issue for about the past year and a half. So, I think whatever you see coming out will not be some rush job.
And there will be legislation passed in March or April of this year. But it would have been anyways, regardless of the Raelian cloning or noncloning, whatever it is.
MCINTIRE: I would support any legislation that somehow had it in the statute that, whatever agency or scientific organization takes the lead on cloning in studying it, it has nothing to do with people who think they've been abducted by aliens.
O'BRIEN: That's the first piece of legislation.
MCINTIRE: And what if they really were abducted by aliens and it's an alien plot to merge us all with humans and we all end up looking like Mr. Spock or the Klingons or Michael Jackson?
(CROSSTALK)
JACOBUS: Congress is going to feel the need to do something pretty soon. So, the first thing you'll probably see is some sort of a sense of a Congress resolution that doesn't have an legislative meat in it, but is a statement of where they're positioned on this, because I think they're going to feel the need to at least comment on this pretty much immediately when they get back. That would be my guess at this point.
O'BRIEN: All right, we're about out of time.
And Cat (ph) wants to say something. Go, Cat.
CAT: Hi.
I was just wondering where these Raelian people, where they're getting their technology from to do this.
O'BRIEN: Anybody know?
MCINTIRE: From the aliens.
(LAUGHTER)
JACOBUS: That's what we were told, from the spaceship.
(BELL RINGING)
O'BRIEN: It came from the spaceship. All right, that's enough of cloning. We'll wait a week and we'll see if, in fact, they can deliver the proof.
Our "Question of the Day": If you could, who would you clone? That's my choice on the screen.
Up next: North Korea tosses out inspectors who were keeping an eye on their nuclear facilities. What the heck do we do now?
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O'BRIEN: All right, welcome back. We are shifting gears. Miles O'Brien back with you, not the clone.
President George W. Bush says he has no intention of negotiating with North Korea. That country is kicking out U.N. nuclear monitors, saying they are no longer needed. At the same time, it is planning to fire up a nuclear reactor that could produce weapons-grade plutonium just a few months from now.
Just to find out what's going on from the White House perspective on all this, we go to Suzanne Malveaux, who's with the traveling White House in Crawford, Texas -- Suzanne, what's the latest?
SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, the administration is really making its message very clear.
It is not going to negotiate with any type of response to threats or broken commitments. It is not going to be blackmailed. We are told that President Bush was briefed this morning at their regular briefings by his intelligence and security teams, that he has been monitoring the developments in North Korea and Iraq.
Also, we understand that, early this morning, there was a meeting among his top advisers to discuss U.S. strategy dealing with North Korea. It involved National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, as well as the deputy secretary of defense, Paul Wolfowitz.
Really, what they're saying here is that they're going to work through diplomatic channels, through economic channels, working with our allies, talking to Russia as well as China, South Korea and Japan to really put forward a lot of pressure on North Korea, but, again, saying that there is no intention to invade North Korea. Rather, they want to work through peaceful channels -- Miles.
O'BRIEN: All right, Suzanne Malveaux in Crawford, Texas, appreciate that very much. Let's before in an expert on the matter, an expert on a lot of matters. General Wesley Clark is joining us now. He's in Little Rock, Arkansas, where we often find him.
General, good to see you.
RET. GENERAL. WESLEY CLARK, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Nice to see you, Miles.
O'BRIEN: All right.
We've got a lot of questions here from the audience. And the big question that comes up gets right down to what Roz (ph) has to to say.
Roz, go ahead.
ROZ: I think it's all a matter of timing with North Korea. They see us very vulnerable, with Iraq. And they feel this is their time to blackmail us into getting things that they need for their very impoverished country. And I just don't think we should respond, because we'll always be blackmailed by other countries.
O'BRIEN: Now, Len, who is with Roz here, has another point.
Go ahead.
LEN: Well, my feeling is that the era of containment is over. We no longer need to have our 37,000 troops there as a fire wall. We should pull them out. North Korea can only go one way. And that's south. China wouldn't want that. If there's a problem with that, let China, Japan, South Korea and Russia handle the problem that they created. South Korea doesn't want us anyways. Let's just get out.
O'BRIEN: All right, that's a good point from Len.
General Clark, really, having 37,000 troops on the Korean Peninsula, U.S. troops, makes it very difficult for the U.S. to plan any sort of strategy.
CLARK: Well, I think, actually, having those 37,000 troops there is the key to planning a strategy, because it gives us an automatic bond with the interests of the government of South Korea. And they're going to be critical in moving ahead.
What we've got to do is reestablish our relationships there, strengthen them. We've got a new president to deal with there. And then we've got to go to Japan and China and Russia. And, as Suzanne Malveaux reported, the administration is doing the right thing here, using diplomacy.
But I don't think you can, right now, pull out those troops, because that sort of unravels the situation as you're trying to negotiate it. So, steady as we go. Yes, the North Koreans are trying to use this as bargaining leverage. It's an insecure regime. It's a struggling regime. And this is a desperate cry for attention. So, just be steady with this, work this diplomatically. The real threat here is to the nonproliferation regime that we've tried to establish all over the world. It's a 50-year U.S. effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons capabilities. And so, the agency that is at risk is the International Atomic Energy Agency.
O'BRIEN: So, in a word, engage the North Koreans, engage them diplomatically.
CLARK: Exactly.
O'BRIEN: All right, Trevor, go.
TREVOR: It seems like the North Koreans just keep trying to ramp the situation up. First, they disable their cameras. And now they are kicking out inspectors. Wasn't this just the next logical step that they would use to kind of...
CLARK: Yes, absolutely the next logical step.
This is a rough, crude form of diplomacy. It certainly is a wrong style, by our view. But it's the way the North Koreans have always played. They play rough.
O'BRIEN: All right, Charlie's got a question.
Go, Charlie.
CHARLIE: Well, I think that what this nation ought to do is now show that we do have a strong military, not necessarily go and take over every country, but let them know that, anything goes wrong, we're fixing to jump in there and take over, if we have to.
O'BRIEN: All right, but there's a lot of pitfalls there, aren't there, General Clark?
CLARK: Well, we have to be worried about what we say and what we do.
We're strong in South Korea right now. We've got 37,000 troop there. We've got a 50-year-old alliance there. The North Koreans have no doubt that, if they ever did thing anything, they would be wiped out. But they would cause a lot of destruction in the meantime.
What we don't want to do is get into a rhetoric contest, where we say, we could wipe you out. They say, we'll wipe you out first. And we just raise tensions. It's not very productive. We got to keep our eye on the ball. Right now, it's the war on terror. We've got to work through the situation with Saddam Hussein. And we've got to do the best we can with the nations in the region to contain the spread of nuclear capability that North Korea is threatening.
O'BRIEN: All right, but, General, don't you think that this puts North Korea on the front burner and Saddam Hussein on the back burner, maybe? CLARK: It does do that. And I don't think it's exactly an accident that all of this kind of comes unraveled at the same time, because the North Koreans can see what's going on with the United States.
You know, we're going to these very same countries, Russia and France and others, and saying, please support us, where we can put the pressure on Saddam Hussein. We're going to be coming back in. The Russians are saying, we don't quite see the evidence, but we're going to support you so far. But show us the evidence here that Saddam's got these weapons of mass destruction.
Now we're coming back in and saying, by the way, we also need some help in the Far East. Their question is, what are you willing to pay for it? And so that's the way diplomacy gets done. It's going to be a tough time for us.
O'BRIEN: Kyra (ph), go.
KYRA: Hi, General.
CLARK: Hi.
KYRA: Regarding that point you made just a few moments ago, what specifically are the other Asian nations doing to combat North Korea, to do deal with North Korea?
CLARK: Well, basically, as far as I know right now and as far as we know in the public, they're not doing much of anything.
Let's take Japan first. Japan was overflown by a North Korean missile in 1998. They were very concerned about that. It caused a sort of miniature crisis in Japan, in which they went back and reaffirmed the value of their alliance with the United States, because they realized that North Korean missile could have had chemical or biological or nuclear capabilities.
So, now the North Koreans have said, starting about three or four months ago, that they did kidnap some Japanese citizens back in the 1960s and '70s, and they were going to use these people to train their spies and infiltrators. Some of them were killed or died under mysterious circumstances, never been accounted for.
So the Japanese are at odds with the North Koreans now, and they're quite concerned about it. The Chinese have always claimed that they don't have any influence over the North Koreans, that they would talk to them, but essentially, it's for the United States and North Korea to work together, and please, don't get us Chinese involved.
We've always believed that they did have influence, more than they let on. And so we continued to talk to the Chinese.
The Russians have dealt with North Koreans. There was a visit recently by the North Korean leader, Kim Jong Il, to Russia. He went to Moscow; he met with Putin. And as I recall, Putin has had a visit to North Korea. There has been talking back and forth. We don't think they've given them any specific, overt aid for the nuclear weapons program, but on the other hand, it's not entirely in Russia's - it doesn't hurt Russia that much if we're kind of bogged down and distracted with problems on the Korean peninsula.
So we have to ask, what's the incentive for Russia to help us solve this problem? And right now, we don't see any overt incentive, other than the fact that they wouldn't want a war in the Far East. But we're a long way from having a war there.
O'BRIEN: All right. It's quite a Rubik's cube. Thank you for walking us through those treacherous waters - Gen. Clark, joining us from Little Rock. We appreciate. Happy New Year, sir.
How much of a threat is North Korea and what should the U.S. do about it? We'll debate all of that and some of the points Gen. Clark just brought up after a break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(NEWS ALERT)
O'BRIEN: All righty! We're back with more TALKBACK LIVE. We're still talking about North Korea, the nuclear tensions there. We're gong to bring our panel in in just a second.
And as a matter of fact, listen up, panel, because Lawrence (ph) is from Beijing studying here in the United States and has some thoughts about the Chinese role or lack thereof or what's really going on behind the scenes. Go ahead.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I have a question about, if China and Russia step up and help the U.S. to solve this problem in North Korea, how close will the U.S. and China's relationship get? Will it be better than before or do you think the U.S. will be like a very good partner with China in economic and military perspective or what...
O'BRIEN: So what's the payback, in other words, right? All right, panel what do you think?
MOWBRAY: We already have pretty good relations...
JACOBUS: I think the relations between the U.S. and China would be better, a little bit. I'm sorry. Go ahead.
O'BRIEN: Cheri, you go first. Go ahead.
JACOBUS: I think that, obviously, the relationship between the U.S. and China would be a little bit better, whether it wipes the slate clean I think is doubtful. But certainly, any time you can have that type of coalition, you're stronger for it.
O'BRIEN: All right, now the pundit, formerly known at Jeff, Joel.
MOWBRAY: OK. Well, I'm used to this whole lady's first thing. I was born and raised on chivalry. So I'm completely fine with it.
O'BRIEN: OK, good, good. I'm going to hold fast in that way.
MOWBRAY: China, they're already getting a lot from us - Miles, I can treat you like a lady as well.
O'BRIEN: Careful now. Let's talk off-line later.
MOWBRAY: OK. Well, anyway. No, what happens with China is that we already have a pretty strong relationship with them; it's getting stronger. They do do things to us that should make us mad, don't necessarily. And we give them pretty much everything they want. They get things out of us. It's about paying a price for your diplomacy. And I think that's what's going to happen with North Korea. We're going to ask for some favors, China will provide, and then, under the table, we'll give them something in return.
O'BRIEN: Nancy has a comment. Go, Nancy.
MOWBRAY: It seems to me that the president has a much more aggressive approach towards Iraq than North Korea. And I'm just wondering what you think about that.
O'BRIEN: Gary, do you want to get in on that?
DAUPHIN: Well, I mean, obviously, I think someone was asleep at the switch. The issue with North Korea is that you have a - basically a regime that you can align it to a sick or dying animal. And this has been going on for some time.
I mean the North Korean people are starving. And basically the only leverage they have is the nuclear chord (ph). So it was pretty obvious that they were going to play it at some point. They've chosen a pretty inopportune time to do it right now.
But I think this was foreseeable. And a little bit more tension to the situation might have avoided this discussion right now.
O'BRIEN: John, what do you think? Does this have anything to do with oil?
MCINTIRE: Yes. I've thought that both oil men, the president and vice president, have a vested interest in trying to get to that region of the world and control a big portion of the oil. That may be a cynic's point of view, but it's mine.
But I think this clearly shows that North Korea is taking advantage of what appears to be a certain march into war in Iraq and that North Korea is the most imminent threat of the so-called axis of evil. And the general mentioned we don't want to get into a war of rhetoric with these guys.
Well, George Bush ratcheted that up when he named them as part of the axis of evil.
JACOBUS: You know, I've got to take issue with that. First of all, that oil argument is bogus. The fact is...
MCINTIRE: It's not absolutely bogus. It's absolutely true.
JACOBUS: ... George Bush took a lot of heat when he included - when he listed the three nations that were in the axis of evil. But what we're finding out now...
MCINTIRE: Yes. And maybe history shows it wasn't a good idea.
JACOBUS: But I would agree that somebody was asleep at the switch, but it was no this president. The fact is that during the Clinton administration...
MCINTIRE: You can't blame Bill Clinton for everything! He's been out of office for two years.
JACOBUS: I'm merely pointing out the policies...
O'BRIEN: All right, all right.
MCINTIRE: You people are obsessed on Clinton. Let it go. He's one; Bush is here now.
O'BRIEN: All right. Let's get Scott in.
JACOBUS: Look, we now know how close to the brink North Korea has been to nuclear weapons. In fact, already have two that we know about.
MCINTIRE: Exactly. That's why they're a bigger threat than Iraq!
JACOBUS: And we were sweeping it under the rug during the Clinton years. Now we've got a president who's finally addressing this and being honest with us.
O'BRIEN: All right. Let's go to Scott (ph) from Vancouver. How do people until Canada feel about all this?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think Canadians view things a little bit differently than do Americans. We have to ask ourselves why we're being very selective in the countries we're looking at. I mean, you didn't do anything when Pakistan developed nuclear capabilities, when India did it. How about Israel? It seems like the only time that anything's being done is when it's threatening Israel and it's threatening the oil, and it's George Bush's father's involved.
O'BRIEN: Cheri, go ahead.
JACOBUS: Oh, you know, that's - that is...
O'BRIEN: No, no, no. Cheri gets to go first.
JACOBUS: That is - that may be wishful thinking on your part, but that certainly is not what dictates our foreign policy around the world. The fact is we know who the countries are who are real threats to peace around the world. We know who the leaders are and the dictators are who are willing to murder thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of their own people. There's a real difference.
When you're talking about nuclear nonproliferation around the world, you have to be very careful who you're identifying as the bad guys.
MCINTIRE: But we believe North Korea...
O'BRIEN: Go, John.
MCINTIRE: ... is one of the bad guys, and we believe that they're a more imminent threat, at least in the nuclear sense, than Iraq. So why don't we pull back from Iraq and concentrate more on North Korea?
JACOBUS: But, no, North Korea should be a part of the axis of evil. And yes, Bush took a lot of heat for that, but he was being...
MCINTIRE: Maybe they're the lead player in the axis of evil.
O'BRIEN: All right.
DAUPHIN: Cheri, Cheri...
JACOBUS: We now know just how close to the brink they have been. During the Clinton years, those policies, they swept it under the rug. Now we know just what they had. As soon as we got close, they have kicked us out. They are willing to do...
MCINTIRE: I think we should blame the cloning thing.
JACOBUS: Ah, saved by the bell.
MCINTIRE: I think Clinton's behind the cloning thing!
O'BRIEN: All right. No alien jokes. That's all I'll say. We'll leave it at that right now. We're going to take a break. You know, we're having so much fun on the subject. Maybe fun in isn't the right word. It's a lively discussion. We're going to continue it after we take a brief break. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O'BRIEN: All right. We are back. We are back. You know, we've been talking about North Korea. But in the break, everybody's still talking about cloning and who they'd clone.
Janna (ph) there - is it Janna (ph)? Janna (ph) wants to clone herself and have a clone to do the carpool and stuff like that.
Panelists, who would you - we'll ask in a minute. We'll ask you later. Let's continue on about North Korea. Where were we on our discussion? Nobody knows.
DAUPHIN: We were talking about...
O'BRIEN: Gary, go.
DAUPHIN: I wanted to make a point before.
O'BRIEN: I knew that's where we were!
DAUPHIN: Cheri knows as well as anyone, at the time of Bush's axis of evil speech, this was nowhere near the radar.
And you guys were evoking Clinton before. At the end of the Clinton administration, we'd seen significant progress toward negotiating with the North Koreans, as well as the Carter initiative.
When George Bush came into the - into the presidency, he spent months without dealing with the issue. It was months before he sent Colin Powell over there. And now we're bearing the fruit of this.
If anything, Bush has lucked out that this has happened because it gives his axis of evil line some kind of credibility that it didn't have before. So if this was about oil...
JACOBUS: You know, I don't know - I don't know why you're thinking in terms of months.
DAUPHIN: This isn't always about oil.
JACOBUS: Well, you're talking about months. It took months for him to deal with this. I think that's pretty much moving it lightning speed. But the policy before - and I won't blame Clinton for this - but the policy before of merely giving, bribing North Korea with energy supplies, hoping - so in return, they wouldn't create bombs to blow up the world, or at least South Korea, that's not really addressing the issue. That's just putting it off.
O'BRIEN: Cheri, Cheri, let me ask you - Cheri, Cheri...
JACOBUS: ... the end of the Clinton administration...
O'BRIEN: Cheri, Cheri, would you - Cheri, quick question for you. Should the troops come out in Korea, the U.S. troops?
JACOBUS: I don't know. I don't think I'm not qualified to answer that, probably not at this point.
O'BRIEN: All right. Go ahead, Jeff (ph). Go, Jeff (ph).
MOWBRAY: Miles, I think there's a point here to be made about North Korea that really does shed light on the situation in Iraq. And that is the reason we cannot go into North Korea is because they have three working nuclear warheads, and we're afraid that if we go in there - and rightly so - that they would use those nuclear weapons against South Korea or even Japan.
And the reason we cannot wait to go in to Iraq and we must do it now is because the moment Saddam Hussein gets his nuclear trump card, then we have to treat him like we're treating North Korea, which is with kid gloves, maybe some tough actions, sanctions, things like that. But we could no longer go in and forcibly disarm him once he has a nuclear trump card. So the...
MCINTIRE: It's going to be fairly hard...
MOWBRAY: ... we have to act on Iraq now.
O'BRIEN: All right, quick comment from Jeff (ph). Go.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now I think, in fact, it would be a bad idea to pull out the troops because that is, in fact, just like the cartoon ostrich that sticks his head in the sand and ignores the problem. I think ignoring the problem would, in fact, potentially make it worse because if do you that, then you would not know what's going on, even without the inspectors. And I think that would be a very bad idea.
O'BRIEN: All right. We have to leave it at that. Jeff (ph), you get the last word. Nice job. Appreciate it.
We're going to take a break. When we return, it's that Kwanzaa time of year. A conservative columnist just lacerates the holiday and - well, we'll explain it all in just a moment. We'll see what your feelings are about Kwanzaa. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O'BRIEN: All righty. Welcome back. We're shifting gears now. We're going to talk about Kwanzaa, seven days in December, starting the day after Christmas, founded in 1966 by Dr. Maulana Karenga to encourage African-Americans to celebrate their heritage.
President Bush this week issued greetings to those celebrating the values of unity, self-determination, collective work and responsibility, cooperative economics, purpose and faith. All those sound like good things to aspire to.
But his greeting was slammed by columnist, Ann Coulter, who called Kwanzaa - and we quote Ms. Coulter now - "...a lunatic blend of schmaltzy '60s rhetoric, black racism and Marxism." Further, she writes, "... the seven principles of Kwanzaa praise collectivism in every possible arena of life..."
The culture's problem with the holiday stems from its founder who she says was a member of a racist black cult.
All right, panel, are you there?
MCINTIRE: Indeed.
O'BRIEN: All right, Gary. I've got to start with you, Gary, on this one. Is Ann Coulter just looking for a grist (ph)for a column here?
DAUPHIN: Ann Coulter's looking for a grist (ph) for a 2-year-old column. Look, I wouldn't take black history lessons from Ann Coulter. First of all, obviously Karenga is a political fossil, much like Strom Thurmond. But first of all, the holiday is not called Karenga Day, it's called Kwanzaa.
Second of all, Karenga is the father of Kwanzaa, but it's a mother's Hallmark. You're basically talking about an advertiser- driving, feel-good moment that certain African-Americans, mostly the West Coast, use to remember our history.
It's just not a reason to sort of slam the African-American community or to slam the notion of self-reflection of history. It's basically a classic example of why the conservative movement just doesn't get any traction in the community, because this is not someone who cares about African-Americans or cares about our culture or our traditions.
JACOBUS: You were making sense until you got to that point. That was a slam.
DAUPHIN: That's exactly - this is a useless - it's a blind-side hit on what's basically a holiday that has very little political components.
O'BRIEN: This is a woman who's good at blind-sides.
DAUPHIN: Yes, she's very good at blind-sides.
O'BRIEN: I mean, it was pointed out, she's the one that took apart poor Katie Couric. I mean come on now.
JACOBUS: Poor Katie Couric.
O'BRIEN: You know, that's like kicking a puppy. All right, Elise (ph), go ahead.
JACOBUS: Oh, my goodness. Poor Katie. I think Katie can handle herself pretty well.
O'BRIEN: Oh, yes, she did OK. Elise (ph), go ahead.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I completely agree with Gary. I mean Kwanzaa - the principles of Kwanzaa celebrate a community. And this has absolutely nothing to do with politics and what Maulana Karenga may have done in the '60s, no less.
Those of us who believe in Kwanzaa and celebrate the principles, I think, understand what collectiveness is all about, what cooperative economics is all about.
O'BRIEN: John, go ahead, John. You haven't weighed in in a while.
MCINTIRE: Ann Coulter is a mean, hateful, spiteful person. And whoever people decide to clone, it should not be Ann Coulter. Her spin on African-American history is dubious at best, and regardless of its origin, it's harmless. It's peaceful now. It hasn't been overly commercialized like Christmas. It's not an excuse to get drunk like St. Patrick's Day.
O'BRIEN: Oh, let it go.
MCINTIRE: Let the African-Americans celebrate their heritage.
O'BRIEN: Kavita (ph), quickly. We're just about out of time, go.
MOWBRAY:; Hey, John, I'm glad to see you have so much cultural sensitivity for Irish-Americans. But the question I have is does anybody actually dispute the factual comments made in Ann Coulter's column? I'm not a Kwanzaa expert, so I don't know. But I'm curious. Is there - is there anything factually wrong with what she wrote?
O'BRIEN: All right. Let's leave aside the St. Patrick day stuff. We'll have to pick that bone a little bit later. Panelists, thank you so much. The bell has rung.
John McIntire, Joel Mowbray, Gary Dauphin, Cheri Jacobus, excellent work. We appreciate you weighing in on all manners of discussions today, along with our audience. We appreciate it.
Everybody else, stay there, please. I'll take your calls and letters on who you would clone. This isn't fixed, but if the answer is me, I'll take that. I'll be OK with that. Anyway, get on the horn right now. Give us a buzz. We'll be back with the final segment of TALKBACK LIVE in just a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O'BRIEN: All right. We're back. We're back. We're going to talk about cloning, cloning suggestions. Chris (ph), get over in place. Ike (ph), what's your closing suggestion?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Robert Kennedy.
O'BRIEN: Robert Kennedy. Go ahead over there.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I can't speak for myself, but if I was the gentleman that just won the PowerBall lottery, I'd want to clone myself to double my money.
O'BRIEN: All right. That's a good one. Can you clone a lottery ticket? Joe (ph) in Maryland, you're on the line, go ahead.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'd like to clone Anna Kournikova.
O'BRIEN: Anna Kournikova, all right. Go ahead, one more.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think the greatest cloning was when Jesus Christ was created. I don't think we need any more miracles that would ever supersede that.
O'BRIEN: All right. Let's look at an e-mail real quick, shall we? Elvis or Kurt Cobain, or perhaps a mixture of the two to see what kind of music collaboration we could get out of that. Well, that's one to think about. Trevor (ph), go.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: At the beginning of the show, we were talking about the lady who had cloned herself and had a child. If she then disciplines the child, is she disciplining herself?
O'BRIEN: Deep thoughts from Trevor (ph). And we'll leave it at that. The next time we talk about cloning, we'll hash that one out. We'll invite you in, Trevor (ph). All right?
That's all the time we have for this week's TALKBACK LIVE. Great audience. Thank you, everybody. Thanks to our panel and our guests. I'm Miles O'Brien, in for Arthel Neville. Have a great weekend. TALKBACK LIVE Monday. See you soon. We'll be here. I won't be here, but they'll be here.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
|
