|
CNN TALKBACK LIVE
New York Secures Times Square for New Year's; Is Saudi Arabia Trying to Buy American Favor? Whose 15 minutes of fame are up? Are we winning the war on terror?
Aired December 31, 2002 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(APPLAUSE)
CAROL COSTELLO, HOST: Oh, welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. What a fantastic audience we have this afternoon. I think it's the biggest ever. And, boy, they're riled up, aren't they?
(APPLAUSE)
COSTELLO: They certainly are.
Good afternoon, everyone. I'm Carol Costello. Arthel Neville is on vacation.
New information for you on those five men who are the subjects of a nationwide FBI manhunt. Sources now tell CNN it is believed they crossed into Upstate New York from Canada using phony British passports. The bureau says it wants to question these men. And with the New Year's Eve celebrations planned across the country, agents have made finding the men a top priority. That's only adding to the tension, though.
Bomb squads, K-9 teams and strategically placed snipers are the signs of the times in the Times Square. The NYPD is leaving no stone unturned in its quest to protect the expected half-million people who will be there to ring in 2003. Even mailboxes and trash cans will be removed.
CNN's Maria Hinojosa is in Times Square watching the security net tighten.
Do you feel safe, Maria?
MARIA HINOJOSA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Carol, I've got to say, what ends up happening is, if you're going to be in a place like this, really, security is not going to be your concern.
If you want to be here in this event, you're thinking that you want to be here for an historical moment and you're going to have a good time. And we get kind of caught up in that whole experience. So, right now, it's feeling great, I have to say.
But, of course, we've been talking to the police commissioner all day, who says that there are lots of plans in place to make this one of the safest, if not the most controlled place in New York City this day and this evening.
You're going to have -- they're not telling us the numbers, but there is going to be an increased presence. He said every single police officer will be on duty tonight, except if they worked the early shift. That's the only way that they won't be. The elite NYPD squads will be out on force. Those include heavy weaponry units. They include the bioterrorism task force, detective squads, counterterrorism squads, intelligence squads, the boat unit, the K-9 unit.
The bomb squad has already been searching this entire area for the past 24 hours, as well as inside and underneath the subways. So, at this point, they are saying that they feel that they have done everything they possibly could do to make this a safe area. Of course, this is Times Square. It's going to be open to the public. You're going to have restaurants that are open. You're going to have theater productions that are on tonight.
People will be able to come in and out of those spaces. They won't be searched, necessarily. The people who will be searched are those who come inside the penned areas to stay for the festivities -- no backpacks, no bags, no bags of any sort unattended, no liquor at all. So, for people who have the sense that they're going to come and it's going to be this wild party, that's not the way it's going to be.
A lot of happiness, but it's going to be very much under control, several hundred undercover agents interspersed and watching out, as well as snipers on many of the rooftops of the buildings. And, as you said, manhole covers that been soldered shut, all of those things that we in New York have become a little bit more accustomed to, but that tonight certainly will be in full force -- Carol.
COSTELLO: Well, Maria, let me ask you this. These five men, the Middle Eastern that are somewhere in New York state, now that we know that, is it a bigger concern for officials in New York City?
HINOJOSA: Well, the police commissioner said that they have given out the photographs, that they have told all of their people to be on alert.
But I have to say, he didn't tell me: Look, we're focusing on them and that's the only thing that we're looking for. And, tonight, that's all we're thinking about. He made it seem: Look, we're on top of it. We have got a lot of agents who are looking out for them. But he didn't make it seem as if that was the only thing that they're concerned about.
Of course, you're talking about half-a-million people who are going to be here. They have got a lot of things to be thinking about, but they're certainly on the lookout for them.
COSTELLO: Well, I know you're there for the night, so happy new year to you, Maria. I know Christopher Reeve is going to there to help to drop the ball.
HINOJOSA: Very special, because Christopher Reeve and his Wife, Dana, have been chosen because they represent courageous and hopeful New Yorkers. And most New Yorkers that you talk about, talk to, when you think about Chris and Dana Reeve, that's exactly what they say: people who have stood up and said: Life will go on. We will fight to continue living in this fate of whatever comes our way.
So, they'll be there to help bring down that very famous ball.
COSTELLO: Yes. And I'm sure fellow Americans feel exactly the same way.
Thank you so much, Maria.
On to another subject now.
Critics call it vulgar. A spokeswoman at the Phillips Academy Andover calls it support for an outstanding educational opportunity. "The New York Sun" calls it a story. The paper reports a controversial Saudi prince has donated $500,000 to a Phillips scholarship fund named after none other than former President Herbert George Walker Bush. Could the Saudis be trying to get on the current President Bush's good side?
We're joined by Tim Starks, the journalist who broke this story in "The New York Sun."
And, Tim, before I talk to you, I want to remind everyone what this Saudi prince wrote in a letter before he offered that $10 million to Rudy Giuliani. Let me read it for you now. He said -- and this was right after September 11 -- "At times like this one, we must address some of the issues that led to such a criminal attack. I believe the government of the United States of America should reexamine its policies in the Middle East and adopt a more balanced stance towards the Palestinian cause."
Mayor Giuliani didn't like that and he said: You can keep your $10 million. We do not want it.
Still, Tim, I understand that Andover solicited this donation from the Saudi prince.
TIM STARKS, "THE NEW YORK SUN": That's what they say. They say that they -- that someone on their fund-raising committee knew an associate of the prince's and asked for the money. And they seem to not be as concerned with the actual statements that the Prince Alwaleed had made, as they are with what they see as a good educational opportunity.
COSTELLO: Do you think that Andover understood the implications of accepting this huge gift?
STARKS: When I talked to them, they knew exactly what Prince Alwaleed had said. So, I think they do.
COSTELLO: Is he a friend of the university, a longtime friend of the university? Is this a normal thing for them to do? STARKS: Well, there have been a lot of unanswered questions, especially from Andover, in part also from the current President Bush and the former President Bush. But this is a big donation for them. The total endowment, I think, was $3.3 million. And this was the biggest of the contributions.
COSTELLO: Is there any evidence that you uncovered that President Bush Sr., I'll call him, actually helped in soliciting this donation?
STARKS: No. In fact, I would say that it's more likely that he doesn't know about the donation, at least until I called and asked them about it.
The bigger question was whether the current President Bush knew or not. That question hasn't been answered. And we at "The New York Sun" have been trying to get a straight answer on that.
COSTELLO: And, of course, some of the criticism coming out is, did this Saudi prince make this decision to sway American policy? We have a quote from your article that we want to put up while you talk about that. What did they tell you about that?
STARKS: Well, it's absolutely -- no one really thinks that a Saudi prince who is donating money to this fund in the name of the president isn't looking for influence.
There was one person I talked to that suggested, OK, the Bush family has had close ties with Saudis, in part because of oil, in part because of their role in the Persian Gulf War, the first one. But, generally speaking, there are a lot of questions and have been a lot of questions about how close the Saudis are to the Bush administration.
COSTELLO: Well, the Saudis are quoted in your article as saying, this donation is for the good of the entire world, because it will provide an education for six needy students at an institution most of us could never afford because, what, it costs $28,000 a year to go there?
STARKS: That's right. That's right.
COSTELLO: And what does Andover say about this good for the whole world thing?
STARKS: That's precisely what they said, is that this would be good for the whole world.
You have to wonder, though, whether it's worse, in fact, for the Bush administration, which has been dogged by some of these remarks about whether they're too close to the Saudi administration and whether it's good for our diplomacy.
COSTELLO: Did you get any sense from the White House as to their response for whether this gift could sway policy?
STARKS: The White House statement that I have had is that they say, no way, this won't influence us, no way.
COSTELLO: This Saudi prince also gave another donation to another entity. Can you tell us about that?
STARKS: He's made quite a few donations. Of course, you mentioned the attempted $10 million donation.
He's also funded a book program that has been sending some books to American libraries in an attempt to portray what he sees as the true vision of Islam. But, in fact, some of those books have been, as we've reported, filled with slanders against Jewish people and defenses of Hamas and Hezbollah, some acknowledged terrorist organizations.
COSTELLO: Gotcha.
Timothy Starks, thank you very much for informing us of all of that. We're going to let you go now.
And when we come back: more on this princely gift. We'll bring in a panel that's sure to have plenty to say about it.
And we and pose our "Question of the Day" to you: Is the United States winning the war on terror? Let us know what you think. Call us at 1-800-310-4CNN or drop us an e-mail at TALKBACK@CNN.com. We'll hear what you have to say later this hour.
TALKBACK LIVE will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COSTELLO: They do it in other countries, so why shouldn't military service be mandatory here? At least one congressman thinks there are a lot of good reasons for requiring everyone to put in their time in the service. What do you think?
We'll hash it out coming up next on TALKBACK LIVE -- back in a minute. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COSTELLO: A lot of things to talk about this afternoon on TALKBACK LIVE, but, first, we have breaking news for you.
Our justice correspondent, Kelli Arena, has some news on security in the United States on this New Year's Eve.
What do you have for us, Kelli?
KELLI ARENA, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Carol, authorities have ramped up security in New York Harbor after receiving a threat of a maritime attack on the harbor. But officials are downplaying that threat, saying that it has a very low level of credibility.
We talked to the Office of Homeland Security. And a spokesman there, Gordon Johndroe, said that, yes, there was some uncorroborated, unsubstantiated information of suspect credibility that was received about a potential maritime attack. He said that it was for this time period, but he didn't say that it meant tonight. And he said that he didn't want to get any more specific than that.
Johndroe says that the Office of Homeland Security is not recommending raising the color-coded warning level -- it is currently at yellow -- but that authorities were increasing surveillance of the harbor. And he likened it to the Fourth of July, when officials also increased security in the New York area without raising the threat level.
Now, just to give some perspective here, I spoke to several counterterrorism officials who said that there is a great deal of threat information coming in. And much of it is unsubstantiated, uncorroborated. They say this is not very high on the rating scale in terms of credibility. It is something that was passed around to all of the officials that needed to know out of an abundance of caution.
But it just shows you how concerned officials are surrounding the celebration in New York and this holiday.
COSTELLO: Oh, these warnings are there. They're so frustrating for Americans.
Let me ask you this, Kelli. Does this have anything to do with these five men who sneaked across the border into New York state?
ARENA: No. It's separate information that came in. I'm told that it originated, the intelligence originated in the Middle East, this regarding the maritime threat.
The five men, don't forget, Carol, that has been absolutely no terrorist link that has been made between these men and any terror organization. The officials that we have spoken to said that what they know about those five men is that they arrived in Canada, hooked up with a Pakistani smuggling group that provided them with false documentation -- in this case, it was phony British passports -- and that those men, according to intelligence sources, said that it was their intention to come into the United States by December 24.
Recent intelligence has pretty much convinced officials that they did, indeed, cross the border, not through any checkpoint, but clandestinely, came into the United States. Their whereabouts are unknown. But, again, the FBI has no intelligence suggesting their intention. There is nothing in any database anywhere that links them to a known terrorist or to a possible terrorist attack or to a previous terrorist attack -- Carol.
COSTELLO: You said something intriguing, though, Kelli, this Pakistani smuggling ring. What do we know about that?
ARENA: Well, we know that this is a ring that has been investigated, has been under investigation for a long time.
I was told by several sources that there is an individual in custody in Pakistan who, as part of negotiations with authorities, offered up some information about individuals that were providing false documentation in Canada. That led officials to this group of individuals in Canada who were providing the false documentation and then led them to information about these five individuals.
These are not the only five individuals that received false papers from this smuggling ring. But they were the only five that I'm told officials became interested in, because they were described as a group of individuals that were traveling together, which suggested that they may be part of some unit or may have been involved in some venture together -- again, no intelligence in any way, even from the intelligence -- human intelligence sources on the ground that said that they talked at all about any terrorist activity.
But, again, let's not mix it up. This is totally separate from the intelligence that came in regarding a possible maritime attack in New York. And, as I said before, Carol, lots of unsubstantiated information is coming in. This is just one little tidbit that CNN got ahold of. There's a whole lot more out there, I am told, that, if we went on the air with everything that was out there, people would be crazy.
COSTELLO: We'd become a nation of -- right. We'd be paranoid. And we are partially already.
So, we appreciate your insight this afternoon, Kelli Arena, our justice correspondent.
We were talking about the half-million-dollar donation made to a scholarship fund at a prep school attended by former President Bush. It has raised concerns about the donor's motives. The donor, you see, is a Saudi prince. Saudi Arabia has been on a post-9/11 public relations binge. And critics think the gift is an attempt to gain favor from the current President Bush.
And joining us to share his thoughts on this matter and others to come is Michael Graham, a radio talk show host on WRVA in Richmond, Virginia. He's the author of "How the South Really Won the War"; also, Eric Liu, who was a former policy adviser to President Clinton.
Welcome to you both.
Michael, let's start with you.
Should Andover accept this $500,000 gift from this Saudi prince?
MICHAEL GRAHAM, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: They should accept that gift from as many groups who espouse anti-Semitism and lob homosexuals in bags off of cliffs as they want to. So, I assume, when David Duke sends them a check, they'll pick up that one as well.
COSTELLO: Oh, harsh words. And I'm sure you're being facetious.
Eric, thoughts?
ERIC LIU, FORMER CLINTON ADVISER: Well, I'm not sure I'd put it in the same terms, but I kind of agree with the spirit of it. I think this is a totally questionable thing for Andover to do, to accept this kind of gift. The bigger question of whether the Saudis are trying to influence this president and this administration is a little bit silly, to my mind, because, guess what? The Saudis have had enormous influence with this president and this administration from the beginning and with this president's father as well.
So, the idea that an extra $500,000 to a scholarship fund in the president's name is going to tip the scales somehow is a little bit laughable.
COSTELLO: Well, but let's face it, Eric. He's giving this donation to a very prestigious school, with kids who supposedly are going on to greater things when they grow up and they get the big careers. And I don't know. Might this garner more goodwill publicly, not so much governmentally, for Saudi Arabia?
LIU: I don't think so, really, especially now that people like us are on the air talking about it and bashing the whole thing.
I think the idea that the Saudis do realize they need a P.R. campaign, and they are kind of doing it in a clumsy, ham-handed way. The bigger here question is isn't whether this particular donation is a good P.R. move or a bad P.R. move. The bigger question that nobody seems to be asking is, why this administration still is so close to this regime that Michael has described as pretty abhorent on many dimensions and that, as we well know now, was the kind of breeding ground for most of the 9/11 terrorists.
COSTELLO: OK, we're going to add more fuel to the fire before we go on.
Joining our discussion now: political satirist Andy Borowitz and radio talk show host Martha Zoller, who is here on the set with me in Atlanta.
Welcome to you both.
Martha, I want to bring up something with you, because remember former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney? Remember that? When the $10 million was denied by Rudy Giuliani, she stepped forward and she said, look, I'll take that $10 million for the folks here in Atlanta who need it, for the poor children who can't go to school, who don't have educational opportunities like the people at Andover. She was vilified for that.
MARTHA ZOLLER, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Well, and I would vilify this also.
I think that this money should be given back. We need to have the Saudis' walk match their money in this case. I think it's terrible. They have to cooperate with us on areas like visas and cooperating on that, on finding out more about the September 11 terrorists. And as far as the Saudis having influence in this administration and the former President Bush, they've had influence in every administration since FDR, more influence than they should have. So, I would give the money back, if I were them. There are principles. Money cannot buy everything.
COSTELLO: Andy, do you agree?
ANDY BOROWITZ, POLITICAL SATIRIST: Well, of course, people are suspicious of the Saudi royal family's motives. But the group that I'm always most suspicious of is preppies. You know, I think the preppies and the Saudis working together forms kind of an axis that makes me very uncomfortable.
(LAUGHTER)
COSTELLO: On that note, we're going to take a break right now.
Coming up next on TALKBACK LIVE: a tale of two would-be wars, first Iraq and now North Korea, the prospects of wars on two fronts. Could the United States pull it off?
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(APPLAUSE)
COSTELLO: Fabulous crowd here at TALKBACK LIVE. Welcome back.
The United States and its allies have been rattling sabers over Iraq for months now. And then North Korea startles the world with the sudden revival of its nuclear program. Could the United States carry out military operations on two fronts if it were called for?
Former Secretary of State Warren Christopher, who served in the Clinton administration, says, hold the phone. In an op-ed piece in today's "New York Times," Christopher writes: "While Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld may be right in saying that our military can fight two wars at the same time, my experience tells me that we cannot mount a war against Iraq and still maintain the necessary policy focus on North Korea and international terrorism. Anyone who has worked at the highest levels of our government knows how difficult it is to engage the attention of the White House on anything other than the issue of the day."
OK, let's see what our panel thinks. And I believe most of them have harsh words for Mr. Christopher.
Michael, let's start with you.
GRAHAM: Well, in his op-ed piece, Warren Christopher noted that he was there when the hostages were taken in Iran. He tried to get them out. He was there when the Afghanistan -- when Russia invaded Afghanistan. He was there when they negotiated this deal with the Koreans that then they broke. The key to successful foreign policy in America is, of course, to stay away from Warren Christopher.
He's the problem. I have no doubt that he's too incompetent to handle two things at once. But this attitude that the Americans are picking our fights, the North Koreans have broken every deal that they've made since the 1950s. They broke this deal. This is all their fault. Their record is so bad, they couldn't get Columbia Records to send them five CDs for a nickel right now, with a promise to buy three albums at regular price the next year.
COSTELLO: Well, Eric, let's pause, because Mr. Christopher also is saying that the United States is putting most of its attention on Iraq right now, because that's where it's heavily involved.
I mean, remember a couple months ago, all we heard about was Israel and the Palestinians. But we're not hearing much about that anymore, are we?
LIU: I don't agree with the idea that we can't fight two wars or be engaged on two fronts at the same time.
We have to just rewind a little bit to all the talk that we've had over the last couple of years about the G.I. generation and the greatest generation and the people who fought World War II. Think about the people who led and who planned and who organized that war effort. They were fighting on five or six fronts at any given time.
I think that, if circumstances demand it, our national leadership, whether it's Democrats or Republicans, are capable of executing that. The bigger issue here is a matter of priority, it seems to me. And that's where I think Christopher has something that's right on.
COSTELLO: OK, you say it's a matter of priority?
(CROSSTALK)
COSTELLO: Hold on, panel. We want to get audience reaction right now.
Wesley from Alabama, is it a matter of priority or can we fight it on two fronts?
WESLEY: Well, I really think I have to disagree with Mr. Christopher.
I think Saddam Hussein and Iraq has been a problem long enough and it really should be dealt with swiftly. And if we allow him to last any longer, then more mischief will be caused. We can't ignore North Korea's threat to us as well, though. So, I think we really kind of need to observe both issues and deal with them both at the same time, really.
COSTELLO: And you think we can do that? Well, we're dealing with Saddam Hussein, aren't we? Aren't we doing that right now, Martha? ZOLLER: Well, you know, General Wesley Clark was on a couple of days ago talking about this very issue. He was the former supreme commander of NATO.
And he said that we're exactly in the right way. And he has the expertise there. Go after Iraq. Do it decisively. That sends a message to North Korea. And I hope that we don't know everything that this administration is doing right now as far as what they're focusing on. I hope they don't leak all of that to the press, or else we'd have a big problem there. I think they are focusing on two things and doing it well.
COSTELLO: You think they're doing it well. So, we're dealing with North Korea as well as we are with Iraq?
Why, Andy, can't we take the focus a little off of Iraq, because the U.N. Security Council is paying attention to that situation right now?
BOROWITZ: Well, I'm certainly hoping that maybe the North Korea situation is on the mend. I heard today that North Korea was thinking of contributing a squash court to Phillips Academy. So, I think that's a good sign.
(LAUGHTER)
BOROWITZ: But I think that we should be prepared to fight as many wars as we're prepared to call countries evil. If you call three countries evil, you probably should be ready to fight all three of them. It's like, if you're on the playground, if you call somebody ugly, you should be prepared to fight them, too.
(LAUGHTER)
COSTELLO: Let's go to an audience member again to get some insight.
Can the United States handle a war on two fronts, three, maybe four?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think what we can't do is confuse the distinction between policy and a war on different fronts. We're risking making China our enemy, making a lot of different people our enemy, and making a lot of people in the Middle East our enemies. And we can't afford to do that. A lot of Bush's staff are intelligent, but I question whether he'd be able to handle that.
COSTELLO: Yes, because a lot of countries overseas are really angry at the United States. And, certainly Japan, China and South Korea don't like the United States policy on North Korea at this time.
Isn't that hurting us -- I mean, isn't that hurting the United States more than sitting down and talking with the North Koreans, Martha?
ZOLLER: Well, I think that there are diplomatic efforts that are going to be going forward.
Diplomacy is not always sitting down with North Korea across the table. I think there's some pressure being put to bear on China, as there should be, on South Korea, on Japan, to let them handle this themselves. Now, will they need some help from the United States? Yes, because, ultimately, everyone wants our help. They all want our money, but then they don't want to have anything in return for our money. They don't want us to expect anything from them, but they want our money.
COSTELLO: But hold on a minute.
Michael, isn't it the perception out there that the United States has made North Korea reactivate its nuclear policies?
(CROSSTALK)
GRAHAM: No, no, no. The North Koreans broke the agreement back during the Clinton years, about 1999 or so.
(CROSSTALK)
COSTELLO: No, but I mean by recent aggression in Iraq.
GRAHAM: No. I'm sorry. They were already redeveloping their nuclear program, in violation of the agreement, back in the late '90s, before that happened.
But let's make a point here. Nobody likes the government in North Korea. Kim Jong Il, the guy is a loon. He looks like fat Elvis from the Vegas days. And he's the governmental equivalent of the Raelians. He is a bizarre Looney Tune who has made himself a multimillionaire while his people starve. The Chinese don't like him. Everybody is just afraid the guy is going to get a big bad weapon.
COSTELLO: So, why is the United States using backdoor diplomacy with Kim Jong Il and not Saddam Hussein?
LIU: There's a bigger question there, which is why the United States is putting so much proportion of its attention and energy on Iraq and not North Korea. The imminence of the threat from North Korea, if there as far along on their nuclear weapons program as we think they are, and if they, in fact, want to start shipping them to rogue states in other evil countries out there, is much more dangerous and much more kind of pressing than what Iraq poses right now.
(CROSSTALK)
COSTELLO: All right, let's go to the phone lines right now. I have someone on from Idaho.
CALLER: Yes, Gunner from Idaho.
COSTELLO: What's your name?
CALLER: Gunner. COSTELLO: Gunner, what do you have to say? Do you think North Korea should be on the back burner and Iraq should still be out front?
CALLER: Well, I just want to know why everyone is all over Iraq, when North Korea admits they actually have weapons of mass destruction. It seems to me North Korea is just a country that can defend itself and the U.S. is just backing down from it.
COSTELLO: And that is a question the administration cannot seem to answer, Andy.
BOROWITZ: Well, I think Gunner makes a very good point. And I also really take issue with people who say the United States has just been picking fights.
Earlier this year, the French skating judges really did something very provocative and we showed tremendous restraint in not attacking France.
(LAUGHTER)
BOROWITZ: And I think people are forgetting that.
LIU: Although there were some like me who would have advocated and supported such an attack.
BOROWITZ: And I as well, and we were not listened to, Michael. But I do want to say that I think that we should get some credit for restraint.
COSTELLO: OK. We like levity leading into a break.
Still to come on TALKBACK LIVE, bringing back the draft. Congress may consider the military option as a required right of passage. Stick around. TALKBACK LIVE is back a couple minutes.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(NEWS ALERT)
COSTELLO: And welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE. As we discussed yesterday, New York representative Charles Rangel says he'll introduce a bill in the next session of Congress to make military service mandatory.
In an op-ed piece in the "New York Times" today, Rangel said, "Carrying out the administration's policy toward Iraq will require long-term sacrifices by the American people, particularly those who have sons and daughters in the military. Yet the Congress that voted overwhelming to allow the use of force in Iraq includes only one member who has a child in the enlisted ranks of the military. Just a few more have children who are officers."
Panel and audience, is it time to bring back the draft? Before we get to our panel, I want to talk to some of the people it will matter most to, some 20-year-olds in our audience right now. Kevin from Florida, you had something to say about that. Are you 20?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, I am. I am in Army ROTC right now.
COSTELLO: Are you for a military draft -- or a mandatory draft?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, I am, just for the fact that I think it's a good coming of age for a lot of guys. That's a personal feeling.
COSTELLO: OK. The opposite view point from Amber in Louisiana.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hi. No, I don't think it's a good idea for a military draft. Being in the Marine Corps reserve, I see a lot of people in the service who are there merely for college money and stuff like that. They don't put out, they're not like they should be. And if you institute a draft, it would have people that don't want to be there. They wouldn't listen to orders. They wouldn't fight. It would just be like a Vietnam all over again.
COSTELLO: Do you think that the Congressmen and women in the United States understand what it's like to have sons and daughters overseas fighting?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A lot of politicians, they're not in the military. My father was in the Navy, both of my brothers are in the military, I'm in the military, but none of us are politicians. I think there's a fine line between politicians and the military. I think once the politicians decide, OK, it's time for us to go to war, then they need to let the military go ahead and take over and do what they're supposed to do.
COSTELLO: I understand. Well, panel, I think that's what Mr. Rangel is trying to get across, that maybe Congressmen and women and people in the Senate, men and women in the Senate, wouldn't be so eager to declare war on a country if their sons and daughters were over there fighting. Michael, what do you think?
GRAHAM: For those who support a draft, imagine the last time you went to a drive-through window to get fast food. Now, picture that zitty-faced kid, instead of mismanaging your order, handling an M-16 and a shoulder-launched grenade. This is a disaster. We do not want the worst and lamest of America in the military...
COSTELLO: Excuse me Michael for saying it, but we've won many wars with those pimply-faced kids in the past.
GRAHAM: No, we're winning wars right now with a small, mean military that's scaring the world because there are people in there who are motivated and want to be there. Plus, as a conservative, we believe -- I believe the balance between the government and individual should be toward the individual, and forcing someone into government service is what the British did to us in 1776, and started the war of 1812. It's a lame idea.
COSTELLO: Martha, what do you think? Do you think there should be a mandatory draft? I know a lot of callers are calling in to your radio show.
ZOLLER: They really are, and I think that it is something where we have a professional army now, it is all volunteer. It is probably the best army we've ever had. And I took a look at those other wars that we won. While there was a draft instituted during World War II and Korea, most people signed up. They didn't wait to be drafted. Where the draft was a problem, obviously, was in Vietnam, where there were some issues. But that was still a small percentage of people who dodged the draft, and we throw that word around so loosely today. But it was a small percentage of people that went to Canada or whatever and didn't do their duty. And I think that it's something we need. We need a professional army. You know, they don't take high school drop-outs anymore in the Army. They don't people that are criminals anymore in the Army. And that's the way it should be. That's why we have a better fighting force.
COSTELLO: Let's go to the phone lines right now. Robert from Wisconsin, should there be a mandatory draft?
CALLER: Yes, I think there should be a draft, but I think we should start with the public servants first, like the Congress, President Bush. Then when they see their folks coming back in body bags, then they'll see how stupid this war is with Iraq. They have no proof Iraq done nothing to us within this year.
COSTELLO: Andy, do you a think that Robert has a point?
BOROWITZ: Well, I do think it becomes a little bit tougher, it is more of a gut check about how you feel about the war in Iraq if you knew that your child or somebody you knew was going to go. But I'm always listening to talk radio and hearing people are very enthusiastic about this war, and I just wondered if we instituted a draft where only people who called in into talk radio were drafted, if it might change things a little bit.
ZOLLER: Well, you know, one of the things about Charlie Rangel though, he throws this number around that not so many of the children of Congress are in the military, and that may be true. But we don't know how many of them have the age of children that would be fighting. I mean a lot of those guys have been there 30 or 40 years.
COSTELLO: I believe only one member of Congress has a kid in the Army, and the rest...
(CROSSTALK)
COSTELLO: Eric, we haven't heard from you. Go ahead.
LIU: The issue here isn't how many members of Congress have children in the military. I mean, it is a pitifully small number. But the larger issue here, and the reason why I've always been a supporter of some kind of universal service, whether it is military or civilian community service, is a bigger issue of what we are trying to do to weave together a sense of social fabric, especially after 9/11.
President Bush, after 9/11, talked a lot about sacrifice and how the country would need to do more and give more, but he hasn't really asked anything more. And I think something like this, for that reason, is a really good idea.
(CROSSTALK)
COSTELLO: Ellie -- I want to hear from Ellie from New York in our audience. Do you think Charles Rangel has a good idea?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well, perhaps a mandatory draft can take generations to harvest. Let's think about Israel. They have a mandatory draft, they have a professional army, if you will, and they've been doing OK. I mean, they're five out of five right now in their wars.
GRAHAM: When we're surrounded by enemies who are trying to destroy us, I'll be glad to support a draft too, but as long as all we have to worry about is Canadians and the Mexicans, I'm not really prepared for a draft.
COSTELLO: Oh, Eric, please respond to him.
LIU: The issue is whether Canadians are going to attack us, although the news today is that people are slipping in from Canada. The bigger issue here again -- the bigger issue is about what we're trying to do to create a society where young people of all kinds end up serving and feeling some sense of connection and obligation to the country. Does it have to take the form of military service? No. But some kind of civilian community service can do that same job.
COSTELLO: All right. We're out of time on this story, panel. I'm very sorry.
Now, we're going to talk about out with the old and in with the new. Tell us how you think 2002 will be remembered. We'll look at the news makers, the stories that made you think, and those you'd rather forget. Don't you go anywhere, TALKBACK LIVE returns right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COSTELLO: Welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE. As we all prepare to ring out the old and ring in the new, we want to hear about the stories that had the most impact on you this year.
Cnn.com's picks are, in case you are wondering, No. 1, the crisis in Iraq; two, the sniper attacks; the continuing reign of terror; the war in Afghanistan; the ongoing corporate scandals; the Republican midterm election victories; the rocks and rolls of the U.S. economy; the Catholic sex scandal; Homeland Security; and rounding out the top ten stories of the year, the anniversary of September 11.
OK. Now we go to our panel. You know, Eric, we hear all about these lists, but we really don't put them in perspective as to how those events changed our lives.
LIU: I think that's right. I mean, a lot of it has to do with just how much ink and how much air time these various stories get. To my mind, the two biggest stories of the year reinvolved both around President Bush. You named them both. The first is the fact that on the global stage this guy singlehanded has changed the terms of the debate. We're not talking about a war on terror. We're not talking about a war against al Qaeda. We're not talking about other things. We are focused on a war against Iraq, and that's not just in the Congress. It's in the halls of the United Nations. He's turned the whole question not into whether to do that, but just when and how, and that's a tremendous story and a tremendous ship that's going to play out all throughout 2003.
COSTELLO: Absolutely. Martha, do you agree?
ZOLLER: Well, I think that is a big story, and Eric and I have talked before about this issue when we have been on this show before, that he did change the debate. His critics said go the U.N., and he went to the U.N. and he changed the debate.
But the other story, I think, is the sniper story, and that is because it came at a time -- I don't know if it would have affected the elections or not, but it came at the time where it came in during October, and there are a lot of people that say this was a big story, we couldn't get our message out. And then, of course, the second story that I bet Eric was going to allude to was the fact that President Bush and the Republicans won a midterm election, which hadn't happened that way in decades.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's right...
COSTELLO: Michael, give us your input.
GRAHAM: Yes, I think the hugest story right now is what you are reporting today that apparently the five members of the boy band Menudo, now grown, have slipped into America through Canada and joined -- have you seen those guys' photos? It's Menudo, I am telling you. No, seriously, I think the biggest story wraps all these together, is the story of national insecurity.
In my adult life, I'm 39, our nation has never been this -- generally, the sense of nervousness and fear -- and that's why the other stories resonate. The sniper story which occurred in Richmond, where I now work, and in D.C. resonated around the country because it showed how dangerous two people could be, and everyone was imagining, what if those were ten al Qaeda members? The war with Iraq dominated the elections in November because we feel the sense of insecurity that there are other governments who are aiding wild men who are prepared to come here and kill themselves in order to kill us. Even the economy being so tenuous is a general sense of unease, and I wouldn't say fear, it's almost too strong, but everything that we see scares us more, and therefore every story has a bigger impact.
COSTELLO: Andy, weigh in...
BOROWITZ: I think the biggest story that affected most Americans is the disappearance of McDonald's as we know it. You know, there has been this obesity lawsuit against McDonald's. McDonald's has now changed its hamburger. They are going to change its fries, I guess, to make everything so thin.
Looking into 2003, if I were Ronald McDonald, I would be very, very nervous. Calista Flockhart is standing on the sidelines waiting to take over as the mascot.
COSTELLO: Oh, Andy. Let's go to the audience now. Rob from Massachusetts, what do you think the biggest story of the year was?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I would say, after that McDonald's, it would have to be No. 2, but it -- I think the biggest story is the increasing anti-U.S. sentiment throughout the world, I think it's the biggest story because that will have the most long-lasting effect upon our country.
COSTELLO: He brings up a good point. That has to be frightening to many Americans who believe the same way.
GRAHAM: No. I'm sorry. The people who are mad at us are the corrupt and evil governments of Saudi Arabia, Yemen and on around the world. North Korea -- the people of North Korea would love to live in freedom. They would love to live in a South Korea.
COSTELLO: We've been friends with South Korea for a very long time and South Korea is upset with our policies as they apply to North Korea.
ZOLLER: But you know what I think is so amazing about this whole situation is that people always are like this with us right before wars, right before we get in, they criticize us. But then afterwards, they blame us for not getting involved sooner. I mean, America has not been known for getting to the party first when it comes to things like this, they've been known for being the last guy there.
(CROSSTALK)
LIU: ... this is a very different situation now, where you have an administration for the first time saying they're going to believe in an idea of preemptive war. They're going to kind of nip threats in the bud before they even have a chance to emerge. That's a very aggressive posture that has got a lot of people, friends and foes, around the world nervous.
(CROSSTALK)
COSTELLO: ... debate, Adam from North Carolina has something to say -- Adam, what do you think the biggest story of the year was?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I wanted to ask the panel about whether they think it's in the best interest. President Bush has stated publicly that the United States will invade Iraq with or without U.N. support, and I wanted to see the panel's opinions on that.
COSTELLO: OK. Eric, take it away.
LIU: I think it would not be in our interest to do it without other allied support, but I think we certainly have the capability to do it, and this president seems very dead set on doing it. You know, it's a fine line for this president. I'm not just knee-jerk against the idea of pressuring Iraq. I think there's a game of poker that is being played here, and he's got to have a very good poker face and a very credible hand, and you start organizing for war to scare and bluff the other side.
COSTELLO: Look at Michael up there chomping at the bit. Make it short, I have got to go to a break. Go ahead Michael, but make it short.
GRAHAM: No matter who comes with us, we are doing it. We are Shaquille O'Neill and the rest of the countries are me, sitting on the bench, trying to get some of the glory. We're going to go and we are going to do it, and the people of Iraq will love us for it.
COSTELLO: OK. On that, we go to a break.
BOROWITZ: I will tell you one thing, it's not a surprise attack.
COSTELLO: No, it is not, Andy.
When we come back on TALKBACK LIVE, we'll ask the panel and you whose 15 minutes of fame are up. Don't go away.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COSTELLO: Welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE. the most fabulous audience in the history of the world. They came, they were famous and now they're not. So much for the icons of 2002. Tick, tick, tick. Whose 15 minutes of fame are up? I've been waiting for this segment all show long. This is very exciting.
Michael, who's out of here.
GRAHAM: Can we stop the Raelians before they have the 15 minutes. What scares me about the cloning is that they'll clone themselves. Can someone explain to me how you can be smart enough figure out cloning technology but not figure out how to work a bottle of Clairol. Hello, they can contact aliens from another planet but not the Hair Club For Men? What is wrong with these people? Please, stop them now.
COSTELLO: Eric. Eric, whose 15 minutes of fame are up?
LIU: The two names that came to mind for me are Anna Nicole Smith and Al Gore, which led me to think about what a great reality TV series we could create the two of with them.
COSTELLO: That would be fantastic.
Andy, whose 15 minutes of fame are up?
BOROWITZ: Clearly Eminem. I mean, Eminem become so mainstream, you have people like the columnist Anna Qindlen saying she listens to him while she folds her laundry which is over in my book. But I think Eminem has one more year away from being on a Muppet special with Tickle Me Elmo.
COSTELLO: Oh, my goodness. I know even he was quoted as saying it scares himself that preppy parents are listening music and enjoying it.
BOROWITZ: Absolutely. I would also have said Michael Jackson, though Michael Jackson has been over for some time. But after the incident where he dangled his detachable nose over the hotel balcony, that was a horrible scene.
COSTELLO: Martha, whose 15 minutes of fame are up?
ZOLLER: I was going to say Emimen because, you know, when you hear music in a grocery store, it's over. You know when it's the music in the grocery store it's over. But the other one is Madonna's film career. Please, please. She was so good in "Desperately Seeking Susan" and that was a long time ago.
COSTELLO: Do we have an audience member? This is Ian (ph) from California.
Whose 15 minutes of fame are up?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Kelly Clarkson from the "American Idol."
COSTELLO: Oh, yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That was up a long time ago. They are trying to start another season, it is not going to last.
COSTELLO: Yes, it's come out that she may have cheated. It's ugly. Who else? Come on, audience who else? Whose 15 minutes. Can anyone say Jennifer Lopez? Are we sick of Jennifer Lopez? She's everywhere.
GRAHAM: No, no.
COSTELLO: Who is saying no, no. Oh, Michael.
GRAHAM: She's fine. Are you kidding me? I'll give her my 15 minutes. Absolutely.
COSTELLO: Nick from Georgia, whose 15 minutes of fame are up?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mike Tyson.
COSTELLO: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Britney Spears.
COSTELLO: Britney Spears. You know, there was a big article in some newspaper, actually, it was "The New York Times", that said Britney Spears is so out she'll never be back, but she may appear in movies, because the type of music that she and others sang, the people don't want anymore, because it's so manufactured. That's a good thing, right? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That is a good thing.
GRAHAM: Her new career is going to be for the Saudi government. They're hiring her to do ads. But her in the burkha is just not working, because they had to design a special one that showed the naval and nothing else.
BOROWITZ: The comforting thing for Britney Spears and these sort of over-celebrities is celebrities never go away. They come back as fragrances, like Elizabeth Taylor. So it's kind of a good future ahead for all of them.
COSTELLO: Thank you, Bororwitz. It's time to take a break, right now. I want to thank again my great panel; Michael Graham author of the book "Redneck," Eric Liu, Eddie Borowitz and Martha Zoller.
All of you have a happy New Year.
When we come back, it's your turn to answer the question of the day. Is the United States winning the war on terror? Get your calls and e-mails in now. We will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COSTELLO: Welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE. It's time for our question of the day. It is, is the United States winning the war on terror? Let's go to the e-mails first. Put them up so I can read them to you.
Our first e-mail, "The Bush Administration is not winning the war on terror. As long as the U.S. is perceived as the perpetrator of in justice around the world. There will be terrorist thoughts and attacks." That is from Jim in Florida.
Let's go to the next e-mail, right now, before we get to the audience.
This one, "The United States is winning the war on terror. The nation is definitely not the same as it was before 9/11. However, I believe the government is doing all it can to keep it's citizens safe." That is from Sam in California.
Now, to the audience. Let's go to Stephen (ph) from Minnesota. Is the United States winning the war on terror?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, I feel that we could have done more in the period of time since 9/11 to effectively organize our police forces and federal government and if we took an accounting in that, we've got a long ways to go, and...
COSTELLO: But we're not there yet, right?
Let's go another audience member. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) from Tennessee. Are we winning the war on terror? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes we are. We've disbanded the Taliban, got al Qaeda on the run, got about 3,000 of them in jail. We confiscated their money and we're winning.
COSTELLO: Well informed A.T. from Tennessee, thank you.
That does it for us. Our time us up. Thank you for joining us today. What a great audience, what a fantastic audience! I'm Carol Costello. Arthel Neville is on vacation. Have a safe New Year's Eve. And we'll see you in 2003 for another addition of TALKBACK LIVE.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Arabia Trying to Buy American Favor? Whose 15 minutes of fame are up? Are we winning the war on terror?>
|
