|
CNN TALKBACK LIVE
Interview With Al Sharpton; Was the FBI Duped?
Aired January 7, 2003 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ARTHEL NEVILLE, HOST: Oops. Was it just a false alarm? The FBI calls off a nationwide search for five men with reported possible terrorist links. We'll find out why and ask, was any harm done?
And your chance to talk back to the Reverend Al Sharpton. The controversial civil rights leader wants to be president. Could he get your vote?
Also: a game the Giants will always remember, a call they'd rather forget. NFL reps now say they made a mistake on a crucial play. Do the Giants deserve a rematch?
TALKBACK LIVE begins right now.
Hello, everybody. Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville.
Well, the FBI believes it may have been duped. Do you know these five faces? Well, it doesn't matter now, if you do. They were the focus of a national manhunt, but that search has been called off.
CNN justice correspondent Kelli Arena joins us now from Washington with the latest.
And, Kelli, what a big mess and a horrible mistake. I mean, what is the FBI saying?
KELLI ARENA, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, FBI officials say that the information that came in at the time came from a person who was in custody in Canada. This individual provided information about these five men, saying that they were traveling together and that they expressed a sense of urgency about obtaining false documents to get into the United States.
Now, at the same time, there was intelligence that was coming in from other avenues suggesting that there could possibly be a terror attack that was being planned on U.S. soil on New Year's Eve. So, the convergence of all of that information, obviously, led to a heightened level of concern. And the FBI at that point said it was not taking any chances to do further investigation to find out if the information was, indeed, 100 percent credible.
It put the information out on the Web site, made it very public that they were looking for these five men. At the time, though, just to refresh some memories, they did not say that they had any proof that the men actually did enter the United States. They said that that was what they were told and that they believed could have happened. They did not say that they were terrorists or planning any terrorist attack.
They just said that the men were wanted for questioning. But, obviously, once you see five faces and you hear the president...
NEVILLE: Precisely.
ARENA: ... and the FBI saying, we want these men, everybody was concerned about it.
NEVILLE: Yes, because of this environment now. And it was around the holidays. And people just sort of kind of come to their own conclusions.
But let's talk about those five men. Where are they now? And I know that one of the pictures was supposedly a Pakistani jeweler.
ARENA: A Pakistani jeweler, right, who said that he saw his picture with the wrong name underneath and said, hey, that's me, but I've never been to the United States.
Well, it turns out that he'd obtained fake documents, a fake British passport, and made it as far as the UAE and then was sent back to Pakistan. And this information came as a result of a larger investigation into a human smuggling ring in Pakistan, which then led them to Canada, investigators to Canada, people that were providing fake visas and documents for people who wanted to gain entry into the United States or other countries.
So, there is an ongoing investigation that continues. But the other four men the FBI still has not been able to locate and doesn't want to anymore.
NEVILLE: Right.
And, Kelli, we just checked the FBI Web site. Guess what? Those pictures are still there with the caption war on terrorism. I mean, aren't they going to take that off? You would think.
ARENA: Yes, we are expecting a formal statement from the FBI, an official statement sort of explaining to the public in some way what has gone on. And then I'm told, once that statement is released, the pictures will be taken off the Web site.
Then again, these were names that were provided in the course of an investigation. You know, one official argued it doesn't hurt to have them up there, because, if someone does happen to know -- have some information about any of these individuals, it could actually help in that ongoing investigation into the human smuggling ring, which they contend is very important in the war on terror, because one of the ways that terrorists make their way to the United States is by obtaining false documents.
NEVILLE: Let's talk about Michael Hamdani. He is the so-called informant in this case. Where is he and what's likely to happen to him? ARENA: Well, he's supposed to be extradited here to the United States. He's facing forgery charges here in the United States dating back to 1996.
He was supposed to appear before a judge, but got out of the country and has been out of the country since then. So, he was in custody in Canada. They dropped the charges against him. Those were document fraud charges -- that he could be extradited back to the United States.
His lawyer, when asked about this, contended that Hamdani did cooperate with authorities and that, as far as he's concerned, the information that he provided was truthful. But FBI officials here have said that they believe that he fabricated some facts in order to try to get a better deal once he had to face charges here in the United States.
NEVILLE: Boy.
All right, Kelli Arena, thank you so much for sorting all of that out for us. And we will talk back to you when we get more details, when you have more details for us. Thanks a lot, Kelli.
ARENA: You're welcome.
NEVILLE: So, here's a question, though. Was the FBI hasty in its decision to issue the manhunt or was it justified?
Hussein Ibish, communications director of the American Arab Anti- Discrimination Committee joins us from Washington, as well as we have attorney Jack Burkman.
Good to see both of you here today.
JACK BURKMAN, ATTORNEY: Hello, Arthel.
HUSSEIN IBISH, AMERICAN-ARAB ANTI-DISCRIMINATION COMMITTEE: Delighted to be with you.
NEVILLE: Well, good.
You know, geez, Hussein Ibish, when this story is played out in the Arab-American community, got to hear the reaction from you.
IBISH: Yes.
I think what we were urging from the beginning is caution and calm. And what we're saying is, look, there's a lot of confusion about this. We don't really understand what exactly the government is trying to tell us. It's not clear if they even are clear on the information they have.
For instance, we were told these were five Arab men. But almost all of those names, if you look at the whole names that were given, were clearly not Arabic names. So, it was obvious from the start that there was a real problem with the information the government thought it had.
And, secondly, there was the notion of directing a nationwide manhunt, A, based simply on five people illegally entering the country. Thousands of people enter the country every week with difficult documents; and, secondly, the question of the quality of the information. I think those words of caution were well-advised.
BURKMAN: Let me situate this in some perspective.
Imagine how all of this debate would be moot and how all of these stories would be off the table if you had had a second terrorist attack on the United States. One of the reasons you haven't had a second terrorist attack is because the FBI has done a good job and has been aggressive. Look, the nature of an investigation like this is that mistakes happen.
IBISH: That's fine.
(CROSSTALK)
IBISH: Yes, but we should learn lessons from it.
NEVILLE: And, Jack, here's another question for you, then. Do you ever ask the question, which is, how does it get to the point of a nationwide manhunt, when you -- before you realize that the so-called informant possibly fabricated the entire story?
BURKMAN: That's a good question, but you have to understand the nature of informants. Most of these people are criminals. They're people with criminal backgrounds.
The FBI knows this. The police know this. The state police know this. What type of people have information about other criminals? People who have been to jail, people with criminal histories. There are risks to using informants. The problem, Arthel, is, there are also high risks to not using informants and mistakes happen.
(CROSSTALK)
BURKMAN: If you'll let me finish.
The problem with this is that the left wants it both ways. If you will go back to all of the shows we did last year over the summer, they were criticizing the FBI for not doing enough, for not following enough leads, for not running everything down. Now they want to raise a racial issue. Now they're coming at it from the other side.
IBISH: No, that's fair.
What basically needs -- what we need to do is learn lessons as we go along. Obviously, mistakes are going to be made. There's no question we want an aggressive pursuit of potential terrorists. That's not the issue. The issue is, when we have an incident like this, can't we realize that there's more we need to learn? For instance, it should have been obvious to people in the government, as it was to me, that the supposed identity, ethnicity of these guys as Arabs didn't match the names.
BURKMAN: Perfection is not the standard.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Jack and Hussein, let's take a look now at this guy Michael Hamdani's rap sheet. Look at there: in '96, arrested in New York for knowingly and intentionally possessing false identification documents, posted a $200,000 bond and skipped town; October 2002, arrested in Ontario, Canada, after investigation into forged traveler's checks. Police say the house search found $600,000 in forged traveler's checks and fake passports.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Hang on. I understand your point there, Jack, but come on. How do you trust a liar?
IBISH: A professional liar.
BURKMAN: What you have to understand is that 90 percent of informants used by the FBI in the United States probably have rap sheets like that. It's the nature of the business. We're just looking at one case in time.
Look, the issue here is the racial profiling. People are upset because, well, all of them are of Mideast descent. Maybe some of them were Arabs. Some of them were Pakistanis. The issue my fine colleague is raising today is one of racial profiling.
IBISH: Well, sort of. There's more to it than that.
BURKMAN: The bottom line is this. If we've learned anything from 9/11, there's nothing wrong with law enforcement in this country being at least sensitive to racial and ethnic variables in looking at people who might be committing crimes.
IBISH: I think that that is to completely misstate the lesson of this particular incident.
I think the lesson of this incident is that we need to proceed with a certain amount of caution. I think that it's obvious to everybody that the FBI jumped the gun here in asking the general public for a nationwide -- to help in a nationwide manhunt.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: So, Hussein, quickly, what would you like the FBI to do now, quickly?
IBISH: Well, the first thing that they need to do is, be more cautious before raising anxieties in the general public and in the community.
BURKMAN: But what are the costs of that? IBISH: Secondly, they need to take more time to learn more about the realities of the Islamic world to tell the differences between Arabs and people from South Asia, where there's clear confusion here. That's easy. That's not hard.
(CROSSTALK)
BURKMAN: The problem is, you cannot really see this in a law enforcement paradigm at all. There is a war being fought on American soil. I think the president, the Justice Department, police enforcement all over the country, the Quirin case, if you look at the law on this, they don't even have to be working in the criminal justice system at all. They have military authority. They can detain people and subject them to military tribunals.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Guy, that is where I have to leave it, because I do have to go to a break right now.
Hussein Ibish and Jack Burkman, so good to see both of you again today. Thanks for being here.
IBISH: Bye.
NEVILLE: OK.
And still ahead: The NFL admits a bad call might have cost the Giants a victory Sunday against the 49ers. Say what? Well, that leads us to our "Question of the Day": Should the Giants get a rematch? Go ahead and e-mail me or give me a call and I will take your answers later this hour.
Up next, though: President Bush says he's got the right medicine for the U.S. economy. But will it fatten your wallet? Motley Fool David Gardner has the answers when we come back.
We're back after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Well, President Bush lays out his plans for economic growth. The cost of the package: $670 billion. Is it worth it and who will benefit?
That's coming up on TALKBACK LIVE.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Welcome back, everybody.
This afternoon, President Bush unveiled his plan to boost the economy. The White House says the $674 billion plan would create 2.1 million jobs and provide 92 million Americans with an average $1,083 tax cut. Now, Democrats, who issued a plan of their own yesterday, say that plan favors the rich, but the president says it will be far- reaching.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Americans carry a heavy burden of taxes and debt that could slow consumer spending. I'm troubled by that. I'm also troubled by the fact that our tax system unfairly penalizes some productive investments.
And I worry about people who are out of work. They need our help, both in short-term benefits and long-term opportunity. By directly confronting each of these challenges, we can preserve the hard-won gains our economy has made and advance toward greater prosperity.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: OK, so, what does the president's stimulus package mean for the average American?
OK, to help us tackle that question -- What's up with that hat, dude? -- Motley Fool -- Do you always wear this? -- David Gardner.
DAVID GARDNER, THE MOTLEY FOOL: Arthel, this is probably the 37th time I've worn it on CNN.
NEVILLE: You know what? I've not had you here on TALKBACK LIVE, so I'm shocked by it. But, anyway, hi, David. He's joining us from Washington.
Listen, the president says he'll stop taxing dividends. Who is this good for?
GARDNER: Well, it's really good, particularly for people who invest. And that's half of our country today, Arthel. Half of Americans own stock. And that's very different from the way things were 30 years ago.
So, I think what you're seeing is, you're seeing companies that used to, in effect, have to pay a 35 percent tax to share the wealth with their shareholders be able to now say, you know what? We may not have to pay a tax anymore on that. We'll start paying out more money to shareholders. So, I think most Americans benefit from this.
NEVILLE: And, David, help us understand, if you have a 401(k) plan, because a lot of people have that, as opposed to individual stocks. How does that work if you have a 401(k) plan?
GARDNER: The answer is, it won't really matter to you, because your dividends aren't taxed within that plan. The money stays within your 401(k) plan.
Now, what will happen, though, is that the stock market will do much better, because this is a great move for the stock market. The stock market is trading up over the last seven days. It's up about 5 percent, I think, in anticipation of this being at least presented, if not passed. And I think it actually will be passed. But it's a great move for the stock market. And the baby boomers, who have watched their savings get cut in half here over the last three years, it's a very significant move for many older people.
NEVILLE: Well, that's good. Baby boomers aren't old.
GARDNER: You know, 42 and up. I'm 36. They're old.
NEVILLE: Hello. Watch it there. I'm not that close to 42, though. OK, maybe I am.
(LAUGHTER)
NEVILLE: Listen, the question is, what will ending this dividend tax do to the overall budget deficit?
GARDNER: Well, supposedly, it will cause it to go up. And that's because less money will be raised. That's the theory.
Now, in fact, I think what will happen is, the money gets redeployed, right? You and I have more money at the end of the day left over to spend ourselves. And, usually, what that does is good stuff. In American capitalism, it means more jobs. It means better conditions for -- even people who have the least in our society end up doing better in the end.
I know that there's a lot of talk about this is the rich and it only benefits the rich. Well, again, half of Americans today own stocks. And so, I think it's a net very positive move.
NEVILLE: OK, I have a question from Craig here in the audience.
Stand up, sir, and direct your question to David.
CRAIG: David, my concern is that the facts show that only 1.2 million people are going to be affected by these plans. The population of the U.S. is, what, 260, 280 million. Surely, that's a very, very small number of people.
GARDNER: Well, let me say that, if it were that small, truly, if it were that small, then we wouldn't even really be debating this on national television. The fact is, it's a more important thing than just the direct beneficiaries.
The direct beneficiaries themselves will have that money to spend. And rather than Uncle Sam spending it for them, my belief is, most Americans do a better job spending their own money than Uncle Sam. So, there's a very significant effect across the whole economy, including the stock market, which, of course, so many more than one million people are invested in.
NEVILLE: OK. So, David, Bush's plan will speed up tax cuts for businesses and individuals will and also will end that marriage tax penalty. And I want to ask you now, then, who will get the money back and how much money are we talking about? GARDNER: Well, we're talking about -- for the average American, we're talking about four figures. We're talking about a couple thousand, the child benefit. And so, this is significant on an individual household level.
But when you actually aggregate it across the economy, it's very significant. And I truly believe that, historically, when we've allowed Americans to spend their money the way that they want to, as opposed to taxing them, like so many other countries have done -- it's called socialism -- and have the government decide where the money is spent, you end up with a better society, with more freedom and more prosperity.
NEVILLE: OK, listen, David, thank you so much for being here with us today -- David Gardner.
Up next: The Reverend Al Sharpton is on a new mission, one he hopes will take him to the White House in two years. Could he be our next president?
Your chance to talk to him when TALKBACK LIVE returns after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Well, the Reverend Al Sharpton says he'll run for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004. What are his chances?
Sharpton, the president and founder of the National Action Network, a civil rights organization, joins us now from New York to talk about his plans.
Welcome, Reverend. Good to see you.
AL SHARPTON, NATIONAL ACTION NETWORK: Thank you. Happy new year.
NEVILLE: Thank you. Same to you.
You say the issue is not: If I run, can I win? Rather, if I run, we can't lose.
Why do you say that?
SHARPTON: Well, I think that as we formally will file an exploratory committee this month and, later in the year, move toward a formal announcement, many of the concerns and issues that I think have been ignored and marginalized will have to be dealt with.
NEVILLE: And what are those issues, sir?
SHARPTON: Well, first of all, I don't think there is a real opposition in the national Democratic Party to the war in Iraq.
Many of the people that have announced exploratory committees or their intentions to run are members of the United States Senate and Congress, who are Democrats, who voted for Bush to have the right to do exactly what he's doing. And that's move us to war without first firmly establishing where the weapons of mass destruction are that he says exist and what the imminent danger is.
I remember, when I was a kid, John Kennedy showed the Cuban missiles. And we only had Instamatic cameras in those days. It seems strange to me, with all this technology, we can't show at least our allies the weapons that we claim we have information that supposedly is in Iraq.
NEVILLE: And Reverend Sharpton...
SHARPTON: I don't think that we've really had an opposition to this.
NEVILLE: And then, if you were president, then, would you -- without proof, would you go to war with Iraq?
SHARPTON: If I were president, without proof, I would not go to war.
What I would do is similar to what Bush is doing with proof with North Korea. One has to ask yourself, if you have one country that you say you think there are weapons -- you don't know -- and you're going to war; you have another country that says, you know there's weapons and we lied about it, but you're going to sit down and talk to them, that is an inconsistency that has not been explained by the Bush administration.
How can you talk to who you know has weapons and lied to you, but you've got to send our young men and women in to another place where you've not been able to establish weapons? Someone needs to challenge that.
NEVILLE: What do you think is behind that?
SHARPTON: Well, I don't know. Is it oil? Is it some other motive? I think that Mr. Bush and his administration needs to answer the inconsistencies in their approach to Iraq and North Korea.
NEVILLE: Now, you just painted a scenario with North Korea. How would you handle North Korea?
SHARPTON: I think North Korea, the way that it should be handled is, clearly, we ought to not only have discussions and not only talk to others, such as China and others that can play a major role here in trying to bring about some type of clarity and protection for United States citizens and others, but, again, I think that we can do the same around the world.
I do not think that the United States makes allies by just threatening military action. There are 1.1 billion people in the world today that need clean water.
(CROSSTALK) NEVILLE: Reverend, I have to take a break. But before we get there, I want to ask you one quick question about the economy. I wanted to know, what sort of budget would you frame that would help most Americans?
SHARPTON: I think that we should invest in creating jobs. Felix Rohatyn has a plan, $250 billion plan, to rebuild the infrastructure of this country, adding $50 billion a year to the deficit and the jobs it create would pay it.
I would have a plan that would invest in creating jobs, not in giving tax cuts to the wealthy, while we're not really trying to make it a viable economy for those that need employment and those that need to feed their families.
NEVILLE: OK, Reverend Sharpton, if you can hang on for me, I have Rick in South Carolina who wants to speak to you, as well as some folks in the audience, and e-mails coming in.
We're going to have more with Reverend Al Sharpton after a short break.
And then later: A bad call lands NFL referees in hot, hot water and sends the Giants to the sidelines. But is "I'm sorry" enough, or do the Giants deserve a rematch? That's our "Question of the Day." I'll take your thoughts on that later this hour.
We're back in a moment. Don't go anywhere. The talk continues after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Welcome back, everybody, we're talking with the Reverend Al Sharpton who would love to be in the White House come 2004. Joining us from New York. Here in the audience, Dimana (ph) has a question for Rev. Sharpton.
DIMANA (ph): Would you bring back the draft?
SHARPTON: I have been opposed to the draft, though I think that Congressman Charles Rangel has done the country a service by raising the issue and making it clear that only certain segments of society now dominate the populous of the military. But I have been one that has been opposed to the draft and I think that the contradictions he raises, though, is healthy at this time, because many of the people that are touting war the loudest will have no investment of themselves or their families.
NEVILLE: So is that a yes or no, you would bring --
SHARPTON: I applaud the raising of the issue, but I do not support a mandatory draft.
NEVILLE: Okay. Let's go to the phones now. South Carolina is where Rick is on the phone. What's your question, sir? CALLER: Yes, thank you very much. First off, I applaud your courage, Rev. Sharpton in fighting the good fight. Continue to do so. Also, they have the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, the Independent Party and the Green Party, created by Ralph Nader. Since Ralph Ellison is no longer with us, should we create the Invisible Man Party?
SHARPTON: Well, I think that the problem is that we've been invisible in most of the parties you just named. That is the problem. I think when you look at the fact that many of us vote around this country, not just blacks, not just Latinos, but many average white citizens, many women, many disabled, and we are asked, particularly the Democratic Party, to step back, don't be too visible so we can play to another vote. I think it's offensive and insulting, which is why I said what you quoted in the beginning, that you can't lose, because I'm going to force the issues onto the table that I think the majority of Americans are concerned about, rather than this Beltway mentality of trying to play to a small segment of Americans that I don't think is ever going to vote Democratic in the first place.
NEVILLE: Okay. Jonathan here in the audience, your question, sir?.
JONATHAN: Yes, you just mentioned that you would work to create jobs. I'm sure that every presidential candidate would say the same thing. What specifically would you do to create jobs?
SHARPTON: I think I was specific in quoting economist Felix Rohatyn's plan. The first thing I would do is that, a $250 billion plan to rebuild the infrastructure of this country. We have roadways, tunnels, highways, school buildings. In his plan, $165 billion alone is need to do rebuild school buildings. It's not just about creating meaningless jobs. We have infrastructural problems and we could create jobs, create training, do a service, and those people become taxpayers and become sufficient heads of households. That's what we need to invest in, not a trickle down economic theory that didn't work under Reagan 22 years ago. It will not work today.
NEVILLE: Okay. Let's take an e-mail coming in now from Rich in California: Sharpton can't be taken seriously for president until he does the decent thing and apologizes for the false accusation he made during the Tawana Brawley case. You say what, sir?
SHARPTON: Well, first of all, if one is to be taken seriously as one runs and gets elected or gets sufficient votes. If this person wants to disagree with me on a case, young lady found four days out in the cold and given a story that -- some of the most credible lawyers at that time represented her -- I believed and championed. If he wants to go back and disagree with me on a case 15 years ago, that's his privilege. Many people disagreed with me when I stood up for the Central Park jogger case. A court just reversed those convictions and said we were right. So we can go case by case in my career, or we can deal with the fact that we have fought the social justice issues for the last 25 years and I think that those issues need to be front and center in the national debate.
NEVILLE: Okay, sir. Tefay from California.
CALLER: Good morning, Rev. Sharpton. You've been quoted as saying that you plan to bring liberalism back to the Democratic Party. Could you expound on what you mean by that?
SHARPTON: What I said was that I think those that have said being a liberal, being anti-war, anti-death penalty, pro-choice for women, I think that those that have said that liberalism is now a dirty word need to be confronted by people that are very proud and very forthright in saying that is exactly what I believe. I believe that it is necessary to bring the country back to those kinds of positions.
And I think the majority of Americans would rally around it. I don't think that the right wing defeated us as much as we surrendered. We did not fight them. We allowed them to intimidate us into submitting into some type of political matrix of imitating them, rather than standing up for what we believe.
NEVILLE: Okay. Reverend Al Sharpton, we're out of time. I do appreciate your being here on TALKBACK LIVE again today. Good to see you.
SHARPTON: Thank you.
NEVILLE: OK. Thank you. And tomorrow, we are going to talk with a man who blames liberals for pretty much everything wrong with this country. It's your chance to talk back to talk show host Michael Savage of the Savage Nation.
But coming up next, a big game of bad call and now bitter feelings. The controversy over Sunday's game between the New York Giants and San Francisco 49ers. That's coming up next on TALKBACK LIVE.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Hello, everybody. And Arthel Neville. They messed up. The NFL says referees missed a call that may have cost the New York Giants a victory Sunday against the San Francisco 49ers. Well, officials say pass interference should have been called on the final play of the game. Well, that would have given the -- New York a second chance to try a game-winning field goal.
Joining me now is Sid Rosenberg of sports radio WFAN in New York. Hello.
SID ROSENBERG, WFAN: Hi, Arthel.
NEVILLE: And former Detroit Lion Ryan Stewart is here in Atlanta with me. And Ryan is also a sports radio talk show host on Atlanta's 790, "The Zone."
All right, Sid. I mean, don't they have those refs sitting up in the booths up there. Couldn't they have called for some sort of replay? ROSENBERG: Well, the problem was, basically, the back judge was the guy that should have made the call. And Arthel, they actually rate these referees. He is the highest-rated back judge in the NFL. Doesn't get better than this guy.
What happened was there was a player down field. If there's an offensive lineman in the game, he has to come in before and tell the referees he's eligible to catch the football.
NEVILLE: Which is what he did.
ROSENBERG: The Giants did do that. I guess the referee was confused. He called "illegal man down field" and he thought it was the same player, so he never threw the interference flag. Because he never threw the interference flag, there was no offsetting penalties, game over, Giants don't have a second chance to kick the game-winning field goal.
NEVILLE: OK. But I understand you said that this particular ref is, like, you know, topnotch, top of his game. But he's a human being, he can make mistakes, too, right. So can't they check this guy's mistakes? What do you say, Ryan?
RYAN STEWART, FORMER DETROIT LION: Well, I think is a travesty because of the fact that the coaches, the players, the owners, they put so much time into getting their teams to this point in the season. And before the game is even called or even started, the numbers of all of the eligible receivers for any particular time in the game is given to the referee, so the ref should have known beforehand, OK, field goal units on the field, here are the guys that are eligible. And because this guy was down the field, there was definitely pass interfere, no doubt. It should have been called. And they need to make some type of supplemental reason so, after the course of a game, if there's an extra time that you need to review plays, you can review it, because the replay factor is not good enough, if the coaches and use it inside of the two-minute warning.
NEVILLE: Exactly. But those guys in the booth could call it, right, inside the two-minute warning?
STEWART: Exactly. And the guys in the booth should have called it which, apparently, they didn't. I heard Fassel almost had a fit, like a 2-year-old child, on the field, but it did no good and they wouldn't allow him to do anything. Something needs to be done. You look at the Miami game on Friday night, the same thing happened with the bad call. Now you look at the game this weekend. These teams fight too hard during six weeks of training camp.
NEVILLE: That's right. And Ryan, as you know very well, I mean, this is not -- it's more than losing a game. These guys, you guys have incentives for winning so many games, making it to the playoffs, all that stuff. I mean, we're talking about livelihoods who are messed up.
STEWART: The check the 49ers got for winning that game is going to at least will double, if not triple, for this upcoming game. So you've got a team, because of a call, possibly -- we don't know if the field goal would have been made -- but because of a call, possibly...
NEVILLE: Right.
STEWART: ... we've got a team that doesn't even have that option to get that check. Much less, how about the players that are in- betweeners that are not guaranteed to be on an NFL team. Now their opportunities to ever play again may be over...
NEVILLE: That's right.
STEWART: ... if they don't get resigned.
NEVILLE: That's right.
STEWART: So all that stuff needs to be thought about.
NEVILLE: You're right. And you know what, and so many e-mails are coming across on this particular story. I want to share one with you right now, coming in from Stephen in Georgia. He says "It's really outrageous that in a game of such importance, the refs couldn't see the obvious. I had no problem seeing it as it happened, and I am no ref." But he's on TV -- he's watching it on TV, so maybe he has a little bit of a better vantage point. Maybe not, I don't know.
STEWART: These referees are making anywhere between $60,000 $75,000, $80,000, on top of their other jobs. They're flown in town week in and week out, out of town, week in and week out, to just make their proper calls. And if they can't make their proper calls, then they shouldn't be there. And if they don't make the proper calls, they need to be held accountable for it at the highest stake. Michael Vick is fined...
NEVILLE: Like what, maybe be fired?
STEWART: ... Michael Vick is fined $5,000 for having his socks too high. OK, but then the NFL can rescind that fine because, oh, we were wrong. What can be done for Jim Fassel, as well as the Giants at this point in time now?.
NEVILLE: Yes. Well, what can be done, Sid?
ROSENBERG: Well, nothing can be done. I actually spoke to Ernie Accorsi today, who's the general manager of the New York Football Giants. And they're obviously frustrated, they're anxious, they're upset. But let's face it, they lost the game, way before that penalty at the end of the football game. The Giants had a 24-point lead. There were 17 minutes left. The 49ers went up and down the field, nearly gained 300 yards of offense, scored 25 unanswered points, so the Giants know full well that it wasn't the last play that cost them the football game. One point to clarify, though, the back judge knew it was an interference call. He knew the guy was illegal, but the problem was he was confused. He didn't realize which guy was which, who was eligible and who wasn't. That's where the confusion started. He saw the guy get dragged down.
NEVILLE: Yes, but if you're confused, then stop and take a look at the tapes or do something.
STEWART: Sid, I'd like to say also that I definitely agree with you because the play, that total play didn't lose the Giants that game. It came down to plays before that. But at the same time--
NEVILLE: Yes, but didn't they have, like, a 24-point lead?
STEWART: They had a 24-point lead that they did lose, but you've got to say "but" because after the game the referees are so incredibly interested in getting off the field, as soon as they call that last play. What about having them stick around, because they have to be held accountable for something like this. Maybe the play would have been kicked and the ball would have missed or maybe he would have kicked it and made it and just gone into overtime and they still would have lost the game. But the Giants deserve that chance.
NEVILLE: Right, right. He...
ROSENBERG: Well, I don't disagree with that. I think, the Giants, Ryan, do deserve that chance. But you know, you made the comparisons to the Miami-Ohio State game on Friday night, which was a good one. But don't forget, there was a call made there, a bad call and nevertheless, Miami should have been national champions, but there was a call made. The problem with the Giant game was the omission of the call. There was no call made. That's where the Giants would get that second opportunity. That's where it's hard to really fight anything, because there was never a call made to fight with in the beginning.
STEWART: Talking to you from the player's standpoint, Sid, what about when I bust a call or I get in trouble on the field and I get fined $5,000 or $10,000, OK? What is going to happen to this referee? Is there anything going to happen to him...
ROSENBERG: No, no.
STEWART: ...or is he going to be back on the field next weekend, calling another game?
ROSENBERG: He probably will, because like I said, he is one of the highest rated -- he is the highest-rated back judge in all of the NFL. He's the most well-respected. These guys think he does the best job. So, yes, he'll be right back in action, if not this weekend, the next weekend, and all will be forgotten, except for the fans here in New York City.
NEVILLE: All right, listen.
STEWART: That's not fair, Sid.
NEVILLE: OK. Jeff is standing by on the phone in California. Talk to you in a minute, Jeff. Do the Giants deserve a rematch? That's what we're talking about right now. It is also our question of the day, so give us a call or e-mail us, and you'll want to tune in tomorrow, because sir Charles Barkley will be back with me here with his take on the news. That's right. I'm sure he'll have a lot to say about this particular story, as well. So we'll be back in a moment, so don't go anywhere.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: OK. I said I was going to go to California to talk to Jeff. Jeff, what do you say about this?
CALLER: Well, I want to say hello to you, Arthel and I miss you in Los Angeles.
NEVILLE: OH, I miss LA, too. Hello.
CALLER: OK. Listen, I watched the game -- the whole game on Sunday, and, obviously, what Ryan said, you know, they had a 24-point lead and they blew it. But when you're taking money, a possible money out of somebody's paycheck, and the referees who are held to higher standards because they're officials, these guys should be strictly -- have a paycheck or miss two paychecks or be severely fined or possibly suspended for that, because if a player, like Michael Vick is fined $5,000, why can't a referee get suspended for making a terrible call in that game?
NEVILLE: You are right, Jeff (ph). Hey, Sid, so can a referee get suspended or be fined?
ROSENBERG: They can, but not in this case. What the NFL said to this specific referee, Arthel, was, Hey, you know what? Next time, throw the flag. If you're not sure about which way to go, at least if you throw the flag, then we have something to discuss. We can take four or five minutes to figure out whether you are right or not, but by not throwing the flag, by omitting that part of it, there was no call to begin with. But you know what? Arthel, do you make mistakes? I know I do.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Oh yes, we all make mistakes. But still, I didn't cost somebody the possibility to go to the Super Bowl. That's a big deal.
STEWART: What I was going to say, Sid, you may agree with this. Even if they fine the referee, donate some of the money that they fine him to the players that didn't make the playoffs any further which would be the Giants, the opportunity to get to the playoffs are slim to none. I played five years, went to one playoff game. Some guys play 15 years, and never make it to the playoffs.
(CROSSTALK)
STEWART: Well, you can really look at it from this standpoint. No, it didn't cost them the game. Their play cost them the game, but still, you've got to say, well, they're not even going to get that opportunity, and some guys don't even get the opportunity to play the game again because they may not re-sign with people.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: All right. Listen, Ray -- Ray, you have a good question, don't you?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, I was just going to make a comment that unfortunately, bad calls are part of the game and so are bad plays on the part of the players. And you just can't blame it on one last play when they were up 38-14 and let it get away from them.
NEVILLE: OK. Listen, I have an e-mail coming through I want to share with you. Coming in now from Georgia, Pat in Georgia. "The 49ers played a tremendous game, what a comeback. The refs didn't cause the Giants to lose the game, the defense did."
Oh, they're talking about the defense, Ryan.
STEWART: Yes, I agree totally. The 49ers did exactly what they needed to do. Steve Mariucci should put a 49ers -- he changed his exact game plan from the first half to the second half, where as Fassel stopped doing what he did to get that 24-point lead. So that's why this whole call matter really can go right out the door, because they still found a way to win, that being the 49ers, but still, the referees have to be held accountable, and there has to be something else they can do to tweak the system to make it a little bit more fair towards the end of a ball game, especially within two minutes when the coach cannot throw the penalty flag, but it has to come from upstairs.
NEVILLE: OK. But Sid, you know what, there are no fans like New York fans. How are they dealing with all of this?
ROSENBERG: Not well, Arthel. Not doing too well. I had the unfortunate opportunity to do the pregame show for the Giants on WFAN radio up here in New York, and I know a lot of the players and a lot of the coaches, and I think a lot of us were in shock. I know for me, at about 6:30 p.m. Eastern time Sunday night, I was making reservations to go to Tampa Bay for the next playoff game, and about 35 minutes later, I totally shut down, shut my ringer off my phone, shut the television off, refused to watch any highlights. So it's very, very disappointing...
NEVILLE: Did you cry, Sid?
ROSENBERG: You know, it's probably not right to admit, a man on national television, if I cried over a football game, Arthel, but yes, I did.
NEVILLE: I figured that. I bet a lot of those New York guys did too.
ROSENBERG: We cried. We'll get our chance again next year though.
NEVILLE: All right. Sid Rosenberg and Ryan Stewart, thank you both for joining us here today on TALKBACK LIVE.
And up next, our question of the day. Should the Giants get a rematch? Your responses coming up on TALKBACK LIVE.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) NEVILLE: And it is time for our question of the day. Should the Giants get a rematch? Going to the e-mails now.
Oh, boy, should they get a rematch?
Kelli in Virginia says, "The Giants clearly had another chance to win that game and the refs took that from them. We as fans pay too much money for tickets to not see a playoff game end fairly."
Thank you very much.
Chris in Louisiana: "The Giants were probably going to miss the field goal. A good team doesn't allow a team to come back from 24 down in the second half. The team that deserved to win won, bottom line."
Going to the telephones now -- Illinois, Chris, what do you say?
CALLER: Yes -- refs have been blowing calls in American sports for 100-plus years, and the Giants really have no one to blame for their choke but themselves and for whining Giants fans, I have only one thing to say. J-E-T-S. Jets, Jets, Jets.
NEVILLE: All right. Thanks for the call. And we're going to the e-mails again. Let's see who is writing in now.
Troy in Nova Scotia: "The Giants deserve the rematch because officials blew the call. They should at least get to kick the field goal again."
I don't think that's going to happen.
Well, listen. We are out of time. I'm Arthel Neville. Thanks so much for joining me today. I'll see you again tomorrow 3:00 Eastern, noon Pacific for more TALKBACK LIVE. "INSIDE POLITICS" with Judy Woodruff is up next.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
|
