|
CNN TALKBACK LIVE
Free-For-All Friday for January 17, 2003
Aired January 17, 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: Today on TALKBACK LIVE: Saddam Hussein warns the United States any attack on Iraq on would be suicide, while the White House has some tough words of its own after the inspectors latest discovery in Baghdad. We'll have details.
Also: a live report on the search for Laci Peterson. Find out what's being reported about the missing pregnant's woman's husband and a hefty insurance policy.
Then: Family members of two D.C. sniper victims planned to sue, not just the accused snipers, but the guys who sold the gun and the company that made it. Who's really to blame?
And, as the U.S. sends tens of thousands of troops to the Mideast, some vets are going to be shut out of medical care for a while. Do people who serve in the military deserve medical benefits for life?
All this and more as our panel tries to beat the bell on "Free- For-All Friday." It all starts right now.
Hello, everybody, and welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville. It is "Free-For-All Friday."
We're starting today with Iraq, where, early today, President Saddam Hussein warned that any army entering Iraq would commit suicide at the walls of Baghdad. At the same time, anti-war protesters are gearing up for demonstrations in major cities this weekend, opposing what they called propaganda by the Bush administration.
Now, protesters will march as tens of thousands of U.S. troops ship out to the Persian Gulf region to join those already there. And the drumbeat gets louder as the White House says yesterday's discovery of 12 empty chemical warheads shows that Saddam Hussein is not disarming.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Here's what we do know to date. The chemical warheads found by the inspectors were not -- not -- on the declared list that Iraq provided to the world indicating what weapons it said it possessed. The fact that Iraq is in possession of undeclared chemical warheads, which the United Nations says are in excellent condition, is, in and of itself, a serious and troubling matter. (END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: And here to talk about the U.S. showdown with Iraq is Marc Bernier, the host of "The Marc Bernier Radio Show" on stations in Florida, Virginia and Tennessee; and Nancy Skinner, a nationally syndicated national radio talk show host on Good Day USA.
I want to welcome to you both.
MARC BERNIER, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Good to be here. Hi.
NANCY SKINNER, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Hi, Arthel. Happy Friday.
NEVILLE: Happy Friday.
Marc, I'm going to start with you today.
Does it appear that the Bush administration seems determined to move forward, regardless of opposition, regardless of what Saddam Hussein is saying?
BERNIER: Yes, I think so. Who cares what Germany says? Who cares what France or England say, despite the fact that Tony Blair is on our side?
The only hesitation I have if we find that these shells say somehow made in USA, like we sold them to someone who then sold them to Iraq, because that could complicate it. But these are little dribs and drabs. Today, Colin Powell said we're not playing our whole hand out as to what we have just yet. So, they have more information they just haven't revealed to everyone.
NEVILLE: Nancy, how do you see it?
SKINNER: Well, it depends on what the goal is, Arthel.
Is the goal disarm to Saddam Hussein or is it war? Because, if it's to disarm him, it's working. The process is working. The inspectors have found some weapons. Certainly, Saddam Hussein isn't making weapons now. As we speak, he's on the run. So, let this process play out a little bit, unless the goal is, of course, to go to war and you're going to jump at the first chance to say, aha, and we're going to go in and start bombing.
NEVILLE: So, then, what do you think is the plan here, or the Bush administration's perspective on this? Is it to go, aha, see, we got you?
SKINNER: I have thought that all along. Obviously, it came out in "The Washington Post" last week that, just six days after 9/11, President Bush had signed an order for military action in Iraq, just six days after 9/11, and that they've been trying to cram in some reason to actually do this.
Now, the Saudis have come up with a plan, "TIME" magazine reporting is today, to try to get Hussein out of there peacefully in sort of an arranged coup, pressure with all the Arab countries on Saddam Hussein. If we're smart, we should jump all over that, because, why do we want to go to war?
NEVILLE: Marc, is that the better way to go?
BERNIER: Well, yes. Everybody would like to see Saddam Hussein out of power. And I'm afraid now that everybody knows about it, it's not going to happen, one of the worst-kept secrets ever.
The Saudis have a plan to try to throw him out. But now everyone knows. Someone is flying into Cairo tomorrow to discuss with Arab leaders the possibility of getting Saddam Hussein to go into asylum. But this is not a case, as Nancy says, of, I'm looking for an excuse, got you; 200 times -- as of a couple days ago, 200 times allied forces have been fired upon while patrolling the no-fly zone, plus all of these other things that we're finding out about linkages between Saddam Hussein and weaponry.
We've had the excuse for a long time. The president truly wants to wait and try to work this out through a peaceful means. But we've got enough to go in there any time.
SKINNER: But, Marc, if it's simply about weapons of mass destruction, how can you deal with North Korea? They obviously have two nuclear weapons. They are snubbing their noses at us, saying they're going to make more. And we know they proliferate.
We can't say that, when you find that out a country that is hostile to us has nuclear weapons, we should immediately invade, because, obviously, we're being hypocritical with these two countries.
BERNIER: Nancy, you know as well as I do, this is extortion by North Korea. They did this before. They hold out. They threaten. They saber-rattle. Even the Chinese and the Russians can't reason with them.
Their deal is, if they get money and oil from us again, which we shut off because they were using it to produce weapons, they'll back off. Everyone knows this is about extortion.
NEVILLE: Then, Marc, let me ask you this, going back to Saddam Hussein now. Do you think his words are just merely rhetoric, saying that any attempts to enter into Iraq will basically be a form of suicide?
BERNIER: He's saying -- this is a guy that, 12 years ago today, said body bags will be coming to the United States. We will rise up. We will be victorious. This guy doesn't have a clue as to what he's in for. All his people do. All of the Arab neighbors do. But this guy's clueless. He has to put on a happy face.
NEVILLE: Let's take a look now at a recent Pew poll, the results from there. The poll show that people are for military action if inspectors find weapons. But only 29 percent favor military action if no weapons are found. We keep hearing, of course, that Iraq is good at hiding weapons and various other things. And so the question is, should Bush go to war if the inspectors find no weapons?
Nancy?
SKINNER: Oh, certainly not, because that's the whole idea, that we are making a claim that they're hiding weapons. If they don't have those weapons in a fruitless search, then we have no pretext go to war.
But even this find, yesterday, Arthel, 12 chemical warheads, everybody knows he's a bad guy and he is hiding weapons. But the U.N. estimated that 500,000 Iraqis will die in this war. Are we so willing to say, well, we found 12 weapons. That means we're going to kill 500,000 people? And then who knows what the consequences are, what Iraq will do to the region. It's outrageous to jump on this information. Give this process time.
BERNIER: Nancy, you just said it. Everybody knows he's hiding weapons. It took so long to get these people from the U.N. in there, I'm willing to bet you that he's stashed stuff in Syria and Iran, in the foothills of Iran, where there are no people, there is no security.
We don't have all the information out. When all the information comes out, you will find the guy has the weapons. The United States will reveal where they are. And that's when we're going in.
NEVILLE: OK, Keith, let me ask you, do you think Iraq is hiding weapons? And, if so, what sort of evidence would you need to go forward with military action?
KEITH: I do believe they are hiding weapons, but I also have to agree with Ms. Skinner that, if we don't find anything, we shouldn't go to war. If they have got a situation where they are hiding it, and we can't find it, how are we going to just make the statement that they have it and we can go to war?
NEVILLE: In kind of in that same vein of the anti-war vein, that is, there's a new ad that's going to be released. And I want to share it with the audience right now. Let's take a look at that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: One, two...
NARRATOR: War with Iraq, maybe it will end quickly. Maybe not. Maybe it will spread. Maybe extremists will take over countries with nuclear weapons. Maybe the unthinkable. Maybe that's why Americans are saying to President Bush, let the inspections work.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: OK, Nancy, that ad began running yesterday. That, coupled with the anti-war protests that are scheduled, do you think that anti-war sentiment will be heard?
SKINNER: Absolutely.
And I think the polls are showing that Americans are more skeptical of this whole thing because of what they pointed out in that ad, Arthel. We know that Iraq -- the first chance that they get, when this begins, they are going to do something to Israel. Israel has said they will not stand down.
I think the Saudis, the reason they want to somehow do this peacefully is, they understand that they are at risk of being overrun by their own people. We will then -- if you think we have anti- American hatred in the Arab world now, wait until we go into Iraq. Pakistan is a nuclear power currently with a very fragile dictatorship.
(BELL RINGING)
NEVILLE: And there is the bell. We do have to move on.
But, first, I want to hear from you on today's "Question of the Day": Is the media giving enough coverage to the anti-war movement? Go ahead and give me a call right now at 1-800-310-4CNN. Or, of course, you can e-mail me at TALKBACK@CNN.com.
And later this hour: The case of a missing pregnant woman shifts focus as reports surface her husband was having an affair. We'll have a live report just ahead.
Stay right there. TALKBACK LIVE continues after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Today on TALKBACK LIVE: Some military vets will discover the door is closed when they try to apply for medical care. Should veterans be given lifetime benefits? Or is that one benefit the country can't afford?
Also: Who is to blame for the D.C. sniper shootings? Wait until you hear who some of the victims are suing.
"Free-For-All" continues after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Welcome back, everybody. I'm Arthel Neville.
There are new developments in the disappearance of Laci Peterson. A newspaper report suggests police are now focused on the missing pregnant woman's husband. Laci has been missing since Christmas Eve.
CNN correspondent Rusty Dornin has the latest -- Rusty.
RUSTY DORNIN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Arthel, we have confirmed that Modesto police did go to Laci Peterson's family home on Wednesday night and showed them some pictures of husband Scott Peterson with a woman, allegedly, that he was having an affair with. They also told the family that he took out a $250,000 life insurance policy.
Apparently, a couple of those photos were taken in mid-December on a night when Laci Peterson thought her husband was actually at a business meeting in San Francisco. Now, the volunteer center, actually, in Modesto was shut down shortly after all this happened. And there was scheduled to be a press conference in Los Angeles announcing the opening of a volunteer center there, which Scott Peterson was going to take over.
Well, apparently, that is not happening now. But, on the way back from Los Angeles, one of our affiliates, KTVU, did speak with Scott Peterson. He claims "The Modesto Bee" is all lies.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
QUESTION: Well, what's the situation with it?
SCOTT PETERSON, HUSBAND OF LACI PETERSON: Well, it's a bunch of lies in the article. So, what are you going to do?
QUESTION: So, what is your plan now?
PETERSON: I'm going to come back to Modesto and open up my own volunteer center and find my wife and my kid.
QUESTION: And this has not stopped your resolve at all? Have you been able to convince the in-laws that that was B.S.? Or how does it stand with them? Are they supporting you?
PETERSON: I'm going to come back and open up my own volunteer center. That's all I have to say now.
QUESTION: OK.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DORNIN: Apparently, the family and close friends of Laci Peterson are feeling very betrayed by this revelation of this affair, apparently, that Scott Peterson was allegedly having. "The Modesto Bee" also did claim in their article that the police did tell the family that he is in some way responsible, that this discovery says that he's in some way responsible for her disappearance.
But the one thing for sure is that they did show the family the pictures of apparently this alleged affair.
NEVILLE: Rusty, do we know if Scott Peterson had taken out a life insurance policy on himself as well?
DORNIN: That, I do not know. All I know is that he did take out a couple of months ago -- while she was pregnant, apparently -- a life insurance policy on her.
NEVILLE: And do you know any other details about this alleged affair? DORNIN: Supposedly, she was from the Fresno area. That's all that I understand at this point. And, as I said, it was going on as recently as just in mid-December, because there was one date that was on the photos that someone who was very close to the family told me, on that night, they saw Laci Peterson at a party and she explained that her husband couldn't come because he was at a business meeting somewhere in San Francisco.
NEVILLE: And, Rusty, I understand the volunteer search center operated by family and friends, they decided to close it down. Can you tell us more about that?
DORNIN: Well, the volunteers that I spoke to said, one of the reasons that they shut it down was, of course, the intense media scrutiny that would follow this kind of discovery, but also that they were feeling so betrayed and devastated by this, that they did not want the opportunity to have to run into Scott Peterson, because Scott Peterson was coming into that center on a daily basis. And they are so upset by it that they did not want to see him and they made that decision to close it down.
NEVILLE: OK, Rusty Dornin, thank you so much for that update. And we'll be talking to you again, I'm sure, later.
Meanwhile, I want to bring in the panel. I want to thank our affiliate KTVU for that sound bite, first of all, and bringing back Marc Bernier and Nancy Skinner now.
Nancy, what do you make of this story?
SKINNER: Make of the story?
Before I get into the details of it, Arthel, I must say, this -- these kind of stories, really, isn't this like murder-tainment, a made-for-TV story, really? As I'm listening to these details, it's like we read a good mystery or something. It's like a train wreck: the perfect husband -- which, incidentally, I didn't believe that. There's no such thing.
And then he's having an affair now, a life insurance policy. It's like reading a good murder mystery. but we had this with JonBenet Ramsey and Chandra Levy and Nicole Simpson. Why is it that we are so fascinated and absorbed with a murder? We have all these important things going on in the world in Iraq and North Korea. And they're breaking in with Robert Blake on TV and Laci Peterson. It just seems out of proportion.
NEVILLE: Let me ask Gary here in the audience.
Should the media cover these types of stories?
GARY: I think a woman who's missing is a tragedy, but it's not national news. So, I don't believe that it should be covered on this level.
NEVILLE: OK. Thank you, sir, first of all. Marc, what about the idea, though, if in fact you have a missing person, that perhaps the media could aid in finding that person?
BERNIER: Well, this is a Modesto-Sacramento regional story at best, statewide, maybe, at best. This is not national news. And I don't mean to downplay this to the family, who is still searching for this woman, but we have to be very, very cautious before we made suggestions.
This guy stepped out on his marriage. That's an issue between him, his God and his wife. But a $250,000 insurance policy is not extraordinary in today's insurance world. Many people have them for more than that. He could have taken it out, because she was expecting a child. If something happened to her, there would some sort of moneys that are coming in. He does sound sneaky. He doesn't sound like he's being totally forthcoming.
But this is a local story, possibly regional. But I feel sorry for those people in Modesto, because they are always plastered on the news for the worst of possible cases.
NEVILLE: OK, thank you very much.
Listen, this story is going to continue, of course, one way or the other. Hopefully, they find Laci Peterson safe and sound. But, in the meantime, we're going to move on.
And coming up next: They fight for our country, but now some vets may find the government can't provide medical benefits anymore. We'll tell you why and ask: Is it fair?
Don't go anywhere. The talk continues after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody.
More U.S. troops are heading to the Persian Gulf today. The USS Bon Homme Richard left from California this morning, joining an armada of American warships powered up for a possible war with Iraq. But, back home, some veterans are finding themselves turned away when they try to enroll in the Veterans Affairs health care program.
As of today, so-called higher-income vets with nonservice-related injuries or illnesses will have to go someplace else for care. Now, the decision will affect some 160,000 -- 164,000 veterans. And, as an example of what's considered high income, in Atlanta, that would be a single person making about $38,000 a year.
The Veterans Administration is strapped due to a patient population that has ballooned from nearly three million in 1996 to nearly seven million today.
And, Marc, I'll start with you on this one.
Listen, once a veteran, always a veteran. Should some vets be dropped temporarily or not from medical coverage? This doesn't seem right.
BERNIER: Absolutely not. I would not drop any veterans from medical coverage, regardless of their economic standing.
These people make the supreme sacrifice to defend this country. They deserve the best possible Medicare we can give them. In addition, I believe that they should have a card that allows them to go to any hospital in the United States for treatment for the rest of their lives.
NEVILLE: OK, I have a veteran now calling in from Tennessee.
James, we'd like your thoughts on this.
OK.
Nancy, moving on to you. Again, once a veteran, always a veteran. Is it fair to drop the coverage, whether it be for one year or for six months?
SKINNER: No. Marc and I are on the same page on this one.
In fact, I am outraged at this, Arthel, that President Bush is going to have a tax cut, a trillion dollar tax cut, for the wealthiest 1 to 5 percent of this country, and, at the same time, slash health care for veterans. In addition to this for veterans, "The Stars & Stripes" magazine reported that President Bush was going to reduce their raise for active duty personnel.
It was supposed to be 4 percent. It's only going to be 2 percent. These are active duty people who we are asking to go to the Persian Gulf right now.
NEVILLE: To defend the country.
SKINNER: Maybe North Korea. And we're giving tax cuts to the rich and telling these people, go pound sand. It is outrageous.
NEVILLE: Donald, is this idea preposterous?
BERNIER: No, not at all. I agree with Nancy.
These veterans have been serving for years. And $38,000 is not a lot of money. So with the high cost of medical care and prescription drugs, this is something that the president really should look at again. I think these veterans deserve all their benefits.
NEVILLE: Thank you very much, sir.
Right now, I want to go ahead and introduce some other members of our panel, beginning with Tara Setmayer, a Republican political consultant and senior fellow at the Coalition on Urban Renewal and Education.
Hi.
TARA SETMAYER, GOP POLITICAL CONSULTANT: How are you?
NEVILLE: Good.
And Carlos Watson. He is an attorney and a Silicon Valley entrepreneur.
I want to welcome you to the show as well.
CARLOS WATSON, ATTORNEY: Arthel, it's good to see you again.
NEVILLE: Oh, I want to give you a little more props here, a few more props. Carlos has worked on the staffs of many Democrat politicians. I wanted to get that in there.
And, Tara, I am going to start with you.
We've been talking about the situation here. Now, one of the goals is that, by the end of this year, that vets won't have to wait longer than 30 days to see a primary care physician. Now, does this indicate that there's a problem here, if you have to wait more than 30 days to get to a doctor?
SETMAYER: Most definitely.
Down in south Florida, I deal with a lot of service providers for the homeless and disadvantaged, including veterans. And the amount of bureaucracy, the paperwork, and the level of ineptitude dealing with staff who help these people is unbelievable to me. So, there's definitely a problem, both from an administrative perspective and a bureaucratic perspective as far as the services for these veterans.
Our veterans are a national treasure, as far as I'm concerned. They have given, dedicated their lives to protecting our freedoms here. And they should be afforded the best medical care and the best services.
However, just to be fair in this, the secretary of veterans affairs hasn't rejected -- hasn't dropped anyone. What he said is, we need to take a time out, because we do not have the funds right now to continue to allow these higher-income veterans the same benefits as some of the more disadvantaged ones.
NEVILLE: And then, also -- you're talking Principi. He also says that the 7.7 percent increase is not enough.
SETMAYER: Exactly. And I respect him at least for recognizing that there is a shortfall here in funds. And he's taking a time out and saying, let's review it to find out how we can improve this without compromising the care for those who really, really do need it, the most disadvantaged veterans.
SKINNER: But you know what? These people were told -- they were told when they went into the service that these were the benefits. Now, in 1996, that is when that law was passed. Congress ordered them to offer these benefits. Now they're not going to do it. You can't do that to someone, especially a veteran. BERNIER: And you can't take a time out just because of a slow economy.
(CROSSTALK)
SETMAYER: They're not saying that they cannot have benefits. What they're saying is that only -- 6.8 million veterans, including the higher-income veterans, are receiving this care; 164,000 of the higher-income veterans with nonservice-related medical conditions are the ones that they're saying, hey, listen, we have to understand that you may not be able to have access right now.
(CROSSTALK)
SETMAYER: But the president isn't saying we're dropping all veterans and that they can't receive medical care. This is for one aspect of it.
NEVILLE: Carlos, let me get you in there, because Principi, the veterans affair secretary, he proposed a $1,500 deductible for the so- called higher-income vets. Would this have been a better alternative?
WATSON: Arthel, I don't think any of these alternatives are right. And I think that Marc and Nancy put it very well.
There's a huge disconnect right now between those who are sending our young people off to war and those who actually are serving. And I think that, if Vice President Cheney, President Bush and others actually had their own children at stake here, indeed were people who themselves were veterans who were serving, I think this wouldn't be an issue.
And so, once again, Republicans, after enjoying a tremendous victory in the midterm elections, are once again proving they're bumbling.
(BELL RINGING)
WATSON: Falling on the Trent Lott decision and conversation, they now float a trial balloon like this, which is troubling.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: I need to go ahead and jump in. I wanted to let you finish your thoughts The bell has rung.
WATSON: Sorry.
NEVILLE: OK.
Up next: the political reaction to President Bush's stand on affirmative action.
Carlos, you'll get to speak out on that.
Is this an opportunity for Democrats to make a little hay? We're back in a moment. Don't go anywhere. The talk continues after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(NEWS ALERT)
(APPLAUSE)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. Will there be political fallout from President Bush's stand on affirmative action? This week Mr. Bush sided with three students suing the University of Michigan over its affirmative action program. The case is now before the Supreme Court.
Now while the president says he believes in diversity, he says the school's affirmative action program amounts to a quota system and is unconstitutional. Here's what the Democrats are saying.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. TOM DASCHLE (D-SD), MINORITY LEADER: Had President Bush chosen to support the university it would have been a powerful demonstration that his recent words about equality were matched by his commitment to achieving equality. In so doing, I believe he called into question his commitment to expanding opportunity for African- American, Hispanic, Native American students.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: OK, Carlos, are the Democrats using this for political hey?
WATSON: Sure they are. But here is what maybe is more important. I think affirmative action and the issue of opportunity of inclusion is a critical one. President Bush had a significant opportunity to show that indeed he wants to expand the Republican Party, as he's done to some extent by promoting people like Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell. But when he went and made his speech, I think what he proved was that President Clinton was right, when Clinton said during the Trent Lott controversy that what Republicans are really addicted to are racial politics.
And so I think he's missed a big opportunity. I think what we've seen happen here in California, where Republicans played racial politics ended up losing a whole generation of Latino voters who saw Pete Wilson, the then governor, go in the wrong direction on this. I think that they -- Republicans risk having the same thing happen in Texas and the rest of the country, is Latinos, African-Americans, Asian-American and white voters look out and say, this really isn't 21 century politics. This really isn't the kind of person who we want to see lead and expand and make all people feel included.
SKINNER: I'll tell you what, Arthel, I went to the University of Michigan. So I'm a graduate. Go Blue! And it was a very tough school to get into. And I enjoyed great diversity there and I think it is an asset. That's what people aren't really understanding.
Now as far as President Bush is concerned, this was a simple Carl Rove calculation. He's so worried about offending his conservative base, that it's worth it for him to risk the eight percent of the black vote he got in the last election to make sure he hammers down his base, which opposes affirmative action. And the idea that this is a quota system is ridiculous.
It's one of many factors that lead to the education at the University of Michigan, getting in there. And study after study shows that it really is effective, and the other race-neutral programs just don't provide for that kind of diversity.
BERNIER: This is such garbage it's ridiculous. The idea of affirmative action at this point is ridiculous. All it does is shift the prejudice from one group to another. Affirmative action has no end game. If its purpose is for retribution, then let the retribution happen.
And then at some point you have to sunset affirmative action, because all it does is shift the prejudice from one group to the other. The president was right on in making the statement when he made it. This is nothing about securing a base to get elected. If anything, they don't want to offend Hispanic people when they come up for re-election.
So this is a great risk for the president. This is not about firming up a base for re-election.
NEVILLE: Let me get Tara in there, please. Go ahead, Tara.
SETMAYER: That's right. You know I know that for the last -- well between '92 and 2000, we were used to a president that had no principles. This president has integrity and he is going through, making decisions based on principles. He believes that one group of people should not be discriminated against for another group of people under any circumstances.
If you want -- he is dedicated to solving the problem before they get to college, which is allowing minority students to get quality education in their public schools through school voucher programs, through scholarship programs, so that these kid can get a quality education so they won't need affirmative action as a handicap to get into universities. The education starts there.
SKINNER: OK. Tara, would you agree with me that once we are able to solve the inequality in our public education system, K through 12, then we can talk about affirmative action? There was a study out in "The Washington Post" that said that there were scholars at the University of Massachusetts. And they said you were 50 percent less likely...
NEVILLE: Nancy Skinner, please excuse me. I'm going to interrupt you now because we're going to head out to the Pacific Ocean to join Frank Buckley, who is standing by on the USS Bonhomme Richard, which is an amphibious assault ship out on the Pacific. Part of several additional ships heading to the Persian Gulf. And Frank, tell us more about what you are doing there and who's all there.
All right, Frank. Apparently we're having trouble hearing you. We want to let you know that the Navy is deploying seven additional ships loaded with nearly 10,000 Marines and sailors to aid a possible war with Iraq. Now the ships include those that Frank is standing on, the USS Bonhomme Richard. The ship is -- they are outside approximately 30 miles northwest off the coast of California right now near Camp Pendleton, where hovercraft vehicles will carry additional equipment out to the ship.
Let's take a pause now and take a look at some of these great pictures here. It's always fascinating to see the jets landing on aircraft carriers.
OK, everybody. Thank you so much for bringing those live pictures off the coast of California near San Diego. And we are going to take a break right now. Coming up next: it's our "What's the Story?" segment. Today it's about who's responsible for the D.C.-area sniper killings.
Some of the victims think it goes beyond the actual shooters. I'll tell you who they're suing and you can decide if it's all about a money squeeze. We're back in a moment. Don't go anywhere. The talk continues.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. We're going to take you once again to the Pacific Ocean, where Frank Buckley is standing by on the USS Bonhomme Richard -- Frank.
FRANK BUCKLEY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Arthel, I hope you can hear me now. We are on the Bonhomme Richard, and we're just off the coast of San Diego. And once again, this is one of the amphibious ships heading out to the Persian Gulf. And what we are seeing now, if you can look to the aft end of this ship, you see a Harrier jet on final to this amphibious assault ship.
This is one of the 19 Harrier jets that will be taking this journey across the Pacific and over to the Persian Gulf. Seven amphibious ships leaving today from San Diego with 10,000 Marines and sailors aboard. This is a tremendous treat for anyone who is interested in aviation to see one of these Harrier jets.
It does an incredible vertical takeoff and landing in a second. It doesn't need a runway. And you can see it hovers right over the flight deck here. And it will simply shoot (UNINTELLIGIBLE) down. Commander Jack (UNINTELLIGIBLE) is here to help me out. (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Jack, can you tell me exactly what is happening when you look at this ship? What are the dynamics here?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What you see happening right here, Frank, is the recovery of a Marine Corps AV8-D (ph) Harrier jump (ph) jet. These aircraft were designed to see -- to perform what you would call a vertical takeoff and landing, enabling them to land in an environment like this without a lengthy runway or into a field environment, too, where the Marines are typically working with infantry and artillery.
BUCKLEY: OK. Thanks, Jack. We're being asked to move to the side here a little bit. (UNINTELLIGIBLE), you're stepping on the cord there. I don't think he can hear me.
Another harrier coming in on final. We've also seen since we've been aboard here a (UNINTELLIGIBLE) coming aboard. Those would be military hovercraft, part of the mission -- as this ship continues towards the Persian Gulf. This essentially gives the senior commander a number of options on (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
The can get Marines (UNINTELLIGIBLE) helicopters. And, also, as you mentioned, the landing craft that we have seen today employed, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) light armor vehicles. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) on those (UNINTELLIGIBLE), the landing craft here.
You can see the other Harrier now landing on the deck. One coming by us here as we continue on the USS Bonhomme Richard. An incredible sight for anyone interested in military aviation.
Arthel, we thought we've give you that picture live, several miles off the coast of California, as the USS Bonhomme Richard steams toward the Persian Gulf.
NEVILLE: And Frank, we do appreciate those amazing pictures. Thank you so much for that report and those extraordinary pictures.
It is time to move on. Stay right where you are. Our flash round is coming up next. Don't go anywhere. TALKBACK LIVE continues after this break.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Wow. It is time for our flash round. First up: high school basketball sensation Lebron James is in the media spotlight for his off-court moves. Ohio sports officials want to know if any rules were broken when his mom gave James a $50,000 Hummer as a birthday gift.
Much ado about nothing or breaking the rules -- Marc.
BERNIER: It's breaking the rules. How do these people even get to have a Hummer when they're lives in a housing thing? The situation is the lady needs to get out and the kid doesn't need to have the Hummer.
NEVILLE: Nancy.
SKINNER: Oh, so easy to judge. If you're living in the projects and your son qualified for that much money, you'd get a Hummer, too.
NEVILLE: Tara.
SETMAYER: This is the type of disgusting exploitation that we deemed (ph) not to have of our young black athletes. We should be promoting education and not letting these young kids in the projects think that they're going to win some kind of lottery by playing basketball and this is the way to success. It's disgusting to me.
NEVILLE: Carlos.
WATSON: Arthel, it's clearly shaky. But I think the reality is Marc and Tara are being a little bit disingenuous when they fail to realize that everyone else is making money off this young man. And as Nancy said, given his financial situation, of course his mom's going to look around and try to find a way to help.
NEVILLE: Oh, you got the bell in the flash round. OK. Coming up next...
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: ... two big games this weekend will decide who will go to the Super Bowl. It's the Eagles versus the Bucks and Raiders versus the Titans. So panel, who is going to the big game -- Marc.
BERNIER: All right. I got to say for my Tennessee audience the Titans will end up against Philadelphia when it's all over.
NEVILLE: All right -- Nancy.
SKINNER: Well I'm a Detroit Lions fan. So my heart is broken. But I'm going to say Raiders and Eagles.
NEVILLE: Tara.
SETMAYER: It's going to be Oakland against the Eagles, as much. As I'd like to see Tampa Bay, they're not going to survive in that freezing Philadelphia.
NEVILLE: OK. Carlos?
WATSON: Nancy and Tara have it right. And more importantly, the Raiders are going to win and bring the Super Bowl trophy back to California.
NEVILLE: Well, OK. And finally, the skies are getting really, really friendly now. For the first time ever, you can fly clothing optional. For a special charter flight from Miami to Cancun, you can get naked. The charter is for a travel agency that specializes in nudist vacations. So would you take this flight, Marc?
BERNIER: You better have real good seat liners. OK? No. You know, if you want to do this fine, but, no.
NEVILLE: OK, quick -- Nancy. SETMAYER: Arthel, let's just say the tray tables won't be the only things in their upright and relaxed position.
NEVILLE: Oh my gosh -- Tara.
SETMAYER: Welcome to capitalism.
NEVILLE: OK. Carlos?
WATSON: Arthel, I won't be on that flight, but lots of people will.
NEVILLE: All right. Listen, Marc Bernier, Nancy Skinner, Tara Setmayer and Carlos Watson, thank you all for joining me here today on TALKBACK LIVE.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Have a good weekend.
NEVILLE: Good. You too.
Listen, the rest of you, get on those phones, if you will right now, and tell me if you think the anti-war movement is getting adequate media coverage. Your answers after the break.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: It is time to hear what you have to say about the question of the day. Is the anti-war movement getting enough publicity, or is it being ignored? E-mails coming right now I want to share with you.
Caryn in Georgia: "The media is not giving enough coverage to anti-war rhetoric. In fact, it seems that they spin events in a way that supports a pro-war attitude."
Another e-mail coming in right now from Chris in California. "I think that the media is giving the anti-war movement enough attention. It's the president who isn't." Thank you very much.
OK. What do you say, ma'am?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think the people of America need to start looking at things with the intelligence of their mind rather than the fire of emotion.
NEVILLE: So having said that, enough coverage to the anti-war protest or not?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think you have not enough. We need the pros and cons. We need to hear if maybe they do have solutions and we haven't given them a chance yet.
NEVILLE: Thank you very much. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) liberal sector have found more playground equipment. Until they start adding some substance to their argument they're not going to get the media attention they deserve.
NEVILLE: OK. I'm going to go to Diane (ph) now standing by in Alabama. Quickly, 30 seconds, your answer.
DIANE: Hi, Arthel. Yes, I do agree with the caller from Georgia and the lady who just spoke, that we do not -- the media seems to be biased when it comes down to...
NEVILLE: In which direction, Diane (ph)?
DIANE: Hello?
NEVILLE: Which direction Diane (ph)?
DIANE: I believe that this should have more coverage about the war protest. We in America need to see that.
NEVILLE: OK. Diane (ph), thank you so much for calling. I am out of time. Please excuse me.
That is it for this edition of TALKBACK LIVE's Free-For-All Friday. I'm Arthel Neville. I'll be back again Monday, 3:00 Eastern, 12:00 Pacific. Have a great weekend.
Judy Woodruff and "INSIDE POLITICS" 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
|
