|
CNN TALKBACK LIVE
Is Exile a Real Option for Hussein?
Aired January 20, 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: Hello, everybody. I'm Arthel Neville.
Over the weekend, thousands of people turned out for peace demonstrations in several cities, most in Washington and San Francisco.
At the same time, tens of thousands of troops make their way toward the Persian Gulf, preparing for possible combat.
And as it turns out, some members of the administration are entertaining at least one alternative to war. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says possible exile could be the answer for Saddam Hussein, and Secretary of State Colin Powell agrees.
(BEGIN VIDEOCLIP)
COLIN POWELL, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: I think the Iraqi people would be a lot better off, and this whole situation would be resolved if Saddam Hussein and all those around him who think like him, his sons and the top leadership of the regime, would leave so that others could step forward, who would understand the importance of disarming and how a better future awaits the Iraqi people.
(END VIDEOCLIP)
NEVILLE: OK. Well, how's that for an idea? Let's talk about now with Shibley Telhami, a professor at the University of Maryland and author of "The Stakes: America and the Middle East." I want to welcome to the show first of all.
SHIBLEY TELHAMI, AUTHOR, "THE STAKES": My pleasure.
NEVILLE: OK. Give me -- or, given the history of Saddam, would he choose exile or go down fighting?
TELHAMI: Well, you know, nothing is impossible, of course. But there are three reason why it's not very probable that he would accept.
One reason, when you look at leaders who did go into exile, like Baby Doc in Haiti, and Idi Amin in Uganda, and the Shah of Iran in the late '70s, all of these people left in the middle of hostilities, when it became clear they're going down, and usually because of internal opposition and fighting. In this case, we're saying to him, leave before we even commence attacks, and that's -- you know, we don't have much precedence for that. It's highly improbable.
Second, there's no way he can guarantee that he's going to be safe afterwards. Frankly, I don't think this administration or any American government could ever give a guarantee that he's not going to be prosecuted. Certainly, human rights organizations and others would demand it. So he can't have any certainty that he's going to be safe even if he leaves.
And Third, I think from the history of this man, as far as we can tell, he is not the type who's likely to just give up that easily. In any case, he has a sense of himself, a grand sense of self, that is mixed and improbable, that he would just simply fade by going into exile.
NEVILLE: Right. Well, still, let's look at hypotheticals. If Saddam would choose exile, who would take him?
TELHAMI: Well, that's part of the problem. I think in the past, there are other countries that have taken him. I don't think any country would be willing to take him, unless the international community wanted them to take him. Because they don't want to be a target, afterwards.
For example, if the Saudis were to take him and the U.S. opposes that, then we would blame them for hosting him. In the past, they've hosted leaders, but usually after we have acquiesced in the hosting. And the Egyptians hosted the Shah of Iran after we also asked them to do that.
So clearly, if we really want a country to host him, and we would assure them that they would not be a target or associated with it, and they were seen to be doing us a favor, it is not impossible.
There are a lot of countries in the Middle East, particularly the Arab states, who are so close to the war, who are so frightened and terrified by the concept of the war, that they will go the extra mile if they truly believe that war will be preempted by taking certain action.
In that sense, if there was a persuasive argument that this will resolve the issue peacefully, you might find, actually, some takers.
NEVILLE: Now, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice says she doesn't think that Saddam will go without force. Do you agree with that?
TELHAMI: I think most likely. And I think frankly, if you look at the administration's statements in the past couple of days, saying we support the exile argument, they're scoring high points while knowing at the same time that it's not likely. They're scoring on the following -- in the following way.
First, they are saying essentially that we could avoid war. We're not rushing to war. War is not our option. It's not just -- We are not interested in occupation. We're interested in changing the situation on the ground. They score politically in that way.
Second, by getting other countries to talk about it, they're implicitly accepting a notion that there should be a regime change. Up until now it's been about disarmament. So in that sense, they score again.
And third, if they have a talk about exile and so forth, then, in a way, you are persuading the second tier officials in Iraq, the military and so forth, that maybe he's really considering it and therefore, that would increase the chance of defection. So that helps the U.S. as well.
So in all these ways, the U.S. has an interest in this particular kind of position that it's taken, even if the chance of the exile option is not very high.
NEVILLE: Then I want to go to Barbara Starr right now. But when I come back, I want to ask you if you think this is merely political posturing, though, on the United States' part? But hold on and in the -- hang on, sir. Think about that and I'll get your answer in a moment. Because right now I want to talk to CNN's Pentagon correspondent, Barbara Starr.
Barbara, you've been hearing war talk and about we're hearing the word "exile" by various administration officials. And is the White House actively pursuing exile for Saddam Hussein?
BARBARA STARR, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, by all indications at the moment, they are letting that little process reside in the Arab world. There are very strong indications that the Saudis, the Turks, the Egyptians, are all trying to send a message to Saddam Hussein that it's time for him to go.
Now, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has been underscoring this publicly. He has talked about the fact that the preferred option, in his words, would be for Saddam to just pack up and leave.
And of course, this weekend he talked about that a bit on television, on the weekend talk shows, saying that there might be an option to avoid war by having the Iraqi leadership go into some sort of exile. It wasn't exactly clear whether that would include Saddam Hussein or not.
Now, Saddam Hussein, of course, is watching all of this. No indication that he does plan to pack up and leave, but if he was thinking about it, U.S. officials say he would probably want some sort of guarantees. What he doesn't want is to be in the same position of Slobodan Milosevic, of course from Serbia, who is now standing trial for war crimes in The Hague.
Saddam's going to want ironclad guarantees that he will be free of prosecution, and Don Rumsfeld said that decision would be up the White House and the Justice Department -- Arthel.
NEVILLE: OK, Barbara Starr. And thank you so much for that report.
And I'm going to go back to Mr. Telhami right now. You just heard Barbara Starr's report. That is a good question, you know, can the U.S. or the U.N. Security Council members guarantee that Saddam will not be tried for war crimes?
TELHAMI: Well, I doubt that. I think that political pressure here would be so hard, so difficult, for any administration to take an ironclad assurance. And I'm not even sure what an ironclad assurance would look like.
Actually, you know, there is talk that administrators have already drawn a list of up to 40 high-level Iraqi officials that are said to be beyond any kind of amnesty. So I'm not sure about that.
But the real issue, I think, the question that you asked before, which is really interesting, is this an option that the administration is truly pursuing? I rather doubt it personally. I doubt it for a number of reasons.
One is that obviously, as I suggested earlier, it's not particularly realistic, I think. There's always a chance but not realistic.
But the other is that I am not sure that they would be comfortable, given the position that they have taken, with another group of people from the same elites that now rule in Iraq replacing the Iraqi regime.
Frankly, in this case, if he goes into exile, who's going to fill the vacuum? Obviously it's going to come from the military and the Ba'ath Party. The administration has already lumped them together anyway as a regime.
NEVILLE: So then it would be more of the same?
TELHAMI: That's the question. And, therefore, would that itself completely avoid the war, particularly if you have leaders who have been associated with the regime in one shape or another?
Unless there is a coup. A coup option is different, because that's not a peaceful transition, but rather, where you have people taking him on and they are opponents of the regime.
NEVILLE: And how likely is that to happen?
TELHAMI: Well, that clearly, I think, is the preference of many in the Arab world, who have for a long time hoped that it would happen internally so that there wouldn't have to be an international intervention.
But he's been very, very good at keeping others at bay. It has been a ruthless regime that has been very effective.
And frankly, there's another reason. I mean, there are people in -- elites in Baghdad, around him, who rally behind him because they are fearful of the alternative in this environment.
So it hasn't -- obviously, there have been attempts. We know there have been attempts, but they haven't succeeded.
And certainly there is a hope, at least, in the U.S., among the U.S. military, that as the war seems inevitable, as it looks clear that Iraq will be defeated militarily and the regime will fall, there will be more attempts prior to that, so as to spare the Iraqi military more casualties. That's certainly that whole tier. I think it is also the hope in many parts of the Arab world.
NEVILLE: Let me get some audience members in here. Jean (ph) from Georgia, do you think Saddam would accept or choose exile?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I certainly don't think he would choose exile. He's been in power a long time. And I don't think he wants to have a foreign government, particularly the United States, force him out of power.
NEVILLE: What do you think, Jim?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think Saddam Hussein has a big ego, and I think the creative powers of the federal government need to find something to appeal to his ego. Maybe we could give him the Atlanta Falcons or something like that to help him feed his ego.
NEVILLE: All right. Joe in Ohio. What do you think? Do you think Saddam would choose or accept exile?
CALLER: I think it's foolish to think that he would ever go peacefully. He's been involved in scandals and assassination attempts since he was in his mid-20s, trying to get into the politics he's in now. I don't think he'll ever go, and give up what he's earned, peacefully.
NEVILLE: OK, Joe. Thanks so much for calling.
Mr. Shibley Telhami, I want to thank you, as well, for joining us here today on TALKBACK LIVE. I am out of time right now.
And in the meantime, do you think Saddam Hussein would make a welcome guest? Which country would take him? Give us a call right now or e-mail me your ideas. We'll make time for the question of the day later this hour.
And up next, the search for Laci Peterson. We'll have a live update and talk about the investigation. So don't go anywhere. The talk continues after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Today on TALKBACK LIVE, as the nation celebrates Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s holiday, we ask, "What would Dr. King say about the president's stand on affirmative action at the University of Michigan? It's all ahead as the talk, continues after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back.
There is still no sign of Laci Peterson, the pregnant woman missing in Modesto, Calif., since Christmas Eve.
Her husband Scott has been getting a lot of attention since published reports linked him with another woman and revealed a $250,000 insurance policy he reportedly took out on his wife.
CNN's Paul Vercammen is covering this case in Modesto.
Paul?
PAUL VERCAMMEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Arthel, the story takes another strange twist this morning because Scott Peterson was seen outside his Modesto home, changing a broken lock. And police have just confirmed to us that there, indeed, was a burglary at the Peterson home.
They characterize it as a bizarre burglary, and say nothing significant was stolen. And they remind everybody that this does not mark some significant breakthrough in the case.
As for Scott Peterson and what you talked about earlier, here's what's going on.
Several of Laci's close friends say that Modesto police told them that they went to Laci's parents and showed recent pictures of a woman that they call Scott's girlfriend.
Scott Peterson's close friends and family say, no way. That this is all a bunch of lies and that there is no way that Scott Peterson had some sort of adulterous affair.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JANEY PETERSON, SCOTT'S SISTER-IN-LAW: I have no knowledge of that. I haven't seen the pictures. I just -- you know, our family and the Rocha family continues to believe that Scott in no way had anything to do with Laci's disappearance.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VERCAMMEN: And now back here live.
Detectives in Modesto fanned out around the area and in the surrounding counties, and they scoured the land. They also looked in bodies of water, but turned up nothing in their search to find Laci Peterson, missing since Christmas Eve -- Arthel.
NEVILLE: OK, Paul Vercammen, thank you very much for filling us in on the details.
And right now I'd like to talk more about the investigation with a man with over 20 years of law enforcement experience, CNN's Mike Brooks.
Hello, Mike. Always good to see you here on TALKBACK.
MIKE BROOKS, CNN ANALYST: Good to be here, Arthel.
NEVILLE: OK. First of all, Mike, in a case like this, missing person cases, where do police look and what do they look for?
BROOKS: Missing persons cases are very, very difficult to work.
First of all, you've got to figure out, did this person who's missing, in this case Laci Peterson, did she leave on her own account? Does she not want to be found? Or is she a victim of foul play?
Law enforcement in Modesto right now believe that she is a victim of foul play.
So one of the things you'll look at, is someone -- is she the victim of a random act of violence, or is it someone she knows? Someone she knows well or someone, maybe, she just came in contact with that became very obsessive and went after her, or is it suicide?
I think law enforcement's kind of ruling out suicide, because apparently she was fairly stable. They say she was very stable, she was 10 months' pregnant. And so I think suicide, we can rule that out.
But law enforcement looks like they are focusing on Scott, and there's a lot of questions to be answered about Scott Peterson.
NEVILLE: And, you know, the tabloids have gotten into this story. Do you believe -- do you view the tabloids as a source or a nuisance?
BROOKS: Well, sometimes the tabloids can get information that law enforcement can't get for some reason. Now, this picture that we heard about...
NEVILLE: Money?
BROOKS: Well, we heard about this picture of Scott with this woman that he was supposed to have an affair with. Where is the picture?
They -- Law enforcement, apparently, and they're saying -- law enforcement has not come out and said anything at all. They're being very mum about the case, which is bad for the media, good for the investigation. No leaks out about anything, any possible things.
But this picture of him with someone at some kind of social event, you know, where is that? Where did it come from? There's a lot of questions to be asked.
NEVILLE: And you know what, Mike? I mean, obviously, I don't know him, I'm not the investigator at all here, but I'm just thinking right now that because tabloids do pay for sources, I mean some nut person, nutty person out there, could say hey, look at this picture. I've got more. I have something on this case. You need to pay me money for this.
BROOKS: That could very well be true. You know, this picture, is it someone that he was involved with or someone he just had his picture taken with? That's a question to be asked.
But there a lot of other questions. One of the questions, if I was an investigator, Laci Peterson went missing after her husband left that morning to go 85 miles to go fishing.
NEVILLE: And it's Christmas Eve!
BROOKS: Christmas Eve. Now, has he ever done this before? Does he go fishing by himself all the time and does he drive 85 miles?
So they're going to try to retrace exactly where he went. You know, you drive 85 miles, most people here, you drive 85 miles, you're going to stop for gas, you're going to stop to go to the bathroom, you're going to stop to get a cup of coffee early in the morning, you know.
Are there some things that they could find out about that? They're retracing all their steps.
Now, they went down where he was fishing and they did use sonar to try to find any anomalies. And they thought they found something...
NEVILLE: It was the anchor.
BROOKS: But it wound up being an anchor.
NEVILLE: Right.
Mike, I have to take a break, but I have more questions for you. And would you take some audience questions when we come back?
BROOKS: Absolutely.
NEVILLE: OK, and viewer questions. Great. Listen, we're going to continue this story after this break. So the talk continues in a moment, so please stay right where you are.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. I'm Arthel Neville.
We're talking about the search for Laci Peterson, the pregnant Modesto, Calif., woman who has been missing since Christmas Eve. We're talking with CNN's Mike Brooks; he has more than 20 years of law enforcement experience.
And Mike, in these cases, how does the husband prove that he's not guilty?
BROOKS: Well, it's very difficult.
Law enforcement probably right now, they are following him. They are watching everything he does. They've interviewed him already. They're going re-interview him again, most likely, and there's a possibility he may trip up.
Now, some people are saying, well, why hadn't he taken a polygraph test? Initially he said that he would volunteer to take a polygraph.
If I were Scott Peterson, I wouldn't take a polygraph. He was probably -- he's probably been advised by attorneys not to take a polygraph.
NEVILLE: Is that because they're not 100 percent accurate?
BROOKS: They're not accurate and also, they're not admissible. So what does he gain by taking a polygraph? Absolutely nothing.
I've spoken to polygraph examiners before, who give the polygraph tests. I asked them, "Would you take a polygraph?" And these are some of the best in the country, and they said, "No, I wouldn't take a polygraph, because you could be totally honest and still, for some reason..."
NEVILLE: You could be stressed out about taking it.
BROOKS: There's a lot of different factors and a lot of variables. And then keep in mind it's only an investigative tool and it's not admissible in court. So why take a polygraph test?
NEVILLE: But how do law enforcement agencies view that, when someone says, "You know what? I'm not going to take the polygraph." Do you -- is that a red flag?
BROOKS: Sure. As an investigator, many times I would ask someone, "Would you be willing to take a polygraph?" And they say, no. So automatically you think, well, if you're not going to take one, you have something to hide.
NEVILLE: OK, but what if I said, "OK, Mike, I'm willing to take it, but I'm really concerned because of the variables such as stress or things like that"? Would you then look at me as a serious suspect or realize that I'm sincere about that?
BROOKS: I'd say you're probably sincere about that.
And the initial questions when they develop a baseline, there are baseline questions the polygraph examiners ask, you know, what is your name, where do you live, when were you born? Those kind of things, just to develop...
NEVILLE: Right.
BROOKS: ... a baseline on your honesty.
NEVILLE: Sure.
BROOKS: So, you know, that means -- it's tough. A lot of people get stressed out. They use polygraph examinations on all people coming into the FBI. And it does get people stressed out.
NEVILLE: Now I promised the viewers a chance to talk to you, Mike. I've got Fran standing by on the phone now from South Carolina. And as you know, you know as well, that once Laci Peterson became pregnant, Scott Peterson took out a $250,000 life insurance on his wife, and, Fran, your thoughts on that?
CALLER: Well, some of the media seem to be emphasizing the fact that he bought a $250,000 life insurance policy, but that's a fairly normal thing to do when you're pregnant. Thirty-five years ago, the first time we had life insurance on me was when I got pregnant.
NEVILLE: What about your husband? Did you have that on him, as well?
CALLER: We had insurance on him, but we didn't have any insurance on me. And at the time I got pregnant, we went in and changed our insurance so that there was some life insurance on me. Now 35 years ago, it wasn't $250,000. We weren't too rich back then.
NEVILLE: Fran, thank you so much. Let's let Mike Brooks respond to that.
BROOKS: Well, I think that's the big question to ask. Was there also a policy taken out on him? I mean, he probably, it sounds like from the family that he is the main provider for that family. If something happened to him, you know, what would happen to Laci and the newborn?
I think there's still a question, a lot of questions to be asked about the $250,000 policy. How much insurance did he have on Laci prior to that?
NEVILLE: OK, Mike. We have time for one more question or comment.
Rick, you used to be an officer. Correct?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. I was a police officer for 20 years.
NEVILLE: And what are your thoughts?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'd be recording everything this guy was saying, watching him, just like your guest said. If he's involved, sooner or later he's going to trip himself up. And you have everything that he said documented, and you can just present that back at him and go back at his statements.
NEVILLE: Mike, final thoughts?
BROOKS: I think you're -- I think you're absolutely right. And as I said, the early interviews with him, the later interviews with him, again, going back over things, paraphrasing things they've asked him before to see exactly, what his -- does he have an alibi.
To me, that 85-mile drive the same morning that his wife came up missing, to me, is very, very suspect.
NEVILLE: OK, Mike Brooks, thank you so much for joining me here today on TALKBACK LIVE. We'll see you again.
BROOKS: Thank you, Arthel.
NEVILLE: Of course.
And coming up next, what would Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. say about Michigan's affirmative action plan and the president's opposition to it? We'll talk to the author of a provocative essay asking that very question.
We're back in a moment. Don't go anywhere.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE, everyone. I'm Arthel Neville.
There is plenty of ceremony today marking Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s holiday, especially here in Atlanta, home to the King Center and Ebenezer Baptist Church.
Now, Dr. King's widow, Coretta Scott King, told a packed congregation to honor the memory of her husband.
And today our guest, Roland Martin, does just that as he asks the question what the civil rights leader would do or think of President Bush's stand on affirmative action at the University of Michigan.
Martin is editor of BlackAmericaWeb.com and author of "Speak, Brother! A Black Man's View of America."
He is joined -- or he joins us along with syndicated columnist Armstrong Williams, the host of The Right Side With Armstrong Williams. His article on affirmative action appears this week in "Newsweek."
And I want to welcome both of you to the show today.
ROLAND MARTIN, EDITOR, BLACKAMERICAWEB.COM: Glad to be here, Arthel.
NEVILLE: OK, good to see both of you.
ARMSTRONG WILLIAMS, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Hi, Arthel.
NEVILLE: Hi, Armstrong.
I want to begin with a quote from Roland's op-ed piece in today's "USA Today." It says, quote, "Our own president is an affirmative action baby. He didn't get terrific high school grades, but he did have a nice last name and family connections that made his entry into Yale easier."
So Roland, do you think President Bush is a hypocrite?
MARTIN: Well, first of all, he is a hypocrite along with all of those other folks who criticize preferences. He admitted that he was a "C" student; he was denied admittance to the University of Texas. And last I checked, Yale has more stringent standards than the University of Texas.
So the fact of the matter is, he got in because of his father, because of his uncle, because of his grandfather, Prescott Bush.
So in this Michigan case, points are awarded, in that case, dealing with legacy. So the question is, what are you against, preferences or are you only against racial preferences? That's the question.
NEVILLE: Armstrong, so is it OK, or why is it OK for alum kids to get in to a university and not affirmative action beneficiaries?
WILLIAMS: There is a difference here. What he has alleged that President Bush benefited from, I mean, Bill Cosby, Oprah Winfrey -- I mean, this is more of a class issue he speaks of. If you have wealth, if you have the right name, if your family gave money to the institution, then you can get in on this legacy award. That's not really about race; it's more about class.
What has happened at the University of Michigan is that not only do you get points for being an athlete, which can be black, white, Asian, Hispanic, you can get points on a legacy award, which can be all of those things. But when you introduce that you get 20 points based solely on whether you're black, Native American, or Latino, therein lies the problem, because absolutely you're being given this based on your race to say as if you...
NEVILLE: So then Armstrong -- hang on one second, Roland. Roland, hang on. Armstrong, so you're saying that it's OK to be considered or given preferential treatment because of your race? That's wrong, but it's OK to have that same sort of treatment if you come from a certain socioeconomic class?
WILLIAMS: Actually, I'm glad you raised that point. You know, it is all a bourgeois boondoggle, where the elite, the wealthy, and the middle class continue to benefit. These programs should be based on need, socioeconomic background, income. What happens is that the rich and the middle class just become better off and the poor gets poorer and they don't benefit from these special programs. Affirmative action is not working where it's really necessary for those who are economically deprived. I say get rid all of them.
MARTIN: I'm glad Armstrong finally answered the question. It's interesting, Arthel. He made the issue, saying that this has nothing to do with race. Like I said in the "USA Today" article, if you are white and you have a grandfather a mother or father who attended Yale, you get points. Me as an African-American, my grandfather could not have attended most of these universities when they were of age to go to college. So, therefore, if you are a white student today, you are, indeed, benefiting from a racists past because you are being awarded points that I could not receive by virtue of that same legacy of slavery and Jim Crow. So the question is -- I understand the point about class, but the fact of the matter is they are receiving points based upon a system where my ancestors could not have attended these universities.
WILLIAMS: But still, the point that I make, it is still an issue of class. Affirmative action should be based on socioeconomic deprivation. And also, we should never undermine and never take away from achievement. Are you saying to me that I'm going to get 12 points on a perfect SAT score? What if I worked hard to get 1400 or 1500? Listen, this is blatant overt racism.
MARTIN: And Armstrong, what if your last name was Bush and your father's name was Bush and you were a C student in high school and you could not get into the University of Texas, but you got into an ivy league school? You are an admitted C student in college, but you got into Harvard?
So you're talking about merit. Did the president have the same merit? And I wonder about the student who wants to the go to Yale who couldn't get in because Bush got on. I wonder if he would switch places with the president today.
WILLIAMS: You know what, this is not just about President Bush. The issue...
MARTIN: It is not.
WILLIAMS: And let me just reiterate. I just wish you could at least embrace this part. I think you and I are saying something similar but in very different ways. And that is, is that the needy should really benefit from these programs. If you really want affirmative action to work by the time a kid is in high school or graduate school, college, and it's too late, if you really wanted to make a difference, you've got to start with these children in kindergarten where you can really make a difference.
MARTIN: Well, first of all, I agree when it comes to the whole point of education. But what I find is you find individuals, such as in some states, who are basing future prison dollars on the grades of fourth graders in various elementary schools. And So I understand how you must pay attention in primary and secondary levels of education. But the reality is, we don't do that.
And we also can't afford to say, well, you know what, until we fix what's happening in primary and secondary education, we should do away with affirmative action. I would love to see the day, where it's not a matter of we have to use race. But the fact of the matter is we have not reached that point in this country. You have an individual like Colin Powell, who strong he endorses affirmative action, and yet I find it interesting that President Bush chose to talk to a small number of people on the Michigan case, yet he never sought out the opinion of Colin Powell. I wonder why.
WILLIAMS: But Roland -- here's another point I'd like to make, Arthel, and it is this: You know what, I really think this issue of affirmative action is so overblown and not even worthy of this kind of attention. And here's why.
Less than one percent of black kids in this country benefit from affirmative action. 99.2 percent of these kids attend colleges and universities somewhere else. Fifty-six percent of black colleges graduates graduate from historical black colleges and universities. If you ask most inner city kids about affirmative action, they've never heard of it.
So I wonder, why are we spending so much time on an issue? Because it takes away from the real issues about raising family, dealing with the intellectual gap before they go to kindergarten, dealing with the real issues...
NEVILLE: Then how do you focus on that a little bit more, Armstrong?
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Hang on. I'm sorry, Roland. I just wanted to ask Armstrong, how do you redirect the attention to those issues?
WILLIAMS: You know, we've got to go back to where -- and this is just it. Fortunately, for me, and many people in this country, I had good parents who placed emphasis on education, the kinds of books that we read, limited the amount of television that we watched, reading newspapers.
NEVILLE: OK. That's good for you. But what about the kids who don't have that?
WILLIAMS: But not just for me -- it still works, though. If it's not the parent, you've got to have the extended family. Parents have a very strong impact on the intellectual gap of their children. Also, we've got to fix these public schools. These public schools are not teaching; they've become war zones.
I believe that charter schools, school vouchers, are options that people can consider. It's not a panacea. But focusing just solely on affirmative action, I mean, it's just not -- there are so many other things that determine the success of a child in school.
NEVILLE: Go ahead, Roland.
MARTIN: Arthel, affirmative action is a part of the discussion, it is not the entire discussion. So I certainly agree. I had two parents who clearly stayed on us, myself, my brother my three sisters, when it came to education. But I can't deny the reality that the education that I received in the inner city school was far different than what my suburban counterparts were receiving.
Now Armstrong makes the point that we're really overblowing (ph) it. Well, you know what? Tell that to these law schools that have seen dramatic decrease in the number of African-Americans who are in attendance. Talk about the folks in these medical schools.
So, you know, when you say 56 percent of people in the inner city, youngsters, they haven't heard of affirmative action, well, you know what? A study from the Joint Center (ph) disputes that. They understand affirmative action. They understand it when it comes to education.
And what I want is for America to understand that we have not reached the point where we are beyond this discussion. It should be a part of discussion, but not the entire discussion on how to improve...
NEVILLE: Hang on, Armstrong. Hang on. Jonathan (ph), quickly, from you.
JONATHAN: If President Bush was indeed admitted on the basis of his socioeconomic status or his family's legacy or whatever, is it really fair that we blame him for that? Or is that something that he's addressing now? That it's an administrationive problem and...
MARTIN: Well, yes, it's fair, because he is critical of a Michigan affirmative action case calling in (ph) quotas, yet he has said nothing, nothing about the legacy preference. And that's my whole point. If you are against preferences, you should be against all preferences, not just race. But I have not heard any of these conservative mouthpieces or the politicians say anything against legacy. They said nothing.
NEVILLE: OK. And on that note, I take a break. Racial preferences or favoritism for alumni children. Is there a difference? We're talking about the explosive debate around affirmative action.
Secretary of State Colin Powell weighed in over weekend. Find out what he said when we come back. We're back after this break.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(APPLAUSE)
NEVILLE: We're talking about affirmative action. And Armstrong, I want to start with you on this segment here. What are your thoughts on the University of Michigan's affirmative action program?
WILLIAMS: Arthel, listen, before the passage of the civil rights legislation and then long after, I mean blacks were subjected to blatant discrimination, racism. They could not even use the same restrooms. They were denied access into higher education, and many people stood against that, including a lot of good white people who saw the injustices and the moral bankruptcy in that. They fought with us.
Today, if you're going to tell a white student just because they are white that you cannot qualify for the 20 points just because you're white, then I am just as outraged about that as they were 40 or 50 years ago, because that is morally bankrupt. And you cannot resolve one wrong with another wrong. It's just a total injustice and we've got to be against that, too.
MARTIN: Well how do you resolve, Armstrong, the injustice of an unequal educational system? How do you resolve that issue? How do you resolve kids who are in suburban schools having $9,000 to $12,000 per child being spent, whereas in inner city schools, the number is anywhere from $3,000 to $4,000?
How do you resolve that? And see that where we're at in this country. We talk about trying to deal with the inequities. Well so many of us want to put blinders on and say, well, we need to fix the problem. But you know what? When it's time to fix the problem, we also don't want to deal with the pain in fixing that problem.
How about dealing with the story two weeks ago, where it said that if you have a white-sounding name, you have a 50 percent better chance of getting a callback for a job than even a black-sounding name? Where is the outrage on that? Where has President Bush spoken out on that, sir?
WILLIAMS: Yes, but I don't think even in your being outraged about this, as you should be, that you're not advocating that we resolve it with more racism, but just a different looking racism.
MARTIN: No.
WILLIAMS: I think we can resolve these problems. I think we're making progress. I think what the president spoke about in Texas with the high schools, where you get the top 10 percent of students from the high schools, no matter what, they're automatically accepted in these universities or college and universities of higher learning. And I this it's working, it's beginning to work. It works in Florida.
And plus, that is still -- Roland, it's based on achievement, and you're not handicapping the race. And it's not demeaning. Also Roland...
MARTIN: Where did handicapping the race come from? Where is that coming from? What is that?
WILLIAMS: Because you're giving someone an unfair advantage.
MARTIN: Oh, and you know what? And so are you giving a legacy an unfair advantage over an African-American or Hispanic child?
NEVILLE: OK. Hang on. I need to go ahead and jump in here now, because, as I said earlier, over the weekend, Secretary of State Colin Powell weighed in on this issue. And let's hear what Mr. Powell had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
POWELL: I believe race should be a factor, among many other factors in determining the makeup of a student body of a university. A public university, a university, exists to educate the public. And if there is any segment of the public that is not adequately represented, then the university isn't doing its chartered job to the public.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: Armstrong, does Mr. Powell make a good point?
WILLIAMS: I disagree with him on the race issue, because if you were to ask for those who are socioeconomically deprived, whether it's in the inner city or Appalachia, if you celebrate diversity by looking for performers, machine workers, you get people, all walks of life. I think once you introduce race into the issue it become a preference and it becomes a quota.
You will automatically get that, Arthel and Roland, if you base it on socioeconomic disadvantages and also if you base it on income level. And you don't have the animus nor the resentment that we've had in this country for too long.
NEVILLE: OK -- quickly.
MARTIN: Arthel, an individual who got into college on that top 10 percent -- first of all, which is not a new phenomenon. It was in place in Texas in 1987 when I finished from high school. I understand the importance of that.
But what you also have, as a result of the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) case, you had a decrease in the number of financial aid scholarships that were offered to African-American, to Hispanic students. Because after you get past the issue of admittance, you now have to deal with the issue of economics. So I would hope that Armstrong and his Republican supporters are backing the proposals to advance more Pell grants and more other grants to get folks in school. And what you also should be speaking...
NEVILLE: Interesting. Hang on, Roland. I'm sorry. I'm tight on time here.
MARTIN: Go ahead. I'm sorry.
NEVILLE: I've got to let my audience member get in. James (ph), you say what?
JAMES: The racial problem is a problem here that a lot of people are missing. As far as a preference system, affirmative action is only a window by which we look through to see a deeper problem that has been hurting America and the world for a long time. So you can get rid of affirmative action, but you still have rich people getting the stuff that poor people can't have, light-skinned black people getting stuff that dark-skinned black people can't have.
Educated black people getting -- I mean, like my brother there on the screen, he is doing a lot of talking, but I'm not sure how far he goes down into the ghetto to talk to drug addicts who didn't have the opportunity that he has to get on the television and talk about blacks this and blacks that. But we have a deeper problem we must address, but even though we hear affirmative action must be addressed, it is a way to equalize the process for everybody.
NEVILLE: OK. Hang on, Armstrong. I know you want to respond, but I have to go to California. Ivy (ph), go ahead, ma'am. You're live. Go ahead, Ivy (ph).
IVY: Hello, Arthel.
I'm sick about hearing about race and your last name. I think that when you want to go a university to be accepted, it should be solely with your grades. And that's the way they should get in.
NEVILLE: OK. Thank you, Ivy (ph). Quickly, Armstrong.
WILLIAMS: You know I'm not assuming, Arthel, like you are, that the brother was speaking to you.
NEVILLE: He said to you, Armstrong.
(CROSSTALK)
MARTIN: I know he wasn't talking to me.
NEVILLE: James (ph), nod your head. Were you talking to Armstrong?
MARTIN: He wasn't talking to Roland.
NEVILLE: He was talking to Armstrong. Listen, I'm out of time, though, since you wasted my time on that one, Armstrong. Roland Martin and Armstrong Williams, thank you both for joining me here today on TALKBACK LIVE.
WILLIAMS: Thank you, Arthel.
MARTIN: Arthel, have a great (UNINTELLIGIBLE) day.
NEVILLE: OK. You too -- thank you. And up next, the Internet is buzzing. We'll tell you what's hot and what's not in "The Buzz Report" after this break.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everyone. I'm Arthel Neville.
Who would take Saddam Hussein if he goes into exile? We'll take your answers to our "Question of the Day" in just a moment. Is Saddam Hussein a big topic on the Web?
Well, Regina Lewis is back with our weekly look at what people are talking about in our AOL Buzz Index. And Regina, hi, first of all.
REGINA LEWIS, AOL BUZZ INDEX: Hi, Arthel.
NEVILLE: Now I would imagine that Iraq is a big issue with folks on the Web.
LEWIS: It really is. In fact, it's No. 1. But starting with No. 5 and working backwards, a related topic, military deployment. A lot of us are watching those very tear-jerking good-byes on television. It's nice to know that the military community has a very tight-knit group online, especially in these trying times. So that's how they're keeping in touch and supporting one another.
No. 4, on a lighter note, is the Golden Globes. Traditionally, awards shows are some of the biggest nights of online activity in terms of real-time discussion. Because people watch the shows and want to instant message with their best friend across the country or their sister, or join group chat rooms.
And I can tell you when Lara Flynn Boyle walked out in the tutu, the overwhelming sentiment on line was, oh my goodness. A lot of people gave Nicole Kidman credit for keeping a straight face. And people are playing Monday morning fashion quarterback, saying, wait a second, these women are pretty, they're thin, they're rich. I'm zero for three and I could have dressed better. So funny to see that happening.
OK. No. 3 is Martin Luther King. And on this day, when a lot of people are home with their children, there are a lot of resources online. For instance, you can download an audio version of his famous speech.
No. 2, it's about Laci Peterson. Covered during the show, and importantly, if you go to the lacipeterson.com Web site you can download her picture if you live in that area and want to help with the search.
And No. 1 is, as you mentioned, Iraq. A lot of disparate opinions. We're seeing that really intensify.
We've got some representative message board postings. The first is from Pam. And this woman is very interesting and prompted a lot of dialogue online. She writes, "Have we forgotten about 9/11? Why are we focusing on Saddam? Have we forgotten that Osama bin Laden was the mastermind?
Interestingly, he's not on the list, nor does he seem to be in the administration's vocabulary these days. She goes on to say, "Is our need for revenge so great that if we can't get the real culprit, we'll go after anyone?"
The next one is from Karen protesting. The protests this weekend were largely planned online, the logistics posted. And those that couldn't make the protest prompted a virtual protest.
This one says, "I protest not only against the war, but against the man who is leading us into war. I protest against George W. Bush." A lot of people think it's very personal. NEVILLE: OK. Regina Lewis, thanks for joining us here on TALKBACK LIVE today. We'll see you again next Monday. All right?
LEWIS: OK. Thanks.
NEVILLE: All right. Get those phones going, because I am going to take your phone calls and e-mails on today's "Question of the Day." Who would take Iraq's Saddam Hussein if he went into exile? I'll get your thoughts after this break. Stay right where you are.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: OK. Time for our "Question of the Day." Who would take Saddam Hussein if he goes into exile? And we have some e-mails coming in right now, starting with Keith in Minnesota.
"Any country willing to accept Saddam becomes an automatic threat to the U.S. People like Saddam don't just fade peacefully into the night."
Another e-mail coming in right now from Kate in New Jersey. "Having Saddam go into exile would be a better route than going into a war and killing innocent Iraqis."
And another e-mail I want to share with you coming in from John in California. "More important than the question of whether we can find a country to take Saddam is can we find a country to take Bush and Cheney? The Bush team is much more threatening."
And on that note, we're going to the audience. Go ahead, Greg (ph)
GREG: I think Turkey would be a realistic solution, because the Muslim states may go there but have good relational ties with us, the West, and there's more of a democratic type of government.
NEVILLE: OK. Thank you very much, sir. I have more e-mails coming in right now. I want to hear your thoughts. Patrick in Ontario says, "Saddam should be allowed into exile. We should not try to do away with anyone unless we have positive proof. He worries me while he is still there. His poor people live in fear."
One more e-mail here today. Jeremy in Pennsylvania. "Every time the Iraqi government gets caught in a lie they almost immediately come up with cooperating surprises. Come on. Wake up America. Let's get rid of this tyrant."
And we are out of time. Thanks so much for watching. I'm Arthel Neville. I'll see you again tomorrow, 3:00 Eastern, 12:00 Pacific, right here on TALKBACK LIVE. And don't go anywhere, because "INSIDE POLITICS" 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
|
