|
CNN TALKBACK LIVE
Bush to Ask Security Council for Further Action; Space Shuttle Investigators Search Through Recorded Data; Attorney Asks for Investigation into Michael Jackson
Aired February 6, 2003 - 15:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ARTHEL NEVILLE, HOST (voice-over): Secretary of State Colin Powell takes his argument against Iraq to the Senate as the world community reacts to his U.N. speech. Did he persuade key allies, or did his words fall on deaf ears?
Then, NASA rethinks its foam debris theory in the Columbia disaster. Is the space agency any closer to finding answers?
And Michael Jackson says he feels betrayed by a British reporter he let into his life. More than a few people want to know why he thinks it's OK to share his bed with children. The talk starts right now.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: Hello, everybody. Welcome to TALK BACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville. CNN has learned that U.N. inspectors in Baghdad have managed to conduct a private interview with an Iraqi scientist. Now, that's according to an Iraqi official.
Is this a sign that Saddam Hussein is responding to Secretary Powell's demand that the Iraqis cooperate, or risk war? We're going to have a live report from Baghdad shortly, so you don't want to miss that. In the meantime today, Powell took his evidence against Iraq to Capitol Hill before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and his remarks suggested the U.S. could be just weeks away from war.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLIN POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE: ... within weeks, as the president has said, we will know enough to bring this to a conclusion one way or the other. I can't tell you today when such a resolution might be appropriate to be offered by one member of the council or another, or when there might be a vote on such a resolution, but I think we are reaching an end game in a matter of weeks, not a matter of months.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: Now the next date to watch, February 14, when U.N. weapons inspectors make another report to the Security Council. Now, here to talk about all of this, about Powell's search for support and his indictment of Iraq are Congressman Jim DeMint, a Republican representative...
REP. JIM DEMINT (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: Arthel.
NEVILLE: Hello -- representative from South Carolina, and Congresswoman Maxine Waters, a Democratic representative from California. Welcome to both of you.
REP. MAXINE WATERS (D), CALIFORNIA: Thank you.
DEMINT: Thank you, Arthel.
NEVILLE: Mrs. Waters, I will start with you today. Has Powell changed any minds?
WATERS: I looked at the Gallup poll, and it showed that he had changed just very few minds. Only about 7 percent change in those who would support a war after hearing him speak.
I don't think there's been any great leap to give support to going to war. I think the American public is still very cautious, and they want them to take care that they absolutely have the documentation, that they absolutely have all of the information that's necessary before they plunge our young people into war.
I want to tell you, this morning when I woke up to hear that there are preparations being made to cremate our American soldiers on the ground in the event they are attacked with nuclear or chemical -- biological or chemical weapons, and leave them there, rather than bring them back for burial, it just sent shivers down my spine. I want us to do everything we can to avoid going to war and, no, the case has not been made yet.
NEVILLE: Well, we heard the Congresswoman. Want to hear from the Congressman right now.
DEMINT: Thank you, Arthel. None of us want to go to war, but knowing what we know now, to do nothing would be irresponsible. So we very little choice but to remove Saddam Hussein from power. To continue to leave the inspectors there, playing this hide and seek game, that it's clear that he's doing -- we know he has weapons, we know he is hiding them, and we know he intends to hurt people. For us to wait is just completely irresponsible.
NEVILLE: Congressman, what do you think about the fact that Saddam says he will use nerve gas on any troops, American troops or otherwise that steps foot into Iraq?
DEMINT: Well, we can't believe anything Saddam Hussein says. And certainly, there is a threat, but if you talk to any of our military folks, they are well-trained, they're well-equipped, their morale is high, and they know how to handle any problem that he can throw at them.
NEVILLE: Congresswoman Waters, why do you think some of the -- the countries that were already skeptical are still skeptical: France, Germany, China? WATERS: I think they're still skeptical because they too do not wish to plunge the region into war. They want to be very, very careful before they engage in any kind of war that could be devastating in the Middle East. Let me tell you -- and I think some of us are beginning to believe that North Korea is more of a threat than is Iraq and Saddam Hussein. If you listen to the rumblings that are coming from North Korea, they are daring us, they're literally saying, Yes, we have nuclear. We know from all of the intelligence reports that we have that they are developing uranium to be used for nuclear weapons. We know that they are prepared for war, and they said it this morning again. Why is it they're being handled so differently?
NEVILLE: Right.
WATERS: As a matter of fact, my big problem with this administration is the many contradictions -- are the many contradictions, rather. As a matter of fact, when we take a look at Pakistan, we find that Pakistan helped North Korea to develop this nuclear capability. We find that all of the madrasas that train the Taliban are in Pakistan, supported by Saudi Arabia. Why is it we say nothing about the support that Saudi Arabia gives to terrorists, we say nothing about Pakistan helping North Korea to develop nuclear. I am worried about North Korea. I think that we're spending an awful lot of time on Saddam. And yes, he's a man that we have to contain.
NEVILLE: Congresswoman...
WATERS: And contain we must, but go to war at this time, I don't think the case has been made.
NEVILLE: Now, Congresswoman, you're mentioning, of course, the case against North Korea. In fact, that did come up today when Secretary of State Colin Powell was addressing the Senate committee. We are going to take a listen to that right now.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOSEPH BIDEN (D), DELAWARE: I also think that North Korea is equally -- equally as urgent a problem as Saddam Hussein at the moment, notwithstanding the fact we've prepositioned tens of thousands of forces and we are on -- unless he chooses otherwise -- the brink of war.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: OK. I'd like to talk to the Congressman right now, just asking you, there were many people applauding Powell for his -- for a job well done, a convincing job. Do you feel that you are convinced? I think you said you are 100 percent convinced.
DEMINT: I had a chance to see what he was going to show last week, and North Korea has been brought up, and they are a new problem and we have to deal with it differently, but Iraq has had 12 years to disarm. They have disobeyed over 60 U.N. resolutions over the last 12 years... NEVILLE: But in the meantime, Congressman, if I may ask -- jump in there, though, and ask you, though, should the U.S. ignore North Korea?
DEMINT: No, and the U.S. is not ignoring North Korea. We're working with a number of nations around the world to deal with them on a diplomatic basis, just as we've tried to do with Iraq for many years.
But the fact that there are other nations that are a problem should not turn our attention from the fact that we have a madman with weapons who intends to use them, and if we leave him in power again, as I said before, as a Congress and as a nation, we are irresponsible.
NEVILLE: Now, as we told you earlier, U.N. inspectors reportedly had the opportunity to privately interview one Iraqi scientist, and we're going to go to Baghdad now to get details from CNN Senior International Correspondent Nic -- what precipitated this?
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, very difficult to say exactly what precipitated it, Arthel. If I can just step you through what we've learned this evening, and this really is a developing situation.
Just in the last few hours in a news briefing where Iraq's top scientific adviser to president Saddam Hussein had been setting out all the -- his issues and rebuttals to what secretary of state had put forward at the Security Council, an hour and a quarter into that news conference, he mentioned that an Iraqi scientist was now in an interview with -- in a private interview with U.N. weapons inspectors.
Now, we don't have confirmation of this from the U.N. inspectors here. They won't confirm or deny it. However, we have been down to a hotel in Baghdad, where U.N. inspectors are based, where they've designated the location to be where they'll hold interviews with Iraqi scientists. We've seen somebody, we believe is an Iraqi scientist, according to Iraqi officials, biologist Dr. Salami (ph), he has, we understand from Iraqi officials, now held about three hours of private meetings with the U.N. weapons inspectors.
He was greeted at the outside of the hotel by Iraqi officials and taken away by those Iraqi officials. This is a breakthrough. The reason it is a breakthrough is because the U.N. inspectors believe these private interviews are key to finding out about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. And so far, despite many, many requests, Iraqi scientists have been turning it down.
According to Iraqi officials tonight, there are more scientists, they say, who will go through with these private interviews, and the reason Iraqi officials say the scientists are prepared to do that now is because they say the scientists see a lot of pressure on Iraq and they want to do something about it -- Arthel.
NEVILLE: So, Nic, do you think this is a sign that Saddam is trying to cooperate? ROBERTSON: There's definitely an element of cooperation here. Iraqi -- the U.N. weapons chiefs who are coming here this weekend, Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei, have both said that there are three key things they would like to see progress on, and progress now because they say time is running out.
Those things have been the private interviews with the scientists, the use of U-2 surveillance aircraft, and the passage of legislation in Iraq banning weapons of mass destruction. Now, they are barely two days away from arriving in Baghdad, and we now see this move, which is on one of those issues.
Of course, the broader issue here, Iraq still says it has no weapons of mass destruction. The contention from many outside of here is that Iraq does. That will still be a very big issue, but this will, perhaps, when Hans Blix arrives, put his talks off to a better footing, at the beginning at least -- Arthel.
NEVILLE: OK. Nic Robertson, thank you so much for that live report from Baghdad.
And when we come back, we'll ask our guests if this means the U.S. should wait to go to war.
And later this hour, a British documentary on Michael Jackson's personal life has some calling for an investigation. We'll tell you about the documentary, and then you can answer the question of the day, should child welfare officials investigate Michael?
We'll be back after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Today on TALKBACK LIVE, what caused the shuttle tragedy? NASA doesn't believe the foam debris theory. We will find out where the investigation is going.
And then, inside Michael Jackson's private life. A documentary takes us there, raising more than a few eyebrows and causing Michael to complain he feels betrayed. California attorney Gloria Allred is calling for an investigation. She'll talk to us about it as TALKBACK LIVE continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Now, we just heard CNN's Nic Robertson report that U.N. weapons inspectors held a private interview with an Iraqi scientist -- private. That's according to an Iraqi official. So, is this a sign of cooperation from Saddam Hussein, and does this mean the United States should wait before going to war?
Congresswoman Waters, you would answer that first, please.
WATERS: Well, certainly, I think it is cooperation, and I think we've been in a bit of a cat and mouse game with Saddam, and he gives up as much as he has to give up, and when he's pressured, and the inspectors continue to do their work, he gives a bit more.
I think one of the things he's doing is trying to see if we are intent on going to war no matter what he does, and I think he's holding off on the U-2 flights going over his country because he believes that he's under surveillance so that the United States will know what kind of preparedness he has for war. So I think the more the United States shows that it's interested in getting the information and not simply interested in taking over the oil fields that he is more cooperative, and so I want us to work very, very hard at getting the information. I hope the scientists are helpful, and that they unveil all the information and answer the questions that they're asked because some of us are intent on not going to war and avoiding having our young people put in harm's way.
NEVILLE: But how long would you say that the U.S. should wait to gather that information you're mentioning?
WATERS: Oh, I don't want to put a time deadline on it. It seems to me, as long as we're engaging them, we certainly can expect that he's going to do anything that will be harmful to anybody, and the United States has never been at any risk from Saddam Hussein, and so I think it's not as if we have to do it tomorrow or two weeks from now, or as long as we're making progress, we should continue.
NEVILLE: And, of course, Congressman DeMint, asking you the same question, should the U.S. wait to go to war?
DEMINT: We can't wait any longer. We've waited 12 years. Saddam Hussein has been playing this game of brinkmanship just to delay. He is not cooperating. We know that his scientists have been threatened. Their lives have been threatened, their families have been threatened. To expect them to tell the truth is just -- is very naive at this point. We've waited 12 years. To wait two or three more weeks while he delays and plays his P.R. game is a dangerous game to play.
NEVILLE: OK. Let's good north now to Canada. Shawna (ph) is standing by on the line in Ontario. Shawna, should the U.S. wait to go to war?
CALLER: Hello?
NEVILLE: Hi, Shawna, can you hear me? This is Arthel. Should the U.S. wait to go to war?
CALLER: I don't think the U.S. should wait to go to war, but my question was, how can these scientists who are suddenly available for interviews be believed? Are they handpicked by Saddam?
NEVILLE: That's always an interesting thought. Either of the representatives can address this, because, of course, no one does anything without Saddam's approval over there. So how can we trust the scientists?
WATERS: Well, we don't know, and we need to see. I expect that our inspectors will know the right questions to ask, and will know when they're being misled, and can make some determination about whether or not they're being truthful.
I think it's worth exploring, and they should proceed with as many scientists that are available to them. I don't think we can conclude that they are not going to tell the truth. Let's find out.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Excuse me. Go ahead.
JOHN: Unfortunately, Mrs. Waters, we have seen that he seldom, if ever, tells the truth, and to trust him and delay because of what he's saying here really puts our nation and the nations of the world at risk.
WATERS: I don't think the United States is at risk from Saddam Hussein, and I do know that he's a man that has possessed chemical and biological capability in the past. We know that it was used in the war with Iran, but that, in no way, should lead us to believe that he still has it without absolutely being able to document that, and again, it's not going to hurt us to continue in the fashion that we're doing to see if we can, in fact, find out the real truth, rather than jumping into war.
It's easy for those of us who don't have to go to war, our children are not going to war, to send somebody else's child to war, to send other young people to war, but I take it very, very seriously, and I am very hesitant to do it.
NEVILLE: Go ahead, Representative DeMint, 15 seconds please. Go ahead.
DEMINT: Unfortunately, Maxine, that that was the same arguments that were made for years about bin Laden. I mean, we knew he was out there, we knew he was training terrorists, yet people said we shouldn't do anything about him, and we paid a big price for that.
We cannot pay that kind of price again.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: OK. I have to let that be the last word. Please pardon me because I am out of time.
(CROSSTALK)
WATERS: We trained Osama bin Laden. He was one of our allies. Don't forget that.
NEVILLE: OK. Representatives Jim DeMint and Maxine Waters.
DEMINT: Thank you. Thank you, Arthel.
NEVILLE: So glad you could both join us here today. Good to see both of you.
And we understand the president is expected to come out and make a statement at the White House at 4:30 P.M. Eastern. CNN will bring that to you live when it happens.
And coming up next, NASA regroups and looks for other causes for the breakup of the Shuttle Columbia.
Space correspondent Miles O'Brien fills us in on the investigation's new direction after the break. Stay right where you are.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(NEWSBREAK)
NEVILLE: Welcome back, everybody. Within hours of the Space Shuttle Columbia's breakup over Texas, speculation began that damage to the tiles during Columbia's liftoff might have doomed the crew minutes into the flight. But NASA isn't so sure. The shuttle program manager, Ron Dittemore, says the foam debris theory just doesn't make sense.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RON DITTEMORE, SHUTTLE PROGRAM MANAGER: We're focusing our attention on what we didn't see. We believe there's something else and that's why we're doing a thought tree analysis and that's why we're investigating every area. Right now, it just does not make sense to us that a piece of debris would be the root cause for the loss of Columbia and its crew. There's got to be another reason.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: Correspondent Miles O'Brien joins us along with Jim Banky, a senior producer for space.com. He's been covering the space program for 20 years. And Miles has been covering this story since it broke.
Miles, I want to start with you on this. Obviously, the NASA officials are changing their theory. At first, just yesterday, they were saying this foam debris could definitely be the root cause of the problem. Now they're saying not.
Just help us understand, Miles, is it normal in this sort of investigation for the theories to change so quickly?
MILES O'BRIEN, CNN SPACE CORRESPONDENT: Well, I think one thing we should point out is that probably the focus was more in the media than it was among the crash investigators. Many of us latched on to the foam theory, but I think NASA all along had put it in the category of one of the possibilities. Nevertheless what Dittemore said yesterday was no matter how many times we slice these numbers, we can double the weight, double the speed, we still can't come up with a scenario where that foam would cause enough damage to cause Columbia to break up.
So it's being, at least for now, deemphasized. The blinders are off and the theory now is what could have caused enough damage to the tiles to cause them ultimately to fail? Is there something else which stuck Columbia as it rose to orbit, did something happen during orbit, was piece of space junk or micro meteoroid, did it strike it or is it something that happened on descent which caused the tiles to fail. It's safe to say we had a failure of the thermal protection system, those tiles. If you operate from that and think about what could have done that, that's where the investigation is right now -- Arthel.
NEVILLE: And Miles, they mentioned something about the left wing.
Is there something wrong there?
O'BRIEN: Well, I think when you look at the left wing, the reason that it failed ultimately, that it wasn't protected from heat as it should be. When the shuttle comes in, anywhere between 2,000 and 3,000 degrees of heat, it's kind of hard to imagine that much heat. And underneath those tiles, which are made of ceramic, essentially highly purified sand underneath is just plain old aluminum which melts at about 700 degrees.
You can see how important those tiles are. You lose one tile, you're going to get a hot spot an the crew will come in and live to fly another day. They'll have to fix the orbiter. But If you lose multiple amounts of tiles or if there's a huge disturbance in the tiles, they get roughened up and it changes the air flow underneath the orbiter and causes like a cyclone of fire, which could drill in, then you've got a serious problem. And that's what could cause that wing to fail.
NEVILLE: Miles, it may be too early to go into this. But, if it's not the foam debris, then what could it be? Are they looking into that at this point? I imagine they are, investigators.
O'BRIEN: Yes, absolutely. There are a number of things that could have fallen off and could have caused some damage to that wing. They'll be looking at the films which are shot multiple angles during launch. They have long range telephoto high speed film which they pore over. They're good at looking at that.
If they haven't seen anything to date, it may be something they didn't capture on the films. The other issue is that issue of orbital debris. The crew didn't report anything that hit the vehicle as they were in orbit. You'd think if something to cause enough damage, it would be sizable enough that they would have felt it.
NEVILLE: Right, right.
Miles O'Brien, thank you so much for clarifying everything and all of your information and great reporting. Do appreciate it.
And as I told you, we have Jim Banky with us. He's from space.com.
Jim, we haven't forgotten about you. I have to take a break. When we come back, I'll speak with you as well.
Today, a memorial service was held at Washington's National Cathedral for the seven crew members who died on Columbia. Vice President Dick Cheney delivered the eulogy.
As we go to break, we'll listen to some of Patti LaBelle's tribute.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PATTI LABELLE, ENTERTAINER: (SINGING)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ARTHEL NEVILLE, HOST: And welcome back, everybody.
We are going to go to Washington now, where senior White House correspondent John King is standing by.
And maybe, John, you can give us a little sneak preview of what the president might say when he comes out to speak at 4:30 Eastern time.
JOHN KING, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Arthel, I just spoke moments ago to a senior administration official who tells us we will hear a toughly worded statement from the president of the United States.
He is meeting with Secretary of State Powell at 4 p.m. At 4:30 he will deliver the statement, complimenting Powell's presentation to the United Nations Security Council yesterday and saying that presentation leaves absolutely no doubt in his mind that Saddam Hussein is openly defying the will of the international community.
The goal of the president's statement, one hour from now here at the White House, will be to pressure the Security Council, in the words of this official, to, quote, "meet its obligations and meet its obligations quickly."
Now, from the White House perspective, the obligation now on the Security Council is to make clear that unless there is a dramatic turnabout in the behavior of Iraq in the next couple weeks, that the Security Council will move from inspections and diplomacy toward the implementation of the, quote, "serious consequences" called for in the resolution that sent the inspectors into the Iraq. Those serious consequences, of course, would be a military confrontation.
The president, we are told, will say he is more than willing to have the Security Council pass a second resolution, but also say that if there is to be a second resolution, it must authorize the use of force and it must be adopted by the Security Council within the next several weeks.
The president will make clear, without setting a firm deadline, still some room for diplomacy, but absent setting a hard date, the president will make clear his patience is running short and that he wants this matter resolved within a matter of the next several weeks -- Arthel.
NEVILLE: John, any reaction on that meeting between -- the private meeting between Iraqi scientists and U.N. inspectors?
KING: Well, White House officials are calling this predictable. What they believe will happen, especially now that Secretary Powell made his case to the United Nations, and that the Bush Administration has left no doubt that it is prepared to use military force, if necessary, within a matter of weeks.
What the White House believes is that Iraq will trickle out, if you will, various steps designed to show that it is cooperating, like letting scientists be interviewed privately, perhaps by leading the inspectors to one or two or three more small caches of weapons inside Iraq.
But the White House says that that is not enough, that the resolution calls for full, proactive and complete disarmament and that the president will not be swayed.
But obviously, they are a bit worried here at the White House. And one of the reasons the president will make his case this afternoon is there is a sense of concern that if you see these steps that appear to be cooperation, that France, Germany, Russia and others will say that Iraq is beginning to cooperate more. Let's give the inspectors weeks and months.
That is just unacceptable to this White House.
NEVILLE: Interesting. John King, thank you very much for that report, senior White House correspondent.
Earlier, before the break, we were talking about new theories about what went wrong on the Shuttle Columbia. And Jim Banke is here with us from Space.com.
And Jim, I wanted to talk to you about the last 32 seconds of the transmission from the Shuttle Columbia. Any more information that officials have been able to extract from that?
JIM BANKE, SPACE. COM: No, not at all, Arthel. The 32 seconds of information was radioed down from Columbia in the moments, basically, after NASA had officially lost signal from the orbiter. The computer information was recorded in White Sands, N.M., where the big antennas are located.
The data wasn't passed along to mission control, because it wasn't of a high quality. So now you have to go in there and look through that, look through the garbage, look through the radio static and try to find a way to pull out the new information that should be very helpful to the investigators.
NEVILLE: We have an interesting caller coming in now from California. Larry, go ahead, sir. You are live here with Jim Banke.
John, I know you had a comment. Did you have a comment about the space shuttle?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. I felt that they can't get the people back if they're stuck in space. So I think NASA knew there were some problems and they gambled by getting them back. Because otherwise, they'd be stuck in space and make the whole situation look worse.
NEVILLE: Jim?
BANKE: I don't agree with that at all. No.
Clearly, the one problem that we've been discussing with this foam falling off the insulation was clearly not something that NASA felt was an endangerment to the crew.
Shuttle program manager Ron Dittemore has said that just the other day that if they had conclusive proof, and I mean 100 percent conclusive proof that there was a scenario that they could not come back safely, then you could start considering some of these Hollywood scenarios of crew rescue. And even that would be an incredible feat to pull off.
Basically, there are some inherent risks in space flight, and they would have had to come back anyway and you just have to cross your fingers and hope sometimes.
NEVILLE: And also, Jim, isn't it true that the space -- shuttle -- Columbia shuttle crew didn't have the proper equipment or the proper training to do such a transfer?
BANKE: Well, they did have a pair of space walk -- space walking equipment on board, a pair of space suits. Two of the guys could have gone outside and worked in the cargo bay, but there's no way for them to basically drop over the side and look under the orbiter without making conditions a lot worse.
Again, NASA would have needed some kind of conclusive proof where they could go risk actually making the situation worse to go take a look at it. So in this case, in this mission it wasn't in the cards for them to be able to do that.
NEVILLE: OK. Brian?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I read in the paper yesterday something about an amateur photographer in San Francisco, Calif., that was taking pictures as the shuttle came in over San Francisco, and as a freak fluke occurrence, has these digital photographs that he took of, apparently, lightning striking the shuttle.
Did you -- I was curious as to how much they're checking into that.
I do know that NASA, he called repeatedly and was trying to get the thing to respond and had a hard time getting a response.
NEVILLE: Right. Let's see what Jim has to say in response, see what Jim has to say.
BANKE: Yes, up until that last phrase, I was following you. But I hadn't heard the specific lightning thing. There were a lot of people that saw the shuttle fly over in California. Actually, colleagues of mine who saw it and who believed that they might have seen debris falling off as they were take some pictures of the Columbia flying overhead.
One thing to caution against people if they've seen that flying over California, the hot plasma trail would have started by then, and, you know, in anything going on up in the atmosphere, it could be anything, you know, in terms what was that light flash might have been.
NEVILLE: Jim Banke, we are out of time. I actually have more audience questions for you but I can't take them. I'm sure we'll see you again in the next few days.
Thank you so much for joining us, Jim Banke of Space.com.
BANKE: You're very welcome. You bet.
NEVILLE: OK.
And coming up next, the King of Pop, Michael Jackson, says he feels betrayed. He gives a British journalist full access, hoping for good press, but ends up with a documentary that has some calling for an investigation into Michael's lifestyle.
We're going to hear from both sides of this story when we come back. Don't go anywhere. The talk continues after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Well, today on TALKBACK LIVE, attorney Gloria Allred wants to know more about why Michael Jackson shares his bed with children and in light of a new interview with Michael has requested an investigation.
Gloria is going to join us as we explore details of a British documentary everyone seems to be talking about. The TALK continues after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Well, Michael Jackson is making waves again overseas in Britain and right here in the U.S. A lot of people talking about a documentary that's going to air tonight.
Michael admits he shares his bed with children, but he says it was all about love and fun, not sex.
A Michael Jackson spokesperson defends him.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEPHEN LOCK, MICHAEL JACKSON'S SPOKESMAN: There is no truth in the inferences that people have made about Michael's behavior with children. He has never harmed and will never harm a child. He has never behaved inappropriately with a child.
I think that when people in America have a chance to view the documentary, particularly the way in which it's been edited and the use of innuendo and particularly the use of voiceover in the program, I think that a lot of people will come away from that program, as they have done in Britain, and think that Michael Jackson has been very unfairly treated.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: Well, now all of this has California attorney Gloria Allred all fired up. She's calling for an official investigation.
She joins us, along with Bev Smith, host of "The Bev Smith Show," which is syndicated on the American Urban Radio Network. I want to welcome both of you to TALKBACK LIVE this afternoon.
BEV SMITH, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Hi, how are you.
GLORIA ALLRED, ATTORNEY: Thank you, Arthel.
NEVILLE: All right. Gloria, I'm going to start with you today, because I have to go ahead and ask you, why are you calling for an investigation?
ALLRED: Well, in this British documentary, which will air tonight in the United States, Michael Jackson admits that he has slept with young children in his bed. And also, a young child, Gavin, admits that he slept in Mr. Jackson's bed while Mr. Jackson slept on the floor.
Well, I think it's highly inappropriate for a 44-year-old adult male to be sleeping in a bed with young children who are not related to him. And I think it shows a lack of judgment on Mr. Jackson's part, and this is very serious, particularly in light of prior accusations against Mr. Jackson.
NEVILLE: Now, Gloria, you know Michael Jackson says, listen, he says, he's like Peter Pan. He never grew up, and he sees this as having a slumber party and this is all innocent.
ALLRED: Well, you know, in his eyes, it may be. But how many of us would give our young children to Mr. Jackson to sleep in a bed with him? I wouldn't. I wouldn't give him my grandchildren. I really don't know anybody who would.
I think it's irresponsible.
Now, most child psychologists would recommend against an adult male sleeping in a bed with young children who are not related to him. I mean, if there's an emergency, that's a different situation, or there's a financial issue.
But there are plenty of rooms in Mr. Jackson's place and I think that he has to understand that it's not appropriate for an adult male to be doing what he's doing. NEVILLE: OK. Bev, we haven't heard from you. Love to hear your take on this.
SMITH: Well, I think it's interesting that Gloria -- and I'll say hello to her...
ALLRED: Hi, Bev.
SMITH: That Gloria is interested in the lifestyle of Michael Jackson. I'm wondering, since she said she doesn't know any parents that would allow Michael to sleep with their children, did she talk to the parents of the two boys -- They were brothers, McCauley Culkin, I understand, was one of them -- and find out whether they had been impacted upon by sleeping with him, whether they'd been affected by sleeping with him?
If she is concerned about Michael Jackson, I wonder if, out of compassion for him, out of the human side of her concern, if she, along with people who are concerned, like doctors or therapists, had tried to talk to Michael Jackson.
I would hope, because of the reputation of Gloria, that this is an ambulance chasing or an opportunity to take on a man who is in the limelight, who has a few problems and become a star herself by appearing on television shows. I'm questioning her motivation. And I am not the only one doing that.
ALLRED: Well, Bev, I think...
NEVILLE: Hang on, Gloria. I am going to give you a chance to respond. But I do have to jump in here with a break right now.
As you know, Michael Jackson is a focus of the question of the day. Should he be investigated by child welfare officials? Give me a call or e-mail me right now. And when we come back, we'll hear Gloria Allred's response to Bev Smith.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: All right. Gloria Allred, I promised you that I would let you go ahead and respond to Bev Smith's words. So now is your chance.
ALLRED: Thank you, Arthel. Yes, it's very much a concern to me, and I know to a lot of people that Mr. Jackson seems to want to justify his behavior, saying that it's a loving thing for him to be in bed with little children.
Well, that's not sufficient, really. He has to understand the boundaries.
And Bev, instead of attacking me I would hope that you would attack the behavior, because no adult male who is unrelated to little children should be in bed with them. It is simply not appropriate. It is not acceptable. It exposes those children to a risk of harm, to a substantial risk of harm, and they are vulnerable and they should not be exposed to that risk.
SMITH: Gloria, I would hope that you would not view my concern for your concern as a human being as an attack on you. And I am not a behavior scientist. I'm a talk show host. You are not a therapist, you are an attorney. We don't know what the behavior is.
That's why I strongly suggest, in these days, where character assassination can destroy a person, where we are proven guilty before we have a chance to be proven innocent, that what you should do before you write a letter to Children's Services, as you have done, before you send out press releases, as you have done, I would just strongly suggest, as you have been concerned about human issues in the past, that you contact the family members and say to them, maybe we ought to be sitting down and talking.
You know enough therapists, call Dr. Phil. Call Dr. Phil, Gloria.
ALLRED: Bev, let me just tell you, Michael Jackson...
SMITH: I mean, because you don't know, Gloria.
ALLRED: I do know, but Michael...
SMITH: You don't know, Gloria.
ALLRED: Bev, let me answer your response.
Michael Jackson, in his own words, on this television special, admits to sleeping with young children.
SMITH: Yes, but is sleeping having sex? We're grown-ups.
ALLRED: He says it's very right, it's very loving.
SMITH: But how do you know it isn't? But how do you know? Is that operating out of your adult fear, or are you...
ALLRED: It doesn't matter.
SMITH: Listen. Gloria, I listened to you. I'm asking you a question about your concern.
Are you operating out of your fear or are you concerned about the children? Because if you are concerned that during the period when Michael may have allowed McCauley Culkin and his brother to stay.
ALLRED: Not "may have." He said he did allow it.
SMITH: If you are concerned, I ask you, have you talked with these two young men? If you are concerned about parents, it's your statement, attorney, not mine. You said you didn't know any parents. Have you talked to the parents? Or are you just making these assumptions?
ALLRED: Let me answer your question, Bev, no filibusters. Let me answer your question.
NEVILLE: Excuse me, ladies. Pardon me...
ALLRED: They shouldn't be in bed with him.
NEVILLE: Gloria, I don't want to cut you off, but I have to go to break. Stand by for me. We'll continue the conversation after the break.
Don't go anywhere. The TALK continues in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: I see. Well, the conversation is continuing here in the break. Bev Smith and Gloria Allred, the two of you were conversing before the break.
Listen, I have a minute left. Gloria, go ahead and start up.
ALLRED: Yes, Arthel, I believe that Child Welfare Services should interview every child that has been at Neverland with Mr. Jackson in his bedroom or anywhere else in the home without the presence of their parents, find out what's going on, and take appropriate action, depending on what the results of their investigation find.
SMITH: Arthel, I would hope that we all would wait until we see the documentary. And that as we watch the documentary, we would remember sensationalism, how long a television show is done.
And that we would consider the reputation of a man that's done much for his country. Maybe having some personal problems, I don't know, but needs the prayer and the concern and the cooperation and the human kindness of us all.
ALLRED: He needs a parenting class.
NEVILLE: All right. That is all the time we have for today.
Gloria Allred and Bev Smith, nice to see both of you. Thanks for being here. We'll have you back again.
ALLRED: Thank you, Arthel.
NEVILLE: And thank you so much for watching.
Want to remind you that President Bush is going to make a statement at the White House at 4:30 Eastern time. That's 1:30 Pacific.
SMITH: Thank you.
NEVILLE: You're welcome.
Stay tuned to CNN for that. I'm Arthel Neville. Judy Woodruff is next with "INSIDE POLITICS." JUDY WOODRUFF: Thanks, Arthel. Next on "INSIDE POLITICS," President Bush has a message for the United Nations. We expect the president in front of cameras in half an hour. CNN will carry his comments live.
From Capitol Hill to the White House, Colin Powell meets with senators and now with President Bush. We'll find out what's next in the showdown with Iraq.
Shifting the burden of proof to Baghdad. Did yesterday's show- and-tell at the U.N. put the onus on the Iraqis?
Plus, Bush the bold? The president puts a lot out on the line, but will he get big rewards for his big risks? "INSIDE POLITICS" begins in 60 seconds. First, this news alert.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
|
