|
CNN TALKBACK LIVE
White House, Franks Discuss Battle Plans; How Much Does the President's Christian Faith Shape his Politics, Policies?
Aired March 5, 2003 - 15:00 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): Today on TALKBACK LIVE, as the Pope's envoy tell President Bush there's no moral justification for war with Iraq, President Bush discusses battle plans with Army General Tommy Franks.
As a deeply religious man, how much does the president's Christian faith shape his politics and his policies?
Then France, Russia and Germany say no, nyet and nein to a second resolution authorizing force in Iraq. But will that mean a veto? Maybe not.
And a man is told to take off his shirt or leave the mall. Now he's under arrest. Was his message a criminal offense?
The talk starts right now.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
NEVILLE: And, hello, everyone. Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville.
A national student strike against the war is under way right now. We're going to go to one of the larger protests happening in Philly a little later.
But right now war planning goes on at the White House, even as international opponents of the war stand firm, saying they will not allow a second U.N. resolution authorizing force against Baghdad. CNN's Senior United Nations Correspondent Richard Roth joins us now.
An, Richard, of course, France, Russia, Germany say they will block a vote on a second resolution. But I'm not quite that they used the veto. So what does that mean?
RICHARD ROTH, CNN SENIOR U.N. CORRESPONDENT: It means wait and see. They say that now, but they're not absolutely guaranteeing they will use a veto. The foreign ministers of Germany and France will be coming here Friday for Hans Blix's, chief weapons inspector's latest update.
Right now, though, there's a big division. It's still there and it seems to be getting even worse between the European block along with China against the United States. They didn't say veto, but they say they have the right to use it.
NEVILLE: Now, earlier today Dr. Blix was talking to reporters saying that the inspectors were able to interview seven Iraqi scientists without Iraqi officials present. So far we have, what, 28 Al Samoud missiles -- Al Samoud 2 missiles destroyed? Dr. Blix says, though, that there are still questions.
Asking you, Richard, if you think this is sort of a foreshadowing of what's to come on Friday?
ROTH: Oh, definitely. You're going to see a very diplomatic maneuvering in that report. You will see Blix praise the destruction, the start of it of Al Samoud 2 missiles and the private interviews with scientists, though Colin Powell says they were in a bugged hotel room.
And also, on the other hand, Blix will say there's still other areas where there has not been proper cooperation. And he has said to the press today that it's a pity that Iraq seems to act only under the threat of force and he hopes it's not too late.
NEVILLE: And, of course, Secretary of State Colin Powell has been doing a lot of arm twisting, particularly with those undecided six. How's that going?
ROTH: We don't know, but from the tone of Secretary Powell's voice, it seems a little bit more urgent than perhaps the U.S. doesn't have the votes and fears deeply any type of veto, though that is still not a guarantee.
The U.S. is pressing in Washington and in capitals -- the Security Council members around the world for the needed nine votes in favor, without any vetoes. They could get that. It may not have much moral clout, but the United States insists the other resolution approved by everyone is the one to watch, the one that threatens Iraq with serious consequences if it fails to completely disarm.
NEVILLE: So, Richard, is there still talk amongst the administration -- U.S. administration that perhaps military action will continue to go forward with that, with or without a second U.N. resolution?
ROTH: Well, the U.S. is more in Washington and people here watch the Secretary Powell briefings, but they know what's going on and many U.N. diplomats are resigned to the fact already that there is a war, that the second resolution, so-called second, the U.S. would say the 18th --
NEVILLE: Correct.
ROTH: ... really doesn't really matter whether there's a vote or not.
NEVILLE: All right, Richard Roth, thank you so much for filling us in.
And with me now is Adam Eidinger. He is a member of the Green Party who has organized student war protests in the Washington, D.C. area.
ADAM EIDINGER, THE GREEN PARTY: Hi, Arthel.
NEVILLE: And Melana -- hi -- Zyla Vickers, a senior fellow for international and economic affairs with the Independent Women's Forum. She also writes for TechCentralStation.com. And want to say hello to both of you.
And, Melana, I'm starting with you today. Let's talk about, for the U.S., pros and cons of going forward with military action without a second resolution.
MELANA ZYLA VICKERS, INDEPENDENT WOMAN'S FORUM: Well, I think that the relevancy of the second resolution really lies within the kind of diplomatic maneuverings at the U.N. and that's about the sum total of it. I mean, it wouldn't make an ounce of difference in terms of how a U.S.-led coalition actually prosecuted war...
NEVILLE: No, no. But I meant, like you said, it's all about diplomacy. So if, in fact, there isn't a second resolution and the U.S. and its allies continue to go forward with military action, how does that play for the U.S. in terms of, you know...
(AUDIO GAP)
ZYLA VICKERS: Well, I think that the irony is that if you take just Europe, of course, there are more countries on side with the United States than there are opposed. The trouble is that the loudest countries opposed, namely the Germans and the French and the Russians, have a more prominent voice certainly in newspapers. And, of course, the French and the Russians have a more prominent voice on the permanent seats of the Security Council.
NEVILLE: All right. So, Adam, how do you see it in regards of pros and cons?
EIDINGER: Well, I just want to -- I had disagree with her on this one point that European capitals are saying that they want to see a U.N. resolution that authorizes force before they sign on. I think there's only one or two countries in Europe that would go along with the United States without the backing of the U.N.
Especially in the face of what I think will be a veto by either France or Russia, possibly even China. Maybe all three of them will veto to make a strong statement that this is not being done in a legal way.
You know, it's really sad, that the Bush administration is out to destroy what has been a successful international institution by launching a war against Iraq that is not supported by the United Nations. It is not legal by international law. Richard Butler, the weapons inspector, recently wrote that this will potentially destroy the United Nations for good. This affects a lot of other issues, not just disarming Iraq.
So I think when you hear people on the right saying, we've got the support of most European countries, it's with a qualification of a U.N. resolution supporting it. And we don't have that.
NEVILLE: Now, Adam, speaking of which, of course, the British people are telling their prime minister, Tony Blair, hey, listen. Military action only with that second U.N. resolution. And Mr. Blair is now calling for that and standing strong on that particular position.
EIDINGER: Absolutely. And it's not just the -- what's happening on the diplomatic front that I think the Bush administration should be concerned about -- you know, there's a slogan going around. It's on lamp posts all across Washington, D.C. and all across the country.
And it says, "If the war starts, America stops." And what you're seeing right now with college campuses, over 360 college and high school campuses, students walked out today.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: .. because I know you have experience, personal experience with that.
But getting back to this resolution, this so-called second resolution, Melana, getting back it you, asking you once more, do you think it would be a mistake for the U.S. to go forward with military action without that so-called second resolution?
ZYLA VICKERS: No, it wouldn't be a mistake. It would be unfortunate and Colin Powell just finished saying about an hour ago that he would prefer to go forward with the resolution.
But, of course, the initial resolution in the fall said that if Saddam Hussein is in material breach of the resolution then he will face serious consequences. And the United States has maintained since day one, and certainly the British and many other countries are in agreement with the United States, that serious consequences can include military action.
NEVILLE: OK, listen...
ZYLA VICKERS: So it's too bad from a diplomatic point of view and the U.S. would prefer it. But it wouldn't be an error to go forward when, you know, we kind of have the cards on the table already wit the, you know, the French (UNINTELLIGIBLE) for their, you know, less than pure reasons.
NEVILLE: You know what, Adam, I know you have some thoughts. You know what, Adam, I have to take a break here.
EIDINGER: OK. NEVILLE: I'll give you a chance to talk to Melana when we come back.
And later this hour I want you to go ahead and speak out. Weigh in on "Our Question of the Day". Should the U.S. go to war without a second resolution U.N. authorizing war? I want to hear from you. So go ahead and get those phone calls going now. 1-800-310-4CNN, and you know I'll also take your e-mails. You can go ahead e-mail me at talkback@cnn.com.
And coming up next, something Adam was hinting to, college students across the country cut classes to strike against the war. We're going to find out who is pleading for peace in the streets of Philly. And is anyone listening?
We'll talk about it when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Today on TALKBACK LIVE, the Pope says war with Iraq would be immoral. As a man of faith, how does the president respond?
And later, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) tell you why a t-shirt promoting peace got one man kicked out of a mall. We'll talk about it in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: OK, everybody. College students across the country are cutting class today. They believe for a good reason. They are a part of a national strike for peace involving more than 300 institutions.
And CNN correspondent Maria Hinojosa is covering the protests in Philadelphia.
Hey, Maria, so how is the turnout?
MARIA HINOJOSA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, you know, Arthel, it's hard to say.
We're in Philadelphia. Right now what they've been calling for, we just left the University of Pennsylvania campus where they asked students at 2:40 to stand up in their classrooms and to walk out of class. They're going to be marching down here to city hall. So, right now behind me you have some students who have gathered, but this is what organizers are hoping will become up into the thousands of students. We were at the protest at the University of Pennsylvania, and there was a day-long (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
But interestingly there were a lot of high school students taking part. I'm getting reported that there are a lot of high schools. That's different. That's not necessary what you would expecting to hear with a student walk out. You might, necessarily just assume it's going to be colleges and universities. Clearly some people here who are now honking their horns saying they support the activity that's happening behind me --Arthel. NEVILLE: Maria, of course, you have a whole lot of other competing audio there, including this guy honking the horn. I'm glad he stopped. So Maria, you mentioned high school students are involved in this and these are pretty much organized protests.
Have you had a chance to talk to any of those students behind you at all, to kind of get a sense of why they are here, if they had any specific statements to make?
HINOJOSA: I talked to a lot of students throughout the day today, and to me, there really is -- people want to have this sense of what is this anti-war movement. I think it's to still to early call it a movement. But I found students who come from long-time activist families. One young woman who came from Boulder, Colorado, said my parents have been protesting since the '60s. She's a member of a sorority, though, and she's taking part in this demonstration. Another young man who is a varsity baseball player with the University of Pennsylvania, never been to any kind of demonstrations, he in fact told me that his parents went to the February 15 rally because of him. A real diverse number of students.
One thing they are focusing on is that a possible war would mean less money for any of their help in education. So that's one of the things that they are trying to bring forward. And also, they are talking a lot about what they are trying to find the commonality behind Iraqi young people and American young people, saying they don't want to live in fear. They want to continue with their education. They want to move forward with their lives and they don't want to be hampered or concerned with a war.
NEVILLE: OK, Maria Hinojosa, thank you very much for that report.
And Adam, as we were saying before the break, you've had some experience with protests.
I want to ask you, do you think the students are in sync or out of sync with the American public?
EIDINGER: I think they are the American public. They're totally in sync with the country. You don't have to go far to find people who are opposed to the war. Just talk to taxi drivers, bus drivers, people walking down street. It seems to be a feeling that the priorities are misplaced right now by this administration. They're not focusing enough on health care and education, jobs, you know.
I'm almost 30 years old and a large number of my friends are unemployed right now for the first time. And they've been unemployed for six months to a year. Their unemployment is running out. They don't know what they are going to do to pay the rent. I know people who are moving out of certain neighborhoods because they can't afford the neighborhood anymore.
NEVILLE: A lot of for sales signs going on. A lot homes that -- wouldn't think would ever go up for sale. EIDINGER: So, just to wrap it up, I think that there is a tremendous outcry in this country like we haven't seen on any other issue, against this war. And high school students are feeling really empowered. They have read in history books there have been movements in this country against the war -- against the Vietnam War. They want to stand up and do their duty.
Plus, they recognize they can be drafted. And I've talked to a lot of high school students. I've been invited into the D.C. public schools to give lectures to social science classes. I don't find one student who stands up and says I support the war. I haven't met one high school student in any public schools in D.C. who supports a war. And these are schools literally crumbling and they wonder why we can spend millions of dollars on cruise missiles and they can't get a lousy few hundred thousand dollars to fix the roof of their high school.
NEVILLE: I want to look at a recent CNN/"USA TODAY"/Gallup poll regarding sending troops to Iraq. 40 percent approve only if the U.N. approves the new U.S. -- U.N. resolution. OK. And 38 percent says suspected the troops over even if the U.N. does not approve and 19 percent say no troops at all.
So, I don't know.
Melena, you saw those students out there in Philadelphia. You have got students across the country protesting, high school, college.
Do you think the protest should stop once the war starts?
ZYLA VICKERS: I'm not sure what you mean, whether they should stop. I just wanted to go back to the observation I was making from the clip you had from the University of Pennsylvania. That didn't look like a ton of students to me. That looked like a handful of students, and I wish them well, if they are going to get up to a number 1,000.
NEVILLE: Maria mentioned she was kind of along the protest route, that they were going to make their way there. That's why you didn't see so many students behind her.
But, Adam, let me ask you, I'm running out of time. I want to ask this pointed question, that is, should those protests stop once the war starts?
EIDINGER: Of course they shouldn't stop. I mean, the protest against the Vietnam War didn't get started until after the war was in full force and people were coming home in body bags. You know, there is a slogan going around. The slogan is, if the war starts America stops. We have just a preview. I predict there will be thousands of colleges and high schools in the country, if the war starts, the next day, where students don't go to school and instead hit the streets.
I know in Washington, D.C., there are going to be marches. I bet you every single bridge that connects Virginia and Washington, D.C., if the war starts will be closed by anti-war protesters committing acts of civil disobedience. Your going to major upheaval in this country and world wide if we go to war. People aren't going to sit on their butts and watch it on CNN. They're going to get out in the streets.
NEVILLE: OK, let's do a quick poll here by applauds. Go ahead and tell me if you support -- if you think those protests should stop once the war starts? Applaud.
If you think the protests should continue, let me hear you. It's 50/50.
Adam Eidinger, I heard your prediction. We'll see what happens and Melena Zyla Vickers, thank you for joining us here today on TALKBACK LIVE do appreciate it.
We're going to switch gears when we come back and talk about this, does religion have a place in the oval office?
The president's faith goes under the microscope as critics wonder if it's affecting policy. We're going to talk about that after the break. Don't go anywhere the TALK continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everyone. I'm Arthel Neville.
Today is Ash Wednesday, the beginning of the Christian 40-day Lenten Season. And on this day, Pope John Paul II is calling on all religions to pray for peace. He also sent his personal envoy, Cardinal Pio Laghi, to meet with President Bush and deliver a message. The cardinal is a personal friend of the Bush family. The pope's message is clear. He says there's no justification for war with Iraq.
Now we're going to meet our guests right now. Sandy Rios who is the president of Concerned Women for America and hosts a radio talk show called the Sandy Rios Show.
And Robert Boston. He is assistant director of communications for Americans United for Separation of Church and State. And he is also the author of "Why the Religious Right is Wrong About Separation of Church and State."
Want to welcome both of you to the show. And, Robert, I'm going to start with you. Let's talk about this. How much would you say the president's Christian faith shapes his policies, and his politics?
ROBERT BOSTON, AMERICANS UNITED AGAINST SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE: Well I think it shapes it quite a lot, especially if you look at the arena of what's been called the faith-based initiative. This grew out the president's belief that religion can various social problems.
He had a problem with drinking himself as he's talked about quite a lot. He beat that through an embrace of Fundamentalist Christianity. I'm happy for him. But I think it's a little bit naive to think that throwing gobs of taxpayer money at churches and other houses of worship is going to enable us to solve every social problem out there.
So I think that is the most visible manifestation of how the president's religious beliefs have impacted public policy.
NEVILLE: Sandy, how do you see it?
SANDY RIOS, CONCERNED WOMEN For AMERICA: Arthel, you know, as a Christian believer, it's true that his faith shapes everything he does. It shapes all that we do. In fact, someone has (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Him, meaning Jesus, that we live and move and have our being. It affects everything that we do.
But it's not something to be afraid of. The true believer in Christ knows that it's a voluntary thing. It's not coerced. It's never forced on anyone. It causes people to be honest, to work hard, to do what's right.
And really when people reflect who God really is, it's a beautiful thing. They're better presidents, they're better senators and they're better presidents of organizations and talk show hosts, I might add.
NEVILLE: And, Sandy, so the Bush the Christian and Bush the president, they're one in the same, correct?
RIOS: Abso -- you cannot separate them, Arthel. It's not possible.
NEVILLE: I want to take a look at an op-ed piece in "The New York Times" by Nicholas Kristof. In there, part of that Nicholas says the following, if we can pop that up on screen. We're going to work on that in a moment. There it is. Great.
He says, "It's impossible to understand President Bush without acknowledging the centrality," it should say, "of his faith. Indeed, there may be an element of messianic vision in the plan to invade Iraq and remake the Middle East."
So I guess I'll go back to you, Sandy, and ask you does Kristof have a point?
RIOS: Well it's very difficult to say. I don't think that President Bush would say he has a road map from God about how to carry this out or that it's going to bring the end times into place or anything like that.
I would say that as a Christian who follows God in the biblical way, he understands this. He's part of a process and he's just doing what he feels is right each step of the way. He can't see the end game. And I think it would be a stretch to say that he says -- has some messianic call to bring Iraq to account for God. I don't think that that would be true.
NEVILLE: Robert, I'm not sure if you wanted to jump in there. If you do... BOSTON: Just to say that I certainly hope he doesn't have any messianic visions like that because I would find that very frightening.
You know, the Bible is a book that can be interpreted by liberal Christians to support their views and by conservative Christians to support their views. Many of the people believe that Revelation and some of the apocalyptic writings in the Bible were meant to describe things that took place in the first century. Others say it's a foretaste of things to come.
My point is that you can take that book and you can base almost any public policy or find evidence to back almost any public policy in it. That's why the president isn't supposed to turn to the Bible. to justify his policies. He's supposed to base them on the Constitution.
So I certainly hope when he's thinking about the Middle East or invading Iraq or any of these other controversial issues that he is basing those on secular rationale, not religious rationale. Millions of Americans would disagree with his Christian view.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: ... if you would me a chance to go to a break here I'll give you a chance to speak when we come back.
Want to remind everybody that Papal Envoy Cardinal Pio Laghi is going to be a guest on Wolf Blitzer's show today. It's happening at 5 Eastern, 2 pacific. It's an exclusive you don't want to miss right here on CNN.
And coming up next, we're going to continue this topic. Now critics take issue with President Bush's faith saying it not only influences the man, but his policies, including his mission in Iraq. We're going to have more to talk about that. I know I have some audience members who want to speak out.
And if you want to talk to me as well, go ahead and give me a call, 1-800-301-4CNN. We'll talk after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. We're going to take a look at the cover of this week's "Newsweek." It's the focus on Mr. Bush's Christian faith and how it influences the way the president lives his life and governs the country. Now some have criticized the president for invoking religion as much as he does and wonders how much it influences his policies.
And we're talking now with Sandy Rios and Robert Boston. We were talking about that op-ed piece in "The New York Times" written by Nicholas Kristoff. In that piece, Kristoff also pointed out a Gallup poll that said 46 percent of the people polled consider themselves, identify themselves as evangelical Christians. So, Sandy, back to you again. Is Bush more in touch with the people? RIOS: Well, I think on some levels, yes. I think that's why his popularity rating is so high. Because we do have -- I know people argue about this -- but we have a Judeo-Christian heritage. That doesn't mean that a lot of people are really committed to Christ.
It doesn't mean that. But they have that tradition. And so they relate to somebody who is serious about that commitment more than they would a Muslim president or an atheist president. They do identify with a Christian president. I would also like to point out that President Bush is not the only person who has brought his strong faith to office.
NEVILLE: This is true.
RIOS: George Washington, our first president, was the chaplain of the revolutionary troops. He wrote lengthy prayer books.
NEVILLE: You know what, Sandy? You make a great point there. But I want to -- for the sake of time, I got to keep this moving. Jim (ph) over there, what do you say, Jim?
JIM: Given that Christian principles include faith, hope, charity and love, I hope that the president is basing his decisions on those Christian principles.
NEVILLE: OK. Thank you. Listen, we have a sound bite from Franklin Graham. He is the son of Billy Graham. I want to share that with you and we'll talk about it after we watch it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FRANKLIN GRAHAM, SAMARITAN'S PURSE PRESIDENT: The president, as the leader of this nation, has the moral obligation to protect all of us. And not just for today, but for generations to come. And so I support my president, I pray for him, and I pray that god will lead him according to god's will.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: Robert, are you uncomfortable with the war being used in religious and referred to in religious terms?
BOSTON: I am. I think the justification for the war needs to come from secular arguments. The president needs to make that case. And what Mr. Graham just said kind of goes back to what I mentioned a minute ago. You know Jesus can be portrayed as a peacemaker or he can be portrayed as a warrior. It all depends on your political perspective, usually not your religious perspective.
So that's why it's very dangerous to base a public policy argument on the bible. It is open to so many different interpretations. And, of course, there are millions of Americans who are not Christian, who belong either non-Christian faiths or have no faith. They deserve a voice, too, and they are no less American because of their religious beliefs. RIOS: But, Arthel, let me jump in there with Rob. Because the problem is, as I mentioned, we have a Judeo-Christian history and heritage. I don't know of any country in the entire world who expects that when other people move there that suddenly they have to become like those people who have just moved in.
We have this tradition. There's nothing wrong with it. I don't think that Arab Americans should expect that suddenly we become less Christian because they live here. They know that they have a free right to exercise their faith. Nobody is going to stop that. But we have that tradition.
Why should we be robbed of our tradition to accommodate our immigrants? I've never understood that.
NEVILLE: So, Sandy, do you think there is a danger that this war could be viewed as Christianity versus Islam?
RIOS: Well, I think the Muslims believe that. They feel that President Bush is evil. That it is all about religion to them. So it's kind of hard to not make it that.
But I think -- see the thing of it is all truth is god's truth. Rob said a few minutes ago that the president should pay more attention to the Constitution than the bible. And I would say they're not mutually exclusive. They are perfectly compatible. The people that penned that Constitution had great respect for the bible.
NEVILLE: OK. Sandy, I'm going to jump in there because I have an e-mail coming in right now I want to go ahead and share. It's from Shelby in Ohio. She says, "In this country that is founded on 'In God We Trust,' why are we poised to initiate war?" And Gene (ph) in the audience, you say what, sir?
GENE: I say leaders should be between church and state, because I mean you say Christianity, as George Bush, you know, love and all that, well you know Muslims, they believe in love and all that, too. And we all saw what Osama bin Laden did to...
NEVILLE: And what's your point, Gene (ph)?
GENE: That you shouldn't be religion with the same. It should go by laws. Laws and morals are two different things.
NEVILLE: OK. Thank you, Gene (ph), for standing up. Robert, I've got about 30 more seconds. I'll give you the last word here.
BOSTON: I only need to say that I think it's very dangerous to base public policy on religion because it is a subjective thing. There are millions of Americans who believe in liberal Christianity, millions who believe in conservative Christianity, and everything in between. Other faiths are welcome in this country.
I've got to dispute what Sandy says about people. You know, why should they come here and not adopt our beliefs. They have a right to believe whatever they were taught or whatever they were raised with. They shouldn't have to adopt a so-called Judeo-Christian ethic.
RIOS: No one said that. It's just that they have to allow us to exercise our tradition here without...
BOSTON: Well our Constitution is a secular document. It doesn't recognize officially any religion. It calls for separation and church and state.
RIOS: No, but it has a tradition of god and Judeo-Christian.
BOSTON: Not in the Constitution.
RIOS: Yes it does. The Bill of Rights reflects Christianity very strongly.
BOSTON: It's not in there.
NEVILLE: OK. There is the final word, because I think you guys will continue. Listen, Sandy Rios and Robert Boston, thank you both for joining us here today on TALKBACK LIVE.
RIOS: Thank you.
BOSTON: Thank you.
NEVILLE: Do appreciate it. And I think I see Charles Barkley over there. I do. He's here.
And you know what we're going to talk about? You're not going to believe this. A T-shirt lands a guy in jail. Could this happen to you? We're going to find out why this man ended up behind bars when he refused to take it off at a mall. We'll talk about that when we come back.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. I'm Arthel Neville. Can baseball's prodigal son be forgiven? Top baseball officials are expected to meet Pete Rose's manager sometime before the end of spring training to discuss reinstating the exiled player. Rose has been petitioning for reinstatement since 1997.
Now, without that, the career hits leader will not find a place in the Hall of Fame, and officials say that's not going to happen until he admits betting on the games. Here to talk about it, TALKBACK LIVE contributor Charles Barkley, and Sid Rosenburg, sports reporter for the "Imus in the Morning" radio show. He is also the host of the "Mac and Sid Show" on WFAN, The Fan in New York.
Hello, Sid. Hello, Charles.
CHARLES BARKLEY, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: What's up, girl?
SID ROSENBERG, "IMUS IN THE MORNING": Hi, Arthel. NEVILLE: OK. Pete Rose, should he be reinstated? What do you think here?
BARKLEY: I'm going to leave that up to the baseball players themselves, because it's an interesting thing. Because they said if he admit he's bet on baseball they'll let him back in. But when you talk to baseball players, they say that's the worst sin you can commit.
And obviously, we as the public, we're divided on it. Pete's a friend of mine, so I don't know. But it's going to be a great debate for a long time.
NEVILLE: All right. Sid, what do you think?
ROSENBERG: See for me I think it's two separate issues. I think that Pete Rose belongs in the Hall of Fame right now. You have people in the Hall of Fame in every sport that are racist, people that are drunks. Heck, you have a double murderer in the football Hall of Fame.
So Pete Rose should definitely be in the Hall of Fame right now. He was a great player. Until I find out that Pete Rose gambled why he played, I want Pete Rose in the Hall of Fame.
Now, in terms of getting back into the game and managing or resuming a place in baseball, then I think he has to admit that he did something wrong in the past. But going to the Hall of Fame, he belongs there right now.
NEVILLE: Joan (ph), how do you see it?
JOAN: I agree with the gentlemen there. I think it's a separate issue. I think, as far as reinstating him back into baseball, managing and so forth, no. But he does belong in the Hall of Fame.
NEVILLE: OK, Joan (ph). Thank you very much.
BARKLEY: Well, my point is, I guess I'm trying to make is, according to the baseball people, then you got to let Shoeless Joe in. Because, think about it. They say that's the worst thing you can do in baseball is bet.
And to me it sounds like -- first of all, they are hypocrites, because they put Pete Rose in all these ceremonies on the field. So they're hypocrites in general. But they have to make that distinction. It's not up to us as the public, to be honest with you.
ROSENBERG: Hold on, Charles. The difference though -- and you brought up Shoeless Joe Jackson -- is Shoeless Joe Jackson was involved in throwing the World Series back in 1919, the Black Sox scandal. He was playing the game and he was accused of doing that. No one knows if Pete Rose gambled while he played.
BARKLEY: It doesn't matter if you played or coached.
ROSENBERG: Of course it matters.
BARKLEY: No it doesn't matter.
ROSENBERG: It doesn't matter?
BARKLEY: It doesn't matter if you are playing or coaching. If you are betting on the game, it's wrong. You can't...
ROSENBERG: Hold on, Charles. If he spent 20 years playing the game, and then he started betting as he became a manager later on down the road, why don't you just wipe out the 20 years of service he had on the field as a great player?
BARKLEY: I never said -- No. 1: He is an unbelievable player. But I don't think you can have a distinction whether a player or a coach bets on the game. You can't have that double standard.
NEVILLE: OK. Then you -- we're going to change topics on that note. You know, you probably heard about this story, audience. Charges have been made by a former University of Georgia basketball player against UGA coach Jim Harrick Sr., and his son, assistant coach Jim Harrick, Jr.
Now Tony Cole told ESPN that coach Harrick bought him a TV and says Harrick's son paid a lot of his bills. The former player also says Harrick Jr. took correspondence courses for him, and head coach Harrick denies all charges. Here's what he told ESPN.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JIM HARRICK, UGA BASKETBALL COACH: I've been in this business 30 years. You don't survive by giving people money, by doing people's work for them. I want to tell you, I'll end with one thing. Get any of my players at Pepperdine, at UCLA, at Rhode Island, at Georgia, and ask any, any player if we've ever given them money, if we've ever done anything for them. Jarvis Hayes (ph) lives in the dorm, does not have a car, has no clothes and no money, and I rest my case.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: Charles?
BARKLEY: Let me tell you something. I am so mad and disappointed in Tony Cole. It sounds to me like, hey, I wish (UNINTELLIGIBLE) had took care of me that good if they did do it. I'm still trying to figure out, if they did all these things for him, why he turned against the university.
First of all, all of the colleges -- not all of them, but the majority of colleges, they do this. And anybody who thinks that these kids are getting a great education, these guys are there to win basketball games and football games. Nobody wants to admit that. But that's all it is.
We as athletes, our job is to win games. If the coach doesn't get players to win, some of the guys are bad, but they're still good players. Their job is to win games. And a lot of colleges do this. But this is a personal vendetta by this kid, Cole, and he is screwing it up for other kids who have questionable character who would take advantage of the situation instead of keep continually getting in trouble at Georgia and being...
NEVILLE: And other places, not just Georgia. Sid, your take?
ROSENBERG: I think Charles is in kind of a tough spot there. And I think he was right about much of what he said. I think Cole is vindictive here in going after Harrick, but Harrick has been in trouble forever.
This is a guy that was in trouble at UCLA, he was in trouble at Rhode Island. He's in trouble now. I don't believe a word Jim Harrick says.
And, really, the problem now becomes an indictment of the whole system. And think about it. And Charles, you know this. We are 11 days away from the selection show for the most exciting tournament in sports, the NCAA Final Four March Madness. And this week alone we've had three schools: St. Bonaventure, we just mentioned Georgia, and we've got Michigan is also in a bunch of trouble, and Fresno State.
All those schools either have self-imposed bans, which Fresno State did, or they are in trouble outside of that. So right now college basketball is a mess, and Jim Harrick is trying to save himself. But I don't believe a word Jim Harrick says.
BARKLEY: Well, you know you have a point. And I consider Jim Harrick a friend of mine. And there is a long smoke trail. But for this kid to do this, I think is wrong.
But let's don't condemn college basketball, because you only named four programs. And there are a lot of great programs out there that do a great job. But let's don't kid ourselves. There's a lot of colleges who pay players. There's a lot of colleges who do what these kids get their work done for them.
I went to Auburn (ph). We didn't do that. But I know some places where they did do it.
NEVILLE: Yes. OK, Auburn (ph). Go ahead, Chris (ph), quickly.
CHRIS: I think that the issue really is, are they students or are they athletes? Because the problem comes when we're not quite sure if they are students or they are athletes. I don't think they can be both.
BARKLEY: Well, in fairness, ma'am, if you read one of the things I put in my book -- I got this article from "USA Today" -- 35 out of the 65 teams that went to the NCAA tournament, I think it was last year or the year before, did not graduate a player. So they are not educating these kids.
They are there to make money, get them to the tournament. or get them to one of the big bowls. That's what they are there to do. That's just how it is and the way it has always been. Now it's just become a priority.
NEVILLE: OK.
ROSENBERG: I think Charles makes a great point there. And, by the way, Charles, we had you on the "Imus in the Morning" show when your book came out, and it's a terrific book.
NEVILLE: The book: "I May Be Wrong, But I Doubt It."
BARKLEY: Thank you, Sid.
(CROSSTALK)
ROSENBERG: But getting back to what Charles is saying, hey, look at what Lebron James is going through right now. He's the high school kid that -- you know he was suspended and now he's back and playing ball. And people are saying he should go to college.
Of course he shouldn't go to college. He's wasting somebody else's space.
NEVILLE: Sid, that's another great story, but I have to go ahead and take a break here. I do appreciate your appearance here. Sid Rosenberg, thank you so much.
ROSENBERG: Thank you, Arthel.
NEVILLE: OK. "I May Be Wrong, But I Doubt It" out on paperback now, right?
BARKLEY: Yes.
NEVILLE: All right then.
OK, here's this -- how is this story for you? How did a T-shirt, this one, in fact, land its owner in jail? We'll find out after the break.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Thank you for that e-mail, Elise in Wisconsin.
And here's a story for you. Stephen Downs says he was just hanging out in the food court at an Albany mall in New York with his son when some security guards told him to take off his shirt or leave. Now Downs was wearing a T-shirt with this message, "Give peace a chance." He refused to take it off and to leave.
Then the guards told him he was on private property and behaving badly. He was charged with trespassing and hauled off to jail. Charles, so, what's your reaction to this story?
BARKLEY: Well let me just say this. This last month or so has been probably my most disappointing time to be in the United States. And for the simple fact is, even with the thing with the girl Toni Smith and with this guy with his T-shirt, it seems like America is the greatest place. First of all, it is a wonderful place. But it's like everything is great.
We're the freest country in the world, unless you disagree with our message. And everybody who disagrees with war is unpatriotic, they are un-American, and that's why we have America. There are a lot of people who have died to put us in this situation where we can be free and think what we want to.
And for all these people to turn this thing into, you're unpatriotic, your un-American, and now you are bringing religion into it, it's just disappoints me greatly. I wish they would come and take my shirt. I wish they would.
NEVILLE: You're making me laugh.
BARKLEY: No, I'm serious.
NEVILLE: No, I know you're serious.
BARKLEY: I would have beat the hell out of them guards. You know, that is so sad. That is so sad that -- that shirt is not...
NEVILLE: Charles, you know what? They would not even approach you about a T-shirt.
BARKLEY: I saw the one where the guy had the T-shirt in school that said, "Bush: International Terrorist." I could see if somebody had a problem with that. But "Give peace a chance," for them to make him take that off is a disgrace.
NEVILLE: You know I have an e-mail coming in now I want to share with everybody. It is from John in Missouri. He says, "So after we've brought our brand of democracy to Iraq, it will be illegal to wear anti-war T-shirts there, too, right?"
BARKLEY: You know, it's -- I just feel so bad now that -- you know everybody is on Martin Sheen. And, first of all, I'm so sick of people beating down on celebrities. It's like, hey, you're just a celebrity, your opinion don't matter.
Celebrities aren't trying to like -- they're just normal people who have a skill. And I'm against the war, and I feel like I'm very American. And if people don't feel like I'm American, give me my $75 million I paid in taxes the last 20 years back and then I'll move somewhere.
NEVILLE: All right. I got to go to break. OK, Charles, hang here with me. When we come back, I'm going to talk to you about our "Question of the Day." Should the U.S. go to war without a second resolution? We're back after this break.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) NEVILLE: And here's our "Question of the Day." Should the U.S. go to war without a second U.N. resolution? Going to California. Edward (ph), your answer, sir.
EDWARD: Yes. Hi, Arthel. I don't know where in the world the U.S. ever got the idea that we're above the law. We created the U.N.
NEVILLE: OK. Edward (ph), thank you. And we have some e-mails coming in now I want to share with you. First up, Randy in Texas. "Yes, we must go to war without a second U.N. resolution to ensure the safety of all people around the world." OK, Randy in Texas. Thank you.
Another one coming in now. Dena in California says, "No, we must not go to war without a U.N. resolution. Going it alone would lead to worldwide conflict. This war is wrong."
And I think we have time for one more e-mail here. Let's see. Terry in Utah, he says, "I think we should move to disarm Iraq with or without an additional U.N. resolution and full cooperation by Iraq if disarmament is not present." OK, Terry. Thank you so much.
We are out of time. Charles Barkley, thank you so much. We'll see you again next Wednesday, correct?
BARKLEY: Well sure.
NEVILLE: All right. I'm Arthel Neville. I'll see you again tomorrow for more TALKBACK LIVE. And Judy Woodruff is coming up next with "INSIDE POLITICS."
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
|
