|
CNN TALKBACK LIVE
War With Iraq: Unleash Terror?
Aired March 6, 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: Today on TALKBACK LIVE: countdown to war.
President Bush holds a primetime news conference tonight. Is he preparing the nation for war? Also an FBI whistle blower warns that war could unleash a tidal wave of terrorism, and Coleen Rowly says the FBI is not ready to deal with it. Could war put America at greater risk.
And a website gets a letter from vice presidents office. After posting some (UNINTELLIGIBLE) photo's of Dick Cheney's wife. We'll tell you why the vice presidents says the photo's are no laughing matter.
The TALK starts right now.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
NEVILLE: Hello, everybody, welcome to TALKBACK LIVE, I'm Arthel Neville.
As the U.S. prepares for war with Iraq, President Bush has called for a news conference for tonight, and Iraq is certainly on the agenda. Meanwhile, the diplomatic push picks up steam at the United Nations.
Joining me now with the latest is CNN White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux and the correspondent from the U.N., Michael Okwu, joins us as well.
Suzanne, I'll start with you. In tonight's speech, will the president be preparing Americans for war?
SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Arthel, we've been told he's not going to declare war, he's not going to make any news in terms of new information or intelligence or announcements. What he is going to answer reporters' questions. He's going to make an opening statement. We're told that he's going to give a broad, general picture on the update, the progress report in the war on terror, that it's going to be an optimistic look at all of this. He's go going to point to recent successes, the capture of al Qaeda, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. That he'll talk about the case against Saddam Hussein.
The most important part of this, senior administration officials tell us, is the sense of urgency he wants to give the American people that really, it is just a matter of days before he makes that critical decision, whether or not the United States is going to go to war. This is really a unique situation here. It is really only the eighth formal news conference, press conference that he's had since his presidency, but his aides say he thought this was the first time. Why? Because he says that he believes that Americans have legitimate questions when it comes to Iraq.
NEVILLE: So Suzanne with that in mind, how long has this tonight's speech been planned?
MALVEAUX: I only wish I knew that. These are things that are in the pipeline and sometimes you just can't have a sense of that. I have to tell you, though, in the gaggle this morning, there was a little bit -- everybody's heart skipped a beat when they found out there was going to be this 8:00 briefing, because people were assuming that perhaps he was going to make that speech the American people talking about perhaps declaring war. We've been told from administration officials for a long time now that the president if he makes that decision, is going to go before the public and make his case, giving a signal as well, 72 hours, to Americans and others in Iraq to essentially get out of town, that war is imminent. We've been told, specifically, that this is not that address.
NEVILLE: Well, whatever that address will be tonight, we're going to carry that here at CNN. Of course, we'll have special coverage beginning at 7:45 Eastern time. That's 4:45 Pacific right here on CNN.
Aaron Brown and Wolf Blitzer will be fronting that coverage.
And Suzanne Malveaux I know you have to run off and do some more of your White House investigative reporting. We're going to let you go. Thank you so much for your information provided today.
MALVEAUX: Thanks.
NEVILLE: OK, Suzanne.
NEVILLE: And Michael, we going to turn to you now. Because again, everybody's talking about this second resolution or the new resolution.
Tony Blair, what's his position on this now? I know there's been some sort of change here.
MICHAEL OKWU, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, they're still pushing the second resolution, of course as you know, Arthel. This is a resolution that would, in effect, authorize war with Iraq. But the news coming out of London is that the United States and Great Britain, with Great Britain as the spearhead here is pushing for an amendment to the second resolution. And that would especially give inspectors more time on the ground and then it would set some sort of a deadline for the Iraqis.
Some sort of a deadline that all the other nations on the Security Council can agree with. Clearly, the smaller countries on the United Nations Security Council, those middle six votes, some of the African nations, Angola, Guinea, Cameroon, as well as countries like Chile, Mexico, Pakistan, they've been pushing now for the better part of a week or so to get the United States and Great Britain on one hand. And France, Russia, Germany, China on the other hand to start -- to stop basically trying to put so much pressure on them to get their votes, to actually channel that energy towards reaching some sort of a compromise.
So the early assessment right here, now, is that some of these smaller countries are buying into the idea of a compromise, but it's unclear. Jack Straw, the British foreign secretary, just moments ago had a press conference here for the Correspondents at the United Nations. Essentially, dealing with this issue of an amendment, almost (UNINTELLIGIBLE). He used it more as a platform to start talking about Saddam Hussein again and how he hasn't really complied and to exercise more of this tough language.
So some people here surmising that perhaps this talk of an amendment is not so real yet, that they haven't really, you know, dotted the "i"s, crossed the "t"s. Maybe it's a trial and the United States and Great Britain haven't come to a real agreement on this yet -- Arthel.
NEVILLE: Tomorrow is March 7. What can we expect from Dr. Blix.
OKWU: More fireworks. There will be about 11 foreign ministers here, a deputy foreign minister as well. You can call this round three. The last time this happened, of course, the French foreign minister, Dominique De Villepin spoke persuasively as far as the Council members were concerned about essentially continuing inspections and not going to war and he won applause in the Council. But Blix will go before the Council and we expect, according to U.N. official that this will be a mixed bag. It usually is when the diplomatic Hans Blix talks in front of the Council. He will say that Iraqis have been much more cooperative of late. Clearly, they've destroyed some of the Al Samoud missiles. He says that is real disarmament.
They've always allowed, recently seven scientists to be reviewed privately and unconditionally, without government minders or tape recorders. He looks at all of this as real positive movement. At the same time, Mr. Blix will likely say that he is a little befuddled that the Iraqis have not come forward with some of this cooperative action sooner in order to stave off a potential U.S.-led attack.
NEVILLE: OK, Michael Okwu, we, of course, will cover those fireworks right here on CNN. Thanks so much, Michael, for your report.
So, what would a delay mean to hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops facing the desert heat?
Let's see what we can find out from CNN military analyst, retired Major General Don Shepperd.
Hello, general.
How are you?
Nice to see you.
GEN. DON SHEPPERD (RET), CNN MILITARY ANALYST: How are you, Arthel.
NEVILLE: Good. But here's a question everybody wants to know. We heard Michael Okwu report that the British prime minister, Tony Blair, could be requesting or proposing a little more time, giving the inspectors a little more time.
So, you know, how long can the U.S. troops be kept on stand-by?
SHEPPERD: We stayed in Germany for 50 years. We've stayed in Korea for 50 years. They can be kept on stand-by indefinitely. But you're not going to do that. It's not the same thing to sit in the desert. To move 300,000 troops into the desert and tell them so sit there for a year or something of that sort. This is going to come to a head one way or the other. But, if ordered to do so, we could stay in place. You'd have to rotate the troops. You'd have to get them out. It would be devastating to the morale of people out there. They sure wouldn't like it. I don't think it's going to happen.
NEVILLE: Hypothetically speaking, if we were going to have to rotate the troops, that sounds simple, but what's involved there?
SHEPPERD: You got to bring new troops in, you got to fly them in and out. You have got to rotate people. You've got to keep them up and trained. This is not something we're likely to do. You might give it some more time in the matter of days and weeks, but you're not going to give it months and a year that type of thing, is my judgment, Arthel.
NEVILLE: And then also, general, you talk about affecting morale. What about sharpness. I mean, because -- isn't there such a thing as being over prepared and over ready?
SHEPPERD: You can't stay on the point all the time. What you do with troops in the field, get the equipment out, keep the equipment polished and up to date and exercise the troops on a continual basis. You can do that for a period of time, but you can't do it for months and months and months on end. These people are keyed now, expecting something to happen, probably within the next 30 days maybe six weeks at the very longest. And my guess is that something will happen in that time frame.
NEVILLE: Then we talk about having the troops on hold. What about the troops' families. Do -- is there anyone in the military who is there counseling these people at home on -- they're sitting on edge too.
SHEPPERD: We have good family support programs throughout the military. But it is really tough on families. It's a lot tougher on the families, the kids and spouses at home. You say spouses now because it's men and women back home, not like before. But basically, it's a lot harder on them than the troops. The troops are out there, practicing, they got their buddies by them, they're expecting something to go. They're getting ready. And the folks back home are waiting and wondering what's going to happen. And they're expecting bad things to happen. It's tough on them.
NEVILLE: Now, general, if there is going to be a war, what kind of war are we looking at?
SHEPPERD: You're looking at something that's similar and at the same time different than the Gulf War. In the Gulf War, you had a 37- 40 day air campaign, followed by a three to four day ground war. This time, you going to see a massive air campaign with much more -- many more weapons dropped in the opening hours than were dropped in the Gulf War. Most of it precision-guide munitions as opposed to types of carpet bombing that we think about in the old days. And further, you'll see almost simultaneous movement of ground troops, because you can.
Last time, remember, the Iraqi army was dug in right outside of Kuwait, right in our faces. This time, they're not there. They're around Baghdad. So it should be -- we should have the ability to move ground forces much quicker than we did during the Gulf War.
NEVILLE: Then, of course, it's still unclear if Turkey and Jordan will allow the U.S. to use air space.
Is that significant if it doesn't happen?
SHEPPERD: Particularly Turkey. You want a northern front. We'd like to unload those ships in the Eastern Mediterranean there, move them across land to Turkey, establish a northern front. The reason the northern front is key is it keeps Saddam from concentrating his forces on the west of Baghdad and the south of Baghdad and putting our troops in the Coalition troops further at risk down there. So, you want the northern front to keep him spread out. You also want to seize the northern oil fields, the dams and that type of thing up there to keep bad things from happening.
NEVILLE: Exactly. In general, also, we talked about this. This is obviously more than just maps and graphics. It's not a video game. We're talking about a lot of lives being lost here if you can give us some perspective on the casualties. The potential for casualties.
SHEPPERD: That's really hard to do. My personal opinion is that casualties will be very low, both in the civilian community and on the -- on the Coalition and American side. We had 12,000 casualties, predicted in the Gulf War. It ended up being 148 dead. On the Iraqi side, the best estimates we can get, probably in the neighborhood of 100,000 military killed and about 3,000 civilians. With our precision guided munitions and the fact that we're going in with overwhelming force, we hope a lot of these forces will give up.
We hope, in fact, they'll depose Saddam so there won't be fighting. I'm fairly confident that we can keep civilian and military casualties to a minimum if this comes off well. But it's unpredictable and we have to be prepared for the worst. That's why it's so serious a decision to go to war. You have to look in the mirror and say I'm president, am I willing to live with the bad things that happen as well as hope for the good things.
NEVILLE: I'm out of time, general. But I want to ask you this before I go. And that is -- if, in fact, there's military action, if Saddam Hussein is disarmed, but yet still left alive, is that still considered a victory?
SHEPPERD: You know, I think -- let me turn around just a little bit. It may be we go in there and have a victory, yet we don't have Saddam, just like we don't have bin Laden right now. He could escape. He could go to a neutral country even after we go in. We hope he'll go into exile before there's any war. But the point is, he is going out, his regime is going out if we cross the border. You can bet on it.
NEVILLE: General Don Shepperd, thank you so much. I'm sure we'll see a lot of you in the coming days and weeks. Thank very you much -- so much.
OK. Of course we want to let everybody know that CNN will cover this special coverage of the president's news conference. Again, that's tonight at 7:45 eastern, 4:45 Pacific.
In the meantime, we're going to continue here on TALKBACK LIVE, talking about this now. FBI whistle blower Colleen Rawly predicts a flood of terror if the U.S. goes to war. And she warns the FBI is not ready to deal with it. Dire predictions when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Today on TALKBACK LIVE, the vice president does not find a parody of his wife funny.
Then, Bill Clinton and Bob Dole snag a spot on "60 Minutes." Maybe the leap from politics to entertainment doesn't that far. What do you think? The TALK continues after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everyone, I'm Arthel Neville.
An FBI whistle blower hailed for revealing how the agency mishandled information prior to September 11 is blowing that whistle again in a letter to FBI Director Robert Mueller and copied to the "New York Times". Coleen Rowley predicted there will be a flood of terrorism in the wake of war with Iraq. Now, Rowley insisted the FBI is not prepared to deal with it. The FBI isn't commenting on Rowley's letter. However, bureau officials say Mueller has warned of the growing possibility of terrorist activities in the event of war.
With us now is former FBI Agent Bill Daly, who is now a senior vice president of a security consulting firm and was involved in developing security for the World Trade Center after the 1993 bombing. OK, Mr. Daly, so Rowley says the FBI is ill-prepared for a new terrorism threat.
Do you agree?
WILLIAM DALY, CONTROL RISKS GROUP: Arthel from my perspective and I try to monitor this, having been a long-time supporter of bureau and feel very strongly about what they do is that I think they've taken some major initiatives to move forward. Going back to May of 2002, they restructured the FBI and actually put together their strategic initiatives, starting off with one protecting the United States and its citizens. But also, we've seen over the past year or so some additional steps. They've gone -- worked closely with the CIA in putting together a joint intelligence clearinghouse at the CIA.
And even as recent as yesterday, came forward and told local agencies that because of the arrest of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed as well as the impending military action in Iraq, that potentially, we could see some increased terrorist activities. So I understand agent Rowley's position and can appreciate her loyalty and her support of the FBI, which I believe is in her heart. I think that this only goes to show that sometimes we need people from the outside and inside looking closely and trying to move things along and get people's attention. I don't know how valid her positions are. I'm not in the Bureau right now.
NEVILLE: And your take on that, though? Do you think that...
DALY: My take is that I think we've come a long way, that the FBI has changed strategically. We've made some inroads. There have been over -- investigations into approximately 3,000 terrorist threats and complaints. They've come forward and even before the Homeland Security Department was in place, they came out with warnings and announcements. It's a changing organization. There's a culture within the FBI which has made it what it is, but it needs to be more adaptable. And probably that is the thing, if anything, that takes the most time to change in any organization, particularly the FBI.
NEVILLE: You know, I want to share a little bit of that letter to FBI Director Robert Mueller from Coleen Rowley that she also copied to the "New York Times". It says, "We should be deluding neither ourselves nor the American people that there is any way the FBI, despite the various improvements you are implementing, will be able to stem the flood of terrorism that will likely head our way in the wake of an attack on Iraq. What troubles me most is that I have no assurance that you have made that clear to the president."
And, Bill Daly, I ask you, is that Robert Mueller's job?
DALY: Well, it certainly is his job and I know that he does meet with the president on a daily basis and provides him information what's going on, along with other intelligence agency heads. I would only imagine that he would be pointing out their strengths as well as potentially where they need support and additional resources in this fight against terrorism.
You know, Arthel, this is not the Golden Globes. This is not where people are voting for, you know, who is the best looking or has the best image. We're really talking about protecting the American people. I believe those who have that at heart, for instance, the director, as well as Miss Rowley, know that we're doing all we can at this present time and some things are just outside of our control. And if something was to happen, you know, down the street here this afternoon, it may be something that, no matter how many resources we put on it, we couldn't have prevented.
NEVILLE: Hmmm. OK. Bill Daly, thank you so much for joining us here today on TALKBACK LIVE.
DALY: Thank you.
NEVILLE: Will a war with Iraq a make us safer or will it put Americans at greater risk of terror. We're going to find out why my next guest says a U.S. attack on Iraq could become a recruiting poster for Osama bin Laden.
Don't go anywhere. The talk continues after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(MARKET UPDATE)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. We're talking about a possible war with Iraq and the terror FBI agent Coleen Rowley says would rain down on the U.S. in that event.
Here to talk about it are Phyllis Bennis, a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, and Joseph Farah, founder, editor and CEO of worldnetdaily.com. His latest book is titled "Taking America Back."
And Joseph, I'm starting with you today. Do you agree with Coleen Rowley that war with Iraq will unleash more terror attacks on the U.S.?
JOSPEH FARAH, WORLDNETDAILY.COM: I both agree and disagree with her.
You know, I don't think there's any question that in the short- term, the threat of terrorism increases with an Iraq -- with an attack on Iraq. I also applaud her patriotism and her courage and whistle blowing on the FBI and its inadequacies, its incompetence in ferreting out terrorism.
But I'm not ready to make her secretary of defense. And if there's the suggestion that we should back down from our campaign in Iraq because we're afraid of short-term terrorist attacks, I think we're making a huge mistake.
NEVILLE: Phyllis, what do you think?
PHYLLIS BENNIS, INST. FOR POLICY STUDIES: Well, I don't think that we should back down because we're afraid of anything. We should back away from this war was it's wrong. The war is wrong because it's not going to make us safer. It's going to kill thousands and thousands of Iraqi civilians, potentially hundreds or even thousands of U.S. troops as well.
This is a war that is not necessary, does not have the support of the world. What we're seeing around the world as we speak is a drastic effort, a dramatic effort by the United States to scramble around to get enough votes to get their resolution passed in the United Nations. And despite the kind of bribes they have offered, despite offering Turkey, for instance, billions and billions of dollars in new aid and control of half of northern Iraq, the democracy in Turkey said that the parliament shouldn't vote for it and they didn't.
NEVILLE: Then with that sort of stuff in mind, Phyllis, then you know there's talk about the second U.N. resolution, whether or not it will pass.
Do you think the U.S. could afford or not afford to go forward with military action if, in fact, that new resolution does not pass?
BENNIS: If the Bush administration goes ahead with this war, as is certainly a danger, they have made clear their willingness to do that, and some in the administration, I'm afraid, actually would prefer to go ahead without the United Nations -- they will stand in complete violation of the U.N. charter. The so-called coalition of the willing, which we should really call a coalition of the coerced, will not provide the legal justification that a Security Council resolution explicitly endorsing a particular war at a particular time would provide.
It would be a clear violation of the law. The U.S. would then become the outlaw state.
NEVILLE: You know, Joseph, China's foreign minister is saying, Listen, this Iraq situation is at a critical juncture here, where there will be either military action or political conclusion to this outcome here.
How likelihood is there of a political solution, Joseph?
FARAH: None whatsoever. Let's be realistic. This war is going to happen. It's going to happen in the next week or so.
We keep asking ourselves, What happens if we attack Iraq? You know, and we look at the all the terrible scenarios. What we have to ask ourselves, What happens if we don't attack Iraq? What happens if we don't destroy the terrorist infrastructure? What happens if we...
NEVILLE: What happens, Joseph? What happens, Joseph??
FARAH: What happens if we don't destroy the weapons of mass destruction?
What happens is the conditions worsen. We're going to see terrorism, the likes of which we have never been -- we have never imagined before. They'll make 2, 000 -- it will make September 11, 2001, look like a picnic by comparison, because the terrorists will have weapons of mass destruction, not just chemical and biological but if we back down in Iraq, does anyone doubt that Saddam Hussein is going to -- that he will not renew his production of nuclear weapons and his aspirations to get them?
What will he do with them? Almost certainly, he will put them in the hands of terrorists who will use them against us.
BENNIS: Well, first of all, that's never been the pattern in Iraq. If you look at the State Department's own annual report, "Patterns of global terrorism, they say that the last effort by Iraq -- and this is disputed that it even happened -- was in 1993 with the alleged attempt on -- to assassinate the first President Bush.
But despite all of that, the bottom line is there is simply no evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. For all of Colin Powell's great drama at the United Nations, for all of his holding up a vial of talcum powder, there is no evidence that Iraq has these weapons. And the reality of U.N. resolutions provides a way to make sure that they never do in the future. We know they did in the past because we sold them to them. But to make sure they don't in the future, we need to go regional with the military sanctions to prevent all of the countries in the region, all of those long borders surrounding Iraq and the rest of the region from getting those kinds of weapons. Article 14...
NEVILLE: OK, Phyllis, I have to jump in there, because I need to go to a break right now. Will war with Iraq make you feel safer or more vulnerable? Go ahead and give me a call at -- or you can e-mail me. The phone number is 1-800-310-4CNN. And the e-mail, talkback@cnn.com.
And later on the show, Vice President Dick Cheney's office is not laughing after a Web site posts a parody of his wife. I'll show you the Web site and you tell me if you think it's in bad taste. I'll talk to you after this break.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: We're going to continue our discussion now about whether war with Iraq is going to mean more terrorist attacks in the United States. I have some e-mails coming in I want to share with you.
Let's see. It would be from Oregon. Teresa is saying, "Terrorists didn't need a war with Iraq to attack us on 9/11. There's always an excuse. You can appease terrorists. They must be faced head on or they win."
Let's see, do we have any other e-mails coming in? Yes, we do. Ahmad in Virginia says, "As a former Iraqi citizen, I know that a war in Iraq will not increase terrorism but rather show the Iraqi people that America cares for them and for their freedoms." All right, Ahmad, thank you for writing in.
And Heather (ph), you say what? HEATHER: I believe that a war with Iraq will definitely increase terrorism in the U.S. I think there's no question about that. When people start dying, what's going to happen? The rest of the world is going to look at us as a target. And then the bigger question also for me is, what happens after the war? We're trying to build a nation, and doing that is not always easy to do.
NEVILLE: OK, thank you. I have another audience member. Your answer, sir?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think that, you know, is there a concern that there could be terrorist attacks? But should we live in fear of them? No. We shouldn't change the way we live our lives.
And, you know, like the e-mail said, there was no war going on, on September 11, yet they found a way to fly the planes and kill 3,000 innocent American civilians. So we need to go in there and not worry about whether they're going to attack us.
(APPLAUSE)
NEVILLE: OK. Phyllis, want to hear your response to that.
BENNIS: You know he's absolutely right. The terrorists of September 11 didn't require weapons of mass destruction. They used box cutters and airplanes. But the point is, they had nothing to do with Iraq. They were almost all citizens of Saudi Arabia.
They had never been to Iraq. They had no ties to Iraq. The allegation about this link between Iraq and al Qaeda simply has no evidence.
NEVILLE: Now where do you -- but, Phyllis, on that note, do you think -- talking again about Americans, now, do you think it's Americans' responsibility to understand the distinction, or is it the administration's responsibility to make sure that they...
BENNIS: Absolutely. It's all of your responsibility. We're supposed to be a democracy. We're supposed to have something to say about what our government does. And the most important decision a government ever makes is to take its nation to war.
If we -- we have to understand what the relationships are and are not. And I'm saying that there is no evidence of a link. We can talk all we want about the future that some day, somebody in Iraq might give a weapon that they might get later to somebody else who might -- that's not what you can go to war on.
You can't go to war on a preemptive, preventive basis. It's illegal. What if everybody else in the world said the same thing, that they were going to go to war because they think some day we might attack them?
NEVILLE: OK. Joseph, final thoughts from you.
FARAH: Yes, I've got to correct two things that Phyllis said. Number one, that there's no evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction? Saddam Hussein admits he has weapons of mass destruction and is supposedly in the process of destroying them right now.
BENNIS: Those are missiles; those are not weapons of mass destruction.
FARAH: I didn't interrupt you, Phyllis, thank you very much. And the other point is that there is no connection between Iraq and al qaeda. Yoseff Badansky, in his wonderful book, "Bin Laden: The Man Who Declared War on America," documented in great detail 10 years of collaboration between al Qaeda and Iraq.
Saddam Hussein did what no other leader in the world did. He even provided terrorists with a fuselage of a Boeing 707 so they could practice airline hijackings prior to September 11, 2001. I don't know what connections we need to draw beyond that. Iraq is culpable.
NEVILLE: Phyllis, do you think that nerve gas is considered a weapon of mass destruction?
BENNIS: Absolutely. And Iraq once had it. What we don't have is any evidence that they have it now. We sold them the seed stocks for that biological stock.
NEVILLE: So does that mean that in fact it's not there or does that mean they're concealing it quite well from the weapons inspectors?
BENNIS: The inspectors will find it if it's there. There's been no evidence. For all of the satellite information and the other information the U.S. claims to have given to the inspectors, every one of those leads has turned up empty.
NEVILLE: Do you think that Saddam and his administration, that they're clever enough to hide whatever they need to from the weapons inspectors?
BENNIS: No, I don't think so, because what we're talking about is the question of what has remained after the massive amount of destruction of their weapons of mass destruction by UNSCOM, who, when they left in 1998, said that 90 to 95 percent had already been destroyed. They had destroyed it. Far more than was destroyed in the war, we should note.
NEVILLE: OK, listen, unfortunately we're out of time here. I'd love to continue the discussion. Phyllis Bennis and Joseph Farah, thank you both for joining us here today on TALKBACK LIVE.
BENNIS: Thanks, Arthel.
NEVILLE: Sure. And coming up next, the vice president's office objects to a Web site parody of Lynne Cheney. We're going to talk to the guy who put that farce together at whitehouse.org. And we just got reaction from an aide in the vice president's office. I'll share that with you as well.
So stay right where you are. We'll talk after the break.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Well, they say it's all in fun, but a Web site that parodies the White House isn't making the vice president's office laugh. The site includes a satirical biography and some pictures of his wife, Lynne Cheney. Now the VP's office sent a letter to the creator of the site asking them to remove the pictures, but the ACLU thinks Mr. Cheney is being too heavy-handed, and so does John Wooden, the man behind the whitehouse.org Web site.
He joins us now on the telephone. And Mr. Wooden, first of all, thanks for being here. And if you could tell us -- just us to the beginning. You put this picture and this satirical biography of the vice president's wife, Lynne Cheney, and then what happened?
JOHN A. WOODEN, WHITEHOUSE.ORG: Well, this was originally published quite some time ago. It's been kind of languishing on the Web since August of 2001, which is one of the reasons we were so surprised to receive any communication about this.
The thrust of the letter from the White House would seem to be that Lynne Cheney is not a public figure. When, of course, we know that she's had a very long and prominent political career as a CNN pundit, as a lecturer, as an author. There you have it.
NEVILLE: OK. You know we have a statement from an aide from the vice president's office. Let's take a look at that and I'll keep talking to you. It says, "The vice president and Mrs. Cheney were not aware of the letter before it was sent. The vice president and Mrs. Cheney consider the matter closed."
OK, Mr. Wooden, do you think that, in fact, those are the sentiments of the vice president or, perhaps, that of an attorney?
WOODEN: Well, I wouldn't speculate as to the internal workings there. That may very well be the case, but I do think it's troubling that the letter was produced in the first place. I mean, in the end, the Web site is really no different from someone putting a political bumper sticker on their car or drawing a political cartoon. You know our tax dollars pay to have that letter produced, which is essentially a threatening and intimidating letter intended to curtail free speech.
NEVILLE: So what's the point of this in the first place, Mr. Wooden?
WOODEN: Well, obviously it's just a giant parody of the White House Web site. Lynne Cheney's biography is part of that Web site, and so it's one of many hundreds of pages that make up this larger parody site.
NEVILLE: So is the picture and the biography, are they both still there on your Web site now? WOODEN: They are. After we received the letter, the pictures were doctored somewhat. They had some silly noses put on them. And we threw up a disclaimer, but that's it. We've continued publishing.
NEVILLE: All right. John Wooden, thank you so much for calling in to TALKBACK LIVE.
And we're going to talk to our guest now, Martin Lewis, a political commentator and columnist. He has his own Web site at gimmesometruth.com. Also, Peter Blute, a radio talk show host for WRKO in Boston.
OK, guys. You just heard John Wooden. Martin, I want to hear what you think about this first. I don't know, does this tickle your funny bone or is it in bad taste?
MARTIN LEWIS, POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well two things. First of all, you have to admire the multitasking skills of the White House. Here we are, there's over 290 million Americans held hostage to terror to Osama bin Laden, whom they still haven't found. We're imminently facing war with Iraq. Even the pope and millions of people around the world want that stopped.
The budget is spiraling, the deficit spiraling hugely. All these problems, and they managed to find time to write a letter to a satirical Web site. You've got to give them credit for that.
(APPLAUSE)
LEWIS: The second thing about this that is quite startling is that I don't actually think it's that funny, because they do make a very nasty comment about Lynne Cheney, which obviously is a joke. She say that she fell in love with Dick Cheney because she used to drink crystal meth, which is horrible and stupid to say.
The real truth is so much more interesting. She fell in love with Dick Cheney because she recognized that he was the kind of person so honorable, that when he was the head of Halliburton, he was prepared to betray his country to make a fat profit by dealing with countries like Iraq. You've got to admire Lynne Cheney for seeing that in Dick Cheney.
NEVILLE: All right, Martin. OK. All right. Peter -- go ahead, Peter.
PETER BLUTE, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: I think it's probably in bad taste, no doubt about it. But, yes, there's probably been some overreaction in the vice president's staff. I don't think the vice president or his wife were part of that reaction.
And it's an overreaction by those young people. I'm much more offended by the Hollywood liberals, directors, actors going over to foreign capitals and selling their country down the river to foreign audiences.
NEVILLE: OK. I have to take a quick break. When we come back, gentlemen, don't go anywhere, because we're going to talk about this Bill and Bob's excellent adventure. Find out why these two political rivals are teaming up and who finally snagged Bill Clinton for a TV stint. Don't go anywhere. The TALK continues.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Welcome back to all of you. And we're going to say welcome back to Bill and Bob. Former President Bill Clinton and the man he beat in 1996, former Senator Bob Dole are teaming up to debate on CBS's "60 Minutes."
Now the odd couple are scheduled to do 10 mini debates starting Sunday. And so, Peter, starting with you, will this be a popular segment? Peter?
BLUTE: I would imagine it will probably be pretty popular, although I think some Republicans and conservatives will be concerned as to whether Bob Dole still has his fastball there and can take the case to Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton is still a very good communicator, gets his message across very well.
Although every time you look at him, you think Monica, you think impeachment. And I think that will be hard to get over for him. But I think it's going to be interesting.
NEVILLE: Martin?
LEWIS: Well I agree, it will be interesting for two counts, really. One, it's wonderful for young children because it will give them a chance to actually experience an American president who has a moderate grasp of the English language, which I think is a bonus here, compared to George Bush. Also, it's important to have Bob Dole's opinions represented because it's very rare nowadays on television to see the views of people who have views that were felt in the 18th century.
Admittedly, the Fox News Channel does present a fair and balanced view of the 19th century, but 18th century views do not get an airing otherwise. So it's a good idea to have this.
NEVILLE: OK. Arnelle (ph), who is going to win the debate?
ARNELLE: I think Bill Clinton will win the debate. He's a better leader and he definitely will win tonight.
NEVILLE: Does that have anything to do with the fact that you're from Arkansas?
ARNELLE: Yes, it does.
NEVILLE: Yes, yes, yes. Oh, man. We've got a gentleman from Kansas over here. Louis (ph), in your opinion, who would win those debates? LOUIS: I think Dole will win it. I think he's very articulate, he has picked up a lot of ground in just popularity among the American people. And I think he'll do a great job representing in 10 debates. I think we'll win nine out of 10.
NEVILLE: Nine out of 10, OK. Well, listen, this debate between Martin Lewis and Peter Blute just for today, though. We'll have you back again. Thanks for joining us on TALKBACK LIVE, gentlemen.
And you've heard about that Web site we were talking about a moment ago parodying the wife of Vice President Dick Cheney. Now I want you to answer our "Question of the Day." Should the Web site take down the satirical photos, or is it just clowning around?
Go ahead and give me a call: 1-800-310-4CNN. I'll take your call after the break and I'll also take your e-mails at talkback@cnn.com.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: All right. So here it is, the Lynne Cheney parody. Take it down or just clowning around, our "Question of the Day." We have an audience reaction. Go ahead, sir.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If Lynne Cheney has made herself a public figure, I don't think she can really complain about being parodied. I look on TV, I see her campaigning with her husband frequently over the years. I think she's made herself a public figure.
NEVILLE: OK. Well I don't think Mrs. Cheney was complaining. But, Betty (ph), what do you think?
BETTY: Well, I think she is a public figure, but he's not attacking anything she stands for. He was just being malicious and ugly and making fun of her.
NEVILLE: OK. Well that's your opinion. We do appreciate you expressing that. And I have some e-mails coming in.
Let's see, that would be from Shannon in North Carolina. Shannon says, "I believe it is extremely disrespectful to make fun of one of our nation's leader's wives. It should be removed immediately from the Web." OK, Shannon, thank you.
And Stan in Tennessee says, "There is no doubt in my mind that was just for fun. People did the same thing to the Clintons. They can dish it out but they can't take it. Too bad."
Well, on that note, I have to go. I'm Arthel Neville. I'll see you again tomorrow for more TALKBACK LIVE.
And don't forget to watch CNN's special coverage of the president's speech tonight. That's going to begin at 7:45 PM Eastern, 4:45 Pacific. And stay right where you are, because 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
|
