Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Crossfire

Interview With Kelly McCann, Interview With Larry Johnson

Aired December 11, 2001 - 19:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BILL PRESS, HOST: It's been three months since September 11, but are we any safer from terrorist attacks? And is your future any safer after the Bush Social Security commission delivers its final report?

ANNOUNCER: Live from Washington: CROSSFIRE. On the left, Bill Press. On the right, Robert Novak. In the CROSSFIRE, former CIA Senior Analyst Larry Johnson; and in New York, Kelly McCann, CEO of Crucible Security.

And later, Democratic Congressman Charles Rangel of New York, ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, and Republican Congressman J.D. Hayworth of Arizona, member of the Social Security Subcommittee.

PRESS: Good evening. Welcome to CROSSFIRE. Six months ago, President Bush appointed a commission to issue a ringing endorsement of his plan for privatizing Social Security, starting now. But it didn't quite work out that way.

Their report, issued today, instead offers a list of options, including cutting benefits, but says the whole issue ought to be delayed for at least a year. Does that mean the Bush plan is dead? We'll tackle that in a couple of minutes.

But first, solemn ceremonies were held around the world today, three months after the terrorist attacks of September 11. Since then, we have a new homeland security czar, beefed-up security at airports and streets closed around the nation's capitol. But are we really any safer? Or is all of that just window dressing?

Co-hosting on the right tonight, we welcome Westwood One radio talk show host Laura Ingraham -- Laura.

LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST: Hey, Bill. Good to be here. Kelly, I want to talk to you because I understand you're very skeptical about whether or not we are safer post-September 11.

And today John Ashcroft announced, of course, a six-count indictment against Habib Zacarias Massaoui, one of the people who he believes was involved in a conspiracy to attack America. Let's listen to Mr. Ashcroft.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES: The first indictment has been brought against the terrorists of September 11. al Qaeda will now meet the justice it abhors and the judgment it fears.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Kelly, of course we can't be perfect in our -- our quest for the best security in the United States. But doesn't this show today that the aggressive anti-terror probe led by the administration is actually netting some results?

KELLY MCCANN, CRUCIBLE SECURITY: Oh, I can't -- you can't argue with results. Absolutely. The -- the problem is is that no crisis action plan that you immediately institute at the time of a crisis survives over time. So I mean, we've got some fingers in dikes. And this is an indicator, I would say, that things are coming together.

However, if you look at this case in the specific, how many years of activity that was questionable and could be related to terrorist activity went unnoticed or unreported or unshared between countries? So I think it's a very good indicator there hasn't been an attack recently. However, I don't think that we are there yet.

INGRAHAM: Well, the public seems to be pretty happy with the way the Bush administration is handling the anti-terror probe. Let's look at the most recent poll that was released today by Gallup.

Approval of handling the war on terrorism. Bush gets 87 percent approval. Rumsfeld gets 82 percent. Ashcroft 76 percent. Ridge -- Tom Ridge, the security czar -- gets a hefty 67 percent.

And you know, Kelly, we can't be -- we can't be perfect right now. We can only look forward. I'd be -- I'd be happy to look at what the Clinton administration did or did not do for eight years.

But from this point forward it seems that the public is more alert and this alertness is translating into increased security nationwide.

MCCANN: Absolutely. You know, the best thing about my -- my own ideas are -- and of course I'm centrist, you know, so I'm -- I take myself out of the political realm -- I'm in those numbers. I support those men.

However, take another poll and ask the American people how sick they are of hearing "be aware, be alert," but then not getting the second part of the message, which is of what and to what? I think you'd get significantly different numbers.

Look, Tom Ridge is doing what a security manager should do: he's -- he's managing security expertise. That expertise is being brought to bear, but there's a second part of that and that is education.

We haven't seen anything. We've got education about drugs, education about AIDS, education about parenthood. We have no education about anti-terrorism in this new kind of world that we've just stepped into.

PRESS: Larry Johnson, I hate to be the skeptic -- actually, I don't mind being the skeptic...

LARRY JOHNSON, FORMER CIA ANTI-TERRORISM EXPERT: It's OK to be the skeptic.

PRESS: I love being the skeptic, because when I look at what we've seen since September 11, we've heard a lot of talk. We have had three general alerts, very vague. We have a new homeland security czar who has no budget and no power. And we shut the White House for Christmas visits.

I mean, can you name me -- that's a lot of talk, but can you name me one concrete action that's been taken that makes us any less vulnerable to terrorist attacks?

JOHNSON: A couple of concrete actions. One was the passage, finally, of the aviation security bill.

PRESS: But it won't take effect for a year.

JOHNSON: Well, it's just -- Congress could pass a bill saying I'm supposed to be Britney Spears in 60 days. That's not going to happen. And you know, look, they passed the law that should have been passed ten years ago. So I'm saying the glass is now half full and it's filling up to put that in place.

The home security improvement act -- I mean, the Home Security Act, one of the things they did is they changed a very small part of the U.S. code.

Before, you could run a money remittance business in this country. You could plead ignorance of the law, and the law said that's OK. They changed that and within a week of changing that, Al- Barakaat, one of the money remitting houses which was sending money to the Bin Laden organization was should down.

So that's important. I do agree with you that Tom Ridge is a guy with a great title but no muscle to carry it out. And that -- that is a potential downer for us.

PRESS: Well, let me give you just one example. And I think lot of the focus -- I want to talk to you a little about airports, because it seems to me a lot of the focus has been on what happened to us, then assuming that the -- the terrorists are going to the same thing and are not smart enough to look for some other vulnerable point.

I saw a report on CNN this morning about ports, particularly container ships coming into this country. I mean, I was shocked to hear that two percent -- at maximum, two percent -- of those containers are the checked for -- for what they might contain before they get into our ports.

JOHNSON: Right.

PRESS: How can you say we are more safe?

JOHNSON: We are safer now than we were on the 11th simply because of the steps that have been taken. Are we where we should be? No. You can -- you can get at this -- the container question very simply. It's a technological solution that's available.

Congress has got to put the money up to do it and not wait -- you know, it's like they say they want explosive detection in airports right now. You're not going to get that for two years.

PRESS: We'll get to airports in a second.

INGRAHAM: Well, Kelly McCann, security at what cost? A lot of Americans are out there saying, "Look. I want to be safe. I want to feel secure. I want my family to be safe. But I don't want to turn this country into a military lockdown state."

MCCANN: Well, you don't have to. I mean, the other night on -- on the show, we were talking about closing the White House. And the comment was made that don't we appear to be amateurs? First it's open, then it's closed, then it's open. That's called changing the response to a change in information and a change in intelligence.

So at what cost? That's exactly right. I mean, I don't think we have to restrict anybody's rights. I think what we've got to do is look at things totally differently.

Why is it still PC that we've got to accept guards who, although well intended, can't even run ten yards to intervene in a particular situation? That's what they're there to do.

Why is it PC that we have to accept people who can't make a phone call in clear enough English and articulate a threat so people can come? Why -- why are we still swallowing that?

INGRAHAM: I hear you -- I hear you on that one.

MCCANN: I'm sure you do.

INGRAHAM: I hear you on the PC stuff.

MCCANN: Gotcha.

INGRAHAM: In San Francisco, I mean, it's out of control at the San Francisco airport.

MCCANN: Sure.

INGRAHAM: A lot of complaints that non-citizens should be able to do baggage screening. But you're for creating a strategic security umbrella, and Kelly, that sounds like something that's good for your business, because you're in the security business, but bad for American taxpayers who already are dealing with $40 billion that we had to spend on homeland security and are worried about deficits down the road. MCCANN: Ouch. But that demonstrates your understanding of security. And what I mean by that is to develop a strategic umbrella, it's not like Crucible is out there building this umbrella.

Listen. It's an education process that informs the public about the specific patterns of behavior they should be watchful for so that they become a force multiplier for all the law enforcement guys out there that there aren't enough of.

They report that information through this umbrella. It gets filled. Some will be narcotics related, some will be crime related, some will be terrorist related. And it creates an intervention situation.

It's not a big bucks answer. It takes effort and it takes a depth of knowledge that currently is not readily available.

PRESS: All right. Larry Johnson, now I want to talk about airports. I've been flying around the country a lot lately. I have to tell you, all I've seen are stupid, meaningless rules at every airport. And no two airports are the same. I can tell you that.

Charleston, South Carolina, L.A., San Francisco, they're all different. I want to talk to you about L.A. OK. So Los Angeles has this rule.

Here's how they're protecting us. You can't drop grandma off at the curb. But if grandma comes in a cab, if grandma comes in a limo, if grandma comes in a bus, she can be dropped off at the curb.

Now, can you tell me that terrorists are not smart enough to take a cab to the airport?

JOHNSON: Ressam, unfortunately, wasn't the guy that tried to blow up lax the first go round. But I agree with you that there are some -- there are some rules out there that are not being applied consistently. And that's been a problem in the past.

FAA really wasn't in charge of aviation security, and you've got these regional differences. You know, you can't get on the plane with a cigar cutter. You know, what are they afraid of? A mass circumcision? I mean, that is -- it is so...

INGRAHAM: Talk about ouch.

PRESS: Well, you could use your -- you could use a nail clipper for that, too. Maybe. I don't know. Here -- here's what -- here's a guy who ought to know, OK? Robert Crandall, former CEO of American Airlines.

JOHNSON: Let's talk about Bob Crandall. Go ahead.

PRESS: We're going to talk about Bob Crandall. I'll give you a chance. Here is Bob Crandall. He's watched what we're -- what airports have done since 9/11. Here's what Bob Crandall says in "Business Week." Quote, "much of what has been done since September 11 is show rather than substance."

Amen. You've got to agree. Only five percent of baggage going into the holds is screened.

JOHNSON: Hearing Bob Crandall talk about that is like hearing Willy Sutton complain about bank robbers. This a guy -- when he was head of American Airlines, he downgraded Homer Boynton, who was the vice president of security. Took away the vice president's position. Why? It's not important enough.

Bob Crandall was one of the leading opponents to aviation security within the aviation security industry, so Bob Crandall has no room to talk. He is one of the reasons we have the problems we have today. And for him to come out like this is recreating himself. It's disgusting.

PRESS: Now we know who to blame for it. Poor Bob Crandall. All right. We have got to move on. Larry Johnson, thank you again for coming back to CROSSFIRE. Kelly McCann, good to have you there. Thanks for joining us from New York.

MCCANN: Thanks, Bill.

PRESS: We're going to -- OK. We are going to take a break. And when we come back, look at this. Those Social Security checks. Will they keep coming? And will they be getting any smaller? Your money, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. I'm Laura Ingraham, sitting in on the right.

The president's commission on Social Security reform signed off on its much-anticipated report today, recommending not one but three different options for reforming Social Security -- all with private investment elements.

The Democratic National Committee jumped all over the report today -- surprise, surprise -- alleging that the recommendations would cut benefits to retirees, especially women and minorities.

Did the commission punt by not recommending one way to fix our federal retirement plan? Or did they create a launching pad for real reform? Joining us to discuss this are Congressman Charlie Rangel, Democrat from New York and Arizona Republican Congressman J.D. Hayworth -- Bill.

PRESS: So J.D., I'd like to sum up this glorious day for the president. But first of all, let's understand that he -- this was his number one issue when he was running for president, so he appoints this commission, all the members of which agree with him. There's not one voice of dissent on the commission.

They spend six months and $700,000 and they come out with a report today and they say, "Well, you can go this way or you can go that way or you can go this way. Any one of them will have cutting benefits and raising the retirement age, but you shouldn't do anything at all for at least a year." Now is that anything but a total bust for George Bush?

REP. J.D. HAYWORTH (R), ARIZONA: No, I don't think so at all. Maybe you've heard there's a war going on. We have urgent priorities with which...

(CROSSTALK)

HAYWORTH: ...and we have steadfast, important priorities. Just a personal indulgence. You know, I've been watching Charlie on TV since I was a freshman in high school. And as he contemplates retirement...

INGRAHAM: Oh, boy, that hurts.

HAYWORTH: As Charlie contemplates retirement, I want to say to Charlie and to other prospective retirees, as well as today's retirees, you will get your benefits in full. Let's make sure everybody understands that.

But let's get this war finished, and then we're going to have to re-open the American agenda to take care of the other pressing needs.

INGRAHAM: Congressman Rangel, we're very happy you're here tonight. And I am very happy to be in possession of a Democratic National Committee blast fax that went all over town today.

Terry McAuliffe says this statement on the Bush Insecurity Commission, they're going to cut benefits to retirees, scare monger scare monger scare monger.

But we know that when you add the private investment element up with the regular federal benefit, people will actually be getting more under any one of these three options. So why all the scare mongering? Why are you guys back to the same old nonsense?

REP. CHARLES RANGEL (D), NEW YORK: First, I want you to know that my respect for J.D. has risen much higher for his willingness to come on a program after that commission report.

You see, the commission report is supposed to give the president cover, but what it has done is to say that no matter which way you look at it, we don't have any solutions to this problem that you've given to us because Bush gave them the answer and the problem.

And so the solution is don't you think we ought to wait until after the election? Well, you don't need a commission to tell you that. They're not -- first of all, right now this war is being run on Social Security trust funds, right now as we speak.

The president's Office of Management and Budget guy said it will be years before we see anything that looks like a surplus. And so you can blame it on the war. You can blame it on the recession. I know who was president during good times. I know who is president during bad times.

INGRAHAM: Talking point.

RANGEL: But I think one thing, one thing that we are right. Well wait until after the election. I think that the older people will get a better shake than those people who are not addicted to private investment.

It's true. You can -- do you know that if you have a prime investor account and the Social Security, that you have to take away the money and pay it back from your investments? Did you know that? Under all three plans?

PRESS: Well, J.D., I want to ask you -- granted, I think it's true we are going wait until after the election. But the fact is, you guys do have to run for election next year.

And you're going to have to get out there, according to this commission, and you're going to have to say, "here's our plan because we've been given this charge by the president, by this commission. When we come back, we are going to cut your benefits and we are going to raise the retirement age and we are going to let you invest in Enron."

I mean, you would have an easier time selling anthrax, wouldn't you?

HAYWORTH: Oh, Bill. We've got some beachfront property in Arizona you can market. I mean, this is so...

PRESS: That's what it says.

HAYWORTH: To so -- to so grossly mischaracterize a serious policy discussion -- and I know it flies in the face of the dynamic format of CROSSFIRE, but some issues are too important to say, "dot, stripes or animals." The fact is, what we have to do -- just because one side says stripes, the other side says dots, we have got to forget that. We need to work together. Charlie, a commitment tonight to work together to solve this problem.

RANGEL: I thought the commission was going to do it. You guys have been too afraid to have members get involved.

HAYWORTH: No, no.

RANGEL: You know what happens when members get involved is people like me and you. You can have a difference of opinion with members. That's what the country and the Congress is about.

HAYWORTH: And here's -- here's a key point. Because despite the efforts of the commission...

RANGEL: Everyone appointed to that commission believed that you had to go to privatization.

HAYWORTH: Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Bob Johnson, the CEO of this company, committed Democrats wanting to work out policy...

INGRAHAM: Let's turn...

PRESS: Richard Parsons happens to be a Republican, for the record.

INGRAHAM: Right. But painting -- painting with such a broad brush, you know, it works for political talking points. It works for the DNC's blast fax to say everyone monochromatic in their views.

But Patrick Moynihan and Bob Johnson are not, you know, dyed-in- the-wool conservative Republicans. William Raspberry pointed out in his column yesterday, Congressman Rangel, that two thirds of black men in this country die today before the age 60.

Now, if that's the case, why do you support a Social Security system that we have now, that ultimately means that black Americans can't pass down their retired wealth, savings, as they could under a partially privatized system?

That would benefit not only, you know, the rich people out there who can invest in the market but African-Americans who would be able to pass it down.

RANGEL: First of all, if I thought for one minute that this commission was extending longevity to black Americans, you count me in. So it means that under either die, they die at this 63 years old, right?

INGRAHAM: They can pass it down to their -- their offspring.

RANGEL: Yeah, but -- do you know what we have in the disability program, in the survivors program? We've got over a million kids today that receive Social Security benefits that won't exist under the three options that were given to us by the commission.

So I agree with you, yes, unfortunately die faster. But we have more people receiving survivor benefits as well because we die. And this is something you can depend on. You don't have to go to the stock market exchange to see what a widow is supposed to get.

PRESS: Congressman, just a last -- one last question. Every time we talk about this, you say. "we will make sure that where people put their money is a solid investment."

I've got to tell you, one year ago there was nobody alive who would have said Enron was a bad investment. It was $90 at the beginning of the year, it's 26 cents a share today. Doesn't that prove that the whole privatization scheme is just bogus?

HAYWORTH: No, it doesn't prove that. What it does prove is it gives us another about chance to correct your misimpression -- if not outright canard -- that you only go one place, to the stock market. Now, the fact is...

RANGEL: But you can go to the stock market. And you can lose your shirt.

HAYWORTH: People can go to different investments and the fact is this. What we ought to do is have both. We ought to make sure there are survivor's benefits.

But as Laura pointed out, the fact is when -- when a minority head of household loses his life, those benefits that he has built up over the years should pass on to his wife and his kids. There should be some ownership of an account. And that is an important thing to do for all Americans, but especially widows, women and minorities.

PRESS: OK. But for Enron there won't be any benefits. J.D. Hayworth, thank you very much for joining us.

HAYWORTH: Bill, thank you.

PRESS: Congressman Charlie Rangel, too short I know. But we're out of time. Thank you for joining us.

Rangel: Well, thank you for showing up. I didn't expect it.

PRESS: All right. And in our last segment, he's back. And you won't believe what Gary Condit said today.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PRESS: You know, Laura, every day we hear somebody say something really outrageous. Some of these quotes...

INGRAHAM: No, in Washington?

PRESS: Some of these quotes you can't resist. Here is my quote of the day. Gary Condit -- yes, he's back, yes, he's running for re- election...

INGRAHAM: Oh, please.

PRESS: He told the "L.A. Times" today, quote, "I don't know that I could be comfortable letting the national press, the people in Washington, D.C., the pundits and the talking heads determine my decision."

You know, I have to say he has been a good Congressman for the area, but it's all over. We didn't make his decision to -- to wreck his career. Gary Condit did.

INGRAHAM: I think -- I think he's talking about us in that -- in that quote, by the way.

PRESS: Yeah, right.

INGRAHAM: I think he thinks that we are trying to run him out of office. I'm just glad that he's not a Republican. Because it puts the Democrats in a tough position. Because do they -- if he ends up getting the nomination, wins the primary, did -- does the DNC support a Republican instead of a Democrat? What do they do? Do they just not participate?

PRESS: I don't think you have to worry. I don't think you are going to find any Democrats supporting him in the primary. Nor will he win the primary.

INGRAHAM: And in the "why Americans hate lawyers department."

PRESS: Ah hah.

INGRAHAM: This is Roy Black, defense attorney, on "the Today Show" today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROY BLACK, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I think there was certainly a sellable defense because he went over there because he was interested in Islam, he was defending the Taliban against the Northern Alliance. He was not fighting the United States. That's not a crime here.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Of course. Roy Black talking about Johnny Walker. Poor misunderstood John Walker from Marin County. He didn't do anything wrong. He just was exploring his interest in Islam. What is going on with the people in Marin County? And the father? How did he send his kid to Yemen on a plane and say, "Oh, good, he's exploring his religion?"

PRESS: Yeah, but why you are surprised with what Roy Black said? I mean, what do lawyers do? You know that. They see -- wait a minute.

INGRAHAM: That's why I'm not one any more.

PRESS: Lawyers see scum -- we see scum, the lawyer sees a client. And that's what Roy Black is saying. I agree with you. He's from Marin County. That kid would have been better off staying in his hot tub.

INGRAHAM: Roy Black, a sellable defense. I think it's just -- it makes me little bit sick.

PRESS: Quotes for the day. From the left, I'm Bill Press. Good night for CROSSFIRE.

INGRAHAM: And from the right, I'm Laura Ingraham. Join us tomorrow night again for another edition of CROSSFIRE.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com