Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Crossfire

Are the Nation's Airports Safe?; A Look at the Clinton Legacy

Aired December 26, 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.
TUCKER CARLSON, CO-HOST: Tonight, do long airport lines equal safety in the skies, or just more holiday hustle? And then, Bill Clinton's legacy tops his own agenda. But is it too late to rewrite history?

ANNOUNCER: Live from Washington, CROSSFIRE.

On the left, Bill Press. On the right, Tucker Carlson. In the CROSSFIRE, Kelly McCann, CEO of Crucible Securities and Steve Dasbach, executive director of the Libertarian Party. And later in Boston, Julian Epstein, former Democratic counsel for the House Judiciary Committee. And New York, Ann Coulter, legal reporter for "Human Events" magazine.

CARLSON: Good evening and welcome to CROSSFIRE. Flying still isn't perfectly safe. I mean, with the exploding sneakers proved that once again last week. But by all accounts, air travel is getting safer. And as it does, the hassles mount. Longer lines, more searches, restrictions unthought of six months ago.

Is it worth it? Are new security measures really making the public more secure? And if they are, at what price? That's the first part of our CROSSFIRE tonight.

Joining us, Kelly McCann, a former specials operations officer with the Marine Corps and now CEO of Crucible Security. And Steve Dasbach, executive director of the Libertarian Party. Sitting in on the left tonight for the blissfully vacationing Bill Press, our old pal, Paul Begala -- Paul.

PAUL BEGALA, GUEST CO-HOST: Tucker, thank you. Mr. Dasbach. Merry Christmas, of course. Happy holidays.

Tom Friedman, writing in "The New York Times" today, suggests maybe we should all fly naked. And I thought that was a great column and very funny, until I found a press release of your from January 11, 2000, where you pretty much suggest the same thing. You wrote, let me read you back your words back from January of 2000, long before the attacks of September 11, to be fair to you.

You wrote, "You can be exposed like a Playboy playmate by these new voyeur vision devices, even when you're fully clothed. With the body search device, airport officials can eyeball your intimate body parts as casually as they X-rayed the contents of your suitcase." Now that we have people trying to -- and succeeding in smuggling C-4 in their tennis shoes, isn't it good that we have technology that can look into your clothes?

STEVE DASBACH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LIBERTARIAN PARTY: I'm not sure that the device you're (UNINTELLIGIBLE) would have seen the C-4 of the tennis shoes. I think it's also a point that people can make a choice. People can choose to go through a scanner that is going to expose them and go through quicker, and perhaps take an alternative that's going to take a little bit longer.

The real key is to have effective security. And that means that we shouldn't be having the federal government in charge of it.

BEGALA: OK. Well, with something longer like the Greyhound bus. I mean, why not -- look, I wear fetching Texas cowboy boots every day. And I fly all the time. And very frequently, I've been asked to stop, take those boots off, and they screen them. I don't have a problem with that, do you?

DASBACH: No.

BEGALA: Well, so then why is the Libertarian Party saying it's wrong for the federal government, in this case I can't wait for them to take over this, because the sort of rent-a-cops from Burger King that they've been using clearly aren't getting the job done. What's wrong with the federal government saying, "If you want to fly, you don't have to, it's your choice, but if you want to fly, you got to pass certain security?"

DASBACH: Well, the problem is the federal government is unlikely to make us more secure. Just a couple months ago, it came out with a report that mock terrorist raids on Department of Energy facilities succeeded half of the time in getting through. Now I don't think stopping terrorists only half of the time is good enough. I don't think you would think it is either.

The real idea we should be looking towards is to make the operator of the airport responsible for the security and put the federal government in the role of testing, you know, trying to break the security and notifying us, the flying public, when an airport fails the test.

CARLSON: Yes, Kelly McCann, Richard Reid apparently is named the exploding sneaker man. I think you'd admit that there is really no plausible way that he -- that his sneakers could have been detected at the actual magnetometer, at the security gate.

Really, the place to catch people like Richard Reid is at the check-in counter, the ticket counter, where here's a guy traveling on a one-way ticket, with no baggage. His appearance was noticed by many people at the airport in Paris, as it turns out. French authorities somehow fouled it up, let him back on the plane. In fact, American Airlines paid for his hotel accommodations last Friday night.

But the point here is that all the security that delays the rest of us, honest non-terrorist passengers is useless in the face of people like this guy. This security needs to take place at the ticket counter, correct?

KELLY MCCANN, CEO, CRUCIBLE SECURITY: You know, you're right and wrong, Tucker. It has to take place in a lot of different places. People aren't thinking about this correctly. There are technological means that could have detected what was in his shoes, but it's -- it goes to endurance of the American people and their will. How much do want to spend, sniffing devices that could have identified that explosive?

Any explosive by itself -- it was rumored that there were wires hanging out of his heels. Wires means a detonator or a blasting cap. That all can be seen by X-ray machines, but now you've got to look at the whole rest of the problem.

Is there interaction, for instance, in the concourse of people walking up to passengers at will saying, "How are you doing, sir? Where are you going? Can I see your ticket?" Not challenging, but just basically add unpredictability to that whole mix.

Where are the canines, you know? Dogs moving throughout the concourse. Some days they're there. Some days they're not. I agree with you. People get angry when there is no logical sense to the security. And they should. But if there is a logical sense and it is a good demonstration of security, then you shouldn't be angry. You should be saying, "My government's here to protect me. And I understand the plan without being able to discern a pattern."

CARLSON: But I'm wondering if safety ought to be the only guiding principle? I want to read you a quote that I think should be posted in every airport in the world. This is from Granger Morgan. He's an airline expert at Carnegie Mellon. And quoting him now, "It is time to abandon showy, inconvenient and ineffective measures and get on with the task of choosing and implementing measures that show a much higher level of air security, while imposing as low a cost an inconvenience as possible on the traveling public."

Who would disagree with this? And yet, we have armed guards in the terminals with machine guns. All they is scare children, essentially.

MCCANN: (UNINTELLIGIBLE). They scared me.

CARLSON: Curbside check-in was banned for no obvious reason. And then we have these two questions, essentially has the terrorist packed your bag? These are ineffective and they slow people down.

MCCANN: You've flown recently. And I know that when you flew, before you would be asked one time for your picture ID at the ticket. And you get your ticket. And there you go.

Now we get asked five times to show that same ID. It's repetitive stupidity. There is no knowledgeable questioning done by questions that were engineered specifically to evoke some kind of reaction or response from you, that can be seen. And if you give me that response, you go to the next line. The next person comes up to me and we screen thusly. It makes sense. It's scientific. And it's psychologically correct. El Al does that. And Israel doesn't have all the answers, because look at the problems that they're having. And we are significantly different from Israel, but they do have a good grip on airline security and airport security.

BEGALA: In fact, Steve Dasbach, let me pick up on that. In Israel, they pull you out of line. They interrogate everybody with highly trained government professionals, who know what the heck they're doing. These are not $5 an hour Burger King rejects. These are serious professionals who work for the government.

Many fewer flights, I'll grant you. I was there in May. And they pulled me aside. And I don't generally fit the profile. I'm American tourist visiting, but they grilled me for about 20 minutes. And I know of other people who have been grilled for much, much longer. Don't we need to move to a system where we screen passengers, and not simply baggage? That's something that President Clinton called for five years ago?

DASBACH: Well, I think you have to -- I think as -- you have to be a mix of different security measures. And frankly, if people are going to start facing as a routine occurrence, 20 minute grilling, fine. They're going to stop flying. And that means we're going to have airlines in worse trouble than they are now, fewer flights, airlines going broke, higher ticket prices. And the question is, is that necessary to provide additional security?

MCCANN: Say the word "profile."

DASBACH: Pardon?

MCCANN: Say the word "profile." Should we profile?

DASBACH: OK, yes, you should in the sense of being able to distinguish between the -- a person who travels regularly, OK? As opposed to a person who is, as you say, traveling on a one-way ticket.

You know, in the case of the fellow who flew over from France, he was stopped twice by the private security forces there. OK? Was identified and said, "Don't let this person on the plane." The government authorities, after interviewing him, let him on the plane.

MCCANN: We still need to be OK in a lot of situations with saying, "I'm sorry, sir, you can't fly today." We have to empower people to say that. Right now, this whole business about profiling and, oh, we can't say that, you would be foolish to say that you cannot profile for patterns of behavior. You would be even more foolish, in my opinion, to throw out the obvious racial implication of this particular thing, which means that I wouldn't profile solely on race, but if I had patterns of behavior that were consistent with other acts terrorists have done. And oh by the way, this is a person that has Middle Eastern characteristics, don't you think that would be foolish to... CARLSON: But as -- you know, that's not happening, at least widely. And the net effect is people are being really slowed down in their attempt to get from place to place. And I'm wondering if we're not overstating the risk here.

I mean, it's still more dangerous to play golf in the rain than it is to fly. And yet, the security you see makes one think that this is like going into combat. And there's a real cost attached to that. Are we are not overstating the risk?

MCCANN: No, you are definitely right on target. And it comes back to this issue of thinking about this problem differently. For instance, for many years the U.S. marshals had been -- the air marshals rather, had been concealed. And that is to promote the doubt that there could or could not be one on board.

Why not have a uniformed air marshal? Why not give them the correct weapon, which has a longer sight radius, a proper sight, a red dot holographic sight, with the correct ammunition, where he could make the shot.

And he's very friendly and non-challenging, but everyone on board that plane knows that if I get out of line, I have a combative passenger group here that will obviously take me down if I try jump this air marshal, can't get into cockpit. And this guy's going to shoot me.

(CROSSTALK)

BEGALA: Look, a few seconds more seconds left, but I want to ask you to take that to the next step. Another writer on your Libertarian web site suggests that telling people they can't carry guns on a plane is a rape, he wrote, of the Second Amendment. Do the Libertarians think that citizens, not armed marshals, should carry guns on planes?

DASBACH: Well, I think that's up to the airline to make that decision, but I think it's crazy to not allow pilots to be armed or trained flight crew people to carry weapons.

MCCANN: I would disagree. I would disagree.

BEGALA: We'll have to leave it at that.

(CROSSTALK)

BEGALA: Steve Dasbach, Kelly McCann. More guns, more fun. When we come back, the Clinton legacy, my former boss meets with some of his top advisers. Tucker and I discuss the fallout with a couple of very highly opinionated guests. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. I am Paul Begala sitting in on the left. On what was clearly a slow news day last week, "The New York Times" reported that former President Clinton actually, gasp, met with some of his former colleagues to discuss the Clinton legacy and his plans for the future.

Was this an attempt to spin history, or just another occasion for the right wing to bash a president who actually won two elections, and brought us peace and prosperity?

Well, to discuss this issue, we asked two guests who are just about as unbiased and objective as I am. Ann Coulter is an attorney and the legal correspondent for "Human Events" magazine. She joins us from New York. And in Boston, Massachusetts, Julian Epstein, the former Democratic counsel to the House Judiciary Committee -- Tucker.

CARLSON: Julian Epstein, welcome. First let me apologize that this character has acted in a way that forces you to come in and defend him once again. My heart bleeds for you in a sense, that we're grateful that someone's willing to do it.

Let me read you a quote. This is from one of the participants in the now famous Clinton strategy meeting, how do revive his image. In "The New York Times," there's a quote here. "He basically said our legacy is being pummeled. We have to find ways to revive it. We have to remind people what we did on the economy, what we did with the crime bill, what we did with terrorism. They're trying to pin this bin Laden thing on us," et cetera, et cetera, whine, whine, whine.

But it does raise I think an interesting question. Why can't people, that is the public, judge for themselves? I mean, it has only been a year. Or would the public judging for itself really be the worst possible thing that could happen to Clinton?

JULIAN EPSTEIN, FMR. DEMOCRATIC JUDICIARY COUNSEL: Oh, I think ultimately the public will judge for themselves. And I mean look, a little bit of this kind of self-conscious legacy building is certainly nothing new in presidential politics. Ronald Reagan himself has a legacy project. I don't remember your ever doing a program on that.

I think secondly, Tucker, it is important to remember that under President Clinton, the country did have a phenomenal record, the best economic record in modern history, the lowest crime rate, the lowest welfare rate, the lowest unemployment rate. We got rid of the national debt. And I think there's nothing wrong with certainly pointing that out, in reminding people of that.

And I know why you don't. Certainly because, President Bush, to some extent, will be -- his administration will be measured, amongst other things, against that record.

But thirdly, and I think most importantly, is that President Clinton, with the help of your co-host, Mr. Begala, I think, was really the intellectual forefather, at least in modern times, of third wave politics which rejected the old orthodoxies of liberalism and conservatism. And I think not only did...

CARLSON: Oh, that's a very clever way of saying...

EPSTEIN: ...(UNINTELLIGIBLE) with respect to the welfare program, but I think you're seeing a lot of those policies now adopted in Britain, that kind of thinking. Germany, throughout Latin America.

CARLSON: No, no, no, I'm going to have to stop you. You sink even further.

EPSTEIN: I don't understand why you don't want the president...

CARLSON: First of all, let me just point you a few things. First, that's a very clever way of saying he didn't believe anything. And second, let me also point out that there's a war going on. So in the middle of this war...

EPSTEIN: Clever way of saying he didn't believe in anything.

CARLSON: Hold on. To which the entire nation's attention is turned, Clinton holds us hostage to his narcissism once again and holds a strategy meeting about him, him, him, him, and his legacy, his reputation. There's a war going on!

EPSTEIN: Wait a second. There you go again. In the words of your former hero, Ronald Reagan, "there you go again." President Clinton didn't do anything that was public, didn't ask you to do a program on this. And has expressed nothing but his unequivocal support for President Bush...

CARLSON: they leaked it to "The New York Times." Wait, they leaked it...

EPSTEIN: ...in the exercise of this terrorist campaign. So...

CARLSON: Did they leak it to "The New York Times" or not? Yes, they did. No, please answer the question.

EPSTEIN: I beg your pardon?

CARLSON: Did the people at the Clinton meeting leak the meeting to "The New York Times?" Of course they did. They're quoted in the story.

EPSTEIN: I have no idea who leaked what or if "The New York Times" reporter found out about it.

CARLSON: Well, people who were there...

EPSTEIN: But I think the notion that you're suggesting, which is that the president is trying to erect -- former President Clinton is trying to create some type of alternative spectacle to distract peoples' attention is simply not true.

And to the contrary, he and Democratic Party, I wish that President Clinton had had this kind of support when he went in on Kosovo, but he and the Democratic party have been 100 percent behind President Bush in the effort on terrorism. So I think your attempt to suggest that there's some effort to distract attention is really, intellectually not -- really not factual.

CARLSON: He's just talking about himself again. (CROSSTALK)

BEGALA: Let me bring you in this, Ann from New York. First, good of you to come in on the day after Christmas.

Second, we've been -- heard about Ronald Reagan. And the truth is, as Julian pointed out, he's got his own legacy project, his supporters carried on, now that he's too ill to do so himself. But it seems to me they are very different, their supporters, in the way that they've conducted themselves in the post presidency.

President Reagan supporters run around and try to name every bus stop and sewage treatment plant after him in some sort of bizarre, Stalinist cult of personality. Clinton supporters seem to me to be meeting and trying to advance some issues and ideas that he's stood for, like a strong economy and national service at home. What in the world's wrong with that?

ANN COULTER, "HUMAN EVENTS" LEGAL REPORTER: Well, for one thing, in the Ronald Reagan legacy project, all we've gotten is an airport so far, in contra distinction, you know, the Department of Justice, JFK, FDR Drive, every building in West Virginia, I think, is named after Robert Byrd.

BEGALA: Well, you pay for him -- or we pay for him, but he got them there.

COULTER: But no, I think the reason "The New York Times," and by the way with all due respect to your skills in the war room, Julian, did sell you short. You were not the third wave opponent. You were the politics of personal destruction maven, I believe.

But I think "The New York Times" is -- for -- and better for Bill Clinton's than any of his war room workers ever did. And if they're putting this on the cover, they must find it either highly interesting, or somehow benefiting Bill Clinton.

And I think it is falls into the highly interesting slash, preposterous category. I mean, it's like having the, you know, the Caligula legacy project. I mean, it's just so preposterous to even think that a man like Bill Clinton could ever be president.

Though he did -- he'd never get 50 percent of the country to vote for him. He couldn't have gotten 42 percent and 48 percent to vote for him, but for Ronald Reagan having won the Cold War. And thanks to that, you know, he could go through this terminal silliness and elect a flimflam...

BEGALA: I find it interesting when conservatives talk about the fact that Clinton won two elections by landslides, when our current president was -- only won a court case and lost even to Al Gore. But I want to show you a piece of videotape.

COULTER: No, he won the election. And by the way, I didn't say election. I said that he won the Cold War. And that's why the country was able to elect a flimflam artist like Clinton. BEGALA: On December the 9th, 1996, Five years ago, President Clinton called the press to the Oval Office, to talk about terrorism. I want you to watch what he said and recognize the prescience of this man. Take a look at this videotape.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BILL CLINTON, FMR. PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We need new laws I have proposed to crack down on money laundering, and to prosecute and punish those who commit violent crimes against American citizens abroad. To add (UNINTELLIGIBLE) to gunpowder used in bombs, so we can track down the bomb makers, to extend the same police power we now have against organized crime, to tapping all the phones the terrorist uses, so we can better prevent terrorist attacks.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BEGALA: Every one of those things he asked for, the Republican Congress turned down. Wasn't Clinton way ahead of his time on terrorism? And shouldn't the Republican Congress apologize to the American people?

COULTER: No, most of those things, like the phone tap bill, in point of fact, were supported by Republicans. I mean, I don't remember how the vote went...

BEGALA: Well, the Republican Congress...

COULTER: ...but I'm sure it was a partisan vote. And Republicans were more in favor of that. But by the way, after you know, giving that speech, he ran back to the office to meet with Monica Lewinsky, whom he met with more often than director of his own CIA. So OK, good speech.

EPSTEIN: Ann, can I correct you on something real quickly? First of all, that was 1996. That was two weeks before Monica Lewinsky.

COULTER: Oh.

(LAUGHTER)

EPSTEIN: I happen to have been the counsel at the House Judiciary Committee. And those provisions came through the House Judiciary Committee. And it is a matter of historical fact that the Clinton administration was pushing for tougher anti-terrorism laws...

CARLSON: Well, wait a second, wait a second.

EPSTEIN: And that the Republican Congress, the Republican Congress...

(CROSSTALK)

EPSTEIN: Wait, could I finish this statement?

COULTER: Well, that's not true though. Look, you can call anything anti-terrorism.

EPSTEIN: Tucker, no, no, this was after...

COULTER: You like, look Bill Clinton's ideas...

EPSTEIN: After Oklahoma City, this was a counter...

COULTER: Right, I was working in the Senate for the Judiciary Committee then too, Julian. And this just isn't true.

(CROSSTALK)

COULTER: This just isn't true. I mean, Clinton can call something anti-terrorism. Well, as we know from his speech two weeks ago at Georgetown...

EPSTEIN: Let me tell you...

COULTER: ...his idea of anti-terrorism is, you know, more welfare. It is simply not true that...

EPSTEIN: We can waste a lot of airtime on this. This is a historical fact that the Clinton administration...

COULTER: What bill? You're claiming the phone tapping -- OK, let's just take one. Let's just take one provision. How about the phone tap bill? How about the phone tap bill? Who supported that?

EPSTEIN: Absolutely, absolutely, the Democrats supported...

COULTER: That is not true. Republicans supported that. The Democrats opposed it.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: I'm going to have to cut you both off here.

COULTER: That is absolutely not true. There may have been a few Democrats who supported it, but it is not true...

CARLSON: Cut you off, right now.

(CROSSTALK)

Julian Epstein, Ann Coulter, thank you both very much. I appreciate it. Not sure you're make headway with one another, but good luck. We'll invite you back.

And when we come back, you won't want to miss what Paul and I have decided to return this post-holiday season. Our returns, when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Paul, it's a day after Christmas and virtually everyone in America, apart from you and me, is in a mall right now returning something, a Christmas gift. We have a few things we'd like to return here on CROSSFIRE, a few people, in fact.

And for mine, Jesse Jackson, Junior of Chicago, Congressman Democrat, is upset. Turns out one of his opponents in the upcoming primary is named Jesse L. Jackson. Congressman Jackson is outraged. He claims this Jesse Jackson is just trying to get elected on the strength of his name, if you can imagine. The irony bells go up. Jesse Jackson's a congressman because of his name. I recommend returning this Jesse Jackson back to private life.

BEGALA: Oh, he's a terrific congressman. Return him to Congress.

CARLSON: The irony. You don't see the irony here?

BEGALA: Here's who...

CARLSON: When you think congressman, is there any more Jesse Jackson?

BEGALA: Here's who I want to return. Larry Lindsey and the Bush economic team. Lindsey and his team came in. And they started talking down the economy, driving us into this recession. Then they passed their long-term tax cut for the rich, gave way $2.5 trillion of our money.

Since then, they've spent their time creating a new deficit, presiding over the collapse of Enron, the default of Argentina, and yes, the Bush recession, which has millions of Americans unemployed. If these clowns were the running war effort, America would have to be renaming itself Osama-stan.

CARLSON: You know, the more often Democrats, and by Democrats I mean you specifically, use the phrase Bush recession, I think the more it hurts you. People recognize that as ludicrous on its face, as insane as a talking point, as meaningless, and is totally untrue. The roots of this recession obviously began long before George W. Bush was elected president. People know this instinctively, if not intellectually. And you fail when you use a dumb phrase like that.

BEGALA: They came into office, talking down the economy in the near-term. Then, they hurt the economy...

CARLSON: Talking down?

BEGALA: ...grievously in the long-term. When consumer confidence was at its most fragile, they came out and said...

CARLSON: That is insane.

BEGALA: ...be afraid. Be afraid. Then they passed this insane tax cut.

CARLSON: You've got to be -- if Bush hadn't said anything about the economic downturn in progress, you would say, as you've said of his father, "Oh, he's too removed from the concerns of every man. He doesn't know the price of a gallon milk. He's an elitist." BEGALA: He doesn't know...

CARLSON: He mentions the economy's on its way down. You say he's talking it down.

BEGALA: He doesn't know how...

CARLSON: That's outrageous.

BEGALA: He doesn't know how to manage the economy. And Lindsey and the rest of those clowns are proof. Sitting in on the left tonight, I am Paul Begala. Good night from CROSSFIRE.

CARLSON: And from the right, I'm Tucker Carlson. Happy upcoming new year. Join us again tomorrow night for another edition of CROSSFIRE. See you then.

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