Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Crossfire

Interview With Alex Castellanos, Interview With Mark Mellman

Aired January 21, 2002 - 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, CO-HOST: Tonight, new photos spark new criticism over how the U.S. is treating detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Are they getting fair treatment? And the war over the war.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KARL ROVE, BUSH SENIOR ANALYST: We can also go to the country on this issue because they trust the Republican party to do a better job.

REP. RICHARD GEPHARDT (D-MO), MINORITY LEADER: It's a shameful statement. It has no place in this time and place.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PRESS: Should the war become a campaign issue?

ANNOUNCER: Live from Washington, CROSSFIRE. On the left, Bill Press. On the right, Tucker Carlson.

TUCKER CARLSON, CO-HOST: Good evening and welcome to CROSSFIRE. You just heard him, Karl Rove, the president's chief political adviser. And you heard his words, the words that launched a bitter controversy over the weekend.

At issue, the mid-term elections. Some Republicans believe the war will help them win. And they may be right. They say so out loud. Or is that, as some Democrats charge, low, partisan, even unpatriotic? We may have the answer.

Joining us tonight, two consultants who've hurled a charge or two in their days on the D-team. Democratic strategist Mark Mellman. And as his worthy counterpart, Republican strategist Alex Castellanos -- Bill Press.

PRESS: Alex, on the R-team, of course. Alex, you know, we've had this very wonderful period since 9/11, considering what happened, in the sense of all Americans have pulled together. All Americans are united. Politicians of both parties, without a word of dissent that we could ever find on this show, supporting the war effort. You know, a rare and a welcome moment of unity.

And now Karl Rove is saying, "Well, hell with that. We're going to take this war and we're going to go run on it." Don't you have to admit this is going to backfire big time? ALEX CASTELLANOS, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Bill, perhaps you've been misinformed, because I don't think that's even close to what Karl said.

PRESS: We just heard him.

CASTELLANOS: No, I was there. And all he said is that no one's questioning anyone's patriotism or commitment to the war effort. That's bipartisan, Democrats and Republicans agree. But Bill, you and folks like Dick Gephardt, for the past 20 years, have attacked Republicans for what? Spending too much on military preparedness and too much on national defense. And the American people know that.

Do Republicans spend too much on -- that's a perception in the country. Republicans spend too much on defense and Democrats spend too much on welfare. Now Dick Gephardt would have you believe that he's for just as much preparedness as those Republicans he's attacked. No one's going to buy that. That's the political reality.

PRESS: I'm glad you mentioned Dick Gephardt, because I think that that speech over the weekend through the Democratic National Committee, he put his finger on exactly what the American people feel and why this is a bad political strategy for you, Alex. And you ought to review Karl Rove and run away, but I thought you were smarter than that. But listen to what Dick Gephardt said and see if you can disagree with a word of this. Here he is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEPHARDT: Those young people in Afghanistan are not fighting for the Democratic party or the Republican party. They're fighting for the greatest country that's ever existed on earth. That's the United States of America.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PRESS: Now why do you want to cheapen it and make the war a political issue?

CASTELLANOS: No one's trying to make the war a political issue, but they have -- if anyone is, it's the Democrats. But there is -- but we should look at the facts.

PRESS: Karl Rove started it.

CASTELLANOS: No Karl Rove said that Republicans are perceived as a party that's been for a stronger defense. And the Democrats, the Democrats have been perceived as a party that's for more welfare and big government spending. Are you going to deny that? Are you going to say that Dick Gephardt has been for a strong -- a national defense as all the Republicans use...

PRESS: Absolutely. Absolutely, he has. You are wrong. You are wrong.

(CROSSTALK) CASTELLANOS: Democrats are like the fellow who only buys health insurance after he's sick. Democrats are for the strong national defense when they need one, but by then, it's always too late.

CARLSON: And actually, if I can just interject to bolster what Alex has said, and to back it up, Mark Mellman, with facts. I know the truth hurts. In this case, it's especially painful for the sad Democratic party, but here are the facts.

This is the most recent CNN poll. The question is which party can better handle...defense? 65 percent, Republicans; 24 percent, Democrats; terrorism, 61 Republicans; 23 percent Democrats. You're familiar with polls. They're usually pretty close. These aren't close. They're not close at all. In fact, the divide on this is the most dramatic of any divide on any issue between the two parties, defense and terrorism.

MARK MELLMAN, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Karl Rove's not a pollster. Karl Rove was issuing a political call to the Republican National Committee. And that political call was to make the war a partisan issue.

(CROSSTALK)

MELLMAN: That -- let me finish, Alex.

CASTELLANOS: He didn't say that.

MELLMAN: The issue on Karl, to make the war a partisan issue, that undermines not only the Republican party on credibility, but frankly undermines the United States of America. Part of what makes.

CARLSON: No, stop the hyperventilating, the phony moral outrage. Undermines America?

MELLMAN: Yes.

CARLSON: You've got to be kidding.

MELLMAN: Yes, you know why?

CARLSON: Yes, I do.

MELLMAN: OK, because part of what makes the United States strong right now is the fact the world perceives us as united. As a result of what Karl Rove said, people may perceive us as disunited. And that's a...

(CROSSTALK)

MELLMAN: ...the president needs to go out there and say that Karl Rove made a mistake.

CARLSON: Step back from yourself a little bit, Mark.

MELLMAN: A partisan mistake, but a mistake. CARLSON: Rise above yourself and look down, OK? As you you're floating around there, look down and ask yourself who's being political here.

MELLMAN: All I see is you.

CARLSON: All right. Ask yourself who is being political here. Because in fact, as you well know, if the Republicans wanted to politicize the war, they could have done so from day one, pointing out what everybody already suspects, which is that perhaps the last administration was a bit negligent in its dealing with terrorism.

MELLMAN: Oh, come on.

CARLSON: But they haven't done that at all.

MELLMAN: You've done that. Alex has done that. And you're wrong with the facts.

CARLSON: I've done that. I don't work for the administration. I love doing it. But they haven't. And that's the point.

MELLMAN: But Alex -- let me just tell you the facts. The facts are wrong as you state them. The fact is that President Clinton put forward a strong anti-terrorism bill.

CARLSON: Oh, but nobody believes that. Come on.

MELLMAN: The Republicans defeated. It may be true, but nobody believes it.

CASTELLANOS: The lowest priority of the Clinton administration...

MELLMAN: The reality is that the Democrats opposed missile defense system because they said the money ought to be put into terrorism. The administration said, no, we're not going to deal with counterterrorism. In fact, in the last budget debate we just had, the Democrats said let's put more money in homeland security.

CARLSON: Who's politicizing the war? Rise above yourself again. Come on.

PRESS: Alex, let's get back to where you were just in your last response. That the Democrats again, you're accusing them of not doing anything to build up the military. In fact, they're running them down.

Do you know what, Alex? We heard that. Let me finish, please. We heard that from George Bush and Dick Cheney throughout the 2000 campaign. Yet once America got in trouble, what happened? The military was ready. They were equipped. They went to Afghanistan. They did a great job.

Now I heard Fred Barnes, fellow conservative, on WMAL admit that Bush and Cheney were wrong in what they said in the year 2000. I want -- you to be man enough to join Fred Barnes.

CASTELLANOS: Heavens, I'll have to make sure I'm not wearing a skirt here.

PRESS: Just do it. They were wrong. They were lying to the American people, weren't they?

CASTELLANOS: Look, Bill, we still have the best military in the world. But you know, the lowest priority during the Clinton years was America's preparedness, because it wasn't popular. There was no threat. And so, it was the lowest thing on the totem pole.

That's why we had military families on food stamps. That's why we had pilots flying planes that were older than they were. That's why we're cannibalizing equipment, just to keep airplanes going. It was the lowest priority for the Clinton administration.

PRESS: Will you just tell me that -- will you explain to me, how could the military have responded so fast and done such a good job if they were in as bad a shape as you say they are? Where's the proof?

CASTELLANOS: Because the kids that go out there and fight for this country are the best in the world, because we still have the strongest military in the world. But it could be and should be better.

MELLMAN: And because they've got the best (UNINTELLIGIBLE). And because they've got the best training. And because they've got the best strategy and tactics.

(CROSSTALK)

MELLMAN: And they had those things through the Clinton administration. And they have them now.

CASTELLANOS: And we've often succeeded in beating back the Democratic cuts from people like Bill Press, from the Dick Gephardts of the world...

PRESS: Oh, get out of here.

CASTELLANOS: ...who wanted to slash defense every chance they have.

(CROSSTALK)

CASTELLANOS: Look, tell me you haven't put on a survey -- attacked Republicans -- tell me you haven't attacked Republicans for years for cutting -- for spending too much on national defense?

MELLMAN: No, I tell where we've attacked Republicans for in the past is. What we've attacked Republicans for in the past is A, saying that we should be spending hundreds of billions of dollars defending Europe and Japan, instead of defending on our own homeland. That's the main thing we attacked them on. CARLSON: Let me ask you a question. Honestly, we try to answer as honestly as you can, you didn't before. I'm going to give you another opportunity to do so.

MELLMAN: I appreciate that.

CARLSON: Why this dramatic split in public opinion? Why do 65 percent of Americans say Republicans are better on the defense and 24 say the Democrats are? I mean, you're representative of a party that listens very carefully to the voice of the people. I'm wondering why the people's voice in this case is so clear? Republicans are better on defense. Why do they say that?

MELLMAN: Right now, the American people are saying they trust George Bush to wage this war. Democrats and Republicans alike trust George.

CARLSON: The question doesn't contain George Bush's name.

MELLMAN: Yes, but everybody knows what the implication of the question is to the person who's being asked the question. People trust George Bush in the conduct of this war and well they should. Democrats support him across the board in the conduct of this war. That's what you heard Dick Gephardt say. That's what you've heard every Democratic leader say.

CARLSON: Aren't you secretly pleased that Karl Rover said this, because this finally gives the divided Democratic party, whose leader incidentally is now Ted Kennedy for at least the third time in last 40 years, Ted Kennedy, congratulations, gives you something to run on. Because essentially, there isn't something else.

You can't decide what you think of the tax cut. There's no other issue. And now you can accuse the White House of politicizing the war. Aren't you pleased?

MELLMAN: That's silly.

CARLSON: It's not silly, it's true.

MELLMAN: What, you're nominating Democratic leaders here at this table, too.

CARLSON: You're not...

MELLMAN: That's a new phenomenon. But...

PRESS: Go ahead.

MELLMAN: Yes, the reality is Democrats, I think, have a very clear domestic agenda, that talks about helping people with health care, education, and the like. And the reality is that...

CASTELLANOS: ...they're investing in defense.

MELLMAN: That's not true. CASTELLANOS: That's the truth.

MELLMAN: And the reality is the Democratic administrations and Democratic members of Congress have built up defense and built up defense precisely to deal with the issue of terrorism, which the Republicans have often given short trip (ph), because they're worried about missiles coming...

CARLSON: And people just haven't noticed. That's why these numbers.

PRESS: Let me suggest the real issue here is whether this is going to mean anything. I mean, George Bush is running the war. George Bush was at 90 percent. Lost the governor's race of Virginia. Lost the governor's race of New Jersey.

CASTELLANOS: He did?

PRESS: Lost the mayor's race in Houston. His candidates did. So doesn't it prove, Alex, that they may trust George Bush running the war, but they don't trust him to run the country?

CASTELLANOS: Look, all this is -- this is a big -- the Democrats can't attack George Bush for the work he's done. So they want to tie his hand. They want to drag him into a political debate, where there is none. No one has questioned anybody's patriotism here or commitment to the war on terrorism.

But let's face facts, guys, this is America. Democrats want to spend more on big government programs and welfare. Republicans have fought for a stronger national defense. That's not news to anyone out there, is it? For Dick Gephardt to get out there and be obsessed about it and deny it, like it never occurred, is the silliest thing I have ever heard.

PRESS: Quick question.

MELLMAN: This is Alex in Wonderland. It's not Alice in Wonderland. The reality is Karl Rove started this exchange. He started this by trying to politicize the war, trying to make it a partisan issue. To say the Democrats somehow did this is absurd on its face.

CASTELLANOS: Recognizing reality.

MELLMAN: You've got to be looking through the looking glass.

PRESS: Big mistake, Alex. You got to run away from these guys.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: Alex Castellanos, Mark Mellman, thank you both very much. I hope this debate continues. I think we'll win.

And stay tuned because the question we'll ask next is, are Afghan detainees in Guantanamo Bay being tortured? Their heads are shaved. They've got hats on. They're eating Froot Loops. Is that a violation of their civil rights? We'll be right back to debate it.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PRESS: And now CROSSFIRE issue number two. Fourteen more Taliban prisoners arrived at the U.S. base in Guantanamo Bay Cuba today. Their prison quarters may not be the Havana Hilton, but they're good enough says Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

No, they're inhumane and not what prisoners of war deserve, say critics, both in this country and in Britain, where some papers have actually accused the U.S. of torture. The Red Cross also was on the scene today to check things out. No word yet on what they found, but we jump into that debate tonight. Are we treating Afghan prisoners fairly? In fact, are they perhaps living and eating better than they ever did before?

Joining us tonight, retired Lieutenant Colonel Robert Maginnis. And in London, Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch -- Tucker.

CARLSON: Mr. Roth, as if we in America needed more evidence that the British press is irresponsible, almost out of control, and we don't need more evidence. But we got some over the weekend when we saw this photograph of a Taliban prisoner with a stocking cap on, a face mask on, gloves on, under the headline, "The Daily Mirror" was, "barbaric." The mail on Sunday was torture.

Well, now we learn that the hat and gloves are simply because the flight over was cold. The face mask was simply because some of these guys may have tuberculosis. And in fact, it turns out they're being fed well. They're eating literally Froot Loops and they're getting culturally sensitive meals. They're not being force fed pork chops. These guys are living far better than they did in Afghanistan. There's no debating that, true?

KENNETH ROTH, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH: Look I'm not about to defend the British tabloids. I won't even begin with that. But I think that this entire debate about are they being treated humanely or not is actually largely beside the point. Because the big issue right now is why is Secretary Rumsfeld refusing to follow the Geneva Conventions in deciding whether these people are formal prisoners of war or not?

The rules are very clear here. If they are members of the Afghan military, people like the Taliban military, they will be found to be prisoners of war. If they are a separate militia, like al Qaeda, probably they will be found not to be prisoners of war.

But the determination is not to be done by Secretary Rumsfeld sitting behind a microphone. It's to be done by a competent tribunal. The rules are very clear on that. And until that tribunal is set up, all of them have to be treated as presumptive POWs.

That means, first of all, no military commissions. If you're a POW, you get a full court martial with all the many procedures that exist for American service members faced with the same crime. That matters for them. It also, frankly, matters for American soldiers who might be detained overseas, because you can just imagine the Pentagon trying to argue that American soldiers should be treated as POWs and they'll face a detention.

CARLSON: Oh, please.

ROTH: And the enemy's going to say, what you are you talking about? You ripped up the Geneva Convention.

CARLSON: Now, Mr. Roth. I'm sorry. I'm just going to -- wait. the ludicrousness level's reached the saturation point here. First of all, as you know, these are not soldiers of the "Afghan government." The Taliban government was recognized only by three countries at the time it fell. In fact the time it fell, I think it only got one other.

ROTH: And you know...

CARLSON: Hold on. One of the -- these were not soldiers abiding by rules of war. And third, they want to be called POWs. Charles Manson wants to be called a POW. The fact is he's a criminal. So who says they're POWs?

ROTH: OK.

CARLSON: Human Rights Watch. Who else?

ROTH: OK, let me just go through those one by one, if could. First of all, the Convention made clear that whether you're a recognized government or not is irrelevant. Because if that were the rule, everybody at war would just unrecognize the other side. And there would go the Geneva Convention. So that's not the rule.

Second, if you commit crimes, war crimes, crimes against humanity, you can be prosecuted whether a POW or not. So that doesn't stop anybody. But you know, finally, this whole issue about, you know, their treatment, frankly, is a bit of a diversion. Because the real question is, you know, why are these very straightforward rules not being followed? Rumsfeld is just ripping up the Geneva Conventions. He feels he's got the power and doesn't have to abide by the rules, but this is going to come back to haunt American service members.

PRESS: It may be, he may think it's a diversion, Colonel Maginnis. I happen to. I'm not a fan of the Taliban, but I am a fan of keeping our word as a country. And the Geneva Convention, which we signed in 1949, says, summarizing, these people have to be given humane treatment.

We saw the photographs again. I mean, here they are. Right? They've been shaved. They're crouched down. They're wearing goggles. They're wearing ear muffs. They're chained to that fence. And they're living outdoors in an eight foot square fence. Colonel, you wouldn't treat your dog that way. How can you pretend that this even comes close to being humane treatment? ROBERT MAGINNIS, LT. COL., U.S. ARMY, RETIRED: Well, Bill, in fact, we treat some of our soldiers like that. They have more space than some of the soldiers that are guarding them. Do you realize there are three prisoners in Illinois state penitentiaries that share the same space of eight by five, not eight by six?

So they actually have -- a fairly humane -- and I agree with you, the Geneva Convention is very clear on how you treat people. We have bent over backwards to accommodate them in terms of their Islamic beliefs. We're feeding them more than Froot Loops. We're actually giving them, you know, culturally specific meals.

We have the best medical condition. They've never seen this sort of thing available to them. We have given them exercise opportunities. There's going to be a cleric down there. They have copies of the Koran. Now we are really, you know, the pictures you're seeing are not that atypical of when you're dealing with very violent people, who quite frankly, have threatened most of the guards they've been around with murder.

PRESS: Well, I'm not saying that these are not violent people. I mean, these are...

MAGINNIS: They are.

PRESS: That's why they are in prison. But you say they're being treated as well as American prisoners are.

MAGINNIS: (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

PRESS: How many American prisoners are we keeping outdoors in steel cages? And colonel...

MAGINNIS: They aren't cages, Bill. They're cells. They're cells.

PRESS: They are. They're described as cells.

ROTH: Can I jump in here, please?

MAGINNIS: Wait a second, Ken.

PRESS: Just a second. If we were -- Americans were being held that way by any other country, you'd be the first one correctly to scream.

MAGINNIS: Hey listen, Bill, ask John McCain how he was treated in Vietnam. Ask any of the POWs that I've met over the years how they were treated.

PRESS: And we screamed about it.

MAGINNIS: Yes, we did scream.

ROTH: That's not the issue here.

MAGINNIS: They are being treated extraordinarily well. And they're being treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention.

CARLSON: Mr. Roth, what is the issue then?

ROTH: Yes, that's utterly not true, what the colonel is saying. I mean, if these people are prisoners of war, and until there's a competent tribunal, they're all presumptive prisoners of war. The rule is one, that they've got to be given the same trial rights as an American facing the same charges. And clearly, that's not the Bush military commissions.

Second, in terms of humane treatment, they have to be given the same treatment that American soldier would be put on, they would be given if he or she were in detention. And it's clear that we would never put an American soldier in cages like this.

MAGINNIS: Mr. Roth, that's not true.

(CROSSTALK)

ROTH: I'm not going to say that this is torture or any of the, you know, exaggerations of "The Daily Mirror." But the rule is, the same treatment that would be given to an American facing detention. And we would never treat an American soldier this way.

MAGINNIS: Yes, these are terrorists quite frankly. These are people that killed innocent women and children in our country. These are people that hide in shadows...

ROTH: And they should be prosecuted, but you don't give up your procedural rights.

MAGINNIS: ...and they go after innocent people. They don't meet the description in Article 4 of what a POW is. So we're not going to treat them as a POW in accordance. But we are going to recognize the treatment as humane.

ROTH: OK, can I...

PRESS: Go ahead. Go ahead.

ROTH: Yes, let me just say, it would help if you'd read the Geneva Conventions, if you're going to cite them.

MAGINNIS: I have.

ROTH: The Geneva Conventions prescribe two ways of being a prisoner of war. One is you're a member of the regular armed forces of a country. So the Taliban, regardless of anything else, are POWs. The second, for irregular forces, runs through a four-part test. That's where you've got to have to ask do they have responsible chain of command? Do they carry their arms openly? Do they wear uniforms with insignias and then follow the rules of law?

CARLSON: Wait a second, Mr. Roth. I'm sorry to interrupt.

(CROSSTALK) ROTH: Let me finish. Al Qaeda clearly fails those tests.

CARLSON: Wait no, Mr. Roth, if I can...

ROTH: The al Qaeda fails that four-part test. The four-part test does not apply to the Taliban.

CARLSON: To interrupt your recitation of the Geneva Convention, let me just ask you a question I think a lot of viewers are asking right now. Of all the things going on in the world right now, all the atrocities being committed, even as we speak, I find it interesting, I think many viewers do too, that Human Rights Watch is zeroing in on this.

So went to your Web site. And I checked the sort of issues you're interested in. Let me just give you one example that I think makes the point that you're motivated by anti-American bias. I found 35 reports detailing human rights abuses in the United States. Zero on North Korea. One on Zimbabwe. And two on Sierra Leone. This is -- it's clearly a political message that you're selling.

ROTH: You probably found 60 on China and 70 on Chechnya.

CARLSON: No.

ROTH: And we cover 70 countries around the world. We cover, you know, every serious atrocity. So I mean, if just take a serious look.

CARLSON: No, you don't.

ROTH: And indeed, a lot of the criticism, for example, of the war right now...

CARLSON: There's nothing under North Korea.

ROTH: ...is to try to make the war on terrorism more effective. We have not been able to get into North Korea. And we've got a mission. I'm working on that right now. I've been working elsewhere. We can't get into the country, so we're getting information from other means.

(CROSSTALK)

PRESS: Sorry, that's got to be the end of it for now. Mr. Roth, thanks so much for joining from us London. Colonel Maginnis, good to have you back in the studio. That's it for this issue.

And when we come back, changing gears under fire. What about this? If you get drunk some night and wind up with a tattoo on your arm or someplace else only your body, should the government pay to take it off? Right back with more CROSSFIRE.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. It's time for our "Under Fire" and "In The News" segment, when we alert you to stories you may have missed, but shouldn't have. And first, we go where else but to California, where Lois Caps, a Democratic congresswoman, has successfully lobbied the Justice Department for $50,000 for a program she says will help youth erases the social stigma of tattoos.

It pays for laser surgery to have tattoos removed. $50,000 dollars. Bill, the thing I like about liberals is they always live down to the stereotype. Whenever people call liberals frivolous or mushy-headed, low and behold, they validate the slur with their own behavior. And that, I have to say, is one appealing thing about.

PRESS: Well, the thing I like about conservatives is they never put their money where their mouth is. They say gangs are terrible, but we won't spend a dime to help kids get off gangs and get back into the main stream. You know, $50,000 is nothing, Tucker. But if it got one kid or two kids or three kids and helped them get out of the gang image, so they could get a job. You know what? That's money well spent.

CARLSON: Let me ask you. One quick question. Should people who get hung over, not just hung over but really hung over, should the government pay for bloody marys for them?

PRESS: If you know anything about gangs, these are not...

CARLSON: No, you're not answering my question.

PRESS: Because it's a stupid question.

CARLSON: Free bloody marys?

PRESS: I don't answer stupid questions. I have a rule.

CARLSON: It's a revealing question.

PRESS: All right, I'm going to move onto my outrage. This has to do with Lisa Kerkorian, who is the ex-wife of the MGM Hotel Kirk Kerkorian. They were married about three or four years ago, when he was 80. She was 32. Don't know whether it was Viagra or not, but they did have a kid. Now they're getting a divorce. And she is asking, are you ready, $320,000 a month in child support for things like this, $14,000 for parties and play dates, $5,900 for eating out, $4,300 for eating in, $2,500 for movies and other outings, $1,400 for laundry and dry cleaning, $1,000 for toys, books and videos, $436 to take care of her pet rabbit, and $144,000 for travel on private jets.

Tucker, poor little rich kid.

CARLSON: But you've left out one thing, and that is the massive shrink bill that will necessary. But you know what? I get a little mad. At $2,500, that winds up to be 20 movies a day, every day, including weekends. That does not leave a lot of time for pets or travel or parties.

PRESS: I just want you to know, I could get by on a lot less. I could get by on $250,000 a month.

CARLSON: I could swing it on that.

PRESS: From the left, I'm Bill Press with a sacrifice. Good- night for CROSSFIRE. See you tomorrow night.

CARLSON: And from the right, I'm Tucker Carlson. Join us again, yet 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