Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Crossfire
Middle East Violence Escalates; Elections Move Closer
Aired May 01, 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.
ANNOUNCER: Tonight on CROSSFIRE.
From the George Washington University, Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson.
TUCKER CARLSON, CO-HOST: Good evening and welcome to CROSSFIRE. Coming to you live from the George Washington University here in downtown, Washington, D.C. We have a packed show tonight.
As you know, there's breaking news out of the Middle East. We'll have Israeli reaction to the latest heavy fighting near the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. We'll also speak with the House minority leader, Dick Gephardt. And the issues of this election year, we'll talk to two of the best political consultants anywhere. But first, the Israeli/Palestinian fighting in Bethlehem.
Joining us from New York tonight, the Israeli consul general, Alon Pinkas. Ambassador Pinkas.
PAUL BEGALA, CO-HOST: Mr. Ambassador, thank you for joining us on short notice.
ALON PINKAS, ISRAELI CONSUL GENERAL: My pleasure.
BEGALA: Thank you, sir. About an hour ago, Wolf Blitzer interviewed Saeb Erekat of the Palestinian Authority who said that Israel caused the fire at the Church of the Nativity. First, he said the IDF, the Israeli Defense Forces, stormed the church, and then that Israeli firepower caused the fire. Your reaction?
PINKAS: Along the same lines they said that 3,000 people were massacred in Jenin. He has no idea what went on. Best of my understanding in the last 20 or 30 minutes of making cross-Atlantic phone calls, the following has happened.
There was fire in three points in the residential quarters of the -- in the entire compound, not the basilica itself, specifically where the franciscan priests reside. We have offered to extinguish that fire, which incidentally, erupted at the very same place in which another fire took place 10 days ago and that was the Palestinians themselves who lit it last week or 10 days going.
Furthermore, there was absolutely no military action in the church, no military action around the church. In fact, we have not changed our policy of not initiating, I repeat, not initiating any military activity, any direct or indirect military operation near or in the immediate vicinity of the church for fear that one stone will be scathed in that holy compound.
CARLSON: Well, wait a second, Ambassador Pinkas. And with all due respect, you say there is no military operation around, but Israeli soldiers were firing their weapons into the Church of the Nativity just two hours ago. Why?
PINKAS: Israeli soldiers were firing, they were returning fire at the residential quarters from which very heavy fire was initiated by the Palestinians who have been barricaded there for the last...
CARLSON: But, Ambassador, I mean, Israeli soldiers still fired on the compound. You understand, of course, the Israeli army understands that this is a sacred site to Christians around the world. And the question many are asking is why fire on it? So they were returning fire, you say, but why not just get out of the way? There's no need to fire back, is there?
PINKAS: We did. We did. You are right in your question. The immediate reaction was to fire back at a barrage of automatic fire that was -- automatic shots that were fired at the soldiers. Immediately thereafter when the source of the fire was identified, the forces there withdrew on command.
BEGALA: Mr. Ambassador, let me ask you about the rationale behind the standoff. I certainly understand as a strong supporter of Israel why you needed to seal off the compound in Ramallah, where you have succeeded in apprehending the murderers of an Israeli cabinet officer and the terrorists who were behind a weapons shipment of 50 tons and came from around into Israel. Who is in the Church of the Nativity that could possibly be worth the kind of firefight we saw today?
PINKAS: Incidentally, the diagram that you just displayed was the Arafat compound, not the Church of the Nativity.
BEGALA: What I'm saying is the siege at the Arafat compound makes sense to me because there were really notorious terrorists there, and you have now got them going to prison. Who is in the Church of the Nativity that is worth this kind of firefight?
PINKAS: Thirty people with blood on their hands, 30 people who are on the wanted list who have actively participated in the planning and execution of terror attacks, 30 people, some individuals of which were directly involved in the planning and implementation or execution, rather, of suicide or homicide attacks inside Israel. Thirty people whose names have been submitted to Arafat, time and time again, 30 names who have been on the list of General Zinni when he was there on either Secretary Colin Powell's mission or as a presidential envoy. That is the only reason we are encircling the vicinity of the church.
CARLSON: Ambassador Pinkas, you had to have -- I mean, I have no trouble believing that there are terrorists inside the compound. But the Israeli government must have had some sense that something like what happens today was going to happen. A couple of weeks ago, Israeli soldiers shot a monk, as you know, accidentally at the compound. Three weeks ago, their fire set part of the compound on fire.
Isn't it obvious to the Israeli government the longer this goes on, the far more likely it is that the Church of the Nativity is going to be damaged or destroyed?
PINKAS: Yes. I agree, which is why we move the forces, we withdrew the forces or retracted them several hundred yards back and left only very small units to patrol the area to see that no one is trying escape.
Don't forget that whatever damage they could do to the church they could do whether or not we are close to the church or far away from the church. But the broader picture is what counts here. You are talking about people who did not find refuge in one of the holiest sites of Christianity, but people who barricaded themselves, took nuns and priests and innocent Palestinian civilians as hostages. This is unacceptable behavior. This is intolerable. This runs against everything that you and I stand for. And while that may not answer your question on why we are located seven -- 17 yards or 85 yards away from the church, that is the major story here.
BEGALA: Let me ask you to help me understand what the story of today is. It seems to me it's a tale of two cities, that over in Ramallah, the war against terrorism seemed like it went pretty well. Some of the worst terrorists in the world were, in fact, sent to prison. They'll be there for an awful long time, and yet there was a peaceful resolution and Mr. Arafat will now be free to travel again. That's some glimmer of hope.
But then over in Bethlehem there, there is this terrible scene of despair. What are we to make of today's events?
PINKAS: Things are more complicated and complex than what meets the eye or what you see on CNN. That's the plain truth, Paul. What happened in Ramallah today is that we lifted the siege or the encircling of the Arafat compound. And this great leader and great democrat is now free to roam the land and see what he can do in combating terrorism as he has pledged 17.000 times since Oslo. And I think you were there near President Clinton at the time, so you know exactly what kind of pledges he has made.
BEGALA: But at least he's...
PINKAS: As for Bethlehem, it's like you said, it's a standoff that's been going on for two and a half weeks. We think these people should give up, should surrender. If they choose not to, we've offered them a way out in the last 10 days three times. We've offered through other intermediaries to get out and leave the territory, that they will not be harmed. We've offered to move them to Gaza and from there to outside of the entire region.
They prefer to be on CNN and cause bloodshed and perhaps damage to the Church of Nativity rather than to find a peaceful solution out of this situation.
CARLSON: Ambassador Alon Pinkas from New York, thank you very much for joining us. We appreciate it.
PINKAS: Thank you.
CARLSON: And now, the House Democratic leader, Congressman Dick Gephardt of Missouri joins us. A warm welcome for Congressman Gephardt.
REP. RICHARD GEPHARDT (D-MO), MINORITY LEADER: Paul, how are you? Tucker, how are you? It's good to see you.
BEGALA: Thank you for joining us on a day -- we had long been hoping you'd come on, but this is a tragic turn of events late in the day and I want to ask your response. You saw Ambassador Pinkas, I hope, who said that essentially, that Israel was justified in returning fire. They didn't initiate, but they returned fire. What do you make of that?
GEPHARDT: Well, Paul, it's another in a long series of incidents. And really, you have to go back to the offer that Arafat had 18 months ago that would have settled this thing. We would have had two states living together in peace. And for some inexplicable reasons, he turned it down.
The peace camp in Israel then was made less. We have a new leader in Israel. Then the intifada starts. And now you have violence that is really, really, really serious and scary. We have got to stand with Israel as a country. It's a democracy. It's the only democracy in the region. We have historical ties to Israel. We got to stand with them, but we have to lead and push for peace, which the administration is doing, and we back them in that.
BEGALA: And I agree with that. Our audience also should know that I used to work for you. I wrote speeches for you many years ago, and your speeches are much better since I've left.
But I do need to ask, in the Gulf War, the United States asked Israel a remarkable act of forbearance to not fight back when they were bombed with Scud missiles. And Israel agreed. So I can't imagine any other sovereign nation that has ever declined to defend itself. Why not the same strategy today though? Even though I believe the Palestinians began this firefight, why not ask them to do the same thing they did 10 years ago and show forbearance in the cause of peace?
GEPHARDT: Paul, proportionally, if America had had happened to it on 9/11 what's happened to Israel in the last three or four months, we would have lost 25,000 people on 9/11. We have been in Afghanistan for seven months now trying to track down terrorists, trying to bring them to justice. How can we ask Israel to do less in their own self- defense, after most of the suicide bombings they did nothing? They did forbear. They did step back. You've got to defend your people. That's the first duty of any government. CARLSON: Congressman Gephardt, you said America ought to stand with Israel. America, of course, does stand with Israel, has since Israel was born. But there are degrees here and Senator Joe Lieberman, as you know, is pushing this idea of passing a resolution of support of Israel before Sharon arrives in the United States. The Bush administration wary of this idea.
Shouldn't the Congress back off a little bit, particularly in light of what happened today, and really let the executive branch handle the foreign policy nuances here?
GEPHARDT: We are, Tucker, and we should and we will keep doing that. But I think think it is important, given all that's happened, for the Congress to make a statement that simply says we support Israel. We're not trying run foreign policy. We support the president in what he's trying to do and Secretary Powell.
CARLSON: But Congress sends billions a year to Israel in aid, military and otherwise. I can't imagine a stronger statement. Isn't another statement, another resolution really just a way to force this administration's hand in the way it deals with Israel and the Palestinians?
GEPHARDT: I talked to the president this morning and he didn't have any great objection to these kind of resolutions coming through the Congress. I've told him from the beginning that we are with him in this policy. We've got to be together. We've got to work together in a bipartisan way.
If America gets separated in fighting among ourselves about what to do about the Middle East, we're not going to be effective. We've got to lead for peace. We have got to try to bring these parties -- we are the only country in the world that can bring these parties together and bring about a stable, long-term peace. We've been doing this for 50 years. And we've made lots of progress, and we've got to get it done, and we will.
BEGALA: Let me ask you from the other side of it though. I'm all for deferring to presidential leadership, but what about when there is no presidential leadership?
For 15 months, our president walked away from the Middle East, thought it was a problem that he didn't need to address and then sends Colin Powell in five days to try to repair the damage of 15 months. And in the meantime, has both supported and opposed Israel's act of self-defense in the West Bank and it has had a policy that right and left has, I think the only thing they agree on is that our policy has been incoherent. Doesn't the Congress need to step in and try to drag our president into the leadership role he ought to be playing?
GEPHARDT: Paul, I've talked to the president, talked to Secretary Powell. I was in the region in the Middle East 11 weeks ago. I came back and had private meetings with both of them. I urge them to get more involved. They've done that. We're not going to get anywhere if we are in public spats here in the United States about what the policy in the Middle East should be. We've got to work together. We've got to be bipartisan, and we got to try to get this done.
Let me just add this thing. This is a tough problem. You've got two leaders who really don't like one another, who have many grievances over the past year in a bad neighborhood. There's only one government that's been elected in the Middle East and that's the Israeli government. We look to the Saudis and the Egyptians and say, why don't they do more? They've never been elected. We expect probably more than they can produce.
Finally, there's now rage on both sides, not anger, rage. The people, the populations of both these areas are completely at rage with one another. America is the only country that can bring about progress and we've done it for 50 years.
CARLSON: Congressman, but isn't part of the problem really contained in the question that Paul just asked, the implication of which was that the fighting we are seeing now in the Middle East is a direct result of the Bush administration's policy -- or as he put it -- lack of policy for the proceeding 15 months. Isn't that an outrageous implication, unfair fingerpointing and really not at all constructive as we move forward to try and figure out how to bring about peace?
GEPHARDT: Tucker, we always need to have dissent and discussion in the United States. We are a democracy and we have got to have that kind of debate.
CARLSON: But isn't what he said literally untrue and unfair?
GEPHARDT: Well, maybe a little overstated...
BEGALA: Certainly not.
CARLSON: Quite the diplomat.
GEPHARDT: But look, we need to be together. This is a policy, in the end, which needs to be bipartisan. Now Tom Daschle gave some, I think, warranted criticism and ideas about the Bush administration on their foreign policy. They basically called him almost treasonist. Now, that isn't going to help anything either.
CARLSON: I don't think he apologized for it, didn't he?
GEPHARDT: We need to have healthy debate in the country, but we need in the end to try to have a policy together, as a force for peace to bring about the right conclusion. Look, we face a competition in the world now between terrorism and governance. That's the problem we face and we have got to work together in the United States and with other democratic, small-D democratic communities in the world to bring education, political governance and democracy and economic progress in countries all over this world so that we can be safe.
Forget about -- we can't say any more Afghanistan doesn't matter to us or what happens in the Middle East doesn't matter to us. We know from 9/11 it does and we have got to bring the same values, the ultimate universal values this country stands for to the rest of the world. And we can do it.
BEGALA: Well put, Mr. Gephardt. We're going to take a quick break. And stay right us. When we come back, we're going to get an update on the Middle East in our CNN "News Alert" at the bottom of the hour.
But when CROSSFIRE returns, we'll turn our attention to politics and domestic affairs and ask Congressman Gephardt, well, whether his eyes are on being a speaker of the people's House or living in the White House.
Also, our "Quote Of The Day." Here's a hint: She's no George W. Bush, but she does give him a run for the money when it comes to speaking American.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. Alone in the CROSSFIRE tonight taking the best that both "Bow-Tie Boy" and I have to offer is House Democratic leader Dick Gephardt of Missouri. Mr. Carlson.
CARLSON: Mr. Begala, thank you.
GEPHARDT: I like bow ties.
CARLSON: I knew I liked you. In December, John McCain, Senator McCain of Arizona, sent a letter to the president saying essentially I think we ought to attack Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein. Only two Democrats signed that letter, Senator Joe Lieberman and Harold Ford of Tennessee, from Congress.
You by contrast said, and I'm quoting here, instead of going to war, we should, quote, "increase the pressure incrementally and work with the world coalition." In other words, essentially, wait until the Saudis give their OK. Is that where you are today?
GEPHARDT: No. What I said then and what I say now is the same, and that is, look, Saddam Hussein is a problem. He has not complied with U.N. regulations and resolutions. The president has said that we should reassert those resolutions and see if we can get Saddam Hussein to do what he should have done a long time ago.
If he won't and the president decides there are other actions that should be taken, I will support those actions. I think Saddam Hussein is a bad problem. He has flouted lots of U.N. resolutions in the past. If the president decides after trying again to get him to do the right thing that he's not going to do the right thing and he wants to take military action, hopefully with the world coalition, then I'm for it.
CARLSON: But hasn't the White House said pretty unequivocally we are committed to removing him from power? And hasn't the public, by a vast margin, said we agree with that? And don't Democrats risk a similar situation that rose in the beginning of the Gulf War where some of them destroyed their careers by voting against it? Are you worried about that? GEPHARDT: If the president decides that action needs to be taken and he lays out a plan for the Congress and the American people, and it's a sensible, rational plan, which I assume it would be, I will support that plan.
BEGALA: But what if a big piece of that rationale collapses, i.e., today's newspapers report that the much ballyhooed secret meeting between Mohamed Atta, one of the leaders of the September 11 terrorists, and the Iraqi intelligence officials that supposedly happened in Prague, turns out it never, ever happened, that there is, as of today, no link whatsoever that has ever been reported between Saddam Hussein and September 11.
And yet, the warmongers over there are saying we have to attack, we have to attack because they were behind September 11. When that's pulled out, isn't there very little rationale for attacking Iraq when it could distract us and our allies from the war against al Qaeda?
GEPHARDT: Paul, this is not in my mind about what Saddam Hussein did or didn't do with regard to the terrorism on 9/11 or any other time. This is about Saddam Hussein's flouting, flouting over a long period of time, a whole lot of U.N. resolutions. We have tried to have inspectors there. President Clinton tried to have inspectors there. He finally kicked them out. We have asked a number of times for them to get back in. He doesn't want any part of it. This is a guy who has a record of killing family members, killing lots of his own population, tearing down villages, running tanks over people.
This is a bad guy. He is not playing by the same set of rules that the rest of the world has to play by. And I think it is reasonable to ask him to do what the world has asked him to do, but we cannot allow to have weapons of mass destruction, to prepare more weapons of mass destruction for use in the region or against other countries, including us.
BEGALA: Let me shift gears then because that did sound an awful lot like someone who is ready to lead an army rather than someone who is leading the congressional Democrats. If in fact, as I expect, and I think you do, the Democrats take back the House of Representatives in November of 2002, they'll make you the speaker of the House. Can you run for president as speaker and will you?
GEPHARDT: Boy, you ran way ahead.
CARLSON: I'd say.
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: They are going to take back the House.
GEPHARDT: Well, I agree with that. I agree with that. That's a decision I make after this election. I'm focused on winning the House back. And if Kurt Warner is a quarterback on the one-yard line, he better be thinking about getting across the one-yard line and not the next game.
BEGALA: Now who does he play for, by the way, Congressman?
GEPHARDT: He plays with the Rams and they are the second-best team in football today.
CARLSON: Now, Congressman, you are a big supporter of organized labor. And I have to say, I'm becoming one thanks in part to people like Steve Rosenthal, who is the political director of the AFL/CIO.
As you know, he had a marvelous quote, a very true quote in the "Washington Post" today. Here's what it was. Quote: "I'll buy dinner for anybody who can say what the Democrats stand for. So far, nobody's taken me up on it." Steve Rosenthal going hungry, and I can give you tons of examples of what I think he's talking about.
Let me just give you one. Democrats are going to run midterms probably in 2004 on Social Security and how to fix it. Where is the Democratic-sponsored legislation that would overhaul, fix, save Social Security for a future generation?
GEPHARDT: Well, Tucker, if we had stuck with the economic program we were operating under during the Clinton administration, we would still have a surplus in place that we could use to pay down the back debt. And then with the interest we'd save, we could put that over into the Social Security.
CARLSON: Right. But I'm talking about right here and now. Where is the legislation?
GEPHARDT: Well, that was the program we were operating under.
CARLSON: So there is none? There's no (UNINTELLIGIBLE) right now?
GEPHARDT: No. Of course, we can get back to that with Democratic leadership in the House and the Senate. And hopefully a Democratic president...
CARLSON: So there's no plan on the table, is what you're saying? There's no legislation?
GEPHARDT: There's a plan that we had already implemented.
CARLSON: I would think there would be legislation, wouldn't you?
GEPHARDT: It was a plan we had implemented.
CARLSON: But you spend all your time talking about it, but there's no law.
GEPHARDT: It was the Bush economic program that blew the whole thing up.
(CROSSTALK)
We were for tax cuts for the middle class, people that want tax cuts. CARLSON: You're talking with the past, Congressman.
BEGALA: Why not do that going forward? Why not say to the American people, you know, we are at war. We are spending the Social Security surplus which Bush promised he wouldn't rob but yet he is anyway. We're going to tell the one percent of the wealthiest Americans, 99 percent of Americans, you get your Bush tax cut even though, you know, we may not be able to afford all of it. You get all of it.
But for one percent, we're going to go back. You're not going to be able to get your tax cut. Sorry, it's not a tax increase. Why not repeal the Bush tax cut which for the wealthiest one percent which, as you know, would save 40 percent of all of that dough that Bush shoved out the door last year?
GEPHARDT: Paul, I think the better way to get across that the Bush economic plan was ill-advised is what just happened in the last two days. Instead of doing something to deal with the tax cut question, we are now going to raise interest rates on student loans. That's what the Bush administration wants to do.
These are the kind of choices we are going to be faced with because they didn't accept our tax cut proposal which would have been aimed at the middle class, would have cost less in terms of revenue and would have allowed us to not cut student loans, which we should not do.
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: Thank you very much for joining us. We appreciate it.
GEPHARDT: Thank you.
CARLSON: When we come back, a CNN "News Alert" on the latest in the Middle East. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: Welcome back. Time now for the CROSSFIRE quote of the day.
Some in the press have mocked President Bush for turning nouns into verbs, verbs into nouns, and otherwise taking profoundly creative liberties with the English language. Mr. President, you are not alone. Meet Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic House Whip. Speaking to reporters recently, Congresswoman Pelosi said, "We want to see the opportunity, shall we say, tangibilitized with the money to match." Apparently Ms. Pelosi was attempting to make a point about the president's position on mental health coverage or maybe not. Your guestmiization is as good as ours.
BEGALA: Tucker's turns out it's fair play. This is a close runner-up on the "quote of the day." Certainly, former Vice President Dan Quayle, we all know him. He's back in the news this week. In an appearance on "Hardball With Chris Matthews," the man once considered an intellectual lightweight, gave a powerful, penetrating and perspicacious analysis of the current crisis in the Middle East.
Quayle declared his support for a U.S. invasion of Iraq and said the current fighting between Israelis and Palestinians was fundamentally different from America's need to fight Saddam Hussein. He said, and this time I'm not making it up, "I would ask you, looking at the Israeli/Palestinian question and say this, how many Palestinians were on those airplanes on September 9th? None." When reminded the attacks were on September 11th, he said, "I knew that. I'm just trying make Bush look smart."
CARLSON: See Paul -- got to love Dan Quayle. And you know what?
BEGALA: The comedy gods have smiled on us today. Dan Quayle back on television.
CARLSON: You also -- first of all, if I can just point out that he is an excellent, excellent golfer and a very nice guy. But you also have to give him credit for courage. I mean most people -- Mike Dukakis, you don't see him on our show, for instance. He hides up in Boston. He failed. He doesn't have the courage to come out there and fail again and again. And Dan Quayle does. And I have to say, he's...
BEGALA: (UNINTELLIGIBLE.)
CARLSON: It's true. He's a courageous guy.
BEGALA: And I want to -- once again, I need to go to mass this Sunday once again to thank the good Lord for giving us Quayle. And I thought I had all the material I needed with Bush. But just the one day he maybe runs out...
CARLSON: You're whetting my appetite for politics. And I'm glad because coming up next, we have two of the absolute best political consultants in this country. All politics when we return. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. We're coming to you, as usual, live from the George Washington University here in downtown Washington, D.C.
The Bush tax cut, cloning, the other Bush running in Florida, the man who lost the last race for the White House. Those are some of the issues this election year. Happily, we've got two of the best political strategists in America to talk about them. Please welcome Democratic strategist Bob Shrum and his Republican counterpart, Mike Murphy.
BEGALA: Nice to see you.
CARLSON: How are you?
BEGALA: Good to see you. We invited a few of your closest friends over. Mr. Murphy, as we meet, George W. Bush today is four points lower in the polls than Bill Clinton was on the day he was impeached. His top aide is leaving to go home to Texas. And his Middle East policy so incoherent that the only thing Israelis and Palestinians agree on is they can both diss Bush with impunity. The wheels have fallen off the wagon, haven't they, Murphy?
MIKE MURPHY, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Absolutely not. Of all the trick questions in the history of CROSSFIRE, that's one of the better ones. The fact is...
BEGALA: There's more to come.
MURPHY: I bet there's a barrel of them, Paul.
The president's numbers were so incredibly high because of the fantastic job I think all Americans think he's doing on foreign policy, particularly the war against terrorism. It's just natural that they're going to come down to normal levels. We're in for, I think, a good spirited midterm election. I think any campaign is about the president's leadership will be a winning Republican campaign. The issue for our side though is how do we fight off the demagogic Democratic attacks on Social Security and fear, which are the holy grail of your party, and try to have a rational debate on domestic policy at a time when the president, and kind of our strongest asset, is focused on foreign policy.
BEGALA: Well, see, I strongly disagree on your assessment of his leadership. And I think it shows across the board. Let me ask you as somebody who worked for McCain, would McCain have been doing a better job today? I think he would. I think McCain would be -- I still wouldn't have voted for him against Gore, but McCain would've been a greater president than Bush. Do you agree?
MURPHY: The tanks might be rolling into Baghdad now. And as a reactionary, I'm kind of on the McCain side of that question. But I don't know. I think, frankly, it's quite similar. I think the foreign policy of the Bush administration shows a lot of the kind of initiatives that McCain talked about in his campaign. I think McCain has spoken about how proud he is of the job the president's doing. So I don't think there'd that much of a difference.
BEGALA: They hate each other, don't they?
MURPHY: No.
BEGALA: Oh, come on, Murphy.
MURPHY: I don't think so.
CARLSON: Now Bob, Paul was just bringing up McCain, a maverick. But there's a new maverick in the United States Senate, in some ways every bit as impressive. That's, of course, Zell Miller, Democrat of Georgia. He spoke at the NRA conference this week, and had a fascinating line about the election 2000. He said about the campaign you helped throw, the Gore campaign, "All their expert pollsters said voters favored some kind of gun control. Well, I stand with heartfelt conviction over a political wind gauge every day." He implied that it was on that issue and a number of others that Gore lost, among others, the key state of Tennessee. Do you think Zell Miller's on to something?
BOB SHRUM, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, Paul and I both worked for Zell Miller. And I like Zell Miller, but I think he's moved considerably in the Democratic spectrum, over to a position where he seems to constantly advocate at times what you might call Republican positions.
CARLSON: Kind of impressive maverick.
SHRUM: And you know, that's why you like him.
CARLSON: He's not a maverick.
SHRUM: He's not a maverick. You just think that he agrees with you, so you like him. I do not think that's what happened. I do not think that's what happened in 2000. Actually, as I've corrected you before on CROSSFIRE, and will correct you again, Al Gore won the election. He won Florida. And the only way you can ever say he lost it was by a peculiar vote of 5 to 4.
CARLSON: You're not addressing the key part of my question, which is he lost his own state, his home state of Tennessee. And didn't his stand, his reactionary stand on gun control have something to do with that? If he had taken a Zell Miller point of view...
SHRUM: Bush lost his own country.
CARLSON: Please, come on. Be real. He lost his home state.
BEGALA: Get over the bitterness.
SHRUM: Whatever else happened in that election, and whatever else Al Gore did, he did not take a "reactionary stand on gun control."
CARLSON: On almost every subject.
SHRUM: Al Gore took a brave stand on gun control in terms of some of the states he was running in, like Tennessee and West Virginia. And he believed that stand.
CARLSON: So he lost because of it.
SHRUM: No, he did not lose because of that. He did not lose the election. Tucker, it's really hard for you to add.
CARLSON: He lost his own state, Bob.
SHRUM: He won by -- he got the second highest number of votes in American history, except for Ronald Reagan.
CARLSON: I hope you're run him in the midterms. Good luck.
BEGALA: Let me press the point...
SHRUM: No, but I'm going to sit here on CROSSFIRE. And I'm not let you say he lost the election, because he didn't.
CARLSON: Let me ask you...
MURPHY: Go with the bitterness..
SHRUM: It's not bitter.
BEGALA: Let me ask you -- I'll show you bitter. I know bitter. Here's bitter. Pressing the point on gun control, the NRA had their convention this past weekend. And the top gun at the NRA, Wayne Lapierre, who I love because he's always good for a psycho quote. And he gave me one today. Let me put it up on the board and read it to you.
He called the Americans for Gun Safety, which John McCain is one of the heroes of, "a group that operates and sounds a lot like Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda." he said they are "a shadowy network of extremist social guerrillas and political terrorists who pose a far greater threat to your freedom than any foreign force." Your response?
MURPHY: It's a hell of a quote. He's the Begala of the gun community. I tell you.
BEGALA: This is your party's best ally here. He's nuts. And he's armed.
MURPHY: So quit ticking him off.
BEGALA: You got be carefully, yes.
MURPHY: He's packing. What counts is the gun control issue, not whatever anybody's saying to a crowd to get some applause from one point of view or another. And the fact is the Democrats made the political mistake of being out of touch with the country on the second amendment, on the right of people and sportsman, and citizens to use guns in a law-abiding manner.
Now here in Washington, D.C., it's illegal...
SHRUM: There's no Democrat who said they disagree with the second amendment and that sportsmen and law-abiding citizens...
MURPHY: Oh, Bob, that's ridiculous.
SHRUM: ...shouldn't be able to own weapons. That is the distortion that you guys use.
MURPHY: Under Democrat -- look, right here in Washington, D.C., Democrat paradise, place you're happy in, there's a law on guns. It says it's illegal to own a handgun here, which is why, of course, only criminals have handguns here.
SHRUM: Oh, it doesn't say that. It does not say that, actually. It says without a permit, it's illegal.
MURPHY: And it's impossible to get a permit. Yes, yes, handguns are -- this is a paradise of liberal Democratic gun control here. And we have tremendous handgun crime. Most people in most places agree with the Republican position that law-abiding citizens should have the right to own guns. You guys go out, pander to the liberal side of your party, and lose on this time and time again. And I hope you keep doing it.
CARLSON: Now Bob Shrum, if you think the Lapierre quote was over the top, then obviously you didn't hear what Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney of Georgia said the other day. She essentially went on, and it's a terrifying quote. And I won't read the whole thing, but it basically, she made the point that the administration probably knew about the events of 9/11. We know there were numerous warnings of events to come on September 11.
"What did the administration know and when did it know it about the events of September 11? Who else knew, and why did not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered?" She went on to imply that the administration and its allies got rich from the ensuing war. That's not the amazing thing. Everyone knows that she's a crackpot.
Here's what Dick Gephardt spokesman said. "Mr. Gephardt does not agree with many of the things she said, but she has the right to say them. He's confident all of her questions will be answered by the congressional investigation that will headed by the intelligence committees."
Now my question to you is, what questions do we need answered? That's prima facie outrageous, insane and really slanderous, don't you agree?
SHRUM: Well, let me do something a little different than what Murphy did with that lunatic quote from Wayne Lapierre. I think the Cynthia McKinney quote is lunatic. I think it's completely wrong. I think if she has any questions, she's going to get them all answered. And the answers are all going to be in the negative. But let me correct something Mike just said. The reason the District of Columbia has so many guns running around that the criminals have is not because the District of Columbia has tough gun laws, but because there's a gun show loophole defend by George W. Bush. So anybody can leave this place, go out, and off the back of a truck or a car, buy a gun without any kind of check at all.
Even John McCain...
MURPHY: You guys (UNINTELLIGIBLE), but it doesn't work.
SHRUM: I got two questions. I got a question.
(CROSSTALK) BEGALA: Time out.
(RINGING BELL)
I love that bell. We got to hold on a second with you guys, but we got to pay the bills. We're going to take a quick break. And when we come back, we will have more with Murphy and Shrum. Believe me, it is going to be hot. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE.
We're debating the candidates and the issues of this election year with our guests, Democratic strategist Bob Shrum and his counterpart, Republican strategist, Mike Murphy.
BEGALA: Mike, the president's top political strategist is my friend and yours, Karl Rove. Karl gave a speech in Austin a few months ago in which he said...
MURPHY: (UNINTELLIGIBLE.)
BEGALA: No, I like Karl just fine. He's an old pal of mine from Austin.
SHRUM: He's very, very close...
MURPHY: We're actually friends. We agree on Shrum.
BEGALA: So anyway, Rove gives a speech in Austin to the Republican National Committee, basically says we're going to run on the war. How is the Republicans going to do this, when we learn now that Bush, while he's talking about what a great war leader he is, has actually, believe it or not, hosted twice as many fundraisers as Bill Clinton even did. And I thought Clinton had an excessive amount of fundraising.
MURPHY: Yes, I remember your protests.
BEGALA: How could he possibly pull that off?
MURPHY: I remember you picketing the White House. Stop...
BEGALA: But that was all going to somebody I didn't like. Believe me, I was not supportive of that fundraising that was going on.
MURPHY: Oh, okay, so I'm sorry. The question is, how...
BEGALA: How the hell can he claim to be a war leader when he's out there whoring the special interests' money? Direct enough?
MURPHY: Do you think he's doing a good or bad job on the war?
BEGALA: Bad job. MURPHY: Really?
BEGALA: In the Middle East. On Afghanistan, I wish he had Osama bin Laden, but he hasn't mentioned him in six months.
MURPHY: So good job or bad job...
BEGALA: All of a sudden, he's the focus of all...
MURPHY: On the overall al Qaeda thing.
BEGALA: On al Qaeda, I do -- well, you're not interviewing me. I think he could do much better. I think he's getting distracted, actually. I think he's lost his focus.
MURPHY: OK. I think he's doing a great job. And the American people think he's doing a great job. As far as the campaign, he's the president. He's leader of a party He gets to go out and raise money. It's voluntarily.
BEGALA: Just as much as Clinton ever did.
MURPHY: That's not my fault.
BEGALA: We outreason you guys. We're going to outcampaign you guys. And we're going to beat you guys. That's what you do. That's politics.
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: Now Bob, Paul just pointed out here that the president -- this -- Republicans essentially are going to run on Bush's performance during the war. What are Democrats going to run? I'm glad you're here, because you're one of the people who decides what Democrats get to run on through your memos that you write with James Carville and Stan Greenberg.
And in your latest one, which offers up a meat and potatoes strategy, here's a quote. And I'm quoting now from you. "Do not underestimate the power of the environmental issue to reveal the character and lack of balance in the deliberations of the Bush White House and Republicans in Congress. It's a clever strategy. But the problem is, the latest CNN poll says only 2 percent of Americans list the environment as a top concern of theirs. So essentially, you're counseling Democrats to run on an issue people no longer care about.
SHRUM: Well actually, the environment has become a window on the Bush administration in the sense that it's revealed, that it does the bidding of big corporations and special interest, even when critical issues are at stake.
CARLSON: But most people say they don't think that.
SHRUM: No, they do care about it. And in fact, the single biggest variant in the democracy core poll is by a six-point margin, people think Democrats are on their side. And by a four point margin, Democrats are now winning the generic congressional race.
Now the issue Murphy doesn't want to talk about, that he said we're going to demagogue, is Social Security. And we're not going to demagogue it. We're just going to say you're wrong to privatize it. You're wrong to be raiding the Social Security trust fund. You're wrong not to be putting the kind of safeguards there that make sure Social Security's there for the next generation.
And on that issue, Democrats right now have a 15-point advantage on that.
CARLSON: But Bob, maybe you can answer this question. Where is -- and we just asked Mr. Gephardt this, where is the Democratic legislation that would fix Social Security. he answered that. There is none. There's none.
SHRUM: Social Security -- first of all, Dick Gephardt didn't say that.
CARLSON: Yes, he did. He said it when you were sitting right here.
SHRUM: Secondly -- no, he did not.
And secondly, there was a Democratic plan in the 2000 campaign to make Social Security sound for the next 75 years. The stimulus package this administration is still trying to pass, Tucker, so why don't we agree we'll put that aside that gives retroactive tax cuts to 20 of the biggest corporations in America, costs more than the entire shortfall in Social Security over the next 75 years. Why don't we get rid of that, instead of a tax break for Enron? Let's save Social Security.
CARLSON: Come up with an idea to do it. That'd be great.
BEGALA: Let me ask you to defend your party. Again, I love McCain because from time to time, unlike most Republicans, he takes on special interests. He took on tobacco. He took on all the special interests on campaign reform. I have studied Bush. I have written about Bush. I have never found a time, and I challenge you to point to one moment in Bush's public life or his presidency, when he's stood up to big corporations on behalf of little people?
MURPHY: Oh, I think it's -- that's a framing along the Democrats' side of big corporations...
BEGALA: Just one.
MURPHY: What is big corporations versus little people? Should we make big corporations illegal, take all the money and give them to little people?
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: I hate to cut off...
SHRUM: How about not letting them steal people's pension funds? How would that be for a starter?
MURPHY: I think we're all against that, Bob. Absolutely.
SHRUM: Then you are opposing the legislation to stop it.
MURPHY: Oh, come on, that's ridiculous. Neither party, Republican or Democrat, is for anybody stealing anybody's pension fund.
SHRUM: No, but you're permitting corporations...
MURPHY: The president gave a speech the other day in California, talking about corporate governance and the responsibility of people who run big corporations.
SHRUM: And the bill he is backing -- the bill he is backing, Murphy, lets the Enrons of the future do the same thing that Enron did in the past. That's a mistake and needs to be changed.
MURPHY: Oh, no, no, no. You're an absolute shill for the trial lawyers and want to construct all this ludicrous...
SHRUM: No, actually, I'm kind of just sitting here as a shill for the Democrats right now.
CARLSON: No, but Bob, if -- don't you think it's a -- honestly, a problem for Democrats if they're going to run in midterms, and they will. And they probably should -- on Social Security. And old people are going to be left eating cat food, etcetera. Isn't it a problem for them, though, if they don't actually have legislation pending that would fix a system everyone has agreed is broken?
MURPHY: You know, Tucker, the budget in the Senate proposes $1.5 trillion taken out of the Social Security surplus. You guys are playing this...
SHRUM: The reason that Social Security right now is in trouble is because of the Bush tax cut. And we know it. But Tucker, I want to say something about Social Security, because...
CARLSON: And we have 20 seconds left.
SHRUM: Fine. I think it all becomes people who make $400,000 or $500,000 a year, as I think probably most people on this panel do, to sit here and make fun of old people...
CARLSON: (UNINTELLIGIBLE). oh, settle down, Bob. Settle down.
(CROSSTALK)
You're the one who demagogues with the elderly. Not me.
SHRUM: It's not demagoguery. Don't make fun of old people who are living under $100 a month.
CARLSON: You're the one who patronizes old people and uses them to win elections. And that's shameful.
(CROSSTALK)
[ringing bell]
BEGALA: All right. We're going to have to let Murphy -- Murphy, go, get the last word. Defend your party.
MURPHY: You're shameless. You're going to scare people. The Democratic party ought to stand for something besides socialism, fear, and abortion on demand.
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: I must say, I can't improve on that.
SHRUM: You know, Murphy, if you keep doing that, we're going to win the next election, just like we won the last one.
MURPHY: See you on election day.
CARLSON: Mike Murphy, Bob Shrum, thank you both very much. Thank you, Bob, thanks.
Straight ahead, your one and only chance to fire back at us. Our "fireback" segment. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE.
Every night we offer you the chance to fire back at us. Often you take us up on it. That's what we are doing now. We'll read your e-mail.
First up, Mr. Begala, but I'll read it. "Mr. Begala, have you ever considered a career in acting? Anyone who worked for Clinton but yet can keep a straight face and act self-righteous while accusing others of lying must be a considerable thespian. I'm not sure if it's comedy or tragedy but it's Oscar-caliber stuff," says Chris Kazur of Columbus, Ohio.
You know, I've actually thought of that, Paul.
BEGALA: Thespian?
CARLSON: Yes, no, you and Meg Ryan like some romantic comedy on the beach.
BEGALA: You know what? This is what's hard for conservative to understand. I actually like a guy who creates jobs for millions of Americans and cuts crime and welfare.
CARLSON: Oh, yes.
BEGALA: Saves the country. Best damn president of my lifetime. CARLSON: I'm grateful to him for that.
BEGALA: "I think," writes Neil Elam of Charlotte, North Carolina, "the addition of Carville and Begala to Crossfire is the smartest move I've seen from CNN. I think it's sad that the GOP seems intent on their boycott of Crossfire the best live show on TV." Way to go, Neil, although the -- apparently, the boycott never materialized. Did it?
CARLSON: No, it didn't. Nobody was afraid of you in the end.
BEGALA: Well, you know what they said, and that was even better. We got their attention but not the boycott. The best of both.
CARLSON: Very true. "Why can't you pay attention to Paul? He is so reasonable, correct, and on target." But here's the telling line, "love to you all." Jill Kimmich, Boynton Beach, Florida. And Jill, I promise if Paul ever lands that role with Meg Ryan, I will pay attention. Now to our questions from the audience. Sir?
BEGALA: Hey, another one here. Here we go. Les Nglavyan of Chicago, Illinois writes, "TV Set, $250. Cable subscription to CNN, $50. Watching Tucker's face turn red when getting shellacked by David Brock, priceless!" David Brock, of course...
CARLSON: First of all, if I could just set that straight.
BEGALA: Of course.
CARLSON: That little creep did not shellack me. I caught him lying. His face was red, not mine.
BEGALA: And the book is "Blinded by the Right." I'm going to buy it and read it.
CARLSON: Oh, give me a break. Don't waste your money. Sir, you have a question?
BEGALA: "Blinded by the Right" by David Brock. Yes, sir?
PATRICK: Yes, I'm Patrick McGuire from Orea Grande, California. Tucker mentioned the idea of the Congress passing a resolution declaring formal support for Israel. Wouldn't -- don't you think that would eliminate any chance the U.S. would have of bringing the two sides together?
BEGALA: As someone who support that, no. I think the right position is really the position that Clinton had. President Clinton was obviously a strong, strong supporter of Israel. And yet, he had enough credibility by his dint of hard work and talent, with the Palestinian side, to move as close to peace then we've been in 5,000 years. No, we should make no secret of the fact that America supports Israel. They're a democracy like we are. We share their values.
CARLSON: Nobody makes a secret of that. Sir, your question.
AARON: Hi, guys. My name's Aaron Killian. I'm from Long Hill, New Jersey. I love you, Tucker.
CARLSON: Well, thanks. I love you, too.
BEGALA: We're just good friends ourselves. But he's a nice guy.
KILLIAN: But my question's for Mr. Begala. Mr. Begala, what one issue do you think the Democrats should focus on, above all others in 2004 if they hope to defeat President Bush?
BEGALA: Good luck. 2004, I think the fact that he has sold out special interests on every single issue, up and down the line. He has never stood for people.
CARLSON: And the pure lameness of that answer indicates who's going to win in 2004.
BEGALA: Shows how afraid the right is. From the left, I am Paul Begala. Good night for CROSSFIRE.
CARLSON: And from the right, I'm Tucker Carlson. Join us again tomorrow night for yet 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
