Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Crossfire

Bush Administration Prudent or Engaging Scare Tactics with Terror Warnings?; Chandra Levy's Body Found in a Washington Park

Aired May 22, 2002 - 19:00   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: CROSSFIRE -- on the left, James Carville and Paul Begala -- on the right -- Robert Novak and Tucker Carlson.

In the CROSSFIRE tonight -- more than a year after she disappeared, Chandra Levy's body is found in a Washington park.

What did he know? What did they know? And when will they know it? Turf wars and the war on terrorism.

In the CROSSFIRE Senator Richard Shelby of the Intelligence Committee. Warnings about bridges, about apartments and landmarks. Is the Bush administration being prudent or engaging its scare tactics?

Ahead on CROSSFIRE.

From The George Washington University -- Paul Begala and Robert Novak.

ROBERT NOVAK, CO-HOST, CROSSFIRE: Good evening and welcome to CROSSFIRE. And you just heard in our news alert -- Washington, DC police have confirmed that Chandra Levy's remains were discovered today in Washington's Rock Creek Park. The former intern disappeared just over a year ago.

In the months before September 11th the search for what happened to her became a media obsession.

Here to discuss the latest developments in the story is former homicide -- DC homicide detective, now an attorney at law, Ted Williams.

PAUL BEGALA, CO-HOST, CROSSFIRE: Mr. Williams, welcome to CROSSFIRE. It's an untypical CROSSFIRE discussion so we're particularly grateful that you would come in.

At 7:30 tonight the Levy family is going to make a statement to express their grief. And I know everybody at CROSSFIRE wishes them nothing the best in our prayers. But your former colleagues now in the DC police department have work to do. What can they learn from the remains that were discovered today?

TED WILLIAMS, FORMER HOMICIDE DETECTIVE, WASHINGTON, DC POLICE DEPARTMENT: Well, they have a lot of work to do, Paul. The skeletal remains -- they may very well be able to tell what the cause of death is. That's one of the first things they're going to try to establish.

That may be easy and it may be difficult because, first of all, you do not have any body tissue perhaps and if you had body tissue that may help you.

Now with just having skeletal remains they may have to -- if they can find that there was some blunt force trauma to those skeletal remains they may very well be able to tell the cause of death but they have a very difficult job ahead of them.

BEGALA: So where does the investigation go from here?

WILLIAMS: Well, first of all, what they're going to do is they're going to do a grid search. And it's my understanding that they've cordoned off Rock Creek Park where these skeletal remains were found.

And it's over a wide area in Rock Creek Park and the reason being is because while they found the skeleton -- portions of the skeleton in certain areas, there's a good likelihood that animals through the time period could have very well taken portions of the skeleton -- skeletal remains to other parts of the park.

So they're going to do a grid search and they're hoping to find some physical evidence that will show a nexus between what has taken place here and also the skeletal remains.

NOVAK: Are you suggesting, Mr. Williams, that based on physical evidence we may never learn the cause of death?

WILLIAMS: That's the unfortunate thing here but that could very well happen. In light of the fact that what you have are skeletal remains, which simply means you have bones. You do not have any physical tissue.

So, in fact, if a person was strangled and someone had their hands around that person's neck or the likelihood is that you would never know that.

NOVAK: Chief Ramsey said that this is being handled by the violent crimes unit of the DC Police Department. Do we know it's a violent crime? Do we know it's murder? Do we know it's suicide? Could it have been an accident?

WILLIAMS: Well, you see, that's just it. We do not know at this junction what has actually happened to Chandra Levy. All we know is that we have a death scene. It could very be a homicide or whatever have you.

In my experience it is more likely than not that this was not just a random situation. As we know, Chandra had pulled up on her Web site the Klingle Mansion, which is located in Rock Creek Park. So all of a sudden she's out in Rock Creek Park. Now once she got out in Rock Creek Park it is my belief she probably went out in Rock Creek Park to meet with someone. Or once there she could have met some foul play with the person perhaps she was going to meet with or she could have met with a secondary source and that could have been certainly if, in fact, we find that there was foul play.

NOVAK: Let me make sure I understand what you're saying. You're saying that it's more likely that it's somebody she knew who disposed of her rather than just an intruder or a vagrant?

WILLIAMS: Well, first of all, they've got to establish that there was a homicide.

NOVAK: Right.

WILLIAMS: Once they establish that it could very well be that she went out to Rock Creek Park to meet with someone that she actually knew.

And while out in Rock Creek Park there is a possibility that she met -- if it becomes a homicide -- death at the hands of the person she knew or it could have been someone out in the park who saw her out there and she could have met death -- if it's a homicide -- from that person.

BEGALA: Well, Mr. Williams, for our viewers who are not from Washington, DC, Rock Creek Park is a large urban park. It's got a lot of pedestrian traffic all the time and months ago when the investigation was newer, DC police and hundreds of cadets looked to me like they combed every inch of that park. How did they miss this then?

WILLIAMS: Well, that's the unfortunate point. From what I understand, the remains or the skeletal remains, as I should say, was found somewhat up on a hill. And it was an area, according to Chief Ramsey in his interview, that they may not have combed or canvassed.

And, as you've said, Paul, Rock Creek is very large and it is a possibility that they could very well have missed these skeletal remains.

NOVAK: You're not suggesting that the body was not there when they searched it but it was brought and deposited there after the search? You don't think that's very likely?

WILLIAMS: That could have happened. If you think about the criminal mind or they knew that there was a canvass of Rock Creek Park. So where would be better to bring a body would be Rock Creek Park after they had done a canvass of Rock Creek Park. So that could have happened.

BEGALA: Will they be able to tell that? Will they be able to tell that from . . .

WILLIAMS: Well, that's going to be very difficult because, again, you've got skeletal remains and they're scattered over.

And, as I said, unfortunately there are times when animals get involved in this and they will take the skeletal remains in various directions.

BEGALA: let me ask you about your former colleagues on the DC police force. They have gotten it from both sides.

Some people have said because Ms. Levy was allegedly romantically linked with a Congressman that it's gotten too much attention and these hundreds of cadets and officers that I referred to earlier maybe should have been on other crimes.

Other people have said that, in fact, it has gotten too little because maybe Washington congressmen play by a different set of rules.

How do you judge the DC cops on that?

WILLIAMS: Well, I think you could say that at the beginning of this investigation especially with the area of Gary Condit, we don't know whether Gary Condit had anything to do with this death or not. But we do know that at the beginning of the investigation that they handled this -- meaning the Metropolitan Police Department -- they handled this congressman with somewhat kid gloves.

I don't think that they did the right and proper thing initially with him.

Now at this junction I am also clearly upset that . . .

BEGALA: Well, what do you think -- sorry to interrupt you, Mr. Williams.

WILLIAMS: Sure.

BEGALA: What should they have done differently? If he's -- if you're the cop on this case . . .

WILLIAMS: Sure.

BEGALA: . . . and there's a witness or whatever he is -- I guess he's not a suspect but somebody who's a material witness I supposed because he was involved with this girl allegedly -- how do you handle him?

WILLIAMS: Well, what you do us you take him out of his element right away. You forget that he's a Congressman of the United States and you take him out of his element, you take him down to headquarters, you try to talk to him. Now if he's got a lawyer, his lawyer may tell him to shut up but you've got to understand what was going on and what has happened here with Gary Condit.

The -- I -- it is my firm belief that Gary Condit should have been put before a grand jury at the time that he was facing re- election because at that stage as a United States Congressman he would not have taken the Fifth Amendment probably. But now that he's a lame duck in Congress it is more likely than not that he will take the Fifth Amendment and certainly if he -- what Gary Condit has to worry about more than anything else is possibly an obstruction of justice charge with Susan Smith.

NOVAK: Mr. Williams, take off your old detective's hat and put on your present defense lawyer's hat.

WILLIAMS: Sure.

NOVAK: If you were Gary Condit's lawyer, would you tell him to take the Fifth Amendment?

WILLIAMS: I would tell Gary to take the Fifth. I would have Gary to shut up. He would never say nothing on this earth.

BEGALA: He doesn't have an obligation to try to put the family to rest? It's certainly going to make a lot of people think that he did it.

WILLIAMS: Well, Paul, you raise a good question. Gary Condit has said all along, "I'm cooperating, I want to do this and I want to do that."

But Gary Condit has also done some things that are very shady like taking a box and throwing it in a trash can in Alexandria, Virginia. I do believe that Gary Condit has something to say. I don't know if he knows anything about this death in a direct manner but I do believe he should be placed before a grand jury and they should have placed him before one a long time ago.

BEGALA: Mr. Williams -- Ted Williams -- thank you very much for joining us -- former DC homicide investigator and current ace criminal defense attorney. I'm going to call you if I get in trouble.

Stay with us now for more on the Chandra Levy case including a live statement from the Levy family, which we will bring to you a little later in the program.

But in a minute we're going to turn our attention to another mystery. With all of the clues floating around prior to September 11th, why didn't anyone in the government connect the dots?

And now here's your first hint on our quote of the day -- just what was this person trying to do on September 11th? What he says might surprise you.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NOVAK: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. We're expecting a live statement from Chandra Levy's family about the news that her body has been located here in Washington, DC. We'll bring that to you when it happens but, first, the war on terrorism.

Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle is demanding an independent commission to investigate intelligence values before September 11th. The White House is against it. But an investigation by the intelligence committees of Congress has been underway for some time.

We're joined now by one of its leading members, Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama, the Republican Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

SEN. RICHARD SHELBY (R), ALABAMA, VICE CHAIRMAN SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: Hello, Robert.

BEGALA: Hello, Shelby. Welcome back to CROSSFIRE.

SHELBY: Thank you.

BEGALA: Always good to have you on, sir. Believe me -- I have high regard for you personally but also the committee that you're on -- the intelligence committee -- and it's ability to investigate failures in our intelligence system leading up to September 11th.

But independent commissions have had a good track record on national security issues more broadly than simply intelligence, for example, the Hart-Rudman Commission. Gary Hart, a former colleague of yours in the Senate -- Warren Rudman, another former colleague -- one Democrat, one Republican.

They delivered a report before September 11th that was wonderfully precisioned in its insights and then it got shelved by the government. In fact, Newt Gingrich said the Bush administration actually slowed down the response to Hart-Rudman when the momentum was building in spring of 2001. Doesn't that suggest sometimes outsiders have more focus than government does?

SHELBY: Well, what you say on the commissions -- a lot of that's true. Some of them do a great job -- some of them the commissions will amount to not very much. But it will be up to the will of Congress if they want to create more commissions. You've got to remember -- and I know you know -- that there were nine investigations -- separate investigations of Pearl Harbor.

So if the Congress wants to create a commission to parallel what we're doing with the House on the intelligence committees, that's part of it. But I believe that we have a good group put together -- good investigators, we've got good staffs and . . .

NOVAK: This is the joint committee now underway?

SHELBY: Absolutely -- it is. It is a joint investigation by the House and Senate intelligence committees.

BEGALA: But it is -- I do have high regard for you -- and I think most Republicans do for Senator Graham, the Democratic chairman on the Senate side. But it would at least insulate you from some political charges -- not for you to go away or drop the ball -- stop investigate what you're doing but to broaden it. And it's not just Liberal Democrats like me who want this -- it's Rush Limbaugh (ph) has called for one . . .

SHELBY: I understand. BEGALA: . . . Bill Crystal (ph) has called for one. Many leading conservatives think this is a good way to look at the broad policy failures, not just the intelligence failures but the policy failures that led to September 11th.

SHELBY: Well, I'm going to repeat again that it's going to be up to the Congress.

BEGALA: But you're going to vote no when it's up -- when it comes to the Senate, right?

SHELBY: Well, I would at the moment. Would I later? It depends on how much cooperation we get from this administration.

NOVAK: I am sure, Senator, that you have looked carefully into this record of these outside commissions. Isn't it true that the two most famous ones -- the Pearl Harbor Commission and the Warren Commission on the assassination of President Kennedy were both very controversial. They had -- their work product came under severe attacks.

The Pearl Harbor Commission that they brag about -- wasn't that accused of a white wash?

SHELBY: Absolutely. You remember the Roberts Commission and -- by the former Justice of the Supreme Court? A lot of them and they're still under scrutiny.

And I'm sure our investigation will be under scrutiny and should be. But I've said all along and I'll say it here again tonight -- for our investigation to be thorough we've got to have the cooperation of the FBI, the CIA, the Justice Department, the administration itself everywhere because these institutions are going to be investigated. People don't like to be investigated publicly.

NOVAK: And you've said on this network on the NOVAK, HUNT & SHIELD SHOW last weekend that the FBI had not been cooperating with your investigation and you thought they had leaked the information rather than give it to you.

SHELBY: Well, we're talking about the Phoenix Memo ...

NOVAK: That's right.

SHELBY: . . . to the FBI. I don't know that they leaked it. I'm highly suspicious that they leaked part of it. But I believe, Robert, that they need to put it all out other than sources . . .

NOVAK: But they have not been cooperative with you, is that correct?

SHELBY: Well, we hope they will. I just left the director. We had the director of the FBI before our committee all afternoon and we were questioning him -- not going into detail -- what happened in the committee. We were questioning him about a lot of stuff -- the memo, the Minnesota situation, too. BEGALA: Well -- and I applaud for getting to the bottom of what happened to that paperwork within the FBI and I think you're well- suited for that.

Again, let me give you an illustration of what I want to know. The policy decisions that made at the White House, which I think in retrospect -- it is hind sight but we learn from hind sight -- were mistakes -- the lack of focus of the current administration before September 11th. There was a quotation -- Don Carrack is a three star general. You probably know him. He served under both President Clinton and President Bush.

General Carrack (ph) told "The Washington Times" he did not detect -- "Washington Post" rather -- he did not detect the same level of focus in the Bush administration on terrorism as he had seen in the Clinton administration.

Shouldn't we look into that?

SHELBY: Well, I would take issue with that. I don't want to jump on the Clinton administration because they were involved in a lot of this. But the Bush administration has been very focused I believe from the beginning and they've got to get more focused.

I believe the administration -- I'm speaking of the White House -- the president and the vice president and so forth are up to the task. But what I believe will come out of all of this -- you'll see that they were failed by the FBI -- perhaps by the CIA and others.

We've got to do better in our intelligence agencies.

BEGALA: With respect to -- let me offer as proof of their lack of commitment on this -- none other than George W. Bush, who gave an interview to "The Washington Post" in December and told them -- I knew -- he was talking about bin Laden. He's going to put it up on the screen for you. He said, "I knew he was a menace and I knew he was a problem. I was prepared to look at a plan that would be a thoughtful plan that would bring him to justice and would have given the order to do that. I have no hesitancy about going after him but I didn't feel that sense of urgency."

Isn't that the problem here -- more than the failures of this or that bureau in Phoenix or Minnesota that our president himself says he didn't feel any sense of urgency?

SHELBY: If he said that at that time I think you have to put it in context. But the president have to be served by people who provide intelligence information, law enforcement information to him. And that's where I believe that the -- at the end of the day you will see loss of opportunities here. And a lot of it's going to be with the FBI. Some of it's going to be with the CIA and where else we don't know at this point.

NOVAK: Senator, I hate to say this -- I really do -- but I want you to entertain the possibility that there are certain people and one of them may be sitting at this table at this very moment who are really interested in nailing President Bush on this issue and with perhaps some political ulterior motives and that is what's behind this lack of interest in the analytical problems in the FBI and saying, "Yeah, yeah, yeah -- we know about the FBI but we want to see if the president was just not on the ball and he didn't do the wonderful job that Bill Clinton did."

Do you think there might be a little politics . . .

SHELBY: Well . . .

NOVAK: . . . being played there?

SHELBY: . . . I have a lot of respect for Paul and I'm not going to get into partisan politics -- not in partisan politics on this show. But I can tell you I really believe that George W. Bush -- our president -- is up to the task. He's shown that -- he's shown a lot of leadership. But I also believe -- and I'm going to reiterate this -- that the president has been failed -- has -- what's failed us and failed him is the FBI, the CIA and others that have not furnished the requisite intelligence.

Now is it a structural problem? It could be, Paul.

NOVAK: Well, let me follow that up. Ever since the departure of J. Edgar Hoover there has been a succession of white knights to save and reform the FBI and they all leave with their reputations a lot worse than when they entered.

I think you'll agree with me on that -- it's true of all of the FBI directors that we have had. Is Robert Mueller going to be another one of them who comes in with these shining credentials -- everybody's saying he's wonderful -- and he cannot get a grip on this very difficult bureau?

SHELBY: Well, he could be but I don't want to judge him just after he hasn't been there a year yet. But I can tell you -- I believe the FBI ought to come forth as -- and the directors -- the leader there and admit their mistakes, admit their shortcomings.

NOVAK: And they haven't done it.

SHELBY: And they haven't done it. They're in denial and that is a big mistake.

BEGALA: Senator Shelby, I want to thank you very much for joining us -- Vice Chairman of the Committee on Intelligence. And, unlike Novak, I actually believe the buck stops with the president, not the FBI director or other bureaucrat.

We're very grateful, Senator Shelby, for coming on the show tonight.

And coming up -- a CNN new alert with an update on the Chandra Levy case. And, as we mentioned earlier, police have confirmed that her body has been discovered in Rock Creek Park here in Washington, DC. We are expecting a statement from Ms. Levy's family attorneys. And, of course, CNN will bring it to you live.

And, as if that photo wasn't controversial enough, just wait until you hear our quote of the day.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. It's time now for our quote of the day. When Republican Party fund raisers were selling a photo of President Bush on the phone during those terrible hours on September 11th they talked about the president's gritty determination. But President Bush himself painted a somewhat different picture during an interview with a German television reporter yesterday -- the first time Bush really opened up about what was going on on that fateful day.

Bush told the reporter he thought about his family and about his determination to strike back but then he said this -- our quote of the day -- quote, "I was trying to get out of harm's way."

Bob, that's hardly gritty determination. Are they going to sell that caption with the photograph from the Republican Party?

NOVAK: Do you think with Memorial Day coming up you could take a brief holiday from Bush bashing?

BEGALA: Is this -- I'm quoting the President of the United States. What do you mean "bashing"? Is it bashing him to quote the president by his own words?

NOVAK: I guess the answer was no.

BEGALA: When you take a day off from bashing Clinton I'll take a day off from bashing Bush.

NOVAK: Have I said a word against President Clinton? He's history, man.

BEGALA: Well, be right back.

And last week the Bushs' were taking a lot of heat from their handling of terror hints. Now we're in a terror alert overkill some believe. Coming up -- is this all coincidence or is it scare tactics? But, first, a CNN news alert and a live update on the Chandra Levy investigation.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NOVAK: Are President Bush's critics trying to have things both ways? Last week, they were enraged that the Bush administration did not alert Americans to warnings of terrorist violence before September 11. Now after the administration has issued lots of warnings about vague nonspecific threats to New York landmarks and American interests overseas, some of those same critics are charging the administration is trying to scare us. Stepping into the crossfire are New York Democratic Congressmen Anthony Weiner and Arizona Republican Congressman J.D. Hayworth.

BEGALA: Gentlemen, thank you both for joining us. I know you've got votes on the Hill. So thank you for joining us live from Capitol Hill. I'm sure you heard the breaking news and the report that Bob Franken just made. And it's not why we invited you on here, but I do feel compelled to ask you the question I imagine your constituents would be asking you if you were at a town hall meeting tonight, and that is this. You serve with Gary Condit in the House. Have you seen anything in him that suggests he perhaps could have been involved in the death of Chandra Levy?

Mr. Hayworth first.

REP J.D. HAYWORTH (R), ARIZONA: Paul, this is a horrible tragedy. And there is no way to speculate on who might be involved. What we focus on tonight is what we hope is a sense of closure at long last for the Levy family. This is just a horrible episode for all concerned. And it has been a story on the minds of many Americans for a long period of time. And our hearts and prayers are with the Levy family.

BEGALA: Right, I appreciate that, Mr. Hayworth. Congressman Weiner, let me ask you the same question, sir?

REP. ANTHONY WEINER (D), NEW YORK: I don't know Gary Condit very well. My sympathies go out to the family. This must be a devastating day in a devastating year for them. And they have my greatest sympathies. I don't consider myself a close friend of Gary or really have any way to judge this case.

NOVAK: Just quickly, Mr. Weiner, do you think your colleague, Mr. Condit, who has now lost his seat in Congress, do you think he's been treated unfairly?

WEINER: I really don't know. I might have handled it differently. I mean to be honest with you, I don't know a great deal about this case, beyond what you have reported to me on CNN. And I don't think I'm in a position to say how I would have handled it. I thank God that I wasn't in that position. BEGALA: Congressman Hayworth, let me bring you to the topic we invited you to discuss tonight. It was good of you to join us in that breaking news analysis. But the topic that we wanted to talk about tonight is terror alerts. There is an astonishing front page story in "The Washington Times" today, a paper you will agree is certainly not liberal. It's the most conservative paper certainly in Washington, one of the most conservative in America.

The headline says this. "Terror alerts attributed to memo flap." And let me read you from "The Washington Times." "The Bush administration issued a spate of terror alerts in recent days to mute criticism that its national security team sat on intelligence warnings in the weeks before the September 11 attacks." The latest alerts were issued "as a result of all the controversy that took place last week," said Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer. It seems to me an admission that they're issuing terror alerts for political reasons. Your response?

HAYWORTH: Oh, I don't agree with that, Paul. I think that as we look where we are on the calendar, the fact that the Memorial Day weekend is coming up, the fact that it will give way to Independence Day, the fact that we are seeing now increased chatter reminiscent of what we saw in the pre-September 11 days, I think all this comes together.

And I think you have to ask yourself, what political advantage would there be to suddenly announcing these things early and often? There's no political upside to any of this, because it's a situation where critics will try to have it both ways. And there is no political upside whatsoever, either to a lack of warnings or an abundance of them.

NOVAK: Mr. Weiner, there were warnings about New York City, about the Brooklyn Bridge, the Statue of Liberty. Would you -- and I'm sure those are based on valid information. Would you have preferred that the government not issue those warnings?

WEINER: Listen, I think the administration's in a very difficult spot here. They have to calibrate what information they make public, what information they get into the hands of whom. I think thy misunderstood the criticism that was leveled of them in the last couple of weeks. The problem wasn't that the public told every shred of information. It's whether or not that information was making it into the hands of decisionmakers, so we can act accordingly.

I think we have to figure out a way to keep people on alert, but also not make a five-year-old concerned that they can't go out and play dodge ball in the school yard, because this is a high alert day. I think we have to find a way to make sure that when, you know, we aren't at such a constant state of alert, it's kind of like having a smoke detector that's constantly going off in your house, and you start ignoring it.

NOVAK: Well, Mr. Weiner, I don't think that was quite responsive of my question. Do you -- I just -- let me ask you again. Would you prefer that they did not issue those warnings and get people nervous? Do you think it would have been better if they kept that to themselves and just passed it on to the proper authorities who deal with terrorism?

WEINER: Well, I'm confident that police department in the city of New York, the mayor of the city of New York are notified of a that that may exist, that they can take appropriate steps. If it's appropriate to warn the public in a way that is helpful, something that they can do or not do to be safe, then that's appropriate. I'm not really exactly what it was that the -- that the average New Yorker was supposed to do, beyond stay away from the Brooklyn Bridge and the Statute of Liberty.

I'm not sure what value those warnings had. I'm sure they had value to the New York City police department, and that they responded accordingly. Going beyond that, we risk the chance that all the chatter that Mr. Hayworth talks about becomes the backdrop for a constant alert. And al Qaeda isn't running scared. Just we are.

BEGALA: Congressman Hayworth, let me rise to the challenge. When you answered my first question, you said well, there could be no political advantage in this. And let suggest one. Condoleezza Rice, the president's National Security adviser, briefed the press on Thursday of last week. You remember there was an enormous imbroglio about the fact that President Bush had received a briefing on August 5 that suggested that al Qaeda was capable of hijacking an American airliner here domestically.

There was a huge fallout from that. And Ms. Rice briefed the press for quite a long time and never, never mentioned any of these terrorist alerts. When did they hit the paper? The morning that Ms. Rice and Vice President Cheney wanted to change the story when they went on the Sunday news shows. And clearly, this is what "The Washington Times" is reporting today is true, and even the president's spokesman says yes, we issued it because we were getting pounded by the press. I think that's a poor reason to be issuing terror alerts. Don't you?

HAYWORTH: No, but again, Paul, it comes back to the notion of how does this create some political advantage? Because it gets us back to the same dilemma.

BEGALA: Because it gets the story with respect, sir, it gets the story off what Bush knew and when he knew it, whether he responded properly to the August 6 briefing or not. And onto quite rightly, whether our lives are at risk today. That's what I think the benefit to the Bush administration of this story is.

HAYWORTH: No, I think what has happened is actually you saw the change in focus, not so much from the administration, but from Democratic leader Gephardt, who certainly revised his statements drastically Sunday in the wake of overnight polling, which showed the accusations and the use of language, what did the president know, when did he know it, just was not flying with the American people.

So the political dimension was really on the other side. Now what we need to do with this challenge in the format...

BEGALA: Well, is Fleischer lying when he says we did it, because was Fleischer lying when he said it, that's why he did, as a result of the controversy last week?

NOVAK: Mr. Weiner, do you think Paul Begala is correct that this -- these alerts, alerting the whole great city of New York, all these things were done just to get Paul Begala and James Carville off the president's back, because they were the people that were making the most noise about it?

WEINER: Well, Bob, there was an element of this, oh, we didn't tell you enough. Now we're going to tell you every day the apocalyptic vision of the day. Look, I don't know. I think that this is a difficult line the administration has to walk. I know that if they believe that there are changes that we should make in our behavior, they should certainly let us know.

There's an intermediate level though. They can notify law enforcement. They can take precautionary steps. Just about every day, pre-9/11, when New York City was getting a visit from some foreign dignitary, the New York City police department had a plan that they put into effect to protect against terrorism. Were we notified every day of the week that we were under threat? No. I'm a little bit concerned that I don't want to be getting calls like the one I got today from a school principal saying, hey listen, is it OK for me to have kids play outside today? I don't think anyone is well served by that.

NOVAK: OK, we're going to have to take a break. And when we come back, we'll ask our guests whether George Bush has screwed up the war on terrorism. Later in our fireback e-mail, which CROSSFIRE host is the most obnoxious? You'll find out.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NOVAK: Welcome back. When it comes to terrorism alerts, the Bush administration seems to be damned if it does, and damned if it doesn't. In the crossfire, New York Democratic Congressman Anthony Weiner and Arizona Republican Congressman J.D. Hayworth. Mr. Weiner, the question of whether the president is doing a good job on the war of terrorism, I give you the jury of the American people as questioned by the CBS News poll this past week. Bush job on the war on terrorism. approve, 74 percent, disapprove, 19 percent.

Congressman, even in your safe district, I don't think you get 74 percent of the vote. That's pretty good, isn't it?

WEINER: Take it easy, will you? I can tell you I'm in the camp that thinks that he's doing a good job prosecuting the war. I think that Congress has been unified in supporting the president. And I see no reason that that is going to change.

BEGALA: I want to ask Congressman Hayworth now about the -- why I'm curious. If you're doing such a bang up job, I select -- congressman Weiner support the president on the war effort, as do all Americans, but why are they so interested in stopping an investigation? Do you think it could be that, for example, "Newsweek" reported this week that Attorney General Ashcroft, enlisting all of his many priorities as Attorney General, did not list terrorism, but pornography, and drugs, and other serious offenses, but not terrorism. And that Secretary Rumsfeld and the Defense Department seemed to be, according to "Newsweek," more interested in national missile defense and a war against Iraq than he did against terrorism. Is that maybe why they don't want us looking back to see what actually was going on?

HAYWORTH: No, Paul. Those were very curious items from many, many months ago. And maybe as long as a year and half ago. I think that hindsight is important. Oversight is important. But what's most important, and we appreciate all American's support on the war, is keeping the terrorists and the enemy in our sights prosecuting this war to the greatest of our abilities, and making sure that in waging that offensive, we are able to put to rest the possible scourge of terrorism on these shores.

WEINER: But you know, one of the things that President Bush has done is unified us. Rudolph Giuliani of New York did the same thing, around the notion that we should not be bowed by the terrorists. You know, we've been in this environment the last 48 hours. People have been looking over their shoulders, having trouble sleeping. You know, we have to remember we should have the terrorists on the run, not the other way around. We should be concerned and we should be vigilant, but we also have to be careful to remember we're going after getting them. It should not be the other way around.

NOVAK: Well, Mr. Weiner, I just wanted to pin you down then, because I thought you didn't really -- I asked you the question twice. I never like to answer -- ask a distinguished congressman the same question three times. But now you seem to be saying, and I think I may even agree with you, that maybe it would have been a better idea if all of these terrorist warnings weren't issued? If he didn't say boy, oh boy, the Statue of Liberty and the Brooklyn Bridge, and all the other public buildings in New York and other places are in danger. Maybe it would have been better to just give that to the police authorities. Without being so political, without be so careful about it, is that what you are trying to say?

WEINGER: Well, Bob, let me give this a third try. There is a middle ground between telling the people of the United States every piece of shred of information and telling them nothing. There is a middle ground between making a warning every 12 hours when we hear some chatter in the intelligence community, and not giving the president important memo about the existence of a threat from the Phoenix office.

We are capable of calibrating that a little better than we are. And if you don't agree with that, you may be the only one in America who thinks that we've been doing this just right. I give the Bush administration a pass in that this is a difficult thing that they have to work out. But I believe we've been swinging pillar to post in a way that is not helpful.

BEGALA: Well, you know, you'll be surprised to learn, Congressman Hayworth, I give him a pass, too. I think more information is better than too little, and I know it's a tough call to make. But what I don't give them a pass on is the unity you talked about, how we all seek it. It's very important, and I'm glad to hear you say that. You're a partisan Republican. I'm a partisan Democrat. But I think it does not serve the purposes of national unity when the vice president of the United States, who serves us all, stood up last week and said that Democrats, who are asking legitimate questions about what the president knew and when he knew it, were somehow -- he questioned their patriotism. I don't -- do you think it helps unity when a man, Dick Cheney who traded with Iran, Iraq and Libya, three terrorist states, are questioning the patriotism of his fellow Americans?

HAYWORTH: No, I don't believe he was questioning the patriotism of fellow Americans, Paul. I think he was turning political strategists, quite frankly, giving you some friendly advice. And you know what? That advice was validated. Because look at the transition of -- on the part of Minority Leader Gephardt from the statement, what did the president know, and when he did know it, to his reversal on the Sunday morning talk shows, reaffirming the very positive moves.

And what we've seen is, in fact, the prophecy of the vice president coming true. It has nothing to do with patriotism. It has everything to do with political judgment. And the last thing...

BEGALA: That's not what he said, though, with all due respect.

NOVAK: Mr. Weiner, when you say what did the president -- when you ask what the president knew and when did he do it, you know, we all live in a world where we remember at least some of us old-timers, Watergate, where you had a president who was accused of and indeed engaged in criminal activities. And to use that formulation has connotations that are unfortunate. Don't you believe so?

WEINER: Well, I got to tell you. .I don't think I've run into a single member of Congress, Democrat or Republican, a single constituent over the break that thought that the way the information was handled within the intelligence community was right. And that President Bush, who I believe was the person who was betrayed worse by this whole process, had all the information at his disposal that he needed.

It was not handled well, and it ought to be investigated. And I got to tell you. It's a straw man that Dick Cheney set up. No one was Monday quarterbacking. They were asking the same questions here in Congress, Democrats and Republicans. I don't think Richard Shelby is any kind of a partisan Democrat.

NOVAK: Don't you think it's an unfortunate formulation, what did the president know and when did he know it? Don't you think that's unfortunate?

WEINER: I believe the fundamental question, however you phrase it, is why it is that awe had so much information, and we weren't able to put it to better use? And the answer to that question is real problems in the chain of command at the FBI, communication within the different agencies, and also getting the president the information he needed in a timely fashion simply didn't happen.

Democrats and Republicans agree upon that. And I was very surprised that Dick Cheney came out guns blazing so early in this, rather than saying, what I would have said if I were vice president, which is yes, we were let down. We, the vice president, and president of the United States didn't have this information. We're going to find out why.

BEGALA: Mr. Hayworth, we only have a few seconds left. Where does the buck stop? With the FBI or the CIA or the president?

HAYWORTH: Well, of course, our president is commander in chief. But I agree with Anthony's assessment that he was poorly served in terms of coordination of the information. But of course, if we wanted to go back in administrations ahead of time, we've seen plenty of incidents where people received advanced information, and failed to take proper measures.

NOVAK: OK, that will have to be the last word. Thank you very much, J.D. Hayworth. Thank you very much, Congressman Weiner. We were expecting the family of Chandra Levy to make a statement any minute. And we'll bring that to you live.

But up next on CROSSFIRE, it's your turn to fire back at us. And one viewer has some badly needed etiquette advice for Paul Begala and James Carville.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NOVAK: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. Time now for fireback. Our first e-mail from Perry Mickel of Point Pleasant, New Jersey. I commend you on the new CROSSFIRE and take issue with Carville and Begala. It is not the time to be slamming the president, who had done a great job and earned the respect of millions of Americans. Partisan politics has no place in today's environment." But Perry, it has a big place on this program. I tell you that.

BEGALA: So long, thank got Perry Mickel of Port Pleasant, is we have a democracy. That's what you call partisan politics. I call it democracy.

Here's Avishek Pat, San Jose, California writes, "I find it really curious that the vice president chose to proclaim to the world that a terrorist attack is imminent just as the administration was under fire. Well it seems to me that this is a great way to quiet dissenting voices." You are not alone. The right-wing "Washington Times" reports that the press secretary of the president, Avishek, confirms what you said.

NOVAK: Yes, I've heard that song before. yes. Our next e-mail is from Johnny Rimshot, I'm sure that's his real name of Pennsylvania. And Johnny says, "CNN has some great looking gals delivering the news during the day, but at night you have the Crossfire guys -- all old dudes! Please trade Bob for a Baywatch babe -- I don't listen to him anyway." What is a Baywatch babe?

BEGALA: Novak is quite a babe. You're a total babe. Now Nikki Olympia, Bethesda, Maryland says, "I think all four of the hosts are crazy, but I keep tuning in to see who will make the biggest fool of himself." Well, Nikki, I think (UNINTELLIGIBLE) for tonight.

NOVAK: Question from the audience?

ED SCOTT: Hello, I'm Ed Scott from Oklahoma. And I was just going to ask, since nothing else seems to be working, what do you think the Democrats will try next to decrease the president's poll numbers?

NOVAK: I don't know, I think how about a sex scandal? Do you think that might do the trick? Didn't work with Clinton.

BEGALA: In truth, he's four points lower than Clinton was on the day he was impeached. So maybe Karl Rover is out getting Bush a girlfriend.

NOVAK: Oh, yes.

BEGALA: And they're not all that high. I think he's a one-term wonder.

NOVAK: Question?

LEE GIBBS: Hi, I'm Lee Gibbs from Amherst Junction, Wisconsin. And I was wondering do you think these scare tactics are used to bring down the -- America's economy and make Americans not want to do anything or go anywhere?

NOVAK: Yes, we're all meet in somebody's basement every other night. And we would make those plans, you know. I don't think so. I mean, the idea that the scare tactics of the administration trying to bring down the economy, I can't figure that out.

BEGALA: Well, I think he means of the terrorists. And the terrorists, they are trying to -- that's why we call them terrorists. And we ought not give in to them. I do think it's important for the government to tell us the risks that we have. Yes, sir, quickly?

KURT BOLLENBACH: I'm Kurt Bollenbach from King Fisher, Oklahoma. And the president's been criticized for both giving not enough information prior to September 11 and too much now? Do you feel the president's in a no-win situation?

BEGALA: Yes, which is why I've tried not to attack him on how much information. I...

NOVAK: Ah.

BEGALA: But yes, he's in a no-win position.

NOVAK: If that's not attacking, I'd like to see...

BEGALA: That isn't attack at all.

NOVAK: ...I'd like to see what an attack is.

BEGALA: I agree with him. No, he does have -- he has to calibrate it carefully. And look, at the millennium, we put out more information. And we stifled the terrorist attacks. So I think that's a better way to handle the way that Clinton did. From the left, I'm Paul Begala. Good-night from CROSSFIRE.

NOVAK: From the right, I'm Robert Novak. Join us again next time for another edition of CROSSFIRE.

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