Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Crossfire
FBI Gets a Makeover; Should Victims of Pan Am 103 Consider a Deal from Libya?; Are Christian Conservatives Using New Law to Sneak Creationism into Science Class?
Aired May 29, 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, the G-men get a makeover.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERT MUELLER, FBI DIRECTOR: We're on the way to changing the FBI.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: Tonight, the new FBI's chances of staying ahead of the crooks, the terrorists and the critics.
More than 13 years after Lockerbie, is Libya trying to make a deal? If so, should the victims' families even consider it?
An evolving controversy in the classroom, are Christian conservatives using a new law to sneak creationism into science class?
Ahead on CROSSFIRE.
From the George Washington University, Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson.
TUCKER CARLSON, CO-HOST: Good evening and welcome to CROSSFIRE. Tonight, the Libyan version of who wants to be a millionaire. Is Moammar Ghadafi really willing to pay up or should he answer a few questions first?
Then it's back to school where conservatives may have found a way to monkey with evolution's dominance in the classroom.
But our first stop is the new FBI, comes complete with bright blue charts and a brand new mission, preventing terrorism. FBI Director Robert Mueller today proposed to fundamentally change the way the bureau does business.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MUELLER: We have to do a better job of collaborating with others and, as critically important, we have to do a better job managing, analyzing and sharing information. In essence, we need a different approach that puts prevention above all else. And simply put, we need to change; and we, indeed, are changing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Joining us from Houston tonight is former FBI special agent Don Clark.
PAUL BEGALA, CO-HOST: Mr. Clark, thank you for joining us again on CROSSFIRE. You've been terrific in being available to us. The FBI, sir, has 11,400 special agents. It's got another 16,400 other personnel. My math tells me there's 27,800 souls over there, and the attorney general and the FBI director today told us they were moving around 800. Doesn't this look like shuffling deck chairs on the "Titanic"?
DON CLARK, FORMER FBI SPECIAL AGENT: Well you know any leader that comes in, in any organization has the prerogative to make changes in an organizational structure if they see fit, and it's been done time and time again. But change this priority and put terrorism at the top, I think it would be difficult to argue that that's probably not the right thing to do.
But if you're on the outside like I am or even perhaps for those that's on the inside, you're looking to see is that are we really just shuffling this deck or did we find something that was really wrong with the original organizational structure that required us to make these changes? And I think that's the fundamentals of it. Warring (ph) diagrams don't matter what they really are in most cases, but what really matters is that that system works. And if it is broken some place to repair that area that's broken. Don't just repair the root cause of that area. Don't just go for the symptoms here.
BEGALA: Well in fact the chart I'm most interested in, Mr. Clark is the timeline. We are nine months, nearly, after September 11th. But only a few days after a very damaging spate of stories of all the many leads that the FBI blew. Is it possible that perhaps what John Ashcroft and Robert Mueller are doing today is more about CYA with the press than fixing the FBI?
CLARK: Well first of all, I think the jury is still out on whether or not there were a number of leads that the FBI really blew. And I can't say what's in Ashcroft's mind about changing the FBI, but if the changes that are being put forth from the FBI are not directly working with a correlation to make it better for the organization to operate, then it's probably a tragedy. And also, if doing this is going to take away significantly from many of the other things that the FBI has done so well in the past, then I think we're going to suffer from that.
CARLSON: OK Mr. Clark, there was news today from the FBI director who revealed that as early as 1998 it was noted within the FBI that there were -- quote -- "Middle Eastern males taking flight lessons at a flight school in Oklahoma City".
This is consistent, of course, with the Phoenix memo where more than a year later it was noted that there were possibly terrorists taking flight lessons. Nobody acted on any of this. Why? Racial profiling. Nobody wanted to be accused of it, but in a war against a movement led primarily by Middle Eastern males, doesn't the FBI need to engage in racial profiling from here on out?
CLARK: Well I don't think the FBI needs to engage in racial profiling at all. I don't ever think that law enforcement should engage in racial profiling. I think law enforcement should develop its course of action based on behavior patterns that may take place and not on the types of individuals.
It will be hard as can be to try to racial profile who a bomber is going to be, and I've heard the sayings too. Well, they're Middle Eastern males and they look this way and they look that way. That's just a flawed principle to try to go on to do an investigation. You develop leads. You develop information. You follow behavior and then you put together a case to try to find out who's going to do what.
CARLSON: Well I mean I understand the need and the desire, anyway, to be -- to be sensitive to things like that. But it's my understanding that before September 11th, FBI agents were not allowed or at least discouraged from following suspected terrorists into mosques. Isn't this a self-defeating phony principle and shouldn't the FBI unshackle itself from it?
CLARK: Well you're really talking about procedures that are set out there and there has always been this very delicate line with investigations into religious facilities, not just mosques, but other religious facilities as well. And if the laws change and make that a little bit easier for the FBI to do, then I'm sure they'll go ahead and do that. But that's something that's going to be beyond the capabilities of the FBI to determine as to whether they should do those types of things.
BEGALA: Mr. Clark, one of the things that has come out since September 11th has been really the staggering lack of emphasis that John Ashcroft, our attorney general, placed on terrorism before those attacks. I'm going to read you a statement from a news article in the "New York Times", which said that Ashcroft didn't even list terrorism as one of the top 12 priorities that he had at the Department of Justice.
And the "Times" goes on to say one former federal law enforcement official said that the top officials in the FBI, which does the bulk of the Justice Department's counter terrorism work had been concerned about Mr. Ashcroft's initial lack of focus on fighting terrorism. Another FBI official said that Mr. Ashcroft's attitude really undermined a lot of effort to change the culture and change the mindset of FBI agents. Any organization, the official said, reacts to its boss' priorities. Is that true that John Ashcroft did not make terrorism a priority until September 11th?
CLARK: Well I don't know. I've heard those same things as well. And I find it very difficult to even believe or accept the fact that anybody in charge looking at the totality of what has happened in the world and targets against the United States would not make terrorism at least a priority at some level. Clearly after 9/11, to make it number one only makes sense.
But to not make it a priority at all, I think that's a very -- would be a tragedy, if that in fact was the case and certainly not to list it up there, it had to be up there some place. We have been under -- we, the United States have been under terrorist attacks since really back to 1979 and through the '80s, except it only came to this shore in 1993 when we had the first World Trade Center bombing. So you had to make it a priority. I find that difficult that someone would perceive that's the way to run the organization.
CARLSON: Well Mr. Clark, that is such an excellent point. It leads to this question then, why, if we've been under attack since 1979, have going after organized crime and narcotics been the two main focuses of the FBI? Has the war on drugs sapped resources that could have gone to stopping terrorism?
CLARK: Well again, you have to look at the situations, what was happening here domestically. If you look at the 1980s, that was perhaps the worst time that we've lived in history in terms of criminal activities, drugs and all the other related criminal activities. The charts will reflect that the criminal activity was extremely high during that period of time. So you had to focus on that and especially since there had been not very much information that terrorist attacks were going to come on this shore.
BEGALA: Don Clark, former special agent of the FBI, thank you very much for taking the time to join us, and joining us especially from Houston where I've got a whole town full of relatives. Tell them I said hello Mr. Clark. Thank you.
CLARK: I will, great city.
BEGALA: You know you'd think that 77 years after the Scopes' monkey trial we'd finally be done debating evolution. But next in the "Crossfire" we'll have proof that the flat earth (UNITELLIGIBLE) some support it, at least on the right.
And later in our CROSSFIRE news alert, how Dick Cheney's new math could give his old employer a new headache.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: Welcome back. Time for a calendar check. Yes it really is 2002, but the chairman of the House Education Committee is weighing in on a battle that goes back to 1987 and before that 1925 and before that 1859. In fact, you might say the question was around in the beginning.
Well (UNITELLIGIBLE) Republican and Education Chairman John Boehner has written his home state school board pointing out that the new education reform bill could open the door to teaching intelligent design theory. Critics say that's a new name for creation science, which the Supreme Court threw out of classrooms in 1987. Actually the theory says the complexity of the universe points to the possibility of an intelligent designer. Now Boehner is calling on schools to put teachers of evolution theory on trial like Tennessee famously did to John T. Scopes in 1925, nor is he asking schools to stop teaching Charles Darwin's theory of evolution first published in 1859. He's merely pointing out that students should be exposed to the full range of views on scientific questions.
To broaden our view, we are being joined by the Barry Lynn, who's the executive director of Americans United and by Family Research Council President Ken Connor.
(UNITELLIGIBLE)
BEGALA: Thank y'all very much.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thanks.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you.
BEGALA: Thank you for joining us. Mr. Connor, let's begin with the science as we know it. I'm going to read you a comment from Richard Dawkins. He's one of the world's premiere biologists. He teaches at Oxford University (UNITELLIGIBLE) over there in England. Here's what he says about the notion we should treat creationism equally to the science of evolution.
It's up on the screen here. "To claim equal time for creation science in biology classes is about as sensible as to claim equal time for the flat earth theory in astronomy classes or as someone has pointed out, you might as well claim equal time in sex education classes for the stork theory.
"It's absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody, who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that."
Do you believe in evolution?
KEN CONNOR, PRESIDENT, FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL: Well...
BEGALA: And if not, which of those things are you?
CONNOR: Well, I think my position is that all theories of origins ought to have equal access to the marketplace of ideas. It was Clarence Darrow (ph) in the Scopes' trial who said it is bigotry to teach only one theory of origins in the public school.
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: Which one you subscribe to Mr. Connor?
CONNOR: Well what...
BEGALA: Which do you believe?
CONNOR: What I believe... BEGALA: I believe in evolution. Which do you believe?
CONNOR: ... is that -- is that evolutionary theory is supported by very weak scientific foundation and a very strong ideological bias. If evolutionary theory is so strong, evolutionists ought not to resent or oppose the introduction of evidence to the contrary. And what the chairman has suggested very simply is that the strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory be presented to school children who ought to be able to make an informed decision based on all the information...
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: ... briefly though.
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: Do you believe in evolution Mr. Connor?
CONNOR: Why would evolutionists want to have a monopoly on the position?
CARLSON: OK Barry Lynn, if you ask any responsible scientist where did people come from, he'll give you a pretty straightforward answer. We don't know. So why not tell school children that, the truth that Darwin's theory of evolution is just that. It's a theory.
REV. BARRY LYNN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICANS UNITED: Well most scientists would tell you a great deal more than that. They'd talk about how we have common ancestors, we, the four of us sitting around here, your audience, that the DNA of chimpanzees is 98 percent like our own, suggesting that we have a common ancestor.
They would tell schoolchildren a lot and it would all be science. It would not be religion masquerading as science, which is what intelligent design is. Intelligent design is not some new fangled scientific idea. It's an old-time religious idea. In fact, it's 200 years old. It was created by Reverend William Paley in England, who said the world is so complex, there must have been somebody who started it all. And that had no scientific basis then...
(CROSSTALK)
LYNN: ... and it doesn't have any scientific basis now.
CARLSON: You sound like the one with the rigidly religious point of view on this, because I think you just admitted it yourself. A scientist would say to you, this is what we believe. These are the things we know. These add up to a series of -- this is conjecture.
(CROSSTALK)
LYNN: No. No. No.
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: It's a theory. It is...
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: Has it been proved?
LYNN: No, it's not a theory in the sense that we just thought about it this morning. Let me think about this.
CARLSON: But is it true? Let me ask you this.
LYNN: Sure.
CARLSON: You are -- you are using the rules of science here, right? And you are saying that anything but relative -- that anything but Darwin's theory doesn't meet those. But according to those very rules of science it remains a theory.
LYNN: No, no...
(CROSSTALK)
LYNN: Darwin died a long time ago. We've refined the theory in the same way that we've refined the theory of gravity. In other words, there are always scientists developing new ideas to more fully explain natural phenomena, including how we got to exactly this place. But I think that folks that are living in this world of teaching alternatives can't really mean it. I mean, we can't seriously both teach evolution and also teach that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time.
(CROSSTALK)
CONNOR: Do you believe...
(CROSSTALK)
CONNOR: Is it really so far-fetched...
(CROSSTALK)
CONNOR: Is it really so far-fetched when one sees a watch lying on the sidewalk to infer from that that there must have been a watchmaker because this is a precision instrument, orderly, systematic and the like? All people who believe in intelligent design say is the order of the universe implies that there was a designer behind it.
BEGALA: That decision is a matter of faith, a faith I happen to share. Let me show you a chart out of my Bible...
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: This is my...
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: Let me show you a chart here... (CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: Let me show you a chart here out of the Bible.
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: This is from the New American Standard, St. Joseph's Edition of the Bible that I've had since childhood, that I take seriously. This is a chart of the earth and the whole wide world through the eyes of Hebrews thousands of years ago. Their religion taught them, and my Bible says the earth stands on six columns, and then there's the earth and above it is the firmament and stars and the sun. Well, that's where people turned for faith.
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: You don't want to take that and put that -- why do you want to take that and put that in a science book (ph)?
(CROSSTALK)
CONNOR: ... that's not what Chairman Boehner is advocating.
BEGALA: Yes it is. He wants to take a religious...
CONNOR: Ted Kennedy...
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: ... idea and try to pretend...
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: ... it's a scientific fact.
CONNOR: ... is no member of the religious right. He says that it's in fairness kids ought to be taught the strengths and weaknesses of the -- of the scientific view of evolution...
(CROSSTALK)
CONNOR: ... to evaluate for themselves whether or not it's supported by sound science. I would suggest to you that the absence of transitional fossils from the fossil record in any number of gaps in the evolutionary history require more faith to believe in Darwin's view than to believe that a watchmaker made a watch...
(CROSSTALK)
CONNOR: ... or an intelligence...
(CROSSTALK)
LYNN: No it's not. In fact the good news is none of us are scientists, but all of us read the newspapers. I didn't -- see, you read the newspapers. You know that every time that there is some kind of information about how we got here, it's always documenting more support for the theory of evolution. None of it is running counter to the doctrine of evolution.
(CROSSTALK)
LYNN: None of it.
(CROSSTALK)
LYNN: No, there is not one single peer-reviewed article that supports the so-called science of intelligent...
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: Unfortunately we have to take...
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: ... we're going to get a quick commercial break. We'll be back to debate newspapers and science.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: (UNITELLIGIBLE) discussion coming up in the CROSSFIRE, our CROSSFIRE news alert. Conclusive proof of evolution or at least that Arkansas voters have evolving attitudes toward Bill Clinton. Thank heaven.
Later, the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 and the $2.7 billion question.
Also our quote of the day. It's from someone who could write a book about her experiences after election 2000. Come to think of it, she is. We'll be right back.
BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. We're discussing the latest conservative Trojan horse effort to get creationism into the classroom. It's name has evolved. It's now called intelligent design theory and no less than John Boehner, the Republican chairman of the House Education Committee is behind it.
In the CROSSFIRE tonight: Family Research Council President Ken Connor and the Reverend Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State.
CARLSON: Now Barry Lynn, Paul opened this show with this quote from some arrogant British guy calling anybody who disagreed with evolution wicked or crazy or insane. Average people aren't quite that (UNITELLIGIBLE) you agree with the quote, by the way.
I want you to look at a recent Zogby poll. And it asked people what should be taught about evolution in schools. Evolution only? Fifteen percent of Americans think that. Evolution and evidence against, 71 percent of Americans think school children should hear all the facts. And you shouldn't crush dissenting points of view. LYNN: One of the reasons that we have a disarmingly high amount of scientific illiteracy in this country is because there have been special interest groups since 1925 trying very hard and very successfully to keep sound scientific...
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: Well you're calling 71 percent of Americans...
(CROSSTALK)
LYNN: ... education out of schools.
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: ... illiterate -- I just want to make sure.
LYNN: No scientific, meaning they had no opportunity to even hear the full story of what evolution is. Tucker, I'm not against teaching about theories of creation in an appropriate place, even in a public school. If you had a comparative religion class you could talk about native American views of creation, Christian views, Muslim views, and on and on. What's inappropriate is to try to act as if intelligent design, so-called creation science, is anything but religion with the veneer of science.
(CROSSTALK)
LYNN: There is in fact not a single...
(CROSSTALK)
LYNN: ... there is not a single...
(CROSSTALK)
LYNN: ... there is not a scientist in this country...
(CROSSTALK)
CONNOR: If the theory is so strong...
LYNN: ... who believes what you're just saying.
CONNOR: ... why do you want to censor -- if the theory is so strong, why do you want to censor...
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: ... because it's about religion. Let me read two quotes from people of faith. These are not scientists. These are people who proudly profess their faith. And when I ask you which one you agree with, you never would tell me if you agree with the evolution.
Let me read two statements to you Ken. Tell me -- tell me which one you agree with. Here's the first. Our school systems teach the children that they're nothing but glorified apes who are evolutionized out of some primordial soup. There's statement (A). Now let's get statement (B).
It is indeed remarkable that this theory evolution has been progressively accepted by researchers following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.
Which one do you agree with?
CONNOR: I think the overwhelming evidence supports intelligent design.
BEGALA: Which of these...
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: The first -- the first was from...
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: ... Tom DeLay (ph). The second was from the Pope, Holy Father...
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: ... John Paul II.
CONNOR: What Barry Lynn is suggesting is basically that King Kong is our great uncle and that's why we like bananas on our cereal.
LYNN: No. No. No.
(CROSSTALK)
CONNOR: Why do you want to censor...
BEGALA: Is that what the holy...
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: ... father is saying?
(CROSSTALK)
CONNOR: Is that what the Pope is saying?
CONNOR: Why -- if the evidence is so strong, why are you willing to censor alternative points of view? Why are you willing to muzzle...
BEGALA: We censor two plus two equals five...
(CROSSTALK) CONNOR: ... any contrary dispute?
BEGALA: Because it's wrong. It's -- you have...
(CROSSTALK)
LYNN: The issue -- the issue here...
CARLSON: I'm sorry Barry Lynn...
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All right.
CARLSON: We're absolutely out of time and gorillas we're not. Thank you both very much...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you.
CARLSON: ... for joining us. We appreciate it.
Next in the CNN news alert, a judge orders some company (ph) for an American who joined the Taliban.
Later is Moammar Ghadafi trying to buy his way out of international disgrace?
And our quote of the day comes from one of the heroines, truly the heroine of the 2000 election. Someone President Bush can count on. We'll be right back.
CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. Coming to you live from the George Washington University in beautiful downtown Washington. Our quote of the day comes from a lame duck Secretary of State, who is trying to get herself elected to the Congress. Katherine Harris, infamous for trying stop Florida's recounts after the presidential election, is attempting to further her political career by writing a book. It's title, our quote of the day, "Center of the Storm: Practicing Principled Leadership in a Time of Crisis."
BEGALA: Tucker, I have an alternative. How about Banana Republican, how a Maybelline abuser stole the election. That'd be a better -- why don't we just call this...
CARLSON: You know, it's interesting, though, Paul. Actually, one of the many reasons I like Katherine Harris, apart from the fact that she's a delightful person, and she is in person, I hope to someday meet her, is because she actually didn't sink to the level of her critics, you very much included, who mocked not only what she was doing, but also her appearance. It was the worst kind of politics of destruction. I'm serious. I'm serious.
BEGALA: I can tell you're outraged.
CARLSON: I was outraged. It was female bashing. How many Republicans do you hear saying, "Oh, Barbara Mikulski" and make fun of her? Gene Carnahan or Mrs. Clinton, making fun of the way they look. That is low. It's outrageous. And they simply did it because she was in the way. She was inconvenient. Was nothing, really, that she did. She just happened to be Secretary of State. So they beat up on her because she was in the way of what they wanted.
BEGALA: No, because it's not an inmutable characteristic. She doesn't have to look that way. She got that spackling compound there, and abusing that makeup. She could look like a perfectly beautiful woman.
CARLSON: I'm sorry. I'm just not into bashing women that way.
BEGALA: Oh, so it's just a sexist sort of thing, right?
CARLSON: I actually think -- I actually honestly...
BEGALA: So it's okay to make fun of Al Sharpton and...
CARLSON: I really believe it is. No, no, I think Democrats cannot handle strong women. I really do -- I honestly think that.
BEGALA: Right, so Madeleine Albright and Janet Reno and Hillary Clinton, they're not Democrats?
CARLSON: No, no, can you imagine the outrage of somebody who said, "Oh, Barbara Mikulski. Boy, she's unattractive. Or boy --" nobody would ever say that. And yet, it's okay for even "The Washington Post" in the Style section beat up on the appearance of poor Katherine Harris. I actually think beating up on women's appearances, call me a feminist, ought to be out of bounds.
BEGALA: Actually, that's anti-feminist. I think nobody holds a gun to these politicians' heads. You want to go run for office, people are going to make fun of your hair if you don't have any like me, or if you look like Al Sharpton. Or if you're like Katherine Harris, and you want to go steal an election in front of God and everyone, yes, I'm going to call you on it.
CARLSON: But I thought you said the Supreme Court stole it. Make up your mind as to who stole it.
(CROSS TALK)
BEGALA: Well, he got fewer votes than Al Gore. That's a negligible detail I keep going to.
CARLSON: (UNINTELLIGIBLE.0
BEGALA: One of our -- the Constitution says the guy with the most votes wins, Tucker.
One of our viewers -- yes it does. One of our viewers has e- mailed an alternative title for Katherine Harris' book. We'll give it to you in our fireback segment. But next in the crossfire, the attorney who announced Libya's compensation offer for families of the Lockerbie bombing victims. Stay with us. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BEGALA: The front pages of this morning's papers all had a similar headline. "Libya offers to pay Lockerbie victims $2.7 billion." But by this afternoon, the Libyan government was already denying that it ever made an official offer. First some background. Pan Am flight 103 was blown out of the sky in December of 1988. The wreckage fell on the Scottish town of Lockerbie. 270 people died. Everyone who was on plane, plus 11 more on the ground. Last year, a Libyan intelligence agent was convicted of masterminding the terrorist bomb plot. Yesterday, an attorney for 118 of the victims' families announced the $2.7 billion offer. The families would get $10 million each if the United States and the United Nations would lift economic sanctions. And then, if the United States would remove Libya from its list of states that sponsored terrorism.
Is this a deal worth doing? Is there even a deal on the table? In New York to discuss it is Lee Kreindler, one of the attorneys who announced that settlement offer. Mr. Kreindler, thank you for joining us.
(APPLAUSE)
CARLSON: Mr. Kreindler, there appears to be a communication problem between you and Momar Khadafy. Not long after this was announced, the state run Libyan media said they never made any such offer. Is this for real?
LEE KREINDLER, ATTY. FOR FAMILIES OF PAN AM 103 VICTIMS: Well, I've never had the opportunity to meet with Colonel Khadafy. There's been no direct communication at all. I think that what we're witnessing is kind of a cultural phenomenon. We had been negotiating with the Libyan government through the duly constituted committee that was given the authority and the responsibility for negotiating with us. We've been meeting for months. We have reached a deal. We have an understanding. It's a bit on the complex side, I'm sorry to say, but it is a clear understanding.
At every step of the way, the Libyan government has given its approval, has confirmed the nature of the understanding. Now I don't know enough about Libyan politics to venture a guess as to who said what to whom today. But I have confirmed with the -- my counterpart in Libya that we are still very much in business. And we proceeding according to plan.
CARLSON: OK, well then you say there's been some cultural confusion. I want you to listen a quote from someone who, like you, is an American. There's obviously no confusion here. His name is Jim Swire. He's founded a Lockerbie families' group. Here's what he had to say about you.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JIM SWIRE, FOUNDER, LOCKERBIE FAMILIES GROUP: I'm astonished that a group of American attorneys retained to represent clients should have made this public at this stage, because we've been sworn to secrecy about what little we knew about the negotiations.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: So he's an American with a thick British accent, but the point is, that he's making is that you broke a secrecy agreement. Is that true?
KREINDLER: No, it's not true. First let me say that I have great respect and a good deal of warmth for Jim Swire, who's an old friend of mine. I met him at the very early stages of the investigation of the Lockerbie disaster. There is no confidentiality order prohibiting my committee from going forward and announcing this settlement. There has been, in the past, from time to time, a restriction on what we could say. But there is no such restriction now.
BEGALA: Mr. Kreindler, the State Department spokesman today, Richard Boucher, pointed out that despite the very great importance of compensation for the families of the victims of the Lockerbie attack, there are three other conditions that Libya has to meet in order to satisfy the Americans. Let me let you listen to what Boucher himself said, and then ask you to respond.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RICHARD BOUCHER, STATE DEPARTMENT SPOKESMAN: The UN resolutions require the Libyans to satisfy four requirements related to the Pan Am 103 bombing before the sanctions are lifted. Paying adequate appropriate compensation is one of these requirements. The other requirements relates to responsibility, acceptance of responsibility, disclosing information and renouncing terrorism. So those four requirements need to be satisfied before one could lift UN resolution, UN sanctions on Libya.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BEGALA: Mr. Kreindler, with all respect to the need to compensate the families, it seems that those other three are vitally important as well. How can you move forward without them?
KREINDLER: I could not agree with you more. And I don't disagree with anything that Mr. Boucher said. Compensation is one of the elements, not necessarily the most important element. We're dealing here with a very important step to stamp out terrorism. And that's the purpose of the American statute under which we are proceeding. But -- and compensation is required. Compensation will be met under this settlement. It will be met by the first step of Libya, paying $2.7 billion into an escrow account. That's the basis of the compensation.
Now that compensation then belongs to the families. The families can't get it until conditions are met. So you have compensation, money paid into the fund. Sanctions by the UN will be lifted. With that, $4 million for each family will be released.
BEGALA: Again, let me -- I'm sorry to interrupt, but the money is the easiest part of it for Khadafy. And if he's already weaseling out of that, what in the world thinks he's going to keep his commitment when you are, after all, dealing with a man who killed 270 innocent people and blew up a discotheque in Berlin that was full of American troops? I mean, this is not -- do you have anything in writing, by the way, from these clowns?
KREINDLER: Yes, I do. The compensation is not everything. Let me get to step two of Mr. Boucher's concerns. The matter of concession of responsibility and admission and acceptance by Libya, a responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing, is being considered not by us in the handling of the litigation, but by the United States' State Department and trilateral diplomatic meetings. As soon as we announce -- as soon as we completed our settlement with the three representatives of Libya, the governments move forward. And the next trilateral diplomatic confidence will convene on June 6.
My own guess is at that meeting, the wording of the acceptance of responsibility by Libya will be agreed upon. And that will be done. Those are the two most important elements.
CARLSON: OK, let's talk about a third important element, probably important to you. How much will you make if the settlement goes through?
KREINDLER: When you say how much will I make in terms of lawyers fees?
CARLSON: That's exactly right. You and fellow attorneys. How much -- what will be your cut? I assume it'll be in the tens of millions. Is that right, at least?
KREINDLER: I -- to tell you the truth, I have no idea. I haven't even thought about that.
CARLSON: No, I'm sure. Let me read you a quote from Dan Cohen, who lost his daughter on Pan Am flight 103. OK, this is quote. He said, "this," meaning what you're doing, "is unconscionable. This thing, this payment, was supposed to be about punishment, about justice. It was not supposed to be a business deal. The lawyers will get rich." That's you. "Will get rich., Gaddafi will get richer. And my daughter will have died for nothing." How do you answer that?
KREINDLER: Well, I just think these things are besides the point. We are acting on behalf of these people to put an end to a lasting tragedy. Their lives have been forever ruined. We want that ended. We're also acting to get rid of the conditions that gave rise to sanctions in the first place. We're also acting to avoid future terrorism. The theory of Congress being that it -- if you make it sufficiently expensive, then you will deter terrorism.
Compensation for the families is very important. God knows they could use it. There are all kinds of things that they could do with it. And it is important.
BEGALA: I want to thank you very much for joining us from New York City. Lee Kreindler, ladies and gentlemen. And coming up in fireback, a viewer questions Tucker's sense of fashion. But next, so many highlights, so little time. I'm going to take a look at why the Europeans must be feeling a little bushed. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BEGALA: Now it's time for a look at those interesting and unusual stories you might not find anywhere, but in our CROSSFIRE news alert. Bloomberg News reports today that Halliburton Company reveals its Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating an accounting change made while Vice President Dick Cheney ran the oil field services firm. Halliburton expects a formal request for documents or a subpoena in the next few days. Halliburton changed the way it booked revenue for disputed construction projects in 1998 when Cheney was Chief Executive Officer and Arthur Andersen was the company's accountant.
Still, it may not be fair to hold Dick Cheney accountable for all of the allegedly misleading accounting practices under his watch. He was, after all, only the CEO, hauling in a cool $36 million, and was likely spending much of his time trying to hide the fact that he was trading with the terrorist states of Iran, Iraq and Libya.
CARLSON: And from Little Rock tonight, more funding problems for the Clinton library. The massive egoplex, which will house the William J. Clinton presidential center, museum archive and school, as well as a bedroom reserved for the former president, should he need it, will cost about $200 million to construct. Its mission, convince the world that Clinton really was a good president. The only problem? Nobody wants to pay for it.
Now that he can no longer rent out the White House or solo rides in Air Force One, Mr. Clinton has found it difficult to locate people willing to help him build the monument to himself. His solution? Get taxpayers to foot the bill. Recently, the library's directors asked the state of Arkansas for $3.6 million to fund the project. The decision came back yesterday. No dice. Using public money to pay for the library, explained the head of the state's economic development department, would not only be improper, it would be "not legal." Mr. Clinton was said to be confused by the meaning of that term.
As of tonight, aides were still attempting to explain.
BEGALA: President Bush today is back at the White House with no public events, as he rests up from his grueling overseas trip. So let's recap the highlights from the trip. President Vladimir Putin of Russia, a cold blooded KGB operative, is actually Putiput (ph). And President Bush says Putiput (ph) gave him assurances that the nuclear reactor Russia is building for Iran, is strictly for peaceful purposes. Isn't it obvious that a terrorist regime sitting on one of the world's largest supplies of oil would need a nuclear reactor for peaceful purposes?
Bush went on to declare certain rights as "uninalienable" and talked about securitizing Russian missiles, as if they were stocks instead of stockpiled weapons. He then astonished is Russian hosts by spitting his chewing gum into his hand, as he walked into the ornate palace to sign the arms control agreement. And finally, he attacked NBC News' David Gregory because Gregory had the temerity to speak French to the president of France in well, France.
I usually close these news alerts with a little joke, but Mr. President tonight, I don't think I can top you.
CARLSON: And finally, this just in. Five days after his friend, David Chang, was sent to prison for illegal donations to his 1996 Senate campaign, New Jersey's own Robert Toricelli has admitted that his relationship with Chang may have been "a lapse of judgment." Speaking to a group of black ministers in Trenton, the Democratic senator explained his association with the now imprisoned Chang this way.
"The man that accused me of these things, I never should have known him." Senator Toricelli did not say I should never should have accepted those 10 Italian suits from him, or the Rolex, or the antiques, or the cash, or the wide screen TV. He did not say I never should have bragged about my friends in the Mafia or threatened Mr. Chang's life or encouraged him to flee the country in light of prosecutors. Or even, I never should have interceded with the foreign governments on Mr. Chang's behalf. In other words, much was left unsaid. Senator Toricelli may address other lapses in judgment at future campaign events.
Believe it or not, Congressman Gary Condit has a fan who's willing to fireback. Amen. Even better, they share my point of view. And we'll share it with you, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. You know, every night, we ask you to e-mail us. And by golly, every day, you do. We will put the address up on the screen. So those of you with a computer and a mouse can send in the e-mail. Let's open the bag here.
Fireback number one. "I hate to join the loud chorus of Americans who are criticizing the administration and the FBI, but we are just now getting around to restructuring the FBI to prevent future terrorist attacks? 9/11 was how many months ago?" Dave West, Burke, Virginia. Amen, Dave.
CARLSON: All right. And from Pearly Abraham from L.A. writes, "I don't agree with Tucker on anything, but I do on Condit not being involved in Chandra's murder. The media convicted him without any evidence. Last year, if the focus had been on searching for Chandra in that park instead of going after Condit, they would have found the body and determined the cause of death." I have news for you, Pearly. Unfortunately, the media are not in charge of searching. The police are. It's their fault.
BEGALA: Rare point. Dale Hunsucker in Powell, Ohio writes, "I hear Katherine Harris is writing a book on the 2000 presidential campaign fiasco in Florida entitled 'Center of the Storm: Practicing Principled Leadership in a Time of Crisis.' What a joke! What leadership? It should be called 'Center of the Storm: Practicing Partisan Republican Politics No Matter What." Well, Dale, there you go.
[applause]
Katherine Harris is getting a lot of plugs for this goofy book tonight.
CARLSON: Dale Hunsucker.
BEGALA: More than she deserves.
CARLSON: "Tucker, I'm just curious as to what pivotal event in a man's life causes him to decide he's going to be a 'bow tie guy'." Head injury. "What if you woke up one day and felt like wearing a regular necktie?" Great question. "I'm baffled why a young, handsome professional would choose such a fashion relic for everyday wear." Rick Labarbera, Clearwater, Florida.
A man who probably wears Hawaiian shirts. I'll have you know, Rick, that every fashion relic ultimately becomes a cutting edge fashion accessory six months from now. Prada bowties, that's my prediction.
BEGALA: Prada bowties.
CARLSON: Yes.
BEGALA: What's your name and hometown and question?
BOB FOSS: My name's Bob Foss and I'm from Logan, Utah. And I was just wondering with the lack of concrete evidence in regards to creation of the world, couldn't it possible that both intelligent design and Darwinism could both be used to create the world? Why would we want to keep one of those point of views out of the school system?
CARLSON: Great question.
BEGALA: Here's -- because I think we ought to keep religion out of the school system. I am a religious person myself, but I think religion belongs at home. It belongs in the heart. It belongs in the church. But you know, my religion teaches a whole lot of things that aren't really science. They're matters of faith. And I don't impose them on Tucker's kids or your little brothers and sisters. I think we should separate the two.
CARLSON: Part of it, of course, the basic idea of science is to keep an open mind. And it's weird to see people in the name of science act like religious zealots, which is what you see going on right now. Yes, sir?
CHRISTOPHER JONES: How are you doing? I'm Christopher Jones. I'm from Fort Efort, Pennsylvania. Congressman Paul Kanjorsky's (ph) district. BEGALA: Oh, great guy.
JONES: My question for you is that I was reading CNN.com today. And I noticed that the restructuring of the FBI will also include moving some people around from one unit to the other. Doesn't it appear that we are beefing up the anti terrorism unit potentially at the expense of moving others from other important units such as say the narcotics unit?
CARLSON: Well, they're all going to wind up in West Virginia, thanks to Senator Byrd.
BEGALA: No, I don't know that that's the bigger risk. I think the bigger risk has been the lack of focus that Attorney General Ashcroft and others have had. When you list the top 12 priorities, and terrorism is not one of them, you know you don't -- he spends how much of our tax dollars covering up a brass breast on a statue in his office?
CARLSON: Right. And -- but it was under the Clinton administration. That's the news you missed.
BEGALA: Where we raised the FBI by just 283 percent.
STEVEN SCARLATTA: My name is Steven Scarlatta. I'm from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. I'd like to know why are we discussing taking Libya off of the terrorist list, but keeping Cuba on it? When was the last time Cuba killed any Americans?
CARLSON: That's -- I don't think the charges that they killed -- actually, they killed Americans.
BEGALA: They shot down a plane in 1996.
CARLSON: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) by blowing it out of the sky. But (UNINTELLIGIBLE) terrorism around the world, I don't think Libya's getting off the list. Don't worry about it.
BEGALA: Well, I certainly hope that they're not getting off the list. But you know, if they change their behavior, we should judge them by their behavior. From the left, I'm Paul Begala. Goodnight 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
