Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Crossfire
Should the U.S. Attack Iraq?; How Will History See Watergate?; Is There Any Weight to Lawsuits Against Junk Food Makers?
Aired June 17, 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: Should the U.S. throw the first punch when it comes to knocking out terror threats such as Iraq?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: Thirty years ago today, a botched burglary brought down a president. What will future generations say about it?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RICHARD NIXON: I'm not a crook.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: Richard Nixon, hero or villain?
A real food fight as Americans get fatter and fatter, should the makers of junk foods be forced to swallow lawsuits filed by the obese?
Ahead on CROSSFIRE.
From the George Washington University, James Carville and Tucker Carlson.
JAMES CARVILLE, CO-HOST: Welcome to CROSSFIRE. Tonight: taps, lies and audio tapes, the Nixon legacy 30 years later.
Also, the nation's bulging waistline is stewing up a hardy food fight.
But we start with President Bush's order to get them before they get us. According to the "New York Times," Mr. Bush has ordered top National Security aids to draft the first-strike policy against states and terrorist groups developing weapons of mass destruction.
Iraq is first on the president's list.
Already Mr. Bush has authorized the CIA to use any means necessary to topple Saddam Hussein, but that might cost us the support of our allies. And the White House has yet to convince the American public that it's even worth the risk.
In the CROSSFIRE tonight, Ken Adelman, former director of the United States Arms Control and Development (sic) Agency and a member of the Defense Policy Board, which advises the Pentagon.
KEN ADELMAN, FMR. DIR., U.S. ARMS CONTROL & DISARMAMENT AGCY: Hi.
TUCKER CARLSON, CO-HOST: Now let me -- Mr. Adelman, I want to show you a vivid example with the problem I have with the plans to invade Iraq.
Here it is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOE BIDEN (D), DELAWARE: If the covert action doesn't work, we better be prepared to move forward with another action, an overt action. And it seems to me that we can't afford to miss. We don't want to embolden this guy more, we don't want to increase his capability. We don't want to increase his stature.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Now that was Senator Joe Biden on "Face The Nation" yesterday. The problem I have is this is being discussed openly. I mean, before the Normandy Invasion, they weren't members of Congress openly debating the plans. Doesn't it sort of defeat the effectiveness of the plans when everyone knows about them?
ADELMAN: No, I think it's quite obvious that if we are serious about protecting America and precluding threats, you're going to go after the number one threat in America -- in the world, against America, and that's Saddam Hussein.
I think that's only logical.
CARLSON: I totally buy that, though. I completely buy that.
The part that makes me uncomfortable is that the details of it are being discussed in public. Saddam Hussein watches this. He knows that, having committed to it, the United States must follow through and must topple him. What prevents him at that point, knowing he's going to be toppled, from, say, lobbing weapons of mass destruction into Israel?
ADELMAN: OK, but that is a very good question. And we have to arrange our attack so that we preclude that from happening. And you can do that in several ways: Number one, hit hard and fast and with an element of surprise as much as you can get. Number two, when you're starting to hit, to announce that anybody -- anybody of any rank who touches a weapon of mass destruction or is any way involved will be sent to Guantanamo Bay at best, and something worse afterwards. So it's clear that anybody has individual responsibility.
I, myself, think that the Iraqi army generals and privates, and way down the rank, aren't going to fight for Saddam Hussein. I don't think Saddam Hussein has much support in the country at all. In fact, I think they'll be dancing in the streets after we liberate the place.
CARVILLE: One if the -- Mr. Adelman, one of the things that's been at issue here is the State Department and the person under Secretary Powell and his top aide, Mr. Armitage, has been -- sort of had disagreements with the, quote, "hawks" in the Pentagon. The secretary and Mr. Armitage on numerous occasions have been reported around town to say that all the hawks have one thing in common, they've never served a day in the military.
And, how do you answer this, that the military people are not for this, and the bawl of the hawks who never served are for this?
ADELMAN: Yes, I'd say that a lot of people who have done a wonderful job in leading our country have or have not served in the military. I don't think that gives them a right, you know, or inside information in any way. I think when you look at the situation that it would be relatively easy to change the regime in Iraq. I think it would be a cakewalk.
CARVILLE: Let me show you a story in the "Washington Post" by Tom Ricks, who I'm told is one of the most knowledgeable people -- and it will show up there about what the military leadership thinks about this, because I think it's important the American people place a lot of trust in what they say.
"In a series of meetings this spring, the six members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Chairman Air Force General Richard B. Myers, the Vice Chairman Marine General Peter Pace, and other chiefs of Army, Navy, and Air Force and Marine Corps hammered out a position that emphasizes the difficulty of any Iraq campaign while also quietly questioning the wisdom of a military confrontation with Hussein."
ADELMAN: Well, I think that, you know, they can question the difficulty of it. They are paid to look at, you know, what could be the most difficult, and then they're paid to follow what the president wants.
I think it is absolutely clear that the number one threat facing America is from Saddam Hussein. And not directly -- he's not going to attack the United States. He is going to develop weapons of mass destruction -- we know that, because he hasn't allowed any inspectors in -- and give those weapons of mass destruction to a terrorist group.
And I think that is the real threat. And I think it's a serious threat. And I would hate to seen a situation -- right now we're having all these discussions about who knew what before September 11 and how guilty was, you know, the early Bush administration, the Clinton administration -- and not doing, you know, effective action against terrorism.
Imagine what happens if America is attacked again, as the secretary of defense and vice president have said, is more probable than not, and if it's traced to Saddam Hussein. People are going to wonder, why didn't we act?
CARLSON: But you just said that the United States faces no imminent threat of attack by Iraq...
ADELMAN: Directly.
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: But it does, however, face threat of imminent attack by al Qaeda, which is not yet vanquished.
So critics say, "well, wait a second, one at a time here; let's finish the job with al Qaeda." That's a serious point.
ADELMAN: That's because they're related. OK, if Saddam Hussein has a biological weapon or a chemical weapon, he hands it off to al Qaeda and they use it. They'll be delighted to use it.
CARLSON: But the attacks -- they would be. But the attacks of September 11, at least, to this point there's no evidence they were linked to Iraq.
ADELMAN: I'm not sure of that. I'll give you some good evidence.
CARLSON: They could have taken place without the interference or help of Iraq.
ADELMAN: Right, I think the preponderance of evidence is in favor that Iraq was involved.
CARLSON: Look, there are al Qaeda terrorists still -- Iraq is still in Afghanistan and Pakistan is still around the globe. We have not found and eliminated all of them. Why are we diverting our resources to fight a war in a country that doesn't pose an imminent threat directly?
ADELMAN: Oh, because I think it is the main threat.
The difference is, Tucker, al Qaeda has a bunch of guys here, there, and the other place.
And I don't want to minimize their threat. They don't have, you know, something like 30 government labs working full time on weapons of mass destruction. They don't have a budget of 10, $20 billion a year. They don't have diplomatic pouch where the guys go, and they go into Europe to buy all the stuff they need for, you know, nuclear weapons, and they have diplomatic immunity to do this.
Having the state gives you enormous apparatus in which to develop weapons of mass destruction that these guys in the caves in Afghanistan don't have.
CARVILLE: Mr. Adelman, the Bush administration gives every evidence that it wants to go after Saddam Hussein in the worst way. And it's also given every evidence that it's succeeding in that -- it is going about him in the worst possible way.
I mean, let's go and take the vice president's trip to the Middle East, which was apt to drum up support. And a week after he left, the Kuwaitis were kissing the Iraqis. The same thing with the Saudis.
We go to Europe and there's no support for this. I mean, when are we going to get and -- look, I think you're a convincing guy.
ADELMAN: Good.
CARVILLE: I'm serious. No, and I'm not dead-set against this. But what -- if we conduct a military operation against Iraq with the same incompetence and buffoonery that we're conducting this diplomatic initiative, we're going to be in serious trouble.
Can we start getting this thing right at some point?
ADELMAN: OK, I think in terms of support, James, is that number one, we have the overwhelming support of the Iraqi people. And I think that will be clear.
Number two, we will have the support...
CARVILLE: I gather we don't have a poll to say that.
ADELMAN: We will have the support of Kuwait, we will have the support of Turkey, we will have the support of Britain, we will have the support of others around there.
And you know what James? I'll tell you a dirty little secret: Once we win, we're going to get great support from everywhere, from everywhere...
(CROSSTALK)
ADELMAN: I don't know, he likes to kiss people. What can I tell you, James?
CARLSON: They're a kissing group.
ADELMAN: They're a kissing group.
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: We appreciate you coming out to CROSSFIRE.
CARVILLE: Thank you so much for coming on, I appreciate it.
CARLSON: Still ahead: debating the legacy of Richard Nixon, 30 years after a bungled burglary sealed his downfall. Also, hide the Ho-Hos, ditch the Ding-Dongs, food police are on the prowl watching what you eat. Are food manufacturers about to meet the same fate as the tobacco industry?
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARVILLE: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. Today is the 30th anniversary of the infamous Watergate break-in that touched off a political scandal and brought down a president. Richard Nixon and his top aides would be caught telling too many lies and committing too many crimes in the wake of the break-in at the office of the Democratic National Committee. In the end, the president himself was charged by the House of Representatives with high crimes and misdemeanors.
But was Nixon as bad as critics claimed? Or was he just a man with a few character flaws?
Joining us now to debate the Nixon legacy, Elizabeth Holtzman, former House Judiciary Committee member and Leonard Garment, formal counsel to the President Richard Nixon and the current president of the National Jazz Museum in Harlem.
How are you doing?
(APPLAUSE)
CARLSON: Ms. Holtzman, is it really fair to judge Richard Nixon solely by Watergate? Wouldn't that be like judging President Roosevelt solely by the interment camps, or President Kennedy by the Bay of Pigs, or RFK by bugging Martin Luther King?
Isn't that sort of, a detail -- he opened up China, ended the Vietnam War. Isn't there more to him than Watergate?
ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN, FMR. HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE MEMBER: Well, Watergate isn't just a detail. And sure, you can look at other aspects of his presidency, but Richard Nixon was the only president in the United States ever to be named an unindicted co-conspirator in a criminal case.
He's also the only president of the United States to resign in the face of certain impeachment by the House of Representatives and removal from office by the Senate. The House Judiciary Committee members ultimately, unanimously said that he obstructed the investigation to Watergate.
Of course, it is very sad to see a president engaged in these activities. And it was very sobering and sad, and a very distasteful task for those of us on the House Judiciary Committee to perform.
But there's no question that he engaged in a breathtaking spectrum of illegal, inappropriate and unconstitutional...
CARLSON: But is that scandal the end of the story? I mean, doesn't it overlook...
HOLTZMAN: People might want to look at other things, but we on the House Judiciary Committee had a task to...
CARLSON: But shouldn't history look at the full scope of his presidency?
HOLTZMAN: Yes, but they can't ignore this.
CARVILLE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) put something up on the screen that Gary Wills said about President Nixon, and then I'm going to follow up it up with something President Nixon said: "But when they release a new batch of tapes and we see what a son of a bitch he really was, the revisionists are going to have a harder time with him than most."
Now let's read what President Nixon himself said on tape: "You know, it was good we got to this point about the Jews -- this point about the Jews across. The Jews are an irreligious, atheist, immoral bunch of bastards."
Now you are -- you served this president of this nation honorably. You're Jewish, and so is my friend Mr. Safire, Mr. Kissinger...
LEONARD GARMENT, FMR. COUNSEL TO PRESIDENT NIXON: Mr. Stein, Mr. Greenspan, he was appointed by the president.
CARVILLE: Right. Did you all have any idea this was the way he felt when you were working for him?
GARMENT: No, he didn't talk...
(LAUGHTER)
CARVILLE: I'm not -- no, I'm not being disrespectful. But I mean it's...
GARMENT: Jim, it's Fair enough. I've heard these questions before. I've heard those words on tape; I've read them.
Richard Nixon had different ways of dealing with a variety of people and a variety of situations. He did not talk that way to any of us. To the Jews to whom he entrusted a large part of his government. I mean, these were not equal opportunity jobs. These were very serious, leading appointments in the administration.
Nixon was a -- you know, an equal-opportunity hater. I mean, he hated people who hated him. And there was a lot of hatred. He was not -- you hear people say it was sort of silly that Nixon was paranoid.
He wasn't paranoid, he had very real enemies that started in the '50s and '60s and grew. And this was a man who has a lot of scar tissue, and it came apart under the pressure of Vietnam riots -- the whole convulsive...
(CROSSTALK)
CARVILLE: ... sort of attitude it was. You would want to have one for your lawyer, but would you really want your daughter to marry one?
GARMENT: Well no -- look I think -- fair enough James.
Look, I think that we -- I wrote a book about Deep Throat, but that was really about Watergate, using a framework of Deep Throat a few years ago. I'm not even going to get into that any longer, because I think we've made a molehill out of a mountain.
And Nixon is kind of a mountain of complexity. And it's very interesting to talk about -- think about American politics in terms of Nixon, who was reclusive, secret, manipulative, a political leader who had De Gaulle as his model, and who did -- had very real doubts, I think, reflecting on that, he had real doubts about the capacity of a free-for-all democratic system to cope with the emerging, disastrously complicated problems of this world, particularly nuclear proliferation.
CARLSON: Elizabeth...
HOLTZMAN: Can I just respond to that?
CARLSON: Yes.
HOLTZMAN: But if you look at -- listen to tapes and you look at the evidence that we had, his concerns weren't about nuclear attacks or world crises. He was worried about how he could stop the Democrats from winning an election. And so when he misused the power of government, whether it was getting the FBI to wire tap newspaper reporters or other political people, it was to find out what they were doing to help elect Democrats.
When he got the IRS to investigate or try to audit his quote- unquote "political enemies," it was to try to retaliate against Democrats. So he may have been concerned -- it's true, we saw only one part of his administration, but what we saw was an obsession with using the apparatus of government to get at his political enemies and to find out that...
CARLSON: But that's surprising.
HOLTZMAN: Of course, it's surprising.
CARLSON: Because he was such a liberal, I guess I mean to say, because it was Nixon who, of course, created the EPA, signed a Clean Air Act, who suggested a guaranteed income for poor people, who instituted wage and price controls.
His domestic program was a liberal Democratic program.
HOLTZMAN: Affirmative action.
CARLSON: Affirmative action. Don't you agree with most of his positions on domestic policy?
HOLTZMAN: Well, I voted against a lot of his policies. He tried to abolish the Office of Equal Opportunity, unilaterally, which is a violation of the law.
GARMENT: Not true. Wrong, wrong.
HOLTZMAN: He tried to impound money that we had. He tried to impound money illegally that we had...
CARLSON: Are you saying he was some sort of right-winger? I mean he was for affirmative action. I mean, he created the EPA. I would think you would like him.
(CROSSTALK)
HOLTZMAN: He was a complicated person. Some of his policies were policies I would agree with, but many of them were not. And I don't think you can call him liberal easily. But I think the critical thing to understand is that some people, some of his defenders may say, "well all of these things that he undertook was really -- were really for the good of the country."
But they had very narrow political objectives. Watergate was a political effort. And that's what I'm trying to say.
CARLSON: Like most liberal initiatives.
Unfortunately on that, we're just going to have to take a quick commercial break.
On that unfair note, we'll be back in a moment.
One Nixon insider says: "If you want to know who Deep Throat was, buy the book." We'll get the latest theories when we come back.
And can food-makers be blamed for making Americans overweight? How the court system may have to open wide for obesity lawsuits.
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: Welcome back. Still in the CROSSFIRE tonight, the Nixon legacy 30 years later. Was he a hero, a criminal, or somewhere in between?
We're joined once again by Elizabeth Holtzman from our House Judiciary Committee member, and Leonard Garment, former counsel to President Nixon, who was the author of the Nixon entry in the "Oxford Companion to American Law."
GARMENT: The Watergate entry.
CARLSON: The Watergate entry, even better. CARVILLE: Tell us -- you know, it's the 30th anniversary, there's a lot of Watergate, a lot of things that were wrong with Nixon -- I probably agree with a lot of them. But you knew him, you served with him.
Tell us some good things about him, and good things that he did.
(CROSSTALK)
GARMENT: Well, I don't think there will be an accurate assessment of Nixon -- modern presidents have -- don't fare that well because the function of the media is to criticize, to tear things down. Twenty-five years from now I think when this generation of commentators is gone, they'll be looking at it good and bad, mixed, extremely interesting.
Good things about him. Well, he was very -- he was very thoughtful about people who were outsiders. Whether they -- I mean, in the White House, very thoughtful about the people who worked in the kitchen, the butlers, the people that drove the cars (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the secretaries.
I mean, he really had the touch that a lot of the presidents we think of as being very difficult and temperamental and angry people, that they come to ground...
CARVILLE: My dear friend Mark Shields tells a story about how he went to every one of his kids', like, soccer games. Apparently he was a...
GARMENT: You mean Nixon?
CARVILLE: Nixon, yes. He was a very dedicated parent.
GARMENT: There was somebody, a journalist, I forget his name, who was very sick, sort of terminal. And he was very interested in Nixon. And Nixon made a particular point of calling him in the hospital, and spent real time. He did that with McFarlane when -- during Iran-Contra when Bud had his...
(CROSSTALK)
CARVILLE: We got to get back.
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: You know, everyone involved in this spent an enormous amount of time thinking about Watergate. Do you think there actually was a Deep Throat, and who do you think it might of been?
HOLTZMAN: Well, Deep Throat -- I tend to agree with Leonard about this -- was really not a major figure. The major figures in Watergate -- you know, the irony about Watergate is that, yes, you had this towering president -- towering figure of a president who engaged in criminal activity and violated our Constitution in a whole host of ways -- even to think about it today takes your breath away. On the other hand, the tale -- the good side of the story is that you had the other institutions of government rising, and outside of government rising to the challenge. You had an extraordinary operation by the press. Two young reporters, young people who just couldn't be bamboozled by the idea of trying to get the truth, and a reporter -- and a publisher who supported that, as well as the House Judiciary Committee, judges, the Supreme Court, all of them.
CARVILLE: I've got to jump in and ask you, because I gave you a softball, OK? Deep Throat, just throw out a name, who you think it is. Gives us a name.
GARMENT: Maybe Bob Woodward. I'm beginning, I'm beginning to...
CARVILLE: What about Pat Buchanan?
GARMENT: Well, I don't know. I really -- I think I'm finished guessing any further, because I'm beginning to think that there's something wrong about the picture. And I'm beginning to think that the normal fictionalization that's involved in any narrative study of history -- you have to edit, you've got to write a narrative. Maybe more than that in the case of "All the President's Men," two young reporters...
CARVILLE: But, you don't want to...
(CROSSTALK)
GARMENT: But if that came out now before they're both dead and Deep Throat is dead, I think they'd be torn to shreds over fictionalization.
CARVILLE: We got to go to an ad before we find out who Deep Throat is.
CARLSON: Unfortunately we're out of time...
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: Thank you both very much.
Can food makers be blamed for America's bulging waistline? We'll serve up a healthy debate when we come back.
And a congressman caught with his fly open while flying. The sad story of Stanford Bishop when we come back.
And our "Quote of the Day" might leave taxpayers with that sinking feeling.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. We're coming to you from George Washington University here in downtown Washington, D.C. Time now for the newsiest news segment in cable news. It's time for the CROSSFIRE "News Alert."
First up: The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has canceled a fund-raiser tonight that was scheduled to be hosted by noted doily arranger Martha Stewart.
(LAUGHTER)
CARLSON: Stewart is currently being investigated by a congressional committee looking into charges that she engaged in massive and massively illegal insider trading when she sold shares in a company called ImClone the day before the stock price tumbled. The decision constitutes a dramatic reversal of the long-standing Democratic policy of using disgraced public figures as fund-raising tools.
(LAUGHTER)
CARLSON: Privately, at least one Democrat official was said to be furious that the event was canceled, adding, "The centerpieces were absolutely fabulous."
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
CARVILLE: Well, you think Mary and I have some problems? Let me tell you about this couple in Hutchinson, Kansas. Democrat Sarah Sweet McKinnon (ph) is running for district judge. Her opponent, if he wins the primary, her husband, Republican Steve Becker (ph), who's served on the bench for two decades. Ms. Sweet McKinnon (ph) says she just has a sincere interest in serving her community and can't practice her trace because of her husband's position. Imagine that, a Democrat married to a Republican.
(LAUGHTER)
CARVILLE: I wonder if they'll share campaign secrets at night?
CARLSON: Scary thought, isn't it.
(APPLAUSE)
CARLSON: In travel news tonight, the cautionary tale of the Congressman Sanford Bishop. Last week, the 55-year-old Democrat boarded a Delta flight from Washington to his home state of Georgia. After an hour and a half of being confined to his seat, Bishop had to use the bathroom badly. Only problem, there was a line.
The congressman later recounted what happened. Quote, "I asked the flight attendant for a beverage cup. I thanked her, stepped back into a corner behind the cockpit, and I relieved myself in the cup. A few seconds later, the gentleman came out of the lavatory. I went in and deposited the liquid."
Congressman Bishop felt better. Members of the flight crew did not. Power-mad stewardesses promptly radioed ahead to police in Atlanta, who took the congressman into custody when the plane landed. Authorities are now considering charges and a fine. "We're looking into it," quote, said a spokesman for the FAA, adding that since the agency has proven unable to protect the flying public from terrorism, it will now devote its time to harassing harmless middle-aged men with bladder control problems.
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
(CROSSTALK)
CARVILLE: I couldn't agree with you more. And let me tell you, I'm 57, and somebody needs to tell these flight attendants when a 57- year-old man got to go, he got to go.
CARLSON: That's exactly right!
CARVILLE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)
CARLSON: Prostate victims of the world unite. I agree.
CARVILLE: Exactly. And man, the thing gets swollen, and you can't get out the right kind of way.
CARLSON: Amen.
CARVILLE: What're they going to do, you know? I mean, how many of them stumble over in the middle of the night, trying to -- this -- is getting a little out of hand.
CARLSON: Tell us about it, James.
CARVILLE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) move onto that, you know?
Everybody knows that under our last president, this country enjoyed the biggest budget surpluses in history, almost $236 billion in President Clinton's last year. We also know that after President Bush's massive $2 trillion tax cut, we'd be returning to the days of big deficits. But almost nobody predicted how far and how fast it might befall. Our quote if the day comes from a just-released Congressional Budget Office analysis. This simple statement sure packs a lot of punch. Listen to this.
"CBO now expects the deficit for the entire fiscal year to end up well above $100 billion." As Yogi Berra once said, "You can look it up." Period.
CARLSON: Really?
CARVILLE: Yes.
CARLSON: If you look at the whole thing, James, you'll see that in wartime -- that being right now -- military spending rose 12 percent last year. Spending on Medicare and Medicaid rose almost as high, 11 percent. A lot of that comes from Democratic... (CROSSTALK)
CARVILLE: I'll tell you what you do, is get a Republican candidate to run and say, "We're going to slash Medicare and we're going to slash Medicaid." Just get out there and tell people. Just run. You know how much the war costs us? It's $10 billion a day. It is this idiotic tax cut that they...
CARLSON: Really?
CARVILLE: ... came in and gave the -- yeah, no president...
CARLSON: That's interesting.
CARVILLE: ... in war has cut taxes on the wealthy.
CARLSON: Well, that -- I wonder...
CARVILLE: Name me one wealthy tax cut during a time of war.
CARLSON: Then I wonder if you'll answer this question for me, James.
CARVILLE: Go ahead.
CARLSON: Being a Democratic...
CARVILLE: You answer mine first. Name me one tax cut for the wealthy during a time of war?
CARLSON: I will say this, that Republican candidates who got up and spoke truth to power would be savaged by Democratic campaign -- scaring old people. You know, "You're going to eat cat food if this guy's elected."
CARVILLE: But you want to cut Medicare. You're the one that's complaining about (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Medicare.
CARLSON: Look, let me -- let me this question...
CARVILLE: Who do you think gets Medicare, young people?
CARLSON: If the tax cut is so terrible, I wonder why Democrats don't just -- Democratic leadership stand up and say, "Let's freeze it."
CARVILLE: I'll tell you what. They would if they...
CARLSON: They haven't.
CARVILLE: They don't have the votes...
CARLSON: They don't have the guts.
CARVILLE: ... to stop this idiotic estate tax cut.
CARLSON: They don't have the guts, is what they don't have.
CARVILLE: ... because you guys want to cut taxes on your campaign contributors while you're sending kids over there to fight a war. You don't have the guts to stand up and tell America what it is.
CARLSON: Speaking of guts, we're going to have to stop there...
(APPLAUSE)
CARLSON: A CROSSFIRE fan has some flattery for James Carville that his wife may not approve of. Details are coming up in our "Fireback" segment. Who deserves the blame for the nation's obesity epidemic? Coming up, a food fight over who's responsible for fat.
Be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARVILLE: If you believe the mounting health warnings, we Americans are drowning in our own fat. Obesity is said to be reaching epidemic proportions. But who's at fault? Whose fault is that? Well, food manufacturers might get cooked over this unhealthy matter and end up in a stew, like the tobacco industry. So is food the next tobacco, with labels, warnings and lawsuits?
On the front burner and in the CROSSFIRE, Michael Jacobson, president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest. Also John Doyle, co-founder of the Center for Consumer Freedom.
(APPLAUSE)
CARLSON: Mr. Jacobson, thanks for joining us. Now, I must say...
MICHAEL JACOBSON, PRES., CENTER FOR SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST: Thank you.
CARLSON: ... it strikes me as amazing that anyone would try and butt in on, intrude on, control, pass judgment on something as private as what my family and I might want to eat for lunch. But it sounds like that's exactly what you're doing. Why don't you mind your own business? Why do you care what people eat?
JACOBSON: Well, McDonald's does that every day, doesn't it, Tucker. It spends $1 billion a year encouraging people to eat junk food. I think it's about time the public heard the other side. And what I'd love to see are major government-sponsored educational campaigns helping people eat better and exercise more.
You know, the bottom line is that several hundred thousand people a year are dying from diet-related diseases. Obesity is one underlying cause -- diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure and stroke that's caused by a lot of meat, a lot of cheese, a lot of soda pop, and we should start changing that. We should get junk foods out of schools... CARLSON: Actually, Mr. -- let me suggest a different bottom line, and that is adults are in control of their own behavior, and they're responsible for it. So if I want to go out -- tomorrow, apparently, you'll announce a campaign against super-sizing in fast food restaurants. And I suggest to you if that I want super-size fries, I'm fully aware that they can make me fat. But again, I ought to be able to do that without being picked to death by ninnies like you, no?
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
JACOBSON: Now, why are you so upset -- why are you so upset about getting information about health, but you're not upset about McDonald's barging into your living room through the television set, going after your kids to encourage them to form a junk-food habit. I think we got to even the tables here a little bit and get good information to the public.
As for super-sizing, I don't care if they super-size, but at least give people information. Put the calorie content up on the menu boards. Get the calories on menus when you go to restaurants, just like we have it on processed foods. I'm in favor of more information to the public. Nobody's talking about coercing anybody into doing anything.
CARLSON: Well...
CARVILLE: Sure. Sure, but you -- you can't oppose the government urging people to eat healthier and exercise more, can you?
JOHN DOYLE, CO-FOUNDER, CENTER FOR CONSUMER FREEDOM: James, I wouldn't oppose the government urging moderate consumption, but I feel like I'm on "Candid Camera" sometimes. Michael Jacobson had said as recently as a couple years ago he wants to tax food -- certain foods out of people's reach. You got John Bonzef (ph) from George Washington...
JACOBSON: You know I never said that at all, Mr. Doyle.
DOYLE: ... who is -- who is -- yes, I...
(CROSSTALK)
CARVILLE: But you don't have a problem with a government-funded thing to -- urging people to eat more fruits and vegetables and exercise more.
DOYLE: No, education's fine.
CARVILLE: OK, let me ask you...
(CROSSTALK)
DOYLE: ... taxes and lawsuits. CARVILLE: Do you have a -- do you have a problem -- what I want to know is, like, my doctor says I don't have to worry about fats so near as I have to worry about sodium. Do you have a problem -- when I look to find out how much sodium this stuff has, it's frightening. Do you have a problem with them packing -- putting on the Big Mac, this thing contains 700 milligrams of sodium.
DOYLE: Well, actually, in the fast food, they do that. We have a problem...
CARVILLE: No, you have to go up -- it's not...
DOYLE: It's on the wall, on a chart.
CARVILLE: Yeah, you got to go look at the chart. And if you...
DOYLE: How difficult is that? The exercise wouldn't hurt.
(LAUGHTER)
CARVILLE: Why not put it on the -- on the wrapping thing?
DOYLE: We're talking about people who want to sue the food industry because people select foods, and sometimes they don't have a lifestyle that -- they wind up come becoming fat. And that's -- that's the key here. We're talking about an obesity problem, an obesity epidemic, some of have called it. It's two sides to a coin. One is exercise, the other is moderate consumption, healthful eating. But to mandate it, the way Michael wants to, or to sue...
CARVILLE: I didn't hear him say that.
DOYLE: ... restaurants...
CARVILLE: Wait a minute.
DOYLE: Oh, he has. He has.
CARVILLE: I don't think he said that tonight.
DOYLE: Well, he's changing -- he's modifying his tune, actually, now that this tax is becoming much more politically viable. But again, John Bonzef from this college, George Washington University, has threatened to sue on national television, class-action suits against restaurants.
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: Mr. Jacobson, just -- I want to clarify something you said a moment ago. Mr. Doyle said -- accused you of wanting taxes on so-called junk food. You said you never said that. I want to read you a quote...
JACOBSON: No, he -- he said...
CARLSON: This is from... JACOBSON: He said that I'm in favor of taxing foods out of people's reach. What I'm in favor of...
CARLSON: Let me just read you the quote...
JACOBSON: ... is educational campaigns -- I'm in favor of educational campaigns that could be funded out of general funding or out of a little tax on soda pop or other junk foods.
CARLSON: Well, then...
JACOBSON: We're not talking about taxing anything out of anybody's reach. And I think, you know, to be honest...
CARLSON: Wait, wait. Just wait. Wait.
JACOBSON: I think your listeners...
CARLSON: To be honest, I want to clarify here...
JACOBSON: ... your viewers ought to know that Mr. Doyle...
CARLSON: OK...
JACOBSON: ... is a flack for the restaurant industry.
CARLSON: OK, well, wait a second. Before you start...
JACOBSON: That's who pays his bills.
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: You are quoted in the Newark "Star-Ledger" on April 30, quote -- and this may be a different Michael Jacobson from the Center for Science in the Public Interest, but...
(LAUGHTER)
CARLSON: Here's what this Michael Jacobson said, quote, "We could envision taxes on butter, potato chips, whole milk, cheese and meat." Now, you said a moment ago you didn't want to coerce anyone. Taxes are nothing if not coercion. You do want to control people's diet, don't you, with taxes.
JACOBSON: I want to inform people, Mr. Carlson, let them know how many calories there are. We're the group that fought to get the nutrition label on food packages. I suppose you and Mr. restaurant industry over there...
CARLSON: With all due respect...
JACOBSON: ... oppose that also.
CARLSON: ... Mr. Jacobson, you're not answering my question. You say here that you are in favor of taxes on these foods. Are for taxes... JACOBSON: Yes.
CARLSON: ... on them or not? Do you stand by this quote or not?
JACOBSON: I'm in favor of something like a penny or two tax per pound of butter. And you -- provided the money...
DOYLE: Now -- now he's saying a penny or two.
JACOBSON: ... for education...
DOYLE: Two years ago, he put out a report with the Kelly Brownall (ph), who heads his scientific advisory board -- Kelly Brownall (ph) is the grandfather of the "Twinkie tax," who told "U.S. News & World Report" that foods -- bad foods, he called them -- should be pushed out of people's reach by taxation.
CARVILLE: I've got to tell you...
DOYLE: Now, this is...
CARVILLE: I don't think if it might not be a pretty good idea to tax Twinkies more than apples.
DOYLE: So what should we tax -- what should we tax...
CARVILLE: I don't know. Kind of makes sense to me.
DOYLE: James, what do we tax your poor boy at the West 24th, the one that you love? And worse than the tax, James -- let's say that somebody files a class-action suit...
CARVILLE: But you're not...
DOYLE: ... against that food?
CARVILLE: I don't...
DOYLE: People make choices.
CARVILLE: I don't -- let people have a choice. What I'm more for than taxing Twinkies or something -- just make sure that people know what's in it. I went to -- I go to lunch every now and then at the Shoney's out on Route 1, Alexandria. And I went there today, and I thought about this show. And I got to tell you, there's a lot of pigs out there, Hoss.
And they go to that -- I mean, they go to that salad bar, and they're loading up on that crap. And I just wonder if they ought to not put a thing on there. This stuff will make you fat. And I mean, they're not -- they're not getting it -- they're not getting the lettuce and then putting a little vinegar on there. They're going right to the pudding and to the gravy...
DOYLE: And you think that if they looked...
CARVILLE: ... and the mashed potatoes.
DOYLE: If they look down, they're going to see they put on weight. If they can see the scale, they notice they've gained weight. But the fact of the matter is, it's their choice and their decision. And it has as much to do with a sedentary lifestyle as going after some...
(CROSSTALK)
CARVILLE: I think -- and I'm for the government telling people, "You ought to eat" -- even though I'm not -- believe me, let me tell you, I eat a lot of things I just -- I eat a lot of fatty foods. But I want to know. And I want to know how much sodium they got. And I want to wrap it. If they pack something, say this is a little (UNINTELLIGIBLE)
CARLSON: But Mr. Jacobson, this is all sort of inexorably leading to class-action lawsuits, isn't it. People are going -- fat people are going to sue, saying, "Look, I -- it wasn't properly labeled. I didn't bother to walk up to the chart in McDonald's. I didn't look at the sodium content, therefore I got fat. I got heart disease, et cetera." That's going to happen, isn't it.
JACOBSON: I have no idea what kind of lawsuits are going to be filed. Anybody can file a lawsuit. I think it's interesting that for the first time, some lawyers are looking at this issue to figure out, is it legal or illegal for a company like McDonald's and Coca-Cola to advertise junk food to young people who don't even understand the concept of a commercial.
DOYLE: Like, this -- this is something I never understood. Do you think these young people -- I've got two 11-year-old girls. You think they're going to pick up my -- my wife's keys and drive theirselves (sic) to McDonald's? Parents got a couple options. They can turn off the television. They can decide when the kids go to McDonald's. To presume that these -- these people are -- are -- Americans are too stupid to select their own food and to stupid to raise their own children -- I mean, I -- I would ask what's next. But frankly, the question is, what's left?
CARVILLE: You know what? It's more than being stupid, man. My kids, when they want to go, you can't talk them out of it.
CARLSON: I'm afraid -- before we get into the dining habits of our children, I'm afraid, sadly, we're going to have to leave it here.
Mr. Jacobson in Chicago, thanks for joining us.
JACOBSON: Thank you.
CARLSON: Mr. Doyle here in Washington, thank you.
DOYLE: Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
CARVILLE: Thanks a lot.
CARLSON: Later on "Fireback," a tongue-lashing from one of our viewers over the deep silence on Deep throat. But next is "Round Six." James Carville and I go head to head on the issues.
Be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: Welcome back. It's time for "Round Six." The guests have fled, just James Carville and I, the skinny guy. James, now, the food debate...
CARVILLE: Well, you're not so fat yourself.
CARLSON: Well, I -- I appreciate -- you're pretty handsome too, James.
(LAUGHTER)
CARLSON: Look, we never got to this in our debate a second ago. But one of the arguments you often hear the food neurotics make is that, "Look, obesity costs the country in health care costs. That's why corporately, as a society, we have -- we have a real interest in reducing people's weight."
Well, there's a fascinating study from the Obesity Research Center at Columbia that came out very recently. And it says, actually, the bottom line is that fat people, because they die earlier, cost the country -- this is true -- cost the country less than they might in health care. So actually, it -- the key argument that obesity's everybody's problem sort of falls down, in the end.
CARVILLE: I've got some (UNINTELLIGIBLE) All you young freshmen entering GW in the audience tonight. Start smoking, do you? Be a patriot. Smoke, die young, and drive these health care costs down.
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
CARLSON: You forgot to mention drive fast while drinking. But look...
CARVILLE: Drive -- yes, drive fast when you drink, too, because...
CARLSON: No, no. But...
(CROSSTALK)
CARVILLE: If you cash your chips at 23, you're not a drag on society.
CARLSON: That's right. You can help Social Security. No, but truly, the argument that every individual's problem is all of our problem is...
CARVILLE: No, look...
CARLSON: ... an outrageous argument because it leads to...
CARVILLE: But Tucker...
CARLSON: ... violations of individual liberties!
CARVILLE: ... the problem is -- go somewhere to -- we're a nation of fat pigs, and somebody's got to say -- somebody's got to knock on the door...
CARLSON: No, no.
CARVILLE: ... and say...
CARLSON: But that's fundamentally an aesthetic problem. You go to Shoney's, and say, "people are unattractive," that's not...
CARVILLE: No, it's...
CARLSON: ... a national crisis. That's...
CARVILLE: ... more than that.
CARLSON: ... a visual crisis.
CARVILLE: How can we win a war with fat people?
CARLSON: Well, most people in the Marine Corps aren't fat.
CARVILLE: OK.
CARLSON: OK. That's it. Coming up just ahead, you get the chance to "Fireback" at us. One of you says I was treating a guest unfairly. I'll defend myself.
Be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: Welcome back. It's time for our "Fireback" segment. Every night, we invite you to fire back at us by e-mail. Every night you do. Let's see what you said.
First up, Carol from Virginia writes, "I know we have a long way to go on the war on terror, but opening up the new can of worms at this time with Saddam Hussein sounds crazy. The first mess is far from solved. Wasn't Bush ever told to finish what is on his plate before taking more?"
Sometimes people bring you another plate, even if you didn't ask for it. That's what happened with Saddam Hussein, unfortunately.
CARVILLE: There you go. All right, let's see what's next here. "Had Nixon been a liberal and Bernstein and Woodward conservatives, does anyone believe that the media would have given Bernstein and Woodward a pass in not naming their source for these past 30 years? I think they would have been unmercifully attacked and their reputation destroyed many years ago." Lawrence Aeschlimann, Cape Girardeau, Missouri.
Well, Lawrence is from the same home town as Rush Limbaugh, and apparently, he's been listening to Rush a lot.
CARLSON: No. He makes a great...
CARVILLE: But there...
CARLSON: He makes a great point, though.
CARVILLE: But I thought you said Nixon was a liberal?
CARLSON: Nixon was a huge liberal.
CARVILLE: Well, then...
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: Here's a viewer mad about a show we did last week on weight loss. Bruce from Houston, Texas, writes, "Tucker, I'm so disappointed how several times you made fun of Lee Labrada and his pronunciation of the word `obesity'" -- which he pronounced, by the way, "obessity." "He came on your show not to promote a book or to push a product or as a political candidate but simply as the unpaid fitness czar of Houston. If you -- he met you in a gym, I'm sure Lee would not make fun of your puny arms."
(LAUGHTER)
CARLSON: That may be true, Bruce, but if I went around pronouncing obesity "obessity," I would expect people to make fun of me, don't you think?
CARLSON: I mispronounce 15 words a night, so I'm not going to say anything.
CARLSON: But "obessity"? Come on. Come on.
CARLSON: Who knows? I mean, I read that damn prompter, I don't -- I called the disarmament agency the development agency when I'm reading off of the thing.
CARLSON: But you didn't call anybody "obese," I noticed, so...
(LAUGHTER)
CARVILLE: I've seen some obese people, but...
(LAUGHTER)
CARVILLE: "James Carville, you combine profound intelligence, witty remarks and that wonderful southern charm. And to top it all off, you've got great sex appeal. If you ever decide to bat for the other team -- and I don't mean the Republicans -- give me a shout."
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
CARVILLE: Kevin, Vancouver, Canada.
CARLSON: This show gets people going, James. And we have a question.
CARVILLE: When you have been batting for the same team for 57 years, you know -- I mean, you love you guys, but...
CARLSON: You're not going to switch?
CARVILLE: I don't think we're going to be switching here (UNINTELLIGIBLE)
CARLSON: Yes, sir?
QUESTION: My name is Ruben Duran (ph) from Oroville, California. For 30 years, Republicans have paid penance, very bitter penance, for the lies, corruption and abuses of power that Richard Nixon brought upon the office. My question for you, James, is when are Democrats going to pay for the lies, corruptions and abuses of government power that William Jefferson Clinton brought upon the office?
CARLSON: Great question.
CARVILLE: Hey, there was -- there was not one person in the Clinton administration who pleaded guilty for things he did in office; 30 in the Reagan administration. So the 30 times that the Reagan administration's apologized for the corruption and abuse they perpetrated, then it might be time for Clinton to say something.
(APPLAUSE)
CARLSON: Just because Sammy "The Bull" is not in prison doesn't mean he wasn't in the Mafia.
Yes, sir?
CALLER: Yeah, this question is for James. As an obese man...
CARVILLE: You want me to change the way I bat?
(LAUGHTER)
QUESTION: Well, I do think you're a handsome guy and all, but...
CARVILLE: There you go. All right.
CARLSON: Go ahead. QUESTION: Well, as an obese man fighting the battle of the bulge all my life, I can honestly say that you can't blame food. You can't blame the producers. You blame the food, and you blame the choices that people make...
CARLSON: And we are out of time. I'm sorry, obess as it may be.
(LAUGHTER)
CARVILLE: Obess as it might be. We apologize, but we got to go. Thanks.
From the left, I'm James Carville. Good night for CROSSFIRE.
CARLSON: And from the right, I'm Tucker Carlson. Join us again tomorrow night for another edition of CROSSFIRE. See you then.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
