Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Crossfire
Will Bush Enforce Corporate Responsibility?; Should the U.S. Attack Iraq Again?; Sheriff Takes Meaning of `Hard Time' Seriously
Aired July 30, 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, Washington sent business a message.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The era of low standards and false profits is over.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: But once you go from Wall Street to Main Street, which party works for you?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. RICHARD GEPHARDT (D-MO), MINORITY LEADER: We can read this president's lips, but we don't hear any new ideas.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: The war hasn't started, but you can read all about it on the front pages.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FRANK GAFFNEY, CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY: It could make September 11 look like a day at the beach.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: Is it time for the U.S. to go back to Iraq?
Plus, the sheriff who doesn't mind giving inmates a hard time.
Tonight on CROSSFIRE.
From the George Washington University, James Carville and Tucker Carlson.
JAMES CARVILLE, CO-HOST: Welcome to CROSSFIRE. Tonight, leaking war plans, G-rated jails and the politics of looking out for the little guy. But first, as we do every day, let's start with the best little political briefing in television, our CROSSFIRE "Political Alert."
President George W. Bush today signed a mostly Democratic bill cracking down on corporate crooks and funny numbers. If you close your eyes and listen, use your imagination, you could almost hear and make believe you're hearing a Democrat talking.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BUSH: We will act against those who have shaken confidence in our markets using the full authority of government, to expose corruption, punish wrongdoers, and defend the rights and interests of American workers and investors.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARVILLE: In a little bit, we'll ask the Republican Party if it actually changed its stripes and it has the interest of American workers and investors at heart, but not their golfing buddies in corporate boardrooms.
TUCKER CARLSON, CO-HOST: So, you agree with what the president says, so you accuse him of sounding like a Democrat?
CARVILLE: Yes, I agree with he says. He sounds like a Democrat. It's the first time he's done that in his administration. I agree with he says. I doubt his sincerity.
CARLSON: OK. Speaking of the Democratic Party, it's a member short tonight. Former Congressman James A. Traficant has gone to jail. In fact, he went directly to jail. He did not pass go and, of course, he did not stop talking. Traficant even shouted at the judge as she was explaining the eight-year sentence. She told him to sit down and added that Traficant has no respect for the government and used lies to distract attention from the fraud charges he'll be serving time for.
Traficant accused the judge of preventing him from defending himself. He also enlivened today's proceedings by firing his attorney during the hearing and argued that since he's already been expelled from the House, he doesn't deserve further punishment. However, as so often happens, the judge had the last word. Federal marshals led Traficant away in handcuffs.
CARVILLE: Well, we might be one member short, but you're going to be one vote short because he always votes with the conservatives. And that's why a Democrat who votes with Republicans ought to be in jail. It's a good place for him.
CARLSON: James, you know, he's going to run again from jail. And if he can do that, he can appear on our show. I hope he does.
CARVILLE: It's hard to find any place where I agree with President Bush. He's evaporated the surplus, brought back deficits and protectionism and cut back money for job training and education. And don't even get me started about his idiotic environmental policies. But, here's an idea I actually agree with. After September 11, the president set up an office of public diplomacy to counter anti-American sentiment overseas. He said he wants to make -- today, he said he wants to make it permanent. The problem, Mr. President, I only wish your administration's international policies were better. Then our country wouldn't need a global office doing PR so much.
CARLSON: Boy, you have a way of back-handed compliments. I'm not sure I want these compliments.
CARVILLE: I agree with this, actually. I think we should keep it permanent, even if we have a president, say like President Clinton, who has popular policies abroad. But we certainly need one now.
CARLSON: We'll eliminate the voice of America and all efforts in America...
CARVILLE: We need to promote that (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
CARLSON: OK. In a move designed to remind the news media that he still exists, Jesse Jackson has traveled to the Middle East this week. Jackson spent his first days in Israel searching for television cameras and making self-righteous but unintelligible pronouncements that rhyme. In other words, he did pretty much what he does in the U.S.
Later in the week, Jackson is scheduled to lend legitimacy to the terrorist group Hamas when he meets for tea with its blood-soaked founder. When told that Hamas is responsible for the murder of untold innocent Israeli civilians, Jackson responded this way: "up with calm, down with bomb. Trade the stone for Sharon. Don't put the tank in the West Bank." Moreover, he added, "a horse is a horse, of course, of course." Diplomats around the world took note.
(CROSSTALK)
CARVILLE: You know, our colleague in 1988, Mr. Begala, told me one of the things about Jesse Jackson. He says, Jesse is for no government policy that does not rhyme.
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: Or that's not televised. Good point.
CARVILLE: He's one of the great sound bite people of all time, you know.
CARLSON: Except when he's meeting with the founder of Hamas.
CARVILLE: California regulators are getting ready to punish accounting giant KPMG. The judge has already ruled it committed gross negligence and professional misconduct in a decade-old case. This slow, painful state process is one reason we need a strong federal Securities and Exchange Commission.
Instead, the head of the current SEC, Harvey "Worthless" Pitt, spent years as an attorney for KPMG, and Pitt raised everyone's eyebrows in April when he met with the head of KPMG. And his former client suggested that they discussed an SEC investigation of KPMG's audits of Xerox. Pitt denies it.
But this sets up an interesting predicament. Either the head of the SEC is lying, or one of the big private accounting firms is lying. Take your pick. You'd think any Republican would want the truth about accurate accounting as much as they wanted the truth about sex.
CARLSON: Yes, but you don't see Harvey Pitt up there on television saying, I did not meet with that head of KPMG.
CARVILLE: No. He said I didn't talk about the Xerox.
(CROSSTALK)
I met with him, but I didn't talk about Xerox. The head of KPMG says, oh, yes, we did talk about the thing in Xerox. And, you know, more people have gotten hurt in Enron than got hurt because of sex.
CARLSON: I'd love to continue with the conspiracy theories, but next, several developments in the Robert Torricelli scandal tonight. After months of denying that he received expensive gifts from a convicted felon, apparently Senator Torricelli is now admitting that he did, in fact, take a big-screen television and maybe some other things.
The senator is still denying that he boasted about his Mafia connections or obstructed a federal investigation or took thousands in cash bribes. The Senate ethics committee is charged with getting to the bottom of these allegations. But there's a problem. The Senate is almost evenly split, and Senator Torricelli, it happens, is up for re-election. Fellow Democrat Daniel Inouye of Hawaii announced today the ethics investigation would be postponed until November so that the evidence that emerges does not, quote, "place a cloud over Senator Torricelli." In other words, no reason to let facts cloud the judgment of voters. We'll bring you updates on the cover-up as news warrants.
CARVILLE: Maybe it's the summer heat, but Republicans and Democrats sure sound strange this week. A couple of minutes ago, we heard President Bush talking about defending the rights and interests of American workers. Up in New York, the members of the Democratic Leadership Conference are fussing that Al Gore is too popular, is not business friendly enough. Has everyone been out in the sun too long?
In the CROSSFIRE, former labor secretary Robert Reich, who is running for governor of Massachusetts; and former Virginia governor and now it's current United States Senator, Tucker and I's own senator, Senator George Allen. Welcome, Senator Allen.
(APPLAUSE)
Before Tucker gets started, Senator Allen, we want to congratulate your father for his election to the Football Pro Hall of Fame, well deserved. I started following him when I was in the United States Marine Corps in the late '60s when he was the coach of the Los Angeles Rams, if I remember correctly.
SEN. GEORGE ALLEN (R), VIRGINIA: We had some good Louisiana players too, Richie Pettibone, Tommy Mason.
CARVILLE: Richie is a dear friend of mine. Tommy "Boo" Mason from Lake Charles, Louisiana, played at Tulane. He sure did.
ALLEN: And Bob Brunet, who has a good Cajun food restaurant.
CARVILLE: There we go. All right, now...
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: Thanks for joining us. You're, doubtless, you've heard the comments that Senator Lieberman made the other day up in New York at the DLC meeting. But I just want to read you one choice quote and get your response to it. Mr. Lieberman said, "Gore's slogan, the people versus the powerful -- used in the campaign, quote -- was not the new Democrat approach, was not the pro-growth approach. It made it more difficult for to us, the Democrats, to gain the support of middle class, independent voters who don't see America as us versus them."
Do you think that's right? I mean, do you think that the Democratic Party can't win when it uses class warfare in its campaigns?
ROBERT REICH, FORMER LABOR SECRETARY: Tucker, I don't think that the Democrats need to use class warfare, but I think the Democrats do need to talk about corporate responsibility. They have been talking about corporate responsibility.
You know, the legislation signed today was not a kind of Nixon goes to China moment. The president was pushed into it, kicking and screaming. And there's still a lot of issues like the Bermuda loophole and the issue of whether stock options are going to be expensed and a lot of other things that have not been touched. There's much, much more work to do. Democrats ought to be talking about all of these things right through the election.
CARLSON: Well, but, Mr. Reich, A: do you think it's fair to make pureness of heart a criterion, that, you know, if everybody who voted for legislation had to deeply like it? You know, that's a quite a different standard. And B: you know, this legislation provides a 25- year federal jail term for people convicted of securities fraud. How much tougher could it be, I mean, the death penalty?
REICH: No, Tucker, I think it's a very good start. But, of course, no legislation, particularly legislation that has penalties included, is worth a dime unless it's going to be enforced. And you've got to look at who is going to enforce this particular legislation.
I don't know about you, but I don't have tremendous faith in the Bush administration's enforcement people. I mean, look at Harvey Pitt, look at the people who are in the attorney general's office. Do you think they are really going to be tough enforcers, that they are going to find executives who willfully broke the law and committed fraud and commit them to 20 years? No. I don't see any evidence.
This is a corporate -- a big corporate administration. You have Cheney and Halliburton, you have the president and Harken Energy, you've got John White and all his Enron problems.
There is no indication at all that this administration is going to seriously enforce this new law.
CARVILLE: Mr. Secretary, thank you for your brilliant observation.
And now I'll go to Senator Allen.
Senator Allen, our executive producer, Mr. Sam Feist, likes to use CNN polls. And I'm going to go ahead and use it and show you something they found out in a poll conducted July 26 and 28. I think that was this week.
Which party favors large corporations? Republicans, 65; ordinary Americans 25; Democrats, large corporations, 36; ordinary Americans, 50.
Let me give you a reason that people might feel that way Senator Allen. Let me go over some things that Democrats have proposed that Republicans have fought against: separate auditing and consulting, as Arthur Levitt did when he was SEC chairman; greater disclosure of derivatives as Brooks (ph) and Born (ph) proposed in the Clinton administration; crackdown on corporate tax havens that 110 Republicans in the House voted against and traditionally oppose.
Aren't the American people pretty smart, and figured out who's on their side and who's on the side of the powerful?
ALLEN: I think the American people listen so a lot of pap and rhetoric.
I was listening to Secretary Reich there carrying on.
Who did -- which administration does he believe was arresting these people with Adelphia? Who do you think is now prosecuting folks with Enron, with WorldCom and others?
The Bush administration, the attorney general's office and the Securities and Exchange Commission are beefed up. There are more federal prosecutors involved as far as the security fraud matter is concerned, and the SEC is getting more resources.
I would also note, you don't have those bills up there, but the bill that President Clinton vetoed was sponsored by Chris Dodd. Last time I checked, he's a Democrat from Connecticut. Joe Lieberman also, as well as 20 Democrats, voted to override President Clinton's vetoes.
CARVILLE: But that means that 30 didn't.
(CROSSTALK)
ALLEN: ... people look at issues based on the merits.
(CROSSTALK)
ALLEN: And I also think that there ought to be a celebration in the fact that this bill that the president signed today was a good bipartisan effort to make sure that people who are investing have a better, accurate picture of the financial condition of a company, and a deterrent for those who would commit crime.
CARVILLE: Will you be joining your 110 Republican colleagues in the House in voting against cracking down on these off-shore tax havens, or will you vote to crack down on them?
ALLEN: I'll look at the legislation. I haven't had a chance to look at it. I looked at this bill that was before us, and I was a supporter of it, and I think it's a very good bill that the president signed today.
CARVILLE: Too bad he didn't support it when it was there.
ALLEN: The principles of the president were embodied in this bill.
CARLSON: Now you've heard the argument taking place here between the senator and James Carville about, you know, the 1990s, essentially the Clinton years and the ideas the Clinton administration tried hard to crackdown on corporate abuse and they knew that the system was teetering precariously, but Republicans, the meanies, somehow derailed that reform.
My question to you, as a former member of the Clinton administration: Why didn't somebody sound the alarm? If the Clinton people knew that this was going on, why didn't somebody tell investors about it?
REICH: Well Tucker, I don't think anybody, frankly, knew about it. I think that the SEC Underchairman Levitt did try to do more. There was a lot of suspicion that shenanigans were going on.
But honestly, nobody believed the degree to which accounting firms were lying, turning the other way, the other direction, the degree to which company executive CEOs were running off with the loot. I don't think most people even conceived that this was going on, or even possible.
We needed to have reforms. The Clinton administration clearly pushed for reforms. Had we known of the extent of, well, of just the misuse of authority and the malfeasance, the nonfeasance, obviously the American public would have been behind us and we would have got reforms.
CARLSON: So in other words, you're saying it was ignorance rather than negligence?
REICH: I don't even think it was ignorance. I don't think anybody imagined the extent of the damage.
Enron looked, even when Enron came out, honestly Tucker, you know as well as I, we all looked at Enron, we thought, gee, this is one example, maybe it's a bad apple. And then the president said, oh, you have a few bad apples after we learned about WorldCom and we learned about Global Crossing.
And then suddenly Adelphia and more and more and more of these companies looked like they were following, basically, the same rules of misconduct generated by accounting firms and by CEOs who just didn't care, didn't have any sense of public responsibility at all.
Now look, I want to make it clear, I think this legislation signed today is a good first step in the right direction. I think we ought to congratulate everybody for bipartisanship.
But let's understand it is only a first step. And Democrats have got to continue, and Republicans have got to continue, making sure and monitoring -- making sure the corporations are towing the line.
CARVILLE: Senator Allen, let me give you a chance to respond to the secretary's brilliant, if somewhat lengthy response here. SO, in the interest of fairness...
ALLEN: Well, I think he recognized that this is positive. And I think he also recognizes that the senior senator from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy, also voted to override the president's -- President Clinton's veto.
I think that the American people don't want to see a bunch of blame and finger-pointing and saying, it's the Clinton administration's fault, or the Bush administration's fault. They want to see what is being done to restore credibility, honesty and integrity to our system.
CARVILLE: Well it's pretty clear that it's the Republicans' fault. But then again, Republicans never point fingers.
CARLSON: OK, unfortunately we're going to have to leave that phrase hanging in the air. We have to take a commercial break.
When we come back we'll bring you breaking news on whether the Senate Ethics Committee will punish Senator Torricelli. We'll ask our guests to respond to that news.
And later, a sheriff who, even more than you might think, wants to make jail a place where you really don't want to be.
And our "Quote of the Day" comes from the U.S. Senate's premier fiddle player. Right now he's fiddling with the Department of Homeland Security.
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: Welcome back.
We promised you news updates on Senator Robert Torricelli as events warrant. Lo and behold, events warrant. There just has been one.
CNN congressional correspondent Jonathan Karl joins us now from Capitol Hill with the details.
Jon, what has happened?
JONATHAN KARL, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well Tucker, the headline here is the Senate Ethics Committee has severely admonished Bob Torricelli for his relationship and the gifts he received from David Chang.
Now, we know that Senator Torricelli will be on the Senate floor at 7:50 Eastern time to respond to these charges.
But first to the charges. A three-page letter, very toughly worded letter from the Senate Ethics Committee. I'll skip right to the end, where they use the phrase "severely admonished." It says that he at least, quote, "created at least the appearance of impropriety, and you are hereby severely admonished."
The letter goes on to talk about a series of gifts that Torricelli received from Chang. These gifts included a television and a stereo CD player. They say that Torricelli reimbursed Chang for this, but not at fair market value. And that was, in this letter's words, "a display of a lack of due regard for Senate rules, and resulted in a violation of the Senate gifts rule."
It also talked about bronze statues that Torricelli received from Chang. Torricelli had tried to explain to the committee that those were simply part of a program where the senator displayed artwork from his home state. The Senate Ethics committee did not accept that explanation.
They also talked about earrings that Mr. Chang gave Torricelli's sister, an employee and also a friend. Torricelli told the committee, this letter says, that those gifts, he thought, were of not sufficient value to worry about. This letter says that that was not true, that that explanation evidenced poor judgment and displayed a lack of due regard for Senate rules.
Also, one more thing, Tucker, they talked a little bit about the relationship with David Chang and about what Torricelli did for David Chang, some people would say, in return for these gifts. This letter does not say whether or not there was a quid pro quo; but it says, quote: "After evaluating the extensive body of evidence before it and your testimony, the committee is troubled by incongruities, inconsistencies and conflicts, particularly concerning actions taken by you which were, or could have been, of potential benefit for Mr. Chang."
So a very toughly worded letter.
One last thing, Tucker, they want Torricelli to pay Mr. Chang back for that CD player and for the television set.
CARLSON: Other than that, Jonathan, are there -- I mean, what are the effects of severe admonishment? Does he have to wear a funny hat? Is there a practical punishment apart from repaying for the CD player?
KARL: I would imagine that we can expect very soon a television ad in the state of New Jersey from his Republican opponent.
But in terms of the Senate rules, this ends the case. He has been admonished. He's not going to be punished. He doesn't have to sit on the corner of the Senate floor.
But clearly, four months out from an election, this is something that will give lots of ammunition to his political opponents.
Jonathan Karl, a shocking story, thanks for bringing it to us from Capitol Hill.
CARVILLE: We have, actually, a real, live United States senator here, Senator George Allen, Republican of Virginia talking to us on stage.
Do you have a reaction to what we just heard about the Senate Ethics Committee actions relative to Senator Torricelli of New Jersey?
ALLEN: I want to look at it closely.
But listening to Jonathan Karl's response, or portrayal of it, it reminds me of a story here in southwest Virginia about a horse thief. And the jury goes through the whole case and they say not guilty, but you have to return the horse.
And he's not guilty, but you have to pay for those gifts.
I think that the main thing that we'll want to look at is not so much the gifts being reported or not, is the connection of the gifts to action taken for Mr. Chang. But it seems like probably there will be no action by the Senate, but the people of New Jersey do have an option, they do have an election this year. And Mr. Forrester is running.
(CROSSTALK)
CARVILLE: ... a great corporate suck-up than Senator Torricelli...
(CROSSTALK)
ALLEN: Well, fine, but I think the people of New Jersey will make that decision. And I think the people of New Jersey would like to have a senator of whom they can be proud. And Mr. Forrester, I think, will meet that criteria.
CARVILLE: I think Senator Torricelli is a man who made a mistake, but is an outstanding United States... CARLSON: Well, let me get a response from Mr. Reich, who's sitting there in Boston.
I mean doesn't -- Mr. Reich, doesn't it seem odd to you that the chief accuser, the chief witness in this investigation was never called before the Senate. And at a time when we're upset about corporate misdeeds and the subsequent cover-ups, we ought to be wondering: Why was the chief accuser never brought before the Senate?
REICH: Yes Tucker, I think, actually, that there is a tremendous sensitivity in the public right now. And it's not only in terms of corporate misuse of authority and conflicts of interest, it's also in government.
And yes, I think there's a legitimate question about the process here. The public is going to look at this very carefully, obviously going to express their opinion in the upcoming election.
But mark my words, I think we are at the edge of an era where the public is just fed up with business and politics as usual, in corporate suites or political back rooms. It's going to be -- the public is demanding reform, demanding ethics.
CARLSON: Do you think the reforms should include replacing Senator Torricelli? What do you think about the fact that he received a television and earrings and a CD player and a grandfather clock? I mean, can a person like that remain a U.S. senator?
REICH: I think the people of New Jersey are going to make a decision about that, and I'm not going to second-guess them.
But I'll tell you something, I think it's -- obviously these are serious allegations, and we're not seeing the end of them. I think that this era is an era in which conflict of interest is going to be rooted out.
CARVILLE: I think the people of New Jersey will make the decision, I think they'll return (ph).
Senator Allen, one of the reasons maybe ordinary Americans doubt that the president and the Republicans speak up for them might be that the president speaks up (ph) for a lot.
Let me show you a quote that Al Hunt asked Secretary of Commerce Don Evans this week on CNN.
"In the year-and-a-half that George Bush has been president, if you can name me an action or two or a proposal or two that the president has made that is contrary to popular opinion," Al Hunt to Commerce Secretary Don Evans.
Could you kind of think of some action the president has taken that would sort of show some political courage that...
ALLEN: Political courage? And if he did something that fit that criteria, then you'd say, look how out of touch he is with the desires of the people of this country.
CARVILLE: But what's one thing that he's done that is contrary to public opinion?
I look at president Clinton...
(CROSSTALK)
CARVILLE: ... bail-out stood against the Democratic Party. He's been for protectionism, he's been against fiscal discipline. He's done anything...
ALLEN: No he hasn't.
CARVILLE: What has he done? (UNINTELLIGIBLE) protectionist. Do you think the steel tariffs are smart?
ALLEN: I think that we need to enforce our trade laws.
(CROSSTALK)
CARVILLE: ... lumber tariffs also?
ALLEN: Yes, I was.
CARVILLE: You were for the farm bill?
ALLEN: No, I was not.
(CROSSTALK)
CARVILLE: So you were for steel tariffs and lumber tariffs.
ALLEN: I think that what the president and the administration did on lumber and in steel was enforcing our trade laws to stop dumping...
(CROSSTALK)
ALLEN: They grow trees in other states other than those.
CARVILLE: So you would concede that the president has never done anything contrary to public opinion? He's got a sticky finger in the wind and see...
ALLEN: That's why 70 percent of the people think he's doing a great job.
(CROSSTALK)
ALLEN: I do think probably when he had his decision on how he made his decision on the embryonic stem cell research, that may not have been absolutely consistent with everyone. I think the country was probably of three different opinions on it.
CARVILLE: The president was probably of four different opinions. ALLEN: Well, he had his own opinions that he came to...
(CROSSTALK)
CARVILLE: I have no idea...
CARLSON: Unfortunately, thanks to the misdeeds of Senator Torricelli, a lot of our time has been taken up, and we are out of it.
Robert Reich in Boston, good luck on your race.
REICH: Thank you Tucker. James, good to see you.
CARLSON: Senator, thanks, we appreciate it.
(CROSSTALK)
(APPLAUSE)
CARLSON: Next: CNN's Connie Chung with a whale of a story.
Also, letting Baghdad know what's coming. Is that any way to fight a war?
And later than that, the ultimate in crime and punishment: no pornography in jail.
We'll explain all those stories and be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: It's no secret that this administration has it in for Iraq. It's also no secret that the Pentagon is contemplating the destruction of Saddam Hussein. Even some of the military details are no secret, because they keep leaking to the papers, namely the "New York Times." Is this any way to fight a war or even prepare for one?
In the CROSSFIRE tonight, Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy.
CARVILLE: Hello, how you doing?
(CROSSTALK)
Let me show you some headlines that have appeared in the paper here. Post those up there, please. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) U.S. plans for Iraq said to include attack on three sides. There have been any number of headlines, U.S. exploring Baghdad strike as their Iraq option inside-out attack, et cetera.
And today, in this morning's paper, there was now that we're learning that they're doing this inside analysis on the economic thing. We learn that they were going through Jordan -- profound effect.
Why is it that this administration is so good at keeping President Bush's SEC file away from the American public and so pitiful about keeping our war secrets away from Saddam Hussein?
GAFFNEY: It's a good question.
I suppose it's because there are people who want the president's policy to fail in Iraq, and who keep leaking this information...
CARVILLE: But they've got to be people that know. I mean, like I -- I don't -- you may have a good point, that we may need to do this. It seems to me that this administration wants to invade Iraq in the worst way, and they're succeeding.
GAFFNEY: I don't think they're invading it at all.
CARVILLE: Right. I mean...
GAFFNEY: Which could be the worst way...
CARVILLE: What -- the thing that scares me, Mr. Gaffney, is that if they did, that the military operation would be as buffonic (ph) as the lead-up to it. I don't think that would be the case, but nothing in the lead-up gives me as an American any confidence that this thing is being competently held. I gather you agree me with me?
GAFFNEY: No, I'm discouraged by the fact that people keep leaking the information about what may or may not be the plan du jour. I'm concerned that we're not acting on any of these plans. Because I think that Saddam Hussein is the kind of guy who, if nothing else, is a cunning survivor, and who must have learned the lesson of Desert Storm, which is don't give the United States six months to get ready for war with you.
The likelihood of us continuing to talk about going to war with him and not doing it is he'll act first. And if he acts with the weapons that he has at his disposal, the chances are, unfortunately, that September 11 could look like a day at the beach.
CARLSON: But if, Frank, he acts first, it's not likely to be against New York, it's likely to be against Israel. I mean, that makes the most sense, I think you've got to admit. I mean, what Saddam Hussein needs to do if he believes an American attack is coming, is enlist the support of his neighbors, and attacking Israel -- wouldn't it be the quickest way to do that?
GAFFNEY: Well, if you believe what we're being told is the sentiment of people in the Middle East, which is vehemently anti- American, it's not clear to me that attacking Israel rather than the United States is any less sure to arouse their support. I happen to believe...
CARLSON: It's easier to attack Israel.
GAFFNEY: Well, it is easier in some senses. It is also more likely to produce a direct and immediate and lethal response. If he does what I think he's already been doing, which is use cutouts to attack us -- Islamist mosques, Islamist sects, Islamist terrorists who we think are the problem but who may in fact be doing his bidding or at least benefiting from his training, his logistical support, his intelligence, his financial assistance.
But everybody says, well, there's no proof that Saddam was behind the World Trade Center bombing one, or the World Trade Center bombing two, or perhaps other attacks on the United States. That may well be a more effective way to galvanize support in the region and put the United States very much off its game.
CARLSON: Except if Saddam has a subscription to the "New York Times" or e-mail, and one suspects he has both, he's pretty certain that the United States is coming to get him. So that puts him in the category of desperate man willing to try anything. Given those seem to me to be facts, isn't it lunatic for the United States to delay at this point? I mean, if we're going to attack, and it seems like we have to at this point, why don't we just go ahead and do it right now?
GAFFNEY: Well, that's my view. That was my view about 10 years ago, as a matter of fact. I thought when we had 500,000 guys on the ground was a pretty good time to take care of this business. That was a terrible mistake under Bush One not to have done it.
It was a terrible mistake, I think, during the Clinton years not to have done it, and I think the longer we delay now, especially having said that's what we're going to do, is -- you're right, it's a formula for disaster for the United States.
CARVILLE: Why haven't we been able to convince anybody around? We sent the vice president to the Middle East on a 10-day tour, and four days after he left, the Kuwaitis, who we bailed out, and the Saudis, were kissing the Iraqis right on TV. What is it about this administration, they they -- and I think you may have a point -- I mean, Dick Gephardt agrees that something needs to be done. There's not...
GAFFNEY: Tom Daschle.
CARVILLE: Tom Daschle. I mean, I'm totally open to your point. But I got to tell you, this thing has an aura of the gang that couldn't shoot straight.
GAFFNEY: Well, I think that's unfair. You know, it does seem to me that the gang that is shooting shot pretty well in Afghanistan. I just want them to start shooting vis-a-vis Saddam Hussein and stop talking about it. I don't think that the Cheney visit is probably the best example of working the problem.
I think he got hammered...
CARVILLE: Yes.
GAFFNEY: ...by a lot of people who said, Don't even talk to us about Iraq, we want you to beat the hell out of the Israelis. And he came back saying, geez, I wonder if we haven't got to do something about that first.
CARVILLE: We didn't know -- he -- I could have told him that before he went if he'd have asked me... GAFFNEY: A more instructive example, I think, of how they're working it, was Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense visit to the region just a couple of weeks ago. And it sounds like he's been pretty clear with the people in the region and they've been pretty clear with him, that if we're serious about it, at least some, enough, will support us in doing it.
(CROSSTALK)
Again, I just think we need to be serious about it. Here's a measure of seriousness. One of the things we're not doing right now, and if you want to criticize the Bush Administration...
CARVILLE: I do.
GAFFNEY: ... I would say this is a legitimate basis for criticizing them, is they're not holding the State Department and CIA accountable for undermining the president's policy by trying to prevent us from working with an opposition in Iraq.
CARLSON: Speaking of that, very quick, we're almost out of time. But the story today in the "New York Times," the news of the day, something, the headline was something like, "Invasion of Iraq Seen to Have a Profound Effect on the American Economy." Is that a legitimate story? Was it a plant by foes of this administration's plan to invade Iraq? What do you make of it?
GAFFNEY: There are, of course, reasons to be concerned that actions will produce undesirable reactions. I am concerned more, frankly, that inaction will produce very undesirable actions on the part of Saddam Hussein.
There are economic measures I think we can take and should be taking, like selling future out of -- swaps, out of our oil petroleum reserves now as part of the plan to basically create conditions that will minimize oil shocks.
CARLSON: Right.
GAFFNEY: That is a way to deal with, I think, the economics of it, and I think if we do in fact liberate Iraq, help the people of Iraq liberate themselves, and perhaps help the people of Iran liberate themselves, it's a whole new ball game and the economics are going to be very positive for the United States.
CARLSON: OK, Frank Gaffney, thanks for joining us. We appreciate it.
GAFFNEY: Thank you.
CARVILLE: Thank you. Thank you for coming, appreciate it.
CARLSON: Still to come, our "Fireback" segment, and today, even that's leaking. A knowledgeable source tells CNN one viewer would like to fine-tune James Carville's nickname.
But next, the sheriff whose jail is no fun. Less fun than most jails, even. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARVILLE: A federal appeals court has reinstated a lawsuit by prisoners who claim their First Amendment rights are being violated by a federal law that bans R, X, and NC-17 rated movies. The inmate's attorney complains, basically, they're regulated to watching what children watch. All together now.
Still, the case raises another question, pardon the pun: Does making jail time as unpleasant as possible deter crime or violate prisoners' rights?
Joining us from Phoenix, Arizona is Mari -- the sheriff of Phoenix, how about that, Joe Arpaio who hasn't allowed any movies in his jail since 1993.
CARLSON: Sheriff Arpaio, thanks for joining us.
Thank you. You almost got the name right, James.
CARVILLE: Almost, but what the heck. Everybody will know it's Phoenix anyway.
CARLSON: We'll make this a tutorial on Maricopa and (UNINTELLIGIBLE). No X-rated movies in jail. Some lawyers say this is a violation of prisoners' constitutional rights. Can you just tell us very quickly what rights does a prisoner in your jail have?
SHERIFF JOE ARPAIO, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA: None. They're in prison. They're in jail. But they do have some rights. I took away their movies in 1993, went from R-rated to G-rated,"Donald Duck," "Lassie Come Home" and "Old Yeller." They didn't like it, so I wiped out all the movies, wiped out all the television except The Weather Channel, Newt Gingrich.
CARVILLE: Now, that's cruel and unusual punishment. That's a violation of the Eighth Amendment, to make prisoners listen to Newt Gingrich We can all agree on that.
ARPAIO: That's why I did it, James.
CARLSON: But you've made a lot of them wear pink underwear. Now apart from being a little creepy and, frankly, Sheriff, a little weird, what effect -- why would you get involved in prisoners' underwear choices is my questions to you?
ARPAIO: Well, because they -- I'll tell you why. They smuggle $50,000 worth of white underwear. So I decided to paint the underwear pink. You don't give them a color they like. At least in this county they don't like pink. And that's the reason I did it.
CARLSON: Wait. Most jails have drug smuggling. You have underwear smuggling?
ARPAIO: That's right. They'll take anything they can out of the jails. Anything, even themselves sometimes.
CARVILLE: You operate the county jail?
ARPAIO: Yes, 8,168.
CARVILLE: Right. Now, are these people all been convicted or something or some of them are waiting for trial?
ARPAIO: Six thousand waiting, 2,000 convicted doing time in the tents. We have 116-degree tents in the desert and we're celebrating the ninth year anniversary Saturday.
CARVILLE: But I want to get to the people who have not been convicted of anything, have just been charged, and if they were rich enough, they could post bond. How are they treated?
ARPAIO: Just like the ones convicted. I don't have a first or second class airline service. Everybody eats the bologna. It's the same.
CARVILLE: So, I mean, I'm sorry, but I got a real problem with treating someone who has been convicted of nothing, who under our Constitution has the right to bail and habeas corpus being treated the same way as someone who is -- I spent the night in jail before. In fact, a Tijuana jail when I was in the Marine Corps. It wasn't particularly pleasant. But I don't think I did anything wrong.
ARPAIO: Well, that's the way the ball bounces. You never should have been arrested. I can't talk about that.
CARVILLE: Sometimes, people -- do you know they're letting these people out on death row. There's DNA evidence and everything. Does it ever occur to you you might have an innocent guy who hasn't been convicted of anything and you're just feeding him bologna sandwiches?
ARPAIO: Well, they're all innocent. No one's told me they're guilty in there, but they have to wait to go to trial. And then when they go to trial, we'll see what happens.
CARLSON: Now, Sheriff, here's one thing that I have to say I do think crosses the line from amusing bologna pink undershorts to kind of unacceptable, and that's putting women on chain gangs. That's -- no civilized person puts women on a chain gang. Defend that.
ARPAIO: I'm an equal opportunity incarcerator. Should we treat women different than our male chain gang? And I'm going to give you a scoop right here. We'll be putting juveniles on a chain gang in about a month or two. Does that answer your question?
CARLSON: Well, let me ask you a follow-up question then. I mean, how exactly -- apart from your amusement, I'm wondering what purpose that serves. Do you have studies that show that putting girls on a chain gang, or putting anybody on a chain gang or making wear pink underpants, reduces recidivism, for instance?
ARPAIO: Well, we reduce it to eight percent. Those that are on a chain gang go through our drug prevention program in the jail. Only eight percent have come back. They all volunteer. I have a waiting list a mile long for people that want to be on the chain gang. And it's the only one in the world. But that's the way it is. And they like it. Believe it or not, they like being on the chain gang.
CARVILLE: Sheriff, let's assume somebody was say arrested but not convicted for marijuana possession. How many meals do you feed that unconvicted person?
ARPAIO: James, I hate to tell you this, but you were in the service, I was in the Army. We used to give them three meals a day. We're down to two. Meals are 20 cents a meal. That's 40 cents a day to feed the inmates. Actually, the dogs that I have that have been victims we put in an air-conditioned jail, and that's $1.15 a day. So it's actually more expensive to feed the dogs than the inmates.
But, you know, I've been doing this for 10 years; 1.3 million people have come through the jails. I've been investigated by the Justice Department. I used to work for the Justice Department, Amnesty International, Civil Liberties Union, prosecutors. You know what? They're gone and I'm still around and the inmates are still around, and the tents are still around.
CARVILLE: In Saudi Arabia, if you steal a loaf of bread, they cut your arm off. Would, say that, if they passed it, the legislature, you think that would be wise if the legislature passed a law like that?
ARPAIO: Well, I was a federal agent in the Middle East. I lived in Turkey, Iran, Iraq. There's not much crime there, I'll tell you that much. But I don't think we should go to that extreme in the United States of America.
CARLSON: But I wonder, I mean, it's more a philosophical question here. If you treat the inmates like animals, and by your own admission, you're boasting you do, or below actually the way you treat animals, do you think that affects the way they see other people? You're making me into a bleeding heart, and I kind of resent it incidentally here. But do you think it has an effect on the way they see the rest of society?
ARPAIO: Well, I don't know. I go -- I slept in the tents twice with 1,000 inmates. And I go through there. I was there last week. Half of them are wanting me to sign their autograph. So, I do that. They understand. They're like children. You know, you do something wrong, you should be punished, take the privileges away. I treat them like kids and I get by with it.
CARVILLE: Sheriff, I'm beginning to think I'm a bad American because I actually think that people that have not been convicted of a crime, that are merely arrested, ought to be treated substantially different than people who have been convicted of crime. Yet, you tell me a person who's not been convicted that is in your jail awaiting trial is treated harsher than a murderer would be treated in state prison in Arizona? And, frankly, that bothers me. ARPAIO: Well, I'll tell you one thing. You want me to give the ones not convicted steak and give the ones convicted bologna? We have one menu. I'm not going to feed them differently. It doesn't make sense.
CARVILLE: I don't know about steak, but I think you ought to feed people who are not convicted better, and I think you ought to feed people who are not convicted at least as good as people who have been convicted of murder that are in the state prison.
CARLSON: Now, Sheriff Arpaio, really quickly, we're running out of time. But could you tell me the one thing you do that you think has the greatest effect on reducing crime in Maricopa County?
ARPAIO: Well, other than arresting murderers, my office arrested four different cases for killing kids. But we run a tough jail system. It's still humane. It's still humane.
I told you how many people have come through since I've been the sheriff. No one has escaped recently. I've only had one riot in 10 years. Maybe they're too weak to riot. How come I only had one riot? They riot everywhere in the United States because the pizza is cold and many other reasons. I don't have riots.
CARLSON: So you think that malnutrition plays a role in keeping them from rioting?
ARPAIO: Well, they still get their 3,000 calories, OK?
And I'll tell you, I've got 151 on bread and water for defacing the American flag that we painted in every cell block after September 11. They all want to go on bread and water, be my guest.
CARVILLE: When is the last time there's been a riot in a federal prison?
ARPAIO: In a federal prison?
CARVILLE: Yes.
ARPAIO: Well, they probably have it all the time. Check your stats, it's like a hotel.
