Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Crossfire
Republicans Question Bush Plans for Iraq; Is Saudi Arabia's Money Aiding Terror?
Aired August 16, 2002 - 19:00 ET
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, there's one dictator to go, and a bunch of Republican chefs who can't agree on the recipe.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: First of all, I am aware that some very intelligent people are expressing their opinions.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: Plus, a Congress full of Democrats who want to spend money.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BUSH: It is important for this country to be fiscally disciplined.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: Stand back. We're firing up the political drill and throwing discipline aside.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BUSH: That's an interesting observation.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: They keep the world well oiled, but is some of their money flowing to terrorists? A Saudi foreign affairs adviser steps into the CROSSFIRE.
And it's a called strike.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MIKE PIAZZA, BASEBALL PLAYER: We've said all along it's our last resort.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: Are they just playing hardball, or will the season be out after August?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BUSH: A lot of fans are going to be furious, and I'm one.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: Tonight on CROSSFIRE.
From the George Washington University, Paul Begala and Robert Novak.
PAUL BEGALA, CO-HOST: Good evening and welcome to CROSSFIRE. Tonight, with friends like these, who needs enemies?
Plus, will the boys of summer become the strikers of September?
But first, it's time to shout batter-up for the best lineup of political stories on television, our CROSSFIRE "Political Alert."
More and more leading Republicans are questioning the Bush Administration's desire to invade Iraq. The skeptics include such GOP luminaries as former secretary of state Lawrence Eagleburger, retired general and former national security adviser Brent Scowcroft, and leading Republican congressional figures like House Majority Leader Dick Armey and Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel.
Superhawk Richard Pearle struck back, suggesting that General Scowcroft, for example, was misguided and naive for arguing that an attack on Iraq might undermine our war against the Al Qaeda terror network. I wonder, if the Bushies are so confident that they'll win a war, why are they so scared they'll lose a debate?
ROBERT NOVAK, CO-HOST: Paul, this is just a serious debate inside the Republican party. Where are the Democrats? Why are they so silent? Are they afraid that if they criticize this war, they will cut off the support for them from the Israelis and their friends in this country?
BEGALA: John Kerry has had (UNINTELLIGIBLE) comments, but that's a good point.
NOVAK: He's alone. On his visit to South Dakota yesterday, President Bush promised to help with the state's drought problem. But he added, quote, "it's important to set priorities and watch our spending," end quote.
The president is saying he has signed a $138 billion farm bill, and the farmers of South Dakota ought to get their emergency money from that fat pot. Typically, South Dakota Senator Tom Daschle immediately sniped at the president and at the Republican candidate for the other Senate seat, Congressman John Thume.
If South Dakota voters fall for that Democratic big spending line, maybe they deserve the Democrats. BEGALA: For Bush to give anybody lectures about fiscal discipline is an outrage. This is a man who signed a $1.7 trillion drain on our budget surplus, wandered back, and, by the way, also supported a quarter of a billion dollars for Enron.
So I think starving farmers and ranchers are a lot more deserving than Enron.
NOVAK: California governor -- candidate for governor Republican Bill Simon is a wealthy man. He refuses to disclose his entire net worth, but the California Fair Political Practices Commission estimates it's at $22 million, and much likely higher than that.
But like a lot of rich guys, Simon is a tight wad. So he's ordered about half of his campaign staff, 34 men and women, to go without pay. Most of the staffers being stiffed are mid- and low- level employees. The bigshots, apparently, will still be paid. "After all," said Simon, "isn't the whole point of being a Republican to screw the little people and help the rich?"
(LAUGHTER)
NOVAK: You know, Paul, Democrats of your ilk can't discuss the issues, so what you do is you engage in the politics of personal destruction, which I think an old friend of yours -- a term which an old friend of yours invented.
President Vicente Fox of Mexico and our own president George W. Bush are supposed to be buddies. Conservatives elected in the same year against left wing opponents. So why has President Fox rudely and abruptly canceled his scheduled visit to President Bush's Texas ranch? Because Texas educated (sic) a Mexican-American drug smuggler for killing a Dallas police officer.
Of course this was a Texas state education -- execution -- which the president couldn't stop if he wanted to, which he didn't. But Fox is losing popular support in Mexico and wanted to help himself with a little old-fashioned Yankee bashing. After all, friendship only goes so far.
BEGALA: Our president likes to give lectures about morality. I'm sure he is a man with a strong moral compass, but I have never forgiven him for his attitude toward the death penalty. Not only supporting it but laughing about it, and it's hurting us around the world, the cavalier attitude our president has toward making human life is an embarrassment.
NOVAK: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) what I just said.
BEGALA: The Mexican government is very upset with the way he has executed one of their citizens.
"Washington Post" TV column reports today that retiring Tennessee senator Fred Thompson will be returning to acting. Thompson, a veteran of 20 movie roles, is joining the cast of the hit NBC series "Law and Order." I thought maybe I could recommend a few other senators for acting roles. How about Mississippi senator Trent Lott? He could star in the new Broadway musical, opened last night, "Hairspray."
Hillary Clinton, of course her life has sometimes resembled a bit of a soap opera, she could join the "Bold and the Beautiful." She's both. And of course, Storm Thurmond would stick with the classics. After all, he had a starring role in the original production of "Hamlet" back when it debuted in 1607.
NOVAK: I've got another suggestion, Paul. Our colleague James Carville in the "Alien."
In the "New York Times" of August 8, a sneaky little aside in a supposed news story trashed and slandered the Bush Administration. It said that Vice President Cheney credited tax cuts with helping the country climb out of the recession and weather the financial crisis, even though, said the "Times," quote, "the recession has not abated and the stock market today continued its decline," end quote.
Neither is true. The recession has ended and the Dow Jones Average rose 182 points that day. Could it be that my friend Paul Begala is writing for the venerable "New York Times?"
BEGALA: You don't know what I do when I sneak away at night. Does anybody here think the recession has ended? Anybody here? Who thinks the recession is still going on? Yes, there's my answer.
NOVAK: Ridiculous.
BEGALA: Our president's vacation agenda today included an exclusive party for his fat cat fundraisers and an El Cheapo barbecue lunch for the volunteers who do all the grunt work. Now if that didn't provide enough leftovers for the president's plate, there's also a fight with Congress over Homeland Security spending, and perhaps a fight to the finish with Saddam Hussein.
Joining us to debate all that and more, former White House chief of staff John Podesta, and "Washington Times" editorial page editor Tony Blankley.
(APPLAUSE)
NOVAK: John Podesta, you Democrats are whining because the president decided he didn't want to spend all of the money that was given to him on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.
Let's see what the president said about that today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BUSH: I chose not to spend the $5 billion because, one, we didn't need to. And, two, it is important for this country to be fiscally disciplined as our economy begins to recover.
(END VIDEO CLIP) NOVAK: What's wrong with that?
JOHN PODESTA, FORMER WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF: Well, I wish he had thought about it a year ago when he passed that tax cut that has caused these deficits to explode in the out years. You know, this $5 billion, I think, was really an attempt to just shift the blame. It's money for veterans' health and for homeland security, money for firefighters and for D.C. police.
And I think at the end of the day, he's going to end up signing a bill that includes all that money. But this was a kind of a cheap shot in the middle of August to take a shot at Congress.
NOVAK: Of course you're always against any tax cuts and for spending increases. Let me give you a little sample...
(CROSSTALK)
PODESTA: We supported a lot of tax cuts. And they helped people get into the middle class and stay in the middle class.
NOVAK: Sure you did. Let me just give you a few items of the block spending included in the so-called antiterrorism bill. $11 million for New England fisheries, $6 million for plant and cattle genome sequencing, whatever that is, $3 million for drilling wells in Santa Fe, New Mexico. $2 million -- I love this -- $2 million for an alcohol storage facility to house the Smithsonian's worm collection. That's antiterrorist?
(CROSSTALK)
That's -- let me finish my question, you can answer -- that's antiterrorist spending Democratic style.
PODESTA: That's $22 million out of $5.1 billion. Do you support the $275 million for veterans' health or the $300 million for firefighters or $150 million for responders?
NOVAK: You support that crap up there?
PODESTA: You know, I'm not going to sit there and defend every line. But the bulk of that money was homeland defense. He vetoed the bill -- the firefighters are against it. The veterans against it, and at the end of the day, he'll sign it.
TONY BLANKLEY, EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR, "THE WASHINGTON TIMES": Why don't we share with our viewers the reality behind all of this? The reality is that of the $5 billion that was part of this package, the way it engineered came out of Congress, he had to do an all-or- nothing.
In fact, $4 billion of the $5 billion is going to be put back into the budget by bipartisan consent when the fiscal 2003 budgets are voted on, which is by about three weeks from now. None of that $4 billion was ever going to get down into service prior to that.
This is all game playing. The fact is...
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: ... worms and alcohol. OK? As somebody who grew up in Texas, real close to Mexico, some of the best worms I've ever eaten are at the bottom of a bottle of (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: I'm in favor of all of that spending. And let me show you some of the particulars, though, Tony -- you're right, I think the president was playing games.
(CROSSTALK)
BLANKLEY: You misunderstood me. Congress was playing games.
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: Let me show you some of the things -- $90 million -- this isn't just 22 out of 5.1 billion, the way Bob picked out -- $90 million for health monitoring of ground zero workers, something Hillary Clinton worked for and fought for so we don't have a Gulf War syndrome where years later these cops and firefighters come back. The rest of that money, all important spending for homeland security.
BLANKLEY: And all of it money in the $4 billion that is going to go back in by mutual consent. I'd be willing to bet a steak dinner with lobster and a good bottle of cabernet that all of those programs that you are identifying are part of the list that both parties want to have back in the budget. They're haggling over smaller, other numbers. But that gets lost in this political shuffle.
BEGALA: So, what about fiscal discipline? And this is the first time I believe I've heard our president talk about it, and yet he is the man who inherited the largest surplus in history, and he squandered it. I thought if he would be good at anything, it would be inheriting things, but he couldn't even handle that. He has squandered our surplus. Now he's talking about fiscal discipline.
BLANKLEY: You don't -- you know that the Democrats in the Senate have been unable to put a budget together because they can't list all of their spending proposals and come up with a budget that's even the same size as the president's. The fact is, as you understand, that the reason we have a deficit is because of September 11, because the economy has declined, which was by the way declining almost into recession during the last quarter of the Clinton administration.
BEGALA: Can I give you one statistic? Can I give you one statistic?
NOVAK: We're going to move onto a different subject. John Podesta, I mentioned to Paul before that there is a serious and interesting debate going on in the Republican Party, past and present officials, members of Congress, over what it would take, what is required, what is the cause for a war on -- an American attack on Iraq. The Democrats are silent. There's just a couple of loonies on the left who either -- have any qualms about going. What are the Democrats so afraid of? They can't debate this very serious question for America.
PODESTA: I think the Democrats agree with the president that it would be better if Saddam Hussein was out of Iraq. And they support regime change.
NOVAK: That's not the point.
PODESTA: And they're waiting for the president to come up with a plan to see how he's going to do it. So far, so far the debate is all going on by leak and...
NOVAK: No, it's not by leak.
PODESTA: And by leaks inside the Defense Department, and fights between Bush 41 and Bush 43.
NOVAK: There are people who are saying these things publicly. But you didn't answer my question. The question is, why don't the Democrats just debate this? Don't you think it's a serious question?
PODESTA: Of course it's a serious question.
NOVAK: Why won't they debate it?
PODESTA: Well, you saw Joe Biden just held two weeks of hearings about it.
(CROSSTALK)
BLANKLEY: If he doesn't want to answer that question, I am going to answer for him.
NOVAK: OK, go ahead.
BLANKLEY: The reason is that in 1991, 1990-1991, when the Persian Gulf War, the last one, was coming up, all the Democratic leadership in Congress voted against President Bush I's war request. Since then, they've all been very nervous politically. They don't want to be on the wrong side of what might be a winning war, so they're keeping their mouths quiet, which is understandable but not courageous.
(CROSSTALK)
BLANKLEY: He wasn't part of the elected leadership. I'm talking about Daschle, Foley, Mitchell, Gephardt...
(CROSSTALK)
BLANKLEY: Every congressionally elected leader in the Congress voted against it. Now there are a couple of few very good Democrats who voted with him. They weren't part of the leadership. My point is that, right now, the Democrats in Congress are not showing courage but they are showing prudence. And you are having a pretty good debate starting on the Republican side. I think both sides should be debating it, because it's an important enough issue that all members should stand up and speak their peace.
BEGALA: A man who is showing actually great courage and prudence is General Brent Scowcroft, retired general. He served as national security adviser for two different Republican presidents, one of them Ronald Reagan you worked for. Here is what he wrote in "The Wall Street Journal": "Ignoring the clear sentiment among U.S. allies opposed to an attack in Iraq would result in a serious degradation in international cooperation with us against terrorism. And make no mistake, we simply cannot win that war without enthusiastic international cooperation, especially on intelligence." Why are conservatives so hot to go to war with Iraq even if it damages our real war with al Qaeda, which I think is important?
BLANKLEY: Well, I think Mr. Scowcroft, who is an honorable fellow and gave bad advice to former President Bush. He was one of the people who advised not finishing the job the last time. He is still defending that position, even 10 years later. He still thinks it was the right decision to leave -- to leave Saddam Hussein in power. He's a decent man, but I think he is defending the past.
The fact is, the people like Henry Kissinger disagree with him on that. Kissinger says -- and he wrote a very important article in "The Washington Post" this week, that in fact Iraq is such a danger that we have to do a preemptive war. He laid out careful ways about going to that. He also said, by the way...
BEGALA: Kind of like Kissinger did in Cambodia.
BLANKLEY: And Kissinger -- what?
BEGALA: Kind of like Kissinger did in Cambodia, when we just started bombing them.
BLANKLEY: No, that was in the middle of a war. No, wait a second, I want to finish this. Kissinger argued that the way to peace in the Middle East is through Baghdad, not through Jerusalem.
NOVAK: OK. We're going to have to take a break. And in a minute, next Tuesday is election day in some parts of the country. We'll take a look at some of my favorite races.
Also, are we heading into the last two weeks of the baseball season? And our quote of the day comes from a man who volunteered to help the country 32 years ago, and lots of people are still talking about him.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NOVAK: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. August gives politicians a chance to go home for some desperately needed campaigning. Late summer primaries are looming, and even November is coming too soon for some endangered incumbents. In the CROSSFIRE, our former White House Chief of Staff John Podesta, and "Washington Times" editorial page editor, Tony Blankley.
BEGALA: Tony, you're one of the best strategies in your party, and so I want to ask you for your strategic advice.
BLANKLEY: Sounds like a set-up question.
BEGALA: No, no. Our president when he campaigned called for privatization of part of Social Security. He set up a commission that was only peopled by folks who already agreed to privatizing part of Social Security.
BLANKLEY: Like Senator Moynihan.
BEGALA: Like Senator Moynihan, who is completely wrong about this. He is. He's just all wet. Will the Republicans call for a vote on their Republican plan to privatize Social Security before the elections?
BLANKLEY: No. Not politically, no.
BEGALA: They're running away from it like the devil runs from holy water. Why?
BLANKLEY: We all understand that the Social Security issue is one of the easiest cheap shot campaign ads that you can run in American politics. Every season, the Democrats run those. Every season, it works at least with some voters, and Republican members aren't going to pin themselves into that corner between now and the election.
I think, by the way, the fact that they're not going to probably means that they won't be as likely to vote for partial privatization plan in the future, which means that we are going to delay for yet another couple of cycles trying to deal with the problem, and some day it's going to come up on us and it's going to be a horrible price we're going to have to pay, because none of the politicians these days are prepared to deal with the problem of financing the retirement of you and I, the baby boomers.
NOVAK: John Podesta, I'm going to run down some congressional races. I'd like to get your take on them.
On of the favorite Georgia congresspersons in the Clinton White House, Cynthia McKinney, was said there was a conspiracy on September 11 is got a tough race in Georgia Tuesday. Jesse Jackson has been there to campaign for her. Minister Farrakhan is in Atlanta this weekend campaigning for her. Are you going to go down and join Jesse and Minister Farrakhan and help her?
PODESTA: No, and I think it's a mistake to have someone like Louis Farrakhan come down and campaign for her. But look, it's a Democratic seat, and there's a Democratic primary, and we'll see who wins the race.
NOVAK: Are you for or against her?
PODESTA: Well, I haven't taken a position on that, but I'd probably vote for her opponent in this race.
NOVAK: Now in New York on September 10, there is a governor's primary. Andrew Cuomo, your colleague in the administration -- I couldn't figure out how he was running ahead, because he is Mario Cuomo without the charm.
And so I -- so it suddenly came back to me today at Quinnipiac University poll -- let's put it up on the screen -- came out. McCall 47 percent, Mr. Cuomo 31 percent. He's dead meat, isn't he?
PODESTA: No, I think Andrew was a very successful secretary of HUD, and he was a -- he showed that he could perform. He's performing politically. Carl McCall has won statewide. He's a very strong candidate. And I think either one of them would be a good matchup with Governor Pataki going into November.
NOVAK: Bob Torricelli was criticized -- was censured by the Ethics Committee. He was considered a shoe-in to be re-elected. Once he was censured, he started falling. Let's look at the latest poll there. Torricelli is running against Forrester. I don't know if that's his name or his occupation, because nobody ever heard of him, and Torricelli is falling like a rock. He's dead meat, too, isn't he?
PODESTA: I think you're missing the big picture here. Bob Torricelli -- look, he had a bad month.
BLANKLEY: He had a bad life, I think.
PODESTA: He is a fighter, he's going to come back. Forrester is a drug company middle-man, but I think if you look at the Senate cases across the country, if you look at the Senate races...
NOVAK: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) New Jersey.
PODESTA: Bob, I think the trend is with the Democrats. I think Bob Torricelli will fight his way back and win this race.
BEGALA: Tony, let me raise one of the issues I think ought to at least be raised in this election, and that is how our president, who loves to go for photo-ops with working people, throw his arms around those union...
(CROSSTALK)
But the hypocrisy...
BLANKLEY: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) designed photo-ops?
BEGALA: I did, but we actually supported the people who we took pictures with. We didn't kiss them and then kill them. President Bush...
BLANKLEY: Kiss them and kill them? BEGALA: Kill the programs, I should say. He has the kiss of death. Wherever he goes to, he winds up stopping whatever it is that those people are standing for, for example...
BLANKLEY: A little bit overstatement.
BEGALA: The emergency workers in World Trade Center, all union members. All of them risked their lives, many of them gave their lives in an emergency. The president is now telling us that his Homeland Security Agency shouldn't have the rights of unions in it. And in fact, let me read what the director, the legislative director of the American Federation of Government Employees said.
She said -- her name is Beth Moten -- when the World Trade Center was on fire, union firefighters were not standing around opening their contracts to see if they were on break time. They went in and did their jobs. Federal employees are no different. Why the difference?
BLANKLEY: That's not the issue. And in fact, I believe that the Democratic Senate, the Republican House and this president are going to negotiate a very practical solution. It's the problem is, that with the employees of the Homeland Security, the president needs to be able to have the same control over moving them around where they're most needed, the way generals can move their troops around, without having to go through 60 and 90-day procedures.
If we need a particular kind of emergency expert to move to one state or another, that's the kind of flexibility that the president needs and I think the Senate's going to give him. Doesn't mean that they're going to be fired, doesn't mean they're not going to have all the normal rights of employment as a union civil servant.
It does mean that for our own security, for your or my security, they have to have that kind of flexibility. I think you're going to negotiate that. This is not a -- these men who went in to save our lives in the World Trade Center weren't union men, they were Americans who happened to belong to unions, and some of them did and some of them didn't.
PODESTA: I think you have got a situation where his head of transportation security has resigned, the head of the INS today resigned, the head of counterterrorism at the FBI resigned. I think he should be spending more time worrying about his senior managers than these homeland security offices.
BLANKLEY: These are the guys who brought us September 11. Thank God they're out (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: No, they're his people.
BLANKLEY: No, these are the old people.
BEGALA: That's going to have to be the last word. John Podesta, former White House chief of staff. Tony Blankley, editorial page editor for the "Washington Times." Thank you both very much for a great discussion.
Still to come, name calling, finger pointing and obscene amounts of money. The Bush White House? No, just the latest from Major League Baseball.
Also, a representative of a Middle Eastern kingdom that some Americans are suing for $116 trillion. And our "Quote of the Day" is from someone who offended a generation of parents and then offered to work closely with a Republican president.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. We're coming to you live from the George Washington University here in beautiful downtown Washington, D.C. You know, Elvis Presley changed the face and beat of popular music. It has never been the same.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(MUSIC)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BEGALA: But Elvis wasn't content just with jailhouse rocking his way through concerts and movies and records. So back in 1970 he wrote to and met with President Richard Nixon, asking to be made a federal agent at large to help fight the war on drugs, of all things, by communicating with people of all ages. The King and the president had what has to be the weirdest photo-op in Oval Office history.
Elvis, of course, died 25 years ago today, or so the government wants to you believe. And his home, Graceland, is in some ways America's Mecca. And so we honor Elvis today by making him the first posthumous winner of our "Quote of the Day."
When he wrote President Nixon back in 1970, The King said, quote, "I can and will be of any service that I can to help the country out."
Elvis, in good ways and bad, you have been.
NOVAK: Paul, I think I still prefer Glenn Miller.
Coming up in a "CNN News Alert," Connie Chung has a medical update on the separated twins. One of the girls was back in the operating room today. Later, is this a preview of the September stretch drive and even the World Series?
But next, a representative of one of this country's best friends in the Middle East, under attack by many Americans.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(NEWS ALERT)
NOVAK: Saudi Arabia helped bankroll the 1991 war with Iraq. And much of Desert Storm was launched from Saudi bases. But if President George W. Bush goes after Iraq this time, the Saudis may not open their wallets, or even their bases. Whose fault is this? And what about the neo-conservative campaign against Saudi Arabia? Is Israel behind that?
Next in the CROSSFIRE, a Saudi foreign affairs adviser, Adel Al- Jubeir.
BEGALA: Mr. Al-Jubeir, thank you very much for taking the time.
ADEL AL-JUBEIR, FOREIGN AFFAIRS ADVISER, SAUDI ARABIA: Always a pleasure.
BEGALA: There is a remarkable legal development between our country and yours. Families of victims of September 11 terrorist attack are suing, among others, various Saudi princes for $116 trillion of damages from the loss of life in September 11.
I'm going to play a piece of videotape from one of the attorneys who has filed that suit, and then ask for your response. This is Rita Katz, who is the counsel for the plaintiffs from that case.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RITA KATZ, ATTORNEY: The Islamic banking, the Saudi banking don't fund only al Qaeda. They fund terrorism. This is what we want to fight. The Holion (ph) foundation has received funds from some of the charities that have been named in this lawsuit.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BEGALA: Does the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia or its citizens fund terrorism?
AL-JUBEIR: The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia absolutely does not fund terrorism. It goes against our faith, it's against our laws. We have done everything we can in this war on terrorism. We've frozen accounts, we've punished evil doers, we've identified people, we've questioned people, we've been cooperating fully. We believe strongly in this international coalition against terrorism, and so a lot of the charges you have are just baseless.
NOVAK: Mr. Al-Jubeir, the Saudi Arabia's government has come out strongly in favor of the United States and the war against terrorism after the events of September 11. Both the secretary of defense and the secretary of state of the United States, and the president of the United States, have declared Saudi Arabia an ally. What is the problem? What is the source, then, of this torrent of criticism and attack on your country by many prominent Americans?
AL-JUBEIR: I -- we frankly don't understand it. We have been staunch allies, we have done everything that we can do in the war on terrorism, we've been effective partners in this coalition. We have mobilized other countries. The president and the secretary of state and the secretary of defense and the national security adviser have all been very clear about attesting to Saudi Arabia's total commitment to this effort. It's unfortunate that there are some people in some quarters who are trying to drive a wedge between our two countries by spreading falsehoods and things that are not true. They throw charges at us, they repeat the charges, and they expect that one day those baseless charges will become fact. But you know what? The American people are too intelligent to buy it; the administration is too committed to the relationship to let it happen.
BEGALA: Mr. Al-Jubeir, our government says that Hamas is a terrorist organization. Yes or no, is Hamas a terrorist organization?
AL-JUBEIR: We have been through this, you and I, the last time I was here.
BEGALA: Yes, we have.
AL-JUBEIR: Hamas is -- has -- does engage in terrorism. Hamas engages in building institutions for the Palestinians. There are certain things that Hamas does that we disapprove of. We do not...
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: Saudi citizens fund Hamas, in part.
AL-JUBEIR: We do not allow funding to go from Saudi Arabia to Hamas. That's not the case. Hamas receives funding, ironically also, from American citizens. And our point here is, when people sometimes give money to Hamas, they do so because they want to help them build institutions. If the money gets diverted for terrorist...
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: ... I am an Irish Catholic. The IRA were terrorists. I don't care what else they did on the side.
AL-JUBEIR: Including American money that goes to Hamas. But from our perspective, we have done everything we can to try to clamp down on any money going to any evil doer, including Hamas.
NOVAK: Mr. Al-Jubier, a few weeks ago "The Washington Post" on its front page wrote an amazing story, published an amazing story about a Rand Corporation analyst named Laurent Murawioc, with a briefing he presented to the Defense Policy Board of the U.S. Pentagon. Let's just take one of the quotes up there.
"The Saudis are active at every level of the terror chain, from planners to financiers, from cadre to foot soldier, from ideologist to cheerleader."
Two questions. Any truth to that? And secondly, who is this man?
AL-JUBEIR: I will start with the second part first. First of all, there's -- the person who did it has no knowledge about the Middle East, has never set foot in the Middle East...
NOVAK: He's never stepped foot in the Middle East?
AL-JUBEIR: No. The closest he's ever been to Saudi Arabia is probably when he filled up his car with gas.
BEGALA: How do you know travel habits of American citizens?
NOVAK: Let him answer the question, Paul.
AL-JUBEIR: Well, first of all, Paul, he is a French citizen. Secondly, Paul, he himself has said he's never been to the Middle East and not to Saudi Arabia. He says he has his knowledge based on Muslims he's interacted with in France.
He has never published anything about Saudi Arabia. He's been a Lyndon LaRouchey for 15 years before he joined Rand eventually. Rand disassociated itself from this study. They have time and time repeated this, including to us, and said this does not represent our views, we would never have allowed this to happen.
(CROSSTALK)
NOVAK: What about the first question?
AL-JUBEIR: The question is, why would somebody like this, as lightweight as this about the Middle East, be allowed to brief a group as distinguished as the Defense Policy Board?
NOVAK: What's your answer to that?
AL-JUBEIR: Somebody is up to mischief. And it's the business...
NOVAK: Who?
AL-JUBEIR: You tell me.
Now, with regards to the second issue about Saudi Arabia involved in the terrorism issue, absolute nonsense. Is he telling people that the American president is lying? I as a Saudi citizen don't accept this. We have frozen assets, we have jailed people, we have interrogated people, we have shared intelligence with the U.S. We have changed our laws, we have vetted our charitable organizations, and we have been supportive of every effort...
BEGALA: We're really out of time. Yes or no, will you allow Americans to base troops and air power in your country if we need to go to war with Iraq again?
AL-JUBEIR: I don't think you are going to go to war with Iraq at this point.
BEGALA: Well, with all due respect, that's for our country to decide, sir, not you.
AL-JUBEIR: Well, then, it's for our country to decide whether you station them in our country...
BEGALA: Yes. And I'm asking, what will your country decide?
AL-JUBEIR: You'll have to make the case.
BEGALA: When Saudi Arabia was threatened by Iraq, members of my family went there to risk their lives to help save your kingdom.
AL-JUBEIR: We -- we feel...
BEGALA: If, in fact, America has an interest in attacking Iraq, and I'm dubious, will you help America if our president asks?
AL-JUBEIR: You'll have to make the case. I don't believe that the decision has been made yet. I think that the president will be very deliberate, he will be very careful before he makes decisions. He will consult with his allies, including Saudi Arabia. We will make our views known. We care strongly about your country. We know Iraq is a threat. We live right next to him. But we do not want people to rush into something that could have disastrous consequences.
Do you know what will happen the day after? What if you have massive casualties? Who is going to pay for this? What happens if the country implodes? What happens if it gets separated? Are you going to put up with the Kurdish state? Are the Turks going to come in and annex it? Are the Iranians going to meddle in murky waters? These are the questions that need to be answered that unfortunately those who are trying to drive America to war have no interest in raising these issues. You've seen what Senator Hagel said today. You have seen what General Scowcroft said yesterday. We agree with that.
Think about it, and think hard. It's not -- it's not -- it shouldn't be surprising that the whole world feels the way we do. Could it be that the whole world is wrong and a few people in the U.S. who are pushing for war are right? I don't believe so.
BEGALA: Mr. Adel Al-Jubeir, thank you very much for joining us here on CROSSFIRE. We appreciate your time.
Still ahead, your chance to fire back at us. One viewer wants to set both Bob and I straight about whose face is not on Mt. Rushmore.
But next, are baseball's owners and players crazy or just greedy, or is that a false choice? Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(CHILD SINGING)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BEGALA: Oh, yes, memories of that unforgettable baseball season of 1994, the one where they played strike instead of playing ball. You know, in real baseball, you get three strikes and you're out. But as of today, the players and owners are heading for their ninth strike since 1972. It would start on August 30. How much more of this will fans tolerate? Joining us from New York is CNN contributor Keith Olbermann, and in Jacksonville, Florida, sports agent Drew Rosenhaus, author of the book "A Shark Never Sleeps." Gentlemen, thank you both for joining us.
DREW ROSENHAUS, SPORTS AGENT: Glad to be here.
NOVAK: Drew Rosenhaus, as a baseball fan, I get the impression that the millionaire baseball players don't give a damn about the fans, don't give a damn about the game. What they are determined not to have the slightest modification of their multimillion dollar incomes. Is that correct?
ROSENHAUS: You couldn't be more wrong. OK, the players do care about the fans because they're the ones who ultimately pay their salary. They don't want to strike. They want the fans to be happy. They want the game to do well because they realize if they don't take care of the fans and the game falls flat, their jobs are over. So the issue here is not that the players don't care about the fans.
NOVAK: If that's the case...
ROSENHAUS: The problem is is that the players and the owners cannot get together to make this game work more effectively.
NOVAK: Drew, if that is the case, why don't they wait until the season is over, until the World Series is...
ROSENHAUS: I'll tell you...
NOVAK: Just a minute, let me ask the question. It is played because there's not going to be a lockout, and then they can have negotiations working into the spring of next year.
ROSENHAUS: Here is the reason why. OK, first of all, I don't think there should be a strike nor do I think there will be one. The reason why they've set a strike date is to get a deal done. They are trying to put pressure on the owners to include them in the negotiations. The negotiations have been fruitless. The owners are really trying to create a one-sided agreement. They don't even want an agreement, frankly. There hasn't been labor peace. They haven't had a labor pact. The players are only trying to get the owners on the same page to work with the players. They're not trying to really have a strike.
BEGALA: Hang on just a second. I want to bring Keith Olbermann into this. Keith, I'm going to play a piece of type from Al Leiter of the Mets, but now apparently Al Leiter of the players' union, more importantly, talking about the announcement today that August 30 will be the strike date. Let me play it and get your response.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AL LEITER, MLB PLAYER: I think what has to be understood is that by setting a date isn't the players saying that they want to strike. It's a matter of averting a work stoppage. And by having a deadline, with the amount of progress that has been made, I think can be viewed as a positive thing to get something done.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BEGALA: John L. Lewis, he's not, Keith. It sounds like a pretty meek strike date.
KEITH OLBERMANN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: But that does sound a little like the language of the book "1984" or to use other examples from totalitarian regimes, remember the idea during the Cold War of the madman defense, that you would never want to start a war with someone even if you had nuclear superiority to them because they could be crazy and they'd blow up the world anyway, even if you were going to the war?
This is what the players haven't factored in in setting a strike deadline, that the owners may, in fact, be out of their minds, and despite the fact that they would be slaughtered financially if the season were to be wiped out two weeks from tonight and there would be no postseason, where they make most of their money, the owners may just be crazy enough to do that. We have never seen in the history of baseball labor negotiations owners act intelligently. The owners will never take 50 percent when they can get 50 percent. They always hold out for 100 percent and they wind up getting nothing.
ROSENHAUS: I don't doubt that, by the way. Keith, I think that one of the problems is the owners not only can't they agree with the players, they can't agree amongst themselves. George Steinbrenner is not a big fan of sharing revenue among the teams. He's really on his own island. He has got essentially a monopoly on Major League Baseball right now. There's no parity. There's very little competition. He is dominating. Not just Steinbrenner, but a small group of teams and owners.
And they aren't willing to share the overall pot the way they do in the NFL. And I believe that the players, they're prepared to agree to revenue sharing, but they would like to have a say on how their sport, how their league, is going to make major changes, which it needs. Baseball is in big trouble if they don't have revenue sharing, if they don't work in some type of salary cap. They have to find a way to spread out the salaries more equally among players and amongst teams.
OLBERMANN: But, Drew, they have to -- the players have to step up and show that they are worthy of that, because I would agree with you, the owners do not have -- have not shown the responsibility to keep this gigantic profitable business in business. They never have. They haven't for 120 years. It's time for the players to step up and be the priests of the game. And if it requires a little sacrifice at this point, because they're now likely to be on...
ROSENHAUS: Hey, they're prepared...
OLBERMANN: Well, but there...
(CROSSTALK) There is an excellent chance they could be on strike on September 11. And nothing that they could be arguing for is more important than the damage they would do psychologically to this country, by being on strike on September 11.
ROSENHAUS: Well, I would have to agree with you. I can't argue that point.
NOVAK: Drew, I want to ask a question.
ROSENHAUS: You know, let's also fault the owners if they can't get it done before that.
NOVAK: I want to ask you a question.
BEGALA: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) but he's going to argue anyway.
NOVAK: Drew, I want to tell you something. Every time they have had collective bargaining, nine times they have had a strike. Every time a strike deadline has been set, there's been a strike. And I'm speaking as a fan, who out of his own after-tax dollars, pays for expensive season tickets with the Baltimore Orioles. My friends who have season tickets and I say, this is all, baby. We renewed after '94. If there is a strike this time, sayonara. Do you know if that's the truth?
ROSENHAUS: I hope you're right. And more people need to make that clear because we have got to find some motivation to get the owners to work at this thing and not just try and singlehandedly impose new rules on the players. I'm telling you, Keith, that the players are trying to step up. They realize they have to make sacrifices. They are going to be taking a step back, believe me. They're willing to agree to a lot of concessions.
NOVAK: Do you believe that, Keith?
OLBERMANN: I think they have already indicated they are willing to watch the reinstitution of this luxury tax that would slow and drag salaries to some degree. I don't think it's that. I think they will eventually compromise on this. The problem is there needs to be -- one side or the other here hopefully drags the other one across this finish line in which they both wind up on the same side of the dollar bill, and manage to work this marvelous industry into some sort of cohesion where it can survive without going through a labor problem every three years.
ROSENHAUS: Unfortunately, in the business world of sports, the only way to get deals done are deadlines.
BEGALA: Drew, just a minute. Let me ask you a question before you give me the answer. Mr. Rosenhaus, let me ask you the question. Why doesn't one side, and you represent ballplayers, win the war and lose the battle? That is, why don't the players in this case give a little on the revenue sharing and insist that the revenue that is shared also plows back to the fans in the form of lower ticket prices so a middle class family can actually go to a dog-gone ball game? (APPLAUSE)
ROSENHAUS: I don't think the players have a problem with that. It's the owners. I believe the owners don't want to give money back to the fans, not the players. The players are very happy with the current status of baseball.
BEGALA: Of course, as an agent, you don't get any money that goes back to the fans.
(CROSSTALK)
NOVAK: Drew, Keith, we're out of time. Let's hope there's no strike. Thank you very much, gentlemen.
ROSENHAUS: Thank you, guys.
NOVAK: Next, it's your turn to "Fireback" at us. In case there is a baseball strike, one of our viewers has a suggestion for an alternative form of entertainment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NOVAK: Time for "Fireback," when the viewers fire back at us. Last night, both Paul and I made a mistake. We thought FDR was on Mt. Rushmore. And Tom of Alexandria, Virginia says: "Are you kidding me? FDR is not on Mt. Rushmore. A remarkable alignment of the planets from both left and right are wrong. For me, it was a senior moment. For you, it was wishful thinking."
BEGALA: That's exactly right. David Broyles wrote in about the segment we had last night, a debate on New York City's proposed ban on cell phones, the rude ringing of cell phones, in public performances. Broyles writes: "Hey, Americans have the right to be rude anytime they want to be, kind of like CROSSFIRE hosts."
Ooh, that's a very good point though.
NOVAK: And Ginny Cutler of Cherry Hill, New Jersey has a message for Paul: "I am a die-hard Democrat, but your habit of "God bless"ing every Democrat whose name surfaces is making me sick. Contrary to thought, every Democrat is not a hero."
I let you know, I'll make you -- let you look good. What about Cynthia McKinney? You got votes for her?
BEGALA: Not a hero. Well, God bless you, Ginny, for writing in and helping me with my -- I was going to use another word, but my mom watches.
OK. Jonah T. in Poughkeepsie, New York writes: "I love CROSSFIRE!!!" And we get three exclamation points from Jonah T. "I watch the show every night and who needs baseball?
Well, Jonah, I do. I love CROSSFIRE, but I want baseball.
NOVAK: Questions from the audience.
BEGALA: Tell us your name and your hometown.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: My name is Mahima Tawari (ph) and I'm from North Potomac, Maryland. And my question is when professional football went on strike, owners brought in a replacement league and there hasn't been a strike since for 13 years. When will baseball owners get smart and stop letting player unions exploit them and the fans?
NOVAK: Bring in the scab players. I'm for it 100 percent.
BEGALA: Never, never, never. If they let scabs play baseball -- they could play something unimportant like pro football. But if we ever see scabs on a baseball field, that's the death of baseball. Yes, sir?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm Ron Stevens (ph) from Henderson, North Carolina. And my question is for you, Paul. You put so much credibility and importance in polls when Clinton was president. Why don't you now, when Bush is president, when he's so high in the polls?
BEGALA: Well, actually, I didn't put all that much in when Clinton was president. But the president is very high in the popularity ratings. It's because we're all rallying around him. We want him to succeed. Lord knows I do.
But if you look, about half of us, half of the country, thinks he's not running the country right now. There are lingering doubts about his capacity to lead us on the economy. We can talk polls all you want, Ron, but I think we should wait for November. And I think my Democrats are going to open up a can of whoop-ass on the Republicans come November.
NOVAK: Question?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hi. I'm Chris Michelle from Dublin, California. Bob, are we sure we understand what we're doing if we attack Iraq? After all, if the U.S. endorses a strategy of preemption, what's to keep the Russians from reacting preemptively against the Chechens, the Chinese against the Taiwanese, or other countries (UNINTELLIGIBLE)?
NOVAK: You're exactly right. And President Putin of Russia has tried to get the United States to support his military attack against Georgia where our old friend Shevardnadze is president. So, you have got a very good point there.
BEGALA: Well, and I hate to say this, but Bob had a very good point earlier tonight when he was asking my friend, John Podesta, who was the chief of staff for President Clinton, where the Democrats are in this debate. John made the point that, yes, they're having hearings on Capitol Hill. Joe Biden, John Kerry, others have raised interesting issues. But really the heat in this debate is all on the right. And my party does needs to join it. NOVAK: You know, I'll tell you something. I had a very, very smart Democrat tell me today he is sick about his own party, that they are not getting involved in this debate because they're afraid of the Jewish vote.
BEGALA: I don't think that's why. They just need to get involved. I think they're afraid of being on the wrong side of a war.
From the left, I'm Paul Begala. Good night for CROSSFIRE.
NOVAK: From the right, I'm Robert Novak. Join us again next time for another edition of CROSSFIRE. "CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT" begins immediately after a CNN "News Alert."
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
