Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Crossfire
Scientist Blasts Ashcroft in Anthrax Investigation; Does Sex Sell Women's Sports?
Aired August 27, 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 tonight, want some fruits and veggies or something that really tastes good? Before you decide, we've got a big fat question: Is Washington making you overweight?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEVEN HATFILL, SCIENTIST: I want to look my fellow Americans directly in the eye and declare to them, I am not the anthrax killer.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: Then why do John Ashcroft and the FBI keep calling him a "person of interest?" Tonight, someone who says they're interested in the wrong man.
And, made you look. When it comes to selling women's sports, what comes first, athletic ability or sex? Tonight on CROSSFIRE.
From the George Washington University, James Carville and Tucker Carlson.
JAMES CARVILLE, CO-HOST: Welcome to CROSSFIRE. Tonight, are you watching women's sports for all the wrong reasons? I do. Also, has the government spent years telling us to eat the wrong foods? But first on our menu, a fine selection of the choicest morsels, our political CROSSFIRE alert.
There was big excitement in Crawford, Texas today as Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States brought a busload of his family to a part business, part social visit to President Bush's ranch. Presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer says the subject of Iraq came up, quote, "in a general sense," unquote, because the president has not made a decision about the use of military action in Iraq.
Funny, Vice President Cheney all but declared war on Saddam Hussein yesterday. Perhaps the Saudi ambassador met with the wrong guy. Then again, maybe he came to Texas to convey the vice president's decision.
CARLSON: James, you've been complaining for the last two weeks that the White House has not laid out a rationale for invading Iraq. Vice President Cheney did yesterday, that Saddam Hussein may have nuclear weapons or be getting them.
CARVILLE: Yes.
CARLSON: I would think you'd be happy with that.
CARVILLE: I'm happy that the vice president laid something out. I'm waiting for the president -- we've been through this thing for how many months. I'm ready for the president to say something. All (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the man hasn't made up his mind. I mean, gee whiz.
CARLSON: Imagine the president and vice president are in communication with each other, so when the vice president...
CARVILLE: Really?
CARLSON: They are, apparently.
CARVILLE: Is he in communication with the secretary of state and secretary of defense?
CARLSON: Yes, they are.
CARVILLE: We ought to tell the secretary of state to start communicating with the secretary of defense.
CARLSON: It's actually one administration that's speaking with one voice, as you may have noticed -- yes.
CARVILLE: You're the only person in America that noticed that.
CARLSON: I am. That's why people watch CROSSFIRE. They get insight like that.
CARVILLE: America's sole person to say this administration...
CARLSON: Thank you very much. In a strange turn of events, the Bush White House is fighting the release of documents that could prove embarrassing to former president Bill Clinton.
The organization Judicial Watch has filed suit to get its hands on records relating to the 177 pardons and commutations, some of corporate criminals, other of crack dealers, that President Clinton issued during the dying hours of his administration. This afternoon Ari Fleischer pointed out the White House is using an exception to the Freedom of Information Act, not claims of executive privilege, to keep the documents secret.
The White House argues that no matter how much fun it would be to embarrass the former president, and God knows it would be fun, the records should remain secret to protect the privacy of pardon seekers as well as any president's right to receive confidential advice.
In other words, this is an administration that even when it takes a position I disagree with, I can respect, because I know you can, the principle underlying that decision. CARVILLE: Yes, let me tell you what the principle underlying it is. They don't want to release the stuff with that energy task force, because they'll find out their campaign contributors are sitting there writing policy for the United States government.
CARLSON: James, James. The rest of us have a right to know.
CARVILLE: This is not about protecting a principle, it's about protecting their political rears, and that's what needs protecting, because these people let these corporate lobbyists come in and write regulations. I'm right.
CARLSON: But at least they didn't pardon the criminals.
CARVILLE: Today we got an update on the most amazing disappearing act Washington has ever seen. The incredible shrinking budget surplus. Early last year, when President Clinton left the White House, a nonpartisan congressional budget office forecast that over the next ten years, the country would accumulate a $5.6 trillion in budget surpluses.
By this March, the forecast had shrunk to $1.7 trillion. Today the prediction was lowered again to $336 billion. That's right. President Bush has made 94 percent of the projected budget surplus disappear, and he isn't done yet.
CARLSON: Well, you're quite the economist, I noticed there, James. The bubble burst, man. It's a pretty simple explanation.
CARVILLE: You know what? This president can do one thing. He can inherit. He inherited a $5.6 trillion surplus, and he blew the national stack.
CARLSON: You know, it's funny, while the former president allowed pets.com to be higherly valued than GE and said nothing, it finally blows up and the mess is on this person's shirt. You blame him.
CARVILLE: Bill Clinton was the greatest president of the last 50 years, and everywhere I go, people say, Good God, I wish we had somebody back in there that knew a little something.
CARLSON: You just discredited yourself with that ludicrous remark. Thousands of environmentalists have gathered in Johannesburg, South Africa this week to end world poverty, disease, famine and oppression. It is a big task, enough to make anyone hungry, and apparently the delegates of the International Earth Summit are hungry. The kitchen staff at Johannesburg's posh Michelangelo Hotel have stocked 5,000 oysters, 4,000 pounds of filet mignon, 1,000 pounds of lobster, 450 pounds of salmon, in addition to heaps of caviar and pate, not to mention thousands of gallons of vintage wine, champagne, brandy and liquors.
In order words, the delegates will be well fortified as they attack the U.S. of being overfed and uncaring. Meanwhile, the millions of starving Africans outside the gates will continue to eat gruel and contaminated water, not to mention bad air. As Britain's "Sunday Telegraph" pointed out, the environmentalists will produce as many greenhouse gases in two weeks as half a million African citizens would in a full year. What a bunch of phonies and hypocrites.
(CROSSTALK)
CARVILLE: Colin Powell getting some good food while he's down there.
(CROSSTALK)
There's some top-flight television in Florida tonight. Not that the current governor would know if he saw it, but Governor Jeb Bush says he won't be watching tonight's debate featuring Janet Reno, Darell Jones (ph) and Bill McBride, the three Democrats who are out to replace him.
The governor says he has a conflict. The debate is on at the same time as one of his favorite TV shows, "Entertainment Tonight." Too bad. If he turned to the debate, he might learn something about how to run his state. Anyone can do a better job than Bush and his spanking new Child Welfare Department.
CARLSON: You are obsessed with the spanking thing, and that's self-revealing of you, but I have to say...
CARVILLE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) spanking...
CARLSON: None of the Democrats is going to win, so "Entertainment Tonight" is more significant.
CARVILLE: I think they're gonna win. But I think the interesting thing is that this guy says that women ought to obey their husbands. I like that. I like him for that.
(CROSSTALK)
I wish I could get that across in my own house.
CARLSON: Exactly. Colleges have long been the refuge of choice for failed political leaders. Just ask Al Gore and Michael Dukakis. But only now have universities begun to court failed dictators from foreign countries. Boston University is now offering lavish paid fellowships to third world despots who've grown tired of oppressing their own people.
The first to accept is Kenneth Kaunda, who for 27 brutal years misruled Zambia. And he is just the beginning. University officials told the "Wall Street Journal" today they'd be delighted to host Robert Mugabe, the murderous criminal now driving Zimbabwe into chaos and famine. Mugabe, however, has declined the offer, saying he's too busy conducting ethnic cleansing against his own population to make it to Boston.
Pol Pot of Cambodia couldn't make it, either, since he is dead. B.U. administrators hold out hope that Idi Amin will be able to teach a class or two. Efforts to reach him in exile are ongoing.
CARVILLE: Wow.
CARLSON: Can you imagine! The people who run colleges are just so low, except for the George Washington University...
(APPLAUSE)
CARVILLE: This is the George Washington University.
When you've really been bored at breakfast, chances are you picked up a cereal box and looked at the food pyramid on the side. You know, the diagram that tells us we should mostly cereals and grains, and a little less fruit and veggies, even smaller amounts of meat and dairy products, and hardly any fats, oils or sweets.
But what if the food pyramid is wrong? Has the government been making us fat? In the CROSSFIRE tonight, former agricultural secretary Dan Glickman and Libertarian Party Executive Director Steve Dasbach. I got it right. Pretty good.
(APPLAUSE)
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: Mr. Secretary, thanks for joining us.
DAN GLICKMAN, FORMER AGRICULTURAL SECRETARY: James, good to be with you.
CARVILLE: Good to see you, Mr. Secretary. I saw your son out in Las Vegas. Didn't want to tell you, but I think he was rolling a couple bones out there. Don't tell Rhoda (ph), though.
CARLSON: Mr. Secretary, when the tobacco industry executives apparently misled the country by saying tobacco was not addictive, people were outraged. Here we have the federal government, specifically the USDA, which you used to head, telling the population for many years now that they ought to eat more carbohydrates. Now it turns out more carbohydrates make you fat, add to this epidemic of obesity. Doesn't the federal government have a lot to apologize for?
GLICKMAN: Well, first of all, obesity is a giant problem in this country. It's probably the biggest public health problem we face today. But what the government was saying was eat less fats and eat less sweets and eat more carbohydrates, which main -- fruits, vegetables and grains.
What we are now learning from modern science is the government needed to be more sophisticated and it should have said eat more complex carbohydrates like whole grains, and not breads and potatoes and other kinds of things that might make you fatter. So what's happened is that as we do more science, we're learning more. And that food guide pyramid, which is pretty good, could be made better by better science. CARLSON: Well, it's quite an oversight, I have to say, because, of course, being the federal government, I respect it, I take it pretty seriously, pretty literally, which is one of the reasons that I eat chocolate chip pop tarts.
You can see right here on the chocolate chip pop tarts container, it says -- it has the food pyramid, bread and cereal group -- six to 11 servings a day. The government is essentially ordering you to eat chocolate chip pop tarts. There's something wrong with that.
GLICKMAN: I doubt it. Although you look pretty good. I have to say you must have a good metabolism rate. But the fact of the matter is that what the government was trying to do is to get people to eat less sweets and less fats, and now we're learning that while breads and cereals may be OK, they're really good if they're whole grain and they're not refined.
And that's basically what the new diet folks are saying, is that we need to be more sophisticated. Don't just say eat breads and cereals, but you eat whole grains that have fiber in them, and that will tend to keep your weight down some.
All of this is is in a vast degree of change right now. We're learning a lot about diet that we didn't know before. Things we thought were true 10, 20, and 30 years ago may not be true anymore. The most important thing about diet is common sense. That is eat less calories and exercise more, and I don't think the government needs to tell people that.
CARVILLE: What's the federal government (UNINTELLIGIBLE) research something tells you you should eat more whole grains and more beans and less -- drink less soda pop and less fried foods. What's the problem with that?
STEVE DASBACH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LIBERTARIAN PARTY: Why should we be looking to these nutritional commandments coming down from Mt. Washington?
What we need is vigorous public debate. We don't need to look to government to come up with these nutritional guidelines, that maybe...
CARVILLE: Has this man done anything to suppress public debate? Every time I'm picking up the paper, Dr. Arnisch (ph) is fighting with Dr. Atkins, and somebody else is -- the "New York Times" is fighting with the "Washington Post."
(CROSSTALK)
DASBACH: And that's a good thing. Therefore we don't need to be spending taxpayer money and having the taxpayers come in, putting forth...
CARVILLE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) 1963 when the Surgeon General said cigarette smoking is bad for you. The adult smoking rate was 45 percent. Today it's 25 percent. Do you really think that the government shouldn't have funded research to say if you smoke cigarettes it's going to make you sick? You can't be serious, can you?
DASBACH: You think that there wouldn't have been any research along those lines if the government hadn't done it?
CARVILLE: Well, they sure were the ones that bought it, and the surgeon general was the one who used the bully pulpit. You can't really say this man is wrong by telling people to eat more cereal and less candy bars.
GLICKMAN: Here's the issue, if I might say.
DASBACH: There's nothing wrong with him putting forth ideas and being challenged by other individuals. Again, free debate, free expression is a good thing.
CARVILLE: He's here! That's what -- he's being challenged right now! That's what we're sitting here doing!
CARLSON: You wanted to rebut that?
GLICKMAN: Well, I guess what I'm saying is this. As Benjamin Franklin says, you are what you eat. Your diet probably has more to do with your health than anything else in the world and it has more to do with the public health. We're seeing a rapid increase in childhood obesity and Type II diabetes among children, and most of that is related to diet. We end up as taxpayers paying for those enormous costs.
Now, it's a little different -- smoking and eating are different types of issues, and there's a lot of consumer choice involved in the eating issue. People respond differently to different kinds of foods. But very appropriate for the government to not only do research but to give suggestions to people. Then they're going to do what they think is best for them anyway.
CARLSON: But here's the problem and the issue that some people are raising. It's not a question of the government making suggestions and maybe slightly wrong. It's a question of did the federal government, did the USDA tell people to do precisely the wrong thing? And I'm talking, or course, about the Atkins diet.
GLICKMAN: No.
CARLSON: And I wanted -- well, then maybe you can respond to a couple of these statistics. The government has been pushing this low- fat idea for a number of years, and so have a lot of physicians. In 1990, 40 percent of the average American's diet came from fat, 2002 it's down to 34 percent. People have embraced the idea of low fat. In that same time period, America has gotten fatter. So low fat doesn't work, does it?
GLICKMAN: Well, I mean, America may be getting fatter for a lot of reasons. It may be lack of exercise. It may be television. Not enough people probably watch your show because there's a lot of mental exercise associated with it. But a lot of TV shows you just sit and don't do anything. You know, it may be the fact that families don't eat together in a family unit anymore, that everybody eats out all the time.
I mean, there could be a thousand reasons why people are gaining weight. But I think it is a big question of public health. We need to find out how we can get people to lose weight, to eat less and, therefore, avoid some of these diet-related diseases that happen as you grow older.
DASBACH: Yes, but Secretary Glickman, the government has been doing nutritional recommendations for years. It hasn't helped. Why should we be turning to government now to solve the problem that it's been unable to solve? Again, vigorous public debate, shows like this, we can throw ideas out, but let's not look to another government program to solve the problem that it hasn't solved in the past.
GLICKMAN: I agree that you don't want government to be a national nanny, to tell you what to eat. But it's the appropriate role of government to do the best kind of decision making it can based on the best research it can. By the way, most of the medical community has agreed with USDA and the HHS and other federal agencies.
Again, the issue here is these are big public health issues that cost taxpayers and people billions of dollars, and heart disease and cancer and diabetes treatments as they grow older. Much of these are caused by a diet that needs to be more restricted than it's been in the past, and we're learning a lot about it as time goes on.
CARVILLE: Mr. Secretary, if Benjamin Franklin was right, and we are what we eat, then why don't I look like a bowl of gumbo?
CARLSON: Well, who's to say you don't? Does James look like a bowl of gumbo is one of the questions we'll take up. We'll all ask our guests if school should ban soda pop.
later, a sports question that even non-sports fans can answer. Are you keeping your eye on the ball or on something else more appealing? And instead of guessing who said our "Quote of the Day," we want you to think about who's being talked about. Think hard. It's only rocket science. And we're only CROSSFIRE, but we'll be back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: Welcome back to the show we call CROSSFIRE. Tonight's food for thought -- what if government bureaucrats have spent years pushing a diet that actually makes you fat? We're chewing that question over with former agriculture secretary Dan Glickman and here in Washington, Libertarian Party executive director Steve Dasbach.
CARVILLE: Steve, the Libertarians -- and talk of being one of them -- but president says we ought to exercise. You go, eh, he's trying to lead our life! No, he's trying to start a thing about exercise, cause more people to talk about it, Secretary Glickman, people that (UNINTELLIGIBLE) want to put out a thing that this is a diet that people ought to consider. It causes people to talk about it. We have a discussion on it. People are able to open up.
What's the problem with all this?
DASBACH: Well, I think actually the idea of the president out there and doing some exercise itself, setting examples, a great idea. In fact, we ought to expand it to Congress. If Congress would go out there every day on the lawn and do some exercising, do some calisthenics, things that send a positive example, won't cost us anything.
We'll save some money while they're not passing bad spending bills. It might be one of the few ways that we're going to get some loss of fat there.
CARVILLE: Tucker actually has a problem with it, but you don't so he's a more libertarian than even you are. But what is the problem? He's not -- this man didn't try to force you what to eat. But he said this is, based on the science available to us, constitutes a healthy diet. What is wrong with that?
DASBACH: What it has is you're having going to one source, the government, saying here is the conclusion. Instead of having a vigorous public debate about differing point of views so that the consumer can make a judgment based on variety of points of view. What having the government come down with the official point of view, the food pyramid -- this is the proper way to eat -- is it tends to cut off alternatives.
(CROSSTALK)
CARVILLE: That's exactly what he's doing now.
CARLSON: Secretary Glickman, I just want to pin you down on this one question. Have you and the Department of Agriculture been wrong? Is your model faulty? Is the Atkins model right?
GLICKMAN: First of all, I don't know. I'm not a scientist, but I would tell you first of all it was a government pyramid, not just USDA. But I accepted for when I was there that we tried to do our best with the science that we had. The science is revolving. And by the way, nobody tries to tell people to do anything. I mean, this debate between Dr. Atkins and Dr. Ornisch (ph), between carbohydrates and fats has not yet been resolved by the scientific community.
All we do know is this, is that the people, if they reduce calories and increase exercise, that's just good common sense, they will lose weight. And by doing that, they've got to probably follow the basics of that food guide pyramid. And we've got to do the research needed to improve on it.
CARLSON: Well, wait a second, Mr. Secretary. If you're saying that the final results aren't in yet, we don't really know, the science is in a state of food motion, that's all, of course, understandable. But then I'm wondering why the federal government has come down pretty hard on the side of the food pyramid.
Why has the government, has the government given its stamp of approval to something that's not proven, that's not scientific? GLICKMAN: Well, first of all, the fact is most of the medical community believe generally the food guide pyramid is accurate, but the science is evolving. And you know, we do things in this world knowing that there will be improvements in the future. We buy TV sets today knowing that we'll improve on the digital nature of television in the future. That doesn't stop us from buying what there is out there today.
Based on all the current evidence, we know that probably the food guide pyramid combined with a proper exercise is the best way to go. But it doesn't mean it's perfect, and there will be changes.
CARVILLE: Well, what's wrong with evolving science?
GLICKMAN: Well, the fact is there's nothing wrong with evolving science. The problem is having the federal government come in on one side of the issue. We need to have the vigorous debate. The fact is, the Atkins diet is completely opposite of the food pyramid. The food pyramid talks about low amounts of fat, a little bit more protein, lots of carbohydrate. The Atkins is just the opposite.
CARVILLE: Aren't we taking the Libertarian approach? We're having this vigorous debate tonight.
CARLSON: We are. Former Secretary Glickman, thanks so much for joining us. Mr. Dasbach, thank you and to Libertarian party.
DASBACH: Thank you.
CARLSON: Still to come, a scientist who's under the microscope, he says unfairly.
Later, the pictures that inspired thousands of soccer fans, and necessarily because of the final score.
And our quote of the day is about someone who used to sing about space cowboys and may soon get to be one. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: NASA today gave its final OK for *NSYNC singer Lance Bass to be part of a Russian launched supply crew that will fly to the international space station in late October. Bass, along with his non-singing crewmates are in Houston this week for training and space station mock-up. The Russians aren't quite done haggling over the price for this joy ride. Apparently it's something in the neighborhood of $20 million.
But our "Quote of the Day" goes to a spokesman for the Russian Aviation Space Agency who says Lance Bass sailed through the Russian end of his pre-flight testing. Quote -- "There was never any question of removing Mr. Lance because he wasn't up to it. In Russian circuses, even bears can be taught to ride a bicycle."
I'll tell you my fear here, James. I think it's dangerous and I don't think America can afford to lose a key member of the boy band community, and I'm afraid we're about to.
CARVILLE: You know what the lesson is in Russia? If you pay $20 million in tuition, you ain't gonna flunk the exam.
(LAUGHTER)
You can do pretty good.
CARLSON: You know how you know this is doomed? When they start calling him Mr. Lance. Anything you say, Mr. Lance.
CARVILLE: Yes, exactly. I think this whole thing is sending -- I think space ought to be reserved for professionals and that's who's gone up there.
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: The guy's a terrific singer. After him the Backstreet Boys, OK. Al Gore's office has received an envelope containing a suspicious powder. Connie Chung has details next in the CNN "News Alert."
Also we'll consider the man the agents keep calling a "person of interest" in the anthrax investigation. And then, it's optional for men, but is it mandatory for women? We'll tee up the question of sex appeal in athletics. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(INTERRUPTED FOR "NEWS ALERT")
And those are our top stories this hour, and I'll be back in 30 minutes, and now to my two favorite men in Washington, Tucker and James.
CARLSON: Oh, my gosh.
CARVILLE: Thank you, because you're our favorite news anchor, Connie.
CONNIE CHUNG, CNN ANCHOR: I think everybody's going to throw up, James, after awhile, with all of this -- wouldn't you.
CARVILLE: If they haven't thrown -- if they haven't thrown up by now, they're not going to throw up -- they're safe.
CHUNG: Oh, OK.
CARVILLE: If they got through the first half hour, but (ph) I understand -- you're going to be a pretty serious topic, talking about this tragedy in Oregon.
CHUNG: Yes, the latest on the investigation into the murder -- murders, of those two Oregon girls, and we'll have an interview with one of those girl's girlfriends. She was a close friend of both of them, plus close of friend of the daughter of the man who (ph) is (ph) suspected of killing those two girls.
So, it's a complicated story, it's a full of twists and turns, and we'll try to make it a littler clearer for all of our viewers.
CARVILLE: Well, if anybody can do it, Connie, you can and I'm serious about that.
Connie Chung, in New York, thanks very much, Connie.
CHUNG: Thank you.
CARLSON: Next on CROSSFIRE, is Steven Hatfield (ph) the real McCoy (ph), he denies it, and the FBI returns to the scene of one the crimes.
Later, it may be along shot, but when it comes to athletics, have women really come along way, baby, and can you call them baby?
Questions we'll discus when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARVILLE: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. We're coming to you live from the George Washington University in Beautiful Foggy Bottom in downtown Washington, D.C.
Down in Florida today, FBI agents, in a protective (ph) gear, reenter the building that was contaminated with anthrax last fall. The building home to the "National Inquirer" has been under federal quarantine since anthrax killed one worker and infected another.
Twice in recent weeks, including last Sunday, scientist Steven Hatfield has gone before television cameras to deny that he is the (ph) anthrax killer, and to politely ask the government to stop ruining his life. Hatfill's spokesman, Pat Clawson, joins us tonight in the CROSSFIRE.
PAT CLAWSON, SPOKESMAN FOR STEVEN HATFILL: Mr. Carlson, how you doing?
CARLSON: How you doing?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you very much.
CARLSON: Thanks for joining us, Mr. Clawson...
CLAWSON : Thank you very much.
CARLSON: We're delighted to have you, but my question is; where's Mr. Hatfield? I mean, if he's innocent, why won't he answer questions.
CLAWSON: Well, he is answering questions; it's just that his lawyers don't quite know that the Justice Department is trying to do to him right now. So, they're keeping him a little bit away from the press, but not much. CARLSON: So, he's given sit down, on the record, interviews to reporters, my impression was that he had not.
CLAWSON : No, he is not giving any sit down, one-on-one interviews right now, but he's address the press quite extensively over the last couple of weeks, and at the time, when the time comes, believe me, he's going to be out public. He wants to go public very much right now, but his lawyers are taking a pretty conservative approach.
CARLSON: Well, wait a minute, but, I mean -- that -- it's very different, there's a huge difference between getting up and giving your statement -- I don't think he's guilty, and certainly I have no reason to believe he is, but there's a huge difference between getting up and giving your, by definition, self-serving statement, and sitting down and answering difficult questions.
People always say, "Well, lawyers won't let me, but why specifically won't they let him."
CLAWSON: But, he's been out answering difficult questions, I mean, I don't think the case is up to my friend Steve Hatfield to try to prove his innocence, I think it's up to the government to prove that he's guilty of something, and the government isn't trying to even do that at this point. They're calling him a "person of interest."
They have no evidence on him, the Justice Department told the Associated Press they have no evidence that he's been involved in the anthrax attacks, but our attorney general is out pointing a finger at him, and saying, "You know, buddy, you look fishy to me. We don't have anything on you, but we're going to call you a 'person of interest'."
CARVILLE: Well, I don't take a back seat to anybody in thinking that our attorney general is a horrible attorney general, and aiding to dismiss Mr. Ashcroft -- I don't have any doubt that.
I think if those people thought they was a vote in it, that locked people up...
CARLSON: I actually think he's a pretty decent guy, but I got to tell you, he's acted like he's a power drunk.
CARVILLE: I don't think he's a decent guy, I think he's, I think he's a vote drunk.
CARLSON: But, what's in it for him to -- what I don't understand, which bothers calling me back a little bit is, I think that whole Justice Department -- they thought they could get a vote, would do -- but, I don't understand, why would they be doing this to your guy. What's their motivation?
CLAWSON: We don't understand it, either. Obviously they have to try to find the solution to the anthrax killer, all right -- who -- find the anthrax killer, sometime before the anniversary, so they've a pelt to produce before the cameras. CARVILLE: The day that they say that your guy is innocent, then I will jump on them like gravy on rice.
CLAWSON: Yes.
CARVILLE: OK, and they've got to know that.
CLAWSON: You should be jumping on them like gravy on rice right now, because to be fundamentally wrong, I'm sorry -- it is fundamentally wrong...
CARVILLE: ...tell me why I shouldn't -- I want the new jump in them, you get on...
CLAWSON: It is fundamentally wrong for the chief law enforcement officer of the United States to point an accusatory finger at you, at you, at me, or at any of the people in this audience, and say...
CARVILLE: ...you can tap my phone tomorrow...
CLAWSON: ...you're a person of interest, we don't have anything on you, we don't have any evidence on you, we're not even going to call you a criminal suspect, but you look fishy to us...
CARLSON: Well, wait a second...
CLAWSON: ...you're a "person of interest." That has a terrible effect on a person's civil liberty.
CARLSON: I tend to agree with you, except you're leaving out some important contexts here. As far as I know, Mr. Ashcroft made that remark in response to a question. Reporters said, "Well, what about this Dr. Steven Hatfield character -- is he a suspect?"
CLAWSON: Well, he also told it to "USA Today" in an interview, couple of weeks ago, prior to that television interview a week ago, OK. He's been out running around saying this about Dr. Hatfield.
Now, basic bottom line is -- put up or shut up -- charge him or clear him.
CARLSON: Well, wait a second -- why is it, why a rush, I mean, we all agree that, you know, you shouldn't charge a person without a lot of evidence.
CLAWSON: Right.
CARLSON: This is typical in any criminal investigation, where the Justice Department and FBI runs around gathering evidence. Why is it a miscarriage of justice when they do that to your friend Steve Hatfield?
CLAWSON: Well, it's a miscarriage of justice to be conducting an investigation like this, out in public, when the person that you're investigating has not even been defined by the Department of Justice as a suspect in the case. Here we are, we have a search going on at of the house, after he's already given permission once, for consensual search, gave permission a second time for another consensual search. The FBI ignored his offer of consent in the second search, went ahead and got a search warrant, and as soon as they start executing the search warrant, television crews, satellite trucks begin to showing up. This entire thing has been promoted repeatedly by leaks, from main Justice and from the FBI.
CARVILLE: Was the FBI interviewed in this (UNINTELLIGIBLE) yet?
CLAWSON: The FBI has been interviewing Mr. Hatfield continuously for a period of months. He's cooperated with them, he's given them everything they've asked for, it's been complete cooperation from Day One.
CARLSON: Then, what's your hypothesis here? I mean, do you think they just picked his name out of a phonebook? Give us the most honest perception you can of why you think they're after your friend.
CLAWSON: I think there's a couple of reasons; first, there's a scientist up in New York, at the State University of New York, her name is Barbara Hatch Rosenberg (ph), who has been promoting him for months as being her suspect in the anthrax attacks, and she's written about him extensively in the Internet.
Also, a fellow named Crystal, who's a columnist -- or Kristoff (ph), who's a columnist with the "New York Times," who's picked up on the Rosenberg allegations, and he's repeated them in the "New York Times" repeatedly without even checking.
He's never called Dr. Hatfield, he's never called me.
CARLSON: Really ?
CLAWSON: He's never called for in -- for comment, never asked for any kind of rebuttal, any of that, its been raw allegations that have been published in the pages of the "New York Times" -- prolific case of journalistic malpractice.
Recently, apparently Dr. Rosenberg was brought up to meet with some senate staffers and some FBI people, some senate staffers up at Senator Daschle's office -- Mr. Daschle of course, he's been a victim of these anthrax attacks -- the next thing you know, just a few days after that meeting, Dr. Hatfield's house is being raided.
CARLSON: OK...
CLAWSON: And only in the inference...
CARLSON: I hope that, I hope that, Mr. Clawson, you said that he would be doing interviews sooner rather than later, and I hope you'll convince him -- and I hope you will -- to come here on CROSSFIRE.
CARVILLE: And you do a good job on his behalf.
CLAWSON: Yes, thank you very much.
CARLSON: Pat Clawson, thanks for joining us.
Coming up, your chance to "Fire Back" at us. One of our viewers has written in to say, "I'm the reason the rest of the world hates us."
Up next, why do you really watch women's sports? Is it the thrill of victory, agony of defeat, or the skimpy revealing outfits? We'll debate that, right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: Welcome back, with Major League Baseball scheduled to strike this weekend, sports fans may have to cast about an alternative fare. Alas that will not include Anna Kourikova's march to the U.S. Open tennis title.
The eminently watchable, but alas dreadfully mediocre Kournikova needed only 44 minutes to lose her first round match. Kournikova's popularity lead us to suspect the appeal of women's sports comes from something less than, as the "Wide World of Sports" puts it, the human drama of athletic competition -- bluntly, do you have to sell women's sports with sex?
Joining us from San Francisco is Margo Magowan, cofounder of Women Count.
Joining us in Detroit is sports attorney Debbie Shusil. She's a columnist for the Web site politicalusa.com.
CARVILLE: Thank you.
Miss Magowan -- everybody know sex sells, sports is a business, why should I be upset if the people promoting women's sports are trying to sell sex, and more people get to watch women's sports and these athletes make more money?
MARGO MAGOWAN, CO-FOUNDER, WOMEN COUNT: James, you absolutely right -- sex sells -- the problem is that what is sexy is different for men and different for women. It's because the rules are different that we have a problem.
If a man athlete is a champion, he's a great player, he gets the endorsements, he gets the money. If you're a women, it doesn't matter how great you are, being a great player doesn't make you sexy, and that's the difference.
DEBBIE SHLUSSEL, POLITICALUSA.COM: Actually, number one, that's not the case, in fact a couple weeks ago, a women by the name of Patty Shay, went to a dodgers game, and all she wrote about was, what she called the goodies, and goody factory of Shawn Green, from the Dodgers about her visit to the locker room, and you have major league baseball players, like Gabe Cathler showing off their bodies.
And his isn't about different rules; this is about the laws of nature. Woman are not as good as men in any sport, except maybe figure skating, and they could not last the men if they played them.
So, the dynamic you have is that only women who are attractive succeed in marketing, and endorsements, because...
MAGOWAN: Men athletes are certainly objectified -- of course male athletes are objectified, and of course women swoon over how sexy they are. The difference is it's because they are good players. Anna Kournikova is not a good player, yet she's considered sexy.
SCHLUSSEL: OK, well, do you think that anybody in the WNBA could beat anyone in the NBA? They couldn't even beat my brother's high school basketball team. They can't keep them on the court, and now they want to beat them off the court, in endorsements, and looks are important...
MAGOWAN: Looks are not celebrated for the qualities that athletes possess. Being competitive, being ambitious, being strong...
SCHLUSSEL: Well, if they were competitive, they wouldn't have separate leagues for women, they'd play the men and beat them.
CARVILLE: As much as I'm enjoying this, may I just break in really quickly, Debbie, to ask you a question -- I'm all for celebrating women for whatever attributes they have, I'm pro-women. Radical feminists, the purposes of this segment in fact, but my question to you is, the vision of sports you outline sounds a lot like Howard Stern's, you know, the idea that this is the main commodity women have, their appearances, and why not exploit it. So, why not just move right through the WNBA, and how...
SCHLUSSEL: Please -- it's not about Howard Stern at all, it's about -- and, you know, Howard probably would agree with this, but the fact is this is about the free market, and I'm glad to finally have James Carville as a supporter of capitalism and the free market. This is what the audience wants. That's the reason you have sexy cheerleaders in football on the NFL.
CARVILLE: It may be...
SCHLUSSEL: It's not what I want, it's not what women viewers want.
MAGOWAN: Well, you're not the majority of the audience, and the majority of the audience are not winning, and in fact, in the WNBA, they're not even women, it's only lesbians, because they're not attractive.
CARVILLE: I am an advocate for free speech, Miss Magowan, please go ahead and say something, and try to let it get something out here.
MAGOWAN: Thank you -- all female competition is being reduced to just another beauty contest, because that's how the American public is still comfortable seeing females compete. Females are strong, they're powerful, they're ambitious, they're competitive, those aren't male characteristics, they're not female characteristics, they're human characteristics, and they should be celebrated in women as they are in men. And once they are, those women will be getting those endorsements, and pulling in the audience.
SCHLUSSEL: Well, the fact is -- this isn't scores, it's showbiz.
CARVILLE: ... something about the free market, I want to give you a chance to defend the free market, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) this is the members in Australian soccer team, posed nude in a front toothpaste add in Japan. There they are -- do you think this is a good idea, a bad idea for women...
SCHLUSSEL: I think the point is...
MAGOWAN: ... if anything, it's society, but the fact is that is what the audience wants, because women can't compete on the court, and until they give up the dream that they're as good as men, this is the backlash, this is the only thing that's going to sell them, and, you know, there's a dynamic in men's sports, women want to date them, and men want to be them. In women's sports, you just don't have that dynamic, unless there's Anna Kournikova, that's why the WNBA is not succeeding, nobody's going to those games, and nobody's going to the women's soccer league games either.
CARVILLE: But, Margo, wait, but the message draw very well here...
CARLSON: Let me ask you this, let me just switch sides here for a minute -- Margo Magowan ; I used to work in a...
MAGOWAN: Tucker, I knew you weren't going to stay on my side.
CARLSON: Well, you know, I couldn't, I started getting a little squeamish, flipping over, though.
I used to work for a magazine called "The Weekly Standard," terrific magazine; it's a conservative weekly political magazine, conservative domestic politics, and foreign policy. It doesn't cover a lot of sports, with one exception, couple years ago we ran a sports cover -- I think we could put it up on the screen here. Why did we do it -- I'll admit it, because a lot of the girls on the sports -- on the soccer team were pretty attractive.
So, as a result we introduced our readers to female soccer, not because they played such a high level, but because they're pretty cute. What's wrong with that?
MAGOWAN: There's nothing wrong with a woman athlete being celebrated for being cute at all. Women athletes are beautiful, they have beautiful bodies, and that's great. The problem is that a woman has to be attractive, in spite of how well she plays, whereas for a guy to play well, it makes him attractive.
SCHLUSSEL: If they play so well, why can't they compete against the men. The fact is they didn't play well, Brandy Chastain had to take off her shirt to get attention, and I think that's very sad.
CARVILLE: I think that's ludicrous -- I have two daughters -- so, if they can't play was well as men do, I want to see them out women win the World Cup in soccer, and I'll tell you what, I was doggone entertained by it, I thought it was a hell of a soccer match, and I didn't come out...
MAGOWAN: ... WNBA, and its still on...
CARVILLE: I'll tell you what, the Washington Mystics draw very well here in Washington...
MAGOWAN: A lot of lesbians, but not enough mainstream people...
SCHLUSSEL: And see, it's like for a woman to be good athlete, she has to be a lesbian, that's so ridiculous...
MAGOWAN: No, but that's who the fans are of the WNBA, because none of them are good looking, nobody cares -- nobody cares how these people do on the court. The fact is sports is entertainment, and until people appreciate that it's entertainment, and people who are good looking are the ones that draw crowds in entertainment, they're never going to get it.
SCHLUSSEL: But, to be a good female athlete, you don't have to be a lesbian, you don't have to be...
CARVILLE: Every right winger ends up attacking the gays. Shall we start out with sports.
SCHLUSSEL: I didn't mean to attack the gays, I just said you can't build a sports league on them.
CARVILLE: I enjoy women's sports, I admire them.
SCHLUSSEL: Oh, you're lying, James...
CARLSON: James, you settle down, Margo was...
MAGOWAN: How many overhead layups can you watch before you get a headache, in slow mo?
CARLSON: Thank you so much for joining us -- wow, we're going to do this topic more often.
Next, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) serve in one of Anna Kournikova's defenders has already fired back -- we'll be right back.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If you'd like to fire back at CROSSFIRE, e- mail us at crossfire@cnn.com, make sure to include your name and hometown.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARVILLE: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE, now we go to one of our favorite parts of the program it's called a fire back, and they'll be firing away at us, and after this we'll have some time for some audience questions.
"All right, now let's see here, now that Tucker enlightened us that the U.S. singlehandedly won World War II, I simply can't understand why the rest of the world hates us." -- Nick from Stoney Brook New York.
Well, actually he's got a good point there.
CARLSON: James, and with last night's show, you only made the point that France did not win World War II. Apparently some people have misinterpreted that...
CARVILLE: ... the British, the Russians...
CARLSON: Next up, Donald Richard of an unpronounceable place in Canada, writes, "Why does the world hate the U.S., I bet it has nothing to do with the arrogance of people like Sucker Carlson, who believes such fallacies that World War II, was won by the U.S. alone, forget about the part that Canada, England, and other NATO allies played."
You know, nothing you can do, doesn't offend the Canadians. I will point out that NATO wasn't formed until four years after the second world war, but still -- I didn't mean to offend Canada, I like Canada.
CARVILLE: I love Canada, I bet you his name is Donald Reeshard (ph), and not Donald Richard, but its just a guess...
CARLSON: Just another arrogant American, stepping on the feelings of Canadians.
CARVILLE: ... a lot of Reeshards in Louisiana -- fine, keep it.
CARLSON: They're a lot of Reeshards...
CARVILLE: I didn't know you were part negative on the Canadians...
CARLSON: ... sell them...
CARVILLE: I love the Canadians. How can anyone possibly against Anna Kournikova -- how do you say her name Tucker?
CARLSON: Kournakova.
CARVILLE: Kournakova. I just look at it -- I don't pronounce it -- in athletics, it's participation that makes you win, and not necessarily winning.
"I'm so glad Anna suits up, and so are millions of others -- oh yeah," Greg Hewitt, of Beumont Texas.
CARVILLE: I actually don't think she's that good looking, but that's me, you know.
CARLSON: You like Martha Stewart, so you're assess...
CARVILLE: Now, I'm (UNINTELLIGIBLE) of being a sex symbol here, they're using me for these coeds, and hey, you young coeds, I know you just watching because of my good looks.
CARLSON: They have totally objectified you, haven't they?
CARVILLE: They sure have...
Objectified me, that's right...
CARLSON: ... they don't mind...
CARVILLE: ... because of my damn good looks.
CARLSON: "Hey Tucker, be careful what you say about arresting people with poor fashion sense, a show we did last night, being a chronic defender yourself, you could be looking at hard times."
CARVILLE: Well, actually I totally agree with that -- that's why I was saying, "Don't arrest people for having...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Boy, I think you're -- I don't think you're very right often, but you're pretty fashionable guy.
CARLSON: Well, I appreciate that, James, speaking of fashion, member of our audience, yes, sir.
QUESTION: HK Park, from Washington. Two of your topics presume that we're to blame for obesity or sex in sports? Whatever happened to personal responsibility.
CARVILLE: Right, -- I -- if anything happened, the right tends that government made America fat. People didn't get fat by eating, you understand, the government just sent out secret beams, and made you fat...
CARLSON: Actually, I think people get fat by eating, too, I think the government just ought to stay out of things it doesn't understand, which is most things -- yes sir.
QUESTION: My name is Tyler Pencil from Westville Ohio, and I was wondering with Major League players threatening to go on strike, don't you think we should just throw some women in short skirts out on the field?
CARLSON: I would watch it more than, what is it -- baseball?
CARVILLE: ... yes -- we did it during World War II, in a "League of Their Own," or what was the name of it -- there was a great.
CARLSON: And we had aluminum pennies.
CARVILLE: It was a great movie about women's baseball, it was very enjoyable.
QUESTION: Hi, I'm Anthony Florez, from Bisea California, and I also was wondering; do you think that Ashcroft and the FBI are leaking information, because Hatfield's a U.S. citizen, and they can't figure any conventional ways to violate the civil rights? CARVILLE: Ashcroft will do anything to get a vote, or violate a civil right.
CARLSON: There is look, nothing about the Hatfield investigation is political, it may be wrong, but it's not...
CARVILLE: From the left, I'm James Carville, good night for CROSSFIRE.
CARLSON: And from the right, I'm Tucker Carlson, join us again tomorrow night for another edition of CROSSFIRE, it's going to be great.
CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT begins immediately after a CNN "News Alert." See you tomorrow.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
